brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill.

moved: That in regard to the non-compliance with Standing Order No. 325, in that clauses 20 and 25 were not printed in italics, indulgence be granted.

Agreed to.

then moved: That the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday, the 8th April.

The motion was agreed to.

brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements. The report stated that the committee had received an application from Mr. E. Kellaway, caretaker of the Parliamentary Buildings, to be permitted to resign, owing to failing health. The committee recommended that the application be granted, and that, in view of Mr. Kellaway’s long and faithful services and the critical state of his health, he be granted a pension of £300 a year, with a house allowance of £7 10s. a month. Mr. Speaker added that, if no exception be taken to the report by Monday next, the-report would be considered as adopted.

Government Notice No: 347 amending annexure No. 6 of the Regulations under the Immigrants Regulation Act No. 22 of 1913.

Annual Report of the Department of Lands for 1912.

moved that the House go into Committee on the estimates of additional expenditure to be defrayed from revenue and loan funds during the year ending March 31, 1914. The hon. Minister said it was not usual to make a statement on a motion like that, but the financial year was so far advanced now that it was not probable, in view of the short time at their disposal, that the Budget would be introduced before the end of the financial year, and therefore he had thought it desirable to make a very brief statement to the House as to the financial position during the current year. He thought it would be far better to discuss the financial position, as a whole, when they came to the Budget, and did not want to invite a long discussion, but he thought it was due to the House that they should have some information as to the financial position.

pointed out that on that vote he could not allow general discussion, and if he allowed the Minister to discuss it, he must allow hon. members as well.

said that he would not like that, as the time at their disposal was very short. He would not like to make any statement which would lead to such discussion. He would therefore have to leave the information which he was to have placed before the House, and confine himself to the present motion. If hon. members would turn to the estimates of additional expenditure, which they would find before them, they could follow easily what the position was. Hon. members would find that he estimated that for the current year there was a saving on all the revenue votes of £475,843. The additional amount which they were asking the House to vote now was £556,579, so that the net amount which would be added to the Estimates was about £80,000, the difference between those two amounts. He might say generally that a very large part of that additional estimate was due to the disturbances through which the country had gone—the three disturbances which had occurred during the financial year—the July disturbance on the Witwatersrand, the Indian disturbance in Natal in October, November, and December, and the last disturbance in January on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere in the country. These had cost the country an amount of approximately £300,000, and a good deal of that could be followed from those additional estimates now before the House. Some of the items were covered by items they had voted, and would not need an additional vote.

Proceeding, the Minister said let them take for instance the first item of £1,100 on the vote for His Excellency the Governor-General. That was due to the heavy amount of telegraphic correspondence which had had to take place with regard to the disturbances. With regard to the next item (Agricultural Department), hon. members would see that there had been a saving of more than £20,000 in that department, and that the additional amount which had to be voted (£12,290) was inevitable. There had been a comparatively large saving, as hon. members would see, in the expenditure in connection with agricultural education. A small amount required to be voted there of £300. The next three items (Superior Courts, Magistrates, and Masters of the Supreme Court) were due to unforeseen contingencies—expansion in the departments which could not have been foreseen. The next item (Prisons and Reformatories) showed a very large expansion, and an additional amount of £27,900 would have to be voted for that service, and that was due to the abnormal expansion of the prison service. The price of food had gone up, and the number of prisoners had gone up beyond the estimate.

Not a very healthy sign.

No, it is not a healthy sign. The increase in the expenditure of our Prison Department is one of the most unhealthy signs, and requires the most serious consideration of Parliament and the country. Proceeding, he said that the next item (£16,000, Department of the Interior) was due also to the strikes. The strikes had led to destitution, and hon. members would see that to provide work for the poor and to finance, to a certain extent, the relief bodies of the Witwatersrand additional amounts had to be voted, and that accounted for that additional amount. In regard to printing and stationery (£11,000), that was due to expansion, and also due very largely to the demands made by the Defence Department. A large number of handbooks and regulations had had to be printed, and that accounted for a considerable part of that amount. There had also been an increased demand from the Railway Department, but they paid them. In the Lands Department, there was an additional vote asked for of £6,000. The next item he would refer to was in connection with the public debt, and he would make a statement on the following day, as his hon. friend opposite (Sir E. H. Walton) wanted to know what the loan transactions of the Government were. The debt had been increased by the net amount of £8,540,000 and that required that additional provision. The next considerable item was that in connection with Miscellaneous Services (£68,515). He had explained fully that the Government had to pay compensation in connection with the disturbances in Benoni and the re-instatement of the miners in the New Kleinfontein Mine, and hon. members would see that the biggest part of that amount was due to that. Part was due to the expenditure in connection with the Imperial troops during the time of that service. The next item (£177,000 for Defence), was in connection with the recent disturbances. Hon. members would see that there had been a very large saving in connection with that department (£182,000), as progress with the Defence Force had not been so advanced as anticipated in the vote taken last year, but against that they had this additional amount. For the rest, all the other items from the revenue side explained themselves. In the next item (expenditure from Loan Fund), hon. members would see that certain amounts were necessary. The expansion of the Posts and Telegraphs Department and the Railway Department had required that additional fund. It was necessary that the stores should be augmented, and for that £60,000 was required (addition to Stores Capital Account, Telegraphs and Telephones). In regard to the next item (Lands and Settlements), it had been found that the provisions which Parliament had provided the previous year for the purchase of land for settlement purposes was insufficient, and in consequence that additional amount of £100,000 had had to Le incurred. The largest item was on the Land and Agricultural Bank (£425,000). The Land Bank had found itself in a great difficulty, and the circumstances had been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee; and when their report was before the House he thought that that would be the proper place to discuss that vote.

said that he did not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the House, but he thought that would be a suitable opportunity for the Prime Minister to make that statement to the Police, which, in reply to a question which had been put to him the other day, he had said he would make at a later period. The House was extremely desirous of knowing what was the policy the Government proposed to adopt with regard to industrial and remedial legislation. A great deal of the future discussion in that House would largely depend on the character of that answer.

said that he must point out that such a statement could not be allowed, as they were dealing with the estimates of additional expenditure, and only these amounts could be discussed, and not general policy.

said that, with all deference to Mr. Speaker’s ruling, he would like to have his ruling on this: Was it not proper, as the House would have to vote for a large amount of money, which was illegal expenditure until both sections of the Legislature had sanctioned it, to ask for an explanation, and what the policy of the Government was, before a single pound of these estimates was passed? Was it not within the privilege of every hon. member of the House to ask the Government for an explanation before any item was passed? It was the only privilege of Parliament to control the expenditure of the country. Once the Government got the money sanctioned it could snap its fingers at the House.

I would point out that the second reading of the Appropriation (Part)

Bill is set down for to-morrow, when it would be competent for hon. members to discuss matters of policy and of administration generally. On the present occasion, the discussion must be confined strictly to the items enumerated in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds during the year ending the 31st March, 1914.

said that he intended to make a statement on the following day, when they came to the second reading of the Partial Appropriation Bill.

said he took it that the Speaker recognised it would be inopportune to deal with the matter at the present time, but did not rule definitely on the point. There might be times, he said, when this would be the only opportunity of dealing with the matter.

said he would like to ask the Minister of Finance a few questions that had not to do with any items on the votes. He thought that when the Government asked for money they had a perfect right to put these questions. He wanted to know what the Government intended to do with regard to the appointment of a Commission to deal with the financial relations of the Union and the Provinces?

Oh, no, the hon. member cannot

I submit most respectfully, sir, that when the Government ask for money we have a perfect right

The hon. member must confine the discussion to the actual votes included in the schedule.

Supposing nothing is said about the appointment of the Commission, sir.

pointed out that the hon. member must see that these questions could be raised on the following day.

With great respect, sir, I don’t see that there is any difference at all.

I much regret that the hon. member does not see the point, but he cannot go into the matter now.

said that recent events seemed to have had some effect in that House. He did not see why hon. members should be prevented from discussing matters of great importance. He wanted to discuss a matter not contained in these votes, but which was included in the period up to March 31, 1914. He would like to delete all the words after that for the purpose of insert following words: “In the opinion of this House provision should be made in the estimates of additional expenditure tor the year ending March 31, 1914 for compensation for certain Trade Unions officials, illegally arrested and deported in January last.”

I must point this out to the lion member. The hon. member must know it is not competent to impose additional expenditure. No private member of this House can propose additional expenditure.

I wish the House to express an opinion on this matter.

The House cannot express an opinion on additional expenditure

Well, sir, I should like to move, That this House regrets that no provision is made ”

I cannot take that.

Well then, sir, can I say that I regret that no provision has been made?

The hon. member can only deal with items which appear in this schedule. There will be an opportunity tomorrow of raising any question on the policy of the Government not only during last year, but in the year to come.

I am dealing with a matter, sir, that comes within the period of the current year.

I must point out to the hon. member that he can raise any Question of that sort to-morrow.

said there were items in those votes with which he and his colleagues dissociated themselves. It seemed to be the policy of the Government to compensate scabs and blacklegs. (Ministerial cries of “Order,” and Labour cheers )

He meant scabs and blacklegs. (Ministerial cues of Order, and Labour cheers.) It appeared to him to be the policy of the Government to support by compensation the scally-wallies” of the working-class, while the most respected men were deported from the country. (Labour cheers.) It, seemed to him that the House was placed in the position of condoning acts of the Government which it would otherwise not have done. (Labour cheers.) They had the verdict of the country on this matter. They had had Durban, Bloemfontein, and, on the previous day the Rand. Some hon. members seemed to think that they had taken their seats on those benches by accident that they had been blown in through the door. (Ministerial laughter.) They had had the verdict of the country, and Cape Town would add its voice on the following day. (Labour cheers.) Liesbeek would speak in no uncertain voice. (Labour cheers.) Would the Minister tell him whether the Government intended to reclaim this money from the employers concerned? Was every employer going to the Government for compensation for scabs and blacklegs?

I rise to a point of order, sir. Is the hon. member in order in using these expressions?

He has not called any hon. member of this House a blackleg. (Labour cheers.)

He has not infringed the rules of the House. (Labour cheers.)

said that since his boyhood he had been taught to regard men of this character as blacklegs. (Labour cheers.) He would tell them so if he met them in the street. (Ministerial laughter, and Labour cheers.) And now the Government was called upon to compensate them. He thought it was a bad policy for the Government of that country to follow. Hon. members, he felt certain, or at least some of them, appeared to be at their last gasp.

said he thought the Minister was following a bad plan in introducing additional Estimates. The old system, which was the best, allowed these items to be discussed by the Committee and then a Bill was brought into the House. He thought the present system inconvenient and unnecessary.

Will I be in order, sir, in moving an amendment?

There is no Bill before the House.

I see sir. (Laughter.)

The motion is to go into Committee. Might I move an amendment to that motion to add after the figure “1914” the following words: “After the Government has given an undertaking to give compensation to certain Trade Union officials illegally arrested and deported from this country in January, 1914.”

I can’t take it. That matter was entirely disposed of under the Indemnity Bill

May I move, sir, that we go into Committee this day six months.

The hon. member may do so.

Then I do so, sir, with the greatest pleasure. (Laughter.)

By the House agreeing to the granting of money to—

The hon. member will be competent to move when, I put the question as to the date.

The motion was agreed to.

What date?

Tomorrow, sir.

I think we ought to consider this matter now. He had now come to the conclusion that the estimates called for immediate consideration, because he found, on reflection, that for the past

Then can it not be taken as an unopposed motion?

put it as an unopposed motion that the House go into Committee, and this was agreed to.

said he noticed that that additional expenditure was due to the abnormal amount of telegraphic correspondence. Would they ever have an opportunity of seeing those telegrams? Perhaps the Minister would later on tell them whether they would ever have the opportunity?

I may inform the hon. member that this correspondence will appear in an Imperial Blue-book.

When, sir?

I am told they are being published now. I do not know whether they have been laid on the Table.

The Minister tells us that we can read this information in Imperial Blue-books. Do we get those Blue-books here?

Yes.

Are they issued to members? One Minister says “Yes” and another Minister says “No.” Continuing, he said the position was this: that the House was asked to pass that item of expenditure, £1,100, which had been spent in correspondence and telegraphic communication with England. The Minister told them they could get that information from the Imperial Blue-books. Why could they not get the information at this end? Did that correspondence, which was telegraphed, contain that very famous item called a despatch, which His Excellency sent to the British Government, and in which he stated deliberately that when the Imperial troops were called out in July they were called out without his sanction, that sanction being obtained afterwards. With the powers of censorship that had been used, Heaven only knew what had been concealed. He called upon the Committee to see that members had the right to know what that correspondence was. Was everything to be done sub rosa? Not always The Minister could see the shadow coming over the country. He knew that it worried hon. members. He thought the Minister would do well if he recognised the feeling in the country, if he opened his soul to the people and threw himself on their mercy. (Laughter.) No; the Minister expected short shrift. He asked the Minister to lay the information on the Table.

said the hon. member was under a misapprehension. They never published in that House correspondence which passed between the Governor General and the Imperial Government. The Imperial Government decided what should be published and what should not. Some of the information referred to had already been published, as the hon. member could see if he referred to the Blue-books in the Library. It had never been customary here to publish correspondence between the Imperial Government and the Governor-General.

said he accepted that so far as it referred to correspondence between the Governor-General and the Imperial Government, but there was other correspondence between the Government here and the Governor-General which should be published. He suspected the Minister had practically ordered the Governor General to do certain things.

questioned the Minister with regard to the correspondence relating to the Asiatic unrest. They had had an important document from the Indian Inquiry Commission, which had been published, and he asked whether the Government intended to carry out the recommendations of that Commission and whether they intended to bring forward a Bill that session?

said the hon. member was very correct in saying that it was an important Blue-book. That report was now being digested by the Government and by the public, and in due course the Government intended to take action on the reports.

