from M. Gregory, formerly a signalman, retired on account of an injury received.

moved, in line 9 of sub-paragraph 3, after “or,” to insert “with the offender’s consent”; and in lines 13 and 14 to omit “with the offender’s consent.” The Minister said that as the clause at present stood a Court would in its discretion be able to order the payments of a fine out of moneys earned by the offender without his consent. He (the Minister) wished to make such fines payable only with the offender’s consent. Supposing a fine of £5 were imposed and that money had already been earned by the man, on his consent the fine could be paid out of that money. The amendment would give the Magistrate power to order that. The Magistrate had power to seize money found on the person of the offender. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had been afraid of the effect the clause would have in a case of passive resistance. He hoped the hon. member would agree to the amendment.

said he hoped the Minister of Justice would accept an amendment. He had no objection whatever to the Minister’s suggestion that the Magistrate might order that a fine should be paid from the wages a man had earned. He had, however, the strongest objection to the principle of seizing moneys of a man, although they belonged to him for the payment of his fine. If a man would not pay a half-crown fine and was foolish enough to incur a greater fine with costs, etc., then let him cut off his nose to spite his face if he liked. If they had already provided for that it ought to be sufficient. He moved in sub-paragraph (3) to omit the words “order payment of the fine and the enforcement thereof by seizure of moneys upon the person of the offender or known to belong to him wherever they may be found.”

seconded the amendment and said that the money might not belong to the offender.

said there was a large number of cases every year, especially with natives, who would not pay small fines and preferred to go to gaol, and that cost the Government, a lot of money. In conclusion, he said that it was in the discretion of the Magistrate to deal with any money that might be found.

moved the deletion of the words. “or known to belong to him wherever they may be found.”

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

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe dropped.

The sub-section as amended was agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved to insert, after the words “fraudulent insolvency,” the words “culpable insolvency.”

said he had no objections, but there was a strong feeling in the House about the matter.

The amendment was negatived.

The Bill, as amended, was adopted.

moved that the clause stand over until clause 13 had been discussed.

The motion was negatived and the clause agreed to.

On clause 3,

moved as an unopposed motion the deletion of clause 3.

objected.

On clause 13,

moved the deletion of the word “registered.”

accepted the amendment, and the section as amended was agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved, in line 3 of sub-section (5), to omit “investigation, arbitration or inquiry,” and to substitute “or arbitration.”

said he was prepared to accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 16, What is a Trade Union,

said he wished to lodge a protest against this clause, which meant the recognition by law of Trade Unions, with all its political consequences. He saw the Minister was prepared to accept anything from his Socialist friends but he would not accept any warnings from him (Mr. Fawcus). (Laughter.)

The clause was agreed to.

moved as an unopposed motion that the Bill be now read a third time.

objected.

asked whether he would be in order under Rule 329 in moving the suspension of the Standing Rules and Orders?

The Minister must have the consent of the whole House.

said that he would like to know whether it was any use appealing to the hon. member for Umlazi? He had spoken to the hon. member privately, and had been led to believe that the hon. member would give his arguments consideration.

Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Minister?

No. Does the hon. member still press his objection?

Yes; but I wish to reply to the Minister.

The hon. member cannot do that.

The Bill was set down for third reading to-morrow.

moved the second reading of the Bill.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

said that, before the committee proceeded with the Bill, he would like to ask, as a matter of order, whether it was possible to proceed with certain items in this Bill?

It is not in this Bill. This is the ordinary Appropriation Bill.

Oh, I beg pardon.

The clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

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

rose and said: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker—

interposing, pointed out that the Order had now been read.

Very good, Mr. Speaker, if you don’t wish to hear me.

If the House will take this Order as not read—

I want to get a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, if you please. I do not know whether it is competent, whether the Order has been read or not, for us to consider certain details in these Loan Estimates.

I did not hear what the right hon. gentleman said.

If I am able to go on, I will go on. Proceeding, he said that there were certain new works for harbours put down in the Loan Estimates, and clause 130 of the South Africa Act, which was, he imagined, the Constitution—it had not been altered as yet, he thought—said that every proposal for the construction of any port or harbour, or any line of railway, before being submitted to Parliament, should be considered by the Board, who should report thereon, and should advise whether the proposed work or line of railway should or should not be constructed. They had been supplied in connection with the Estimates with several documents, and, taking the list, he had looked through all of them, it might be owing to his imperfect way of looking at them, but he had not been able to find any report from the Board, and certainly no debit or credit account, no account showing whether these things were suitable to be constructed or the necessity for their construction at the present moment. He wished to know whether the terms of clause, 130 had been complied with sufficiently to enable the House to go on with the consideration of these Estimates? Extension of Breakwater at East London, £400,000; Port Elizabeth extension of Breakwater, £1,500,000; and Durban Graving Dock, £500,000—all these were new works, he took it, with the exception of the reconstruction of the Loch Jetty.

Leave out Cape Town.

I have fought over and over again against chucking money into the sea in Cape Town, I can tell you; but these are the glaring points, the new works. Table Bay has practically very little, with the exception of the reconstruction of the Loch Jetty, which ought to come out of depreciation, but we have not one scrap of information, and are voting blindly.

said that if the right hon. gentleman’s objection were upheld, this would be the first time in the Union Parliament that this objection had been taken. They had year after year voted for reconstruction works in this way, and the House had never taken the view that it required reports, as it did from the Railway Board when new lines were proposed. Therefore, he hoped, the objection would not be maintained. The scheme of harbour improvements was the Board’s own scheme.

said it was perfectly true that this was the first time, but the fact that the law had been broken in the past was no justification for its continued violation. This was a distinct breach of the law as laid down in paragraph 130 of the South Africa Act. The House had absolutely no report from the Railway Board. There was a certain memorandum, but it was not signed by the Board. The House did not know what was going to be the financial position of the works. The Government had distinctly broken the law and the item should be withdrawn.

Are these reports by the Board?

The memorandum of explanation is the memorandum of the Board. We should never have heard of this had the works not been for East London and Port Elizabeth. (Ministerial cheers.) For the first time this pure technicality is being raised. If this point is upheld it means we shall have to sit another day. The section of the South Africa Act which the right hon. gentleman quotes says that every proposal before being submitted by Parliament shall be considered by the Board. These are the proposals of the Board after the most careful consideration.

I submit—

Order, order.

Well, you allowed the Minister. (Laughter.)

My attention has been drawn on the spur of the moment by the Right Honourable the member for Victoria West to section 130 of the South Africa Act. This question is now for the first time raised since the Union Parliament has been in existence. Section 130 reads: “Every proposal for the construction of any port or harbour works or line of railway, before being submitted to Parliament, shall be considered by the Board, which shall report thereon, and shall advise whether the proposed works or line of railway should or should not be constructed ....” This part of the section just read by me is material to the point upon which my ruling is asked. The Honourable the Minister of Railways and Harbours (who is also Chairman of the Railway Board) has just assured the House that the works for which prevision is now sought to be made in the Loan Estimates, and which are referred to in the explanatory memoranda in connection with certain items on page 16 of the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works (which explanatory memoranda are contained in Blue-Book U.G. 39—'14, already in the hands of members), have been considered by the Railway Board and that the explanatory memoranda referred to really constitute their report. I cannot conceive it possible for these documents to have been placed before the House without having previously been considered by the Board, although it is true that technically the report is not signed by the members of the Board. In view of these facts I am not prepared now to rule that section 130 of the South Africa Act has not been complied with in regard to the proposed works referred to, but at the same time I am of opinion that it would be better in future if such reports which contain definite proposals bear the signatures of the Commissioners of the Board.

asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether, for a similar reason to that advanced by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, it was competent for the House to consider the items of expenditure proposed to be carried out in connection with Table Ray Harbour, as printed on page 16 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (U.G. 31—’14)—(Second print)?

stated that, in conformity with the ruling he had just given, he considered that these proposals might also be considered to be proposals submitted by the Railway Board, and he was therefore not prepared to rule that the provisions of section 130 of the South Africa Act in regard to those proposals had not been complied with.

said that notice of motion had been given by the Minister of Finance to move that the Estimates be increased by £500,000, which would make the total vote £3,000,000. He moved accordingly.

moved that the vote be taken “seriatim.”

All that is before us is this loan Vote A.

said he wanted to call attention to certain balances on capital expenditure on certain railway lines. The Auditor-General in his report called attention to certain balances still outstanding. He wanted to know why those accounts had not been closed.

reply was quite inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said there was a saving on one of those lines—the Dalton line.

said the hon. member was suspicious about those things, especially of anything that came from Natal. (Hear, hear.) Sometimes they had to spend more on those lines and sometimes less.

said they now had it that the Brown-book was a report of the Railway Board, and that any estimate in the book carried with it a report with which the Board agreed. To his mind, that was a most unsatisfactory thing. They had a Railway. Board created by the Act of Union, and one of its functions was, before any new works were undertaken, to report as to whether those works should be undertaken. They were told that the mere fact of an estimate appearing in the Brown-book was to be taken as showing that the Board approved of it. In his opinion, that was not what the Act of Union required, and the estimates were the estimates of the Government and the Minister—the Board did not appear in the House to justify the estimates. He thought it was a completely wrong position. He hoped he might assume that the Minister had been driven into that position, and that it was a position he would not maintain.

We have done this every year since Union. (No, no.)

asked why they had had definite reports from the Board in regard to new lines of railway. Surely he might say that the sense of the committee was with him in saying that at another time they should have a more reasonable attitude.

said he did not know what particular item the hon. member was referring to. They had a memorandum from the Railway Board, and the sole objection was that it was not signed.

said no mention was made of the Board. The thing might have been drawn up by any clerk. It was not signed. There was no recommendation at all as to whether the works should be constructed or not When they paid £2,000 a year to the gentlemen of the Railway Board, and got nothing for it, he thought it was a discredit to the Board.

said the trouble that had arisen was due to the attitude of the Government, which had always depended on a docile majority supporting them, whether they were right or wrong. The Opposition had repeatedly asked for a definition of the Railway Board. The predecessor of the Minister made promises that such a Bill would be introduced, but they were now in the fourth session of that Parliament, and those promises had never been fulfilled. The united experiences of the four Provinces had shown that, under the exigencies of political situations, works had been more than once introduced without proper consideration, and that money to be expended was not expended in the best interests of the country. In the Act of Union every stress was laid on the Railway Board in connection with railway and harbour works. The present Minister of Railways and Harbours had given an assurance that he would consider the matter, but he had never redeemed the promise of his predecessor, although he had led the House to believe that he would do so.

said he had listened to the rulings of Mr. Speaker with the deepest reverence, and he must take it that the Estimates were the work of the Railway Board. A more disgraceful thing and neglected duty he had never known. He had never known any Board to bring up such a report. He had never seen a more disgraceful performance and a more thorough breaking of the spirit of the Act of Union. Even the meagre reports which had been brought up on railways they had protested against, because no sufficient information had been given. In the matter of harbour works he would like to be informed whether any new works had been undertaken since Union which would have necessitated that position.

