from W. J. P. Shaw, storeman in the Port Elizabeth Harbour Board from 1889-1896, praying that the said period may be added to his present service for pension purposes.

from J. W. van der Merwe and others, for remission of repatriation debts.

from J. P. J. Wagenaar, in Cape and Union Police Forces for over 22 years, for a pension.

from the widow of the late M. Buirski, who was killed in a railway accident in 1913, while acting as a porter at Salt River, for a pension.

The hon. member for Liesbeek division is in attendance.

Will the hon. member for Jeppe bring up the hon. member for Liesbeek?

Mr. T. Maginess was then escorted by Mr. Sampson, on his right, and Mr. Creswell, on his left, to the Table, where he took the oath of allegiance and signed the declaration, afterwards taking his seat, amid Labour cheers, by the side of Mr. Haggar.

moved that the Bill be read a second time.

said that before proceeding with the business of the day, he wished to draw attention to a cablegram which had appeared in the “Cape Times” to the effect that Mr. Harcourt had stated in the House of Commons that the clause relating to perpetual banishment in the Indemnity Bill had been deleted. He did not quite understand what that meant, as the clause in question had not been deleted either in that House or, to his knowledge, in the Senate.

said the newspaper report was misleading. The only reference to which the report could apply was the last clause in the preamble which was deleted in the Senate on his motion. The report was therefore not correct.

said that before the vote was put he wished to move an amendment deleting all the words after “that” for the purpose of substituting the following words: “This House is of opinion that a full and searching inquiry should be instituted into the whole of the circumstances attending the administration of Martial Law during January and February.” He said they were all agreed that this question had been discussed at considerable length and a great deal of evidence had been produced which went to show that there was still much behind the scenes which it was desirable the country should know. He was convinced that if a Government inquiry were made a very great deal more would come to light showing that the Government had acted with much unnecessary harshness to the people both in the Transvaal and Natal. It was necessary they should have evidence from each of those districts in which Martial Law had been proclaimed, and if the Minister had nothing to be afraid of, well, he ought to welcome the inquiry, but if there was any that had been suppressed, then he (Mr. Andrews) demanded an inquiry. He would not attempt to minimise what took place in July last, when much bloodshed took place and although the same could not be said to apply to the trouble in January last, still the occurrences which then took place were equally as important, After the July disturbances it was thought necessary to institute a Commission of Inquiry. This, however, had not been done with regard to the January trouble. He thought it equally important that there should be an inquiry into the affairs that took place at the commencement of the present year, particularly when they found that an order had been given to the Defence Force to shoot anyone found under suspicious circumstances in the vicinity of railway premises. That was a dangerous power to place in the hands of such men as were then entrusted with rifles and bandoliers. It was said that these troops were told that the rising of natives was expected on the Witwatersrand and that they were being sent to guard the people living on the Rand. It was very much like bringing the men out under false pretences. Was the Minister quite sure that these people on a future occasion, if required, would again mobilise as quickly and as readily. He warned Ministers against the danger of crying “Wolf.” The hon. member went on to refer to the fining of men and their being kept in gaol for practically nothing. He reiterated about the round-up in Benoni and the Boksburg affairs.

Does the hon. member propose to raise the whole question which is included in the Indemnity Bill?

I propose to raise the question of Martial Law.

That was the indemnity given to the Government—for acts committed under Martial Law.

I realise the position, but I want an inquiry into acts committed under Martial Law.

I must point out that the hon. member for Jeppe moved an amendment to the second reading of the Indemnity Bill, and the amendment was for the purpose of having an inquiry into all acts committed under Martial Law. I do not think it will be competent for the hon. member to move such an amendment to the second reading of this Bill. The whole matter was disposed of on the second reading of the Indemnity Bill.

said that the House had been asked to give money with which to get on with the business of the country, and he thought that they might at that stage ask for an inquiry into the grievances under Martial Law.

Such an amendment was germane to the Indemnity Bill, and would have been germane to any Money Bill, but that matter is disposed of. The whole question of Martial Law was debated and disposed of on the second reading of the Indemnity Bill.

asked whether it was not competent to endeavour to elicit a promise from the Government that such an inquiry should be held. Surely it was germane to know what these acts were which had been committed under Martial Law?

replied that the matter had been disposed of under the Indemnity Bill.

said that he must submit, with the profoundest respect, that the Government should institute an inquiry into telegraphic and telephonic messages having been tapped, and things of that kind.

I did not quite catch the words of the amendment.

read his amendment again.

ruled that he could not accept this amendment as the subject matter thereof had already been disposed of by a similar amendment proposed by the honourable member for Jeppe on the motion for the second reading of the Indemnity and Undesirables Special Deportation Bill.

said that he did not want to question Mr. Speaker’s ruling in any way, but wanted to point out that when that amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe had been moved it was practically a vote of no-confidence in the Government. Hon. members might be in favour of granting indemnity to the Government, but these hon. members might also want to have some inquiry into the acts committed under Martial Law. They might have felt compelled to vote against the former amendment but might desire to support an inquiry being held. If Mr. Speaker allowed that debate to go on it might test the feeling in that House as to whether or not there should be an inquiry subsequent to the act.

Oh, I am afraid I cannot allow it.

said that he took it that on the second reading of the Appropriation (Part) Bill they were in order in dealing with some of these matters and endeavouring to extract from the Ministers some sort of promise and undertaking on the part of the Government that such an inquiry would be held. In view of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, it appeared that the only thing they could do was to put questions to the Government to show that there were very good reasons why such an inquiry should be held, and on their failing to get any such undertaking from Government, they would have to oppose the second reading of that Bill. He assumed that that was quite in order.

said that the hon. member would be quite in order in debating the £66,000 which appeared as the amount for Industrial Disturbances, but to introduce that amendment now would not be competent.

Well, that is the course we shall take. Proceeding, he said that he had cogent reasons, which could be brought before that House, why such an inquiry should be held. During the previous debate the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman)had spoken in favour of an inquiry like that being held, and no one had been stronger than the right hon. gentleman in asking that such inquiry should be held, whether the Indemnity Bill was passed or not. In the present case, the reasons for holding such an inquiry were overwhelming. Alluding to the telegram which the Minister of Defence had sent to the Control Officer on the Rand, the hon. member said that they did not admit for a single moment that any such order had been necessitated by the circumstances, or that it had only applied to Germiston. It had applied to the whole of Johannesburg. The hon. member went on to refer to the peaceful nature of the last strike, and the calling-out of citizens in the Reserve Force, who, he said, should only have been called out in the last extremity.

said that the hon. member must not traverse all that debate over again.

pointed out that the £66,000 was in respect of the whole of these disturbances, and not only in respect of the New Kleinfontein Mine. Perhaps (he proceeded) the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs could tell him what the reason was why he (Mr. Creswell) had received a telegram a couple of days ago with a curious footnote to it, “ Delayed for Official Investigation ”? He did not know why his telegrams should be delayed for official investigation, as he thought that Martial Law had been declared off. Did the Minister realise that there had been emissaries in the ranks of the strikers, and, if so, what part had they taken?

Surely the reasons for appointing a Commission to go into all these matters was very much greater at the present time. He wished to disclaim, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, that they were actuated by any vindictiveness in the matter. They had suffered enough under the actions of Ministers to make them vindictive, but they were not actuated by any such motive. He thought that they should have the searching inquiry, because the House had agreed to indemnify the Government for all acts that it had done in good faith. Either that was a precedent for ill, or it was a precedent which could be followed in the interests of the country. In their opinion, if the same breach of law was committed again, it would result in the gravest calamity. They should know the truth of what was done by those who carried out the law, and those against whom Martial Law was carried into effect. They wanted to know how the Defence Force conducted itself.

I can’t allow that.

We want to know how the £77,000 had been expended.

pointed out that this dealt with June and July, when Martial Law was not in force

pointed out that the amount he referred to had reference to the amount expended in calling out the Citizen Force in January.

Which page?

Page 22.

Oh, yes, the hon. member can go on.

said they wanted to know the truth of matters they had so continually complained about. They wanted facts. They got one statement from the Minister and other statements from other sources. Hon. members had seen the affidavits that had come from England. In the affidavit of Mr. Bain it was distinctly stated that force had been used in order to make them embark.