The vote was passed.

On vote 6, for the Agricultural Department of £12,290.

said there was an addition of £5,000 on the item “Grants in aid.” He would draw attention to an anomaly and an injustice. Two of the Provinces, the Cape and the Transvaal, made a grant out of their funds to the agricultural societies, paying half the expenses, and in the two Provinces of Natal and the Free State the Union Government paid the whole of the grants to those societies. He asked how long that state of affairs was going to continue?

said the hon. member’s statement was quite true. His hon. friend knew that an Act of Parliament had made it possible for the Provinces to take over those services or not. Some of the Provinces found they were strong enough to take over those services, but although he had endeavoured to get the two others to take over those services they had not done so.

referred to the price charged by the department for guano. He said the Government was selling it at £5 per ton, and he believed it was worth £12 a ton. He believed the department had not a sufficient supply to supply all that was wanted at that price.

said he believed most of the guano was used in the Western Province. He thought the Minister should charge a higher price for it.

said that if they could get a higher price he would endeavour to persuade the Minister of Agriculture to charge more, and he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would assist him. He thought there was, a great deal to be said for charging more than they were charging at present.

said he hoped that the Government would take into consideration the question of establishing depots at other ports besides Cape Town, and of securing a uniform price for guano to agriculturists at the different depots.

said he wished to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Riversdale. He thought other ports besides Cape Town should have the advantages from the disposal of guano which were at present only possessed by Cape Town.

said that there was another aspect of this question. The vast bulk of the whale guano produced in the Union was not sold in the Union at all, but exported to Europe and sold there, because the producers could not compete with penguin guano, which was sold at £5 per ton. One of the results of selling penguin guano under price was that they were driving the makers of whale guano to export the produce to Europe, and the country was not getting the benefit from the sale of the article here that it should.

said he would like to associate himself with everything that had fallen from the hon. member for Riversdale with regard to the establishment of depots at Mossel Bay, Knysna, and other ports for the sale of this article. He would, however, suggest, that the discussion of the whole question be postponed until the Minister of Agriculture had returned. He had informed a deputation that waited on him the other day that he was not in a position to state definitely what his attitude would be until he had received information from certain shipping companies and the Railway Administration with regard to the carriage of this material from Cape Town to other ports.

The vote was agreed to.

called attention, under the item “Allowances to witnesses and expenses incidental to the production of exhibits, £400,” to the rate allowed to medical witnesses giving evidence in the Superior Courts, more especially in so far as district surgeons were concerned. He pointed out that the allowance of £1 1s. a day in the case of medical witnesses who had to travel some distance to the Courts and were absent for several days from their homes, was altogether inadequate, and that they were suffering under a sense of injustice. He mentioned that in the old days they received £2 2s. a day and travelling expenses, but the late Minister of Justice (General Hertzog) had altered the scale.

said that new regulations had been framed, and would be gazetted in a few days, under which the fees would be raised in regard to medical witnesses who had to travel outside the districts in which they lived. He also mentioned that an additional allowance was made to jurors in the Cape from 5s. to 8s. a day.

The vote was agreed to.

said he would like to ask whether anything had been done to provide increased accommodation at the Industrial School at George, and why the Government had refused for more than a year to take any boys from the Transvaal who had been ordered to go to an industrial school, or who would have been ordered if there had been accommodation? The ground of the refusal was, he understood, that the George School was in the Cape Province, and that these were Transvaal boys. He also asked for information with regard to the item, “Grants to certified institutions and maintenance to children under the Children’s Protection Act, 1913.”

said he would like to ask why a differentiation was made between the Police and the Prisons Department in regard to superior and subordinate officers? In the police, a man might rise from the ranks; while in the case of the Prisons Department, it was impossible to do so.

said he did not think that this point arose under the vote at present being considered.

said he would bring it up in connection with the industrial schools. They found men appointed to the industrial schools who were taken from outside the service altogether. He contended that officers for these schools should be taken from the Prisons Department.

under the item “Transport and travelling,” said that at Jagersfontein, the place he came from, there was insufficient prison accommodation, as there were but two cells to keep prisoners. There was a large native population there as well as a large white population, and, as was natural, there was a fairly large number of evildoers among those. In present circumstances, natives and white men, and sometimes even women, had to be locked up in the same cells, until they were transferred to the gaol at Fauresmith. He trusted the Minister would give the matter his attention, and would see that better accommodation was provided.

asked that the Chairman should read the heads of the votes in Dutch and English.

said he wanted to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to a matter which he had put before all his predecessors, but with the exception of the late Mr. Sauer, he had received nothing but the cold shoulder. The matter he wished to raise was a training ship in connection with their Reformatories. He was more impressed with the necessity of this than ever. The Minister of Justice was asking for an additional £800 for plant, etc., but that would not go very far towards procuring a training ship. He thought if application was made to the British Admiralty a suitable ship would be found for this part of His Majesty’s Dominions. He wished the Minister of Justice would pay more attention to the wastrels in their streets. These boys loved the sea, they did not like the land, and if they were to be made into decent citizens they would have to be put on board one of these training ships. He appealed to the Minister of Justice, who looked like a sailor—(laughter)—to give the matter his serious attention.

said there had been some correspondence on this subject with the object of acquiring the Penelope, but nothing came of that correspondence. The matter, however, had not been lost sight of. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Boksburg (Dr. MacNeillie), a motion had been put on the Paper with regard to that matter, therefore he would not discuss the question at length. He had asked why a differentiation was made between the Police and Prisons Department in regard to superior and subordinate officers. He might say that this distinction formed part of the recommendations of the Select Committee which was embodied in the Act of 1912. Members in a subordinate position were distinguished from members of the clerical and administrative division. It seemed to him that the question was a difficult one. He would recommend the hon. member to move that the matter be referred to the Public Service Commission which would be able to hear opinions from all points of view. He would like to mention that it was never intended that the lower prison official should be prevented from attaining a higher rank, but unfortunately the Act of 1912 had resulted in that being so to a large extent. The Department had already recommended an amendment of the Act on this point. With regard to increased accommodation at Heidelberg, two cottages were now being built, and another would be provided at a later date. With regard to the industrial school at George, he had never laid it down as a fixed policy that young people should not be sent down from the Transvaal. This industrial school had been filling up fast, and he did not wish to send too many children down from the Transvaal because he would not like it to be said that there was no room for those coming from the Cape Province.

Replying to Mr. Wilcocks, the Minister stated that the policy of centralisation of the gaols had been initiated by his predecessor (General Hertzog), and he (the speaker) quite agreed with this policy. The hon. member in his remarks had referred to extraordinary circumstances. It should be remembered that more and more villages were springing up all over the country; in the Free State, for instance, seven or eight villages had sprung up in the last few years, and to have a gaol in each of these would make expenses too heavy.

reiterated that Jagersfontein had a large population, and that the extraordinary circumstances which had recently arisen might recur. They had a population of 14,000 people there, and surely it was only right that they should have better provision. He knew very well that the hon. member for Smithfield had centralised the prisons, but he personally was opposed to it. It would not do at all in Jagersfontein.

said he had occasion during last session to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the disabilities under which some of the staff at the Roeland-street Gaol were labouring.

said the hon. member must confine his remarks to the item under consideration.

said that no particular institution was mentioned here. He was told that the men at the Roeland-street Gaol had to rise at 4.45 a.m. in order to be on duty at 5.45, as they were unable to live in the gaol owing to a lack of accommodation there. They left work at 8 p.m. and did not reach home until an hour later. This happened every day of the week. They were allowed an hour for dinner and three-quarters of an hour for breakfast, but were not permitted to sit down while on duty.

That comes under the general Estimates.

If you rule me out of order I will reserve my criticism.

moved to reduce the vote for rations and fuel by £1,000. He referred to the large number of prisoners confined in Natal gaols in October and November last when a large number of coolies employed on the Natal coal mines left their work. Many of them were sentenced to terms of hard labour, and they were taken back to the very collieries they had left, the compounds of which were proclaimed as temporary gaols. The coolies were kept at work there for private employers. He wished to know if the latter got the whole benefit of this prison labour, or did they pay Government for it? Under the Prisons Act passed in 1911, which was regarded as a very advanced measure, it was never contemplated that it should be abused by private coal mines being turned into temporary gaols, hard labour prisoners being put to work underground and being driven there by force He was not going to deal with the charges of ill-treatment against the prison officials for the Indians themselves had requested him not to do so, they having chivalrously decided to let bygones be bygones. It was alleged that these hard-labour prisoners were not provided with the ordinary prison clothing, but that some of them had their clothes stamped with the broad arrow; and further, that the women were allowed to move about the compounds as usual, this being contrary to prison regulations. In this matter the Minister of Justice went beyond his moral powers, even if he kept within the strict letter of the law. There were plenty of public works available in Natal on which the Indians could have been employed.

I wish to deny most emphatically the charges so loosely thrown about of improper conduct. (Ministerial cheers.)

I do not accuse any gaol officer; I accuse the Minister.

said these compounds, to which reference had been made, were under the control of gaol officers, duly sworn in. As to the charges against the gaolers, they were bruited about some time ago, and he investigated a considerable number of them. The hon. member for Weenen had challenged the legality of what had been done, but the law clearly allowed it, and he had been informed that the same system was followed very successfully in Natal before Union. The prisoners to whom reference had been made carried on their usual work after they were sentenced, and under, exactly the same conditions except that some trained warders were specially sent down from headquarters in charge and others were sworn in. So far as he knew the regulations were carried out. The question of stamping the prisoners’ clothes with the broad arrow had not been brought to his notice. When prisoners were supplied to private persons or institutions the usual charge was 1s. a day, the Government feeding the prisoners and providing warders. In the case of the Natal collieries, however, the coal-owners had to provide some of the warders and the food, clothing, and everything else required, and, in addition, to pay Government 6d. per head per day. The conditions thus were better from the Government’s point of view than they would have been had the prisoners been hired out in the ordinary way.

asked how many warders were provided by the colliery companies, and whether they were trained to the work, or whether they were the ordinary nigger-drivers who were sometimes to be found in those neighbourhoods? It was a most extraordinary precedent, and if they allowed that to go unchallenged, what was to stop, in case of another strike on the Rand, the Minister declaring the Rand gold mines as temporary prisons within that Act, and sending the strikers to work underground in the mines for contravening the Act? His (Mr. Meyler’s) information was that the collieries had not provided clothing, but had stamped some of the Indians’ own clothing with the broad arrow. Could not the Minister tell them if proper clothing had been supplied? He hoped that the Minister would give them the full details. When the General Estimates came up, he hoped to bring the matter up again.

said that he was sorry that he could not give the hon. member particulars of the number; and as regards the question of clothing, the hon. member laid down a rather peculiar doctrine, and said that he (the Minister) ought to know whether prisoners in the gaol at, say, Pietpotgietersrust were wearing proper clothing. He assumed that they were, unless there were complaints to the contrary. He could not be expected to know everything.

said that no one could expect the Minister fairly to give such details as had been referred to by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler), but he must say that it did seem to him a most dangerous principle. The position of the indentured Indian in Natal did seem contrary to what should be the position of the labourer in that country, and it approached, to a certain extent, the conditions of slavery. It was bad enough that, for refusing to work, a man should be sent to prison, but if he were sent to work under the eyes of his employer under prison conditions, he thought they were going very near to the conditions of forced labour.

Hear, hear.

went on to say that he thought that the Government should regard that as a precedent to be followed only in the direst extremity. They must be very careful not to press it to a stage where it became practically forced labour.

said that these Indians had been sent to the mines as the only resource. They had been sentenced to very short terms of imprisonment, and either had to be sent there or allowed at large. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) had made several rash statements in that House, and if the hon. member would reflect he would realise that he had made a totally unfounded charge against men who had done their duty. The managers of these collieries were on good terms with their employees, and there was no such thing as forced labour. They were on the most friendly terms with both the natives and the Indians on the coal mines, and it was quite an abuse of language to call the officials nigger-drivers. The Native and Indian Department had special officials told off to see that these natives and Indians were well treated, and the hon. member knew that. But to enforce his argument, the hon. member had used language which was totally unwarranted.

said that he did not rise to accuse these officials of being nigger-drivers, and he did not think that even the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) had called them that. From the rumours and information which had been generally circulated throughout Natal during that particular period, there was a great deal, it appeared, which should be inquired into during the time that these Indians had been on strike. He was surprised that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had not said a word or two against the dangerous policy of driving the men to work at the point of the bayonet, and to make the locality where they were working practically into gaols. He congratulated the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) on what he had said. The policy referred to was a most dangerous one, and he must ask the Alinister of Justice why, if these men had broken the law, they had not been put into gaol if he wanted to punish them? But grave objections had been raised by the mine-owners, and it would never have done to put that large number of Indians into gaol—they had to be made to come back to their work. Continuing, the hon. member said they had had enough of this principle of driving people to work, whether they were Indians, Kafirs, Chinese, or white men. The principle was the same in every case. If men wished to withdraw their labour they should be allowed to do so, and take the consequences. He thought these Indians were prepared to go to gaol to protest against the conditions under which they had to work. When he had the privilege of being incarcerated in the Durban Gaol he was proud to see several Indians who were taking their punishment like men. He hoped the policy would be discontinued by this or any other Government.

supported what had been said by the hon. member for Greyville, and said that it was not only confined to Indians and Kafirs. The Minister must be aware that certain men who were on strike were taken from the recreation ground, were rounded up and herded in the Kafir detention house on the Premier Mine, until the magistrate found time to come along and fine them £2 each.

When?

During the January strike.

Oh, that was Martial Law. (Ministerial laughter.)

