from F. Redcliffe and 128 others, coloured registered voters of the Cape Province, praying for the total prohibition of the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor, except medicinally or sacramentally, to any coloured person within the Union; similar petition from George; similar petition from Oudtshoorn; similar petition from Riversdale; similar petition from Cape Town; similar petition from Graaff - Reinet; similar petition from Hanover; similar petition from Blanco; similar petition from Willowmore; similar petition from Namaqualand; similar petition from Jansenville; similar petition from Elim; similar petition from Swellendam; similar petition from Beaufort West; similar petition from Bredasdorp; similar petition from Pacaltsdorp; similar petition from Murraysburg; and similar petition from Cape Town and suburbs.

Minutes of proceedings of following Select Committees: Internal Arrangements, Parliamentary Library, Standing Rules and Orders, Waste Lands, and Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

moved the third reading of the Stamp Duties and Fees Amendment Bill.

said he understood that under the Bill all Government and local stocks of the Union would be free from all stamp duties or taxation in any shape or form.

was understood to refer to the position of the stock of the Rand Water Board.

said the Rand Water Board had wired to him about their stock. The Government legal advisers were clear that the Rand Water Board was covered. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he (General Smuts) was under the impression, and so was the Treasury, that our stocks would be quite free. They were all agreed upon the principle that these stocks should be exempt, but he would go into the matter during the recess.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

put the new sub-section (e).

moved to add to the new sub-section (e): “Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to interfere with the rights of persons born in South Africa before the commencement of this Act, granted by subsection (f) (a) of section four of Act No. 30 of 1906 (Cape).” The mover said his amendment was a protest against any interference with existing rights. He understood that a definite arrangement was made some months ago with a certain Indian gentleman that on no account would Government interfere with existing rights, but now they were doing so.

said the question had already been fully discussed both here and in another place. The fullest provision had been made that those who had acquired a certain right should not be in any way interfered with. Where rights had been acquired they had been fully protected. He hoped the amendment would not be accepted.

The amendment was negatived.

The Senate’s amendment was agreed to.

On clause 30, as amended by the Senate,

put the insertion in lines 41 and 42 of the words “under terms of conditional or temporary residence permitted by this Act or any other law or.”

moved in line 42 to omit “or any other law.” The mover said unless this was done the Minister would see that he was putting a premium on the evasion of the Natal law unless these words were omitted.

said he hoped that this would not be accepted, as there was no fear of the danger that the hon. member stated.

The amendment of the hon. member was negatived.

The amendment of the Senate was concurred in.

On clause 31—the short title—as amended by the Senate, in which `the word “August” was substituted for the word “July,”

moved to omit the word “August” and to substitute the word “October.” The mover said he only moved this amendment so as to give shipping companies, foreign governments and people resident in India time to become familiar with the terms of the Bill.

said he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member, because he wanted the law to come into force as soon as possible. For the rest, he did not think that there was the least chance of any difficulty arising as the hon. member suggested.

amendment was negatived.

The amendment of the Senate was concurred in.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation (1913-1914) Bill.

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

said that he wished to move a reduction of the vote by £1 for the purpose of drawing attention to a grievance in Natal in connection with railway work.

said he would first take the schedule to the Bill.

said that the grievance to which he wished to draw the Minister’s attention was one under which the landowners of Natal were suffering. Not only were the Government appropriating a width of 100 feet, but in connection with their grass-fire burning operations they were calling upon all landowners in Natal to sign an indemnity bond indemnifying the Government against loss caused by grass fires, owing to the refusal of a landowner to allow the Government to burn 300 feet wide on each side of the railway line. The Government were taking an unfair advantage of the law.

The CHAIRMAN said that the hon. member could raise the question on the second or third reading, but not in committee.

said he would bring the matter up on the third reading.

The schedule was agreed to.

On clause 3, Minister may authorise variations,

moved the deletion of the clause.

The hon. member can vote against it.

said that he wanted to show why the clause should be deleted. It was a wrong principle to allow a Minister to vary the expenditure of sums of money that he saved under a particular head. He urged that it was high time that this country began to cut its coat according to its cloth. The whole policy was one of drift. Clause 3 was a most iniquitous one.

said that he could not support the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis to delete the whole clause, because he did not think it would be possible to work a concern like the railways without a clause of this kind. He thought, however, that the clause had been very widely drawn. The ordinary appropriation clause only applied within the particular vote, but, as this was drawn, the Minister had got the whole of the vote of the railways and harbours as one vote, and he could use any saving on one part for any excess on another part. He thought some division should be made as between the railways and harbours.

said he thought the remarks of the hon. member were deserving of some consideration.

said that with regard to savings he thought that the powers given were too wide. He moved that before “head,” the word “sub” be inserted; after the word “other” the word “sub” be inserted: and after the word “head” the words “off the same vote” be inserted.

hoped that the amendment would not be pressed.

He doesn’t know what the effect will be.

moved the following proviso: Provided that no saving under the railway service be placed to harbour service, and no saving under harbour service would be placed to railway service.

hoped the amendments would not be pressed.

The amendments were withdrawn.

reported the Bill without amendment.

moved the third reading.

drew attention to the question of grass burning in Natal. He pointed out that the Government prevented landowners from cultivating land for three hundred yards on either side of the 100 foot strip which the Government already expropriated. He had calculated that if the Government got its way along the 8,000 miles of railway they would have shortly no less than 600,000 acres of most valuable land taken out of cultivation. The position of the farmers in Natal was worse than the case of farmers anywhere else, and he thought this was an attempt on the part of the Government to trade on the ignorance of the landowner.

said the conditions created by the burning of grass by the railways was highly unsatisfactory, a good deal of damage having been done thereby in the Transvaal. He had even that day received advice of serious damage done in that way. Unfortunately there was a provision in the Transvaal law that compensation could not be claimed if the veld was set on fire by railways, unless the farmer could prove that the engine causing the fire was not properly constructed. In a claim for compensation that was tried a couple of years ago, the Court asked, amongst other things, for the number of the locomotive which fired the veld. How could they possibly discover that as the train rushed by? Farmers could not be expected to do that, and he hoped the Minister would have the law altered. Now there was further damage caused, and even cattle had perished in consequence of the fire. The strips of ground which were fired in order to keep a clear space were not well maintained, and they were, besides, too narrow. He had been told that an engine-driver who had sparks flying from his engine could set fire to the veld more than 100 yards away from the line.

said it had been decided by the Court of Appeal that a man whose grass had been set on fire by sparks from railway locomotives could not establish a claim unless he could prove that the engine was not properly constructed or that there had been negligence. How on earth was a farmer to know what engine it was that caused the fire? It was true the Government offered to make fire belts, but only on condition that landowners were responsible if the fire spread. That was most unfair.

said the matter referred to by the hon. member for Umlazi laid a heavy burden on a man through whose property the railway passed.

said there were nearly 4,000 railway servants who could not obtain certificates of permanent employment, although they had served the necessary two years. As to the poor whites working on the railway at from 3s. 6d. to 5s. a day, their hours of labour were not specifically laid down. In the Transvaal they worked 84 hours a week. That was a national scandal—(hear, hear) —and it was a disgrace to any Government. (Labour cheers.) The facts he had mentioned were substantiated by the report of the Grievances Commission. These men should be treated in a more humane manner.

Another point that he wanted to refer to was the coal combine. He was very glad to hear the admission of the Minister that the Union-Castle Company had got control of the export trade of coal; but the position in Natal was much more serious than it was in Cape Town, and he was sorry to see that the Minister of Railways was looking at the matter from a Cape point of view. He would like to mention that he (Mr. Boydell) was the first to make representations regarding the establishment of this coal combine, on information received not only from Cape Town, but from Natal as well. He thought the Minister should not look at the matter from the point of view of one corner of the Union, because in doing that he was not doing his duty as a South African. He would ask him to look at the matter as a South African question and not as a Cape Town question.

said if the Minister intended bringing Transvaal coal down to Cape Town, his action would be absolutely disastrous, because Cape Town would be unable to handle the trucks in the proper time, and the result would be that the trucks would be hung up at Cape Town for perhaps a fortnight. Everyone knew that there was a great scarcity of trucks, and the whole country was crying out for them.

referring to the query raised concerning grass fires, said that there was no doubt there was a great deal of hardship sometimes occasioned by these fires, and there was no doubt also that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was a very important one. The whole subject was certainly worthy of consideration. He was not familiar with the case mentioned by the hon. member for Umlazi, although the case mentioned by the hon. member behind him had been brought to his notice a few days ago. One was apt to forget the enormous appreciation to a farm which the railways went through. (Hear, hear.) He did not want that expression to mean more than he intended it to mean. It was quite fair to expect that the railways should do their duty. In Natal the farmer had only to show that the railway caused the fire, and he was not sure that that did not open up the way to a fair arrangement. Then with regard to the query of the hon. member for Greyville, the position with regard to these 3,000 men was this, that they represented only 10 per cent. of the people employed on the railways. The Act of last year provided that when a man had been in employment for two years, he might be permanently appointed provided the administration required his services. The requirements of the railway were very fluctuating, and it was not possible to put everyone on the permanent staff. However, he would tell the hon. member that a larger proportion of the men he mentioned would receive permanent appointments. With regard to the other query about the hours worked by the men, that matter was one that was having his attention. With regard to this question of the coal combine, it was a mistake for the hon. member to think that he was taking a Table Mountain view of it.