That was sworn evidence. They wanted to know whether or not these things took place. They had the Minister saying that no force was used, and on the other hand they had this sworn affidavit. The question of indemnifying was one thing, but the record of what that House had indemnified and what took place, so that the House in the future might not take leaps into the dark, was what was wanted. He thought it was owing to the country, the House, and the Ministers themselves, that a real investigation should be carried out. Now that the fires had burned down, let them have the real facts.

said he hoped that the House would support the suggestion that this investigation should take place. Many statements had been made from those benches which were really accusations against the good faith of the Government. Though they had tried hard they could get no reply from the Government, and the country was right in assuming that these charges were true and correct. If the charges were true, the Government should answer for its misdeeds. If the charges were not true, the Government should have no hesitation in holding the inquiry that was suggested. Since the Indemnity Bill had become law—and become law in what he might call such indecent haste—they had received corroboration of the charges made and new charges, and these charges were of such a character that the Government should be made to answer them. There was the question of the arrest of the whole executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Shortly after they were arrested they were released. But the matter did not end there, and he went on to quote a letter from the General Secretary of the A.S.E. in England to Mr. Harcourt, asking the latter whether the statement that these arrests had been made was correct. Mr. Harcourt replied.

was understood to point out that this matter was not germane to the discussion. He would also point out that the hon. member was infringing rule 70, which did not allow a member to traverse a debate already closed.

said he did not wish to transgress the rules of the House, but he wished to point out that they had not this information at their disposal when the Indemnity Bill was passed.

The hon. member is—

said that Mr. Harcourt announced that no arrests of members of the executive had taken place. The Minister admitted that they were arrested, whereas Mr. Harcourt said they were not. This was the sort of thing that pointed to the necessity of a close investigation. Then there was the censorship of telegrams.

Oh, no.

This matter has never been mentioned before, sir.

The hon. member must know that he cannot—

On a point of order, sir—

I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, sir.

Oh, no, no, no.

I want to know your ruling, sir. (Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

I made that plain, I thought, to everybody.

said he wished to know whether they were not allowed to mention matters connected with Martial Law during that debate.

Yes; that is my ruling.

Not during this session?

was understood to say that an hon. member might refer to the matter incidentally if it arose upon a particular vote at any time.

was understood to say that that was different to raising the whole question again, which would be a transgression of the rules of the House.

Are we not entitled to refer to this matter at this stage? Here we have a whole schedule.

The schedule is not now before the House.

said he was not anxious to evade Mr. Speakers ruling. He was only anxious to point out to this House how very necessary it was, in view of the charges now made, in view of the charges they could make if they were allowed, and in view of the very serious information that had come to hand since the passage of the Act, that a mere statement in that House from any single hon. member that the Government had been lacking in its duty and had committed acts which in any other people would be looked upon as crimes, should be sufficient to cause them to say that the money should not be granted until a full and complete inquiry had been held into all the circumstances.

put the question, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division.

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

declared the motion agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Thursday.

said he would like some information as to how this particular amount came to be incurred As far as he could understand, the estimates were wrong from the beginning. He would like to know whether this excess of expenditure began to be incurred at the beginning of the financial year. Apparently there had been a miscalculation on the part of the Railway and Harbour Administration. He would also like to ask the Minister whether he could explain to the House, in reference to the statement he made the other day that there had been an increase of £200,000 in the wages of the men, why, if this was in the early months of the year, it was not provided for in the Estimates for the year? It seemed to him that there had been a serious want of financial control on the part of the Railway Administration.

said he would like to call the Minister’s attention to the matter of accidents at level crossings.

said that the hon. member might raise that question on the General Estimates.

said he noticed in a footnote that it was stated that “the increased rates of pay that have been granted and the calculation of overtime on the total rate of pay, i.e., substantive wages plus local allowance in place of substantive wages only as here to fore, are also responsible for the increased expenditure.” He would like to know whether that came into force from the beginning of last year or only from July or only from the beginning of this year. In the new regulations of last year it was laid down that overtime rates should be based on the substantive wage only.

asked for information with regard to the provision made for strengthening and grading of lines.

said that, considering the experience we had had of the disastrous results of the State repairs of rolling-stock, it was high time the Minister considered dropping a considerable amount of this work and having it done by private enterprise, instead of the State having an army of 75,000 men and building up a legacy for the day when these gentlemen thought they would get hold of the reins of State.

said he had a statement from an ex-railway employee alleging that he had been removed from a station in the Transvaal because he declined to discriminate between one gold mining company and another as to the demurrage to be paid on trucks. His informant alleged that the Crown Mines did not pay demurrage until after trucks had been at the station for six hours, whereas other mines paid demurrage after trucks had been at the station for two hours only.

asked to what extent repairs were being carried out by the piece-work system.

asked what steps had been taken to provide separate railway accommodation for natives and coloured persons. Money had been voted for the purpose. In the Transvaal the position was intolerable. Slips of paper were posted on railway carriages with the word “reserved” on. These carriages were used for natives, but even then it happened that natives were placed in the same compartments as whites, especially when natives entrained at intermediate stations.

the major portion of whose reply was inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that if the hon. member for George Town would let him have particulars of the case referred to he would inquire into it. As to providing carriages for coloured people he thought he gave a full explanation on that point in reply to a question in the House the other day, in which he stated that they were going as fast as they could to build the additional carriages required, but that the construction of carriages took a very long time. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Springs, he could not give the desired information at the moment, but he presumed that the bulk of the work referred to was done by piece-work.

The vote was agreed to.

On head 12, Miscellaneous expenditure, £50,300,

said details should be given of the expenditure incurred on the various items enumerated. He asked what was the cost of the buildings destroyed by fire at Johannesburg and Benoni during the July strike.

wished to know what was being done in regard to investigations by Sir Thos. Price in America as to handling of maize.

wanted to know to what extent the Government were placing its insurance abroad? Several years ago very little of that was given out in South Africa as they went to the cheapest market. He thought it should be taken into consideration whether the difference in the saving warranted them sending their premiums oversea. He would like to know what the burning down of the Johannesburg Station cost the Government.

agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) that it was objectionable to lump five separate items into one sum. He would also like to know the expense incurred in the investigations made in America respecting the handling of maize. As this took place several years ago it appeared to be late in the day to ask for these expenses to be voted. It appeared very much like an after-thought. With regard to the cost of the stations burnt down, hon. members appeared to think that these were ornate buildings, but they were only made of wood and iron. He did not suppose the total cost would be £2,000.

wanted to know why the Minister had instructed the erection of similar buildings to those burnt down? He noticed that the new structures were still of the same type and were an eye-sore. Such buildings were very liable to take fire, and he thought more substantial structures should have been erected.

asked the Minister why the labour charges for the construction of sundry sidings were being charged to capital account?

in reply, said the amount involved in restoring Johannesburg Station was £4,500, that of Benoni £975, while the extraordinary expenditure in connection with the strike amounted to £15,500. The latter item included such charges as overtime, special payments to natives, etc., etc. With regard to insurance matters, the Railway Department was prepared to do all its insurance in South Africa, and at the present time most of the policies he believed were taken out with South African companies. He could not state precisely what amount was insured oversea as compared with that effected in his country. With regard to the investigations into the American method of handling maize, the cost amounted to £990. Very careful investigations were made which had been considered, but the Government had come to the conclusion that for the present the cost involved in building the necessary elevators would be too great. It was not a question of building an elevator here and another there, but these buildings would be required all over the country if the American method were adopted.

asked for some particulars about the loss of £2,250 on the Utrecht Railway.

Head No. 12, £50,300, Railways and miscellaneous expenditure, was then agreed to.

On head No. 28, £300, Net revenue charges—harbours,

drew attention to a notice which had appeared in the Press, in which it was stated to be the intention of the department to lengthen the South Breakwater considerably. He might say that such a course would be in direct contradiction to the advice of eminent engineers, who some years ago were called upon to give their opinions with regard to the Durban Harbour. It was then the opinion of engineers that, if the South Breakwater was lengthened beyond the North Pier, the bar would silt up. If this proposal, as stated in the newspapers, were carried out, it would seriously interfere with the progress of the port. He felt it was a matter which deserved the closest attention, and the Government ought to refuse its sanction to this change, unless it was by the advice of eminent engineers. Since. 1904, starting with the Armadale Castle, the mail steamers had regularly come into the port of Durban, and had been berthed with the greatest regularity and efficiency.

said that he wanted strongly to endorse the advice given by the hon. member for Durban, Central. The matter was a very serious one indeed, as far as Durban Harbour was concerned, and had led to a very serious controversy some years ago.

