administered the oath, and Mr. Serfontein took his seat, amidst Ministerial cheers.

from Brandvlei (Cape), praying that the said district be constituted a fiscal division.

praying that the South Africa Defence Bill be so amended that cadet training will be optional.

from Jules D. Aupiais, conductor, South African Railways.

from Winburg, praying for accommodation on the railway on the north side of Zandrivier, for loading and off-loading stock.

from L. C. Morkel, pensioner, Railway Department (Cape).

from W. D. van Alphen, Principal, Third Class Public School, Malmesbury.

from Wolmaransstad, against the South Africa Defence Bill (four petitions).

as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Townships, as follows:

First report of the Select Committee, appointed by Order of the House of Assembly, dated the 5th February, 1912, to consider and report upon all applications submitted in terms of Act No. 15 of 1909 (Orange Free State), for the establishment of townships within the Province of the Orange Free State, requiring parliamentary approval ; the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of Messrs. Brain, Keyter, Maas-dorp, C. L. Botha, Dr. Watkins, Mr. Oliver and the Minister of Lands.

Your committee, having considered the matters referred to them, beg to report as follows: (1) With reference to the petition from A. L. Erasmus and others, members of the Poortje Township Committee, referred to them on the 8th instant, they recommend: That the resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament on the 17th and 21st April, 1911, approving of the laying out of a township at Poortje (Orange Free State), on condition that the joint purchase price of the farm Poortje and expenses in connection with the laying out of the township should not exceed £6,000, be amended by substituting the sum of £8,550 for the said sum of £6,000, the latter amount having been stated in the above resolution as the amount representing such joint purchase price and expenses owing to an error made by the Commission appointed in terms of Act No. 15 of 1909 (O.R.C.) when submitting its recommendations on the application for the establishment of the said township: (2) with reference to the report of the Commission on the application to establish a township at Naauwpoortsnek, Orange Free State, referred to them on the 14th instant, they recommend: That the House approve of the application to establish a township at Naauwpoortsnek, Orange Free State, in terms of, and subject to Act No. 15 of 1909 (Orange River Colony), provided that the owners of the proposed township: (a) transfer to such local authority as may be established, or failing the establishment of any such local authority, to the Government, in trust until such local authority shall have been established, all streets, lanes, and squares, as well as the land to be set apart as a commonage, and the balance of the erven as may remain unsold after the owners of the township have been recouped the purchase price of the land and all costs and expenses connected with the foundation of the township, which are estimated at £7,469 sterling, and further subject to the applicants handing over to the local authority or the Government in trust for such local authority, as the case may be, any sum that may be realised by the applicants out of the sale of erven over and above such estimated purchase price and expenses: (b) transfer to the Government the following land—to be chosen by a representative of the Public Works Department: two erven for a courthouse ; two erven for a post and telegraph office ; one erf for a magistrate’s residence ; one block of erven, not less than 400 feet by 600 feet, for educational purposes ; one block of erven on the edge of the town for a gaol ; two erven for police purposes and two erven for municipal purposes (in trust for any local authority that may hereafter be established in terms of any law relating thereto). Your committee further recommend that the name of the proposed township be left to the decision of the Government.

Report on Bishop Grundtvig and the People’s High School in Denmark, by Professor J. I. Marais, D.D., Theological Seminary, Stellenbosch.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours when they might expect the papers in regard to the case of E. MacLean, which were promised three weeks ago?

