from D. G. van der Walt, formerly a teacher, retired owing to effects of a surgical operation for a pension.

from registered voters in Bethlehem, Harrismith, Frankfort, Heilbron, and Lindley, praying that Reitz be declared a separate fiscal division.

Government Notice No. 1010, 22nd June, 1914, relating to the re-nomination of Gerard Hendrik Rissik as a member of the Central Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa; draft scheme for the collection of Agricultural Statistics for the Union of South Africa.

Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works of the South African Railways and Harbours, year ending 31st March, 1915.

brought up the sixth and final report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The report was ordered to be printed, and set down for consideration on Monday next.

asked the Minister of Finance if he intended to introduce Supplementary Estimates this session.

said that he was frying not to do so. “I hope,” he added, “that my hon. friend appreciates my efforts in that direction.”

said he thought that every thoughtful man in South Africa who had given any attention to the future position of this country had arrived at the conclusion long ago that when the mines which were to-day one of our principal sources of revenue were worked out, other sources would have to be developed in order to provide revenue for the Government, and he thought it had also been freely acknowledged that one of the main sources which would have to be developed to take the place of the mines, when the mines were exhausted, was irrigation. It was because irrigation, in his opinion, and in the opinion of cithers, was going to play an important part in the future development of South Africa, that he thought the utmost care and the utmost caution should be exercised in first of all, examining any irrigation project which was submitted, and satisfying themselves that there was a reasonable chance of its being successful. It was because he was anxious that there should be no obstacle raised to the future development of South Africa, and that irrigation should be fairly launched, and not handicapped by ill-considered and bad schemes that he raised his voice to-day, along with the voices of others, in asking the Government, not necessarily to withdraw the scheme, because he expressed no opinion upon the merits of the scheme, but to go cautiously about this matter, make a further and fuller examination, and later on, perhaps in six months, come to the House with a properly thought-out scheme. He thought one of the reproaches which had been levelled, mainly, he thought, by hon. members opposite, against the Government and the South African Party was that they lacked business capacity, that the South African, as a rule, did not bestow that care and intelligence upon business problems which hon. members sitting on the other side of the House claimed for themselves. He denied that. He did say, however, that the reproach would receive some justification if their party and the House agreed to the passing of this Bill upon the somewhat scanty information which had been put forward. He would like hon. members who had supported this Bill to consider the matter from a business point of view. Here they were proposing to spend £600,000 or £700,000 of public money for a perfectly justifiable cause, but could any hon. member on that side of the House tell him how much of the land which it was proposed to benefit by this conservation scheme had been acquired by the Government ? Could any hon. member tell him how much land had been acquired out and out by the Government, how much land had been secured under option by the Government, and how much land there was round about this scheme, which would be enormously benefited by it, that had not been acquired by the Government? He did not think there was any member who desired that large sums of public money should be spent for the purpose of benefiting private individuals. The hon. member proceeded to quote from the report upon the scheme, and pointed out that, from this report, it was clear that, before Parliament was asked to sanction the scheme, the Government should take power from the House to expropriate land which would be benefited by this scheme, and that specific provision should be made for laying down the price at which this land should be expropriated. The Minister of Lands had said that in many cases options had been obtained. Surely the House was entitled to know something more definite than that.

Continuing, he asked what about the owners who had refused to give the Government options on their lands? Were they to benefit and to have the advantage of this big scheme at the expense of the State? Surely hon. members were not going to sit still with a proposal of that kind? Surely hon. members were going to insist on the Government disclosing the amount of land forming the subject of option, and that Parliament should be asked to give power to expropriate this land. One of the most significant matters in connection with this project was the report of the Director of Irrigation. They had received reports from the Railway Board and from railway engineers on railway projects, making definite recommendations and giving some expression to their opinion as to the commercial possibilities of this or that scheme. In this case the Director of Irrigation was absolutely silent from one end of his report to the other on points of this nature. He merely said that if the Government built a dam of such a size it would be capable of storing so much water; but beyond that he did not express an opinion. Was that not very significant? (Hear, hear.) He thought the Government should explain to the House why the Director of Irrigation had given no views on the points that he had raised. He wondered if this had been a private scheme put forward on the same information and the public were asked to subscribe £600,000 or £700,000, how much money would be subscribed for such a scheme? He (Mr. Hull) ventured to say that the promoters would not get a £5 note from the Treasury benches in support of the scheme. He (Mr. Hull) had no objection to the scheme, but he wanted ordinary business precautions carried out. The information before them was not at all adequate, and he did not think a member on either side of the House would put his private funds into such a scheme on such scanty information. He did not say the Government should withdraw, but should content itself, for the present, by taking power to acquire some or all of this land and setting the machinery in order, which would take the next six months. Then further investigation could be carried on. Early next year the Government could acquire this land by out and out purchase or auction and then come to the House. A serious blemish about this measure was that it was not stated how much land the Government had found that it could not acquire, land which would be considerably enhanced in value by the Bill.

said he had always been in favour of irrigation and pushing forward projects of this nature to the fullest extent. It always seemed to him that they did not do enough, to remedy the two dangers they had to face, the drying up of the country and the loss of status of a good many of the whites of this country. However, he looked upon this scheme with the greatest concern, more especially as he had been a member of the Select Committee on the Rand Water Board Bill. The Minister of Finance had pointed out that this was a different scheme—that this was a Government scheme and not a private scheme like that of the Rand Water Board Bill. At the same time he (Mr. Van der Riet) could not help feeling that if so many particulars were required for the protection of the public in the case of a private scheme, the House, in dealing with a project of this kind, should have a certain amount of information upon which it could come to a decision. Was it a scheme that would advance the country? Was it a project that merited their support? The main argument put before them was that this was a scheme for the alleviation of poor whites, but he was not convinced that this was a serious attempt to deal with the problem. What information on this point had been placed before the House? If this was such a scheme it must be one that had a reasonable prospect of success, and not one that would end in lamentable failure. But no information had been placed before the House. Comparing the information given in this case with the information given in the case of the Rand Water Board Bill one could not help feeling that there had been grave dereliction of duty in the way in which this Bill had been brought forward. Either the Government had a bad case and the House should not pass the Bill or the case had been improperly worked up and there had been grave dereliction of duty in not presenting a more detailed case to the House. There was no information as to the prospect of success of such a scheme. There had been no analysis of the soil, and he pointed out, after quoting from a report of the Cape Senior Analyst in 1904 on the Thebus scheme, that this was a very important point. They only had the bare statement that 25,000 morgen of land could be placed under cultivation and the Director of Irrigation referred in a very cautious way to the amount of water to be derived. The Director put it in a most non-committal way, and gave it most dubious approval. His remark on the point was, “A less pessimistic estimate has been adopted than previously.”

It was not for him to challenge the statement of the Director of Irrigation, but he had to judge for himself in deciding whether the Director’s estimate was an estimate which could be justified. He found that under the Bill the estimate of water to each morgen was 140,000 cubic feet of water. When they found that people were not allowed to exceed 140,000 cubic feet they must assume that those who were entitled to the water would take as much as they could get. If they divided that into 3,000 million cubic feet of water they found that it furnished water for 21,000 morgen only. What about the enormous evaporation that took place in a dam of that nature? He had the gravest doubts that the water conserved there would be sufficient to irrigate a large area of ground. What gave him the greatest shock of all was this—they were asked to depend on the statements made by the Minister of Finance on that matter. One should always be careful in accepting counsel’s statement in a case. The counsel was very often apt to overstate his case. He found that the Minister said that 25,000 morgen could be put under water under that scheme. He could not follow what the Minister of Finance had said in that matter, and how could he find that the Minister of Finance was accurate in his general statements that the scheme was sure to be a success ? A large quantity of ground, they were told, could be acquired under the scheme. When a scheme like that was put before the House for the purpose of finding ground for settlement then the most imperative part of the scheme was that the land had been acquired or could be acquired. What figures had they in regard to that? None at all. They were told that certain land was under option, but they should have had the figures. They should also know who were the riparian owners who would benefit by the scheme. That was not dealt with in the report at all, and he could not understand why the Director of Irrigation, if he had been alive to all those things, should not have dealt fully with the matter had it been left in his hands. How could they say that they would not be doing the greatest harm to irrigation by passing a scheme of that sort? He was in favour of such a scheme and the settlement of whites upon the land wherever they could. He earnestly wanted a scheme like that to succeed, but how could he on such information say that such a scheme was right? If the rainfall was sufficient, as was said, to produce crops at present, why did they want irrigation? They were told that that was wonderful ground, and they were also told that the Government could buy it, for £2 per morgen. If a scheme like that could be put through by the Government it could be, put through by private owners. One was bound to have doubts on all those points, there was another point, which was that land had to be taken from natives, and before they did so they ought to see that other land had been provided for them. He strongly advised the House to take the advice given by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull). It might be bad business at first to buy the ground and then to build the reservoir, but it was worse to build the reservoir first and then to find that they did not have the ground. If £90,000 was necessary to acquire the land, he would say to the Government rather acquire it than approve of that scheme at that time. If the land was acquired it could always be sold at more or less the same rate. He might be absolutely wrong in everything he had said—(Ministerial cheers)—but that was not his fault, but the fault of those who had brought the scheme forward. To ask him to vote for that scheme with the present information before them was quite impracticable.

said that the criticisms rested entirely upon the complaint that the House had not been afforded sufficient information. No criticism had been directed against the scheme as a scheme, or on its merits, from any side of the House. There was one point only, and that was that the Government had not given enough information.

Oh, no.

The scheme won’t pay, on the face of the report.

said that the hon. member for Fordsburg then had sufficient information, for the scheme was condemned by him. He, at any rate, did not require any further information. What was all that talk then about information being required? (Ministerial cheers.) They could not get the scheme to pay with more information, if it was said that the scheme would not pay. It showed the attitude of the hon. member on the other side of the House; he condemned it in toto.

The report says it won’t pay.

said he could understand that attitude being adopted, but so far as he had been able to follow the debate, the information required and asked for was not information of a character which the Director of Irrigation could be expected to place in his report before the Bill was brought before the House. He regarded the Director of Irrigation not merely as a Government official, but as one whose services in respect of information and inquiry were at the disposal of any hon. member of that House—readily and free. (Hear, hear.) How many hon. members had endeavoured to inform themselves with regard to points of difficulty at the source where they could get the information at once? If they had gone to the correct quarter, where they could have got the information they wanted to receive, they would have found an answer. If the Director of Irrigation made a recommendation, it would be said, “Oh, the Government wants to get the Bill through, and here we have the Government coming along with the Director of Irrigation’s recommendation.” The Director of Irrigation approved of that scheme.