The hon. member advised the Minister to read some report, but the details were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

Proceeding, he said he hoped the Government would take immediate steps to consider the works on the South Breakwater, because the blocks were so light that, when these heavy seas broke over them, they were sometimes washed into the channel, where they were a serious danger to the navigation of the port. Had the Government definitely decided yet to have the new dry dock at Durban?

I don’t think the hon. member can discuss that on this vote.

I am only asking a question. (Laughter.)

said he wanted to draw attention to a question he had raised the previous year—the necessity of having heavier blocks

Is that an abandoned work?

It has not been proceeded with.

The hon. member must discuss it at another time, then. (Laughter.)

in replying to the hon. member for Durban, Central, said that, as the hon. member was aware, quite recently the heaviest storm that had been known in Durban had damaged the South Breakwater very much indeed, and the work which had been done had been carried out by way of repairs. The hon. member was quite correct to this extent: that it had been suggested, in order to improve the state of things in Durban Harbour, that it would be desirable to give the South Breakwater more a trend to the east, and the whole of that matter had been carefully inquired into by the Harbour Advisory Engineer, and he would promise the hon. member that it would have thorough consideration before anything was done.

said that the matter which had been raised by the hon. member for Durban, Central, was a very important one, and the question of deepening their harbours and giving every facility to ocean transport was a question which was of the highest importance to that country. He assumed that the Engineer mentioned by the Minister was a permanent official of the department. He hoped that, before his hon. friend the Minister did anything in the way of expenditure, he would consult those engineers who had had considerable experience in developing the harbour of Durban. He believed that there was an engineer resident in Durban who had an enormous knowledge of the conditions there, and had studied them for many years. They had found in that country that, on many occasions where money had been spent, instead of improving the conditions, the opposite resulted.

The vote was agreed to.

brought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure (Railway and Harbour Fund), without amendment.

moved that the Report be adopted.

There was no objection, and the motion was agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours and Mr. Neser a committee to draft and bring up a Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as adopted by the House.

brought up a Bill to embody these estimates.

moved that the House do resolve itself into Committee.

asked whether the Minister of Finance was going to make some statement as to the financial position of the country. His hon. friend had promised to do so the other day, and now they were within eight days of the end of the financial year. Unless the Minister made such a statement now, they could not get it before the end of the financial year, and he certainly did think it desirable for the Minister of Finance to make such a statement. He thought that his hon. friend would agree that it was desirable that the country should be put into a position of having information about the financial position of the country. The financial position of the country had been upset by these events during the last nine months, particularly the events in January. They had started that year with an estimated deficit of £1,800,000. That was to be partially covered by a surplus of the year 1910-1911 of £663,000, and receipts from bewaarplaatsen £61,000. The results had been much better than that estimate. As a matter of fact, taking the financial figures as published to the end of February, that was, for eleven months, the revenue showed an increase of £590,000 and the expenditure showed a decrease of £346,000, or the position had improved, as compared with the estimates, to the extent of £937,000 on the year. That, of course, was to the good, but notwithstanding that fact, there was a deficit at the end of February, as far as he could make out a net deficit of £225,500. He thought that, under those circumstances, seeing that there was that uncertainty as to the financial position, and that, further, they were so close to the end of the financial year, and the figures could be got with a close approximation to correctness, the Minister should make some statement as to what was the financial position of the country.

Oh!

No.

Not even Cape Town Harbour?

We have not spent all the money which has been sanctioned by this House. Does not the hon. member for Port Elizabeth see the necessity of slackening down in the present circumstances?

said they had heard nothing from the Minister with regard to the widespread unemployment that existed on the Rand. They received letters daily, and they were told that there was more unemployment now than there ever had been before. This was not altogether the result of the strike —much was due to the fact that the Government had failed to make proper provision for men who had worked on the mines and who had since become industrial derelicts. Then they were told that there was a good deal of victimisation going on, not only with regard to Trade Union officials, but with regard to the members of Trade Unions, and they had definite proof of that. Surely the Government should consider these matters and make some statement to the House as to what they were prepared to do in regard to the position of affairs, more particularly the insecurity of tenure of the workers in this country. It was the duty of the Government to provide outlets for the people and to bring the natural resources of the country within reach of those who could use them.

said he would like to emphasise what his hon. friend had said in regard to the unemployed question. The Minister would probably tell them that the Government were doing all they could be expected to do, because they had a Labour Bureau. He thought perhaps the occasion when the Labour Bureau in Johannesburg was made the most effective use of was when it supplied the Premier Mine with men to supplant those who had been got rid of. The Minister of Mines had been asked whether he had any information in regard to white drill sharpeners on the mines being supplanted by natives. The Minister had said that he had no information. Now, they on the cross-benches had information. There was no doubt whatever that there was a systematic replacing of whites by natives on the mines in the drill sharpening department. It might be said that more of the work was now done by machines. Even so, why should the mines put a native on at £5 a month to work a machine when there were plenty of men and youths to do that particular work? Then there was the question of victimisation. In one branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, in Johannesburg, out of about 30C or so members, they had 60 men signing the unemployment register—not loafers, but men anxious for work, victimised because they were members of a Trade Union. While we had unwilling immigrants going to other countries from South Africa, we had another stream coming in. They heard the other day of a big barber in this town who was sending away his old assistants, men who were born and bred in this country, in order to bring in men from overseas. There was only one policy that would solve the unemployed question, and that was a very liberal land policy, opening the country to the people who wished to develop the land and the resources of the country.

said he would like to make a few remarks in continuation of what the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said in regard to the expenditure on public works during the last few years. They were indebted to the Department of Finance for a very interesting return of the summary of ordinary expenditure from revenue during the last ten years. He thought hon. members who had studied that return must be rather struck by the increase in the item of public works. The expenditure from revenue under the heading of public works showed a very large increase indeed since the early days of Union. He would ignore the first financial period of 1910-1911, because it only covered 11 months. In 1911-1912 the expenditure on public works, roads and bridges, from revenue alone, apart altogether from loan expenditure, was £1,236,000. In 1912-1913 it jumped to £1,591,000, an increase of £360,000 in one year. This year in the Estimates about to be submitted to the House by the Minister of Finance they were to be asked for £1,800,000, showing an increase in the two years under those two items of nearly £6.00,000. One must admit that the Minister of Finance, of course, had not complete control of all that expenditure. A great deal of it was incurred through the Provincial Councils. But, that being so, he thought it more incumbent upon this House to keep a very watchful eye on the expenditure under these two heads.

said he was glad that attention had been drawn to these matters, because in a few months’ time we should be paying a good deal of attention to the question which had been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. It was a curious thing that during the last 12 months we had raised £14,000,000, which was almost identical with the sum that was raised by the Administration of happy memory with which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) was connected, viz., 1904-1908. During that period £14,000,000 was also raised. That £14,000,000 cost this country £750,000 in expenses, discounts, etc. It was rather curious that in all the plentitude of our power and our magnificence, our “new nation” and the whole bag of tricks, if he might use a sporting expression, we had got to pay £800,000 for the privilege of borrowing £14,000,000. That meant that we had got a permanent debt on this country on which we had to pay interest of £800,000, and we did not get a halfpenny benefit from it. That was what was called “bringing capital into the country.” We could not go on borrowing at this rate constantly. We were building up our expenditure now upon the basis of this borrowed money. One saw an army of clerks, little appointments all over the country, in regard to this money, and what was it going to lead to? If they could go and bring into this country a cargo of the microbes of work it would be much better than bringing in this capital. He had recently been reading an amusing account of the Argentine, where they had got a native population, not perhaps as good a population as we had here —(a laugh)—but a population with the same tendency, a dislike for work. There they were ready to do anything except work with their hands, which was considered to be a disgrace. They all wanted to be Caballeros. A man might be anything, but above all he might be a Government official. Unfortunately in this country we had a tendency to go on the Caballero line, and this was the result. Why would not people pay attention to the report laid on the Table of the House of the Economic Commission—a very valuable report indeed? That report pointed out that our great asset was a diminishing asset.