I don’t remember making such a promise.

moved:

That this House, while recognising that the Act of Union contemplated certain centralisation in the Administrative Seat of Government, is of opinion that the centralisation as carried out by the Government has been excessive, is contrary to the public interest and against the letter and spirit of the Act of Union.” On the hon. member rising to propose his motion a large number of hon. members on the Ministerial benches rose and walked out of the House in a body. The mover said this matter of excessive centralisation had occupied the attention of the country ever since Union was brought about. It was only fair and right that the matter should be brought before the House for the purpose of getting some expression of opinion. One of the greatest causes of discontent with the Union had been the excessive centralisation of officers at the administrative seat of the Union, and also the centralisation of authority. He would go further and say that probably a greater cause of the irritation that existed was this concentration of authority. No local officer appeared to have much power. When the Convention agreed to Unification in preference to Federation—he thought he was giving away no secrets in saying so—they did so to avoid certain divisions of authority ; for instance, the division of authority in regard to legislation, and also they were anxious, in some respects, at any rate, that the administration of native affairs should be centralised into one pair of strong and capable hands. These were two of the reasons which, amongst others, induced the Convention to agree to the Unification instead of the Federation principle. Of course they knew at the time that it meant a certain amount of centraflisation of the executive officers at the seat of Government. But he did not think that the delegates representing Cape Colony, Natal, and also the Free State had any idea of the extent to which centralisation would be carried as a consequence of Union, or they would have taken precautions against it. He was not now speaking only on behalf of Cape Town. He had heard Pretoria men making exactly the same complaint when Ministers and their chief officials were down here. He thought he might say that this dissatisfaction at excessive centralisation found expression through the length and breadth of South Africa, and perhaps more in the Cape Colony, Free State, and Natal than in the Transvaal. That it was widespread was shown by the report of the Financial Relations Commission. On page 107. the Commissioners said: “In the course of our inquiry, we have heard in many quarters expressions of dissatisfaction at the delay and friction caused by the present tendency to concentrate all administration at Pretoria. This observation applies not only to agriculture, but to other branches of Government.” Then the Minority Report was almost stronger still. It read: “The tendency to overcentralisation has increased enormously the difficulties incidental to the initiation of the new system of government.”

He wished to go further, and to show that the complaint was not confined to any party. All parties had the same complaint. At the Bond Congress a resolution was passed declaring in favour of a larger measure of local government, and impressing the Government to beware of over-centralisation. That came from a body that was not antagonistic to the Government. Then the Free State “Friend,” a strong supporter of the Government, stated that centralisation was being overdone, and in a later issue expressed the hope that there would be a return to a common-sense policy. He need hardly mention that the Associated Chambers of Commerce, when they met at East London in October last, passed a resolution on the matter. A Maritzburg paper stated that the centralisation policy made the transaction of the simplest business almost impossible. This dissatisfaction came from all sections of the people. At a meeting of grain farmers held at Malmesbury, a resolution was passed stating that they viewed with alarm the Government measures for centralisation at Pretoria, The “Midland News” also entered a protest. The commercial communities in the Cape and at other places were complaining on the same score. He ventured to think that the Government could not afford to ignore all these representations. He would quote a few instances of what had been the result of this centralisation. Some of them were very bad, and some of them were small, but still a very small sore gave rise to much irritation. He had one letter informing him that in the case of an overcharge on duty on imported goods, a refund was not obtainable before reference was made to Pretoria. Then a water-can which cost 5s. 6d., guild not be purchased until leave from Pretoria had been obtained. A requisition had to be sent to Pretoria for some typing matter required in Bloemfontein. The whole trend of things was in the same direction. It appeared to him that public servants had not the power to move a little finger without referring to Pretoria. He did not believe that that was any exaggeration. He had a complaint that samples for the analysis of imported goods must be sent to Pretoria to be analysed. There was delay in paying accounts —found pretty generally locally—when contractors had to receive money from the Government. He would now deal with the subject from a broader point of view. Sufficient-authority was not delegated to the officers of the Government away from Pretoria, but the Government had also acted against the letter and the spirit of the Act of Union. Under clause 85 of the Act, powers were conferred upon the Provincial Councils in relation to the following: Local works and undertakings within the Province, other than railways and harbours, and other than such works as extend beyond the borders of the Province, and subject to the power of Parliament to declare any work a national work, and to provide for its construction by arrangement with the Provincial Council or otherwise. That was clear enough, and the Financial Relations Commission stated in their report: “We think that it is the intention of the Act to place upon the Provincial Administrations the whole responsibility for the execution of public works with which they are concerned, and that they must decide for themselves …” But, instead of leaving local public works to the Provinces as was clearly the intention of the Act, soon after Union a circular was issued to the effect that while the Provinces were responsible for the policy, the plans, specifications, and the making of contracts were to be carried out by the Public Works Department. A good deal of dissatisfaction over this had been expressed in the Cape and in the Free State. His contention was that the Provinces were never allowed to choose in the matter, so that when Union came into effect the Union Government seemed to have decided on that course of action ; they would carry out the works for the account of the Provincial Government. That might be satisfactory so far as Natal and the Transvaal were concerned ; but it was not so far as the Free State and the Cape were concerned. Those Provinces should have been given the opportunity of choosing for themselves. If they preferred the Transvaal system, all right ; if they preferred the Cape system it would have to be altered, and it was consequently in the compromise of the Act of Union that they should be allowed to do so. That was as far as public works in the Cape Province were concerned.