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

referred again to certain points mentioned on the previous day regarding the depreciation and betterment of the railways and harbours. They were now committing this country to an expenditure on railways including new railways and expenditure on lines already made, etc., of just about £11,000,000, of which about £4,900,000 would be spent in the current year.

said he did not quite understand the reference to “credit in respect of assets written out of capital account, £500,000.” He would like to know whether that would operate as a reduction pro tanto of the renewal fund?

said that the amount of £500,000 had already been voted. It was made up partly of the abandonment of the rack section of the Delagoa Bay line.

asked for further information in regard to the item of £20,000, purchase of debentures. South Western Railway Company, Knysna.

said that he thought the money should have come from the renewal funds to the extent that it was a replacement of the old section, and to the extent that it was an improvement it should have come from the loan fund. What seemed to have happened was that this money had been voted by Parliament from somewhere and then when they could afford it they had set aside a large sum out of revenue to write out the whole asset and kept it as a nest egg. It seemed to him that when improvements in the permanent way such as the Minister had referred to were effected the money which was used for writing off the old section should be found by the renewal fund.

said there were two sums amounting to £900,000 on betterment of open lines An amount of £400,000 was provided out of betterment, but how the remaining £500,000 was to be obtained by writing off scrapped assets was beyond him.

said that when they abandoned a line of railway and put a new line alongside of it, they wrote the asset out of capital account.

The old asset you have replaced you write out of capital account.

said that they abandoned 10 miles of railway, and a new line of 10 miles of railway was put alongside of it. How that vote could help them to construct anything fresh out of that thing he did not know. They wrote £500.000 off some work for which they voted money, they had abandoned that work, and they were going to apply the sum of money, instead of that, to this new work.

No, no.

Then what was the Minister’s explanation about the rack rail? If it is not that, it is entirely wrong. You cannot make new lines out of writing off assets.

said that if they did away with a portion of their assets and replaced it, they must deal with it out of renewal fund. There had been no deviation made. The rack rail was to be abandoned. There were also other items for which the assets had gone. All these things made up the amount which was to be written out of capital account, because the capital account could no longer be credited with them. It might be right or it might be wrong. What had happened was that they voted these things out of revenue, because they had lost those things in their capital altogether and not replaced them. They had taken by a vote out of revenue an amount which they said should not remain there any longer, because it did not represent any capital. That amount was now available for use in new works.

said it seemed to him, on the illustration the Minister had given, that a wrong policy had been followed. What had happened about the Eastern line of the Transvaal was that there used to be a section that was worked by rack. Then it was found advisable to make a deviation at this particular part and abandon the rack. That had been done. This particular money which was voted out of revenue to wipe out the rack section should have been devoted to putting in a new asset in its place.

said that as a matter of fact that object was attained. The Minister, he thought, had adopted quite a correct line in regard to this £500,000.

said that no proper description had been given of it. They might take it out of depreciation account. That was all right, but they would not conduct their private affairs in this way.

said that the money they got for second-hand goods went to capital account. What was lost was de-predation. It was merely a matter of bookkeeping.

In reply to a question, the MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS said that the Government got good value for the money spent in the purchase of debentures on the South-Western Railway Company, Knysna.

dealing with the Tzaneen-Messina line, asked the Minister whether he had changed his policy and whether he intended to build the line.

I have, and I am going to construct the line. I think that it is the most satisfactory thing the Government can do.

called the attention of the Committee to the amount that was proposed to be spent by the Minister on the re-grading and deviation of the Natal main line, for which a sum of £780,000 had been provided. He thought it only right that expenditure of such magnitude should be brought prominently to the notice of the committee. Some of the lines which they passed in the Railway Bill were comparatively insignificant so far as cost was concerned, when compared with this big piece of work. Well, he would say “Good luck to the Natal main line.” (Laughter.) He understood from discussions that had taken place in that House that there was some suggestion of an alternate line. If the Government intended to proceed with such a proposition he did not see why it was necessary for the Committee to vote this large sum of money. What amount of line, he asked the Minister, would be affected by this expenditure?

said it was deplorable that the Government had not vision enough to see that the old policy of “tinkering” was quite unsuited to the circumstances of to-day. He pointed out that in one case £350,000 had been spent on what was called a deviation, whereas this was really the cost of a new line something like 20 miles long. If that programme was carried out—and he hoped the amount now asked would not be sanctioned—some £2,836,000 would have been spent on the tinkering of the Natal main line. It was his firm opinion that every new section of railway should be reported upon by the Railway Board. With regard to these proposals, the Committee had not a line of information, and on that ground alone he hoped that the proposal before them to spend this large sum of money would not be sanctioned by the Committee. Supposing this work were carried out, what would be the effect of it when all was completed. They would still have the same altitude to scale as they had to scale to-day, and would increase the length of the line by 15 miles. He considered that this was not a statesmanlike proposal. One would like to emulate the Tsar of Russia plan when he was building the Siberian railway. He simply laid a ruler on the map, and said that the railway should follow that line. (Laughter.) He hoped there would be no further expenditure in this direction until proper information had been obtained with regard to the alternative main line. The latter would bring the interior 50 miles nearer the coast than it was to-day.

said the deviations on the Natal main line would cost in the neighbourhood of a million and a half, and he raised his voice against the proposal of the Railway Board. The House had agreed on his suggestion to an examination of a route to serve the coal mines. Under those circumstances the Minister should pause before spending public money on main line deviations. There was a possibility of obtaining a coal line with a gradient of only 1 in 100, as against 1 in 65 for the existing line. If the coal line were built, the million and a half now proposed to be spent would be wasted. Surely this was midsummer madness. His suggested line would save a rise of 2,000 feet. If the auxiliary coal line were reported to be an unqualified success, its construction would mean a profit per annum of £130.000, which was estimated to be the probable loss on the new lines to be built under the Railway Construction Bill. The Minister should pause before wasting money on deviations which probably would not be required, when he was on the eve of obtaining information which should lead to an important alteration. He moved the omission of the items: Cato Ridge to Clairwood—deviation, £635,000; and Pentrich to Umlaas Road—deviation, £136,000.

ruled that the omission of particular items could not be moved.

said in that case he would propose that the total sum be reduced by £790,000, although it was intended to spend the money in his own constituency, and therefore it was to his political interest to hold his tongue about the matter. But he would be wanting in his duty if he did not bring the subject before the attention of the committee. (Cheers.)

said the question of an alternative mainline was before the Natal Parliament for many years prior to Union. The Natal Parliament adopted this scheme.

By one vote.

It did not matter whether it was by one vote or by fifty. This line had steadily improved, and they were now asked to depart from what had been approved of by the Natal Parliament and the Railway Board. The position was this, that the people in Durban had consistently tried to get this line, and had failed.

said he could understand that his hon. friend did not want an alternative main line, because it would not touch Maritzburg. (Mr. ORR: Don’t impute motives.) This subject had been thoroughly well discussed long ago, and he believed that the expenditure of this money, as proposed, would simply be throwing it into the sea. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg had referred to the abundant evidence for the construction proposed, but there was not a tittle of evidence.

said that from the speeches he had just listened to he was convinced that the Government should hesitate before sanctioning this very large expenditure. He did not think that the information at their disposal was sufficient to sanction this line. There would be no harm in keeping the matter over for another year, because the Railway Department would be unable to commence upon this line during that period He felt sure that the Minister had not had time to investigate this fully. This was part of the whole matter that he (Sir L. Phillips) meant to bring up again next year, namely, that there was no proper railway policy for the country.

hoped that the Government would see the justice of the hon. member for Umlazi’s case. So far the hon. member had succeeded, inasmuch as he had got the Government to say that they were making an investigation, which he (Mr. Merriman) hoped would be thorough. The wrong line was made for the start, and Durban merchants had been compelled to bring their goods into the Pietermaritzburg basin because at the time the line was constructed Pietermaritzburg was the centre. They ought not to spend this £800,000 until they got the report; in fact, in the face of what they had heard, the expenditure of such a sum for such a deviation would be nothing short of midsummer madness. (Hear, hear.)

said that this was not a question that arose yesterday. It had been in existence for years past. It was not fair to say that there was no information at all, and that they knew nothing whatever about it. He was sorry that the right hon. gentleman should have made the references he had done to the Railway Board. Right or wrong, their view in regard to this matter had always been perfectly clear. They had a coal industry in Natal on a scale, especially in recent years, which no one could have contemplated in the past. The Railway Administration was expected to deal with the industry, and deal with it adequately and efficiently, to carry the coal. There was a great difficulty in dealing with the position. This thing was of the utmost value, not to Maritzburg, but to the whole of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) It had been one of the criticisms addressed against the Administration that they were unable to cope with this. He thought the country would be agreed entirely that it was their duty to endeavour to cope with it. How could that be done? In one or two ways. It could be done by having a completely new and additional alternative line, which was going to cost the country about three millions of money.

Oh, no.

The hon. member always knows better than anybody else. Proceeding, he said he was informed by the people who advised them in regard to this matter that the building of that line was not likely to cost less than three millions. The hon. member for Durban, Central, when he was in office, placed upon the building of this line an estimate of three millions. That was one scheme, involving the building of two lines of railway from one seaport into Natal at a time when they had got the whole of South Africa in other parts justifiably crying out for new railways. A thorough inquiry had been made into the whole matter. A definite line of policy had been decided upon by the Railway Administration. For an expenditure of one to one and a half millions, they would be placed in a position in which they could deal with this coal traffic that they had to deal with on a more efficient and more economical scale than by building their alternative main line. This would enable the department to carry 100 per cent. more of the coal traffic. They would be able to take 650 tons per train from the coalfields to Durban without a break. It was said that this was the Pietermaritzburg way of dealing with this question. For a long time the Durban mercantile community were in favour of building the alternative line. Owing to pressure, he had agreed to appoint an officer to make an examination. After having all the facts placed before them in the correspondence which had been before the House, the Durban Chamber of Commerce, after most careful discussion, had come to the conclusion that they felt bound to change their view and agree with the Government. They specifically asked that they should not, in the interval, stop the work from going on.

said they now learnt that, instead of being asked to spend £771,000, the final expenditure would be one and a half millions.

The other has been spent.

said they were asked now to spend nearly £800,000, more than a quarter of the whole Railway Construction Bill of this session, without any report being laid before the House. What the Minister said might be perfectly correct, but they had no assurance that the inferences drawn by the Minister were in the general interests of the country. The result of embarking upon this policy would be that Ministers would get this House to vote large sums of money, which would be deviations, and practically new lines. The House was treated with scant courtesy, and he did not think it a right way to carry on business.

wished to point out that, with regard to the 54 miles he had mentioned, the proposal was really two lines—one of 42 miles and another of 12 miles.