Why didn’t you shoot them?

said that white men had been subjected and would be subjected to this system of forced labour. He went on to comment on the overcrowding in the gaol, and said that he believed in the Cape Town Gaol that the white prisoners’ dining-room was frequently occupied by natives, who had to sleep there in dozens. Then he was told the punishment cells

That question does not arise under this head.

Can’t I raise it, sir?

This deals with reformatories.

I take it that men are sent to prison in order to be reformed —(laughter)—and so I thought I could raise the question. (Laughter.)

said the hon. member would have another opportunity of dealing with the matter.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen, and commented on the statement of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that they had either to send these Indians to the Compound Gaol, with its attendant horrors, or let them go free, The temporary warders were men in the employ of the men against whom these Indians had struck. During January they had thousands of men who used their legitimate right to refuse to work, who were forced into gaols at the point of the bayonet. He wanted to know what sort of supervision the Minister of Justice exercised over his department? Three hundred and eighty men were taken to the Boksburg Gaol, and were confined under most insanitary conditions—

We are not dealing with gaol accommodation.

Is it permitted to ask the Minister of Justice for information? Is this additional vote in consequence of the imprisonment of men during the Martial Law period? Those 380 men in the Boksburg Gaol were visited by a magistrate, with a solicitor, to induce them to go back to work. The magistrate said an official of the mining houses was there to offer them work. It was the old slave-driving spirit that animated hon. members on the benches opposite. They had passed measures since Union setting the seal on slave-driving methods. He would support the hon. member for Weenen in his practical way of protesting by supporting the amendment.

Does the Old Somerset come under the head of Reformatories or must I wait until I get to Hospitals?

The Hospital.

Oh! I thought it was a gaol. (Laughter.)

said that in estimating the quantity of food they calculated on the number of prisoners they had in the gaols. That year the number had been larger, and in addition the price of mealies had gone up. That was the cause of the increase. It was impossible for him to say who were the prisoners, or why they were put in gaol. The only reason he could give for the increase was that there were more prisoners and that the food was dearer. He was not aware that the magistrate had visited the Boksburg Gaol for the purpose of recruiting mine employees.

said he would press the amendment to a division, because he thought they ought to make a protest against imprisoning people in that fashion. The Minister had twisted his words “nigger driving.” he was only referring to certain individuals who had undoubtedly ill-treated the Indians while they were in gaol.

put the question, that the vote stand as printed, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

asked what they had been voting on.

said the vote had been passed.

asked for a division.

again said the vote had been passed.

On a point of order, we have a right to know what rye are voting on. I want to know whether we were voting for the reduction or for the vote.

said he had put it quite plainly that the question was that the words stand.

I could not hear what you said.-

Order.

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz:: Messrs. Alexander, Andrews, Boydell, Duncan, Haggar, Madeley, Meyler, and H. W. Sampson) voted against the Vote,

declared the Vote agreed to.

asked for information with regard to the item “employment of destitute Europeans on road construction, £14,000.”

said that this was not a case of bona fide road construction, but a case of relief. Owing to the disturbances there were numbers of people left destitute. It was not an ordinary case of pauper relief. These people were put by the Mines Department on road construction as a purely relief matter. It was a road, he believed, that was constructed to the Premier Mine.

asked whether any of this money went in relief of women and children, as apart from being given in the way of wages to men who were put on relief work? He understood that a woman went to the magistrate at Benoni to see if she could get some relief, her husband having been victimised during the strike, and having been out of work before and since the strike. The magistrate replied that she could, but if she accepted relief her husband would be disfranchised.

Shame.

Don’t say “Shame ” unless you know it is true. Proceeding, he said he noticed an item. “grant in aid of the Witwatersrand Public Relief Board, £2,000.” He wanted to Know if any money had been provided or was about to be provided, or whether the Minister would consider the advisability of granting money to the Benoni Municipal Council? The Council was taking over the responsibility of its own relief works. Its own indigent, able-bodied population were being provided with relief work, and, as a consequence, the rates were being increased. The Council was paying 10s. a day for the employment of these men. This meant that the rest of the population in this locality had got to meet additional expenditure and the rates were going up. Would the Minister give something to the Benoni Municipality?

said that he would like some further information with regard to the item of £14,000 on road construction. He would like to know where the road would lead from, whether it would be a public road, and, if so, why it should not be made by the Provincial Council, or whether it would be a private road, and, if so, why it should not be made by the Premier Mine?

said that, in regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Springs as to whether some additional relief would be given to the Benoni Town Council, the answer was “No.”

Why?

Because this amount of £2,000 covers the whole of the Witwatersrand. This Relief Board is a body that operates for charitable purposes all over the. Rand. As the hon. member knows, there are a large number of agencies at work on the Rand. Since the last disturbances they have deemed it desirable to join hands and form one body for the whole of the Rand. The distress was very great and it is a matter of very large public importance, and an emergency in which you cannot hold the Province merely responsible for charitable relief, and the Government thought it justifiable in the circumstances to give the Board this £2,000. If the finances of the Benoni Town Council justify special relief measures of their own of course that is their business. The Government cannot assist them; too. Proceeding, the Minister said that, in regard to the other question asked by the hon. member, he had no information about that case. They knew that poor relief disqualified a voter under the Transvaal Constitution, which settled the franchise. With regard to the point raised by his hon. friend, as far as he (the Minister) could remember, what happened was this: they had a vote for developing the mining areas of £29,000 or £50,000. That vote was used for assisting the development of mining areas in the making of roads and building bridges, etc. The Treasury thought this was not a matter which could be debited to that department, and the result was that the Department of the Interior had been debited with the amount.

The vote was agreed to.

was understood to ask a question with regard to an amount of £500 in connection with a leper station in the Transvaal.

said the establishment of a leper station for natives was a new departure. There was a large number of lepers in the Transvaal, and it was impossible to get these people in the ordinary asylums. They were going in for an experiment in the Transvaal, and the idea was to use this farm as a leper location, to which natives could be sent, and be provided with accommodation, bringing their cattle and stock with them. The idea was that, if a leper establishment like that was located in the country, a number of lepers from the Transvaal would be induced to go into it. If it was successful, they would extend the principle, because it was far better than the present system of asylums.

said he did not object to the vote. He was merely anxious to know what was taking place.

asked if the items of £1,500 and £4,500 were for the purpose of improving the condition of lepers generally, or for the upkeep of the various establishments?

said the items included an amount for goods which should have arrived last year. This amount had now to be included in this year’s accounts.

said he would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the prison report in Natal with regard to lepers. He hoped that if the policy now commenced in the Transvaal of establishing leper stations for natives proved successful, it would be adopted in Natal.

said he would like to know why certain patients in the leprosy hospital at Pretoria, were not examined, and, if necessary, sent home.

said he would inquire into the matter and give the information later.

The vote was agreed to.

said he wanted to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister a case of extreme hardship. He did not want to mention names, but it was the case of an assistant magistrate, who was suspended for disciplinary offence, without emoluments, and it took him about three months before the unfortunate man could get reinstated. In the meantime he had to get along as best he could, and being a poor man, he was put to the very greatest straits. That was not a proper thing—it was really a serious injustice.

said they were not discussing salaries at this stage.

I thought the Public Service Commission dealt with all these matters arising out of discipline in the service. (Hear, hear.)

intimated that he would give the hon. member the information he desired.

also called attention to the case of an employee who sent a letter to the Public Service Commission and was under the impression that it never reached them. He would like to know if heads of departments were able to hold back what they desired.

said he would be glad if the hon. member would raise the matter on a future occasion.

complained that in the appointment of officials no account was taken of the local population, so that it frequently happened that unilingual men were put where bilingual officials were required. Then some of the officials in the Free State were very unfairly treated, so that old and tried men were placed under younger men.

replied that it had been an extremely difficult matter to arrange the proper grading of the staff.

The vote was agreed to.

Vote 20, Printing and stationery, £11,000, was agreed to without discussion.

asked a question regarding an amount required in connection with the purchase of the farm Elsenburg, which was rented from the Trustees of the Porter Be quest.

was understood to say that the method suggested was more economical.

disagreed that the purchase would be more economical. When they paid the money over to the Commissioners they were taking the money out of revenue.

was understood to say that land for such a purpose should belong to the Government.

wished to know the meaning of sub-head (b), “the purchase of a piece of land in the Cradock division for outspan purposes in the place of an outspan that has been resumed by the Government.”

replied that under a law of 1902 the outspan was taken back by the Government, as the Divisional Council was of opinion that it was needed no longer. Later on, however, the Divisonal Council asked for further facilities to which the Government considered it had a moral right.

moved that the purchase of Elsenburg stand over until a satisfactory explanation was given. (Hear, hear.)

hoped his hon. friend was not serious in his proposition. Here we had an agricultural school conducted on ground which did not belong to the Government, but to the Porter Be quest. Instead of paying rent, in the future the Government would be the owners of the ground. Government surely ought to be the owners of the land on which it was carrying out experimental work. He was sure the hon. member was satisfied now. (Laughter.)

said the committee was entitled to know the price the Government paid, the rental which was being paid by the Government to the trustees, the amount which it would cost Government to raise the sum of £6,000, and whether it would not be cheaper for the Government in the long run to continue paying rent.

thought the Minister of Lands should be able to give the necessary information.

pointed out that the matter was in regard to an agricultural school falling under the Minister of Agriculture, who was absent. The Minister of Lands knew, of course, nothing about it.

said the hon. member for Rustenburg was under a little misapprehension on this matter. The member who could give the Committee all the information if he would only condescend to rise, was the Minister of Education. (Hear, hear.) There was evidently some misunderstanding. In the general Estimates there was no provision whatever for the payment of any rental to the Porter Bequest.

The hon. member is quite at sea.

said that the Minister had said that the recommendation had been by some other department. Could he give them that recommendation? What had induced the Minister to purchase that land?

said the Minister of Lands ought to be acquainted with the facts.

moved that the vote be deleted. He said there had been three or four Ministers in the House, and they could not give them one iota of explanation. The result was that they did not know what they were doing. He had never seen such a condition of affairs in his life. It was said that the Minister of Agriculture could give them the information. But where was he? He was not in his place, but was opening shows, and the result was that waste of time.

said that the more the Ministers explained the more befogged the whole thing became. The more Ministers talked the less they knew. That little business proposition should surely be understood by somebody. He suggested the item be left over until some of the Ministers knew something about it.

It was agreed that the vote should stand over.

On vote 22, Deeds Office, £800,

was understood to ask what was the reason for the increase.

explained because there had been a change of staff during the year at certain places.

stated that the conditions in the Deeds Office in the Free State were far from satisfactory. Business people often had to wait for their deeds of transfer from four to six months. This created serious inconveniences, and he hoped the Minister would see that the position was altered.

replied that some cases of delay had been brought to his notice, but after inquiry he found that the fault was not with the Deeds Office, but with the attorneys in the villages in the outside districts.

said that they were losing sight of a very big question—the codification of the laws of the country. He wished to refer to the Bill which had been introduced the previous year in the Senate—a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws of the Union with regard to the registration of deeds. There had been a great outcry for the codification of laws in the country.

said that the hon. member could bring that question on the main Estimates.

said that at the registration office in Vryburg the chief clerk did all the work. The magistrate was only the head in name. He signed all the papers, but he knew nothing about them.

Vote 22 was agreed to.

asked the Minister whether the Government was taking any action with regard to the bewaarplaatsen Bill and money, was he going to take up the matter this session?

At an early date. The hon. member can see the time we took over a simple little Bill of four clauses. (Laughter.)

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 30, Public debt, £110,000.

asked the Minister whether he was going to introduce a Bill dealing with the 41/2 per cent, and 5 per cent. Cape Stock.

Yes.

This session?

Yes. (Laughter.)

The vote was agreed to.

said the pension list was getting larger and larger, and the salaries of the highly-placed officials were excessive.

told the hon. member that this matter could be dealt with under the general Estimates.

asked for the policy of the Government in connection with the pension list, which was growing year by year?

said the matter could be discussed on the main Estimate.

said he wished to know whether the Government had formulated the policy.

The hon. member can do that on the main Estimate.

The vote was agreed to.

asked for an explanation with regard to grants to churches in the Orange Free State.

said that these amounts were due to certain churches in the Orange Free State under an arrangement which would expire in ton years. Apparently this £15 was due to an under-estimate.

moved the deletion of the item £46,507, compensation to mine-workers, and the deletion of £1,273, wages of mine-workers (strikers). There had been a strong feeling in the country, he said, as far as he had been able to ascertain, against the people being taxed to pay compensation to people who were engaged in carrying on their lawful avocation. He cordially agreed with the Prime Minister so far as the protection of free labour was concerned, but he thought it was very curious that the taxpayers should be asked to pay £46,000 in order to practically turn these men out of the country. That was the most curious way of protecting free labour that he had ever heard of. It was hard on the men, but it was harder on the taxpayer. But then they came to a more extraordinary thing. He was sure the Government, when they signed that fatal treaty with Mr. Bain, never for one moment contemplated that they were going to pay the strikers, the people who created all these disturbances. They were actually asking the taxpayers of this country to put their hands in their pockets and pay some of the people who had created all these disturbances, and for whom sooner or later they had got to pay a quarter of a million, apart from all the misery and distress which had been brought upon this country. They were asked to pay £1,272 to the gentlemen who the Minister told them were the cause of this unfortunate business. That seemed wrong. They could not refuse to vote the money the Government had paid away; he had no doubt they had paid it with the best possible intentions, but he thought that that money should not be charged upon the general revenue of this country.