He thought that it should be shown in regard to harbours particularly that it was necessary that the work should be done, because harbours were not like railways. In the case of a railway, although it might be an unprofitable railway, and he was afraid that some of their railways might be considered in that light, they developed the country and were sure of earning something, and conferred a benefit on the country. In the case of a harbour they might do harm to a place by spending money. Perhaps they would remember the case of the breakwater at Port Elizabeth. (An Hon. Member: “Order.”) Who called “Order”? (Laughter.) Was it the sage from Durban? (Laughter.) Well, he would deal with him later. (Laughter.) Under the present system Port Elizabeth was the cheapest place to land and discharge cargo on the coast, and the most efficient. They might ask why the rates had not gone up? It was in order to level up, and not unduly compete with the other ports. They were going to spend a large amount of money in one place because money had been spent in another. They kept up the balance of trade. It had been done in the railways, and now it was being done in connection with the harbours. If they voted a sum in one place they had to vote similar sums in other places in order to prevent jealousy. They reduced the debt at East London, and they immediately proceeded to take it off Port Elizabeth and a slice off Cape Town, and that was the way they had always dealt with the harbours. They were asked to incur wasteful expenditure on harbours which was not needed. When they were considering spending this huge sum on harbours, he asked them to consider the time. There was at the present time a yearly deficiency of £291,000 on the working of the harbours, and they were now going to vote two and a half millions and add another £100,000 of interest which the harbours would have to bear. That came out of the general taxpayer. How in the name of fortune were they going to benefit Port Elizabeth by adding £60,000 or £70,000 to the cost of its interest account?

They would have to put on wharfage dues to pay for that, and then they would have to charge the people more. They were throwing money into the Sea and wasting money, and doing it upon what? This report of the Board, forsooth. As he read the report it was by no means favourable. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, would say they could not get on without it, but they had been getting on without it for 40 of 50 years. Then they wanted to build a graving dock at Durban.

We must have one somewhere.

We have two.

What size?

One of the largest in the world.

An Admiralty Dock.

I admit my friend has nautical experience. (Laughter.) Perhaps his nautical experience is about as good as the Board’s report. (Laughter.)

said he would like to point out to the right hon. the member for Victoria West that they were asked to vote £3,000,000 at once. He, for one, would like it taken in detail. He pointed out that they were asked to spend thousands of pounds on various lines without one word of explanation from the Board, and there could be only one result, very heavy taxation. He drew the Minister’s attention to a number of small items which he thought strange should be taken out of a loan fund. He pointed out that the Assistant Controller and Auditor-General drew attention to the expenditure of £260,000 in 1912-13 without any sanction at all, and he thought that this expenditure ought to have been foreseen by the Board and the money voted. In conclusion, he pointed out that this was a second edition of the Brown-book, and that extensive alterations had been made when it was compared with the first edition.

said they had the same experience every year. (Hear, hear.) New proposals for railways were brought forward on the last day of the session. The schemes laid down might be most laudable, but they had no information, and there was no time to get it.

What about Hartebeestfontein?

I was quite prepared for that gibe. We had some information in that case; here we have none. Continuing, he said that the Minister might have been courteous enough to have gone through the items in detail and anticipated some of the discussion that had taken place. Surely this expenditure was not decided on yesterday or the day before.

said he raised some time ago what he considered to be a very destructive criticism in relation to the expenditure of £5,000,000 on a coal line in Natal, when a much better line could have been got at one and a half millions, and the Minister did not vouchsafe a single word of reply. The question they had to consider was not one of more work at any cost for the unemployed in this country, but that the work when found should be put into the best paying job. Here they were asked to vote a further sum of £144,240 for the alteration of the main line between Pietermaritzburg and Durban. This further amount was to build a line with a gradient of one in 65, against an alteration which the Board, in their report, said could be obtained without any gradient at all. Yet the Board said it was a more advantageous thing to adopt the main line improvement from Pietermaritzburg to Durban, and they were prepared to advocate that line, which involved a rise of 800 feet to Cato Ridge and the high level in that neighbourhood, whereas the line could be taken from Pietermaritzburg to Durban on the downhill gradient the whole way. On the basis of their present traffic, it was worth spending £800,000 to avoid that. In place of having a better line for £798,000, they were going to spend £915,000 on one that would cost in engine power alone between £25,000 and £30,000 a year more to work. It was a strange thing to him that the Railway Board did not seem to see that it was a better thing to have two strings to one’s bow than one. The position in the coal trade in Natal was a precarious one. There was competition looming up from Delagoa Bay. He would point out that Durban was a Union port and Delagoa Bay was not The theory that he had with reference to the matter was that the Government wanted to balance the trade on the lines, and they, did not want the Natal line to have outstanding advantages against the others. That position, however, was weakened when they considered the competition that they might have to meet in the future from Delagoa Bay. He was going to vote against this item.

said he had no objection whatever to the view taken that it might be more satisfactory if Parliament had a detailed report on every one of these new works. The Board had been let into this method of presenting a report for this objection had never before been made. Of course, he recognised there were special circumstances—local and Provincial circumstances. Don’t let them be blind to these things. They all had their little weaknesses and he recognised that, but he entirely agreed that the better course would be to have detailed reports. He did not suppose there was any matter on which the Board had taken more trouble than the question of the alternative main line in Natal; but the hon. member for Umlazi was always a better engineer than the Board’s engineers. (Laughter.) The House was rich in its harbour and engineering experts, all of whom were superior to the Government’s experts. The hon. member for Umlazi would go down to his grave complaining about these things. On no question had there been such an exhaustive inquiry as in this matter of the alternative main line in Natal, and the conclusion arrived at was sanctioned by Parliament last year, namely, that it would be much better to strengthen the existing main line than to build an entirely new one. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had referred to the relaying items, but the hon. member could not expect the House to go into these details, for if it investigated such matters it would take a burden upon itself that it could not properly discharge. Only 25 per cent. of the charges under these relaying items were chargeable to capital, the rest being charged to working expenses and to the renewal fund. The Estimates for the railway capital works had to be prepared something like eight months before submission to Parliament. As to the proposed harbour works at Port Elizabeth, the committee had before it a memorandum which gave a very fair information on the history, commercial and engineering aspects of the scheme. He was bound, as Minister for the Union, to state that Port Elizabeth’s claim had unduly been postponed for years past, and the scheme was simply a rectification of what he considered to be an injustice. The scheme was an act of common justice. (Hear hear.) This was not a new question, but there was no doubt that the efficiency with which the work of handling cargo at Port Elizabeth by lighters had really been the principal argument against Algoa Bay getting the protective works it was entitled to. Port Elizabeth was the harbour of the Midlands and to a very large extent for the wool farmers, and no one could doubt that it was fairly entitled to consideration, but so far it had had no consideration whatever. He (Mr. Burton) gave place to no one in this House, not even to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central—although he (Mr. Burton) was not quite so narrow in his view—in his regard for the interests of Table Bay, but Parliament must be fair in this matter, and must remember that there were other ports which were also entitled to consideration. For some time past the claims of Port Elizabeth for some construction works had strongly been urged. His predecessor in office went into the matter very carefully, and placed a considerable sum on the Estimates in order to begin the work, but the amount was not voted. His (Mr. Burton’s) first attention was directed to the importance of this matter by an important and largely attended deputation from the Midlands and Eastern Province, which waited on him about February of 1013. The deputation was introduced by the hon. member for Victoria West. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman then told him that he had been asked to introduce the deputation, which would present a number of resolutions.

That was not the deputation I introduced.

The right hon. gentleman was there all the time. It was the presence of my hon. friend that made more impression on me than anything else. (Laughter.) Continuing, the Minister said the first resolution presented by the deputation was to the following effect: “That this meeting is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken to provide outer works for Algoa Bay, and urges upon the Government to provide during the current session of Parliament a sum of £200,000 for building the first section of the breakwater recommended in the report of Mr. Methuen.” Continuing, the Minister said that he then proceeded to make investigations. He need not go into all the recommendations. There was a good deal of difference between the engineers as to what should be done, so he got their engineer (Mr. Nicholson) to investigate the matter and make a report. Mr. Nicholson advised that the work should take the form of a breakwater. He (the Minister) got a full report from him, and he took the trouble to submit that report while he was in England to the Commission of Engineers. They had a long and detailed conversation on the whole matter, and the engineers urged the construction of works both to the south-eastern breakwater and the northern breakwater, which would form a harbour of a considerable area of still water. That would have cost something between four and five million pounds. The Commission of Engineers also considered Mr. Nicholson’s proposal with regard to the breakwater, and they came to the conclusion that, if financial considerations stood in the way of the larger scheme, there should be some protection by means of a breakwater. It was not proposed to make a berthage for large steamers alongside that work. Though the lightering work at Port Elizabeth was well done, still there was no doubt that it was difficult, and often it was done under very dangerous circumstances. They all remembered what had taken place there from time to time, and how, about twelve years ago, some seventeen vessels were wrecked. There was no doubt that the provision of some protection for that work, to enable the lightering to be done in still water, was a reasonable request. He was not going into the engineering details. He thought the memorandum given on that subject to the committee was a fairly full one; it gave effect to the report of the Commission of Engineers in England.

He was assured, after the most careful inquiry, that the proposal made to the committee was a perfectly sound one: that it was a thing that should be done, and was worth doing. It was proposed that year to spend £50,000, and it was estimated that the work would take ten to twelve years to complete. The other main proposals on the Estimates included the East London Harbour extension, which was dealt with in the memorandum. That was not a new work at all—it was carrying on a work that had already been sanctioned.

When was it sanctioned?

said the work was sanctioned two years ago, and last year they had voted £100,000 for it. He was merely taking that money to carry on what had already been agreed upon, and what was in operation. The work would enable larger vessels to come into the harbour, and altogether it would improve the condition of the port. With regard to the breakwater at Durban, he thought the memorandum dealt fairly fully with the matter. There was no intention of making a violent departure from the original scheme of a breakwater there. What it was intended to do was to improve and strengthen the South Breakwater, and that would result in deeper water in the channel. The South Breakwater could not be repaired except in the way in which it was proposed to do it. The work would mean an additional 100 feet in width. The work was not only desirable, but it was urgently necessary. Then there was the graving dock for Durban. That was a new departure undoubtedly, but from the memorandum, hon. members would see that that matter had been considered very carefully for some time past and the Railway Administration had come to the conclusion that it was desirable in the interest of the harbours of South Africa and the maintenance of their trade, more particularly in competition with the Suez Canal route, that they should have somewhere in the Union a graving dock that could take the larger ships. At present they had no graving dock large enough. The Advisory Boards were unanimous in saying that Durban was the most suitable place to have the dock. The figures given in the memorandum would show hon. members what the capacity of the dock would be, and there was no reason to suppose that they would not be able to deal with the large ships of the future. With regard to the Loch Jetty at Cape Town, that was only a matter of necessary alterations.

said it was a very unfortunate thing that any member who criticised any item of expenditure should be accused of taking a narrow view. Unfortunately, they had to take that huge vote in one lump. On page 57 of the Brown-book it would be seen that the Minister wanted to take £155,000 for the Hutchinson-Carnarvon line. He hoped that was due to a large increase of traffic, but he had never heard that there was such a large amount of traffic on that line.