Nothing more is necessary to prove the truth of what I said.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi. What was the use of them going through the form of having an investigation made into the alternate line if they were going to pre-judge the matter by adopting the Minister’s proposals? There were other important considerations besides the carriage of coal to Durban. It had been stated that the Railway Board were of opinion that to patch up this line was the best course to adopt, but by no amount of deviation could they get rid of the defects of the line. He supported the amendment for the reason that he thought that, as far as possible, all Union traffic should be handled on Union lines, and Durban made one of the biggest and most important parts of the Union. The Minister had no right to ask them to vote this money; it was not right that they should be asked by a side vote to pre-judge the whole of this important question.

said he thought that an investigation of the possibilities of the alternative main line would be more satisfactory than the Minister had led them to believe; but he did not think that work should be stopped altogether on the main line. He also alluded to the hardships that might be suffered by people who were at present on the line owing to hurried deviations, which would do away with existing sections of the line.

hoped that the committee would be guided by and accept the advice of the Minister. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the hon. member for Victoria County, and the hon. member for Zululand knew that some years ago he was an ardent supporter of the alternative line, but since then he had changed his views. The difficulty of the present line was not so much the question of the railway as the necessity for more rolling stock. He considered that when the work was completed the line would result in a most efficient service.

Business was suspended at 1 p.m.

continuing his remarks, said the alternative line would run almost parallel with the existing main line, and at no place would the two railways be more than 40 miles from one another. Nearly a million had been spent on improving the existing line, and when these improvements had been completed and more rolling stock purchased, its carrying capacity would be doubled. Then there was the question of the vested interests of towns and property owners along the present line. Another important consideration to be borne in mind was that the coal industry was developing, and if a new line were required it should go through Zululand, and thus open up new country. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had just received telegrams from Idutywa asking when the Idutywa line would be opened: also whether double rates were being charged on the construction line between Butterworth and Idutywa, and whether it was correct that the Government and the contractors shared this double rate between them; also, what was the tonnage of traffic between Butterworth and Idutywa during the last two months.

endorsed the remarks of the hon. member for Klip River During the past few years the state of affairs had changed owing to the improvements to the existing main line. It would be undesirable to lock up large sums of money in building an alternative line, when the money could better be spent on a third line.

said the hon. member for Klip River had changed his mind on the point, but he had also changed his constituency. (Laughter.)

I have changed my opinions, the reason being that the conditions have changed.

Of course, the conditions have changed. Proceeding, Mr. Henwood said they wanted to be sure, if the changes were made, they would so improve the existing line that it would be a main line once and for all. (Hear, hear.) But they could not be sure of that, owing to the lack of plans and detailed information. If the facts were before hon. members, it would make a lot of difference as to how they would vote. Proceeding, the hon. member said that, if they voted for this alternative route, they would say, when they came and asked for this alternative main line, that they had voted for this expenditure. What they wanted was the best line they could have from the port of Durban to the Transvaal.

When the Mozambique Convention expired, they hoped that Durban would receive a good slice of the trade—therefore they would have to prepare for such an eventuality.

said he did not think that the hon. member for Umlazi was quite fair to him, because, in order to satisfy him, he agreed that a survey would be made by a competent engineer, whose report, when it came before the House, he hoped would be accepted; but when he gave this promise, he gave it on the distinct understanding that the proposed improvements on the main line would not be stopped. He never anticipated a large discussion of this sort. His chief point was, however, that if they were to hang up these improvements in order to deal with an alternative main line, then they could have no relief at all, until the whole of that line was finished, whereas now they were prepared to cope with the increased traffic from point to point.

asked whether the Minister would give them an undertaking that this would make no difference with regard to the alternative main line, if the report was favourable.

said that it was impossible for him to give such an undertaking upon the question of the alternative main line. That was a question for the future.

said he was very sorry the Minister had misinterpreted what he said. The promise that the Minister made was made in the House. He objected to this expenditure, because the best interests of the country would be prejudiced by it. The one reason, the Minister said, for going on with this, was because they had spent already £700,000 upon it in improvements, but that was not his (Mr. Fawcus’) fault. He had opposed that expenditure in the same way as he opposed this. It was stated that this alternative main line would cost £3,000,000, but the Minister was going upon surveys made ten or twelve years ago. He did not know what the line would actually cost, but it probably would cost not much more than £1,750,000. The Minister said that they would be able to carry 100 per cent. more coal. That might be true, but he forgot the increased cost in haulage over the heavy gradients. In those days, Pietermaritzburg had a good deal of power legislatively. They could then rule things pretty much as they liked, but things were different in the Union House. The Government should get further information. Why should they not delay a bit, in order to see if they could make use of that information? The department had to supply facilities for conveying the coal down to Durban which had to be conveyed. Any delay in the start could be of little importance.

said he hoped the Minister would agree to the postponement of this expenditure. He honestly and firmly believed that this expenditure was simply tantamount to throwing money into the sea.

The proposed reduction was declared to be negatived.

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

said that, on the item of bookstalls, additional hoarding, etc., £1,500, he wished to ask the Minister whether he would not take into consideration the regulation and reduction of the way in which hoardings were used at the railway stations for advertising purposes. He thought the tendency was for them to spread all over the buildings, and the railway stations were becoming more like advertising exhibitions than anything else. In the Cape Town station every blessed place where advertisements could be put up bad been utilised, and even the pillars were not sacred. The only part that he knew was sacred was the floor. (Laughter.) Though there were plenty of advertisements of soaps, beers, and sheep dips, it was difficult to find railway announcements and time tables. He did not think that the commercial spirit should enter too largely into railway matters.

Business principles!

in conclusion, said they should not allow this hoarding business to run riot.

asked for information with regard to the item: Durban, preparatory surveys and sounding for graving dock, £4,000. What size of ship would this dock be able to take? With regard to Cape Town, he pointed out that there was a 2½ million dock at Simon’s Town, and though the Imperial Government would not enter into competition with the Cape Town graving dock and the Union Government, he understood that the Admiralty would not be averse to entering into an arrangement if it was the wish of the Union Government.

asked for information from the Minister with regard to the amount of £10,000 set down for the provision of a Titan crane for Durban.

supported the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, with regard to the advertisement question, and asked the Minister whether it was a fact that the advertisement business had been extended for the purpose of enabling the bookstalls to make a little profit? If that was the case, then he protested against the extension of the advertisement system. The Government took over the bookstalls for the purpose of breaking down a monopoly, but curiously enough the Government at present obtained its papers and books from this private company. He pointed out that the management was not as good and the public not as well served and he hoped that the Minister would change the policy which was inaugurated by his predecessor. The bookstall enterprise had not justified itself, and was costing the country far too much money.

did not agree that the number of advertisements should be cut down at the Cape Town Railway Station, but he protested against these hoardings so far as the suburban stations were concerned.

asked on what information the hon. member for Liesbeek condemned the bookstalls, and had declared that they were not run as efficiently as before. He found himself equally well served at present as under the old system. There was another matter to which he would like to draw attention.

The assistants were paid low wages and had to work long hours, and—

said that the point raised by the hon. member did not concern the vote.

Then I’m out of order?

Yes.

Hear, hear.

My hon. friend on the left laughs, because I am ruled out of order. The fact is, hon. members don’t like to hear plain facts.

said that some time ago he called attention to the class of literature that was being sold at these bookstalls, and the Minister promised amendment. Nothing, however, had been done in this direction. It was necessary that bigger coaling apparatus be obtained for Durban, which was the natural port of the Union. (An Hon. Member: “No.”) Half the coal trade should not be given away to Delagoa Bay, which was a foreign port. (Hear, hear.)

said he welcomed the development of the aesthetic side of his hon. friend opposite (Mr. dagger). Unfortunately, the railway was bound by business principles in these matters. The hon. member wanted the Cape Town railway station to be run as an art gallery, but for the present—at all events—he did not see much chance of the aesthetic side prevailing to the extent desired by the hon. member. His sympathies were entirely with the hon. member. He detested these things; they were all modern vulgarities. Still, if they brought in a certain amount of profit—(laughter)—he was bound to sink the aesthetic side of his nature. As to the points raised by the hon. member for Tembuland, he would look into them. The new dock at Durban was to be something like 800 ft. in length. He thought the cost would be about £400,000. As to the dock at Simon’s Town, it was only available when it was not being used by the Admiralty, which might require it at the very time a “lame duck” happened to come along. With reference to the railway bookstalls, he knew that Government management was always worse than any other management. (Laughter.) They went on that principle until hon. members opposite took the Government’s place, when it would be altered. (Hear, hear.) The Government did not encourage a monopoly, but it could not help it if the Central News Agency was the lowest, tenderer for the supply of books and papers.

maintained that 800 ft. was not long enough for a graving dock, as ships were being built longer than that.

said the Minister had replied to his question, but he (Mr. Fawcus) was no wiser than he was before.

said the Minister’s predecessor on one occasion made a long speech about the iniquitous monopoly which had got hold of the bookstall business, and had expressed the hope that Government would be able to crush it. When the Government called for tenders in England for the supply of books and papers the Central News was the only tenderer, so that the latter, instead of selling in South Africa by retail through the bookstalls, now sold through the same medium by wholesale. Thus the whole object of the Government in taking over the bookstalls had completely failed. He quite agreed with the principle of Government running the bookstalls.

The vote was agreed to.

moved that vote (b) be omitted and new vote (b) be substituted.

The motion was agreed to.