He considered it ought to be put upon a fund they had got now which was able to meet it, viz., the bewaarplaatsen. In that way half of it would be paid by the mine-owners, who were jointly, with the Government, to blame for the disturbances. It arose from their mismanagement in the past. That was the little spark which set this huge conflagration going. It, was the action of the mine-owners in the Chamber of Mines that caused the Kleinfontein Mine manager to take up a rather strong attitude. It was he thought, nothing but fair they should pay that half. The other half would have to be shouldered by the Government but it would be shouldered from a special fund, and it would not be paid by the general taxpayer The Minister could put a clause into the Act charging the bewaarplaatsen with that amount. He hoped the House would support this, for he was sure the country would support it.

called attention to the recent returns which had been published in regard to the expenses of Commissions, and said that some of the figures were very astonishing.

They had one Commission, on the question of tuberculosis, which was appointed more than two years ago. That was an urgent question. Already £9,000 had had to be paid for the expense of that Commission, and they had had no report yet. He thought that it had almost become a scandal, and that something ought to be done in the direction of appointing men on Commissions who were competent to serve and who would serve without the enormous fees which tome of these members on commissions received. Would the Minister tell them what the Tuberculosis Commission was doing, and when they might have its report?

said that he had the honour of putting the question which led to the printing of this return. The Government bad since they came into office appointed 18 Commissions, and the total expenses incurred up to the date of the return was £24,282. The most extraordinary case was that of the Tuberculosis and Pneumonia Commission appoint on February 27, 1912. He found that the chairman had drawn up to the date of the return £2,424 9s., and that another gentleman had drawn £1,740. The Commission was still going on. How long was it going on? He would like to ask the Government to keep an eye on the gentlemen who formed these Commissions, and see that they got their reports. He noticed that some gentlemen who sat on commissions would not take fees.

said that the Minister had on a previous occasion told them that he intended to dissolve the Tuberculosis Commission at an early date. He would like to know whether the Minister had decided when he would dissolve that Commission?

said he would like to know from the Minister if those Commissioners were supposed to be whole-time officers? Owing to the private duties of one Commissioner he understood that the whole of one Commission had be en hung up, and that they sat only in the afternoons. The Commission had, therefore, taken ten days in doing work that could have been completed in three days, this meaning a great expense to the country.

said no considered the matter so serious—the expenses in connection with the Commission coupled with the unfortunate length of time it was taking—that he thought the House should not be content with a statement from the Minister only, but that there should be an inquiry into the case. He knew that such an inquiry would be web comed by some of the members of the Commission.

said the Tuberculosis Commission had lasted a considerable time, and hon. members seemed inclined to blame the Government for it. Very seldom was a Commission appointed by the Government excepting under extreme pressure. The Tuberculosis Commission was one which the Minister of the Interior was continually being pressed for, members drawing attention to the state of tuberculosis, until afterwards, almost at the point of the bayonet, he had to surrender, and a Commission was appointed. That Commission had now been sitting for two years. He had asked it to send in its report by the end of this month in regard to tuberculosis. They had sent to the Commission two references—tuberculosis on the mines and health on the mines. He had asked the Commission to discontinue its researches and to confine itself simply to tuberculosis, and send in a report. None of the members of the Commission were officers of the Government.

They are pensioners, surely.

said he hoped the value of the report would be commensurate with the time that had been taken. He thought the delay that had taken place must be due to the desires of the Commission to do justice to the subject.

asked whether it would be possible for the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with the public health of the Union?

said a Public Health Bill had been urged for fifteen years ago. The Sunday Observance Commission had been appointed, because the Government feared to go to a vote on the subject of Sunday labour on the mines. That Commission had reported. It had cost something like £1,700, and they had heard nothing of it since. Did the Minister intend to introduce any legislation on the matter?

said the question of Sunday observance was undoubtedly urgent. They had waited a long time for the report, but they had it now, and it was a very important report. He hoped it would have the consideration of the House at an early date. If they could discuss a Bill of four clauses for two months, he thought they would have to introduce the closure before they finished. He felt very chary about introducing any measure of public health, although he knew the matter was very urgent.

said that in the first session of that Parliament, the Minister introduced a Public Health Bill, and said it was absolutely necessary, because of its extreme urgency.

That was in November, 1910, and they were still waiting for the Bill. Why that Bill was not passed was because it was intended that legislation should wait until a Bill could be brought into Parliament, which would be applicable to the whole Union.

wanted to speak particularly with regard to the Railway Grievances Commission.

The hon. member can only speak of Commissions which have sat during the present year.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West. Personally, he would go further and omit the whole of this £46,000, because the expenditure might have been avoided if the Government had gone the right way to work. If the Government had been warned by members on the cross-benches and had not taken sides with the mining houses, that expenditure would not have been necessary. He was more opposed to the vote of £46,000 than to the payment of wages to men for breaking the strike. They were told at the time the Government intended taxing the mine-owners in order to get this sum of money back again, but whether it was only said for the purpose of shielding the Government or whether at any time they had really intended to do so, he could not say. This sum of money had been spent on men who were taken out of public-houses and who in ordinary times would not be able to get a job, and all this was done in order to break the strike. Some hon. members suggested that the item should be paid out of bewaarplaatsen, but they were told that this money belonged to the State. If that were so, they would only be taking money out of one pocket instead of the other. He would remind the House that this sum of money was paid for services rendered to the mines industry and not for State services at all. He thought, before they passed the item, that the Government should give some undertaking that they will ask the mining houses to refund this amount. They objected to the vote, because it was against the interests of labour and because it was only right that it should come out of the pockets of those to whom the services were rendered

expressed the opinion that the mine-owners themselves should have been asked to provide for the men who had remained loyal during July, in the same way as the Government was now providing for the loyal rai1way servants. Still, the money had new been paid. He hoped, however, such a thing would not again occur. However, if the proposal of the right hon. member for Victoria West was adopted it would mean taking the money out of the one pocket of the Government, and putting it into the other.

wished to know why the Government had paid this amount, and stated that his constituents wanted to have the whole point explained. He had promised them to ask the Government about it. He had met one of the so-called “scabs” or “blacklegs” at the time, and the man seemed to be a very ordinary fellow. He would be glad to have further information regarding the payment of the £47,000.

said it was a moot point as yet whether the whole or only half of the bewaarplaatsen moneys belonged to the Government. In any case it had nothing to do with the question they were now discussing, despite what the hon. member for Ficksburg had said. The speaker intended to return to the subject of the payment of that £47,000.

said he could not agree to the taxpayers’ money being used to pay these “onder-kruipers.” Undoubtedly the trouble had been between the mine-owners and their employees, and if the former had treated their men with a little more sympathy, all the troubles of July would never have occurred. It was not right now to come to the House and ask the State to foot the Bill. Why should they do so, seeing that the State was in no way responsible? If the mine-owners wished to reward the “onderkruipers, ” by all means let them do so, but not at the expense of the poor taxpayer. A better plan would be for the mine-owners to pay half and the Government the other half. If they passed that item they would give the coup de grace to the free workman, and he moved accordingly that the item £46,507 be deleted.

said he did not want to throw the burden on the members of Government to provide for the payment of this £47,000, as that would be absurd. The money had been paid out under a mistaken policy, but still it had been paid out with the best possible intention. At the same time, it should not come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. It would form a legitimate charge against the bewaarplaatsen money, just as miners’ phthisis grants were charged to that fund. In that way the expenditure would be divided between the mine-owners, who were responsible to some extent, and the taxpayers, who were represented by the Government. It would not then appear that Parliament was actually voting away the taxpayers’ money. The hon. member for Boshof had applied an exceedingly offensive term to the men who had gone to work on the New Kleinfontein. On May 28 the management of the New Kleinfontein gave notice that it was prepared to take back all the men who had gone out on strike, on the old terms, but they refused. On June 6 the management issued a second notice to the men, in which they were told in unmistakable language they would all be taken back on the old conditions; but that, if they did not choose to come back by June 11, their positions would be filled by free labour. Sixty or seventy of the men had remained at work in the mine all the time, and it was rather hard that they should be called “onderkruipers.” He considered that these men deserved the sympathy of the House, and that they should not be called hard names. (Cheers.) They were engaged in doing honest work when the strikers would not do it. (Cheers.)

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that it did appear to him extremely unsatisfactory that the Government of the country had spent £250,000 to put down disturbances, for that was what it came to, and then had to pay £50,000 for compensation. If they took the case of Gowan and Taylor, who had their property destroyed at Benoni, were they likely to get any compensation from the Government? There were other people, citizens of Benoni, who had had their property destroyed, and had not got one cent compensation, nor were they likely to get compensation, judging by the temper of the House. Why was there that difference of treatment? Supposing that that £47,000 compensation had not been paid to the mine—and that mine had contributed materially to that disturbance. He referred to page 12 of the Judicial Commission’s report, and said that the position of the management was that they would not meet the officials of the men’s Union. In all probability, judging by that report, had the management of the New Kleinfontein Mine been willing to meet the officials of the Union to which the men belonged, that matter would have been settled at the time, and they would not have had all those disturbances. But what had men like Gowan and Taylor to do with the origin of the strike? Having quoted from page 48 of the same report, the hon. member went on to say that it did appear perfectly clear and perfectly fair to him that the mines should at least pay one-half of the compensation. It was the duty of the Government to protect these men, but suppose that the Government had not been in a position to afford protection, and that they did not have sufficient men, there would have been an immense amount of destruction, but the property of Messrs. Gowan and Taylor and others had also been destroyed, and they had not received compensation. Had it not been in their (the mines) interests that that thing should have been brought to a conclusion, and was it not in their interests to have contributed? The suggestion of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was not an ideal one by any manner of means, but still it was a rough approximation to justice. It was, he admitted, not exact justice, but as near to justice as one could get at the moment, and he therefore intended to support the proposition of the right hon. member.

said that they on those benches held that the bewaarplaatsen money belonged to the taxpayers, and if it was wrong for the taxpayers to pay £47,000, it was equally wrong to pay half that amount—the principle was the same. While agreeing with half of what the right hon. member for Victoria West had proposed, they on the cross-benches wanted to go the other half, and make the people who were responsible for the whole thing pay the whole lot. Why should the taxpayers be made to pay the whole lot when they had it on record who was responsible for the whole of that trouble? They had the Government Commission of two judges laying down, without the evidence of the men, that the whole responsibility lay with the New Kleinfontein management, or the Chamber of Mines; and let them (said the hon. member) pay for their own dirty work, instead of making the taxpayers pay for them. Had the New Kleinfontein told the men that they could go back on their own terms?

Yes, they did; they told the Mayor on the 26th.

went on to say that after the 1st of June they would never recognise the men’s association. He was only going by what the report of the Disturbances Commission stated. Alluding to the term “blackleg,” he asked why the hon. member for Durban, Point (Mr. Silburn) should have had his dignity offended by hearing the word “blackleg,” which was common all over the world.

said that there were many words in use all over the world which were nasty.

said that the word “schorrie-morrie” was not a nice word, but the Prime Minister had used it against hon. members on the cross-benches.

Order; the hon. member must keep to the point.

said after the Bain-Botha treaty and the settling up, they had the dark and sinister figure of the Minister of Mines coming into the picture. There were about 250 men to be removed from the mine before the strikers would return to work. They could imagine the Minister of Mines in the dead of night with his little bag of money paying out the miners on the yeld. (Laughter.) What became of these miners? He remembered reading somewhere how the manager of the mine, before dismissing these men, complimented them on their sterling qualities.

These under-creepers immediately came down to Durban, and he (Mr. Boydell) was anxious to see what sort of men they were. He soon had an opportunity, as one of these men had to appear before a Government official, who was not the Minister of Mines this time, but a magistrate This recipient of a part of the £300 that the Minister of Mines paid out, and which the country was now called upon to pay, had been appropriating some silverware at an Hotel. He was further charged with issuing cheques that were afterwards dishonoured, and another of this man’s escapades—this man of sterling quality, this example of free labourer—was that he had run away with another man’s wife. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Boydell) was going to oppose the vote of this £46,000 to these schorrie-morries and blacklegs. The hon. member for Victoria West talked about the free labourer and said the most pleasing feature was that the Government were determined to protect him. Who was this free labourer who required protection by the authorities? Was it not those men who in ordinary times were out of employment and who if they went on a mine to ask for work would probably be locked up for trespassing? The only time the Government talked about protecting this free labourer was when they could use him as a tool against their fellow-workers—the Trade Unionists. These free labourers were the men now out of work and of whom there were lately 8,000 on the Rand. He would ask the Government, if they were going to protect free labour, to protect it all along and not just when there was a strike on.

said it was beyond his comprehension to understand the audacity of the members on the cross-benches. They had heard the cheap gibes directed against the man who had run away with another man’s wife, but he had done nothing so bad as to burn down the House of a poor, defenceless woman. (Government cheers.) Members on the cross-benches were the responsible persons for the strike and therefore indirectly responsible for the expenditure of the money they were now called upon to vote. The hon. member for Victoria West had proposed that this money should be paid out of the bewaarplaatsen, but it did not matter whether it came from that or any other source, as it had ultimately to come out of the country. With regard to the taxing of the mines to this extent, he objected to that course being taken on principle, because every fresh item of taxation was another nail in the coffin of the industry. Hon. members had to remember that this £66,000 was not the whole of the Bill which these disturbances had cost the country, directly it had cost the Union a quarter of a million, and how much indirectly no one could tell.

said that he shared the reluctance of other members to pay this bill, and to some extent he agreed with the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson) that if the whole matter had been handled by the Government in a different way there would have been no occasion to vote this money.

The hon. member for Victoria West had mentioned as a precedent that the contribution to the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Fund was taken in that way, but he had forgotten that the money came out of the share accruing to the Government from the bewaarplaatsen money. If that was to be done in this case he (Mr. Chaplin) had no objection at all. If there was an possible reason for saying that the mines should be asked to pay the money out of their share, then they should be asked to pay the bill for the use of the Imperial troops and any other expenses incurred during the time of the unfortunate trouble. The right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Victoria West, had stated the case clearly as to what took place at the time, but it was a matter of opinion as to how far the policy of the mine management was to blame. It was assumed that the manager had broken the law, but it now appears that the law had not been broken.