It has the biggest cattle traffic in this country.

said he would also like some information with regard to the relaying of the track of the Breyten-Machado dorp line.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m.

said that Mr. Speaker had given a ruling that morning, but with all due deference to Mr. Speaker, he was not going to say whether Mr. Speaker was Tight or not.

said that he could not allow the hon. member to discuss the point.

said that for many years past, when railway reports were brought before the House there were protests from all sides of the House as to the inadequacy of these reports, and he submitted that in this case the same thing had taken place. They had a report that was not signed. The Acting Chairman had ruled that section 130 of the South Africa Act only referred to new proposals, but he did not find the word “new” in the section. He referred to the Krugersdorp Zeerust-Mafeking proposal, but he could not find any report upon it. He protested against millions being voted in the course of a couple of hours.

was understood to take exception to some remarks made by the hon. member for Umlazi with regard to the hon. and gallant member for Umvoti. He said that the hon. member for Umvoti had been a warm supporter of the alternative line for Natal, and remarked that only illness of one of the members of his family had kept him away from the House that day.

dealing with the Hutchinson-Carnarvon line, said that when the proposal was first made the Minister said that this line was going to be an object lesson to the country, as it would show how tracts of country could be opened up by light railways. Now it was proposed to take up the 35 1b. rails and lay heavier metals. He thought that they would do better if they spent their money on railway extension instead of work of this sort. Either the policy of the Government was very hastily considered, or the Government had asked them in advance to spend money which could have been more profitably spent in developing other resources of the country.

When they had got a poor country crying out for development he did say that they ought not to depart from the policy which was deliberately laid down by the House when this line was constructed. It was laid down that this line was to be an object-lesson. It would be a long time before that district would produce more than 500,000 bags of grain. Their developing lines had got to go at a slow pace. So long as they could get 12 or 15 miles an hour and they gave transport at all seasons of the year, they were doing all that was necessary for developing districts of that sort. He believed that on this line three trains were run each way each week, and it occurred to him that the position might be met by giving a daily service each way.

said if one line in the country was necessary it was the one from Prieska, which should be extended. He was living in hopes that the Minister of Railways would eventually realise the necessity of having this line built. A light line would be sufficient. He considered with regard to the Hutchinson Camarvon line that not sufficient use was made of it, and that was because the line was too light, and the engines were only able to take a certain weight. That ought to be altered.

urged that, in reference to the Krugersdorp Zeerust and Mafeking line, it would be more desirable, instead of replacing the present45 lb. rails with 60 lb. rails, to allow the present rails to remain for a few years longer, and if the traffic required at the end of that time, to replace the present rails with 80 lb. rails.

said he noticed an item of £90,000 for a new sea-going suction dredger for Buffalo Harbour. He did not begrudge this vote so far as East London was concerned, but he wished to suggest that the old dredger that they had at East London, and which, he believed, was a good, serviceable boat, should be sent to Port St. John with a view to being employed on the bar.

said he did not wish to speak as an authority on deviation or alternative lines. But seeing the large amount placed on the Estimates for deviation, he would like to ask the Minister also to provide for those parts of the country which had no railway at all. Could not these lines which were now going to be further provided for wait until such time as the other parts of the Union had also been considered? He did not wish to suggest that the deviations were unnecessary.

said he wished to emphasise the remarks of the hon. member for Kroonstad. As to the deviation at Laingsburg, he claimed that every layman could see the uselessness of this deviation. Perhaps the deviation had shortened the route, but was that worth the expenditure which had had to be incurred? The route in fact had not been made any shorter. Then take the Hex River Pass, where deviations had been made on a large scale, and still the line was not a direct one Perhaps the gradients had been reduced, but the costs were too high. The Minister had said that no new lines were to be built. He could quite understand that, seeing the amount to be spent on improvement works, such as bridges, sewerage, etc., though in many cases those works were still in sufficiently good condition. Some of the old lines stood there as monuments of absurdity. Neither could ne understand the necessity for breaking up old lines which were still in good condition and relaying them with heavier rails and sleepers. He claimed that in the very first place the railway should give attention to those parts which had no railways at all. He also objected to the embellishment of stations, such as the Cape Town Station, where the dining-rooms had been beautified to such an extent that one hardly knew that one was in a railway station dining-room. He urged the Minister to do something for Hoopstad and Boshof in his part of the country. At present a line was running to Bothaville, sixty miles from his constituency, and now he was told to be satisfied. It was simply ridiculous. Other members, such as the hon. member for Rouxville, had moved heaven and earth to get railway lines, but now that they had the lines they forgot the rest of the world. He appealed to the Minister to bring forward a railway programme. The Prime Minister had himself acknowledged that many parts of the country were badly in need of railway communication. The speaker hoped the other Free State members would help him in his present appeal.

said he wished to make another appeal to the Minister on behalf of his (Sir Pisset’s) railway people. They wanted a railway institute at Queen’s Town, and if £7,000 could be given to Durban for a railway institute, the men of Queen’s Town had an equal claim on the Government. The present building, which was made of wood and iron, was very unsuitable. The railwaymen of Queen’s Town were an excellent lot and had set an example to the other men.

said it grieved him to see how much provision was made for deviation while so many parts of the country were still waiting for railways. In the Free State and the north-western districts of the Cape railway connection was very badly needed.

told the hon. member that he could not allow a general discussion.

continuing, urged the necessity of the Parys line being extended in a southern direction.

said he desired to emphasise the remarks of previous speakers. If anything was worth doing at all, it was worth doing well. The Springfontein-Fauresmith line had been built in a slip-shod manner, and he urged that at least good platforms should be provided at Philippolis and the other stations on that line.

said that they had reached the second phase of the session. The first phase of the session always consisted in the unfortunate Minister being put on the gridiron for not giving facilities cither by new stations or new platforms, and he was thoroughly well mishandled in that respect The second phase was when he was very rightly mishandled for spending money on luxuries when he ought to be devoting his attention to the lines of the country. He (Mr. Merriman) sympathised with the second phase. When he looked at the station at Muizenberg and thought of all the money spent on that line, and how with it they could run a line of 10 miles in any one direction and open the country with it, he thought it was a shameful thing that a place like Muizenberg should have a wooden station like that. The Minister bad been to England, and he hoped his eyes had been opened and that he had seen the sort of station which was much more suitable for large places than Muizenberg. In most Continental countries they had to get into the train from the level— they got up from the line. There they managed to go without those extravagant things which they in South Africa considered necessary to have on all their lines. They could not eat their cake and have it too. Therefore they could not spend all that money in furnishing those places as they did and develop the country as they ought to. With regard to the £155,000 for the Hutchinson Carnarvon line, he thought that line was constructed under his hon. friend’s regime with the 35 lb. rails. They knew very well that when they voted for the extension of the Carnarvon line it was only as part of a system. He (Mr. Merriman) had advocated another route. They had to spend £155,000 now in putting down heavier metals, because they could not expect to carry the heavy traffic on that line as it was He regretted that instead of constructing platforms and stations dotted about the country that they did not fulfill their promise to run a railway to their own estate at Douglas. He moved the reduction of the Estimates by the deletion of the Port Elizabeth extension, £1,500,000, and of the Graving Dock at Durban, £500,000. That would mean £2,000,000 in all. Those two millions would go very far in extending the railways in many parts of the country.

Victoria West?

said he had not mentioned Victoria West. If they were going to spend £2,000,000 in the way they proposed they were going to shut off railway extension for many years. They would be mortgaging the whole of their future prospects, because they had £18,000,000 of loan money. He asked any man of sense where they were going to raise £18,000,000 in anything like the time any of them were likely to sit in that House. The work at East London was a work that was going on, it was an extension. He regretted that it had not been before a Select Committee, because there was always a danger that some day they would have the whole of the entrance to Buffalo Harbour blocked up, and the breakwater he thought would help that. With regard to the breakwater at Durban, of course they must keep it in repair. He objected very strongly to the Minister having added a new horror to life. If a man introduced a deputation to a Minister and was supposed to be responsible for the views of that deputation, then God help him! The ingenious Minister had forgotten that the resolution which he said had directed his attention to that matter (the Port Elizabeth works) asked for something quite different to that which was proposed now. That resolution had asked for outer works, and that was the island in the sea at Port Elizabeth. What was asked for now was a continuance in the shape of a breakwater. He would vote against it if the matter was carried to a division, because he thought it was a waste of money. They would be doing Port Elizabeth an evil turn by carrying it out. The proper way to spend the money was by developing the hinterland of Port Elizabeth, where there were many places where a number of small railways would be of great use in developing the country.

With regard to the graving dock at Durban, this was one of those grandiose schemes that were supposed to shed lustre on the Union. They would then have three empty graving docks, instead of two. Why, the Board stated that the final plans and the report of the technical advisers had not been received for consideration—for consideration, let them mark. The Board asked the House to spend £500,000 before it had got the plans or the report of the advisers. They had the Naval Dock at Simon’s Town, which had never been used, and was not likely to be used for some time to come, and the other at Cape Town, which, luckily, was a floating dock. (Laughter.) Didn’t they know what that was? (Laughter.) He meant a dock where ships could float. (Laughter.) The proper thing to do was to enter into negotiations with the Naval authorities, with a view to ascertaining whether the dock at Simon’s Town could not be used in cases where vessels were too large to enter the dock at Cape Town. It was better for them to do that than to see the dock at Simon’s Town lying idle, and the Imperial Government having to shoulder a heavy burden. If ever there was a sample of a white elephant, that Simon’s Town dock was one. What precious fools they would look if, after voting this money, they found that the report of the technical advisers was opposed to the scheme. He thought it would be better to apply this money for the purpose of developing the country. He would move the deletion of the two items.

said he wished to support the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. The Port Elizabeth Harbour Works had been adequate for years for the requirements of that port, and should satisfy that port until the inland parts of the country had been provided for and had their railway requirements attended to. Then when trade had been increased would be the time to increase the size of the harbour works. He thought, seeing the progress which was being made with the authorised works, they should not allow any fresh loans until the work in hand had been concluded. It would be far better to apply a little more energy to the works in hand and get these works finished. There were certain necessary improvements which must be made, such as better station accommodation at Jagers fontein. It would be better to lengthen the lines from Koffyfontein and Bothaville than to spend £2,000,000 on the harbours at Durban and Port Elizabeth. The stations on the line from Spring fontein to Fauresmith were quite insufficient, whilst at a big station like Philippolis there was no platform. In the circumstances he would vote for Mr. Merriman’s amendment.

said that the complaint of the right hon. gentleman seemed to be that they were asked to vote £200,000 for harbour development instead of devoting the money for the purpose of laying down new railway lines in developing the country. Last year the House voted £3,000,000 for railway extension, and £741,000 went for a scheme which the right hon. gentleman supported whole-heartedly. He thought that the right hon. gentleman was at sea when he got down to talking about graving docks. It was the first time he ever heard of a graving dock being used as a floating dock —(laughter)—and at the earliest opportunity he would go down and see this wonderful dock. (Laughter.) He pointed out that the floating dock at Durban was used every day of the year, and declared that many ships had to leave the port without being able to go into the dock.