Within a few years they might look to see mining operations seriously circumscribed—that was, always allowing that the gentlemen on the cross-benches would allow mining to go on for a few years, but they seemed to be trying to put a stop to it in a shorter period. What would it mean if the mining industry on the Rand was to be suspended even for a few months or a year? It would mean ruin to this country. (Hear, hear.) If the gentlemen who blew up these disturbances had their way, we should have unemployment, not only on the Rand, but all over the country. And in face of that, we are going on borrowing money—that was a panacea for all our evils. It ought to make people think, not only once, but twice and three times, when they heard that this country was obliged to borrow £14,000,000 in a year. Out of that, they put £800,000 into the pockets of some amiable gentlemen in London by way of discount. All these were very serious matters. Although a man might laugh and be indifferent now, depend on it in a few years time he would not be so indifferent. But we went gaily on. We had one report from the Public Accounts Committee, showing a serious state of affairs— recklessness—an incredible recklessness— after the warnings we had had He hoped this Commission, which was going rambling round the British world—and extremely able gentlemen they were—he hoped when they brought up their report they would show how much this great fabric of Empire was built up on credit and borrowed money, and how it depended on that. It would be an interesting record, because the borrower, sooner or later, became the slave to the lender. There was no truer proverb than that. When one got a burden upon one’s self—whether one was an individual, a town, or a colony—sooner or later it became uncommonly inconvenient to pay up. He knew that his was as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He had preached this doctrine in vain; he had done more than preach, he had practised. As long as a man could go to a bank instead of working, he was likely to take the easier course, until the time came when he would be landed in some embarrassment. He thought the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) deserved the thanks of this House for calling attention to the rate at which we were borrowing money, and the dangerous mess we were likely to get into unless we pulled up very soon.

said he would remind the hon. member for Victoria West that he supported an Administration in the Cape that left the Progressive Government with an overdraft at the bank of £3,000,000, with clamant creditors and the London money market closed against it. He would ask these financial authorities to give us a practical suggestion, but unfortunately we got nothing practical from them. We had from the right hon. gentleman a speech which reminded us of the old days, in which he lamented the extravagance of the world, and told us to stop all our public works, as the result of which the country must be brought to a dead end. Was that going to benefit us—to bring all our industries to a stop for want of capital? Was there any other country developed at all without borrowed capital? (Hear, hear.) What had made South America the rich country it was now but the capital it had been able to borrow? He (Sir Edgar) was responsible for these first Treasury Bills, and he regretted that steps had not been taken to redeem them. If they could have been floated into permanent stock, it would have been a very wise step, for once one got Treasury Bills on the London market, it was very hard to get them off again. As to borrowing £14,000,000 in one year, we had not done so.

We have borrowed on funded debt £14,000,000.

We have not added to our indebtedness £14,000,000. (Cheers.) Floating stock has been turned into permanent stock, but we have not added to our liability. Don’t, for goodness sake, let it go forth that one of the leading merchants of Cape Town and the right hon. member for Victoria West have stated that we have borrowed £14,000,000 in one year.

I said you borrowed £14,000,000—so you have.

Letting that statement stand by itself, leads to misunderstanding.

That statement was made by the Minister of Finance.

I don’t think the hon. member heard it.

I read it.

The main thing is that it is not a fact.

My hon. friend has not told this House how much has been paid off.

said the statement that the country had borrowed £14,000,000 in one year was calculated to make a wrong impression. The renewing of Treasury Bills did not add to our debt. Then the transference of £6,000,000 to the Public Debt Commissioners did not add to our debt. Sir Edgar added that unemployment was growing, and he supported the policy alluded to by the hon. member for George Town that as men get thrown out of industries we must have some plan for putting them on the land.

was understood to say that he would like to ask the Minister of Defence what was the attitude of the Government on the question of introducing natives into Natal to work in the coal mines.

asked the Minister if the Government was prepared to accept the report of the Indian Commission. Would they be prepared to carry out the provisions of the report, and would they be in a position to bring forward legislation in the current session to put the recommendations into effect.

raised the question of the compensation received by the men, especially in the first stage, under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. Several men, he said, who were out of employment had called upon him and said they had tramped from one part of the Reef to the other in their efforts to get employment, but had not been successful. He was glad that the hon. member for Denver had been able to get a Select Committee. He hoped that the report would be quickly brought before the House.

said the matter raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis was under consideration by a, Select Committee, and therefore it was unnecessary to say anything at the present stage. In reference to the report of the Indian Grievances Commission, mentioned by the hon. member for Weenen, the Government had considered the report, and intended to introduce legislation this session for the purpose of dealing with the recommendations, but more he could not say at the present stage with regard to the details.

Have you estimated the loss of revenue?

replied that he had not gone into that part of the question, because it would require a great deal of time to look into. That, however, could be left until another day. With regard to their position in respect of loans, he did not think his hon. friend was quite fair in blaming him for what had occurred with regard to these temporary bills. He (the Minister) had been straining every nerve to improve the position, and during the current year they had reduced the debit on these temporary bills by 41/2 millions, and a further reduction would have taken place except for the exigencies of the money market, which had not been favourable latterly for raising loans. They were, however, no worse off than the Canadian Government in the matter of raising loans, as the underwriters had been saddled with 78 per cent of that Government’s last loan. Compared with the terms and conditions secured by other colonies our borrowing had not been less successful than that of other colonies. He would admit that the loan of £2,000,000 raised for the payment of temporary loans was not a very good one, but just lately no propitious occasion had arisen whereby a loan could be taken up on better terms. The debt of the country had been increased by temporary bills, not to £14,000,000, as the hon. member had stated, but by 81/2 millions. He (the Minister) had been cutting down expenditure a great deal, and when these votes came to be considered in Committee hon. members would hold the same view. He agreed with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. Walton) that it was impossible to rule out all improvements. The development of the country was rapidly increasing, and under such circumstances it was difficult to say that no money should be granted for public works. They would find very little expenditure proposed for public works except such as were a matter of necessity.

said he did not intend to intervene in the discussion, but some of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance with regard to unemployment were very unsatisfactory. He had said that unemployment was Largely due to recent disturbances. But there was one remark which the Minister had made that he entirely agreed with, which was that the Government were not capable of dealing with these difficult matters.

What was it I said?

repeated the remark, and added that he would be pleased to hear the Minister qualify his statements. He (Mr. Creswell) was not going to refer to the policy which he (the Minister) had said they on the cross-benches had enunciated. It was not to the disturbances they had to go to find the cause; they had to search deeper and go to the root to find a reason for the disturbances which had taken place. The hon. Minister had referred to the report of the Commission, but the Government were not going to bring about any better conditions if on the one hand they were borrowing capital and on the other borrowing their labour. They would never improve the conditions in this country by trying to get the cheapest labour, and so long as they relied upon indentured and semi-skilled labour, so long would they have a state of unemployment in the country. The screw had been given another turn or two since the events they had been discussing had taken place. Men had been displaced to the extent of 1,000 or 1,400. These men were employed before the trouble commenced, and why were they not employed now it had ceased? They were told that the black man was being employed in shops where they were not employed before. His (Mr. Creswell’s) information was that a tremendous pressure had been brought to bear so as to introduce coloured labour into the positions previously occupied by white workers. Of course, they (the employers) preferred this semi-skilled, indentured, and coloured labour, because it was very much more docile than that of the white workman. He had been told that the number of machines underground affected in this manner had been enormously increased. The cause of the trouble was the low-paid indentured native, with his lack of liberty and docile character, while on the other hand they had the standard of civilised workmen, both in regard to pay and hours of work, and it is that which the Government were so bitter about. If they were going to make the standard of the working-man to be that of the indentured native, then they were going to make the situation impossible for white labour in this country.

The country had got to recognise, and the country was recognising, that that policy of drift in these labour matters could not continue, and the Government must seriously tackle the question of unemployment by tackling it at its source. In the meantime the Minister of Mines could do much. It was certainly within the Government’s competence that for every three machines underground and for so many natives there should be so many white men employed, and in the long run they would get efficiency. The hon. member went on to ask whether any tenders for the exploitation of the East Rand had come in? They did not mean to take any tenders until it dropped into their mouth, as a ripe plum. Let the Government take in hand the sinking of these shafts; it was reproductive work. Let them employ on really useful work a large number of men who were at present unemployed. But these matters were only, so to speak, dealing with symptoms, rather than with the causes. Let the Government deal with the symptoms in these ways, but if the Government wanted to get out of that continual state of jerks—slumps or booms—let them reverse that policy they had been going on, the policy of locking up the land and allowing the big employers to depend practically on slave labour.

said they had it on the authority of Professor Chapman, that no economic problem could be solved until it was understood. They had no right to have unemployment in that country at all, with such an enormous amount of work to be done, and they were importing about two-thirds of their food, when they ought to grow sufficient even for exportation. They ought to have no importation at all. If they made an adequate attempt to grow their own food, they would not have enough labour in the country. The Minister had said that large amounts of that unemployment was due to accidental causes, but that was not the case. Last year they had been told that 8,000 men had applied for employment on the railways on March 1 before any disturbances had occurred at all. What the actual numbers were at present he did not know, but he did know that, reading the reports of Labour Commissioners all over the world, places where there had been no strikes and disturbances, it was found that in the face of amazing prosperity there had been an alarming increase of unemployment. Last year 300,000 skilled men had been unemployed in Britain, in the most prosperous year that they had had Unless they were prepared to tackle the question of unemployment, in a very short time it would tackle them. He was bound to believe, and they could not get away from it, that unemployment, as a whole, was due to the system under which they lived. He did not wonder that these land settlement schemes which the Minister of Finance had referred to had failed in that country. Let the Minister get hold of three, or four, really intelligent men who really cared for the welfare of the country and let them go across the water and see on what basis successful land settlement schemes elsewhere had been started and carried on. Thousands of men were only waiting for a chance, and if they only gave them a fair chance, and under proper supervision, gave them a fair opportunity of disposing of their produce, they would have less unemployment, and a far happier country.