That is technical.

His hon. friend said that was technical, but the point was that the mine management having been told they had broken the law, had tried to remedy the matter. But the dispute was not ended, and the Federation of Trades put forward their demands and altered the whole spirit of the affair. The notice was posted offering the men re-instatement, and hon. members on the cross-benches had tried to make the point that it was not properly served, but that was absurd. The notice said that those men who were out on strike would he re-instated, a certain number of those men were already working, and it was stated further that if the men did not come back their places would be filled; that was the same policy as was subsequently pursued by the Railway Department. The men did not come back. They had got into that state that no matter what was done there would be a row.

It was urged that the mine representatives should meet the Federation of Trades. Well, that was a question of policy. The argument was put forward that if they had met the Federation of Trades all the trouble would have been over, but that did not affect the point. When the notice expired the mine began to take on new men, some of the men who had been out on strike went back, which very much annoyed the Federation of Trades, so much so that they issued an official contradiction and gave a list of the men who were working. The mine took on about 160 men altogether. It was not disputed that the mine had a right to take on those men, or that the men had a right to go to the work. He did not profess to be acquainted with all those men, but he knew some of them, and he did not think the hon. member on the cross-benches would have used the words he had done if he had met them in the street.

Proceeding, Mr. Chaplin said that on the Saturday afternoon, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence came to Johannesburg and took stock of the situation. They asked some of the mining representatives to meet them, and said they had made terms, and asked the mine-owners to help them to get rid of the men who were working. Naturally, the mine-owners said that was the last thing they wanted to do. Why should they wish to get rid of them? The question of whether the Bain-Botha treaty was justified, was a matter of opinion. No human being would ever know what would have happened if that treaty had not been made. To his mind, if it had not been made, there would probably have been a great disaster. He (Mr. Chaplin) was quite satisfied that the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence would never have made that treaty and would not have submitted to the humiliation involved, nor would have asked the mine people to assist them to get rid of those men who were lawfully working unless they were satisfied that such a course was necessary and in the interests of the whole community. The mine representatives said that if they were satisfied that it was necessary they would help. They did not want to get rid of those men, and if they were to be got rid of, they must be compensated. Those men had been promised continuous employment, and it was the intention to use every effort to keep them so long as they did their work; it was realised that they had taken a considerable risk.

Were you consulted before the treaty was made?

said that the consultation took place about 5 o’clock in the afternoon. It was decided that the men should be compensated and £300 was mentioned as a reasonable sum, taking into consideration that these men would be marked men and would not be allowed to work. They would be looked on as blacklegs. Out of the mouths of the men’s leaders they had evidence that it would be made not for them. Mr. Waterston noticed one man coming from a mine, and raising his voice said they would made it d— not for the blacklegs. Mason said that, being a Trade Unionist, he knew the number of every blackleg, and every one would be marked. After the strike was over the men would be sent to every out of the way place, but the Federation had machinery to follow them to any part of the world, and they would be followed as sure as fate. Another said that they were issuing 10,000 circulars, with a list of the names of the blacklegs, and after the strike all those men would be ostracised. The Government knew what was likely to happen to those men, and took the common sense view that an adequate amount of compensation should be paid to them. It was a mistake that the money was not paid on the spot. But for that the mine was not responsible. In view of the circumstances, was it reasonable that the mines should be asked to pay? The mine management acted perfectly legally. It was in the interests of the whole country that the Government took the action they did and for that reason the country should pay, as it paid all the other expenses attending on those unfortunate circumstances. It had been stated that if the thing had been handled differently from the beginning it might not have been necessary to pay the money and that things would have not got to the state they did get on that Saturday afternoon. But it they decided that the Government were right in making a treaty and were right in asking for those men to be got rid of, then it was the duty of that Committee to support the Government in their action, and pass that amount.

said the point before them was one of accounts The money had been paid, and it had to be voted by Parliament. He could not see any difference between the two proposals before the House. Whether they said that this particular item was to be charged against the bewaarplaatsen money or not, it was purely a matter of bookkeeping. (Cries of “No.”) If the bewaarplaatsen money went into the Treasury, what did it matter whether this was charged specifically against the bewaarplaatsen account or taken out of the ordinary revenue? No additional light had been thrown on the matter and the hon. members on the cross-benches could hammer away for a week without making the subject any clearer. What was to be gained by repeating arguments and accusations he could not see, and it was only abusing the privileges of Parliament. From an accounting point of view, he supported the Minister.

said it was just possible that one of these days the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, might see that what they on the cross-benches were arguing was true. He (Mr. Creswell) did not think the time was at all wasted if they did discuss this subject rather more than ordinary things were discussed or debated, for these things were rather extraordinary. He agreed with the hon. member, however, that it was purely a matter of bookkeeping, for whether the money came out of the ordinary revenue or out of the bewaarplaatsen account, it would be paid from the money of the public. But the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) required more answering. Let the House contrast the hon. member’s solicitude for these poor, dear men—these strike-breakers—with the attitude the hon. member and his friends took up towards quite a large number of men who participated in the recent strike. The threat of the friends of the hon. member for Germiston to blacklist these men were not idle threats, and they took care to chase the men up and down the Reef, so that they did not get a job. (Labour cheers.) The House had not had any proposals to vote money for the relief of thoroughly deserving and upright men who were thrown on the streets by the hon. member for—the Chamber of Mines. Was the hon. member speaking as a representative of the Chamber of the Mines, or as the representative of the people of Germiston? He (Mr. Creswell) challenged him to go to Germiston to-morrow and repeat his speech there. He (Mr. Creswell) wanted to call attention to the hypocrisy of this talk about this being a Government obligation to pay these men. He firmly believed that the hon. member and his friends desired the strike at the New Kleinfontein last July. He was informed, and he had every reason to believe his information, that long before the general strike took place, the mining companies had printed schedules of wages at reduced rates, which were to be introduced after the strike. The Chamber of Mines was financing the New Kleinfontein Company, which was fighting the Chamber’s battle. After the strike of 1907, when, with the help of the Minister of Finance, the companies crushed the strike, the wages of the men were reduced, and in the succeeding eighteen months the companies took out of the men’s pockets in reduced wages a quarter of a million, or rather more. Ever since the companies had been reaping the benefit of the reduction of wages they were able to make by having successfully crushed the strike of 1907. On July 5 last, finding it had stirred up a hornet’s nest, the Government went to the hon. member and his friends, who gave the Government carte blanche to settle the matter, they having lost the fight, and now the taxpayers had to come to the assistance of the European shareholders and pay their debts for them. The arrangement was a beautiful one. If the companies won they took the money out of the men’s pockets—if they lost they took it out of the taxpayers’ pockets. In introducing the Railway Strike Bill the Minister of Railways remarked that no one ever seemed to remember the taxpayer, but when it was a case of the friends of the hon. member for Germiston finding themselves in a hole and having to pay up because they had lost they were not told to remember the taxpayer then.

The Transvaal Miners’ Association was paying large sums to help men who had been thrown out of work, but he could imagine the hoots of laughter if there were any proposal in the House to contribute to the Transvaal Miners’ Association. What was sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. They had only got to put that question to themselves; if these were payments made by the Government to the Transvaal Miners’ Association because they had lost the strike and were supporting a large number of deserving men who were out of work, would they vote for it? Hon. members knew perfectly well that they would not dream of voting the money. He earnestly hoped that at all events a large section of that House would refuse to take part in that job— because a job it was, and nothing else. If the Prime Minister had carte blanche, why did he not charge the amount to the people whose attorney he had been? Dealing with the compensation, the hon. member went on to say how many men were there on the Rand mines who had anything like security? He (Mr. Creswell) would not give more than a couple of months’ average for any one of the strike breakers. The Prime Minister had been awfully generous at the expense of the taxpayers—and had given these men £300; but whether it was £20 or £300, it did not affect the principle. The country was well aware, and the country would see that that payment was simply another of those transactions between the Prime Minister and his mining friends to make things go sweetly in that House for a time.

said it was all very nice to criticise after the event, but not a single hon. member had suggested what the Government should have done. Had the Government not paid this £47,000 it might have cost the taxpayer perhaps ten times that amount. What would have been the position if this incendiarism on the 5th of July had gone on, if the natives had broken loose and if pandemonium had been allowed to reign supreme? Women and children would have been the principal sufferers. He thought the taxpayers had been saved large amounts by the action of the Government. When the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) had spoken of “onderkruipers ” he had given him (the speaker) rather a shock by calling honest workmen who did not agree with others by that name. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had undoubtedly acted in the national interest.

said that although he thought that the whole of this question had been fully discused during the debate on the Indemnity Bill, it appeared to him that continually more and more people were turning up who always knew things better. It was again the case of the best sailors being found ashore. (Hear, hear.) He greatly regretted the remarks made by the hon. member for Boshof, who had called honest workmen “onderkruipers,” and supported the unsound doctrine which they had never before heard of in South Africa. If there was one man who was deserving of their protection it was the man who earned his bread by the sweat of his brow—(hear, hear) —and he (the Prime Minister) was sure that the people of Boshof did not agree with the doctrine preached by the hon. member. They had to deal in this case with men who had been prepared to give their labour—why should this stigma be thrown on them? Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said he wished to appeal to this House to pass the vote as it stood. It was hardly necessary for him again to go into the whole history of the Kleinfontein strike. They had heard these attacks by the leader of the hon. members on the cross-benches, on the mining magnates—attacks which he had kept up for the past ten years, and they had also heard his abuse of himself (the Prime Minister). When listening to the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) he (the Prime Minister) had received the fixed impression that his remarks aimed at nothing but bringing the Government into disrepute. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the Prime Minister said that although he did not wish to say that he agreed with the initial action of the Kleinfontein mine, he thought that after they posted their notice—he would not discuss affairs prior to then—and when they told the men who had gone out on strike that they could come back by a certain date, that they were perfectly entitled to engage others when the men did not return by the date mentioned. If a man did not want to work, well, he (the Prime Minister) could not force him or say anything to him, but at the same time no one should be able to prevent him from working if he desired to do so. (Hear, hear.) Neither should he be allowed to burn down houses. If he did do it, it was the duty of the Government to prevent it. It had been said by certain hon. members that the strikers were the most peaceful people in the world. (Laughter.) They could see how peaceful these men were by the statements made by this gentleman who had seen fit to banish himself from the country, and who now, when he was away in Australia, was making all kinds of speeches in which he admitted that it had been the intention on the night of the 5th of July to burn down the whole of Johannesburg. (Hear, hear.) This man left the country on his own account and must have seen that there was something wrong. That person had boasted in Australia that he was present when Park Station was burnt. The speaker had caused inquiries to be made as to whether the man had made the statement, and found out that he had The statements made by him only proved the correctness of the impressions formed by himself (the Prime Minister) and the Minister of Defence in Johannesburg on the 5th of July. (Hear, hear.) This was a representative of the class of people they had had to deal with. Well, when he (the Prime Minister) came to Johannesburg on the afternoon of the fifth of July he saw that unless matters were stopped Johannesburg would be blown up that evening. Of course, the Government had sufficient men at its disposal there to kill thousands of people, but even though they could have done that, they could not have given the protection required by the citizens, because for that purpose they would have wanted a far larger force. What would hon. members have said if, knowing that the Government could have settled matters without further bloodshed, they had allowed thousands to be shot down? But it was again a case of the best sailors being ashore. He (the Prime Minister) was prepared to take the responsibility for what he had done throughout South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) He knew the people of this country as a people who loved law and order. He loved that people and had served them all his life, and would continue to do so. (Cheers.) Well, when he saw what the position was, he summoned the leaders of those people, whose mouthpieces were seated on the cross-benches. (Ministerial cheers.) They discussed the position, and after that came to an agreement. Subsequently they consulted the mine-owners. These latter took up a perfectly natural attitude. They said: “We cannot kick out these men at the New Kleinfontein. We have enough men to carry on the work, and we have made agreements with them to do it. The others went out at their own sweet will.” On the other hand, the leaders of the strikers claimed that the men working in the mine should be made to leave. The mine-owners replied that they could not agree to the proposal. When he saw what the position was he told the mining magnates he had to assume full responsibility. (Ministerial cheers.) He either had to tell the strikers to go on and do as they pleased or he had to tell the mining magnates to give way. The result was that he had acted as he had done. (Ministerial cheers.) The mine owners would not give way and send away their new men. But those new men were the only hindrance to a settlement, and in order to prevent great disaster the Government thought it was their duty in the general interests to compensate those men for their loss of employment and so remove that, the only remaining hindrance to a settlement. No one had yet adduced one single argument to show him that he had not acted in the interest of the country. Mr. Creswell did not know what had happened. He went to Rhodesia, and only returned when the matter was finished, but to-day he was the cleverest of them all. (Ministerial cheers.) Hon. members on the cross-benches had complained that there was no security of tenure on the mines. Well, what had the Government done? All they did was to try and give more security. (Cheers.) They should try and be honest in this matter, and not try and make a little party capital out of it. What they had done had been done in the true interests of the country. Had they not acted in that way the intentions expressed by the man who had banished himself would have been carried out, and what then? Costly buildings would have been blown up and many lives lost and instead of it costing the taxpayers £47,000, it would have cost them hundreds of thousands. (Ministerial cheers.) After all, the peace which was concluded was a cheap peace. (Ministerial cheers.) He had had no time to consult Parliament, but had to act in a hurry. Proceeding, General Botha said he regretted the amendment which had been introduced by Mr. Merriman, as it would not help them a bit. The right hon. gentleman wanted them to pay the money out of the Bewaarplaatsen funds, as was done with the Miners’ Phthisis funds.

I said half must be paid by the Government and the other half by the mine-owners.