On Loan vote (b), Public Works, £524,530.

called attention to the item, “Rondcbosch, Government House, £5,000.” He was not going to say whether that was necessary or not, but he wished to raise the question of the destinies of Government House, Cape Town. We heard a great deal about preserving old monuments. The other day a number of very good people put up the money for the purchase of an old house in Strand-street, which had historical recollections. But there was no place in Cape Town which had more historical recollections connected with it than Government House. (Cheers.) Many generations of famous men had stayed there, and it was by far the most gentlemanlike residence in Cape Town. Why we should want to build a new Government House when we had the present one he could not make out. He wanted to protest against the rumour that it was to be converted into one thing or another. Let them maintain this as a Government House, because he ventured to say, from his experience of the changing tastes of the distinguished Governors who lived there from time to time, that they would continue to live in Cape Town and entertain their guests there, as they had done in the past. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to associate himself with the remarks that had fallen from his right hon. friend, and hoped that the committee would refuse to pass this vote until they had an assurance from the Government that the money was to be expended for a country residence for the Governor-General, and that it would not be substituted as the official residence of the Governor-General. If it was the intention to turn this into an art gallery, where in the name of wonder was the Governor going to hold his Executive Council meetings? They surely did not mean to tell him that the Governor was going to walk down Parliament-street and hold these meetings in a room; if that were so it did not lend itself to the dignity of the country. Everybody knew that when these meetings were held they went up to Government House, and waited for the arrival of the Governor-General. The proper place where they should meet was Government House. Therefore they should not pass this vote until they had an assurance that this money was not to be spent as an official residence for the Governor-General. In his opinion the proper place to entertain the distinguished visitors that came to the country was in the old historic residence in Cape Town. He thought it would be nothing short of a scandal if the Government were to depart from the firm opinion of the vast majority of the people of the country. (Hear, hear.)

quite agreed that they should keep Government House as the official residence of the Governor-General, and that it would be wrong to turn it into a picture gallery. On a former occasion they had had to protest against the breaking down of the Castle. The Governor-General did not require a new dwelling at Rondebosch. If he had two houses—one at Cape Town and one at Pretoria—that would be sufficient. He was opposed to spending money for a new house for the Governor-General. The speaker was opposed to having new taxation, such as had been suggested, believing that if they exercised reasonable economy there was no need for it.

pointed out that the tendency was for people nowadays to live in the suburbs, and besides, in a very short time Cape Town would extend from Claremont to Camps Bay. He really submitted that it was not fair to refuse to build whatever they liked to call it, a new Government House or a country residence, for the Governor-General. Although Government House was a charming old place, still in summer time it was by no means pleasant.

said he did not object to building a country residence for the Governor-General. Everybody knew that in summer time it was very warm in Cape Town, and it had always been recognised that there was a necessity to build a summer residence for the Governor. But what they wanted to get from the Government was an assurance that it was not their intention to alter the residence of the Governor-General in Cape Town. If they wanted to house the magnificent collection of pictures they had another old and historic building in the shape of the Old Town House in Cape Town.

said that as a matter of fact, the Government were under an obligation to build an art gallery in Cape Town, and they also wanted a new residence for the Governor-General. What the Government proposed to do was to turn Government House into an art gallery, and from the plans he had seen they would put the house more in conformity with the architectural ideals of the old Dutch days. (Hear, hear.) Both from an æsthetic and historical point of view, the alterations, when completed, would make the building far more reminiscent of olden times than it was to-day.

said that Government House in Cape Town had always been the residence of the Governor of the Cape. It had been said that the trend of population was to the suburbs. It was not. It was just in the opposite direction. Some of the parts of the suburbs were squalid enough, and they were getting more squalid every day. (Dissent.) People were beginning to recognise that the proper place for the citizens of Cape Town to live, and those who had business to do, was Cape Town. He totally objected to the idea of the Governor’s house being turned into a picture gallery, because it was cheap. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He supposed they would cut down those oak trees, because it was cheap, by and bye. (Laughter.) As for pictures, all the pictures of any value could be stored in the Old Town House. A more wretched prospect he could not imagine than that the troops of ladies and gentlemen who were discharged at this port on their way to Australia should picnic in the grounds of the house and stroll through the picture gallery.

said he was in favour of protecting such antiquities as they possessed, and also of handling the cash belonging to the State with prudence and economy. They wanted to change the Governor’s house in the Gardens into a museum, in which case it would have the effect of educating the people. Hon. members should look what was being done in other countries where old palaces were converted into art galleries, the result of which was that the tastes of the people were developed. He would be opposed to a stone in the present building being damaged, but he could not understand why anyone should object to the house being used for the purpose of fostering art. Was not Hampton Court in England used as a museum? And did it not afford a shelter for the art products of the English people?

said he was opposed to the purchase of these grounds at Rondebosch last year, because he thought that what they had got in the Gardens here was adequate for the purpose, and, as the right hon. gentleman had pointed out, one Governor would want to live here and another would want to live elsewhere. For the same reasons, he was opposed to the expenditure of a large sum of money for the Governor’s house at Rondebosch. He noticed that the estimate of the total cost was £70,000, and that it was proposed to spend in the year 1913-14 £5,000. At that rate, it would take 14 years to complete this building. He was utterly opposed to this beautiful edifice being turned into a picture gallery. He would like information as to two items, viz., gun park and quarters, Maritzburg, £4,000, and gun park, Johannesburg, £4,000.

said that, if Government House were done away with as a Government House, he ventured to prophesy that in a few years they would have a demand for a new Government House in town. He hoped, apart from its associations, the Government would still make it clear that they did not intend to turn this old Government House into an art gallery.

asked what the English people would say if Windsor Castle were converted into an art gallery. Surely there were other places where an art gallery could be domiciled than the old Governor’s residence. The excuse that it would be good to convert this residence into an art gallery was a very lame one.

said he had no hesitation in saying that if they wanted to preserve this old house, the very best way to do it was to turn it into an art gallery. He believed that when they saw the alterations and it was restored to its old appearance, it would be far more reminiscent of the olden days than it was at the present moment.

said it was very seldom his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger went wrong, but on this occasion he had gone very wrong indeed. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) His main point was that he did not want to compel the Governor-General to live there, but Government House should be his official residence. After the election of Mr. Speaker, in a new Parliament, Mr. Speaker and the members of the House usually went to Government House for the purpose of being presented to His Majesty’s representative. Did they expect His Excellency to wait in an ante-room, or did they think that the ceremony should be performed in the Prime Minister’s office? It was not befitting the dignity of His Majesty’s representative to hold this meeting anywhere but at Government House. He thought that £70,000 was far too much to spend on a residence in the suburbs. He thought they had a right to ask the Prime Minister not to take steps to prevent the Government House being used as the official residence of the Governor-General. Was any vandal in that House going to say that the necessary structural alteration should take place in order that these pictures might be suitably housed? If anything of the sort was done, it would be nothing less than a public scandal. (Hear, hear.)

said that, in the course of the Budget debate, he explained the arrangement which the Government intended to carry out. The Government was faced with this position: the Government was under an obligation to put up an art gallery, and the Government was also faced with the necessity of building a proper residence for the Governor-General in the suburbs. They had to look at this matter principally from an economic standpoint. The conclusion the Government arrived at was that the Governor-General’s residence should be built in the suburbs. No art gallery would be built, but the collection of pictures, which he hoped would be materially increased in the future, would be housed at the present Government House.

You will have to alter the whole structure.

No. Continuing, he said that there were several objections by hon. members as to the old Government House being put to the use suggested. His hon. friend was concerned about the meetings of the Executive Council. His hon. friend wanted them to march solemnly to Government House in silk hats.

Go as you like, but go to Government House.

said that, since Union, Government House had not been used for meetings of the Executive Council. These meetings had been held, he was understood to say, in the Prime Minister’s office.

A shoddy proceeding.

Quite a proper proceeding.

A most undignified proceeding.

Why don’t you go to the club?

said that nobody thought it necessary to do the business of the country in a club. Though these meetings had been held in the Prime Minister’s office, neither the Governor-General or the members of the Government had suffered in dignity. Then his hon. friend had raised the point of Mr. Speaker and members being presented to His Excellency. In other parts of South Africa, not so important as this part, it was true it had not been customary for Mr. Speaker and members to go to the residence of the Governor.

The Governor’s office was in Government Buildings at Pretoria, and all the Government business was done there, and nobody suffered any loss of dignity. An argument of this character appeared to him to be trumpery in a matter of this kind. The more important argument was that Government House should not be used for the purpose of an art gallery, on the ground that, owing to the structural alterations that would have to be effected, the building would be desecrated. On this point he was in entire agreement with the observations of the hon. member for Caledon. He did not think that a better use could be made of this particular building. If such a use was not made of it, he did not know to what use the building was going to be put. He did not think that anything better could be done than to turn it into an art gallery. There was no doubt that certain structural alterations would have to take place, but these additions would only be made from time to time, and he would point out that, in past years, a large number of alterations had been made to the building. Although the Government was not definitely pledged to carry out the policy which he had enunciated, this was the tentative arrangement. He would also point out that it would take some years to complete the construction of the Governor-General’s residence in the suburbs, and the final decision as to the use to which Government House could be put need not be decided until the arrangements had advanced very much further. In the meantime, however, Government House would be used for official purposes.

said that he expected better things from his hon. friend. He also had joined the ranks of the utilitarians. His (the speaker’s) argument was that the next Governor-General who came here would probably want to live in Cape Town in that house, and certainly use that house. He would not like to be hounded to the suburbs, and he thought the fact was that there was a struggle between the suburbs and the city as to the location of the Governor-General’s, residence. (Cries of “No, no.”) He thought that a few thousand pounds was all that was necessary for the construction of a country residence for the Governor-General. But if the Governor-General had any business let him do it in Cape Town, and let Cape Town be regarded as the centre of the Government. Government House was very unsuited for an art gallery, and we had a place eminently suited for that purpose—that was the old Supreme Court Building, which was in the centre of the town and did not interfere with any gardens or anything. The sum of £12,000 would do all the necessary repairs and turn the old Supreme Court into a handsome picture gallery. He recognised, however, that this was an inconvenient time to discuss the matter. He understood the Minister of Finance to say that no steps would be taken as to the disposal of Government House until Parliament had definitely been consulted. He (Mr. Merriman) did not refer to the subject on the Budget debate as he then referred only to large subjects, but afterwards the discussion on the Budget drifted into fields miles different from it—we had 18 days of it—(hear, hear)—and the atmosphere was hardly one in which we could touch on art galleries. (Laughter.)