That is only an engineering recommendation.

If the Director of Irrigation makes no recommendation, it is said “Why does he not make a recommendation? ” If he makes a recommendation, it is said “Oh, it is only an engineering recommendation.” Proceeding, the Minister said that if the Director had only stated at the end of the report “I recommend the scheme ” they would not have heard one word of criticism. The inquiry had been made five or six years ago, and there had been no further report.

If there had been an additional report it would have been found practically impossible to acquire the land. The Director of Irrigation regarded the scheme as a good and a sound one. An hon. member asserted that the Director had not guaranteed the scheme. How in Heaven’s name could the Director of Irrigation guarantee any scheme? But he staked his reputation by saying that it was a sound scheme and that he approved of it. If hon. members were honest in the policy they had propounded in the country, if they meant what they said when they made the country ring with their oratory on behalf of irrigation, they should support the scheme. They must recognise that in every large scheme they must take a certain amount of business risk. They could not escape from that. The hon. member for Albany had suggested that Government should have authority to purchase the land only. But if that were done Parliament would practically give Government the authority to carry out the scheme, because the land could only be purchased for the purposes of the scheme. If this opportunity went by Government would never get the ground.

Why?

Because the price will be put up. If it had been known by the people from whom these options were acquired that the Government intended to carry out an irrigation scheme we would have been unable to purchase the land at the price agreed upon. The prices range from 30s. to £3 a morgen and the great bulk ranges in the neighbourhood of £2 a, morgen. That price, went on Mr. Burton, was certainly not unreasonable, and if we missed this opportunity we would never get the ground at this price again. It had been objected that the scheme was a large one, but the Transvaal had not possibilities for small schemes on a large scale. It would be unfair to ask whether it was the best scheme for the country, for there might be schemes which were better, but if they were to wait for years until they satisfied themselves where the very best ideal scheme was to which they could devote £600,000, they would not be honest in what they put forward as their policy in regard to irrigation and land settlement. Again, it had been complained that this was not a co-operative scheme, but they could not have a co-operative scheme at this place, the circumstances not lending themselves to it. Over 16,000 morgen of the land would be acquired from natives, and that could not be dealt with on a co-operative basis. The hon. member for Barberton had said that as the scheme was planned he was afraid the Government was simply going to put money into people’s pockets by enhancing the value of their land. But that was an inevitable consequence of irrigation settlement in every case. It was impossible to carry out even a co-operative scheme without enhancing the value of property of the landowners.

That applies to railway lines, too.

Of course it does. It is an objection which may very easily carry weight, but so long as private ownership exists, so long are you bound to enhance the value of private property in the neighbourhood of the scheme. Continuing, the Minister said that some remarks had been made with regard to the nature of the settlement which it was proposed to place on this locality, and that if they attempted to have a poor white settlement on the lines of Kakamas it would be bound to fail. This scheme could not be made into a large labour colony, the nature of the ground being against it. The ground would not be able to make the necessary return, and if the Kakamas system were adopted the scheme might fail. They wanted a higher type of farmer than they might obtain on the Kakamas plan, but Government intended to adopt that plan as far us possible, and there was no reason why a portion of the ground should not be laid out as a labour colony.

What about the works, are they to be constructed by Kafirs?

I suppose they would be carried out by contract, but there would be no objection whatever to making arrangements to employ white labour as far as you possibly can. In conclusion, Mr. Burton said that to postpone the scheme would be in effect to kill it altogether, (Hear, hear.)

said he had listened with the closest attention to the speech made by the Minister of. Railways and Harbours, because throughout this debate he had been oscillating from one side to the other. Like many other members, he had felt the absolute need of more information. He thought when the Minister of Railways got up he was going to give them the information they required. Upon the points, at all events, upon which they on the cross-benches wanted information, they had got very little indeed. He was keenly anxious to support any irrigation scheme which was brought forward with a view of ready settling the country and putting agriculture on a sound basis in those parts where irrigation was required. The Minister of Railways had stated that this Bill was only drafted three weeks ago. He (Mr. Madeley) thought they were right in asking the question why this Bill was not drafted earlier and introduced into this House, so that members could thoroughly discuss the matter and get all the information that it was possible to get. The hon. member for Jeppe had put certain pointed questions and asked for certain definite information, but on not one of those points had the Minister of Railways and Harbours answered the hon. member. One of the most important points was how much of this land which was going to be acquired by the Government—if it were going to be acquired by the Government—was to be used for settlement purposes. They had not been told how many individuals it was estimated they were going to settle on the land, nor had they been told anything about the size of the holdings. They had not been told for what period of time the Government held options On one point he must say that he agreed with the Minister of Railways, and that was in regard to certain objections which had been urged against the scheme, principally, he believed, by the hon. member for Barberton, on the ground that certain private holdings of land would be enhanced in value. As the Minister had said, under the present system that was inevitable. Certainly the difficulty was one that could be got over by taxing the enhanced value which arose from the enterprise of the State, i.e., by the taxation of unimproved values. With regard to the question of a labour colony under this scheme, if the Ministry had the idea for one single moment of establishing a labour colony on the same lines and with the same sort of dominus as existed at Kakamas, he would not lead the Government the slightest degree of support in this scheme. The people at Kakamas were absolutely slaves and were under the domination of the theocratic stores. He had been examining the provision made in this Bill by which the Minister proposed to recover the expenditure. Under clause 7 he found they were going to charge interest at the rate of 3¾ per cent. The net capital expenditure plus interest, redemption, would be spread over a period of 60 years, and it was going to be returned by a charge not exceeding £2 per morgen for water supplied, or 3,428d. per thousand cubic feet. He found on working this out that, if this scheme paid, for itself on a return at that rate, it would be a remarkably cheap scheme to those who came under it, because it worked out at a trifle over ½d. per thousand gallons to the people who would be benefited. He did not think that, in considering these schemes, they should look at them strictly from the point of view of whether they would pay financially. The main point was to get the country settled. He was prepared to support the scheme provided the Government gave him the information that he required.

said he desired to call Mr. Speaker’s attention to the fact that there was not a quorum present.

said that the hon. member was mistaken. He found that there was a quorum present.

said that, judging from the attendance in the House there did not appear to be much interest taken in this scheme, especially by hon. members on the Ministerial side. He was bound to say that, although the Minister of Railways had spoken at some length, he was not one bit wiser with regard to the advantages of this scheme. There was one thing the Minister did say, and he thought that that was very important. The Minister said there was no greater authority on irrigation than the present Director, and said that the Director approved of the scheme. He (Mr. Henderson) had gone through the report very carefully, and he had not found one word from the Director in approval of the scheme. This, he thought, was very significant. The hon. member then went on to refer to the Select Committee of the Senate in 1911 on closer settlement and irrigation, when 30 of the best witnesses, including Mr. Kanthack, were examined. He went on to quote the evidence of Mr. Kanthack, and he (the speaker) said that the Government had not told the House whether it was a scheme for poor whites or other settlers, and the Government did not seem to have made up its mind on this important point.

The Director says that it is useless for poor whites.

dealing with Mr. Kanthack’s evidence said that the latter told the Committee that the only organisation that had achieved any success with poor whites was the Dutch Reformed Church at Kakamas, but that system could not be adopted in connection with any Government scheme. Mr. Kanthack said he had been told by the Church people that these poor whites could’ not be trusted on a piece of land like other settlers. Mr. Henderson said that Mr. Kanthack’s evidence clearly showed that he was not in favour of large schemes either on behalf of poor whites or anybody else. If they took Mr. Kanthack’s evidence in connection with the report he had furnished on this scheme they would find that he could not favour it. Continuing the speaker said that the Government had not given them any idea as to how much land had been taken over, or how much land it had got options upon. Taking the thing as a whole he thought the House should not proceed with the scheme at the present time. They had no right to throw away large sums of money on a scheme upon which they had not too much information. He thought the House was justified in asking for further information. He was one of those members in favour of closer settlement, but he felt that the Government had not taken the trouble to go very carefully into this scheme. Therefore, he thought the House should proceed cautiously, and should not allow the spending of so much money at this late end of the session without a great deal more information. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

put the question that the debate be adjourned, and declared the “Noes ” had it.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—23.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Merriman, John Xavier

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

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

Noes—64.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Madeley Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

H. C. Becker and F. R. Cronje, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

said he had looked to the discussion for some guidance, but nobody in the House had been able to offer a fair criticism of the scheme. A good deal of destructive criticism had been put forward, not of the scheme, but because of the lateness of the session and because hon. members did not know how the scheme was to be carried out. In railway schemes and other matters, how many members had paid a visit to that part of the country where the schemes were to be established? A good deal of the opposition to the Bill was due to the fact that a private Scheme was so low down on the Order Paper. There had been all that objection because the scheme had not been engineered by private people for their own benefit. Those private schemes were not for the good of the country—they used public money for the further enrichment of rich people. They must not forget the assurance of the Minister that morning that in the opinion of the Director of Irrigation that was a good scheme. They (the Labour members) did not believe in private ownership of land. They believed that the land should be in the hands of the State, and that the people should hold it under long leases. The State was entitled to the enhancement of value created by the expenditure of public money. The only way that could be brought about was by the taxation of site values. Their Settlement Act had been a failure because they could not get land at cheap rates for settlement purposes. They did not know that sufficient land would be acquired under that Bill for settlement purposes. He thought that point could be met in committee by putting into the Bill an expropriation clause giving the Government power to expropriate any of the land around there at a fair market value. He would support that expropriation clause. If the hon. members opposite were so silly as not to include it, it would not be his fault. He would support the Bill in the hope that, a little more sense would be shown than had been the case with the Land Settlement Bill.

said they had not got sufficient information about the Bill. They were near the end of the session and had a lot of work before them and he had not had time to study the Bill. There was no opposition whatever to an irrigation scheme which would be valuable, but they had not got sufficient information.