Well, if they had done an illegal and wrong act, then he did not see that that would make it any better. Surely the right hon. gentleman did not want him to commit a breach of faith with the mine-owners, and he did not think the right hon. gentleman was acting rightly towards the Government in proposing that. It could only bring about division. If the amendment were accepted the Government would have to bring in another Bill at an early date, and they could not pass a resolution now which would be dependent on future legislation.

said that he thought the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister had wilfully drawn a red herring across the trail. He (Mr. Hull) did not think that the right hon. gentleman the hon. member for Victoria West ever made the suggestion that the Prime Minister now placed in his mouth. All that the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West proposed was that that sum of £46,000, being moneys already paid out, and could not be got back, must be voted by that Parliament. At this point the speaker was interrupted, and remarked to the Chairman that on previous occasions when hon. members had been interrupted the Chairman had called them to order; the professional claque for the Government should also be called to order. Proceeding, he said the Prime Minister had not said a word about the policy of the Government with regard to the bewaarplaatsen money. He (Mr. Hull) understood last year there was a suggestion to deal with the be waarplatsen fund by giving 50 per cent—.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now. (Cheers.)

It is quite impossible to hear what the Chairman said.

You cannot discuss the policy of the Government regarding the bewaarplaatsen fund. (Cheers.)

said he did not propose to discuss the policy regarding the bewaarplaatsen fund. The Prime Minister had not indicated the policy, but he (Mr. Hull) had understood from speeches made previously in the debate that it was the intention that 50 per cent should go to certain mine-owners and 50 per cent should go to the Government. He had gathered that from the speeches that had already been made, and no exception had been taken. Well, if that was the case, he would strongly object to the money being paid from the bewaarplaatsen fund. He understood from the amendment of his right hon. friend that this money was to be taken out of the fund.

The amendment was to reduce the vote to £47,780.

But the Government was to find the money by appropriating a similar amount from the bewaarplaatsen fund, surely then it was competent for him to refer to that fund, and if the idea was that half of the money should be found by the Government he entirely objected to it.

His impression was that the whole of the proceeds derived from the bewaarplaatsen belonged to the State and to the State only. He wanted to make again the proposition he had made before, and in which both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had acquiesced. He was curious to know when they had changed their minds. The whole of the proceeds derived from the sale of the bewaarplaatsen belonged to the State and to the State only, and upon that basis he was perfectly willing to agree to support the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, when he suggested that those two items should be carried to the bewaarplaatsen fund. The effect would be that the State would pay the whole of the £47,000 in another way, and if it was the intention of the Government to despoil the State of 50 per cent of the bewaarplaatsen money he was prepared to say that 50 per cent, belonged to the State, and for that reason only he was prepared to support the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West. The Prime Minister said that in the earlier stages of the trouble the mine was to blame, and later on the mine was in the right.

was understood to deny that.

What did the Prime Minister say? Were the mines always wrong? If the mines were in the right in the later stages he did not know why the Prime Minister should not admit it.

said he was not then prepared to argue whether the mine management was right or wrong in the earlier stages, but afterwards they did everything possible to put the matter right.

said he was perfectly satisfied, and would take that explanation. In the earlier part they might be wrong, but in the later stages, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, they were right. Well, he would agree with the Prime Minister that in the later stages they were right, but he could not understand the action of the Minister of Defence on the 4th and 5th of July when they made that great coup. Why did they insist upon the faithful men being kicked out and the strikers being taken in? The strikers were wrong, according to the Prime Minister. Both the Minister and the hon. member for Germiston had said that on the 5th of July the Government received carte blanche from the heads of the mining industry to make whatever settlement they pleased. (“No, no.”) Then if that was not so the hon. member for Germiston was wrong.

was understood to deny that.

said he knew there would be a contradiction, and that was why he put it like that. The Prime Minister said he received carte blanche to make whatever settlement he could.

said he would quote from the “celebrated document,” and proceeded to read: “After a discussion they came to the conclusion that for reasons which were pointed out and which they thought paramount, they would leave it entirely in the hands of the Government to make any arrangement they might think fit to stop the bloodshed and disorder that was going on.” (Cheers.)

said he thanked the Minister of Finance for giving him the very words he used, and he said again that those words meant that the Government had obtained carte blanche. They got power of attorney from the mining industry. The Government received the fullest authority from the heads of the mining industry to make whatever settlement they could, and they went back to Messrs. Bain and Co. and concluded a treaty. Instead, however, of saying that any compensation that should be made should be paid by the mines in the responsible area, they did nothing of the kind; they would take the responsibility upon themselves. That action was after there had been full notice and full warning from the heads of the mining houses that they would not pay. They had taken those men on contract and did not want to get rid of them. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, in order to bring off a great coup, agreed that the cost should be paid by the State. (Hear, hear.)

Supposing that this money had not been paid out, and if the question were placed before the Committee for the first time, he wondered how many members on the back benches would vote for the proposal that the State should pay this compensation. (Cheers.) Don’t let them run away with the idea that, because the money had already been paid, therefore they ought to stand by their Government. That was not the test. Suppose the money had not been paid, what would they say? (Ministerial cries of “Pay it.”) He did not agree with them, but thought they should impose a tax on the area that caused the trouble.

said that, as the discussion was becoming unpleasant, he rose for the purpose of saying a few words to calm the anger of the Prime Minister, who fell foul of him—as the Prime Minister often did—because he brought forward unpleasant matters. But they were equally unpleasant to him (Mr. Merriman), and he would rather be at home than sitting here trying to do what he considered to be his duty. Why did he bring this motion forward? Because he saw the ship steering straight for the rocks, and a state of affairs coming that was going to be alarming—(Labour cheers)—not only for the people sitting there who were shouting now —(laughter)—but for a very different class— the class that had been led astray. When in his own humble way he did sometimes make suggestions, how were they always met? With hostility and contempt. Some day or other the Prime Minister would find that “he who watches over a beaten host must often sit alone.” It was a very unpleasant position, but he (Mr. Merriman) considered it his duty to do the best he could for this country. He felt perfectly certain that the way we were going was not the best way for the country. There was nothing unusual in the motion he had made, but the Prime Minister said it would be tearing up an agreement. It did nothing of the kind As the Prime Minister ought to know perfectly well, any money he promised could only be a promise subject to the vote of this House, which was the guardian of the public purse and the representative of the taxpayer. (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister never heard anything except what was agreeable to him, except in Parliament. This was the only place where one heard the truth. People who went to the Prime Minister on a deputation were not likely to give him the plain truth; but if the Prime Minister went about as he (Mr. Merriman) did, he would know that there was a very strong feeling in every class of the community with regard to this £47,000, which people considered had fallen on shoulders upon which it ought not to have fallen. If any disturbance had taken place like this in Ireland, the area in which that occurred would have specially been taxed to pay the cost. But there was no machinery for doing that here.

He (Mr. Merriman) was not anxious to refuse the money, but, at the same time, it occurred to him that the only way in which we could get the people responsible for this row to pay their fair share was by the means he proposed (Hear, hear.) He had done this duty to the country by proposing it. I laboured for peace (concluded Mr. Merriman), but when I make a fair offer, they prepared for battle. But I shall go on labouring for peace, and I am sorry it is met in such a way. It seems to me hard that the only men who are punished for the whole of this miserable business are the taxpayers and the distinguished officer—to whom I think South Africa owes a debt— who sent troops off before he had authority to do so. That man is taken away from his command. Why? I’m afraid vote catching is not only found in South Africa. Why is he taken away from his command—a man to whom South Africa is indebted? There is an amnesty proclaimed with regard to all the other people. I do feel it is a great injustice.

said he had listened with great regret to the words which had just fallen from the right hon. member, words which were not justified, which were irresponsible, and should not come from a man of distinction. His right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman knew as little about the facts of the case as he did about General Hart, and he had no reason to make this statement. He assured his right hon. friend that it was not necessary for the Prime Minister to come to this House or to listen to him (Mr. Merriman) to hear unpleasant things. The simple question to be decided was— did the Government in taking certain action on July 5 act in the interest of certain mine-owners or act in the interest of the State? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. member and several other members, including the hon. member for Cape Town Central, assumed that what the Prime Minister did on July 5 was dictated entirely by his concern for the interest of the mine-owners. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was not the mines that were affected but Johannesburg—the whole of the Reef. If special steps had to be taken by the Government to restore law and order, it was not done in the interest of the mines, but in the interest of the State. (Hear, hear.) That was the only test. On what grounds could the Government go to the mines for a contribution towards this expenditure? The only mine he could call upon to contribute would be the New Kleinfontein. The only strike breakers that were paid off in order to secure peace on this occasion were the employees on the New Kleinfontein. On what ground could that mine be called on to contribute? It was the only mine working, and it did not require any protection from the Government and it had a full complement of White miners. The Government interfered. It was obviously impossible and unfair to call upon the New Kleinfontein to con tribute. On what grounds could the others have been called upon to contribute? Then they must call on the merchants, and finally they must end with the Union. He did not see any force whatever in the argument that the mines should have contributed. The action which was taken by the Prime Minister was taken in the interest of the State in order to prevent grave bloodshed and great destruction of property. The action which was taken on that occasion had the effect of safeguarding the revenue of the country. (Ministerial cheers.) But for this action the loss incurred would have been far greater than the sum which was paid out. The whole of the argument of the right hon. member fell to the ground. Why not appropriate the amount from the bewaarplaatsen, the right hon. member had asked. He was astonished to see his right hon. friend supported by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) who had become the new understudy and the understudy for the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey). (Laughter.) But he had not learnt his lesson yet. (Laughter.) The whole of the right hon. gentleman’s argument was that the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen should be divided between the State and the mine-owners, and yet he was supported by the hon. member for Barberton, whose whole object was to appropriate the whole of the proceeds of the bewaarplaatsen. Suppose the amendment were adopted, and the “Barbertonian ” view prevailed. What would the result be? It would be exactly what the Government was proposing. (Ministerial cheers.) Why then did his hon. friend support the amendment? His hon. friend (Mr. Hull) was sadly degenerating on those benches over there—(laughter)—not only in politics, but in logic. (Laughter.) He (the Minister) could not see any reason for that action. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had been perfectly right. That money had been spent, and an appropriation ought to take place, if not in that Bill, then in another Bill, and why not in that Bill, then? Why should they wait for the bewaarplaatsen? The Government intended to go on with the Bill.

said he rose to a point of order. He had not been allowed to refer to the matter, and here was the Minister doing so. He did not trust the Government; and that was why he was prepared to support the amendment.

Well, I assure you that that will not break my heart. It won’t break the hearts of any of my colleagues.

Nor of the cause!

went on to say that he thought it was perfectly simple. They had no reason to charge any part of the community or any of the mines, and that being so, that was the proper way to deal with it, and he therefore asked the Committee to agree to it.

said that the Minister of Finance had made out such a fine case that one was apt to conclude that it was nothing but right that the State should pay. In July, the Government had got power to act according to circumstances. In the newspapers they had seen the word “onderkruipers” used for strike-breakers. The Prime Minister was shocked, and so was the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Cronje), because the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) had used the word. The word was simply used for strike-breakers. What attitude had the mine-owners adopted? They had had the right to take strike-breakers, which the Government had given them to relieve them, and the Government had been, as it were, between the devil and the deep sea, with the mine-owners on the one hand and the strikers on the other. The Government had given way to both. In giving way to the strikers, the strike-breakers had to be discharged, and now the taxpayers of the country were called upon to pay that £47,000 which was said to be a payment towards free labour. But had free labour really been protected? Had the men who did not belong to the Unions been protected? He had nothing against the Unions, and they should be recognised if they worked properly, but if he did not want to join a Union they had no right to force him to join. He did not believe in coercion. He could assure the Prime Minister that that question of the payment of £47,000 had been raised all over South Africa, and had led to great dissatisfaction. He did not think it was more than right that steps should be taken against the mine-owners who had benefited by the action of the Government, and they should pay the money as, in the first instance, they had been the origin of the difficulty. Why had the question of the bewaarplaatsen not been solved yet? They had now had it before them in that House or had had it discussed for three years running. He felt doubtful about the Government in that respect, and therefore would vote for the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West.

supported the amendment. The Minister had said that the Government was going to bring in a Bill to give half of the bewaarplaatsen money to the mine-owners. This was an additional reason for the acceptance of the amendment. The Prime Minister had referred to Kendall, but the latter in a speech in Australia had said that women and children had been killed with pick-handles. That was untrue. How much, then, was true of the rest of his statements? Had the Minister, who spoke of breach of faith, promised the magnates that they would have to pay nothing? There was a good deal of drought in the Transvaal, and it was necessary to keep the expenditure as low as possible. That could best be done by paying the money out of the bewaarplaatsen fund, the half of which was the property of the State.

wanted to know if he was correct in assuming that the bewaarplaatsen fund was held in trust by the Government and that there are people who are entitled to share in that fund? If that was so, how was it that they had hon. members asking the Government to debit this fund with the amount of the vote under consideration It was only reasonable to suppose that they could pot debit people who had had nothing to do with these disturbances, and he certainly thought that those people who had a share in the bewaarplaatsen should be paid without making any deductions. The first thing that must appear to those who studied the causes of these disturbances in July last was that the mines had nothing to do with it. These causes were fully gone into by a Commission, but nothing was stated in their report that the mines were responsible. It was clearly the disregard of the strikers in summoning a meeting which had been prohibited by the authorities, and it was this meeting that gave rise to the disturbances. If the Government were justified in taking steps to prevent the destruction of property in January last, so were they justified in doing so in July of last year. The question was: The money had been spent, and the Government had come to the House to have its action ratified, and he took it that those who had voted for the Indemnity Bill would also vote with the Government on this occasion. (Cheers.)