said there seemed to be some misunderstanding, as he understood it to be an agreement that if they built this new residence in Rondebosch the old residence in the Gardens would, when the new one was completed be converted into a picture gallery. Until the new residence was ready the Governor-General would remain at the house in the Gardens. If the Rondebosch residence were once begun, Parliament would, of course, not be asked again later on to consider the question. General Botha went on to point out that they could not be expected to keep two Government Houses in Cape Town, especially in view of the fact that the Governor-General was only five months of the year in Cape Town, and if they built a new house they must put the old one to some other purpose. But if it were the will of Parliament that the Governor-General should remain here, then it was not necessary to build a house in Rondebosch. For twenty years the Governors of the Cape had gone to live in the suburbs because in the middle of summer Cape Town was too hot. As Parliament sat in the summer months the Governor-General could not be asked to reside in the hottest part of the town. Unless they changed the date of the commencement of the session to May he thought this project should not be objected to. In conclusion, General Botha said he thought that the old associations of Government House would be best preserved by it being converted into a picture gallery. If it were kept as a dwelling and remained unoccupied, it would fall into ruins in ten years time. It was impossible for the Government to buy up all the old historical dwellings. (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. gentleman had appealed to the House on economic grounds. What they recognised was that the Governor-General required in the summer months a place to which he could go in the suburbs. But did that necessitate the expenditure of £70,000, plus the cost of the ground? The Government had at Westbrook a place with a fine piece of ground, and if £30,000 was spent there, that would be sufficient for the country residence of the Governor-General. (Cheers.) On economic argument, he was saving the Prime Minister £40,000. Government House, Cape Town, was the official residence of the Governor-General, and it should remain so.

Hear, hear.

said that Cape Governments had been so jealous about anything being done in connection with the barracks at the Castle, that they entered into negotiations with the Imperial Government whereby they obtained a solemn assurance that whenever the Imperial authorities had finished with the Castle, the Cape Government would be consulted as to its future use. These matters were not things of to-day, and were not matters of party. When they could meet all the requirements with regard to the residence of the Governor-General by spending £30,000, do not let the House be asked to vote this £5,000, knowing that the building to be erected in the suburbs would be of such a character that the whole of the official connection of the Governor-General with Cape Town would be cut off. We had a good many traditions connected with the Cape Parliament and with the Union Parliament, which now took its place. In matters of this kind sentiment deserved a certain amount of consideration. He was sorry to see that a portion of the beautiful grounds of Government House, Cape Town, had been spoilt by the construction of a tennis court. He felt that that was a piece of vandalism.

Hear, hear.

in conclusion, appealed to the Government not to enter into any binding negotiations for altering the official residence of the Governor-General without the full authority of Parliament. In pressing this matter, he believed he had the sense of the vast majority of the people of the country behind him. (Hear, hear.)

said he was in full sympathy with the opinions expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. They had a precedent at Pietermaritzburg in the loss of a Governor, and he had great sympathy with Cape Town. For that reason he moved that the sum of £5,000, set down for Government House, Rondebosch, be deleted.

said he had a very soft feeling in his heart for anything connected with historical associations. The reason he was prepared to have Government House converted into an art gallery was because he wanted to preserve it. (Hear, hear.) If they wanted to retain this as a Government House, in a very few years they would have to pull it down and rebuild it. It was too small, even for the Governors of the Cape Colony. If they deleted this amount of £5,000, then the result would be that no Government House would be erected. One thing was obvious, they could not keep up two Government Houses in Cape Town. They had one in Pretoria and one in Durban. The one in Johannesburg had been dispensed with. As a matter of fact, also, there was considerable outcry when they did away with the Johannesburg residence. But they could not have this both ways. If they were going to retain the site for a Government House, they would have to destroy the present building, and another landmark of the country would disappear. (Hear, bear.)

supported the idea of retaining the old Government House in the Gardens, where he believed all the old Governors had lived, and had, so far as he knew, suffered little in health. Cape Town was an extremely healthy place, and the Governor-General could also live there. He did not think it was necessary to build another Government House in the Peninsula. They were not justified in spending more money for this purpose when they required so much for the development of the country.

put the question, that the amount of £5,000 be deleted, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—19.

Boydell, Thomas

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Griffin, William Henry

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Merriman, John Xavier

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smartt, Thomas William

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Emile Nathan and J. M. Rademeyer, tellers.

Noes—55.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Benwood, Charlie

Hewat, John

Jagger, John William

Joubert. Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Long, Basil Kellett

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

desired to know what part of this was to be allocated to Robben Island. Before these amounts were spent he hoped that the Government would have appointed a Commission to go into the whole question of the lepers on Robben Island. He hoped the taxpayers would oppose any further amounts being spent on Robben Island until they knew if it was to be retained as a leper asylum. When he previously spoke on this leprosy question, he said it would be very much to be regretted if anything should be said in that House which would stir these people into resentment, but when one found, year after year go by and nothing done, he thought it was no longer time to sit quiet. Next session, if nothing were done in connection with this question, he should not let the matter rest from the beginning of the session to the end.

said he would like to know whether the Minister was going to do anything to meet the needs of the inhabitants of these leper asylums in regard to buildings for religious worship. He believed the Government had refused to give a site inside the leper asylum at Pretoria, on which the people could build a church with their own money.

said that there were administrative difficulties in the way of granting a site inside the leper asylum, inasmuch as they could not have two masters in one place, tout those difficulties had now been satisfactorily solved.

In regard to what the hon. member for Woodstock had said, he (the Minister) did not know that he could add very much to what he had already stated. At present they were not prepared with any definite plan as to how they were going to spend this money. In the first instance, they wanted to make sure of certain improvements on Robben Island, water, sanitation and converting the barracks, as far as possible, into serviceable places for the lunatics. In regard to Robben Island, it was the present intention of the Government, subject, of course, to any conversion later, to extend the Robben Island Asylum so as to become more of a home than it had been in the past for many people there. If there were an opportunity later on, it might be that some of the leper patients would be removed to the mainland, tout that was not in immediate contemplation. He might say that in this matter he did not intend to follow his own head entirely, tout to allow others to have a say also.

regretted that the Minister could not say definitely that the lepers would be removed from Robben Island, because until they had been removed the matter would be brought up every year. They were convinced Robben Island was not a suitable place, and he hoped the Minister would not spend too much money on it. The money spent there was being wasted. Where were they going to get water on the island? There was no water.

said they were asked to vote £10,000 towards a sum of £150,000 for the future. If anything came out very clearly in the debate on Robben Island, it was that nothing would be done until the Commission had been appointed and further investigation had been made into the matter, and yet they were asked to vote £10,000 this year, and they could only infer that a very extensive scheme was to be brought on at Robben Island. He thought, in the circumstances, it was unfair to ask the committee to vote this amount.

said that the hon. member was labouring under a mistake. The amount of £10,000 was not for Robben Island only. What he was proposing to spend was what they must spend for immediate needs.

said he was sorry he could not accept the explanation given by the Minister, for, if only a small amount were required for Robben Island, were they to infer that the balance of £150,000 would be required for Emjanyana?

said he hoped that the Minister, in coming to his decision as regarded Robben Island, would remember that, whatever experts might say as to the suitability of the place, amongst those who were there, and throughout the country at large, there was a strong objection to it on several grounds, and that the tendency was to defeat the object they had in view. In Dr. Bayon’s report, attention was drawn to the need of greatly improved laboratory accommodation, and he (Mr. Creswell) wanted an assurance from the Minister that there would be no stinting at all in that respect of the requirements of so distinguished an expert as Dr. Bayon.

said he had not got satisfaction, and he would fight tooth and nail until he did get satisfaction. He thought the Minister had made an extraordinary statement, especially when he said that the Government was still undecided as to what they were going to do for the future of the lepers on Robben Island. He did not think it was fair and just for the Minister, on his own responsibility, to recommend Robben Island as being better than the mainland. Why should white people be banished to Robben Island, while others—natives—were kept on the mainland? He thought, in common justice, he ought to move the deletion of the vote. He wanted an assurance from the Minister that before next session he would make a definite statement as to the future of Robben Island. Out of five commissions that had reported on Robben Island, three had condemned it. They had been drifting along, and they were in the same position as they had been for years. He moved to reduce the amount by £10,000.

asked for a statement from the Government with regard to the rate of £100,000 for an agricultural college at Pretoria. He wanted to see whether the expenditure of such a large sum would be justified. Was it reasonable to ask the House to spend the money without a statement of policy?

said he was afraid that the hon. member for Woodstock had not listened to what he had said. The present intention was to make Robben Island more comfortable, and in the meantime investigations would be made in order to ascertain if there was a suitable place on the mainland, so that if one was found the people could be moved straight from one to the other without delay. The investigation was proceeding, and he was still considering the question as to whether it would be necessary to appoint a Commission to go into the subject. The expenditure of this money would be simply subject to requirements. It was impossible for him at the present time to make a definite promise.

hoped that the hon. member for Woodstock would accept the assurance of the Minister.

The amendment was withdrawn.

asked when the buildings for the Court of Justice at Durban would be ready.

In June.

asked a question concerning the Elsenburg School.

said the £2,950 was required for two dwellings for members of the staff. A dwelling was necessary for the tobacco expert.

In reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. P. Duncan), the MINISTER OF FINANCE said that the building of this college was simply carrying out the object of the Transvaal Act of 1908, of which his hon. friend was surely aware. It was not an ordinary agricultural school, but a school of a more advanced character.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote D, Lands and settlements, £147,000,

asked the Minister whether next session he would not furnish members with a report in connection with the working of the Lands Department. Then he wanted some information with regard to advances to settlers. It appeared that the Minister had already granted £9,800, and now he asked for a further sum of £20,000.

thought the request was a very fair one.

said it had been suggested that a Settlement Officer should be appointed, whose duty it would be to go about giving advice.

said already an officer of the department was doing something of that nature. However, he would not be slow in adopting the suggestion, which he was fully in accord with. They wanted a practical man with sympathetic feelings.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote F, Local works and loans, £679,000,

asked whether the items—Rhodes University College, £7,000, and Grey University College, £1.2,000—were loans or gifts.