He agreed with most of the arguments which had been advanced against going on with the Bill at present, and he had another objection to that Bill—and that was one reason why it should be put up for another year—that they were expecting the report of the Commission under the Natives’ Land Act. Here was an attempt being made by the Government to interfere with the scheduled areas laid down under that Act. It was possible that arrangements might have been made for other lands for these people, although it had not been stated. He was speaking of the effect it would have on the natives generally, and those in the Transkeian territories. They would say they thought that they were not going to be turned out of those areas. When these natives heard that a certain six of these scheduled areas in that particular place were being taken away, they would ask what guarantee they had that their land would not be taken away? They would fear, that if the Government, before the Commission reported, took away land, might not their land be taken away and might they not be given ground in Bechuanaland? In his opinion, the Bill should stand over, and he hoped it would be an inducement to the Commission on the Natives Land Act to report before next session. He did not think the Ministry had exceeded its powers in interfering with scheduled areas, but it was most ill-advised. If these natives had all been approached and if all had agreed, in writing, that they were willing to exchange that land for some other land they would have something to go upon, but so far as he was aware, no such evidence had been put before that House. Supposing the native chiefs said that they were agreeable to the exchange of the land, what they wanted to know in that House was Whether all the people were absolutely satisfied. On the grounds that he (Mr. Schreiner) had advanced, he felt it was quite impossible for him to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and he thought the Government would be well advised to leave it over until next session. (Hear, hear.)

said that he regretted that the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. H. W. Sampson) had imputed motives, as he had done for their opposition to that Bill. (Hear, hear.) As to what had been said by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, to his mind it was a most improper suggestion for the Minister to have made, to suggest that they should go to the Director of Irrigation for information. The Government was responsible for the proposals brought before the House, and it was for the Government to see that the information which was required was supplied. As far as he could see, that scheme would not pay, and it was not financially a sound scheme. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had stated that no further information would make the scheme pay, and he, therefore, damned the scheme in his own mind.

No; I said in your own mind.

added that there were two parts of the scheme. One part was the irrigation part, on which he was not competent to give an opinion, and the other was the land settlement part. The Minister of Finance, in an impassioned address, had said that they should not delay for another 12 months as regards the question of the settlement of poor whites. The Minister of Railways and Harbours, on the other hand, had said that that scheme had nothing to do with the poor white question, and that it was rather for the better class cultivators.

What I said was part of it.

The Minister of Finance said it was a poor white scheme, and so did the Prime Minister.

What I said was that it was not an attempt to make it a labour colony like that of Kakamas.

said that they were exceedingly interested in land settlement and exceedingly interested to know what type of land settlement was proposed, but they had not the remotest idea, and that was why they wanted further information. They could only get information like that by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. He regretted that the name of the Director of Irrigation had been mentioned in the course of that debate, and the only way to get his evidence was in Select Committee, where he could be properly cross-examined, He (Mr. Wyndham) was firmly convinced that that scheme was not satisfactory in its present form.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m.

replying to the debate, said he had followed the criticisms levelled against the Bill very carefully. So far as the leader of the Opposition was concerned, he was very disappointed because the hon. gentleman held the honourable position of President of the Irrigation Society. He thought that for a member who undoubtedly felt much for irrigation the hon. gentleman had not done himself justice. If the hon. gentleman was not acquainted with the facts he should have made himself acquainted with them. The chief criticism had been that there was a lack of information, but the Minister of Railways and Harbours had answered that. There was not a word of disapproval in the report of the Director of Irrigation, and although the Director did not directly recommend the scheme, he made it clear that the poort was an ideal place for a dam. He distinctly said it was a justifiable scheme. In regard to the suggestion that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, he (Mr. Theron) trusted the hon. member to do him the credit of believing that he realised that if the scheme was a failure it would do an immense amount of harm to irrigation. He trusted that they would do him the credit of believing that he did not wish to go blindly into the scheme. The Director had carefully gone into the subject with him and had told him, not that this was the best plan in South Africa, but that this scheme was the best possible that could be undertaken in the Transvaal so far as they could see. The Director had told him that he had based his estimates on the most pessimistic basis, so that in the end he would not be disappointed. It was therefore probable that there would be a saving in the estimated amount. He trusted they would give the Director of Irrigation! credit for a desire not to mislead the House. What the House could think to gain by the appointment of a Select Committee he, for one, failed to see. He could assure the House that the actuary had carefully gone into the costs of the scheme, so in that matter a Select Committee could achieve nothing more. In regard to the suggestion that a Commission of experts should be appointed, he wished to make it understood that he himself, with a number of farmers, had gone into the question. There were two kinds of ground there—the black ground and the so-called red chocolate ground-Better ground they could get nowhere. He had been told that the ground; along the Crocodile River was as good as that at Kopjes. (Hear, hear.) And hon. members knew the value of the ground at Kopjes. There were hon. members here who thought that when they spoke of a valley they had to do with a narrow valley with small stretches of ground. The position along the Crocodile River was altogether different. They had 70,000 morgen of good land below the poort there which could be irrigated.

Nowater.

The hon. member did not know what one could do with the water one could get in the dam. The hon. member did not realise how little was required in the summer months. The hon. member did not know that if the dam filled once in three years it would be quite sufficient. What further information could a Select Committee obtain? As to the question of land settlement, the idea was not that they would establish labour colonies. When they came to deal with the poor white question, it would be necessary to divide these people in three sections. (Hear, hear.) There was one class—the very poor one which was loafing about in Johannesburg, the man who had no experience of agriculture. That was not the class of man they could use for closer settlement. He was of the kind who should be placed under discipline in some labour colony like Kakamas. But there was the man who had sunk through no fault of his own, the man who had had to give up his farm through stress of circumstances. That was the man they could use for closer settlement. In the past it had been the habit of farmers, and a very good habit too, to employ men, called bywoners, white men, and let them live on the farms, but as time went on the farms had become smaller, and the farmers had found it impossible to employ others. Thus the bywoner class had gradually dwindled. That was another aspect of the question they would have to deal with. The 15,000 morgen of ground was the most suitable, and in the Transvaal the soil required less water than in other places. There was nothing to prevent the Government from using part of the ground for the settlement of very poor people there under severe supervision. He had been surprised at the attitude of the right hon. gentleman, who had said that they must make the poor whites go to work. Very well, the Government did so, but where did they have to send them to when there was no work?

In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Queenstown, he wished to point out that the Kopjes settlement was not in the nature of a labour colony. It was a scheme under which men with knowledge of agriculture had been settled. That scheme had worked well, and the man who desired to work was still there. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Fauresmith, it seemed to him that that hon. member thought that if this scheme was adopted people would no longer be able to obtain loans for small irrigation purposes.

No.

said that he just wished to assure the House that his Department was only too pleased if people availed themselves of the provisions of the Act. There were people who said that the Department placed all kinds of obstacles in the way. These were the people who were generally too lazy to work, too lazy even to fill in the application forms. Naturally the Department required the information provided for in the Act, and did not wish to have money thrown away on wild cat schemes. They did pot wish to hand out doles, but wished to place people in a position to make a good existence. The hon. member who was now enthusiastic on the subject of small irrigation schemes was urging the Government last year to help the big schemes. He now attacked, the Government for doing what he advised them to do. Then the Government had been advised to distribute cattle to poor whites, but that was a very difficult and unpromising suggestion, as grazing lands became more and more limited. Of course, the Opposition was here to criticise; yet he could not understand the objections of the Leader of the Opposition, who felt so much for irrigation. But one of the members opposite had let the cat out of the bag when he said that he was prepared to give the, Government full authority and the money with which to purchase the land now, so that they could see about the rest of the scheme later on. Did not that prove that the hon. member was convinced of the soundness of the Government’s proposal. Yet the hon. member said he was going to vote against the second reading.

So many members had spoken of economy, and yet during this debate they had urged the necessity of irrigation. If they wished the Department of Irrigation to go ahead, as some of them professed they wished it to do, a good many more officials would have to be placed at the disposal of the Department. The hon. member for Barberton, he was sure, felt that this was an excellent scheme, and he (the speaker) held that no ground was more suitable for closer settlement. The Director of Irrigation had not approved the plan, but neither did he condemn it, though if it had been bad, he certainly would have done so. In support of his contention that the ground was good, he cited the case of a farmer who on a plot of twenty-five morgen in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg with but one windmill had made £1,000 out of his produce. The Minister proceeded to point out that the scheme did not aim at making it compulsory for the lower riparian owners to come under the scheme. If, however, two-thirds of the owners came under the law, the others under the Irrigation Act could be compelled to come under it. He wished to say, however, that the lower riparian owners had already approached the Government through a petition to come under the scheme. (Hear, hear.) If the scheme were delayed and the options of the Government lapsed the Government would never again be able to get the land at a moderate price. Even now a number of these owners wished the Government did not hold these options. Delay, he added, as far as this scheme was concerned, would be fatal.

He added that he would reply to certain questions raised by hon. members on the cross-benches, but he could not satisfy them on all the points. The Government was prepared as regarded the construction work to employ as far as possible white labour. He would tell them why the Government was not prepared to be restricted totally to white labour. The hon. gentleman who asked him the question wanted to be satisfied that a standard wage was going to be paid. It would be impossible for the House to accept anything of that sort to-day. As soon as they did anything of the kind they would have to modify their estimates. They did not know what the standard of the hon. members on the cross-benches was The question had been asked when the options would expire Some would only run for another month or two, while others would run for three months, so he hoped the Bill would be passed. The amount of land under option was 23,000 morgen. It was the intention of the Government to use that land for settlement purposes, but they might use part of it for a labour colony. He thought the hon. member for Tombuland (Mr. Schreiner) would be satisfied with the position as regarded the natives if he read part of the correspondence which had passed between the chiefs of the native tribes and the missionary at the station. The Minister read correspondence which showed that a chief had expressed appreciation of the fair manner in which the Administration had acted and gratefully accepting the terms. The chief promised that the tribe would ever be grateful and loyal to the Government. A letter from the missionary stated that there was general satisfaction among the natives as to the proposed change of farms. He (the Minister) hoped that that correspondence would satisfy the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner). The natives had accepted the situation and were more than satisfied. He only hoped that every hon. member would realise that he would be doing a duty to the country by voting for the Bill.

put the question that the Bill be read a second time, and declared that the ayes had it.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—63.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Do Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois, Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Alerwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Beden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wiltshire, Henry

H. C. Becker and F. R. Cronje, tellers.

Noes—22.

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Merriman, John Xavier

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Schreiner. Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

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

The second reading was accordingly agreed to.

The Bill was thereupon read a second time.

moved that the Bill be set down for committee stage on Monday next.