Agriculture under the same clause (clause 85)—“Agriculture to the extent and subject to the conditions to be defined by Parliament "—was to be assigned to the Provincial Councils. He thought he might also say that there was a good deal of discussion as to the assignment of agriculture to the Provincial Councils. Some members were strongly in favour of it being left to the Provincial Councils, and others were in favour of it being brought entirely under the Union Government. Of course, those of them in favour of the Provincial Councils had to recognise that in some things such as stock diseases, scab, East Coast fever, and locusts, it was absolutely necessary that they should be fought by one central Government. Consequently there was a compromise, and that clause practically represented that compromise. If that was the intention and the spirit of the Act of Union, the Union Government, instead of taking note of it, and waiting until the report of the Commission had been issued and until Parliament had decided which parts should be assigned to the Provincial Councils, proceeded forthwith to deal with it themselves. There were complaints from all over the Union. No opportunity had been given to the House to decide which part of agriculture should be given to the Provincial Councils ; but without waiting, the whole of the Department had been centralised at the seat of administration. He was not discussing which was best, but he was only just going on principle. He maintained, had the Union Government stuck squarely to the Act of Union they would have said they could not deal with agriculture just yet ; not on definite lines. When the report was out and Parliament had decided which parts of agriculture should be assigned to the Provincial Councils—and he felt many parts of agriculture, could be assigned to the Provincial Councils, such as soils and products and so on. Take Natal with its tea, the Free State with its grain and stock raising, and this part of the country, with its wine, grain, and other departments of agriculture. Did it not stand to reason that if that was left to the local people, it would be dealt with far more effectively? But, as he had said, there was no improvement at all. As soon as ever the Union came into force, the whole thing was centralised in one big office. But he noticed that the Agricultural Department was not content with the amount of work it had to do at present ; they had taken in hand a new kind of work, as appeared from page 61 of the Estimates (Agricultural Department). There appeared a vote for household science, aggregating £600. Household science meant cooking and laundry work, millinery, and the like. He contended that was a matter entirely for the local people. In Cape Town they had a College of Domestic Science—it was the only part in South Africa at present where they acted under the supervision of the School Board. It was entirely controlled by the Cape Divisional School Board. It had not to do with the central Government ; but here the Agricultural Department, with the work it has, must go abroad to find other work, in the shape of teaching domestic science. To his mind, that was entirely an encroachment on the province of the Provincial Councils. Then, take another case. Under the same clause 85, Municipal institutions, Divisional Councils, and other local institutions of a similar nature were also very definitely under the control of the Provincial Councils, and yet under an Act which had been introduced into the House —the Public Health Act—under clause 11, it was proposed to give power to the Union Minister, if any locality was in danger by any abuse or neglect in the way of improper sanitation or insufficient water supply, to interfere.