The motion was agreed to.

asked whether that was not rather a large sum which the Minister was asking for practically three months’ supply. That money certainly took them to the end of June in the ordinary way, he thought, and it appeared rather a large sum.

said that he had explained on a previous occasion, when the hon. member was absent, that very heavy debt charges would have to be met, which would swallow up much of that £5,000,000. It would not actually take them much further than beyond May. That session would probably last somewhere beyond the end of May, and therefore they were asking for that amount.

asked if he understood the Minister correctly when he said that he got rid of this money in two months. Surely he was not spending at the rate of £24,000,000 a year.

said that he asked for £5,000,000, whereas he only asked for £4,000,000 last year, because they had to meet heavy debt charges during April and May of this year.

said he thought that the Minister said that this would be a rather protracted session.

Oh, no.

asked whether the Government seriously intended to go on with the Industrial measures, such as the Peace Preservation Bill and the Trade Unions Bill.

We have given notice.

said it was no uncommon thing for the Government to give notice of Bills and not carry them through He thought it was not in the spirit of representative government that the Government should go on with these measures, without giving the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion. Hon. members on the Opposition benches, he thought, would admit that they would not be justified in dealing with these matters in the present circumstances. He thought these measures should not be proceeded with until an appeal had been made to the constituencies. If the Ministry wanted to rule this country in a constitutional manner, they would appeal to the country on these measures.

said the Minister had spoken about economy, and he would like information with regard to the financial relations between the Provinces. He had warned the Minister on previous occasions that he was opening the door to extravagance over which he would have no check. Before he got deeper into the morass, he hoped that the Commission would be appointed, so as to establish local government on a sound footing, in order that the people who called the tune might pay the piper.

said that the Financial Relations Act was given four years to run. If a Commission was appointed too early, they would have no valuable experience to guide them, and the Government thought it better that the experiment should run for a couple of years. If the Commission were appointed, they would have no information with regard to the new system, and he wanted to see how it worked. If the Commission were appointed too early, they might find, after it had reported, that the system in actual practice worked differently from what the report supposed. He thought they should wait until the last two years.

said he did not agree with the Minister. The Commission would take a long time, then the Government would take considerable time in looking into the matter, and then it would take time to get the Bill through the House. Did his hon. friend see what was taking place now? A deliberate attempt was being made to do away with the only vestige of local government in South Africa—the Divisional Councils of this country—under a veiled attack. He considered that very dangerous, and there was no control over these bodies. They were most extravagant and expensive bodies, and they imposed a burden on the Finance Minister which would break anybody down. So the sooner they got the Commission to work the better. Meanwhile, the financial business was slipping out of the way, and if they were not careful, they would get into a hopeless mess over the matter. There was nothing more important than putting these local governments on a sound footing.

said that the Minister of Finance seemed to have forgotten the character of the discussion last year, because the House was given to understand that the Government considered this matter the most pressing of all matters. One of the most important questions for the Commission to go into was the whole question of local self-government. He thought the Government would have secured the services of a competent gentleman to inquire into the systems in other countries and tabulate valuable information. Then the. Commission would not have needed to have gone round the country on an expensive mission, but they would have gone into the matter in connection with these tabulated statements. They could have seen whether anything in other parts of the world could have been made applicable to the Union. The Minister must remember that, before Parliament would take any steps, they must have all this information sent amongst people throughout the country. He thought there was a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether the Provincial Council was the last word in local self-government. The good sense of the country demanded that we should have the most perfect system that could be devised of self-government. Nothing could be more fatal to his mind, to the best interests of this country, than that there should get abroad the idea that Provincial Government was not capable of dealing with local affairs, and that everything should be in the hands of the Union Parliament.

said that he wished to draw attention to the dangerous position in which we were in respect of the most important of all the functions of the Provincial Council, viz., education, and the extremely critical position which had arisen in the Cape. If they were to be told that this was to go on for four years, and that there would be perhaps delay at the end of that period, there would be very great and, he thought, very well-reasoned discontent in the Cape. He thought some satisfactory provision should be made to deal with that question. He would like the Minister to explain at some suitable opportunity how the Provincial system of finance was working from the point of view of the Treasury?

said he hoped the Minister would reconsider his position in reference to the appointment of a Commission. It was clearly understood last year, when the Bill was under discussion, that a Commission would be appointed, and appointed without unnecessary delay. In the Cape they were suffering under a very grave sense of grievance under existing conditions.

said he hoped the Minister would not allow himself to be rushed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and others. He thought there was a great deal to be said for the contention that it was only fair that the Provincial Councils throughout the Union should have an opportunity of showing what they could do. It was said that there were to be some very interesting experiments carried on in the Transvaal in connection with Provincial finance. He certainly thought the Provincial Councils should be allowed one or two years’ operations under the new Bill.

said he was one of those who supported the Provincial Councils, but he did not believe they were perfect. Although the Bill passed by the House made provision for four years, which would give them very interesting and valuable experience, the question of local self-government was one of such great importance that they should have somebody of conspicuous ability and conspicuously adapted for investigations of this sort to go into the whole question of local self-government throughout the civilised world. That information should be tabulated, a Commission should be appointed, and that Commission could draw up a report, so that at the expiration of the four years this House and the country would have something to go upon as to whether they should continue the existing system or introduce certain amendments.

said that, as to what had been said by the right hon. gentleman in regard to the alarming increase of expenditure, he would point out that it was almost entirely due to the fact that the Provincial Councils were waking up to the danger that was assailing education in this country and realising that there were many children, white and coloured, but chiefly white, who were growing up without any education at all. It had been said in the debate that some interesting experiments would be made in the North, and he thought this House should wait and see the result of this experimental legislation, experimental as far as this country was concerned, but not experimental as far as other countries were concerned.

said that at an earlier stage he had asked the Minister of Finance a question with reference to the proposed introduction of tropical natives for employment in the sugar industry in Natal, but he had had no reply

said that he had simply seen a statement in the papers that an application had been made to the Government, but he did not know whether any action had been taken or would be taken in the immediate future or not.

said it seemed to him that they required something more than that. Were they going to open the door to tropical natives in Natal?

said he had seen a statement in the papers about a deputation coming to see the Government on the matter.

said the deputation had already met the Government, which must have given some sort of reply.

replied that a deputation had met him on the subject, but that was exactly as far as the matter had gone. So far he had not even had an opportunity of consulting his colleagues on the subject.

said they did not want natives from Central Africa to be arriving in Natal before the House had an opportunity of debating the matter.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 2.

moved the insertion of some words which had been omitted from the Dutch version of the Bill.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was adopted.

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

Third reading?

I hope there will be no objection to taking the third reading now.

I object.