Is the Government really serious in this matter? How can you expect to get the Bill through? I move that it be put down for Monday fortnight. (Ministerial cries of dissent.)

I understand that the assurance has been given that the House is to close down a week to-morrow. That gives us six days in which to finish business. We have still to pass the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, the Natal Poll Tax Bill, all the Estimates to put through with the exception often votes; and then there are the Railway and Loan Estimates, and there will be at least three Appropriation Bills. Another Bill is also coming forward to deal with the borrowing powers of the Government.

The hon. member cannot review the whole business of the session. (Laughter.)

I am going to show that the way the financial business

I cannot allow it.

There is far more urgent business before the House than the consideration of this Bill. It is a perfect scandal the way the Estimates are going to be jammed through—to vote £37,000,000 in less than a week.

Order. The next Order is the Estimates.

I only wish to show that it is not right to put the Bill down for next Monday. The position of affairs is due to the incompetence of the Government. During the whole of my twelve years’ experience I have never known the Estimates to be jammed through like this. When are we going to discuss the Estimates?

They are going to be discussed on the next Order. (Laughter.)

I am not debating the Estimates. (Ministerial cries of: “Order ” and “sit down.”) I was going to show that we shall be blamed for keeping the House, but the members who really are keeping the House are those on the Treasury benches, for if the Bill is put down for committee stage next Monday you cannot close on the following Saturday. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) If you are going to sit for another month, all right, go on with the Bill. I hope no blame will be attached to the House if there is no prorogation on, July 4.

Who seconds the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central?

I will withdraw it now. (Laughter.)

The motion of the Minister of Lands was agreed to.

moved that the clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 2, Amendment of section 21 of Act No. 19 of 1912,

moved in sub-section (1) to insert the word “underground” before “works.”

said he could not accept the amendment, for it was against the recommendation of the Select Committee that a man should be allowed to work underground if he had the disease in a marked degree.

said the insertion of the word “underground” had nothing to do with allowing a man to go underground after he became a beneficiary under the Act. He might not be incapacitated for heaps of other work.

said the reason “underground ” was taken out by the Select Committee was that by its retention men would naturally draw the inference that they were not permanently incapacitated for work underground. The medical examiners were almost unanimously of opinion that under no circumstances should a man who had once had miners’ phthisis be allowed to go back to underground work. The Bill provided that when a man had become a beneficiary he should not be allowed to go underground.

said he would withdraw his amendment. He thought there was a good deal to be said for the position contended for by the hon. member for Fordsburg. He wished, however, to move the word “underground” into line 23, of sub-section (b), after “for, ” and before “work.”

The first amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

said he wished they could make it possible to prevent a man going down a mine or not allow him to go down a mine until he was permanently disabled by miners’ phthisis or until his capacity for work was seriously impaired. He would appeal to the hon. member for Fordsburg, who was a humane man, that, if he would do something in the direction of providing for men being prevented from going down to work long before the time for permanent disablement had arrived, he would be doing a much better service to this country than by advocating that a man should get compensation when his capacity for work had begun to be impaired.

said that the point raised by the hon. member who had just spoken was that he wanted to prevent a man from continuing in a mine until he was seriously and permanently disabled. That was the very thing they were seeking to do by this Bill. Under sub-section (a) they were offering those men £200 with the one object of trying to induce them, when they found themselves slightly affected by this disease, to come out of the mines.

said he hoped the Minister would give some consideration to this amendment. It was obvious to the Minister now that a minor to get any benefit under sub-section (b) would have to prove that he had contracted miners’ phthisis in a marked degree and that his physical capacity for any work was thereby seriously and permanently impaired. Their position was that it should be necessary to prove that the man was incapacitated for further underground work, i.e., his usual and customary work, and not for work of any description. By leaving the clause as it at present stood they would be limiting the benefits.

said that he looked upon this sub-section very much on the same lines as he looked upon sub-section (a). A man must prove his incapacity in order to secure the sum of £400. “Work” in this subsection meant underground work and other work also. Instead of proving that he was incapacitated from underground work, he could prove that he was incapacitated for other work also.

said he thought the Minister had fallen into the same error as he (Mr. Creswell) fell into at an earlier stage. The same arguments that were valid in the first case were valid in so far as sub-section (b) was concerned. He contended that it should be sufficient for a miner, in order to secure benefits under this sub-section, to prove that he was incapacitated for underground work and not for all kinds of work.

pointed out that the wording of the two sub-sections varied. In the one case it was said “not seriously and permanently impaired,” while in the other case it was said “seriously and permanently impaired.”

supported the amendment.

said there was no doubt that this would to a certain extent limit the class of people who would be entitled to compensation under this clause. He did not think it was the intention of the committee to put any limitation on the class who would be entitled to compensation.

said that, upon reflection, he thought that by leaving the sub-section as it stood they would put a miner at a disadvantage. He took it that the intention of the Act was that a man who was entitled to £400 compensation should be precluded from following his ordinary avocation. He thought the Minister would find it safer to insert the word “underground ” as it was in the original Bill.

said he admitted that there was something in the argument that “underground work ” was a narrower thing to show than “work,” but at the same time if they put in the word “underground ” he did not know what would become of the amendment which had been suggested about “crusher stations.” That certainly was not “underground work.” On the whole, he thought it better not to insert the word “underground.”

suggested that the sub-section should read “his ordinary work.”

suggested that it would be sufficient to insert “his ” before “work.”

I will accept that.

said he would withdraw his amendment in favour of the one just suggested.

said he wished to get the Minister to accept the principle that this was an occupations disease, and he, therefore, moved in subsection (a) to delete all the words after “of” in line 17, and insert “£375,” and in sub-section: (b) to delete all the words after “of” in line 24, and insert “£750.”

said he regretted that he could, not accept the amendment, for the simple reason that it would mean a re-casting of the whole framework of the Miners’ Phthisis Act. On August 1 of’ this year the insurance fund under that Act would come into operation. If the hon. member wished him to withdraw the Bill, he should introduce radical changes of this kind. He would ask hon. members, in the interests of the men themselves, not to re-open this question.

said he did not intend to argue the point. He intended to divide the House, so as to see whether it was felt that these men were receiving enough or not receiving enough.

asked whether it was clear that the men who had already received £96 would be entitled to the additional compensation provided for?

pointed out that the matter was provided for in clause 5. The people would have to prove that they were in poor circumstances and lived in the country.

said he hoped the hon. member for Springs would not be foolish enough to press this to a division. He would not like to see this Bill jeopardised in any way.

said; he hoped the hon. member would not press his amendment. If he did he (the speaker) would vote for it, because he did not believe that those men were getting enough.

moved to insert in sub-section (1) the words “not being less than £8 per month.” He said that a man might live in England on £8 per month, but even there he could not live particularly well on that sum.

hoped the amendment would not be accepted. He said that in many cases it had been shown that such an award had proved disastrous to the beneficiaries. They should leave that matter to the Phthisis Board, which was advised by the people in Cornwall.

said he could not accept that amendment. Take the case of an unmarried man who went to Pretoria to recruit his health. He pointed out that, however much was paid per month, it would not affect the total amount the man would receive. If they left it to the discretion of the Board to fix the total amount then surely they could leave the minor question of the monthly payments to the Board.

asked whether £8 a month would be sufficient for medical attendance for a man who was in a bad state of phthisis. He thought they ought to allow the Board discretionary power, and he did not think that £8 per month would in any case be more than sufficient.

withdrew his amendments regarding the amount of compensation.

moved to omit from sub-section (c) the words “of miners’ phthisis or other disease of which pre-existing miners’ phthisis was the chief contributing factor.” He mentioned the case of a phthisis patient who had been killed and whose relatives had not been entitled to the balance of the money due to him.

instanced the case of a man who received compensation under class (a). It might be that he would recover and might not be entitled to compensation under the second stage. If he died from another cause should he be entitled to compensation under the second stage ?

said that if a man was awarded compensation under section (a) and if he died of phthisis or of something to which miners’ phthisis was the main contributing cause, then that man’s dependants would still be entitled to the full amount of £400; but supposing that man, while under class (a), died of any other cause, surely that man’s family could not draw the whole £400. If a man entitled to compensation under class (b) died of phthisis or anything else his dependants would get the full amount.

said that supposing a man died before he became a beneficiary he would get nothing at all if they accepted the amendment of the hon. member for George Town.

asked what would be the position in the case of a man suffering from phthisis who caught a cold and because he had phthisis could not shake it off and died. Would phthisis be the contributing factor in that case?

said it would depend on the medical certificates.

Mr. W. H. Andrews’ amendments were negatived.

Mr. Madeley’s amendment, to insert the word “his,” was agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 3, Limitation of medical reexamination.

moved the deletion of the words “and that such miner has not in the meantime been engaged in any occupation likely to aggravate the disease of miners’ phthisis.”

said he could not accept the amendment, A man might work at a crusher station, which would be against his own health.

said he was not prepared to see a man’s right of re-examination limited.

said there were plenty of safeguards to prevent a man going below if he were affected with miners’ phthisis. The affected men had so few opportunities of getting other work that they should not be further narrowed. It would be most difficult for men to obtain other work, and they could not live for ever on £200.

thought the section was too widely worded, and moved as an amendment the deletion of the word “any ” in line 4-6 and the substitution of “the,” and the deletion of “likely” and the substitution of “mining or some other occupation known.”

thought the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis was less wide than the clause. So little was known of the disease, however, that people were not aware which occupations were the more likely to assist in aggravating it.

said the object of the clause was not to limit the number of people who were to be entitled to compensation, but to prevent people who had been compensated when in the first stage of the disease to come up again and again for re-examination at the expense of the Board.

said that miners’ phthisis was defined in the Act as meaning silicosis of the lungs. They knew that silicosis of the lungs was caused by dust, and a particular kind of dust. It seemed to him that it would be stretching the meaning of words very wide to say that if a man went and worked in a coal mine where nobody else contracted silicosis, which was the disease dealt with here, or went to a gold mine where no man got silicosis, that occupation should be held as likely to aggravate the disease. As regarded the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis, it seemed to him that they would be limiting the matter very much against the interests of the miners if that amendment were carried.

said that the Minister seemed to confuse the question of the contracting of the disease and the question of the causes which might aggravate the disease when once contracted. He moved in line 40 to omit all the words after “any ” to the end of the clause and insert “quartz mining or stone crushing.”

said he was in favour of leaving out these words altogether.

said that the words were introduced to meet cases that had been known to occur in the past under the Acts of 1911 and 1912.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, did not appear to be aware that among the few occupations open to a miner were surface mines in Barberton and elsewhere, which were not in the least subject to miners’ phthisis. It seemed to him that this would debar those men from going there. The cases mentioned by the hon. member for Denver were comparatively few. In a case like his they should certainly give the benefit of the doubt to class A men.

said he thought the argument of the hon. member for Jeppe was sound, that the class of mining which the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, was intended to include were mines on which miners’ phthisis had been contracted. These mines were defined by Act 19 of 1912. If the hon. member would move, in place of the amendment he had already moved, to omit all the words after “any” and insert “mine included in the list prescribed under section 2 of Act 19 of 1912 or stone crushing,” he would be prepared to accept an amendment in that form.

said. he would, withdraw his previous amendment and move an amendment in terms suggested by the Minister.

said he would withdraw his amendment.

said he would like the Minister to consider the amendment from the point of view, that they had already debarred these men from going underground again, and, if they debarred them from getting any occupation on the surface, they would debar them altogether, so far as mines were concerned. What would be the effect of the amendment if men went to some other outside mine, say a coal mine away from the Rand?

said that if they included stonecrushing all the men working on the stonecrusher through South Africa would have to be examined.