These are loans.

A verbal amendment was agreed to.

The vote was agreed to.

moved that the vote be increased by £300,000. He explained that the bank could not possibly come out on the £500,000 it was originally intended to give it. At the beginning of the present financial year the bank was already committed to a large number of loans, but it had not paid them out, so that the grant made to the Bank last year lapsed to the Treasury, the sum in question being about £160,000. Parliament had thrown a very big burden on the Land Banks in respect of dipping tanks, which were being built at a very rapid rate all over the country, and the bank said that unless it had an additional £300,000 it could not continue these advances.

The motion was agreed to.

said attention had been called to the fact that the bank could not give assistance to settlers and the like. It was urged that the bank might take in hand the formation of Co-operative Banks. Had anything been done in that direction? The bank only helped the more well-to-do part of the population. And it did not assist the poor people who had no security to offer except their own characters.

said he was in perfect accord with his hon. friend on this question. The Land Bank should not be a mortgage bank only, but it should subsidise the co-operative movement. (Hear, hear.) In the Transvaal there were many of these co-operative societies, a large number of which were flourishing, and doing an enormous work in agricultural development. The idea underlying the Transvaal Co-operative Bank was a novel one, but people here were very cautious.

Not if they can get money from the Government. (Laughter.)

said the Transvaal Parliament insisted on the members of these societies being jointly and severally liable for the fulfilment of their obligations, and the system was working well. But there had not been time to extend the system to other parts of the Union. A Bill with that object in view had been drafted, and he hoped it would be put on the Statute-books next session.

said that farmers, when they were dealing with their own money, were very cautious people; but, when they had a lucky-bag into which they could dip their hands, their caution flew out of the window. But the co-operative societies in the Transvaal were on sound lines—that of common responsibility. (Cheers.) Then the rich ones looked after the poor ones, and saw that they did not overrun the constable. What his hon. friend was referring to was the Raffeisen system. Raffeisen had begun his system in a poor province of Prussia with a capital of £16 some sixty years ago. The last year they turned over in Germany £200,000,000. He had also got from India the reports upon the starting of banks, so as to crowd out usury there. These were meeting with great success. What they wanted to benefit most was these Stompiesfontein people. (Laughter.) It was to meet these that these banks were to be started, and he hoped his hon. friend the Minister of Finance, during the recess, would find time from his multitudinous duties to study the question.

The vote was agreed to.

The Loan Estimates were thereupon reported to the House, and the amendments made in committee were agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours, the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bills to give effect to the Estimates as adopted by the House.

brought up a Report of the Committee now appointed to draft and bring up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates from Loan Funds as now adopted, submitting a Bill.

moved the second reading of a Loan Appropriation Bill providing for an amount of £6,804,000 during the year 1914.

drew attention to the state of the loan account, and the very serious position regarding commitments sanctioned by Parliament. These amounted to £13,835,000, made up of £11,021,000 on railway account, and £2,804,000 for public works. The fact was that the Government was piling up liabilities faster than they could be carried out. To take last year for instance, a loan expenditure had been sanctioned of £6,978,000, of which only £4,055,000 had been spent, leaving a balance unspent of £2,743,000. Out of the total commitments of £13,825,000, this year’s estimates for railways amounted to £4,900,000, and for public works £2,804,000, a total of £7,704,000. Now where was the money to come from? An amount of £900,000 would come from the Betterment Fund, leaving £6,804,000 to come from the Loan Fund. And this brought him to the position of the Loan Account. A loan of £4,000,000 had been recently floated, out of which, up to date, £3,163,000 had been received. They had reduced the floating debt by £1,400,000, and had paid off £1,149,000 of the Loan Account to the Revenue Account. And the net loan issues amounted to £613,000. On May 31st, he found that the position was that £696,000 had been spent in the first two months of the year, leaving to be spent out of Loan Funds in the remaining ten months £6,107,000. Now there was still to be received from the recent four million loan the sum of £759,000, out of which £274,000 had to be refunded to the Revenue Account, leaving a balance of £485,000, and this was all that remained to meet a loan expenditure of £6,107,000. He considered that these figures showed that we were in a tight corner. The position was most unsatisfactory, yet we were still going on piling up our liabilities, though the times were difficult and the state of the market most unsatisfactory. We had a floating debt of £10,572,000, and this he thought would be sound policy to fund. How had that position been brought about? He thought that the Government had not taken into account sufficiently the state of the market. This House had been induced to sanction large expenditure when the Government must have known the extreme difficulty of the position from a financial point of view.

said it was perfectly true, as the hon. member had said, that the money market was very stringent at present, and under such circumstances it was the duty of the Government to go slow with any large loans on public works, railway construction, etc. Last year the Government put before this House a proposal of railway construction, but, for various reasons, it did not proceed with that programme, and the programme stood over. In a country like this, which was developing very rapidly and trying for improvements in all directions, it was quite impossible for the Government to sit still. The result was that they were today, by force of circumstances, by the crying needs of the country on the one hand, obliged to go to the market and to borrow money at a time when conditions were very much against them. He should think that the Government committed a grave error if, because of the stringency of the money market, it said: “We shall again do nothing, and drop our programme as we did last year.” They had considerably more than £2,000,000 of their votes on loan account which they did not spend last year. He had explained that that was due to the fact that the railways could not carry out their programme. The railways were obliged to spend this money, and what was spent last year had gone into the votes last year and helped to swell this vote which they were now asking this House to pass. Last year, part of their programme was dropped and another part, owing to strikes and other difficulties abroad, could not be carried out, but they were committed by the Railway Department to certain contracts, and these were being carried out now. In addition, they had now to carry out the railway programme, which was also held over. Now they did that in a very stringent market, and they had to borrow more money under conditions which were not very favourable, but he thought, on the whole, it was better to do that than to sit still and do nothing and not help the country forward in the development for which it was making such serious demands. To some extent they had been able to finance themselves from balances. They had the balance of £681,000, which came from 1911-12. Then there were several balances, railway balances and balances in the hands of the Public Debt Commissioners, so that to a considerable extent they were able to finance themselves along. But beyond that, it would be necessary for them to borrow some millions of money during the current year. He only hoped that hon. members, when they were crying for public works, for large amounts in all directions, would bear in mind what he had said and what had fallen from the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that, under the conditions which obtained at present, the Government must go slowly, and if those conditions continued next year, they must not be disappointed if the Government had been compelled by the market to delay the programme of public works.

said it was unquestionably unsound to have an enormous floating debt.

said he would like to say a word about that. With regard to the floating debt, one million of it had been funded in conjunction with the Debt Commissioners. He agreed with the criticism that it was most undesirable that the country should, under the present conditions, continue with a large amount of floating liability. The vast bulk of this liability was at present held by the Public Debt Commissioners, who proposed at a very early date to fund six millions of this floating debt into permanent loan. Conditions were at present being drawn up with a view to raising this money in South Africa. Under the Act, it was laid down that they must proceed by public tender, and the Public Debt Commissioners were standing in the background, and, if necessary, they would take up the whole amount of the six millions of floating liabilities.

said he was glad to hear the Minister say that. They required in this country every penny of capital they could put their hands on for the development of enterprise in this country. He hoped, when the opportunity offered, the Minister would put himself into a sounder position. As long as they were held in esteem in the world as being careful of their finances and being certain to pay their liabilities, he thought this country could safely face the future. Unquestionably the position in the country was safe enough. Development was going on at a very rapid rate, and unquestionably the outlook in South Africa was excellent. He liked to say this, as a responsible person, to-day, because he believed it to be absolutely true, but, of course, they had got to be very careful about the management of their finances. He hoped when the time came for the Minister to go to the money market, he would go for a large slice of money, even if they had to pay a little more than they would have to pay under less stringent conditions.

said he held the view that their position would have been very much sounder if his hon. friend had kept the surplus and paid it into the sinking fund, so that it would be available for capital purposes, and paid his own way for the current year. Would the Minister of Railways—

pointed out that they were not now dealing with the Railway Appropriation Bill.

said he would like to compliment the Minister on the edifying sermon they had just had from him about the necessity of going slow. The fact, however, remained that they were going to commit the Union still further for three million for which there was no necessity, which they could not carry out this year, and which the Government had forced through the House.

said he was alarmed at the Minister’s statement. He had suggested that he was going to use all his balances, and that he was going to the market with absolutely nothing to go upon, absolutely at the mercy of the money-lenders. He trusted that he would do what he did not do last year, that was watch the market.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

referring to the amount of £800,000 set down for the land and agricultural bank of the Union, suggested that this amount should be transferred from column 1 to column 2. If that were done any saving that there might be under this head could not be utilised for any other purpose. He moved to that effect.

Why should my hon. friend tie me up? I think it is better to leave it where it is.

agreed with Mr. Duncan.

agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg, and remarked that this was not a business like proceeding.

said that this amount was being voted for a specific purpose, and in conformity with the common practice it should be placed in column 2. Anything that was saved would then be held over for another year.

The amendment was agreed to.

The schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3, “Minister may authorise variations,”

said it appeared to him that the Minister was taking greater power than had been done in any other Bill. He moved that the word “service” be deleted and “subhead” substituted in line 23, and that after “service” in the following line the words “under a sub-head” be inserted. On principle he objected to the Minister being given this power. It encouraged wastefulness and extravagance, and as the House was not educated up to that, he would do what little he could, and in the Minister’s words, go slowly. (Laughter.)

said he thought that his hon. friend was going a little too far. Most of the items were in column 2, and any savings under those heads could not be interfered with.

What the Minister has done is to tie himself up a little too tightly.

said that he would withdraw his amendment and vote against the whole clause.

The clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with one amendment, which was thereupon agreed to.

The third reading was set down for tomorrow.

read a message from the Senate, returning the Administration of Estates Bill. The Senate regretted that it was unable to concur in certain amendments made by the Assembly, and asked the Assembly to concur in the position taken up by the Senate.

The amendments were at once considered.