The Bill was accordingly set down for third reading on Wednesday.

moved that the House do resolve itself into Committee.

said that before the Speaker left the chair he wished to refer to the anomalies which existed in the railway rates for the carriage of coal to various part of the Union. Last session reference was made to the coal monopoly in Natal, and it was brought out in a Select Committee that the Union-Castle Co. had a controlling influence over the various coal mines in Natal, and had succeeded in squeezing out the bunkering trade in Cape Town and Durban, and was acting detrimentally to the interests of the coal consumers of the Union. The Minister of Railways and Harbours showed a tendency to tackle the matter from the Cape point of view. On the eve of his departure for England, at the close of last session, orders were given to reduce the rates on coal from Witbank to Cape Town from 19s. a ton to 14s. for local consumption, and from 18s. to 13s. a ton for export. The distance from Witbank to Cape Town was 1,048 miles, and from the Natal coalfields to Durban, 240 miles; but the charge for the latter distance was 10s. a ton on coal for local consumption, 6s. for bunkering, and 5s. a ton for export. These anomalies ought not to exist. The Durban Corporation would save £10,000 a year if it could have its coal conveyed at the same rate per mile as was charged by the railway for the carriage of coal to Cape Town. It might be urged that the Durban coal consumers would not benefit if the rate for the conveyance of coal for local consumption were lowered, as owing to the monopoly, the benefit would go into the pockets of the combine; but, as a few of the mines remained outside the combine, the local people would gain the advantage of the reduced rates.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when the House rose he was referring to the disparity in the coal rates in Natal coal for local consumption and for export, and he would like to remind hon. members that that was not a new grievance. There had been many deputations to the Minister in the past, both at Cape Town and at Durban. They at Durban were under the impression that the Minister of Railways and Harbours had made a half-promise, if not a whole promise, that he was going to put the matter right at an early date, but nothing had been done, and the position had become much more accentuated, in view of the sweeping reduction which had been made in the coal rate from the Transvaal down to the Cape. (Hear, hear.) The rates in Natal were no less than three times as much as the rates from the Transvaal down to the Cape. The Minister said that, if they were to make reductions from 10 s. down to 5s., the coal combines would immediately collar the reduction, but in that particular case they could not. The whole of the coal trade, or nearly the whole, so far as local consumption was concerned, was in the hands of five or six collieries outside the coal combine. So that the consumer in Natal would benefit by the reduction in the coal rates. If it were brought down to the same figure as it was in the Cape—1s. more for local consumption than for export— they would pay 6s. per ton in Durban, instead of 10s. per ton—a saving of 4s. That would be a great benefit to the consumer and to the large and small industries in Durban. He would remind the Minister of Railways and Harbours that the Budget of last year stated that, from August, 1912, the reduction in coal rates alone had cost £341,000, but they had not had a chance to benefit from that in Natal, because there had been no reduction in Natal, except the 1s. rebate which the Government provided for in the mail contract for export coal. An opportunity had occurred for the Minister, showing that he had the interests of more than one centre of the country at heart, to give them an equal measure of consideration. It was not his (Mr. Boydell’s) habit to enlarge on parochial matters, but that was a glaring instance of favouritism towards one part of the Union to the detriment of another part. He would like to remind the Minister that Durban was still within the Union of South Africa. Before the money was voted, he would like, not only the Minister, but other hon. members who believed in fair play to all parts of the Union, to support him in that policy of equal rates.

said he endorsed what the hon. member for Greyville had said. This matter of coal rates was a serious grievance, and there was no doubt that Natal had been penalised very much, so far as coal rates were concerned. There was a difference of 5s. between coal sold for shipping purposes and coal sold for household purposes. He did not object to the shipping people having the cheap rate, but, on behalf of the manufacturers, he pleaded most sincerely, for the reduction of rates for local consumption. If there were any difficulty in the way, it should be explained to the House. He would point out that if the Durban Corporation could secure coal at the same price as the shipping people, they would save something like £10,000 a year. The taxpayers, not only in Natal, but throughout the Union, had a right to be treated the same way as the shipping people, and household coal should be brought down to the same rate.

endorsed what the previous speaker had said about the injustice done to Durban people in connection with coal rates. He did not see why the same coal carried in the same wagons to Durban from the collieries intended for householders, manufacturers, and farmers should be charged railway carriage at rates almost double those charged for coal intended for shipment. They had had this grievance for many years, and although the matter had been repeatedly brought before the Government, no good results had accrued so far. When this matter was put before the Minister of Railways last year he admitted there was something wrong, and promised to go fully into the question, but so far nothing had been done. Another grievance of the Natal people was that in connection with coal rates from the Transvaal down to Cape Town. Last year the member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell) brought to the notice of the House a terrible compact which was said to have been entered into by the Natal coal owners in order to create a, corner in coal at Cape Town. That point was eagerly seized upon by the Administration and the rates for coal were reduced to an amount that made it possible for Transvaal coal to be sold cheaper at the Cape than Natal coal. The Government said Natal coal had a monopoly in Cape Town, but even if that were the case, which he questioned, that monopoly arose from the fact that Natal coal was the best coal in South Africa for shipping purposes. And then again, the rate by sea was much cheaper than when carried by rail. It was these advantages which enabled Natal coal to command the Cape Town market, even against overseas coal. But if that was the Government’s policy it should not be carried out in one direction only. If the Government had destroyed the monopoly in coal in Cape Town, they should also help the Natal mine owners to destroy the monopoly now held by the Transvaal mines on the Rand. He had asked the Minister to state what it cost to carry coal from the Transvaal down to the Cape, but he had declined to do so. One of the members of the Railway Board, however, had stated it as his opinion that the loss on the carriage of coal from the Transvaal to Cape Town was about 10s. to 12s. per ton. That statement he (Mr. Henderson) had never heard denied, and if the loss was as great as that it was a serious matter. For whose benefit was this coal being carried at such a loss? Cape Town did not benefit much. It was said that by having cheap coal for bunkering purposes ships would be likely to call here, and that people coming ashore would spend money in Cape Town. But such people as came in immigrant ships were not likely to spend their money in Cape Town. The only people who did benefit were the Transvaal collieries and the ship-owners, and he did not see why the people of the country should bear the burden as ship-owners and those interested in the bunkering trade could well afford to bear it themselves. Not only that, but the Government were prepared to lose money on storing and trimming the coal at the Cape Town Docks as well as to lose money on bringing it down from the Transvaal. He had it on good authority that the handling of coal at the Cape Town Docks cost at least 4s. per ton, while the charge was only 2s. per ton, thus leaving a loss of about 2s. per ton more, which had to be borne by the country generally. He considered that to the loss of £700,000 made by the Railways and Harbours last year another £60,000 should be added, through these losses in coal rates.

said that after the question had been so ably discussed by the hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Henderson), who had inside knowledge of the matter, it was not necessary for him to say much, but he must raise his voice to protest against the was Natal had been treated in that matter, it did not require any repetition to show how unfair the rates were which were charged to the Durban community, which the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Boydell) had quoted. There was some reason for a slight increase in Natal rates owing to the difficult country which the trains had to traverse, owing to the steep gradients and the sharp curves. The Government had had an opportunity of rectifying the matter, but had absolutely refused to do so. The outstanding fact that coal was charged a halfpenny per ton per mile from the coalfields to Durban, and one sixth of a penny to Cape Town, was a thing which the House could not overlook with any justice. There seemed to be a determined set against Natal on the part of the Government—he would not mince his words in the matter. It seemed that their harbour was neglected by the Government, and there had been no attemnt to rectify the matter of small blocks being dislodged from the Breakwater and falling into the channel. Nothing had been done. It was hard to see if Natal was to be treated in that way, how Natal had benefited by Union.

drew attention to the dangerous conditions of railway level crossings. In 1912, he said, he had asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours a question about the matter, and had been informed that there had been ten fatal accidents, 26 persons injured, and 343 accidents to vehicles and live-stock as a result of these level crossing accidents. The compensation paid in regard to the loss of life had been nil, but the compensation paid, in regard to damage to vehicles and injury to live-stock had been £l,128 11s. 5d. Recently they had had a very serious accident at Paarl, at a level crossing, which had resulted in the deaths of two ladies. Correspondence had taken place between the Rand Motor Cycling Club and the General Manager of Railways and Harbours, and a reply had been sent from the latter to the effect that he had to state that the matter complained of by the club had been fully inquired into, and it had been ascertained that the expense of providing means of protection (at level crossings) would be very considerable, but if the club were prepared to contribute to the equipment of such crossings, as in view of the Administration needed attention, the matter would be considered! The hon. member went on to point out that motor-cars and motor-cycles paid heavy taxes, quite out of proportion to those paid by ordinary vehicles, and while the latter were safeguarded, the others were not. The “Sporting Star ” had said that alterations would be made as soon as a leading politician was killed—(laughter)—but in the meanwhile many innocent people would be killed. The crossings should be so guarded as not to be a danger to the public at large.