We had only got one floating dock that he knew of in this country, and it would only accommodate steamers up to 6,000 tons. We had got vessels coming to our ports that could not obtain accommodation, because there was no dock large enough to take them. He would remind his hon. friend that the Admiralty had taken over in Durban, Salisbury Island. He believed in the future that was to be used as a sort of naval base, and that being the case, if they were to have any warships stationed there it was only fit and proper, and in fact they would probably demand, that there should be some docking accommodation in the harbour where they could repair and clean their ships. Many of the plates in the present floating dock had had to be removed and fresh plates put in Although the dock was now in a decent state of repair, the time was not far distant when they would have to go in for a new dock, and he hoped the Minister would go on with this scheme and let them have something worth having by the country.

said his hon. friend who claimed to be an authority on graving docks had stated that they could not take in this dock ships of over 6,000 tons. He (Mr. Jagger) had in his hand a local handbook which stated that the dock would take vessels up to 8,500 tons dead-weight. Only the other day the dock took the Dover Castle, which was over 8,000 tons. He went on to say that he was very much struck with the statement made the other day by the Minister, when he said that the future could take care of itself. That appeared to be the spirit and the policy animating the Ministry in regard to this expenditure. It was the policy of the spendthrift. He would like to support what had been said by his hon. friend the member for Victoria West. In the first place, he would state that these Estimates were got up in such a queer form that, as a matter of fact, he did not see how his hon. friend’s motion could be put. There was no separate amount set down as against the two items mentioned by the right hon. gentleman. He wished to raise his protest against the House being asked to sanction in the expiring days of the session works and the borrowing of money to the extent of over £6,000,000. In many of these cases they had no adequate reports. In New South Wales, in 1900, an Act was passed for the appointment of a Standing Parliamentary. Committee, composed of members of both Houses, and every single work, when once introduced in Parliament, and after the Minister had made his speech, had to be referred to this committee. That was one instance of what had been done elsewhere to check the Government in their wild course of expenditure on public works.

He wished to object to this expenditure of one and a half millions at Port Elizabeth and half a million on a new graving dock at Durban. He would like to make a personal explanation, because he was attacked very often, and it was said that he was narrow and could not see further than Table Mountain, etc. He should think there was not a man in this House who had more widespread interests than he had in South Africa. His interests went from here to Congo on the one hand, and to Zululand on the other. If he thought solely about his own interests, he would not be a member of this House. (Hear, hear.) He was a large property owner in Port Elizabeth. He was a large importer, and landed more stuff in Algoa Bay than Table Bay. He maintained that this project was going to do no good to Port Elizabeth. It was, again, a most inopportune time to bring it forward, with the money market as it was at present. Then it was going to be rushed through at the end of the session. There had been a good many schemes for harbour accommodation at Port Elizabeth, going back to 1856. The hon. member referred to a breakwater constructed between 1856 and 1865, which had been removed.

That was solid.

This is going to be solid.

Study your plan

I have, probably more than my hon. friend has. Continuing, Mr. Jagger said schemes were drawn up in 1870, 1877, 1881, and 1883. Mr. Hammersley Heenan, in a report written in January, 1892, said: “It cannot be doubted that, comparatively small though it may be, sufficient sand does come round Receife to destroy in time any breakwater that may be constructed from the shore.” In 1897 Messrs. Code, Son and Matthews reported upon a scheme for outer harbour works, and in 1904-5 a Commission of Engineers reported on the subject. Subsequently Mr. Methuen prepared two schemes. Why had these schemes not been proceeded with? asked Mr. Jagger. The people at Port Elizabeth had as much in fluence with the Government as the people of other ports. There were two reasons why these schemes had not been pushed on. In the first place there were the great natural difficulties of Algoa Bay, Port Elizabeth being an open roadstead, and the second and the most powerful reason was that the people there had never been keen on harbour work. They discharged ships more quickly in Algoa Bay than in almost any other port in the world, because they could discharge from both sides of the shin. Then, as Algoa Bay was an open roadstead, there were no harbour dues, the result being that Port Elizabeth enjoyed the cheapest freights, taking distance into consideration, of any port in South Africa. Port Elizabeth had seen the folly of embarking on an absolutely doubtful scheme, which would simply add to the landing charges. As it was, the loss last year on the working of Port Elizabeth was £7,500.

What was the loss in Cape Town?

It was more, but if you are extravagant in one place is that any justification? The real truth was this, proceeded Mr. Jagger. They now saw the result of the policy of the Harbour Administration in pooling the receipts at all the Harbours. The proposed annual charge of the £70,000 would not bring an extra ton of goods to Port Elizabeth. The real truth was that this burden would not fall on Port Elizabeth alone, but on all the Harbours throughout the Union.

We are paying your losses.

You lost £65,000 last year.

Don’t rub it in.

We have opened an era of expenditure on harbour works which will not come to an end for many years. The sense of responsibility resting on Port Elizabeth that it must make its harbour pay has now been removed. This policy of equalisation in rates cannot be too strongly condemned. The only sane policy is to make each Harbour responsible for its own expenditure.

We are quite prepared to do that.

You have never moved that.

I brought in a motion which would give the Minister power to do it. I am sorry the arguments aro telling so much against my hon. friends, judging by the interruptions. The scheme of 1904, which has been modified by Mr. Nicholson, will cost one-and-a-half million pounds. This is only part of a large scheme which runs into £4,437,000, but I don’t suppose it will ever be completed.

You will be in office by that time.

This will bring the debt up to £3,000,000, but the large vessels will still have to be discharged by lighters.

It is done all over the world; it is done at Durban

There they go into an enclosed harbour, and not one merely protected by a breakwater. Continuing, Mr. Jagger said the lightering charges would have to go on as usual at Port Elizabeth. In that case where would the advantage be to Port Elizabeth? Passengers would still have to come off in tugs. In fact, there would be absolutely no advantage at all to Port Elizabeth, the only thing being that some ships might lighter their cargoes in smoother water. There was not a day in 1912 when the ships could not be worked in Algoa Bay. If the breakwater were erected, harbour duos must be charged, and in that case Port Elizabeth’s advantage would disappear.

He was convinced that with the old system which was maintained up to Union, under which the harbours had to pay their own way, that scheme would never have been heard of. The class of trade at Algoa Bay had changed—only six sailing vessels went there last year. The vessels that used to go there were small steamers and sailing vessels, but now the sailing vessels had almost disappeared, and there was not so much danger of the vessels going there driving ashore. It ought to be the policy of the Government to keep down loan expenditure and not bring forward a doubtful scheme He did not think there was any man in the House but would admit that it was a doubtful scheme. With regard to the dry dock at Durban—

Have some mercy. (Laughter.)

said so carefully had that scheme been prepared by the Railway Board that it had had already to raise the Estimates to £780,000. That showed the profound care and reflection that the Board expended on those things. A clerk might have written the report, which was not accurate He had taken the trouble to make inquiries and had found that no vessel had ever gone away from South Africa which had been damaged and which could not have been docked. Let them take the vessel, the Dover Castle, which was damaged the other day—a vessel of over 8,000 tons, which was docked at Durban and could have been docked at Cape Town. The Cape Town Dock had only been occupied on 199 days out of the 365. Unfortunately, so far as Durban was concerned, the particulars were not given in the report he referred to. What value could they attach to the so-called report of the Board when it was shown that its statement that the docks were fully occupied was not correct? As far as he could see, the Board were treating the House and that Parliament with disrespect, grave disrespect—they thought anything would do for the House. He held that such a dock was absolutely unnecessary in South Africa. They proposed to spend that money, £700,000 or £800,000, on works which were unnecessary, and he contended that that would be a waste of money. They had two docks in South Africa, the property of the Union, and one the property of the Imperial Government. The dock at Cape Town had taken a vessel of 7,579 tons, and the Durban dock had taken a vessel of 8,271 tons, and could take vessels up to 8,500 tons. Those two docks could take every intermediate steamer of the Union-Castle Line, every Clan boat, and every Bullard-King boat. No boat in distress in South African waters that required to be docked had ever gone away without being docked. Proceeding, Mr. Jagger mentioned a number, of vessels of 13,000 tons downwards that could not be docked either at Durban or Cape Town, but of all those vessels, which had been round the coast for years, not one of them had been in distress. He contended that they could provide for those vessels quite easily. They had a large dock at Simon’s Town capable of holding every one of those vessels. The Norman Castle could go into dock at Simon’s Town, there was not the slightest doubt of it. The only vessels they could not dock were vessels like the Vaderland of 50,000 tons and so on. There was no vessel up to 20,000 tons that could not be docked. The dock at Simon’s Town was very little used.

In the case of the Dover Castle there was no difficulty with regard to the Admiralty, and he believed that the Imperial Government was quite willing that they should use the dock. Then he alluded to the advantageous position of Simon’s Town in this respect, and in the face of the arguments that he had put forward he asked, whether it was necessary for them to spend three-quarters of a million at Durban on a dock. He thought that there was quite enough dry dock accommodation in South Africa.

said the right hon. gentleman had clearly shown that, he had not made himself familiar with the report of the Board, while the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had quoted just enough to suit his purpose. The report stated: “For some considerable time the absence of facilities for executing repairs to the larger steamers that now call at South African ports has been keenly felt. The existing graving dock at Table Bay and the floating dock at Durban have amply demonstrated that the services of these docks are taken full advantage of in so far as their capacity permits.”

said that no application had been made for these large steamers to go into dock.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, wanted to wait until there was a big accident.

There is the dock at Simon’s Town.

We know that belongs to the Admiralty. It does not belong to the Union. Continuing, he said that the report stated: “Large mail steamers of the Union-Castle Company and the Australian lines cannot, however, be docked at either Cape Town or Durban, and with the view of selecting the site for a graving dock to serve South African ports, which would at once give the requisite depth and accommodation for the vessels of to-day, and also provide for an increase in the size and draught of the vessels of the future, the whole question was submitted to the Harbour Advisory Boards of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and Durban.” Had the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, lost confidence in these Advisory Boards?

I don’t agree with the Advisory Boards.

The hon. member asks us to accept his opinion against the opinions of the Advisory Boards.