He contended that the Union Government was encroaching on what was reserved for the Provincial Councils, and the pity of it was that that policy seemed to be followed still. Instead of the Union Government taking note of the dissatisfaction their policy had caused, they were still going on in the same way, and still were encroaching on what was reserved for the Provincial Councils. He thought he had pointed out very clearly what results that wholesale centralisation had brought about ; in fact, they were mentioned very clearly in that report, which said there was a deal of friction in the whole country. The whole of that centralisation must have one effect: that it placed the Government of this country in the hands of a bureaucracy. Ministers had their duties to attend to—they had their Parliamentary duties as well as their Ministerial duties—so how was it possible for them to attend to these duties? There must be many things that were left to officials. He heard that sometimes matters had to be referred to Pretoria, and these were dealt with by officers inferior in rank to the local officer. This tendency to cause a bureaucracy must increase as years went on, because Ministers come and Ministers go, but the officials were always there. It was impossible for the Ministers to be acquainted with all the facts of their Departments, whereas the officials were. He ventured to say that this country was too big for a bureaucracy. It comprised 471,000 square miles, as big as six Continental countries rolled into one, and yet they were trying at the present moment—the Government was trying to run this big Union by itself. He would venture to say that there were few countries in the world where the Agricultural Department covered such a large area as in this country, and he certainly thought there was nowhere where centralisation had gone so far. The French system of administration was said to be very highly centralised ; but he would venture to doubt if it was so highly centralised as ours. A Prefect of one of the French Departments had more power than a Provincial Administrator in this country. He administered the sanitary laws, factory laws and education, and had also something to do with the encouragement of agriculture. Now the superintendence of police and the encouragement of agriculture were not in the hands of a Provincial Administrator at the present time ; so he doubted whether a South African Administrator had as much power as a French Prefect. The Commission did not go into the details of local government ; they contented themselves with advising that far more authority should be left in the hands of local government. Then Mr. Justice Laurence expressed a similar opinion ; in fact, in reference to this particular matter, the whole of the Commissioners were absolutely at one. Mr. Justice Laurence said: “I cannot too strongly express my concurrence in the view that, in the present circumstances of the Union, there should be local officers stationed in each Province, particularly in the Departments of Agriculture and Public Works, with wide discretionary powers.” Then the Minority Report was equally forcible, in fact even more so: “With a view to allaying local irritation and to securing greater promptitude and efficiency in administration, we are of opinion that a large delegation of power should be made to local officers.” He would like personally to go very much further than that.

The Act of Union established the supremacy of the Central Government and the Central Parliament without question. The Central Parliament could take away or add to any of the powers which any local body might possess. Suppose such powers were misused, they could be taken away the following session if necessary. He maintained that, as a consequence, they could afford to be generous in delegating powers to local officers. Therefore, he would strongly urge that where works and administration could be carried on better or even as well by the Provincial Council, the Divisional Council, or the Municipality even, the matter should be left to the local body. He ventured to think that that was the soundest policy that could be pursued. Was it not far better to leave the local people to manage their own affairs The Minister of Native Affairs, at Graaff-Reinet, said he was in favour of a large amount of devolution. He (Mr. Jagger) was afraid, however, that that was not the policy contained in the Public Health Act Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister of the Interior. On the testimony he had quoted, he thought he was perfectly justified in bringing forward the resolution which he now begged to move. (Opposition cheers.)

seconded the motion.

said that he supported the motion for the same reason that he had tabled a motion in reference to the administration of the ports. In Port Elizabeth they had, since Union was commenced, found that things were not carried on as well as they were under the old Cape Colony. Mr. Searle instanced work in connection with the port and especially in regard to tenders, and complained of the circumlocution which was now evident in the most trivial matters He thought there should be more local self-government, and was sure that the Government had taken as much bay on their fork as they could carry, and that the sooner they realised this and got back a little more to the old arrangement and entrusted more powers to the local people, the better it would be all round

said that a system of centralisation carried too far would have no good results. It was, however, laid down in the Constitution that Pretoria was to be the seat of administration, and centralisation had thus become necessary. It had awakened dissatisfaction amongst Civil Servants and merchants, especially amongst the shopkeepers in Cape Town. He thought it would not help matters very much to bring motions in that House on the subject. He had learnt from many attorneys that centralisation carried too far caused expenses. But who was responsible for the centralisation? The members of the Convention were responsible, and they included the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Those hon. members had laid it down that Pretoria was to be the centre of administration and he (the speaker) blamed the members of the Convention as being the cause of these complaints. He trusted the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would complain no more, as he himself was to blame.