They would not get miners’ phthisis.

said it was just as possible for a man working at stone crushing to get silicosis as a man working on the Rand. If they included stonecrushers they might just as well include stone masons.

The amendment was agreed to, and the amendment of the hon. member for George Town was withdrawn.

said he had his attention drawn to some evidence in the Commissions Report with regard to certain people who got compensation under the Act which they were not entitled to. He quoted from page 178 of the report, from the evidence of a mine manager to prove his point. He referred to one individual who had never seen a mine before, who worked from 10 to 14 months and got £400 compensation. Another went underground six months and was granted £400; he went to England to set up a public house. The inference was that he went to the mine not to get wages, but to get compensation. Another named Julian, an athlete who was now playing for one of the prominent football clubs in England, got £96. He could expand his chest 4 inches, and his getting compensation was a joke on the mine. There were several cases of that sort. If such things as that could happen there must be something wrong with the administration of the Act. He supposed the hon. Minister was taking steps to prevent such things. If four such cases as that happened under one mine manager, how many such cases were there on the whole Rand?

said that the committee went thoroughly into the evidence and examined the Chairman of the Board and another member of the Board on that point, two men and the medical officer who came down to give evidence, and also the Government Medical Inspector. What he got from them was that it was possible for ah inexperienced man to be deceived, for some applicants for compensation know certain tricks, such as expanding their chests; but on the other hand, if a man was really experienced it is not easy to deceive him. Whether there were many such cases of deceiving the medical men he was unable to say. He had had complaints from the Rand on that very point, and the Chamber of Mines had written him a letter only the other day. Two suggestions had been put forward for dealing with that, one was that they should make more use of the X-Ray examination as a check on the clinical examination. The other suggestion was that instead of having a panel of twelve men who were doing ordinary work and perhaps had not time to devote very much attention to that class of work, they should have three wholetime officers in connection with the medical research institute, and they would do the X-Ray examination at the same time. There would be an additional advantage that those officers being Government servants, would accumulate experience to the advantage of the country, while the experience thus gained would also be useful to instruct students from other parts of the country. It would be part of their duty to know what became of men who had got compensation, and they would tabulate the information. The Select Committee, after considering the matter very carefully gave a sort of negative judgment, and with the evidence before them did not see their way to ecommend a change in the present system, but he was going very carefully into the matter, he would get the best advice from the medical men on the spot. The medical profession as a whole was strongly against the alterations. They thought that the limitation of the examinations to a committee of three whole time officers would not be an improvement on the present arrangement.

hoped the Minister would favourably consider the appointment of permanent officers. He referred to a letter from a medical man who strongly urged that course.

Clause 3, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 5, Power to make awards out of compensation funds.

moved to delete the words “provided that such persons and any dependant on whose behalf application is made be permanently resident within the Union and in need of assistance.” He said it was not right that those people should be debarred from getting further compensation just because they happened to have left the country. Of course, it; would be good business from the point of view of the mining houses. He thought the Minister might do very well to delete the proviso from that section and throw the compensation open to all the people who would be entitled to it. They need not chase the men as the Minister had suggested, but they ought to give everybody equal opportunities.

said he could not accept the amendment. The hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) had been a member of the Select Committee and knew that those men had no legal claim on the compensation fund at all. They had got what the Act required, and any further grant was in the form of a gratuity. To throw that additional burden on the mining houses for men who were not in the country and who were not in actual need was not right. £96 had been given those men to look for other employment and tide them over for a time. He thought the clause went quite far enough.

put the question, that the proviso, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

moved: In line 15, before “The Board,” to insert “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912”; to omit paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) and to substitute :“(a) prove to the satisfaction of the Board that they (i) have contracted miners’ phthisis; and (ii) were, more than four years prior to the commencement of this Act, employed during one or more periods of at least one year in one or more of the mines at any time included in the list published in accordance with section 2 of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, 1912; and (iii) are permanently resident in the Union; and (iv) arc in need of assistance; or,”

said he hoped the hon. member would not insist on his amendment. The Act of 1912 applied to people who had worked in the mines as far back as 1908. To place a responsibility on mine-owners going back further than four years would be putting on the mine-owners an obligation that was too heavy. If a man had miners’ phthisis longer than six years ago and still lived, he could not have had it very seriously. If the man meanwhile had not been able to secure employment, the failure to find work must be due to something else. If the men were in poor circumstances, he hardly thought they could appeal to the people whose employ they had left many years ago for assistance. They should not upset the conclusions which they had come to in 1912.

was sorry that the Minister was not sympathetic towards the amendment. The man who contracted miners’ phthisis prior to 1904 must be dead. (Hear, hear.) The men who had contracted the disease prior to 1908 deserved all the help they could get. If legislation had been brought in earlier these men would have been dealt with already, and surely they should not be penalised for Parliament’s negligence. (Hear, hear.) If the Government had not been so busy with the Act of Union, remedial legislation would have been passed prior to 1909.

expressed his satisfaction at the Minister’s explanation.

said they constantly heard from hon. members on the cross-benches that this disease should have been dealt with under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In that Case what would have happened to men who had contracted the disease years before? It was now proposed that no matter how long ago a man contracted miners’ phthisis he should receive compensation. That was going too far.

said he had never been so much surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Fords-burg as at the present moment. The hon. member did not plead for suffering humanity, but for the mine-owners. What did the year matter if the miners had phthisis ?

said the hon. member for Springs was ungenerous when he charged the hon. member for Fordsburg or any other members of the House in the way he had done. If the hon. member would study the report of the Select Committee he would see what the hon. member for Fordsburg had done for the miners. Under the Act of 1912 over one million had been allocated for the relief of the sufferers.

I don’t care if it is two millions—it does not affect the position.

Ungenerous!

Nothing of the sort.

The hon. member seems to think this is a charitable institution.

I don’t.

A man who has been out of the mines for six years cannot possibly have the disease in a very acute form, and if he is in impoverished circumstances the ordinary charitable institutions must come to his assistance. To throw on the present employers a liability which was contracted six years ago is not fair.

said they on the cross-benches had never, from the commencement of this legislation, departed from the position that the Miners’ Phthisis Act gave but a very scant measure of justice in comparison with what the real merits of the case demanded. The hon. members on the Opposition benches throughout this legislation had been much more regardful of the pockets of the mine-owners than of the just claims of the men. (Hear, hear.) An industry which was distributing £8,000,030 a year in dividends should do more than it was doing for the sufferers. This legislation had been far too long delayed. Limiting the expenditure to £10,000 to cover all the cases contemplated under the clause was very niggardly indeed.

said they were justified in having regard to the burden which this legislation was throwing on the gold mining industry. He was not in the least in the pockets of the shareholders of the gold mining companies.

I didn’t say so.

If one cares less for human life than for the shareholders interests there must be some very strong ties between them.

You have just said it again.

I have as much regard for human life as the hon. members on the cross-benches. (Cheers.)

At the same time one must have some regard to the burden one is throwing on a great industry. Up to the end of May last nearly l½ millions had been paid by the companies in compensation. Will it be serving the interests of the men the hon. members represent if the burden that is thrown on the companies is such as to make the mines close down? To talk about £8,000,000 declared in dividends is not the way to look at it. You must look at the effect on the poorest mines.

They get £100,000 to help them.

More than half of that has been already spent. Hon. members are doing the people they speak for a poor service if they are going to lay on the mining industry a burden which will restrict employment. For that reason we shall not be justified in disturbing the basis on which this fund was erected under the original Act. Having regard to the existing burden on the industry, which may be very substantially increased, we are not justified in giving additional benefits without looking at the other side also, and we should be able to do that without the taunt being thrown in our faces that we care nothing about human life. (Cheers.)

explained that he never said the hon. member had no regard for human life. What he did say was that he had less regard for human life than he had for the pockets of the mine-owners. The whole of his subsequent, speech conveyed exactly the same inference as the speech upon which he (Mr. Madeley) based his statement.

said the hon. members on the cross-benches had a great deal to say as to their regard for human life, but that contention came very badly from the hon. member for Jeppe. Circumstances in connection with miners phthisis were known many years ago, and at one time the hon. member for Jeppe was in a position to do much towards stopping the, disease. He was in a position to use his well-known engineering ability in that direction, but he (the speaker) was unable to see anything to show the hon. member had tried to stop the disease, which would be very much better than compensating the victims.

said that they were considering the relief of people who were suffering from something which they could not help, and they on that side of the House were anxious to give the practical relief which was desired? he would move the adjournment of the debate so that the opposite side, the employers, the miners, and the hon. members on the cross-benches who were “chewing the fat ” could decide how to do justice to the subject. He moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

pointed out that for the better part of three days they had been discussing an irrigation Bill. The hon. member for Vryheid seemed to imagine that matters brought forward by the hon. members on the cross-benches were matters of no importance. The responsibility for the Bill lay equally on the hon. member’s side of the House, yet he was trying to kill the Bill.

hoped the hon. member for Vryheid would withdraw his motion. It would be a pity for this Bill to be wrecked, and he trusted the House would see to it that the Bill was passed.

said that a great deal of work had been expended on that Bill, and he hoped the hon. member would not press his motion. Most of the people On the Rand had been anxious to have a Bill of that kind passed this session, and if it stood over till Monday it might not come up again. Surely it could not be the intention of the hon. member to kill the Bill? No doubt the members on the cross-benches were anxious to show that they were the only people who desired to protect the miners on the Rand, but they who sat on that side of the House were just as anxious as the members of the Labour Party to secure some amelioration of the miners’ condition.

was understood to say that he thought there was a little force in the remarks of the member of Vryheid. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, South, had led them into a discussion apart from the merits of the Bill, and if they were going to continue in that strain he thought it would be better that the debate should be adjourned, but there was a general feeling that the Bill should be passed, he hoped that as a warning had been given his hon. friend would withdraw his motion.

said he was sorry if his motion should have led to a misunderstanding. He had poor people in his constituency who would be provided for if his amendment was agreed to. He did not sit here as a wax doll, and had to press his amendment.