I ask the House to accept facts.

said that the report went on to state: “The unanimous opinion of these bodies, after taking into consideration the requirements of the shipping companies, was that a graving dock of the nature required should be built at Durban.” Continuing, he said they had asked for expert opinion, and that had been placed before the House. The report went on to state: “Having obtained the decision on this point, borings and preparatory surveys were carried out at Durban to ascertain the nature of the foundations to be expected; and it is satisfactory to record that the borings showed sand at the required level.” What further information did the House require on which to form an opinion? He submitted there was enough information for the House to give a judgment. He thought the best way would be to get rid of the Advisory Boards and constitute the right hon. the member for Victoria West and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, as an Advisory Board to the Union. In conclusion, he said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had shown throughout the session that he was the maid of all work of the Union.

said that the views of the right hon. member for Victoria West on graving docks were as original as his views on lighthouses. (Laughter.) It was all very well for hon. members to say there were graving docks down here, but they must not forget that the Simon’s Town Dock did not belong to the Union. Accidents were as likely to happen to big steamers as well as small, and if they had not proper accommodation, a damaged steamer would be in a very parlous condition indeed.

The size of steamers was growing every year. As regarded the Durban floating dock, he might say that it had been very much in use all the year round, and they had cases where steamers had had to leave without being able to get on to the dock, and had had to go elsewhere to be cleaned and repaired. In Durban they had to provide for a large number of steamers on the East Coast and North of Durban. It was not merely in the case of severe accidents that the dock would be required. If they were going in for a graving dock at all, they should have one that would be useful for many years to come. It would be many years before this dock would be completed and ready for work. To-day they had steamers up to 18,000 tons entering the harbour at Durban. They could not go to Simon’s Town.

Oh, yes.

said he was not going to take the word of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, in regard to Simon’s Town coming into consideration at all. The Simon’s Town Dock was not part of the Union of South Africa. He hoped the Government would go on with the scheme. It was a very strange thing that the two members who were speaking against this project were always working against things in connection with Natal and Durban.

said that before Union, Natal, with her slender resources, recognising the importance and necessity for a graving dock at Durban, provided a graving dock which cost several hundred thousands of pounds. To-day, owing to the rapid increase in the size of ocean-going craft a larger dock had become necessary. Owing to its geographical position, Durban was best suited of any place on the South African coast for the purpose to be served by a graving dock, and owing to its natural position, the protection which it got from Nature, it was the best spot on the coast for a graving dock of any dimensions. He recognised the usefulness of the financial criticisms of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and that the greatest possible economy ought to be rigidly observed, but if this were a work of necessity, as they were told it was, it should be recognised as such and the funds ought to be granted.

said that the Minister had remarked that, in connection with the dock at Simon’s Town, for obvious reasons they should not consider the contingency of making use of that dock. He was rather disappointed that the Minister had not given them those “obvious reasons” that he spoke of. He (Mr. Runciman) thought the Admiralty were the proper people to make provision for the contingency they were now discussing. They had no shipping belonging to the Union of South Africa. Nine vessels out of ten that visited our ports belonged to Great Britain. They were proposing now to make provision for those ships. The contingency had not occurred up to the present time and was not likely to occur for many years to come. Yet they were asked to spend three millions of money to make provision for that contingency upon improvements at Port Elizabeth, East London and Natal. The question was, was there any necessity for this dock being built at Durban? He thought the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had clearly demonstrated the fact that up to the present not a single demand had been made for repairs to a ship which could not be executed in South African waters by the docks in Natal or Cape Town. Hon. members were crying out constantly for extensions of railways to open up the agricultural resources of the country, for money for education, and the building of schools, and yet, while they could not get money for those purposes, the Government now were going to throw away three millions of money, which would not bring a penny of return and which, he supposed, would add £180,000 or £200,000 a year in cost to the country. To his mind, the Government must have something up their sleeve in advocating this, or they would not bring such a mad proposition before the House.

Chops and tomato sauce. (Laughter.)

said it struck him that the accommodation was not required for ships, but that the Government wanted to bring into their fold the members for Natal, Port Elizabeth and East London. This vote that they were asked to pass was nothing but a system of log-rolling. (“No.”)

You have no right to say that.

The hon. member is interested, and I have no hesitation in saying that that is at the bottom of this. The proposition to spend this money is no credit to the Government. It is going to be a waste of public funds which might very well be spent for other purposes, and I shall support the proposition of the hon. member for Victoria West.

said that he was going to support this scheme. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was quite right in his correction of the figures, but in spite of everything that the hon. member had said, he (Mr. Boydell) knew from first-hand knowledge that many vessels had to leave the port at Durban because there was not sufficient dock accommodation. It had been stated that the dock was to be made for possible contingencies, but docks of that character were not made for accidents only, but for overhauling vessels, for cleaning and light repairs. He had known boats waiting for two weeks in Durban Harbour and could not get in He was supporting the building of the dock, because one was necessary

said that he did not insinuate for a moment that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was acting in his own interests. Nothing was further from his (the Minister’s) mind. Sometimes the hon. member was inclined to do things from the local point of view, but it would be unworthy of him to suggest that the hon. member was actuated in his own personal interest. The remarks of the hon. member for South Peninsula were altogether unwarranted. With regard to the graving dock, the hon. member for South Peninsula had asked why we did not make use of the Admiralty Dock at Simon’s Town. The obvious reason was that we never knew when the Admiralty would require it themselves, and we had no control over it. We must have one over which we would have control, and although the Admiralty Dock was not much used at present, it would not do to trust to luck. The graving dock was a thing that was required for constant use. In this country trade was increasing so much and a much larger class of vessels than formerly was calling here, but if we are to maintain our position we must see that we keep cur harbours up to the mark. It was strongly urged by the members of the Dominions Commission that such things should be brought up to the modern standard. If they had gone in for advanced schemes, then his hon. friends might have reason to complain, but that graving dock was absolutely necessary. He was informed by his professional advisers that the existing dock would not last for more than six or eight years more owing to corrosion, so that they would not have much time to spare The Minister went on to point out that they considered that matter in that House last year, when the sum of £4,000 was before them, to provide money for the surveys and soundings in connection with the graving dock at Durban. Why was not that discussion on the principles of the matter raised at that time, and an attempt made to prevent the money being spent? That was the time, when the preliminary Estimate was submitted to the House, but it was passed without the faintest objection. The motion before the committee at the present was to reduce the Estimate by £2,000,000, but the expenditure on that Durban scheme and the Port Elizabeth proposal only amounted to £55,000 this year, and he suggested to the right hon. gentleman to alter his motion accordingly. Proceeding, the Minister said that he had been criticised because of the proposed expenditure on relaying and strengthening the railways. He really could not understand hon. members. The Constitution provided that the railway system—seeing they had no sinking fund— must be kept up to the top mark, to the highest standard of perfection, and their duty was to see that it was so kept up, otherwise they would not be doing their duty to the present generation or to those who were to come. The relaying, which was provided for in the Estimate, was carrying out the indirect wish of the framers of the Constitution in that direction. What would happen if the permanent way were allowed to get into such a state that the rails could not take the traffic. There would be accidents, and the railways would be hung up. His duty was to see that the standard of the railway lines throughout the country was kept up to the mark. That matter had nothing to do with new construction. The two things were not inter-dependent in the least. To go into detail, let them take the Krugersdorp line. It was now found that the traffic on that line had increased very much, and heavy engines had to be used, with the result that the line, as originally built, would not bear the traffic. It was utterly impossible to have calculated exactly how these things were going to turn out, and when they required heavier rails, they took out the lighter rails and made use of them elsewhere. On the Breyten line, the coal traffic had increased to such an enormous extent that they had to employ heavier locomotives. He hoped the House would not imagine that money was being wasted which should be used for building new lines. There was no sinking fund, and the department had to see that these things were kept up to the mark. As to the point raised by the hon. member for, Yon Brandis, the engineers reported that the farm contained one of the richest coal mines in the Transvaal.

said he would amend his proposal, but he would not withdraw it. The Minister must admit that the Estimates were somewhat puzzling and contained no details, but one was referred to another book—a Brown book—and even there the details were not given. Altogether it was a most unsatisfactory way of doing things, and it only showed the absolute necessity of having these matters sent to Select Committee. He had never seen anything so difficult as these Estimates. The way in which the matter was put was very slim—in fact, it was the slimmest thing he had ever seen. (Laughter.)

It has been done for four years.

I have always protested against it. It is a very bad principle. I beg to move that the amount of £3,000,000 be reduced by £55,000—£50,000 for Port Elizabeth and £5,000 for the graving dock at Durban, as that will be a vote on the principle, which was what he wanted.

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was negatived.

The vote was agreed to.

moved the insertion of a new item—Cape Town, purchase of property, No. 83, Parliament-street, £3,000.

Heaven knows; I should have thought that Government had enough property in Cape Town without buying any more.

said the House was occupied by Dr. Forsyth, and the sum was rather less than the Government was advised that the place was valued at. The house was in the centre of a block of Government buildings, which one day would probably have to be rebuilt.

took exception to the proposal to erect out of loan moneys such things as an ornamental fencing and gates at Bloemfontein, and hoped that in this matter he would have the assistance of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth, Central, and Pietermaritzburg. North. To pay for the cost of fencing a building out of loan moneys was the most unsound system that could be devised. (Hear, hear.) The other day the Minister of Public Works laid down the extraordinary doctrine that when the country was hard up it was quite justified in taking from loan funds what in ordinary times it would take out of revenue funds. This Ministry would go down to future generations as the spendthrift Ministry. Any fool —(laughter)—any man could borrow money to spend it.

moved to reduce the amount by £6,000, being the item “Ladybrand—Quarters, etc.,” under Department of Defence, on page 7; and the item “Cape Town—Magistrates’ Court” under Department of Justice, on page 9. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who was so strongly in favour of economy, would have no objection to that, he remarked.

moved the deletion of the items, Williston police office, £1,350, and Williston Court House, £2,500, and appealed to the right hon. member for Victoria West, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who was such a staunch advocate of economy, to support this.

said the question of the allocation of expenditure between revenue and loan accounts was in a very unsatisfactory position. During the early years of Union they had all the purchases of that nature changed to revenue. They had the money in hand. Now they had that large expenditure in the Estimates charged, to loan. It was a very serious matter for the country. Although it was impossible for them to enforce anything, he hoped the Government would take into consideration the question of the allocation of funds between revenue and loan. If that was not done the result would be financial chaos.

moved to omit the items for native affairs officers at the Premier Mines, £900 and £700. He said he did not see what the Government wanted to have native officers at the Premier Mine at all for, if one of their functions was to assist in keeping the natives in ignorance of what their rights were. Once a native went into the compound at the mine he was not allowed to leave it by the compound authorities. They had it on evidence that if a native approached the compound gate and wanted to go out he would be forcibly prevented by the keeper of the gate. That was perfectly illegal. The fact of the matter was that the Government aided and abetted the natives being deprived of their legal rights.

hoped the Minister would seriously take to heart what had been said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, with regard to loan funds. Even the cost of an alteration to a building was charged to loan account. In order to facilitate little trifles like the land tax being dropped and other matters which brought in revenue, things like that were put on the loan vote in hope that they would struggle through. It was said that the future could take care of itself. He know they would go on like that until the end of the chapter, until the bitter hand of poverty came down upon them.

explained that when he had said that the future might take care of itself in the course of his speech, he had meant that the future might take care of itself so far as the extension of the Port Elizabeth Harbour works were concerned.

said that in order to test the hon. member for Rouxville, he would draw attention to the wholly unnecessary work provided for in the ornamental gates for the National Museum at Bloemfontein. Those gates at any rate were not necessary and would not add to the value of the collection in the museum. He moved to reduce the amount by £1,350, being the item “Bloemfontein—National Museum—Ornamental Fencing and Gates”, under Department of the Interior on page 6, and the item “Kopjes—Court Building for Justice of the Peace”, under Department of Justice on page 9.

said he did not want to enter into any question of high finance, but it had always struck him that they should not take out of capital money for the improvements and extensions of buildings. So far as his department was concerned, he found that everywhere magistrates’ courts and police buildings were in a terrible state and were in some cases falling to pieces.