said that he was glad to observe the reasonable spirit in which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn had dealt with this matter. The hon. member must also give them on that side credit for reasonableness. He (Mr. Sehoeman) had said that they should not go into the question of what was settled at the Convention ; that they must accept it, and that they should not grumble. They did not grumble. The words of their motion showed that.

Continuing, the speaker pointed out that the Civil Service Commission made recommendations, and hon. members of the House were not aware which were going to be carried out and which were not. It was the same with the report of the Financial Relations Commission. No statement of policy had come from the Government side.

Nonsense.

It is a fact. I have the evidence. Continuing, he said that the Civil Service Commission had advocated rigid centralisation. They knew that the Agricultural Department in Cape Town had been closed down. He referred to the case of a Berg River farmer, who sought for information, and was told to go to Elsenberg College. After he had driven forty miles, he found there was no accommodation at the college. That was very hard on the farmer. On the other hand, the Finanical Relations Commission had recommended that there must be decentralisation in order that farmers might be able to come into touch with those whom they required, and obtain the information that they required. There was another instance. The Commission recommended that the administration of scab should be under the charge of a competent and specially qualified scab inspector. What did the Government do? They had appointed a man of ability certainly, but not a man who had any special knowledge of scab. Were those on the Opposition benches to be blamed, after cases of this sort, when they asked for a statement of policy from the Government? Unless these matters were brought forward on the floor of the House it was impossible for the country to know what the Government intended to do. He pointed out that every Saturday morning farmers came into Cape Town for the purpose of seeking information. Under the conditions which obtained at the present time they were unable to get any satisfaction, and the Prime Minister would find, if he were not careful, that those who were his friends at the present time would he his enemies in the future. He pointed to the fact that the Bloemfontein “Friend” had made an attack on the Government in connection with this very same matter. Was he prepared to lose his friends in order to have a slap at the Opposition? He should be careful, and do his best to set matters right before it was too late. The leader of the Opposition had said the other day that no Government which they, on the Opposition benches, could put up could do more work than was being done by the Government of the present day. He took it to mean that those on the other side were so swayed by this unfortunate racial question, and were not able to say what they honestly thought about things. On his side of the House hon. members were receiving these complaints by the hundred.

Name them?

I can name them if you like. Would his hon. friends on the other side vote for the motion that was before the House? He thought they would not, although they knew that to do the right thing was to vote for the motion that had been tabled by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. If the Prime Minister wished to set things right, and push forward this country, then he must listen to the very serious complaints that were being made not only to members of the Opposition at the present time.