said the Minister had ignored the fact that the whole trouble originated with the Kleinfontein Mine, and from that mine the strike had spread to all the other mines. They had all heard how the mines had given the Government carte blanche to do what it liked. In that case should not the payment of the costs be undertaken by those who gave the instructions? If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence in July had made that part of the arrangement clear that the mines had to pay, the New Kleinfontein would have paid the money, and would have been only too glad to get the strike ended. Would the Minister tell the House why the Kleinfontein management should not pay? No doubt the Government and the mines hoped by suppressing the movement that the reduction in the wages that would follow would recoup them for the expense they had been put to. They had managed to scoop in, out of the pockets of the men, about half-a-million. Both the mines and the Government had stood to win enormously from this affair. The whole thing turned upon the presence of the strikers. The Kleinfontein management had entered into an agreement with the men they had taken on in room of the strikers. They were under an obligation to the strike-breakers, and they should liquidate that obligation. Why should the taxpayers of the whole of South Africa pay? Those debts were incurred in fighting a battle on behalf of the mine-owners, to enable them to reduce wages, and the mine-owners should meet their own obligations.

said he had been away from Parliament for some time in the Free State, and now, on his return, he began to realise that it was time that Parliament began to attend to the business of the country outside the Witwatersrand area. For two months the House had been busy with what should be done for the people on the Witwatersrand, but he had not heard anything about what was to be done for the farmers of the Free State, who were as much entitled to consideration of that House as the workpeople of the Witwatersrand, and were suffering from serious grievances. He was strongly opposed to the proposal to take that money from the pockets of the taxpayers. He did not approve of getting at a result by devious means, and they should not ear-mark money from a trust fund they had not decided how to dispose of. It would be simpler to say they would not pay the money out of the taxpayers’ money, or if they did, the Government should institute a tax of some form or other.

held that the people responsible for the quarrel at the New Kleinfontein should be made to foot the bill, and not the taxpayer. He, for one, was prepared to say that the people of the part of the country represented by him did not agree to the taxpayer being made to pay this £47,000. He denied that hon. members who objected to the Government’s action only did so in order to bring the Government into disrepute. They wanted peace in South Africa, and would not achieve that unless they rendered full justice to every section of the population. It was useless to say that they must not cry over spilt milk. Nor did he agree with the hon. member for Winburg, who said that the taxpayer had got off very cheaply. If the Government had taken what was the right step at the moment, the Government could yet come to this House and ask them to tax the mines to the extent of £47,000. by means of a special tax. He intended to support the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West.

said in regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Serfontein), that, after all, the strikers had threatened to destroy the property of the taxpayers. If the hon. member went to his constituents he should tell them that the strikers had been doing their utmost damage to the property of the taxpayers. (Hear, hear.) As to the proposal that the money should be taken out of the bewaarplaatsen. money, he wished to point out that that was, after all State money as well, or at least half of it. They should stop all this hypocrisy and speak straight out. Mr. Geldenhuys went on to deprecate the hon. member for Boshof having referred to the people concerned as “onderkruipers. ”

said he had not intended throwing any stigma on these men. He had simply translated “strike breakers” as “onderkruipers.” He did not use the word in a contemptuous sense.

proceeding, said he had the greatest respect for these men who had gone down the mine and he deprecated the practice of dubbing them with opprobrious epithets, and he was glad the hon. member had repented the use of the expression. The Government had acted in the interests of the whole country. If the Government had not paid this £47,000, it might have cost them ten times as much.

That is a matter of opinion.

held that the Government had acted in the interest of the country. If Johannesburg had been blown up, the rest of the country would have meant very little, and he thought after hearing the explanation of the Prime Minister everyone should agree to what had been done.

said that the debate showed how hard some members of the House were to find reasons to support the Government. They had listened to speeches such as that from the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Van der Riet), he thought it was, who had said that they had no right to call upon the Kleinfontein Mine or any other mine, because the whole of the trouble in Johannesburg had been caused by the Strike Committee. Why should notice have been given of the meeting in Market-square? No notice had ever been given of previous meetings held there. The hon. member went on to deal with the characters of the strike breakers, and said that they had every right to call them “scabs,” and they were indebted to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) for a new term to describe these “blacklegs.” If the men came there freely why did the Kleinfontein Company pay them double wages? The whole of the country was scoured—even from within the gaols—in order to obtain these so-called free labourers. “Onderkruipers,” although he did not know the meaning of it, seemed a good name for them. The Prime Minister had tried to play on the feelings of hon. members so as to get them to support him through thick and thin. Hon. members had referred to the burnings at Benoni, but they were the direct result of women and children being shot down in Johannesburg.

How many women were shot?

One.

Not one.

She either had a shot from a bullet or a ricochet. Continuing, Mr. Madeley wished to know at what particular stage of the proceedings the New Kleinfontein Company put itself in the right. The mines were never right. The hon. member proceeded to discuss the position of honour of the mine management. They had an obligation to these men who had been taken in. Whitehead, the mine captain, was one of those whom the Kleinfontein men insisted should be cleared out, but the mine-owners were bound in honour to keep him on. Where was Whitehead now, however?

The hon. member is discussing the condition of the mine-owners.

said that money was paid so that the company should not break their word of honour. Proceeding, he referred to the amount of £3,205 compensation for injuries, and instanced the case of a blacksmith’s apprentice, 18 years of age, who had been drawn to the scene of the trouble out of pure curiosity and was shot, with the result that his spine was touched with the bullet, and his right arm and hand were absolutely useless. He had his life before him and would be absolutely unable to follow his trade. But the Government in their parsimony had not granted him a single sixpence, and now they were asking the House to pass this amount of £66,000 as compensation for the strike-breakers. It was a matter for shame, and the House should mark its sense of feeling for the Government by denying that vote.

said they had heard nothing of the part the member for Springs had played in the burning of the shop at Benoni, and a little more detail about that affair would have been more to the point. He (Mr. Botha) was quite prepared to give the member for Springs the name of his informant. He (Mr. Madeley) had admitted that he was present at the burning of those premises, and when met by a policeman who asked him, as a member of Parliament, to assist in quelling the disturbance, replied: “I don’t care a damn if they burn the whole of Johannesburg.” (Cries of “Shame.”) Was it to be expected that that Committee was going to attach the slightest importance to a man who was condemned out of his own mouth? Could the hon. member expect them to believe anything he said? He (Mr. Botha) hoped the people outside that House would learn to know the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) as well as they knew him inside that House. (Cheers.) The statement he (Mr. Madeley) made in that House, and which went forth to the country, would lead the public to believe that he was a man who wanted to see the country properly governed, and he (Mr. Botha) thought it was time the people knew him as he (Mr. Madeley) knew himself.

wished to deny the statement made by the last speaker.

I can give you the name if you like.

I know the name.

Open confession is good for the soul.

said the words he had been charged with uttering were absolutely false, and he was prepared to resign his seat if the member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Botha) would resign his, on that question, namely, the place where it was supposed to have been said.

I cannot allow challenges to be thrown out liker that.

said it had nothing to do with the vote. He could understand the hon. member feeling sore, and his jaunt to Bloemfontein had not been very successful.

No, it was very successful.

I am prepared to meet the hon. member before any industrial community on this question. The hon. member knows that he dare not take up that challenge, and if the hon. member, instead of flying to Bloemfontein, had stayed in this House he would have heard me give a deliberate and categorical denial to these statements. Will the hon. member bring this policeman up?

Yes.

I never discussed this question with any policeman at all, and I will bring witnesses in this Gowan and Taylor incident; I will bring a man in particular who had his shop destroyed. I will bring him as a witness. The hon. member has made a most contemptible attack on me, and one which should not be allowed in this House, and one which I challenge him to make outside. I have no money, and I challenge him to make it outside.

You have no money.

I publicly dub that individual as a liar.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, you must make the hon. member withdraw—calling an hon. member a liar

said he thought the hon. member had called the man who had informed the hon. member (for Bloemfontein) a liar, not the hon. member.

said that in the confusion caused by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, who had apparently taken on the position of Leader of the Opposition, he had been unable to catch the Chairman’s eye. He must congratulate the hon. member on the extreme delicacy of his speech. He had accused the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) of being guilty of impudence and hypocrisy. They, on those benches, had been told in that House that they should mend their manners, and that they should put their matter in a more agreeable way, and then they would get a better hearing; but they had never accused an hon. member of impudence and hypocrisy. Proceeding, the hon. member said that, although he had not called men scabs and blacklegs in that House, he was quite prepared to do so in a public meeting, and he thought that 99 out of 100 of the working-class would endorse those epithets. The hon. member then went on again to deal with the Industrial Disputes Act of the Transvaal, and said that the men had a perfect right to consider it a dead letter, seeing that the mine-owners also did so.

He maintained that the men had as much right to select their representatives as the Chamber of Mines had It had been urged that the men concerned should pay the strike-breakers; hon. members on the cross-benches thought the money should be paid by the mines. Personally, he did not agree that the money should come out of the bewaarplaatsen fund. As to the strikers, he supposed it was useless trying to persuade hon. members that strikers were not brutes. As a rule, the men consulted their wives before going on strike; but, in 99 cases out of 100, the wives would rather suffer all sorts of privations than that their husbands should remain at work and bear the brand of Cain. The contribution to the compensation for injuries fund (went on Mr. Andrews) was a very meagre one. He next referred to the July riots, and said, naturally, the Government was not anxious that the full list of casualties inflicted on that occasion should be made known. As to Park Station, it was not burned down only a paltry tin goods shed was destroyed. He wished he had heard one expression of regret from the Government—or its supporters, the Opposition—for slaughtering these people in Johannesburg—making widows and orphans of hundreds of people, and wounding for life many others, although it was well known that these people were just as innocent—possibly more so—than hon. members sitting here. They had no right to vote, and he protested strongly against the voting, of £14,000 for the slaughter of innocent citizens. They were greatly agitated in England because a couple of people had been killed in Mexico, but hon. members laughed at the slaughter of 20 citizens of Johannesburg. In conclusion he said the working-people of all countries were the taxpayers as hon. members would know if they studied economies, but they did not study; they read the “Cape Times ” instead.

said at the recent election at Bethlehem one of the points raised by him was this payment of the £47,000. The Government candidate had suffered a heavy defeat on this same question at Bethlehem. The public of the Free State certainly were not at all pleased with the payment of this £47,000. As to the use of “onderkruiper, ” Mr. Wessels held this was a word used in daily conversation, and did not bear the interpretation attached to it by the Prime Minister. As to the making of election speeches, he (Mr. Wessels) could not be accused of making such speeches, as he had just fought an election against a candidate placed there by the Government. Dealing with the point under discussion, the speaker said that the people had asked the Government on many occasions to come to their assistance in regard to urgent matters, but there had been no response. The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West only meant the paying of this money out of what was a doubtful Government fund. The whole country would be in favour of the amendment, as they did not want the money to be taken direct from the pockets of the taxpayer. They could not close their eyes to the future. Where were the recent elections leading them to?

put the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, and declared the “Noes ” had it.

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

Ayes—19.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Currey, Henry Latham

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Merriman, John Xavier

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christiaan Andries

Wessels, Johannes, Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

H. M. Meyler and Charles G. Fichardt, tellers.

Noes—58.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal. Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Harris David

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christian

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Amendment accordingly negatived, and the amendment proposed by Mr. van Niekerk dropped.

The vote was then put and agreed to

asked if it were fair that the Exchequer Account should bear the whole cost of calling out of the Defence Forces under Martial Law. The Railway Administration should bear, if not the whole, at any late a large portion of this item. After all, the main expenditure was incurred not to suppress a riot, or to put down a revolution, but to protect the main lines of traffic. (Hear, hear.) It was a railway strike in the first instance that caused this expenditure. From a purely accounting point of view, it was only right that the Railway Administration should bear the whole cost, as the railways were run on business lines. If that were not done it would be departing from the spirit, if not from the letter, of the Act of Union. If the Minister of Defence had not been Minister of Finance, he would have taken uncommonly good care to see the Railway Department was debited with this expenditure.

said he did not know what the Minister of Railways would say to this proposal, but personally he would like to see it done. (Laughter.) However, they had been discussing the matter between them, and if necessary it would be readjusted later on on the main Budget. If there were any surplus on this year’s working of the railways it would be carried forward, and therefore the matter need not be settled at this stage.

said the matter was an important one and as the hour was late he would suggest that progress be reported.

appealed to the Prime Minister to allow progress to be reported. The House wanted more detailed information as to how the Government’s policy had been carried out. He maintained that the House was entitled to have this information. They had already passed votes to the amount of a million sterling that afternoon and he could not think that the Minister wished to shirk his duties to Parliament. He moved to report progress.

The motion was declared to be negatived.

did not agree with the member for George (Mr. Currey). It was a question whether they should take the money for this vote out of the man at the coast or the man in the ulterior, and in that case it became a matter of the incidence of taxation. He did not agree with the proposal that in this case law and order should be kept at the charge of their railways.

moved the reduction of the sub-head “pay and allowances to members of Force, £74,000, by £7,000.

said there was a difference of opinion as to whether the money should be paid out of the Consolidated Funds or paid out of the Railway and Harbour Funds. It was perfectly true that the pretext for calling out the Defence Force was the protection of the railways. The hon. member then asked the Minister whether or not he had sent a certain telegram to the control officer with regard to the shooting down of men, without further warning, when approaching railway premises.

The Minister did not reply.

The hon. member went on to say that it was a brutal order. The Minister refused to give an answer and refused to deny it. The Minister was convicted by default. The hon. member moved the deletion of the whole amount (£177,000).

said that he had had no knowledge of what his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) was going to say at that meeting in Johannesburg, but the day before he had seen a copy of the telegram, in the identical warning, in the Lobby of that House. He recognised the words next morning. It was well known in Braamfontein.

said that he thought it was the height of insolence on the part of hon. members on the cross benches to come there, and dictate to hon. members of that House.

said he presumed the hon. members for Denver and East London supported the telegram.