What about the land tax?

said the whole of the land tax would not pay for a tenth of the necessary work. He hoped the amendments would not be accepted. So far as the Cape Town Court-house was concerned, Cape Town ought to have been provided with a Court-house years ago out of revenue but that had never been done. If Cape Town was to wait for a Magistrate’s Court out of revenue it would have to wait a long time, and he pointed out that the buildings at Williston and Kopjes had been condemned. He hoped the committee would not reject these votes.

said he hoped Mr. Currey’s amendment would not be accepted, as there was at present no suitable building for the holding of a Court at Kopjes.

said he would test the economy of the hon. member for George by moving the deletion of the item referring to George. (Laughter.)

said that a number of these works were already in hand.

The ornamental gates for Bloemfontein.

They have been ordered. (Laughter.) Continuing he said that the works at Ladybrand and Williston were in hand. With regard to what had been said by the hon. member for Jeppe with regard to the Premier Mine, he said that the work was being undertaken at the urgent request of the Native Affairs Department and in the interests of the natives themselves.

said he trusted the House would not accept the several proposed reductions, as he contended members were going in the wrong direction if they tried to punish each other by deleting some public works here and there.

said that the Government had been spending money on these works without sanction, and had broken the law. This was the only check they had on the Government in forcing them to vote large sums of money at the end of the session. Attention should be called to these things.

called attention to the increase and the extravagance in this vote, and objected to the amounts set down for magistrates’ residences. Now £2,000 was set down for a new Post Office at Mossel Bay. He was there the other day and he thought that they had a very nice post office. (Laughter.)

said they were building up a tremendous liability for posterity.

asked if the Government was going on with the Agricultural College at Pretoria. If not, why need they set £2,000 down here?

said that a lot of these works were in hand and was understood to say that negotiations with regard to the Agricultural College at Pretoria were nearing an end.

The amendments moved by Mr. Currey and Mr. Creswell were withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works was agreed to.

The remaining amendments were negatived.

on the item of additions to Post Office, Worcester, £2,000, said that, owing to the Tender Board’s blunder, the plans and specifications were not available in the Magistrate’s office at Worcester until considerably after the advertised time. A local tenderer, who quoted £166 lower than any other tenderer, was ten minutes too late, and the consequence was that the country had to pay £166 more and the local man was shut out. He thought the time for closing the contracts should have been extended.

said he agreed that a mistake was made, and he was sorry that it was not thought possible at the time to extend the period for receiving tenders. All the same, the builders or contractors of Worcester had 10 or 12 days within which to tender. He hoped the mistake would not occur again.

said he was in favour of everything possible being done to further agricultural education in this country, but he did not think the best results were going to be achieved by having a number of small colleges and schools scattered over the country. The Government should consider what would be the most suitable place for the establishment of a properly equipped college where the youth of the country could be thoroughly trained in agriculture on the lines of institutions which were doing such excellent work in Canada and elsewhere. He would like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture the way in which the Wine and Brandy Act was being administered. He was informed that large amounts of sugar were used in this country in the adulteration of wine, absolutely contrary to the law.

said that they had got down five agricultural colleges and schools, which meant an annual cost to the country of £81,000, and in the whole lot there were only 220 students. This worked out at a tremendous figure per head. Here it was proposed to spend a further sum, excluding the Glen, of £100,000 on an agricultural college at Pretoria, with a population of 1¼ millions. A more extravagant system was never invented.

said that he would go into the question of the adulteration of wine by sugar. The department were doing the utmost in their power to see that sugar was not used. To stop it altogether was a difficult question, unless they took some measures so as to regulate the sale of sugar. As to the agricultural colleges, the Glen was a new agricultural school in the Free State. They hoped to finish the work by the end of the year, and to open he school next year. With regard to the Pretoria College, that was a matter on which they voted £2,000 last year. The place had been handed over as a National College, but nothing had actually been spent yet in the matter, and he might say that there was some idea of getting a place close to the Union Buildings.

Why don’t you put a college at Hartebeestpoort? (Laughter.)

said that if they were going to make a success of their agricultural colleges in this country they must equip in the best possible manner one centrally situated, and not dissipate their energies by distributing them in the four Provinces. When they brought their farmers to the colleges they ought to be able to show them the newest in scientific agricultural implement making, and if there was only a certain amount of money to spend and they dissipated it over the different Provinces they would not do the work properly. Proceeding, the hon. member said the Minister was extremely anxious to put down the adulteration of wine. His (the speaker’s) information was that if they went to any place in this country where wine was manufactured they would find large bags of sugar; and they all knew they were for adulterating the wine. That was striking a blow at a legitimate industry, for every bag of sugar used was detrimental to the grape industry. He hoped next session that his hon. friend would come down to the House with some proposal which would allow them to trace the sugar to its source

said the hon. member had not got a clear conception of the difference between agricultural schools and colleges and that was why he was so inconsistent in his speech. In this country the best course was to specialise, at one college, irrigation work, or, say, ostrich farming; at Potchefstroom they dealt largely with crops that grew in the summer; in the Free State they concentrated more or less on things of a special character, according to the agricultural surroundings; and at Cedara College there were different circumstances again. But they should train their higher experts in one central institution.

The vote was agreed to.

On Loan Vote C, Telegraphs and telephones, £277,000,

in answer to a question regarding the item, “High power wireless telegraph station, £2,000,” said that some time ago there was a discussion in the British House of Commons with regard to the Marconi contract in which the Government entered into a contract with the Marconi Company for the erection of several high power wireless stations throughout the Empire, including one in South Africa. The original contract was not approved of by the House of Commons, and a subsequent contract was introduced, a copy of which had been laid on the Table of the House. It was provided in that contract that, subject to the approval of the House, a wireless high power station should be erected in the Union. A site had been selected provisionally on the high veld between Pretoria and Johannesburg, but no expenditure had been incurred and no expenditure would be incurred by the Government unless that vote was passed. The intention was to complete a chain of those high power wireless stations for the purposes of defence and also for commercial purposes. At first he did not know that it would be used for commercial purposes, but for defence purposes it would be necessary that we should be independent of the cable, which could be cut at any time by hostile forces. The agreement between the British Government and the Marconi Company was that the company had to erect those high power stations, but the cost that was stated in the estimates would have to be met by the Union.

The vote was agreed to.

On Loan Vote D, Land and settlement £232,200,

asked the Minister whether the item of £200,000 for the purchase, laying out, and improvement of land for land settlement purposes included the £20,000 which the Minister told the House about in connection with the Haartbeestpoort scheme?

answered in the negative.

regarding the item, “Advances to settlers, £8,000,” asked why they were charging to those settlers for whom they had put up farms for the first three years 2 per cent. and after that 3½ per cent., while those who acquired land under clause 12 had to pay 4 per cent.? He had no objection to that, and he thought the time had come when they should raise the percentages. They could not get money under 8½ per cent.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

referring to the item, Purchase and laying out and improvement of land for settlement purposes, £200,000, asked if Government intended to adopt the policy of preparing ready-made holdings for settlers to take up? Was Government going to meet the demand which undoubtedly existed for land, more particularly land on which people could start to make a living? There was an enormous demand for land, particularly small holdings. He hoped the vote was an indication of a more active policy.

said some time ago a number of railway men—the majority of whom when they retired left the country—asked him to urge upon the Government the institution of a scheme by which they could settle on a small piece of land when they left the service. Many of these men would make excellent settlers.

said the £200,000 was for land settlement purposes. Government bought only that land which it had a chance of sub-dividing. It did not pay too high a price for land, otherwise the burden on purchasers would be too heavy. The amount voted by Parliament last year for this purpose was far short of what the requirements really were. He was afraid that with the present amount available Government would not be able to cope with the demand. Government was taking into consideration the matter of small holdings for men suffering from miners’ phthisis.

asked had the Government any scheme for putting settler’s on to ready-made farms?

He had seen nothing more depressing than the return which had been laid on the Table with regard to land settlement.

The Minister would not satisfy the people who were applying for land under one clause of the Act. The Minister must develop some scheme and devote the money he had got in pushing that scheme, and cut up the land into small holdings for the people who wanted to work it. Year after year the people clamoured for land, and the Government was unable to give them land. There had been thousands of unsuccessful applicants, and people were applying all over the country. He instanced the case of a young man thoroughly acquainted with farming who applied for land, and who was informed that his capital of £500 was not sufficient. He would like the Minister to tell the committee what was the intention of the Government in carrying out a proper policy of land settlement of a genuine character.

said that in many cases a large number of people applied for the one farm, and that accounted for there being so many unsuccessful applicants. They could not put a whole lot of people on one farm. They could only put one man on. The department were trying to do their best under section 10 of the law—wherever they could get hold of land at a reasonable price that land was taken over and sub-divided.

The vote was agreed to.

On Loan Vote E, Irrigation, £550,000,

moved to correct a clerical error in the item “Purchase of Land”, by omitting “74,500” and substituting “74,000”; and to reduce the amount by £16,000, being the items on page 17 “of Advances to Settlers on Crown Lands for Irrigation Works”. £3,000; “Loan to Hermanus van Zijl Irrigation Board—Redemption period 40 years”, £10,000; and “Loan to Irrigation Board for Worcester-Robertson Canal scheme, £3,000. The Minister said it had been the intention of the Government to go on with the Worcester-Robertson Canal scheme, but as they were not doing so, the item was not necessary.

said that with the proposed deletions, the amount would be £340,000 for lands for irrigation purposes. They were still charging for that 3¾ per cent., and he thought the Minister of Finance should, take that matter seriously into consideration. The Minister knew that he could not get money for 3¾ per cent., and there would be a loss to the country of £3,219. He did not want to see money made out of the schemes, but he wanted to see the State recouped for the money which was advanced. Only that day he had seen a notice of a first mortgage bond of £1,000, the interest of which was raised from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. That was the current rate. There was no immediate chance of a material reduction in the price of money. There had been an enormous expansion in trade all the world over, and there was an enormous expense going on in connection with armaments. £400,000,000 was being spent every year on armaments alone. His hon. friend ought to go into those matters. It was not fair that the taxpayers should be called upon to contribute in that way. They did not want to make money out of the borrowers, but let them get back to some rate which they had to pay and cover themselves.

said that in one year, if they had a thrifty Government, they might reduce their rate of interest, but if they had a free-handed Government in, their rate of interest went up. Of course, when they first started in those matters, there was an entirely different feeling in the country, and people were averse to assisting landowners out of the public pocket. He (Mr. Merriman) had had the greatest difficulty in inducing any Parliament to advance money at 6 per cent. Then the feeling for irrigation advanced, and the people were in favour of lowering the interest, and it was reduced to 3½ per cent. They thought that when a man had constructed his works, say, for £5,000, that he was finished with it, but that was just the beginning of his expenditure. Getting the water on the land was one thing, and getting the land in shape to utilise the water was another. He wished his hon. friend Mr. Jagger would only take in hand some place and try to subdue the land and bring it under cultivation. He would have a higher regard for the poor agriculturist after that. It was a matter of the greatest skill, and meant a tremendous application of capital and industry before they could bring land into a proper condition for tillage.