The motion of the hon. member for Vryheid was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria, South, after the members on the cross-benches had objected to its withdrawal was negatived.

asked the Minister of Mines to consider the advisability of altering the amount of £10,000 for compensation to dependants. The applications made might be very numerous, and if they were not numerous having a wider limit would make no difference. He thought the amount ought to be raised considerably.

said the amount of £10,000 was fixed after considering a petition, and he would point out that many children dependants were not now dependent because of the intervening years. Judging by the number of widows who signed the petition, and from other information, they thought the £10,000 was a suitable amount, and he hoped the hon. member would not press his suggestion.

Clause 6 was agreed to.

On clause 7, Special provision as to native labourers.

moved an amendment which would have the effect in the case of partial incapacitation of a native owing to miners’ phthisis receiving compensation of not less than £10. In the terms of sub-section 1 of section 50 of the Act of 1912, the compensation in such cases varied from £1 to £20. The hon. member contended that it was ridiculous that a native partially incapacitated owing to miners phthisis should be paid no more than £1 or £2. The amendment would leave the regulation as it was, except with regard to miners’ phthisis, for which a minimum of £10 should be granted.

asked the Minister to consider a verbal amendment; to alter in line 35 to omit “all” and insert “every” in connection with the examination of natives and to make “labourers ” in the singular.

said he hoped the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) would not insist on the amendment which he thought could be dealt with in the schedule. It would not be necessary to limit the minimum compensation to £10. The Director of Native Labour invariably gave the maximum.

said it should be on the Statute Book that the minimum should be £10, but if the Minister would not accept the amendment he would not press it. He moved the insertion of a new sub-section amending section 3 of the Act of 1912 by omitting the words “£10” and substituting “the amount as provided in the Native Labour Act of 1910 for permanent total incapacitation. ” The mover said that that was the same as was provided in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

said he was prepared to accept that amendment, but he advised the hon. member to move it in the schedule.

then withdrew his amendment. He said the natives knew nothing about the provisions in the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. The Select Committees report showed that plainly. He thought every employer should make the natives acquainted with the provisions of the Act. He moved the addition of a clause to the effect that every employer should cause a statement to be printed containing information as to the compensation provided for native labourers under the Miners’ Phthisis Act, and should cause such statements to be posted up, and that any employer who failed to do so should be guilty of an offence under the Act.

The amendment moved by Mr. Creswell was agreed to.

said that matter was dealt with in a very valuable report by Mr. Buckle. That was one of the points Mr. Buckle dealt with— lack of proper information given to the natives. He thought the proposal of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) was too complicated. It would be sufficient just to say that due care should be taken that proper information was given to the natives on that subject. That could be provided for by a regulation. It seemed to him a scandal that they should be constantly talking about those people as children—then they ought to look after their interests.

said his object was to prevent the natives from getting phthisis. He moved to add the following words to clause 7: “And no native of the Union of South Africa shall be employed underground in any year for a longer period than nine months.” He hoped the House would do something to prevent the natives getting phthisis. He would have liked to include in the amendment natives from outside the Union as well, but he believed their contracts did not allow of that.

said it was not necessary for the hon. member for Tembuland to move the amendment, because under the Act of 1912 the Government had power to make regulation for the better carrying out of the purposes of that Act. The administration of the Act was much more satisfactory than it had boon. He (the Minister) would use the power given him to effect what the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) wanted. He could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Utnlazi (Mr. Fawcus).

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that he strongly supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cmlazi. He was sorry that the Minister did not see his way to accept it. He (Mr. Schreiner) had felt so strongly on the point that one of his first acts when elected member for Tembuland 10 years ago was to go up to Johannesburg and to induce the mining houses to agree to a nine months’ contract instead of a twelve months’, as far as Cape Colony natives wore concerned, which they agreed, to. He believed that prevention was better than cure, and he was quite sure that if they could secure that natives should only work nine months out of the twelve in the mines there would be very little minors’ phthisis amongst them. He regretted very much that they could not make a somewhat similar provision for the white people. It seemed to him ridiculous that, they should allow men to go on working long after they ought to have left work, in view of their physical condition. He supposed, however, that it was impossible with regard to white people. It was, however, possible with regard to natives. This proposition of the hon. member for Umlazi was not in any sense quixotic thing. He understood that with regard to natives from Portuguese territory there would be some difficulty, in view of their terms of contract, in carrying out such a proposal. It would be a pity if, because they were unable to do anything to reduce the terms of labour of the Portuguese natives, they should be unable to do anything for natives belonging to the Union.

said he did not think the hon. member who had moved this amendment was quite aware of all the conditions under which native workers were employed. He entirely sympathised with the view of the hon. member, and he would suggest to him that during next session the Select Committee on Native Affairs might very well devote their attention to getting some detailed information with regard to this matter.

said that, while he sympathised with the object of the mover, he thought the proposal was one that could not be carried out.

put the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi.

moved the following as sub-section (2): “Any reference in this Act to a provision of the Miners’ Phthisis Act of 1912 shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to that Act as hereby amended.”

said that he would accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 8 as amended was agreed to.

On the Schedule.

moved the following amendments in the definition under the Act of 1912: In line 5, after “mine,” to insert “or on or about the rock crushers in a crusher station of a mine,” and at the end of the schedule to insert the words “section 30,” and in the third line, after the word “mine,” “or in the crusher station of any mine.” He stated that the first amendment referred to a white miner and the second amendment referred to a native. The object was to provide that men working on crusher stations, whether white men or natives, should be covered by the provisions or the Act with regard to miners’ phthisis.

moved as a further addition to the schedule to delete “the sum of” in section 30 (3), and insert “such sum as such person would be entitled to recover if the native labourer’s death had been caused by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment.”

said he was quite prepared to accept the three amendments. (Labour hear, hears.) The matter had been discussed in the Select Committee. They felt they could not provide in the Miners’ Phthisis Act for all crusher stations, but the form in which the amendment was now moved made the man a miner, and he would contribute to the insurance fund. The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland therefore should be regarded as consequential.

The amendment of the hon. member for George Town was agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland was agreed to.

The schedule as amended was passed.

The Bill was reported with amendments, consideration of which was put down for Monday next.

announced that the Governor-General, on be half of the King, had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills:

Second Appropriation (Part) Act.

Second Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Act.

moved that the votes from 10 to 22 inclusive stand over, as the Minister of Finance was engaged in another place.

suggested to the hon. Minister that the next vote “Department of Justice” should be allowed to stand over also, in order that they could deal with “higher education.”

said no-had no objection to that course.

The motion was agreed to.

raised the question of the serious difficulties under which the Cape Colleges were labouring. They had been waiting four years since Union, and some of them had been under very great disadvantages indeed, partly because of the hanging up of the settlement of the University question, and partly because the Government had not taken steps to equalise the condition of all the colleges in South Africa. The House knew the old colleges, particularly the S.A. College and the Victoria College were doing practically three quarters of the higher education of South Africa. They had reached the stage that they are up against a dead wall development. They were having a large influx of new students, and the number of students they now had to carry was really beyond the facilities at their disposal, either in the way of buildings, teachers, or money. That is a very serious state of things, and it was extremely hard lines upon the oldest college that its progress should be barred in the way it is. He did not say that there was not a good deal to be said for the attitude taken up by the Minister, providing he meant to bring the University question to a settlement at once, but they had waited four years, and he hoped they were not going to wait another four. The existing colleges simply could not wait. There was a natural expansion going on in regard to certain colleges in the Cape Province, and there was one way in which the Minister could help those colleges over their difficulties at the present time. The Committee knew that the Cape Colleges had still to pay half-interest and redemption money. If the Minister would bring the Cape Colleges into line with other Colleges he would be doing a work which would greatly assist them. A great work was being done for higher education by those Colleges, and it was a happy state of things that the Colleges were doing such a splendid work. It was, however, an unhappy feature that proper advantage could not be taken. He hoped the Minister would see his way clear to waive that half-interest so that the Colleges would be materially relieved of their difficulties, a course which would go a long way towards helping them temporarily until the bigger question was settled.

asked the hon. Minister a question regarding the decrease from £500 to £300 in connection with the expense attached to the National Advisory Board for Technical and Industrial Education.

called the attention of the Committee to the report of the Under-Secretary for Education for last year, in paragraph 7 of which the question of the unification of elementary education of the four Provinces was dealt with. He did not know whether the Under-Secretary was expressing his own views or those of the Ministerial head of his department. The hon. member quoted from the report, which was to the effect that if the time was not ripe for the control of the primary schools coming under Union the case should be made out, but legislation by Parliament resolved itself into a question of time. The Act of Union, pointed out the hon. member, deliberately left the control of education to the Provinces for a definite period, and he thought it was going beyond the province of the Under-Secretary, if he had not been invited to do so, to give expression as to the necessity for the Provinces to surrender the control of primary education into the hands of the Union. He thought it was highly improper in the present state of the relations between the Provincial Councils and the Union Government that that report should have appeared.

said the examinations were held in the hottest month of the year. It was very trying for the candidates on the coast, and it must be worse for those in the hotter places up-country. He would call the Minister’s attention to the delay that took place in the announcement of the results of the examination. He instanced the Bachelor of Arts examination last year, and said the examination papers were completed at Christmas, but the results were not announced until February 6. Let them take the case of candidates who wished to take a degree here and go to Europe to complete their education. The candidates could not go to Europe before they knew the result of the examination. The University term in Europe commenced in October, therefore students had nothing to do between February and September. He urged that the examinations should take place in June, and did not think the candidates should be subject to the convenience of a small body of examiners.

asked the Minister what was the position with regard to Frankenwald Estate, which had been a gift to South Africa for educational purposes. The Estate was not being made use of for that purpose. Had the Minister got any plans with regard to it? He asked the reason for the increase in the vote for the South African School of Mines and Technology, from £15,668 to £24,000. With regard to the Victoria College at Stellenbosch, be said that in University education there should be provision for the scientific study of social and economic sciences, which were of immense importance at the present day. The effects of social organisation ought to be taught by a competent professor from a scientific point of view.