On clause 3, Limit to application of Act,

The Senate regretted it was unable to concur in the following amendments, namely: (a) The deletion of paragraph (d) and the insertion of new paragraphs (d) and (e) and new sub-clauses (2) and (3); (b) the insertion of a new clause 116 (Power of the Court in regard to entailed estates); (c) First Schedule, item 29, namely, “Orange Free State Law No. 24 of 1896, Release from Fidei Commissum and other burden-some testamentary dispositions The whole”; and (d) the amendment to the Long title.

The Senate regretted it was unable to concur in these amendments for the reason that in respect of (a), it is desirable that every Province should retain its own laws until Parliament has legislated in the subject, and that it is undesirable that Parliament should confer on the Governor-General-in-Council powers of legislation by proclamation relating to this subject.

In respect of (b), (c) and (d) for the reason that the Senate was of opinion that the question of fidei commissum entailment in wills regarding fixed property should not be included in a Bill of this nature, but be provided for by special legislation.

The Senate had further made an amendment consequent upon the rejection of the Assembly’s amendment, namely, by the insertion after the word “Province” in old paragraph (d) the following words, “immediately before the commencement of this Act,” and also an amendment to an Assembly’s amendment in clause 58, new sub-clause (1), line 10, thereof, namely, the insertion after the words “thereto, may” of the following words, “subject to the payment of transfer duty, if any.”

in moving that the amendment be concurred in, said the intention of the Assembly was to empower the Government to legislate with regard to the estates of natives by proclamation to be approved of by both Houses of Parliament. In another place that was objected to, on the ground that it was inadvisable to legislate by proclamation. The result would be that if the amendment were accepted, the Bill would be restored to the condition in which it was when it left another dace. He did not think the amendment made in another place was an improvement, but he was bound to say that he did not think any great hardship would be involved by the adoption of the amendment. It was not vital to the Bill, which was otherwise a workable measure.

said a great deal of confusion would arise if barbarian natives had to have their estates administered according to European law. He regretted the necessity of accepting the amendment. It was quite clear that in the future a certain amount of injustice would be done. But rather than wreck the Bill he would accept the amendment.

The amendment was concurred in.

On clause 38, Duty of executor in case of bequest of immovable property,

The Senate’s amendment to insert in line 11 the words “subject to the payment of transfer duty, if any,” was agreed to.

On clause 116, Power of the Court in regard to entailed estates,

moved that the Assembly concur in the deletion of this clause. Personally, he regretted that another place had not seen eye to eye with the Assembly in this matter.

said some people had been talking about the sacred principles involved in this matter, but it dated back only forty years. Before that this sacred principle was unheard of—the law provided against it. It was a little ridiculous to talk about a sacred principle of that kind. Personally he regretted extremely that the clause had been thrown out. At the same time he saw there was some force in the contention of the people who said that a matter of this kind ought to be carefully considered, and that, when it was dealt with, other matters should be dealt with at the same time. Many ordinary persons generally did not marry under antenuptial contracts, so that half of the man’s possessions became the property of his wife. The man might become a millionaire, and then, in the event of one of the parties dying, it might be found that by will that person had left the property to a paramour or mistress, and had deprived the legitimate owner of it. In this way a grave injustice might be done. He hoped the matter would not be lost sight of, and that next session a Bill would be introduced to put the matter on a proper basis. (Cheers.)

regretted the action of the Senate, and said large numbers of people were anxiously awaiting a clause of this kind, and he himself had taken much trouble to get the matter carried as far as it had gone. He would not insist upon the clause being reinserted, because that might wreck the Bill; but early next session he himself would introduce a Bill dealing with the whole question.

The amendment was concurred in.

moved the second reading of a Bill to apply the sum of £4,900,000 for Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works for the year ending March 31, 1914.

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

hoped that the same rule as was discussed the other day would be adopted, so that they (the House) might arrive at some idea how this capital was intended to apply.

In reply to Mr. J. W. Jagger,

said that the increased amount in the Oudtshoorn-George line was on account of the unexpected difficulties encountered in rock-cutting and other matters.

The Bill was reported without amendments, the third reading being set down for to-morrow.

moved that the House go into Committee on the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth (final) reports of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

hoped that the Government next session would see that the reports were brought before the House as soon as they were made, because under the circumstances there was no possibility now of referring these reports back this session.

was understood to speak in a similar strain.

said that in consequence of the delay there was a certain case that could not be referred back to the committee.

The recommendations in the second and third reports were concurred in.

drew attention to the claims of G. P. Esterhuizen.

said he would like to move that recommendation No. 15, F. Thomas, which had not been recommended by the committee, be referred back to the committee, on the ground that further evidence had been obtained.

The committee is defunct.

I know, but the committee next year.

said he would like to move in a similar way that several reports which had been referred to the committee since the fourth report was presented should be sent to the committee.

The committee is defunct, having brought in its final report.

The committee is not defunct.

referred to recommendation No. 2, A. O. Edmonds, in the fourth report of the committee, a teacher who made application for registration under Natal Act No. 31, 1910. The committee at the time had not the full evidence before them which they had when they were considering other teachers in the same position. The result was that the committee were unable to recommend the application. He entered his protest against these reports being considered in the House at the last moment.

said that he had proposed when the committee was considering the final report of the Select Committee to refer to this case. This lady was a teacher in Natal. His hon. friend knew that a few days before Union was brought about the Natal Parliament passed an Act known as Act 31, 1910, which authorised the granting of pensions to all teachers in the Province of Natal, private and public. One of the provisions of that Act was that teachers who wanted to get pensions under the Act were to apply to have their names registered within six months of the promulgation of that Act. This lady did not apply within the period, and she asked the committee to recommend the House to order her name to be placed on the register. In due course the papers were sent to the Superintendent of Education in Natal, and that officer’s report was very adverse to the grant of the prayer of the petition. As time went on a number of other petitioners asked the House for leave to have their names registered in Natal now, instead of within the six months prescribed by the Act. The committee were in this difficult position that, while the Superintendent of Education in Natal was very strongly adverse to the grant of the prayer in this particular case, he strongly recommended the others.

On what grounds?

He did not give the grounds. Mr. Currey went on to say that he would suggest to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, that he should, if competent, move that recommendation No. 2 be referred to the Government for consideration.

said he would accept the suggestion. He moved accordingly.

called attention to recommendation No. 10, in which the petition of a railway employee had been refused. He said this seemed to be a case where a railway employee had more than a moral right to get an increase of salary, seeing that more work was put upon him under orders from headquarters, and he was required to do night duty, in addition to his ordinary day duty, with a clear understanding that an increase of pay should be given to men in his position.

said he did not know that he could really take the case any further. As this case was refused the hon. member could rest assured that it was refused on very good grounds, because the committee went very carefully into every case.

said they were placed in a very great difficulty, owing to the position in relation to this committee. It was said that the committee was dead. He wanted to know who killed it. (Laughter.) It had no right to commit suicide and he contended that the committee was still in being.

If the hon. member is not satisfied with the ruling, he has got his remedy.

said that he was not dissatisfied with the ruling already given by the Chairman, but he wanted to ask his ruling on another point. He asked whether it was not competent for that committee to refer back a matter to a committee that had not been dissolved by the House.

The Chairman says that he has presented the final report of the committee. It would need a fresh order of the House.

But the Chairman of the committee has no right to dissolve that committee.

Has he done so?

Then the committee is still in existence.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member has his remedy if he is not satisfied.

again referred to the case which he had brought to the notice of the hon. member for George, and said he thought that now and then the committee was inclined to deal a trifle harshly with a petitioner.

was understood to say that the petitioner gave evidence himself and that he (the speaker) was satisfied that the man had not been harshly treated. With regard to recommendation No. (2), the award to H. A. Davidson, formerly constable, of a monthly allowance of £2 for a period of twelve months, he moved, as an amendment, to add at the end “or until such time as his health is restored, when he shall have re-employment in the Government service.”

put the question that the paragraph relating to the case of A. O. Evans—the Natal teacher, who asked for pension rights—be referred to the Government for consideration.

said he thought that the committee should put its foot down at once The Natal Parliament just before Union passed an Act giving pensions to teachers, even private teachers, and the liability was thrust on the Union.

said he would deal with the whole matter when the final report was before the committee

Later on Mr. H. L. CURREY moved that the petitions of four Natal school teachers who pleaded for consideration under this Natal Pension Act be referred to the Government for its consideration. The position was one of great importance, he said, and might become one of some magnitude. The committee had not the faintest idea what these recommendations were going to cost the State. It appeared that Natal teachers had no pension rights, but just before Union the Natal Parliament passed an Act granting pensions to all teachers—even private teachers—on the condition that they registered themselves within six months after the promulgation of the Act. The persons who had petitioned the House had not fulfilled the condition, and they now asked that the House should grant their prayer and that their names be placed on the register as though they had fulfilled the condition that was laid down in the Natal Act. He did not know how many of these teachers were entitled to pensions, and he did not know whether they would be able to alter a Natal Act without a special Act. He thought that the committee was not justified in incurring expenditure when they did not know what it would entail. At present there were only three or four cases, but there might be hundreds. He thought that the House should not incur this extra expenditure unless more information was furnished on the subject. The question was one of great importance and in the last hours of the session they should not alter the Act without a great deal more information than the House had before it. At the same time he did not want to close the door entirely to these petitioners, and he moved that the item be deleted and the petitioners be referred to the Government.

said the Act was the very last one passed by the Natal Parliament.

Before the election?

No, the day before Union. (Laughter.) I do not wish to throw any reflection on them at all.

You are.

The Act bears traces of hurry. Continuing. Mr. Malan said the first clause limited its operation to teachers who had served for thirty years in Government-aided schools, but the final clause said that any persons who should prove to the satisfaction of the Education Department that they had been exclusively teaching in schools other than State aided schools should be entitled to the benefit of the Act, whether those schools had received Government support or not, and whether they were certificated or not. This referred only to Europeans, but shortly after the Act was passed the Indian community was up in arms, pointing out that they had a large number of teachers. A petition was sent to the Imperial Government, which communicated with the Indian and Union Governments on the subject. The Indian teachers had done good service. The case should certainly be inquired into much more fully before it was re-opened.

said that the hon. member for George was entirely wrong in stating that the Act was passed only two days before Union.