said he would like to ask the Minister to see that a little more of the milk of human kindness was imported into the administration of the railways so far as the men were concerned. A case had just come to his notice which seemed to illustrate what was going on and to be proof of what had been stated time after time, viz., that a large amount of discontent on the railways was caused by the way in which the men were handled. He had had brought under his notice the case of a man who had not been in the railway service very long, although he had been in other departments and offices previously. This man came to the railways as a learner checker a little more than two years ago. He afterwards became a full checker, and he was now what was called a relieving checker. Last Saturday morning he was told that he must immediately transfer permanently to Stellenbosch. The man had a large family, some of whom were employed in Cape Town, and when he demurred he was told that he must go immediately or leave the service. He was compelled to leave the service on Saturday. He had got a certificate of discharge on which it was stated that the cause of leaving was “voluntary resignation.” Surely in a large service like this it would have been possible to have kept that man on the work he was doing, because the way he had been treated was tantamount to throwing him into the streets.

said that this coal question was not a matter of Natal versus the Cape or both versus the Transvaal at all. It was a question of what was to become of the people of the country in reference to the matter, and his grumble at the Minister was not that he was giving differential rates between the Cape and Natal, but that he was giving differential rates in favour of people oversea. With reference to the ordering of rolling-stock from abroad, it had been stated by the Minister that this rolling stock had been ordered originally from oversea on account of the urgency of requirements. They had been informed that in order to cope with the coal traffic of the Union particularly, the Minister had to order rolling-stock from Europe, irrespective of the claims of the people in this country to participate in the building of trucks. In last year’s report of the General Manager of Railways, that official made strenuous complaints that they had to buy new rolling-stock in order to make up very largely for the trucks held out of commission by the collieries down at the coast. Another point in the statement made by the Minister in regard to the purchase of rolling-stock from abroad was that the cost was less. He proved quite conclusively to the House that he was saving an enormous amount of money, but he should know and none better than the particular firms, reputable firms possibly, people of the highest standing in the manufacturing world, who had not done work for this country before, were very anxious to get in, and it was a common practice among manufacturing firms to tender very low in order to get a footing in the market. Another matter he would like to draw attention to was one that appeared to be very important indeed, though it might not appear to be important to some hon. members. The Railway Administration had more and more pushed their way into private enterprise. The Government had gone too far in one particular. He thought it was quite right that they should attack monopolies, combines and that kind of thing, but he did not see why they should go against the small man and the private individual. It seemed to him that they had been straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. The carriers at the docks, men who had hitherto only been able to live from hand to mouth, had been completely wiped out. Lots of them had been thrown on the streets with no good results to the country, because passengers all round were complaining that they were not getting good service under the new regime, and it was costing more. That was unfair competition between the Government and private enterprise. Was it not positively ridiculous the way in which the Administration was going on—putting its fingers into things it did not understand and neglecting the things it did understand?

said he had a matter to bring up of some urgency. He would like the people of Natal who were anxious to send members to support the Government to see the indifference with which matters of great importance were often treated in this House. He wished to know when the report on the alternate coal line in Natal was to be laid on the Table. It looked as if the matter were to be settled without the country having any real say in the matter. He wished particularly to refer to the railway from Estcourt to Mooi River, 20 miles in length, which had been built for 28 years, and which it was proposed to do away with altogether in favour of a new line, although the latter in some places would be five miles away from the existing route. In some cases it was almost impossible to approach the farms in the district concerned except by the existing railway route. It was proposed to pull up the material on the present line, and he was told that this material would be worth only £1,300 per mile to the Administration, whereas the cost of the railway was £10,000 per mile. Taking as a basis the average throughout the Union he found that the annual cost of this line would be £3,460 and the running expenses £4,300, so that the total cost of keeping the existing Estcourt—Mooi River line running would be less than £10,000 a year. It was most unfair to suggest that a line that had been in existence for 28 years should be pulled up simply on the dictation of their Railway Department. Before a railway could be built the sanction of this House had to be obtained, and it was equally reasonable that Parliament should give its sanction before a line was abandoned. Every district in South Africa was affected by this principle. Owing to the intention of the Railway Department almost immediately to commence to pull up the Estcourt— Mooi River line, a gentleman who wanted to sell his farm in the district concerned found that its market value had decreased by 33 per cent.

said it was impossible, in justice to the Railway Administration—

“What about justice to the farmer?”

To allow the Estcourt-Mooi River line to continue to be used in the future. The deviation had been made in the best interests of the country. The cost of keeping the double line running would be about £2,500 a year, and much as one would like to recognise the claims of the people and continue the old line, it was impossible to do so. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, it only showed in a concrete form the sort of supposed grievances which led to the belief not only by the people concerned, but by everybody else, that there was no department treated their employees worse than the Railway Department. There was a case—a most cruel and abominable case—of a checker ordered to Stellenbosch. It was a fair sample of the atrocities which were supposed to be committed day by day by the Railway Department. Because a man happened to have a wife and family settled in Cape Town he had a vested interest. What they might call a local settlement here in the City, and if they removed him in accordance with the necessities of the Department they raised an indignant protest from the hon. member for the Castle division, and gave him an opportunity of presenting to the House another railway atrocity. Let him say, not callously, because one expected the administration to show reason, common-sense and tact in such matters, that he was still unmoved by that dreadful case.

It is a very pressing matter.

A few weeks will not make much difference. Proceeding, he said that one would imagine after they had heard the plaint of the hon. member for the Berea division that the Administration had been responsible for imposing the charge of 10s. a ton on coal for local consumption at Durban, but they would be surprised to know that the Administration had nothing to do with it. It was the late Natal Government which had imposed the charge. Let them not have any mistake about that. It was not so much a question of coal for local consumption, but that it was sent cheaper from the Transvaal to Table Bay. It was not quite so easy as it looked to reduce the rate for local consumption in Natal. There was something to be said for the argument that the difference between 5s. and 10s. was too great, on the face of it, but on a superficial glance those things were very often deceptive, and he did not think that he could accept that. If they were to change the rate now as it was desired should be done, it would do a great injustice. That would place Durban in a more favourable position, than other parts of the Union. One fact some hon. members seemed to overlook, they had not only to consider the mathematical proportion of rates, they must bear in mind that South African coal in Cape Town had to compete with the oversea article, and they could not do that unless they placed the price for both local consumption and bunkering on a reason able basis.

asked if the hon. Minister would make some financial statement?

said that as far as they could calculate there was going to be a deficit at the end of the current financial year of something in the neighbourhood of £288,000, and that figure was arrived at as follows: there had been a shortage in the railway revenue below the estimates of about £240,000.

Due to the industrial trouble?

said that the industrial trouble had been responsible for a large part. It was impossible to calculate the indirect amount, but the immediate loss as a result of a general strike was about £150,000. The revenue dropped steadily during August, September, and more in November, and not until December was there an improvement. There was a shortage of about £240,000, being an excess of expenditure on the railways of about £225,000 and an excess in harbour expenditure of about £14,000. In all the total deficit was approximately £568,000. The net deficit, however, was £288,520, after accounting for additions to rolling-stock, etc., etc. The shortfall in the revenue was largely responsible for the deficit, and the deficit would probably have been greater except for the large increase in the coal traffic. The passenger traffic, goods, and minerals would not realise the estimate. As he had said, the deficit was largely in excess of the estimates owing to increased pay and concessions to the staff, and so forth. In short, the loss of revenue was in consequence of the strike, and the increase of expenditure was due to the increase of pay to employees.

The motion was agreed to.

asked the Minister for an explanation in regard to the deviation of the Estcourt to Mooi River line of railway. The House had been asked to vote a large sum of money, something like £750,000, he thought, but it was the first time he had ever heard of a Government constructing a new line without consulting Parliament. Ostensibly the money was voted for a deviation, but a new length of railway had really been constructed. He was not objecting to this particular section of railway, nor did he question but what the line would be a benefit to the district, but if any Government was allowed to construct 10 or 12 miles of railway without having to come to that House with a Bill it would constitute a dangerous precedent. He remembered an occasion on which he introduced a Bill for the deviation of the line between Sterkstroom and Indwe. That deviation was nothing like the one that had now taken place, and then he had thought it necessary to bring a Bill before that House. He strongly objected to a large amount of money such as had been voted for a deviation and then to use it for the purpose of building another line. If this was allowed they would find Government building new railways without coming to the House for its permission.

said the difference in the construction of this line was something like five miles.

said that if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) knew the country through which that line passed, as well as he did the Indwe country, he would not have made the remarks he had It was an ordinary deviation, although it was a somewhat extensive one, and was necessary for the better control of the traffic on the railway, and would ultimately mean a great saving of expense in the management of the railway and the conveyance of enormous quantities of coal from the mines to Durban. He supported the remarks of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler), in whose division the deviation occurred, and he was sure that the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Railway Administration would give those remarks due consideration. But to say that the deviation was altogether an extraordinary one, and not an ordinary deviation, was, he felt, rather stretching the matter. As a result of the construction of that deviation, the movement of traffic would be expedited. While he sympathised with farmers who had to suffer somewhat as a result of that deviation, on the whole, it would be greatly for the benefit of the community.