What right have you to presume anything of the sort?

I have this right—

The hon. member must address the chair.

I have this right to assume—may I not even remove my eyes from the chair? I have this right—from his attitude —

The hon. member is repeatedly addressing hon. members.

I am addressing them through you, but I am alluding to hon. members. We can have no doubt that such a telegram was sent, and why I assume that the hon. member did not disapprove of it was because he is trying to shield the Minister by pretending that there is some ground for supposing that the Minister did not send the telegram. Rubbish, hypocritical rubbish. We want to know what the Minister’s answer is and if Ave insult the Minister let other hon. members take up the matter and find if the telegram was sent.

said the Minister was somewhat inattentive to the hon. member for Jeppe before the latter made any reference at all to this matter. He made a very pointed appeal to the Minister, who was busily engaged in reading and the hon. member said he desired to have the hon. Minister’s attention. He (Mr. Hull) thought the Minister was not quite fair to the hon. member. The meanest and humblest member was entitled, when he made a direct appeal to a Minister, to receive ordinary courtesy. (Cheers.) It did not matter how objectionable a question might be when a Minister was appealed to in that way he should give some attention. The impression given to him (Mr. Hull) was, that the Minister was somewhat off-handed.

Absentminded.

Probably the Minister was tired, for the hour was late. He (Mr. Hull) did not know whether there was any truth in the matter referred to, but the matter was so important that if the Minister would not deign to answer, somebody ought to say “yes” or “no” on behalf of the Government, for the charge was a very serious one. It was not enough to say they would ignore it, because it was brought forward by an offensive fellow or in an offensive way. The hon. member (Mr. Creswell) went out of his way to be courteous. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Hull) would appeal to the Minister to say whether there was any truth in the charge.

asked whether the equipment of members of the Defence Force was included in that amount.

replied in the negative.

moved to reduce the vote by £100. What he said at Johannesburg was that the telegram had all the appearance of being authentic, but that he could not vouch for it, but that he took that opportunity of making it public, and if it were not true then the Government should take the earliest opportunity of denying it. The House should express its disapproval by supporting the reduction for the vote.

said that when the burghers were called up they were transported to the nearest railway station. At the end of their service they had to walk home from the nearest railway station. Was that so?

replied in the negative.

What conclusion can one draw If the Minister will not deny it?

Draw it, by all means.

If the Minister thinks he can get the business through in that manner, he is very much mistaken. He has tried it before, and what was the result— he has had to withdraw his Bill. On two or three occasions he has presented Bills, and he has not been able to get them through, whereas his colleagues get along because of their courtesy. This business will not do. The Minister has never been a success in managing the business of the House. If the business of the House Were conducted with common-sense, we should not be, as we are to-day, in this state of confusion. I think it is a disgrace to the Minister.

said that it was a matter of the greatest importance whether the vote was put on the Railways and Harbours vote or not. The hon. member thought that in the direction they were going they would end up with a land tax, which he did not want. Personally, he would like the vote to stand over. He was sorry that the incident (about the telegram) had come up, and he thought that great harm would be done outside by the Minister not answering in the House. If the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) had put a question on the paper about it, he thought that he would have got an answer from the Minister. He hoped the question would be put to the Minister.

said that it was not as if the matter had been precipitated on the Minister. It had been in the public Press some days ago, and the Minister, no doubt, anticipated that it would come up on that vote.

said the member for Jeppe had no intention of putting the question respecting the allegations in a telegram in an objectionable manner. The attitude of the Minister of Defence he (Mr. Boydell) was inclined to think was the attitude of a guilty man. He felt confirmed in that view because it was characteristic of the Minister to stand no nonsense.

At 1.5 a.m. the House lacked a quorum. Amongst those answering the bell was the Prime Minister.

said that it did not look as if they were going to make much progress, and under the circumstances, he would ask his hon. friend to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He thought it would be advisable in the interest of the Minister himself to do so, so that when they met again, the Minister could make a full statement to the House about the matter raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. It was a serious thing to think that the telegraphic service of the country should be tapped, and already the House had appointed a Select Committee to go into that regrettable state of affairs, and it was also extremely to be regretted that such a statement as had been made by the hon. member for Jeppe should go to the country and be very much misunderstood.

said he regretted that, under the Rules of the House, he could not accept the motion.

said that if the question was fairly put, he was prepared to answer it, but he had no particulars before him. The hon. member (Mr. CresWell) had not got the information before him, and had tried to repeat from memory. If the hon. member would put his question on the notice paper, he could ask him whatever question he wanted, and it was possible to answer it. He would be quite prepared to answer the question, but that was no reason why they should not pass that vote. He had already explained the state of urgency they had with those votes, and hoped that they would come to a conclusion on that vote. Before he could say what telegrams had been sent, he had to go through the records to find out what the state of affairs was.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort might have some acquaintance with military procedure. It was not a telegram but a regimental order, and there had been no espionage.

You said a telegram had been sent.

went on to say that the following telegram had been sent to the Officer Commanding, the Rand Light Infantry: “The contents are conveyed to you for strict compliance. Exercise greatest severity, keep all strikers off the railway line or railway premises. Don’t hesitate to shoot if any attempt to enter, after warning, or if on apparently malicious intent.” Proceeding, the hon. member said he was not a baby to be dictated to as to which way he should put a question. What the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had suggested was not satisfactory, because the Rules of Order prevented their debating an answer to a question. He was quite unable to accede to the Minister’s suggestion, which was in the nature of, “ Give me my money and I will answer you afterwards.”

said he had another question to bring forward— the treatment of members of the Active Citizen Force from Natal, who were sent to the Rand last July. They suffered very severely.

said the vote referred to the events of January only.

(proceeding) appealed to the Prime Minister for the sake of his good name as a soldier to rebut the charge. Had the Ministers become quite so callous during the last eight months that they could send out orders for the shooting of citizens? The Minister of Finance was flippant, but human life seemed to be of no value at all now.

suggested that the vote should stand over so as to give time for the Minister to institute an inquiry into the matter.

moved that the vote stand over. The Minister placed himself in a very invidious position by replying with the utmost courtesy to a comparatively unimportant question by the hon. member for Weenen, but directly that hon. member touched on the much more important question, the Minister maintained a strong silence. It was regrettable, but they must accept the authenticity of that telegram in the absence of any denial from the Minister.

again asked the Minister to agree to the vote standing over.

said if the telegram were sent it was so callous that the Minister would remember it to his dying day.

suggested that progress should be reported after the vote had been taken, and then when the House reassembled the Minister could make a full statement on the question of the telegram. Assertions of that nature were bound to have a very bad effect throughout the country.

said there was no reason to delay the passing of the Bill in order to ascertain what was wanted. There were several Bills before the House on which the statement could be made. They should take the Bill, and the information desired should be given as soon as he had ascertained it.

said that surely the Minister did not want to rush through one of the most important votes before them now like that? With that highly contentious matter before the House, they had one member of the Opposition in the House.

The motion that the vote stand over was negatived.

said he wanted to call the Committee’s attention to the exact position. He first of all pointed out that this information had been put into his hands, and that he had taken the first opportunity of asking the Minister to deny it. That information, he might say, had all the appearance of being an authentic document, but the Minister had made no reply. He (the Minister) had, however, replied to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, stating that he was ready to answer the question if it was put down on the order paper, and that he wanted time to refer to original documents. They on the cross-benches were not disposed to let the matter pass, because that was the only opportunity they had of discussing it while that vote was under consideration. There could be no other explanation of the Minister’s conduct but that the allegations were true. He (Mr. Creswell) also wished it to be noted that none of the members of the Opposition thought it worth their while to be present. As it was perfectly useless continuing the discussion, he would take the Committee’s opinion on the amendment which stood in his name.

The amendment moved by Mr. Fichardt was negatived.

The motion to reduce the vote by £100 was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken at 2 a.m.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Fichardt, Haggar, Hull, Madeley, and Meyler) voted in favour of the amendment,

declared the amendment negatived.

moved to reduce the vote for miscellaneous expenses by £50.

I am not prepared to take it. The sum of £100 is quite small enough.

said the object was to test the feeling of the Committee. It was no more frivolous than to move the reduction of a vote by £1, which was frequently done,

There has been a very full and ample debate for many hours. (Ministerial cheers.)

On a totally different matter.

I have ruled.

I assure you, sir, the matter is not frivolous.

ruled that he was unable to accept this amendment as, in his opinion, it was of a frivolous character.

moved: That the Chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point as to whether, a motion for the reduction of an item in a vote by £100 having been made and disposed of, it is competent for a member to move the reduction of the same item by £50 for the purpose of testing the opinion of the Committee on a different matter from that on which the previous reduction was moved, and ask leave to sit again.

I have ruled that the second amendment is frivolous.

The motion to take the Speaker’s ruling was put and declared negatived.

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

Ayes—12.

Andrews, William Henry

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Hull. Henry Charles

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. E. S. Fremantle and P. G. W. Grobler, tellers.

Noes—45.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stepnanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Jan Christiaan Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk>

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

The motion was therefore negatived.

said that they saw from cables from London that in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for War had been asked whether any particular instructions had been given to the South African Government to destroy certain war documents, and the reply had been that no such instructions had been sent out. He would like the Minister to state whether he would explain the matter, and whether they were to understand that those particular documents that had been destroyed by fire had reference to the censorship regulations or had in no sense whatever reference to the censorship regulations which the Minister’s Department was using during the period of Martial Law.

said that was a subject for investigation by the Select Committee.

In reply to the MINISTER OF FINANCE, who asked if he understood the hon. member correctly,

said that the impression left on their minds was that those documents had been burnt in accordance with definite instructions with regard to such documents, from the Imperial Government. Last Wednesday, Mr. Arthur Henderson had asked Colonel Seeley, in the House of Commons, a question about the matter, and he had replied that no particular instructions had been given to the South African Government to destroy war documents.

on a point of order, said that the Select Committee was inquiring into that very matter.

said that the Select Committee had been appointed by the House to inquire into the disclosure of a certain telegram which he had quoted in that House. If that Select Committee was going beyond its reference and was testing the Minister’s accuracy, that was a different matter.

said that he had a copy of the instructions, and he would read it. He was understood to say that, curiously enough, while the hon. member was speaking, he had torn up that paper. These were the instructions which had been sent out with the new regulations. Proceeding, the Minister read as follows: “This supersedes censorship instruction No. so and so, all copies of which should immediately be destroyed and a certificate of destruction forwarded to the Secretary of the War Office.”

What date is that?

I cannot say that just now.

said that the Minister had not answered the second part of his question. Must they understand that the destroyed documents were not documents used during the censorship?

said that these instructions referred not to Martial Law, but to quite a different state of affairs.

Vote 34 was then agreed to.

On vote 36, Higher Education,

asked if the Minister would not now consent to report progress?

replied that there was nothing contentious in the vote, he hoped, so the Committee would proceed with the business.

said that this vote was intended to extricate the University from a difficulty. It had been stated that the Bill to regulate the grants to colleges was to be introduced into that House. He would like to know if it would be brought forward during the present session?

said that the Bill would not be introduced until the University report was forthcoming.

said that, although this vote was of considerable importance, they on the cross-benches had no intention of opposing it, as they were receiving no assistance from the Opposition.

begged to remind the hon. member for Springs that the Opposition was on the cross-benches. (Cries of “Order, order.”)

The vote was agreed to.

Vote 37, Posts, telegraphs, and telephones, was agreed to without discussion.

On vote 38, Public Works Department,

asked what the item of £350, grants to local authorities for Fire Brigade, was?

said that the amount was a grant made to the Maritzburg Council.

asked on what basis these grants were made, and if all municipalities could avail themselves of the same privilege?

said the Government had a great deal of property in various centres of the Union, and grants were made on this account.

Thanks, that is information. (Laughter.)

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 38, Buildings and bridges,

asked if it were intended to add to the offices in the neighbourhood of the Union Buildings?

The idea has been abandoned.

The vote was agreed to.

moved to report progress at 2.35 a.m.

I am not prepared to accept that.

asked if the money had already been spent?

replied that the amount had already been spent out of the contingencies fund.

asked for further information as to how the money had been expended. The latter added that not enough assistance was given to the men with only a very limited amount of capital. He protested against passing votes at that hour of the morning. It was not fair to hon. members.

said that the question which the hon. member had brought to his notice rested with the Land Board, and there were several cases which he (the Minister) had referred back to the board, as he thought that they had set too high a standard.

drew the attention of the Minister to a particular case where two partners could not both occupy the farm.

said that such a case, where one partner was working, while the other was on the farm, would be favourably considered. If the hon. member would refer the case to him he would go into it.

inquired about oversea settlers.

said that no applications had come in from oversea settlers.

asked what steps were being taken by the Government to advertise the matter in oversea papers?

said that the matter was left to the High Commissioner.

in reply to further questions from the hon. member, said that there had been more applications for land than they had been able to meet. Under section 10 there had been 400 applications. There had been 2,485 applications in all.

How many people have been settled on the land?

182 on Crown lands, 100 under section 11, and 127 under section 16.

The vote was agreed to.

On loan vote E, Irrigation, £3,130.

asked for some information about an irrigation scheme at Modder River, and another at Koedoesrand.

replied that the scheme was being proceeded with at Modder River, and at Koedoesrand the ground had been surveyed and the scheme sanctioned. He would give further information when they reached the Estimates.

said the hon. member could go to the office of the Minister.

said he was not going to be put out by remarks of that sort.

The vote was agreed to.

On loan vote F, Local works and loans, £11,100,

in reply to Mr. Orr, said that the loan to the Diocesan College came under higher education.

The vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again at the next sitting.