A few days.

That is entirely wrong. It was passed in November, 1909. But it was promulgated certainly two or three days before Union. (Laughter.) It does not take much to make some people laugh. Continuing, Mr. Clayton said the fault was that of Sir Charles O’Grady Gubbins, who was in charge of the Education Department, and he should have promulgated the Act at once. The Minister of Education had left in the minds of the Committee the impression that every teacher in Natal in an aided or partly aided school was entitled to a pension. But that was not so. Only a person who had been a teacher for twenty years, or who retired through ill-health was entitled to a pension, but not otherwise. If anybody needed support, it was those who did not receive any Government aid. (Laughter.)

Why stop at teachers?

said in three years only six teachers had applied for pensions. He hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment made by the hon. member for George.

said: the Act of Union provided that the laws of the Provinces at the time of Union should remain in force until otherwise decreed by the Union Parliament. Had they the right to question the Acts passed by the various. Provinces?

We’re not doing it.

said they had no right to go into the question of Indian or native teachers. Whether the principle of the law was right it was not for the Union Parliament to question. Had it the right to question the construction of the Union Buildings which would cost a million and a quarter? Next session he hoped a measure would be brought forward to do justice to those teachers who had neglected to register. Let justice be done though the Heavens fall. (Laughter.)

said there had been an abundance of sneers at the action of the Natal Parliament in passing this Act, but if they were to badger about in this way there was no doubt that stones could be thrown at the people in every Province. In two of the cases before the Committee the ladies had served for 40 years, one at her own expense. They were not made aware by the Education Department that the Act had been passed. He would like the House to understand that he was pleading the case of teachers who through lack of knowledge had been unable to register. He appealed to the House to take a favourable view of this case, and would appeal to the Government to accept the recommendations of the Committee.

said it was not a question why this Act was passed in Natal or with what object; the question was: was a Select Committee of that House competent to alter an Act of Natal? Some of the members of the committee, amongst whom was himself, thought that this committee was not competent to do this. And even if the Committee of the House accepted the recommendations upon the paper, they were going to place the Select Committee in a position which they could not hold. He hoped that the Committee would accept the recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee. He supported the amendment.

The hon. member objects to this, because he said it was a breach of the law. But if they held to that opinion, then every recommendation with regard to teachers would fall to the ground.

said it was quite easy for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg to come and play on their feelings for people who were very old. There were very many other people in the country who were very old and wanted assistance. This Act was so grossly unfair, that if they gave these pensions to teachers, why not give pensions to the clergy, doctors, nurses? In fact, why didn’t they pass a General Pensions Act? Proceeding, the hon. member referred to several extraordinary things that the Natal Parliament had done immediately before Union. He did not say that the other Provinces had not done some extraordinary things as well, but the Natal Parliament had provided more amusement. (Laughter.)

They were more innocent than the others.

said it was all very well to say that they were only going to have these applications, but goodness only knew how many would want to have their negligence overlooked.

asked whether he was correct in believing the Committee only recommended a departure from the strict letter of the law in individual cases, and where these cases warranted a claim. He understood that the circumstances in the present case were such that they justified the Select Committee in making the recommendation.

said that if the Committee of the House recommended this, how could they refuse any other application? The particular circumstances in this case were that there was no registration, and the Act laid down clearly that there must be. On reference to the debate in the Natal Parliament, he found Mr. Clayton himself had asked if these teachers and governesses must register at once, and the Colonial Secretary answered “Yes.”

said he had recognised that there must be a period for this registration, but hon. members must also recognise that these teachers to whom he referred had had no opportunity of registering.

said it bad been his opinion as a member of the committee that they had no right to change the law.

said he did not think that this ought to have come before the Pensions Committee at all. This matter should have come before the Government, in the first place, because it was a petition to be allowed to register. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the Committee had in no instance condoned any break in the service, unless it was from sickness, or unless when a teacher had gone somewhere else to improve himself. These breaks also did not count for pension purposes. The time that they served before these breaks only counted. If the House wanted the Committee to give money for charity, then they should tell them.

The amendment to refer a case to the consideration of the Government was agreed to.

said he wished to call attention to two cases. In regard to No. 2, S. Elmsley, he was in the Service from 1887—9 as a clerk. He was then put into the Agricultural Department as a sheep or scab inspector, where for eight years he contributed to the pension fund. After a time he was refunded, against his will, the amount of his contributions. He then came upon the fixed establishment. In 1905 the post that he held as inspector of licences in the Transkeian Territories was done away with temporarily, and he ceased to be in the employ of the Government. He asked that the eight years during which he was a sheep inspector and contributed to the pension fund should count as service, and the Chief Magistrate and Secretary of Native Affairs in 1905 was entirely in favour of this course. The next case was that of J. Kenyon, an officer of high standing in the Colonial military service. For, eight years he was in the Imperial military service and, then at the request of the Colonial Government, in 1880, he left that service and came into the Colonial military service, in which he had been ever since. His prayer was that the eight years he spent in the Imperial service should count for pension purposes.

drew attention to the case of Mr. P. M. Sheehan, No. 5 in the fifth report. This case was a very hard one as, after long years of service, he had been retrenched without a pension, and he was surprised that the committee had made no recommendation in regard to him.

said that, with regard to the two cases mentioned by the hon. member for Tembuland, the first was a perfectly simple one. This petitioner was a sheep inspector and, as his hon. friend knew, sheep inspectors were not entitled to pension. In regard to the other ease, the petitioner resigned in the Imperial Service before he joined the Colonial Service, and he was not in the position of a man who had been seconded for Colonial Service. The committee had gone very carefully into the case.

moved that No. 5 be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was negatived.

referred to No. 1 in the list of petitions not recommended, and said that if additional evidence, which was got in due course, had been before the committee they would have come to a different decision from what they did. He wished to add his protest against the way in which the whole matter was being dealt with.

referred to the petitions he had presented in March last, on behalf of Messrs. J. J. M. Jacobs, F. J. Rheeder, and D. H. Jacobs. Although he had presented the petitions in March, no reply had been received on June 8 from the Government’s office. He had personally tendered evidence but the offer had not been accepted. These men had been badly injured during the war, and would have been provided for by the Free State Parliament had it not been for a misleading medical report. Other medical reports subsequently obtained showed that these men were in fact seriously injured. These men were unable to earn a livelihood, and deserved every consideration, and should be provided for. He moved: This committee recommends that petition No. 8, from J. J. M. Jacobs; No. 9, from D. H. Jacobs; and No. 10, from J. J. F. Britz, be referred to the Government for consideration.

referred to another case of hardship, that of G. Ward, who had been a sheep inspector of high standing in the Transkei for the last 19 years, and had been retired flow that he was 65 years old, though he was quite able to carry on the duties of his office for ten or twelve years yet, and thought that a gratuity might have been given. He asked if any further information had come to hand in the case of Jesse A. van Schyff?

Not that I am aware of.

again urged on the Minister to give a favourable ear to his request. He appealed both to the Minister, to the members from the Free State, and also to the members of the Select Committee.

said he did not object to the matter being referred to the Government.

said there were so many hard cases arising out of the war that it was very hard to comply with the request.

asked what was the intention of referring it to the Government? Anyone of them who presented a petition must feel in sympathy with the petitioners. If the evidence of the committee was to be refused because of an eloquent appeal by one hon. member, what was the good of having a committee at all?

supported the motion of the hon. member for Boshof, holding that the committee had not gone fully into the matter. Other people less deserving of any help were being assisted now, and these people’s cases should be considered. They were very deserving of help.

The motion was agreed to.

The resolutions were reported with an amendment.

moved that they be considered forthwith.

Agreed to.

read the resolutions, and ruled the addition made by Committee of the Whole House to the recommendation (No. 2of the Fifth Report) of an award to H. A. Davidson out of order on the ground that its adoption would involve increased expenditure.

moved that it be considered by the whole House.

said he could not accept it as a recommendation from the committee. The hon. member could move it at some other stage.

The resolutions were adopted.

I would like to take this opportunity of stating to the House that, as the result of a discussion between the Finance Department and my office, it has been decided to suggest to the House that the principle contained in section 74 of the Public Service and Pensions Act of 1912 should be applied to all cases where the House adopts recommendations made by the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities which confer extra statutory benefits, that is to say, that legislative effect should in future be given to such recommendations by means of a Bill or Bills. If the House approves of this procedure it will apply also to the present session, and I will appoint a Committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bill or Bills. Does the House approve of the proposed procedure?

The suggestion was endorsed by the House.

appointed the Minister of Justice, the Chairman of Committees, and Mr. Currey a committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bill or Bills to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the House on the recommendations made during the present session by the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, which require legislative authority.

moved that the Bill be read a second time.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved the second reading of a Bill to empower the Governor-General to borrow £2,222,000 for certain public works and services.

said he was very sorry that the Minister had not taken powers to issue stock in small quantities. There were many cases in which people had small amounts of money which they desired to invest, and they would do that in Government stock if suitable opportunities were presented.

It is going to be done.

I am very glad indeed to hear it.

said he supported the suggestion of the hon. member opposite. He hoped the matter would be pushed through the Public Office in the same way that it was done in Canada. At the same time, he trusted there would be no attempt to raise a loan in the ordinary way in South Africa.

Is there to be any time to consider the reports of the Public Accounts Committee?

You will have a chance just now.

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

pointed out that only £16 per year was asked for the siding.

said the leave was for the full period.

On paragraph 3,

said that the money obtained on the sale of Crown land could not be handed over to the Province.

replied that the hon. member was wrong.

On the third, ninth and tenth paragraphs,

moved the deletion of the words “deem fit,” for the purpose of inserting “approve.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Grants and leases Nos. 1 to 15, as amended, were agreed to.

The resolutions were reported to the House and agreed to.