You will suffer.

We are quite prepared to take our chance of suffering.

supported the suggestion that the examination should take place in June and not in December during the hot time of the year. All the Universities in England started their course in October. He asked the reason for the large number of failures in Dutch in recent examinations. Was the examination too high? Even those people whose mother tongue was Dutch also failed. That had continued for two years in succession. The London University had made up its mind to make Cape Town a centre for examination. The Latin paper provided by the Cape University was more difficult to the student than that of the London University, and had been brought in for much discussion. The number of students who had failed to pass in Latin had also been great. He thought the Matriculation examination was also too high.

referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Griffin) said he thought the Under Secretary for Education had gone out of his way to interfere in matters that were entirely outside of his control. The people of Natal had always been proud of their educational arrangements and system. They considered that at present they were in the hands of the Provincial Council, which had knowledge of local requirements, and would be under the direct control of the Minister of Education. He did not know what the object of the official be referred to was in going out of his way to state that it was desirable to alter the position of affairs.

said he saw nothing down for the higher education of the natives. (Laughter.) It was a very great necessity. It seemed at one time as if Government was in favour of the higher education of natives, but nothing had been done, and the natives accordingly went to America for their higher education. The natives belonged to us and should be given a chance. He would like steps to be taken so that people could sit for the Cape University examinations in Great Britain.

said a deputation from the S.A. College had waited on him and wanted Government to make good a very substantial deficit on the ordinary working. He pointed out to the deputation that it ought to cut its coat according to its cloth.

That is what the Government should do.

That is very unpopular.

Yes, with the Government. (Laughter.)

Shoving their hands in some one else’s pockets. (Laughter.)

said that the S.A. College was not a Government institution, and he certainly could not assist it in the way the deputation suggested. Subsequent to that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, tabled a motion to say that Government must forego half the interest now paid on a loan of £80,000 to the S.A. College, but at the last moment the motion disappeared from the Paper. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would be able to inform the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, what induced him to remove that motion. (Laughter.)

He did it to leave more money for the teachers. (Laughter.)

(continuing) said until the central University question had been settled, the S.A. College would be hampered. He hoped within a short time they would have the report of the University Commission and that Parliament would be in a position next year to tackle this question again. With regard to the technical adviser, Government advertised the position both here and in England and on the Continent. He wanted a bilingual man with local experience, but he could not get one, and had to get a man from outside. But this gentleman must be given an opportunity of thoroughly acquainting himself with South African conditions. As to the Union Government taking over primary and secondary education, the House wanted all the information and resolutions moved on the subject, but when the Under Secretary tried to inform the House on the matter he was criticised. That gentleman’s report could not be regarded as an authoritative statement.

Why is it allowed to go out then?

(proceeding) said the department crystallised opinions in the report. With regard to the University Examinations, he remembered when they were held in June, but why the date was altered he was not in a position to say. Certainly, so far as climate was concerned, June was the most convenient month. As regarded hurrying up the results, the number of candidates was increasing each year, and it was better to have proper examinations and the papers properly looked at than to hurry up and have unreliable results. With regard to the School of Mines, Johannesburg, that institution received an increased vote this year for several reasons. There were increases for salaries, repairs to existing buildings, and evening classes.

said that this showed the gratitude they got from the Government when they wanted to give them a lift up. It was quite true that he withdrew his motion. The Government, they were told, were in a very tight corner and so forth, and he had no desire to embarrass them by increasing expenditure. Then his hon. friend took up the position that he was not going to increase the vote at all. The students at the S.A. College had increased more rapidly than at any other college in South Africa. The hon. member quoted statistics showing that the colleges in the Cape received considerably lower grants per head of students than the colleges in the other Provinces of the Union. He expressed his very great disappointment at the attitude adopted by the Minister towards this matter. He pointed out that the Municipality of Cape Town gave no less than £3,000 a year as a grant to the South African College, and observed that there was no other Municipality in the whole land that showed such generosity towards an institution of this kind. Mr. Jagger went on to ask the Minister when they might expect the report of the University Commission. Dealing with minor matters arising on the vote, he said he understood that when the Public Service Commission fixed the scales of salaries in the various grades of the Service, those salaries were permanent. He asked how it was that in this particular department there had been an increase in the scale of salaries given to certain officials He also inquired what the position was with regard to the Professor of Pedagogy at the Grey College, Bloemfontein. This gentleman in former years had three students. Perhaps his hon. friend would inform the Committee how many students he had now got.

said the hon. member for Three Rivers had touched an important point when he asked why so many candidates failed in the examination. The fact of the matter was that Dutch had never come to its rights in the public schools of South Africa. In higher education, Dutch was taught as a language. It was not used as a medium of instruction. To that was due the fact that the students who went in for science or technical subjects could express themselves better in English on these subjects than in their mother tongue. Mr. Wilcocks quoted instances where English teachers had been appointed to teach Dutch children. Where a Dutch child was not taught through the medium of his own language a great injustice was done to that child, just the same as an injustice would be done to English children who were not taught through the medium of English. In this connection he wished to refer to the case of the training college of teachers at Doornfontein, where from November, 1913, till May, 1914, there had been no professor in the Dutch language, so that the teachers turned out from that college did not have the advantages which they should have had Until these anomalies and injustices were removed Dutch would not, he urged, receive justice, and he urged the Minister to give the matter his personal attention and consideration.

asked the hon. Minister if it was not possible to do something more for the institutions for native education.

said that native education fell under the Provincial Councils, and at present these institutions did not work above the sixth standard. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said that he understood that the University Commission would finish their report during the course of the next month. Professor Perry, who had been here serving on that Commission, would be back here on the way to Australia during July; the report would be finished by that time, and he (the Minister) hoped to be in a position by the beginning of August to have the report printed and published, so that it could be dealt with next session. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Cape Town. Central, with reference to the Professor of Pedagogy at Bloemfontein, that officer was also doing a great deal of work in connection with the Normal School, at Bloemfontein. The appointment was made before the Union by Act of Parliament, and could not be interfered with. With regard to the grades of clerical assistants, they had been raised from the second to first grade, but they were drawing the same salaries as before.

pointed out that at some of the colleges there was an item “deducted on account of fees.” He always understood that the colleges were self-supporting, and he did not know the meaning of that item. The State, he said, practically maintained higher education, and the average citizens of the country were not able to get into those colleges. Did the interest and redemption of loan, item mean that the Government was paying interest and redemption of money which had been borrowed by private individuals.

said the colleges of the Cape were State-aided institutions, and their income was on the £ for £ system, and they paid half interest. The colleges in the other Provinces were wholly State institutions, and not State-aided, the whole of the Council being nominated by the Government. Those amounts which were shown as fees were deducted from the amounts granted instead of paying the money and having it returned.

The vote was agreed to.

said the Minister was not in a very fortunate position as he had to take upon his shoulders the responsibilities of those who preceded him, consequently one felt loth to attack him for the misdeeds of others, and he (the speaker) would reduce his charges to the smallest minimum. In the first place he pointed out that. Estimates for the present year showed an increase of £1,207 over those of last year. He could quite understand that the Minister had been terrified at the acts of his predecessors, because when he looked at the report of the Auditor-General for 19.11-12 he found that there were no less than 18 actions involving legal expenditure brought against the Government during that financial year. The hon. member instanced a few exceptions where the Government had been put to expense owing to the mistakes of officials, but he understood that in some instances the officials had to pay for their mistakes, and if that became general he thought there would be fewer such instances. He thought the Government would be wise in cases where an official was to blame for an action that they should make the official pay.

said the commercial community very much regretted the delay that had taken place in passing a Trade Marks and Patents Law for the Union. A Commission had sat on that matter, and all that remained to be done was to bring a Bill forward. There they were four years after Union, and if a man wanted to take out a patent in South Africa he had to take out four. It would be five years after Union before an individual, if he wanted to be protected under the law with reference to trade marks or patents, would not have to take out four of those protections in the four Provinces. That was not fair to the commercial community. If any part the community had been neglected since Union it was the commercial section.

said there were one or two matters in connection with that vote which he wanted to bring up. He wished to point out to the Minister, and he hoped the Minister would reply by giving some assurance, that the law had placed in his hands the power to deport men under the Immigration Act. They had had it in evidence from the Chief of Police that it was practically on his advice that the Minister proceeded. When the clause was passed giving the Government power to deport men for certain offences under the Immigration Act it was not in the contemplation of the House that men should be deported years after they had been convicted. It had been a surprise to the Public Accounts Committee to discover that a system of “smelling out ” was going on. Men who had been convicted and had expiated their crimes wore years afterwards hunted out by the police. If a man was found to be still associating with habitual criminals the police advised the Minister to have him deported. He submitted to the Minister that he would do exceedingly well if he would give some assurance on that matter. It was not contemplated when the Act was passed that it would be retrospective. He noticed from the vote that they had four Attorneys-General, two with salaries of £1,800 per annum and two with £1,200. He did not think that any Attorney-General was worth £1,800 who signed an indictment against a man for comparing the Government to an ass. (Laughter.) He thought £1,203 a year would be quite sufficient for a man like that, and moved that his salary be reduced to £1,203. Other persons had been prosecuted at the same time as the case he referred to. If the Attorney-General of the Transvaal or anywhere else prosecuted people on such grounds as that, thereby disturbing the public mind, the Government ought to remove that Attorney-General and replace him with someone with more discretion.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), when he said that if Parliament had known what would be done under the Immigration Act they would never have passed it. There had been occasions when the Act had been used retrospectively. A man who had committed a crime 10 years ago, and had settled down to be a respectable member of society should not be deported by the police. Would the Minister give them some statement of what the policy of the Department was? There was a good deal of suspicion about the matter.