That applied to all these irrigation loans, and, therefore, his hon. friend must be a little kinder to the agriculturists. It was ridiculous to suppose that they were going to get people to cultivate the land as capitalists, settlement must be increased. It was very easy to say that they were giving money away but that was no good unless a man worked hard and risked a great deal. The Minister the other day was pleased to tell the House that the Kopjes scheme was their most successful scheme. He (Mr. Merriman) wanted to know whether this was the final amount that would be required. This scheme began with a modest little sum which was said to be the whole amount. But the amounts had been growing year by year, and now he was astonished to find they were faced by another £17,000. He wanted the Minister to tell him how many people there were there, and whether they were getting on well. He had received some letters which did not give such a rosy picture as the Minister had depicted. He did like to see the Minister taking £500 off the Hartebeeste fontein scheme, because it was like taking a halfpenny off a big balance. If he were a betting man he would like to bet that next year they would see another £25,500 on the Estimates so as to bring it up to the round £100,000.

pointed out that with regard to the Le Chasseur scheme, it was originally estimated to cost £28,000, whereas the sum paid now was £65,000, and £3,000 was to come later on. He thought that the Minister had better give a clear explanation, else irrigationists might be frightened away. With regard to the Worcester-Robertson Canal, there was a great difference of opinion and, perhaps, the Minister had taken the wisest course, but he should tell these people that if they still wished to go on with the scheme that every facility would be given them to get the money as early as possible.

said that the point raised by the last speaker seemed to apply to all these loans. He alluded to the Le Chasseur scheme, and said that surely there must be something wrong. It was the same right down the list. Alluding to the amount set down for the Grootfontein Agricultural School irrigation works, he asked the Minister whether the acts could not be prepared in such a way that members could easily see the total amount paid.

asked whether the amounts of two small schemes on the Modder Rivers were included in the amounts set down for smaller schemes.

replied that amounts for surveying and other experimental works were included in the amount for smaller schemes. The money was available for smaller schemes so long as they did not exceed £30,000.

The amendment of the Minister of Lands was agreed to.

alluded to the amount of £2,000 set down for Labour Colonies, and he alluded to the fact that Goedemoed and Lagers Drift had not paid back any of the amounts granted, and had not paid a penny of interest. He hoped the Minister was not going to continue this system.

said that upon this additional amount that was being granted 4 per cent. was to be paid. He was understood to say that the Government was giving these colonies another chance, and that this money would only be used for the purpose of development. He hoped that under these circumstances the colonies would prove successful. He admitted that the original estimate for the Kopjes scheme was inaccurate. Besides, various alterations had been suggested by the present Director of Irrigation. Up to March, £96,880 had been paid out, and £17,000 was on the Estimates for the present year, and the balance of £6,170 would be spent later on. So far, they had got 174 settlers on the land, and they were going on with the canal and drainage works and laying out the plots on the northern parts of the river, and they hoped in the near future to accommodate another 70. The Minister went on to refer to the extensions which had been necessary in order to provide the settlers with pasturage for their stock, and stated that land had been bought at from £7 10s. to £10 per morgen. With regard to Grootfontein, an effort was being made to reclaim the land there. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Worcester, he would be glad to hand a report that he had on the matter to the hon. member.

The vote as amended was agreed to.

On Loan Vote F, Local works and loans, £876,000,

urged that the Minister of Finance should go into the question of interest charged upon loans of this character with a view of approximating the rates to the state of the market.

The vote was agreed to.

On Loan Vote G, Land and Agricultural Bank, £750,000.

said he desired to move that this vote be reduced to £500,000. He said he noticed from the report that the Land Bank stated that if they limited their advances to amounts not exceeding £500 their requirements would be £500,000. The bank had something like £4,000,000 outstanding, and repayments were being made every week.

said he hoped the House would not agree to this reduction He was very glad indeed that the bank found itself in the position of being able to advance some larger loans. The principal sufferers, if the limit of £500 were insisted upon, would be the farmers in the Cape Province, where the larger average of the applications was for loans above £500. This was unlike the other Provinces. The result of the £500 limit had been practically to exclude the Cape Province from the benefits of the bank.

What about the rate of interest?

said the rate was fixed by resolution the other day at 4 per cent He pointed out that under various Acts the rate of interest was on different bases, and in some cases it was left to the discretion of the Government. He believed with his hon. friend that the time had come when they would have to get some uniformity in this matter. During the recess, if there were peace and quiet, he hoped to go into this question. (Laughter.)

said they were doing a cruel kindness to people. They were just encouraging people to go and borrow money because they thought they could get it cheap. A man who wanted to borrow more than £500 was a capitalist. Why should they go and help a capitalist? He thought it was one of the worst things his hon. friend had done to raise this limit of the Land Bank.

said he would suggest to the Minister that he should accept this proposal. If he did that, the bank would be able to advance 1,000 loans of £500. While he was in sympathy with the man who wanted a larger loan, that man had other opportunities of borrowing.

At a very much higher rate.

That keeps him steady.

said that the object of the bank was to help the small man and not the rich man. The rich man could help himself. As to the question of interest, his hon. friend could borrow money at a certain rate, and he had no right to lend out money at a lower rate than he could borrow it at.

said that if his hon. friend (the Minister) would not accept the amendment, he hoped he would give the committee an assurance that he was not going to lend out large sums until he had made himself perfectly certain that he would be able to meet the legitimate small applications. The whole idea of the bank at its establishment was to assist the small man who had not got facilities for raising money for himself. He found from the report of the bank for the year ending December 51, 1913, that an amount of £622,000 was paid out for the discharge of existing liabilities on land. Surely it was not the intention of Parliament, in voting these sums of money, to enable people to exchange old bonds for new.

said that the Land Bank had specific instructions, wherever the security was proper and the conditions were proper, to give preference to the smaller loans, and a limit of £500 was laid down. The Land Bank replied that they were going to carry that out, but with £750,000 it would be in their power to go a little higher and to grant somewhat larger loans, always giving preference to the smaller ones. He was quite prepared to give his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) that assurance.

said that they were paying £5,000 a year on that little amount alone. Surely hon. members opposite were getting tired of coming to the taxpayers for a little something for the landowners.

No land tax.

said that hon. members who had in the first instance supported the Land Bank Act were now attacking it.

said that land banks were for assisting poor people, and a man who wanted to borrow £1,000 was considered a rich man in other countries. Proceeding, he said be wanted to ask the Minister of Finance a question which he had not had the opportunity of asking before. He understood the Minister had made a statement in the Senate that the income tax on the mortgage would apparently be paid not by the person who lent the money, but by the man who was the mortgagor. In other words, the mortgagor would not be entitled to deduct from his income the amount of the interest on the mortgage. That was a most important matter, and he rather fancied the Minister must have been wrongly reported.

said that it was clear he had been misreported.

Then the income tax on the mortgage will be paid by the person who receives the interest.

The reduction was negatived.

The vote was agreed to.

On Loan Vote H. Agriculture, £3,000,

raised a matter which he said had been accentuated since the discussion on the main Estimates, which if allowed to go on would mean in the minds of the natives the impression that they were being unfairly treated. When the East Coast fever began in the Transkei the Government had an idea of fencing particular districts and began near the sea coast. But they found that idea was inoperative and gave it up. The country paid for those fences, and the policy of the Government since then had been to leave the whole of the Transkei without a fence, 7,000 square miles, but to protect the Cape Province proper, if possible, from the danger of infection from the Transkei. That policy grew, with the result that they put up a great fence which separated the whole of the Transkeian district with its millions of people and hundreds of thousands of cattle, where to a certain extent the fever was free to go. The fence was put up to protect the people of Cape Colony, and it was there at the present time. The Government provided all the materials free. The Europeans on the Elliot and Madear side ‘put up the fences, and that was considered to be their share of the business; while the natives on the other side of the fence were asked to pay a sum of 18s. 9d. per head for the Cala district and 17s. for the Engcobo district. That was a territorial fence, separating the whole of the Transkei and Cape Colony proper for the benefit of the Cape Colony. It was a fence the cost of which should have been borne by the general revenue. The natives ought not to be called upon to pay. But if they had, then all the natives of the Transkei should have to pay, and not only a small number of natives who lived upon that fence, from which they received no benefit whatever. The Act of 1912 provided for ten years in which to pay, and in that same Act it was provided that the Governor-General ‘may,’ not ‘shall,’ order that a sum not exceeding 5s. should be levied or collected from each native. So he did not know where the 18s. 9d. in the one case and 17s. in the other case came from. Instead of the natives being given ten years to pay, he had just heard that an order had been issued that the 17s. which those on the Engcobo side had to pay had to be paid by last Friday. The Mayor of Cala wrote to him that “it would almost appear as if the Government desires to provide the natives with grievances, so as to make them rebel.”

said he was very sympathetic over the whole matter. Government gave the money for the wire and the poles, which the farmers had to erect at their own expense. The matter fell under the Native Affairs Department, and he would see the Prime Minister with regard to it, to ascertain whether they could legally extend the expense over a larger area, as far as the natives were concerned.

The vote was agreed to.

The Loan Estimates were reported, with amendments, which were at once considered and agreed to.

appointed the Minister of Railway and Harbours, the Minister of Finance and Mr. Mentz a Committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bills to give effect to the Estimates as adopted by the House.

moved the second reading of the Statistics Bill. He said he did not think it would be necessary to give a long explanation of the Bill. It merely provided machinery to give the country an opportunity of getting statistics which they had been longing for for a long time. The Bill had already been passed by the Senate.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved a new sub-section 3 to provide for a Council of not fewer than four members and not more than eight to advise the Minister.

The amendment was accepted by the Minister, and agreed to.

On clause 6, Compilation and tabulation of statistics,

said there would be only one statistical officer in the Union.