They heard a good deal of adverse criticism of the management of the railway, but they never heard anything in palliation of their faults, nor anything to their credit, and there was much to be said to their credit and in extenuation of their shortcomings. He had found every possible consideration given to him by the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the General Manager, and as far as it was possible within their means, such matters as, for example, the construction of platforms and loading banks were in process of being rectified. It should not be supposed that no attention was being paid to matters which were for the convenience of the public.

In conclusion, the hon. member referred to a case where a starving man had, on his recommendation, been employed on the railways, although he had taken a prominent part in the recent strike. The General Manager had shown sympathy, just as the present Minister of Railways and Harbours and the late Minister had also done, since he had had the honour of holding a position that brought the speaker in contact with them.

said that, in reference to this so-called deviation from Estcourt to Mooi River, he would like to remind the House that, when the project was before it four years ago, he called attention to the fact that it was not a deviation, but a new line, and should have been reported upon by the Railway Board, in terms of section 130 of the Act of Union. The deviation referred to by the hon. member for Weenen was a line which replaced the existing line, which must have cost at least half a million of money, and which was now to be abandoned. That new line had been constructed at an expense of £350,000, and it had succeeded in making the Natal main line 81/2 miles longer. He had characterised this as a sad example of railway statesmanship in this country. It was four years since the vote was taken in regard to the so-called deviation; the line was not finished yet, and they were still waiting for the advantage which they were supposed to derive from the spending of that sum of £350,000. Sir David added that by and by they would have to build a new line—a direct line—to the interior from Durban.

said that the hon. member for Klip River must realise that this discussion had not been raised as to whether the deviation was advisable or not. The House had not had an opportunity of discussing that. The only way of discussing it was to place a Bill before the House. If things of this sort were allowed to go on, they might find a Government, when it suited their purpose, coming forward, and under the score of deviation altering the course of our railways. He hoped the Minister would realise that in future Parliament could not allow this sort of thing to take place. This was a new fine, it was not a deviation, and he thought that the Government had been grossly remiss in their duty in carrying out a work of this sort without coming to Parliament for its approval in the ordinary way.

said that the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt) complained that they had really built a new railway line. If they had an Act of Parliament authorising them to build a line, the hon. member knew that within the scope of that Act they might make practically all the deviations they wanted. A deviation of four or five miles or even up to ten miles was a thing that was done every day. It had been pointed out that this particular deviation under discussion had been the subject of a vote in that House. The deviation was on the capital Estimates.

You can’t have a railway deviation on the capital Estimates.

Last year there was a hot debate as to whether this deviation should be carried out, and the particulars were given in detail. The House then by a large majority—not merely a Government majority—decided that this deviation should be adopted. (Hear, hear.)

said the Minister desired to make the House understand that when it was asked to vote a deviation it had the full details as in the case of the building of a new line, but the amount appeared merely as “railway lines deviation.” It was” not right, and it was not the intention of the Act of Union, that Government should merely by a vote for a deviation construct what was practically a new line of railway. In the Cape Parliament, which was not tied in this way, he (Sir Thomas) was anxious to have a deviation of miles from Sterkstroom to Indwe, but he had to go to Parliament and ask it to vote the money on a Railway Bill, which was what his hon. friend should do.

But you had fixed your points.

said that by a deviation the whole course of a trade route could be altered. To-day it was a matter of 20 miles, but in a few years it might be 40 or 50 miles, with the result that Government might build a railway wherever it pleased its political inclinations.

said he remembered that last session very little information was given the House about the Mooi River-Estcourt deviation, and there were no plans at all. It was not even mentioned that the deviation included the building of the longest railway tunnel in South Africa at a cost of about £120,000. The other deviation was Cato Ridge to South Coast Junction, for which there was absolutely no information before the House.

(to the Minister of Railways and Harbours): Don’t do it again.

The clauses were severally considered and agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

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

moved that Order No. 5—the House to resume in Committee on the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Bill—be discharged and set down for Thursday.

The motion was agreed to.

asked for information. The plots, he said, had been let for some considerable time. He believed they must be premises that had been leased to various firms for some years past at extremely low rates and he would like a comparison of amounts they were let for with previous occasions.

made a short explanation, but did not mention the rentals.

was not satisfied with the explanation. There had been a good deal of grumbling; the stores had been let at very low rentals, below the market rate. He thought the item should stand over.

thought the hon. member was referring to another item that had not been reached.

contended that he was right. He would move that the matter stand over until further explanation was given.

said he did not think there was any reason why the vote should not be passed. He could only tell the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), that the Harbour Advisory Board had considered the matter, and from the evidence that was offered the rent was considered to be a fair and satisfactory arrangement when compared with the rent of warehouses in other parts of the town.

asked the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), to withdraw his objection. He thought the explanation offered by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, was a satisfactory one.

with leave of the House, withdrew his motion.

said he was not satisfied with the explanation given to vote 22. They had no information from the Treasury Benches.

said he was a member of the Board, and when this question was before them they had the evidence of the General Manager of Railways, who was examined with regard to the adequacy of the rent being paid, which was considered satisfactory.

Item 22 was then agreed to.

On Item 32

The disposal of Lot No. 4D. and Government portion of Lot No. 20, Main-street, Kimberley, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, upon such terms and conditions as the Government may approve.

asked for some information with regard to the disposal of the lots in Main-street, Kimberley. The description was too vague.

replying, said that the property referred to consisted of a block of buildings formerly used as an office for Native Administration, and workshops. The buildings were formerly known as the Old Post Office. A report from the Kimberley Sanitary Inspector declared that the buildings were unfit for human habitation, and that probably at any time they might collapse. The buildings were let at a rental of £2 per month, and were constructed of wood and iron, and were certainly not worth the money which had been expended on them. The Department was considering the advisability of selling the material and having the area cleared. Lot 14 and part of Lot 20 were bought in 1878, and before the sale could be concluded it would be necessary to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament.

Is it proposed to dispose of this land to private owners, and at what price?

replied that it would be put up to public auction.

said that if that were so, why was it not stated? It was stated elsewhere.

said that it might be put up to public tender, too.

said that he knew that ground, and it was of no use to the Government. It was in a very dilapidated state.

The item was agreed to.

On item 34, the reservation, in favour of the Berlin Missionary Society, of certain piece of Crown Land about twenty acres in extent, at Petersburg, Toise’s Location, division of King William’s Town, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, as a site for mission purposes, subject to such conditions as the Government may approve,

said that he had raised a strong objection to that in the Committee, and certain other natives claimed to have a right to that part of the ground The magistrate had given notice that he would be present to hear complaints, and some natives had appeared to raise some objections, but the A.R.M. had overruled them, and now they had that application from the Berlin Missionary Society. He had opposed that grant because sufficient notice had not been given to interested parties, and he found that possibly that ground might be granted to that society, and there were other parties who might have an interest in the matter and had not been present.

said that on a matter of principle he supported the hon. member. Would it again revert to the Government if the society did not carry out its obligations?

said that it had been made clear to the hon. member (Mr. Nathan) in the Committee that the whole matter had been very carefully considered. It was made clear that the people who had the church there should have this ground. It was pointed out further that the Native Affairs Department had been consulted in the matter, and, after careful inquiry, they agreed to this ground being transferred to the Berlin Mission Society.

said that he had promised to let the hon. member for Von Brandis see the papers, but when he got the papers he was unable to find the hon. member.

said that his anxiety had been that the natives should clearly understand the whole situation. He did not wish to see this land granted and these people wake up at a later date to find they had been despoiled of their rights.

said he would like to know whether it was necessary that this particular ground should be granted in order to protect the church from desecration by the cattle of the poor unfortunate natives?

The item was agreed to.

said he would like to know what was the reason of this grant to the Cape Hospital Board? This ground had always been Government property.

quoted from an old Cape Act to show that the Somerset Hospital was partly on municipal and partly on Government ground.

The item was agreed to,

The remainder of the 36 items in the report were also agreed to.

moved that the Chairman report the resolutions.

Agreed to.

This having been done, the House adopted the report.