said he had a painful case to bring forward. It seemed to him there had been a case of persecution of an officer of the department who had been doing splendid work in the service, and who was sought to be got rid of for reasons unconnected with his efficiency. He referred to the removal of Sergt. Purdon from Newcastle, Natal. Sergt. Purdon was apparently in the police acting as prosecutor at Newcastle, and apparently had given perfect satisfaction to the Magistrates and others with whom he came in contact. He was proficient in the Zulu language, and a man conversant with Natal law. He (Mr. Struben) had said that he thought it was a case of persecution, and he would read correspondence on the subject. On the 22nd September a letter was addressed to the Prime Minister enclosing a petition signed by 40 Dutch-speaking inhabitants, praying for a public Prosecutor who was a master of the Dutch language. There were also enclosed copies of resolutions passed by two public meetings, and a copy of a resolution on the same matter passed by the Newcastle District Bestuur. The letter was signed by Mr. J. J. Muller, secretary of the Newcastle District Bestuur. Continuing, Mr. Struben read the resolutions and the petition, and pointed out that Mr. Muller’s name occurred in each of those documents. The petition stated that he knew nothing, and wished to know nothing, of the Dutch language. The petitioners asked for the appointment of a person who not only knew Dutch but respected it. Up to this time there had been no complaint on any score against Sergeant Purdon. The desire was not merely to have a bilingual public prosecutor, but there appeared to be some other motive behind it. We apparently had here an attempt, made in a man’s absence, to have him shifted, although up to that time no complaint had been made against him. The Defence Department and the Attorney-General of Natal were quite satisfied with the way in which Purdon had done his work, but in December the Government informed the petitioners that an attempt would be made to meet their request. On December 24 a letter was sent from the Department of Defence to the Secretary for Justice, stating that Second-Class Head-Constable Muller, who had bilingual qualifications, had been transferred from Port Natal to Newcastle. Mr. Muller, with his family, went to Newcastle, and was there a whole month without knowing what his position really was On December 25 a telegram was sent by some of the inhabitants of Newcastle through the Mayor strongly protesting against the removal of Sergeant Purdon, and asking what the reason of it was The answer of the Minister was: “Have given no orders re Sergeant Purdon. He is officer of Defence Department, and as prosecutor comes under delegation of Attorney-General.” Mr. Struben went on to say that, on the face of it, this looked as if the department were deliberately trying to mislead the people of Newcastle as to who was responsible.

Nonsense; it is not from the department at all.

That is a copy of a telegram sent from the Minister of Justice to the Mayor of Newcastle. I say that, on the face of it, it looks like an attempt to mislead the people of Newcastle as to what was happening. It is quite possible that the officer who replied to the telegram did not know the whole of the facts of the case. Proceeding, the hon. member said that on December 29 the Magistrate of Newcastle sent a telegram to the Department of Justice strongly protesting against the removal of the prosecuting sergeant, and adding that a letter would follow. The Acting Magistrate thereupon sent a letter to the Department of Justice saying that the Magistrate desired to protest against this removal and that, unless Sergeant Purdon had been promoted, he most emphatically protested against his removal. This officer was rapped over the knuckles for using language that was considered too strong, and he apologised. On December 30 the Mayor sent a telegram to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, saying that he could not gather from the department’s telegram what department was responsible for the removal. The Minister replied that he had not personally acted in the matter, but on further inquiry he found that his predecessor took certain steps. Then the local people took the matter up, a committee was formed, and a petition was signed trying to have this officer retained in their midst. The rumour that the matter was approved by the South African Party was shown to be untrue. On the 19th January no reply had been sent to the other committee, which had presented a petition with 200 signatures. What was going to become of Purdon he did not know, but the moment he gave notice for the papers to be laid on the Table of the House, instructions were sent for Purdon to be dealt with. He had laid the facts fully before the committee, and it seemed to him that in that case there had been a pandering to a smalt section of people. In effect they had a political party using its influence to get the Department of Justice to shift a man, who had given complete satisfaction in the district, against the wishes of the inhabitants. That was the inference to be drawn. Nobody knew what was to become of the man displaced until it was suggested that he should be given a better position, just as to say, “what are you making a fuss about, Sergeant Purdon has been promoted”; but it was unfortunate that the appointment should be given to him just after the matter had been raised.

said that the very important question of deportation had been raised during the evening, and he regretted that so many members had left, but he wanted to make matters clear on that question. The question of deportation was one which rested with the Minister of the Interior. In regard to a very unfortunate case which was brought to his attention, he gave instructions that in future every case submitted to be dealt with by deportation should pass through his hands. (Hear, hear.) He could give the Committee the fullest assurance that it was not his intention and not the intention of the Minister of the Interior to deport men who had old sentences against them. He did not think there was a single case where a man who had been more than a mouth out of prison had been deported. He thought there was only one case of a man being deported even that time after he had left prison. There was no desire to rake up old sentences against men and deport them. In the Transvaal there was a provision, and the police knew of it, that where a person had been convicted and within any time of five years it was found he had no means of livelihood and was consorting with suspicious characters, he could be brought before the Court and punished. He had uniformly taken up the attitude that if a man had been several years out of prison, had no means of livelihood, and consorted with criminals, proceedings should be taken under the Ordinance he referred to and that man should be convicted again. He was quite in accord with what the hon. member for Jeppe had said. Unless there were very special circumstances in connection with the conviction, a man should not be deported unless there were several previous convictions against him, or at least two previous convictions. There were exceptional cases. As regarded the question which had been raised as to the salary of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal, he wished to say that Attorney-Generals were somewhat privileged officials. He took it that if Parliament reduced the salary of the Attorney-General it would mean dismissal. It put him (the Minister) in a difficult position because the hon. member had said that he (the Minister) had made a certain statement. He (the Minister) had certainly no right to order an Attorney-General to institute a prosecution or to frame one. He could make a suggestion on the matter. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), he thought it was only in one speech that the man concerned had referred to the Government as a donkey. (Laughter.) There had been other not very flattering references to the Government. On second thought, however, wiser counsels prevailed and the prosecution was not proceeded with. With reference to the hon. member for Yon Brandis, he pointed out that the Department of Justice had to fight actions for other Departments. The hon. member knew that there was nothing so uncertain as the law, and even the best opinions went wrong. He (the Minister) had the Law Advisers to advise him whether the case should be defended or not The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, had spoken of the delay in introducing a Patents Law. Those laws were consolidated in one Bill, but owing to circumstances it was found impossible to introduce such a Bill which would have taken a considerable amount of time. The Insolvency Bill was also ready. That was a very urgent measure, and after that another measure of urgency was the Magistrates’ Court Bill. Another important measure was the Criminal Procedure Bill, and if he could manage to get these four consolidated measures published three or four months before the House met again, that was as much as Parliament could be expected to tackle in one session.

Are we going to meet again? (Laughter.)

said he regretted the hon. member for Newlands had taken up so much time over one particular case. He did not think the hon. member had put this case in quite a fair light so far as he (Mr. De Wet) was concerned. He never intended to put any blame on his predecessor. Unfortunately the telegram he received from the Mayor was dated December 26, and he (Mr. De Wet) sent a reply on the 27th or 28th, stating that personally, he knew nothing about the matter. Very shortly after that, however, he discovered that his Department had dealt with the subject, and accordingly he had to explain that. With regard to Sergt. Purdon’s ability he did not want to say a single word about that—he was a very able man. The hon. member had given the impression that Sergt. Purdon was turned out on the street. The Sergeant was a member of the Defence Force, and did not get a single penny extra for acting as Public Prosecutor. In small places officers of the police or of the S.A.M. Rifles acted as Prosecutors, the appointments of the latter being made by the Defence Department. That was why he (Mr. De Wet) in his first telegram stated that the department had nothing whatever to do with it. Subsequently he found the matter had passed to his department, which simply passed on the request to the Defence Department to supply a bilingual prosecutor. That was a most reasonable request, and he endorsed it. If only one citizen of Newcastle had made it, he (Mr. De Wet) would have considered it his duty to have it acceded to—(Ministerial cheers)—especially when they had a magistrate and three clerks at Newcastle, neither of whom could speak Dutch. The hon. member had said that they should have got an interpreter. At the same time the Government was continually attacked on the ground of expense. He could not go and put an English-speaking prosecutor in a Dutch-speaking district and give an interpreter. He desired to read a letter which was written upon his instructions under date February 2nd, to Mr. Crook, who had made representations on behalf of the inhabitants of Newcastle. This letter put his case quite clearly. In it he stated that when he (the Minister) sent his first telegram to the Mayor of Newcastle he was unaware that his department had anything to do with the proposed transfer of Sergt. Purdon. On further inquiry he found that his predecessor had asked the Defence Department; if it would not be possible to arrange to station at Newcastle a non-commissioned officer who would be capable of prosecuting in both English and Dutch. He was willing to recognise the parties, but was not prepared to make any further representations, to the Defence Department unless it was shown that Sergeant Muller was not capable. That was the attitude he took up, that where it was possible, in Dutch-speaking districts they should have a bilingual prosecutor.

regretted that he had not got so complete an explanation as had been given by the Minister when he raised the question of deportation. The people would be glad to know that old crimes would not be taken into consideration.

was sorry he had not risen before the Minister, or he would have raised the case of the man Albertyn, who refused to turn out with the Defence Force, and was prosecuted. He was bailed out, and although six months had gone, no proceedings had been taken against him, but his bail was retained. He was a poor man, and his complaint was that he should be dealt with or his bail returned to him.

wished to point out that he never suggested that there had been persecution by a department of the State; he did suggest that there might have been persecution, but not in that direction. He quite agreed with the Minister in principle, but an efficient officer was removed from a district where he was wanted, under great pressure.

said he was surprised at the way in which the hon. member for Newlands had delayed the time of the House in regard to the matter of Sergeant Purdon. All he (the speaker) knew of Sergeant Purdon was to the latter’s advantage, but, he asked, what must become of the country’s administration if because of the transfer of a sergeant of police the House was delayed for such a long time? He could further assure the House that there was a large section of Dutch-speaking people at Newcastle, and it was a matter of importance therefore that they should get a bilingual official. It was to be regretted that the bilingual magistrate at Newcastle had been replaced by one who only knew one language. That made it necessary to have a bilingual public prosecutor. The hon. member for Newlands had proved nothing.

said if the hon. member for George Town would hand him particulars of the case he had referred to he would inquire into it.

The amendment moved by Mr. Creswell was negatived.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 25, Superior Courts, £194,713,

moved that progress be reported and leave obtained to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to resume on Monday.