New clause 12,

That the following be a new clause to follow clause 11, viz.: (12) All letters, parcels, and packets, and all telegraphic messages relating to the statistics shall, if marked with the words “Statistics,” “On His Majesty’s Service,” and when transmitted to or by a prescribed officer, be free of postal, telegraphic or other charges made by the department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with certain amendments, and the amendments were considered and adopted.

moved the second reading of the Medical Practitioners’ and Dentists’ Registration Laws Amendment Bill. He said he hoped this Bill would have the same speedy passage as the last. Some weeks ago a resolution was passed in that House dealing with doctors born or domiciled in South Africa who had taken medical degrees in foreign universities, and it was agreed that they should be allowed to practise. They had no medical school here, and this had been looked upon as a grievance. The Government gave an undertaking and had this Bill drafted. It had been sent to the four Medical Councils, and the suggestions made by those bodies had been, as far as possible, embodied in the Bill. It had also been submitted to the medical men in both Houses, and they had approved of it. There was really one important point on which there had been criticism, and that was in regard to chemists, and it was said that the facility given doctors to practise in other Provinces should also apply to chemists. Unfortunately on this point there had not been unanimity of opinion. As it would be impossible at this stage to get this useful measure passed, if they introduced contentious matters, he hoped the House would be satisfied to leave this matter out for the present year and they could deal with the question of chemists when a law dealing with the question of health generally was brought up. The three things provided for in this Bill were very necessary, and he sincerely trusted that the House would agree to the second reading being taken to-night. The Bill had already been through the Senate and only required the consent of this House.

said that this Bill fell into a very different category from those just passed. He, like other hon. members on those benches, was very much opposed to every case of class legislation, and this was essentially a case of that sort of legislation. There could be no reason why the same principle should not be applied to chemists in this matter as to doctors and dentists. The chemists felt that it was a great injustice when this Bill was being proposed to suit the doctors and the dentists that they should be left out, and he supposed that most members had had representations made to them on this matter from their constituents. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

said he was in this difficult position, that he had been asked by the medical fraternity to support the Bill and by the chemists to oppose it. The professions of doctors, dentists, and chemists were kindred. At the outset it was intended that the chemists should be included in this Bill. If the Government were prepared to allow clauses to be introduced whereby chemists would fall under this Bill there would be no difficulty whatsoever in getting all the stages passed tomorrow. He believed the very clauses that would meet that case had already been prepared. If chemists were to be excluded, he regretted very much that he would have to take objection at every stage. The Government would, therefore, see that it would be impossible to get this Bill through this session.

said he hoped that the House would not agree to the adjournment. (Hear, hear.) He knew of two, if, not three, colonial-born men at the present moment who held degrees of foreign universities, but who could not be registered to practise in South Africa, and if this Bill were not passed it would be a distinct hardship upon those gentlemen. In regard to the chemists, he did not think there was any necessity for an adjournment on that account, because the chemists had already been consulted on this matter. It was, he believed, impossible to approach individual chemists, and if this Bill became law and the chemists were not included, the House could place the onus on the Pharmacy Boards who refused to bring the chemists into line. The Minister had promised at a later date to introduce a Bill which would be more comprehensive.

said that the position was not exactly as stated by the hon. member for Woodstock. The original Bill included the chemists, and they agreed to the Bill as it stood then, but, to their great surprise, they found another Bill was brought forward, and they were excluded altogether. When they inquired into the matter they found that the only body of chemists in the whole Union who objected to the Bill were the chemists of the Cape. The other bodies desired to be included in the Bill.

was also in favour of adjourning the debate, and said he could not see why chemists should be excluded. He understood the Pharmacy Board of the Cape opposed the Bill. But the people approving of the measure were the people who had qualified oversea and who had taken the degree oversea. He wished to see the people who had qualified here included in the measure. Unless chemists were included it was clear that the Bill would not pass this session.

expressed surprise at the hon. members for Bechuana land and Jeppe opposing the Bill. There were South African-born people who had passed their degrees abroad who could not practise in the country of their birth and he thought in the circumstances this measure should have the support of everyone.

said he could not possibly support the Bill unless chemists were included. He trusted that the Minister of Finance would agree to their being put in.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Prieska that the debate should not be adjourned. He went on to say that the Bill would give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to right a wrong long standing in Zoutpansberg. It was the case of a man who had held the position of district surgeon in the days of the old Republic for four years, but the stringent application of the rules of the Medical Council did not allow him to obtain admission. If an amendment could be introduced in the committee stage which would allow the issue of a certificate for this man to practise it would rectify a great wrong.

said the non-inclusion of chemists was a great grievance, and his correspondents urged that they were entitled to inclusion in that Bill. He urged that they should have a Medical Council to represent the whole Union.

also made strong representation for the inclusion of chemists in the Bill.

hoped the amendment for the adjournment of the debate would be carried, for there were many reasons why the debate should not go on and the second reading should not take place at the present juncture. He had had a number of telegrams from the Transvaal, in opposition to the Bill as it stood. A very large number of chemists would be put in a very unfair position, for oversea men would be allowed to practise here and compete against them unfairly. If the Bill passed its second reading a very long discussion would be involved in committee, for which there was not sufficient time at the end of the session.

said the Bill would not place chemists in any worse position than they were to-day. Foreign chemists came in and competed even now. There were several men in South Africa waiting for the Bill to be passed. The chemists would derive no advantage through the withholding of the Bill, but a remedy for the medical men would thereby be denied. They should move in the manner indicated by representative bodies. He appealed to hon. members to withdraw their one-sided opposition. He agreed that the Bill did not cover everything, but the amending Bill was promised for next year.

said that members were going to object to any two stages being taken in one day, and that would wreck the Bill. He agreed with the two principles of the Bill, but he thought the Minister would do well to accept the amendment.

said he was with those members who wished to have the chemists included.

hoped that the House would take the second reading. He would not take the committee stage that night. He pointed out that the objections were against things not in the Bill.

said he thought his hon. friend had made a fair proposal, because he thought he had thrown out a hope with regard to chemists.

said he would not oppose if the Minister would assure the House that he would consider the case of the chemists. He believed it was the original intention of the Government to include the chemists in the Bill. Nothing had been said by the Minister as to why they were excluded.

put the question, that the debate be adjourned, and on the voices, said that, as he was in doubt, he would give the vote in favour of the Noes.

said, the Minister had given no assurance that in Committee he would incorporate clauses to include the chemists in the measure. To exclude chemists for no satisfactory reason would lead people to draw the conclusion that the doctors had sufficient influence in high circles to get the Bill passed. Chemists, doctors and dentists were all alike, and if Parliament dealt with one it should deal with all three. Nothing would have been easier than to have appointed a Select Committee to go into this matter some weeks ago, but it would not be right to rush the measure through now.

said the chemists pointed out that if the Bill were passed in its present form it would place them in an anomalous position, as chemists from oversea would be allowed to practise anywhere in the Union, whereas chemists born here would be able to practise only in the Province in which they were registered. Promises had not been kept with the chemists, and they felt they were unfairly treated. In the circumstances he did not see why the Government should take up the time of the House with the Bill unless they were prepared to include the chemists of the Union.

said that though the appeals made on behalf of the young South Africans were strong, there was an equally strong appeal on behalf of those who had vested interests. There was nothing easier for the Government to do than to include the chemists in the Bill and it was contended that the Cape Pharmacy Board was not representative of the chemists.

said that chemists were not included in the Bill and the hon. member was out of order.

said he wanted to see the chemists included.

said that the hon. member could not discuss that point, as chemists were not mentioned in the Bill.

in concluding, said he could only tell the Government that so far as this Bill was concerned he had been asked to support it, but as long as the exclusion he had referred to continued he was unable to do so.

said that, while he agreed with the principles that appeared in this Bill, he felt that in passing it they were delaying the passage of a consolidating Act. A comprehensive Medical Act ought to include chemists, and he believed if this Bill were delayed in its passage chemists would be included in such a measure. In section 5 it was laid down that a register of medical practitioners and dentists should be kept in the office of the Minister of the Interior. He thought it should be laid down in this Bill that such a register should be published every year. He read a clause in the English Act which provided for a medical register being published each year, and said that if that Bill went into committee he was going to move to amend section 5 and substitute a provision of a similar kind to that in the English Act.

amid cries of “Vote,” said that they on the cross-benches were quite prepared to vote if the Minister would give them an assurance that the Bill would be altered on the lines they had suggested.

said that if they were prepared to vote he was prepared to tell them what he would do to-morrow. (Laughter.)

said the Minister should put it the other way round. He went on to move an amendment to delete all the words after “that” and to substitute “it is desirable that any legislation consolidating the laws for the registration of medical practitioners and dentists should also provide for the registration of chemists and druggists.” He thought that would enable them to raise again the question of the non-inclusion of the chemists from the provisions of that Bill. That Bill would place the chemists at a disadvantage as compared with those from oversea, who could come and practise all over the Union. He understood the chemists had been excluded on the representations of the Cape Pharmacy Board, and not on the representations of the Cape chemists. The Pharmacy Board in the Cape was more or less top heavy, and there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction with it by chemists in this locality. If they were going in for consolidating measures why should they not make a proper job of it by including dentists, doctors, and chemists, who all worked more or less in conjunction with each other? What was the use of Union unless all the laws were unified? It was only the Cape Pharmacy Board—which had a slight twist in it— objected to reciprocity because the examination in the Cape was a little higher than in the other Provinces, and it desired to maintain its high qualification.

who seconded the amendment, said the Minister had not given the slightest inkling as to why he had altered the original Bill. If the Bill went through it would be exceedingly difficult for chemists to gain attention next session.

said that in the Bill there was no reference to chemists, but in committee the House might amend the title.

moved that it be an instruction to the committee to consider the question of the inclusion of chemists and the amendment of the title of the Bill.

pointed out that the hon. member would defeat his object in that way. Such an instruction could only be given after the second reading, and only after notice had been given.

said that with regard to qualifications the term was three years in the Free State and four years in the other Provinces. He read a telegram from a chemist in the Transvaal stating that no request had been made for the exclusion of chemists, as had been stated by the Minister in another place. He also read a telegram from a meeting of certificated chemists in the Transvaal protesting against the great injustice to the profession by the exclusion of chemists, and urging him (Mr. Nathan) to press for their inclusion. In the face of this telegram he could not withdraw his opposition to the Bill. He would advise the Minister to withdraw the Bill and bring in a consolidating measure next year.

in supporting the amendment, said he did not think it was quite correct to say that the Transvaal did not desire to be included in the Bill.

said he thought it would be better, perhaps, to allow this amendment to be withdrawn, and let the hon. member for Zululand give notice of his amendment on the following stage of the Bill. The whole question could than be, considered tomorrow. Why hon. members should now beat a horse that they had the power to kill to-morrow, he did not know.

Replying to Mr. W. F. CLAYTON (Zululand),

Mr. SPEAKER said that the hon. member would be in order in moving his amendment in committee to-morrow.

Mr. Boydell’s amendment was negatived.

The motion for the second reading was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the Bill be set down for committee stage to-morrow.

objected to the committee stage being set down for the following day, on the ground that a number of important amendments would have to be drafted.

The committee stage was set down for to-morrow.