said that before he came to the question of centralisation and the charges which the hon. member for Cape Town Central had levelled against the Government, he would like to say this as a preface—that on this issue of centralisation he was entirely against centralisation. There seemed to be an idea, which the hon. member for Cape Town Central had sent abroad in this House, that he (the speaker) was the demon of centralisation That was an entirely incorrect notion, because it seemed to him that in a country like this centralisation of a severe character was an impossibility, and that if they wanted to run the Administration on the rocks, they must start with a severe type of centralisation. All over the world the great problem which Governments had to deal with was how to reconcile local freedom and independence with: good and strong government. One of the greatest things was to have a good and strong Government, and, on the other hand local freedom. They must instil into the hearts of the people the spirit of Responsible Government. If they wanted to pushforward this young country, they must instil into the hearts of the people this spirit of independence and freedom, and it would be a sad day for South Africa if they were to lose that spirit of local independence and freedom. It was impossible in a big country like this to run a highly-centralised system. They could have central powder of legislation, but local matters should be left to the people themselves, for it would make them so much happier, and so much easier would be the question of administration. So, on this question, as hon. members who had spoken had said, there was a strong feeling on the matter in South Africa. He knew there was a strong feeling that the Government, in the first years of the Union, had been inclined to go too far, and that day he would try to deal fairly with the matter, and touch upon the true facts of the situation. Hon. members had quoted instances ; he himself could give further instances. At the same time, he did not think that the hon. member for Cape Town Central had framed his motion in the best of terms. It had been brought forward in the form of an attack upon the Government. It seemed to him that the hon. member for Cape Town Central, in the quiet watches of the night, when other people were peaceful, became even more strenuous than he was by day. (Laughter.) He would deal with the first charge mentioned in the motion—the centralisation of public servants at Pretoria. People, he thought—he himself was astonished—must have been astonished at the return which was laid on the table the other day in answer to a question which was addressed to the Government by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. That showed the actual state of affairs in the Transvaal at the present time—the number of servants that had been transferred there, and the number that remained there. Four hundred and eleven public servants had been transferred from other parts of South Africa to the Transvaal; 115 public servants had been transferred from the Transvaal to other parts of South Africa ; 298 were left in the Transvaal, not taking into account any who had been retrenched. There was no doubt that all over South Africa there had been a feeling that there had been a vast concentration of Civil Servants at Pretoria, and he had mentioned these figures in order to dispel that illusion.

With regard to the last charge that they had acted against the letter and the spirit of the Act of Union, he would say that the hon. member was rather prone to make these charges, and when they called for facts the hon. member got off the rail and mentioned facts which did not support the charge. The hon. member said that the Act of Union contemplated that local works within the Provinces should be carried out by the Provinces concerned. One might fairly take the view that the Provinces were legally and constitutionally entitled to their own Public Works Departments. He gathered from the report of the Financial Relations Commission that that was the view to which that body inclined. But this was one of those questions in which one had to deal not only with the strict letter of the Constitution, but also public convenience and requirements. If they had carried out the letter of the Constitution they would have had to establish five different Public Works Departments—one for the Union and one each for the four Provinces. If the Government had done that what would Parliament have said? The House would have rung with the denunciation of the hon. member (Mr. Jagger). (Ministerial cheers.) This was a question which the Government thought would require the consideration of the Parliament, the people, and the Provincial Councils. He would like to know whether the Provincial bodies were prepared to go on with the present arrangements, under which they had the benefit of the expert advice of members of the Union Public Works Department without cost. If the Provinces said, “We are quite prepared to call on you to execute our public works, and to utilise the Union officials for that purpose,” they would be carrying out the principles of the Constitution, and would be doing a thing which would be economical. It might be that the Provinces would say, “We are going to have our own Civil Service and Public Works Department, and are prepared to pay for these luxuries and necessities.” If they did it would be for the people to say whether the arrangement was a fair one. He therefore thought there was not much in this charge. If they had broken the Constitution they had tried to do what was best in the interests of the Union and of the Provinces. Although there was some dissatisfaction in some parts of the Union, that was due more to petty questions of office detail than to the principles of the question. (Hear, hear.) When they created new machinery and dislocated old arrangements they could not expect a big machine like the Union to move without friction. In the Cape and the Free State small difficulties and delays had arisen in regard to the arrangements made for the execution of public works. These, however, were all disappearing.

The next charge was that the Government had not submitted to Parliament the proposals in regard to agriculture. There was no doubt that at the Convention many leading spirits were of opinion that in regard to agriculture a certain amount of work could be delegated to the Provinces, but the more one thought over it the more one saw the difficulties surrounding the subject, and at the end the Convention came to the decision to leave the matter to Parliament. This was one of the questions which had repeatedly engaged the attention of the Government. Owing to delay that had taken place in solving the problem they were in a better position to solve it than if they had hastily put proposals before Parliament. The Public Service Commission had made certain recommendations on the matter, and the Financial Relations Commission had come to the same conclusion. In paragraph 15 the latter Commission said: “We must, however, add that while we are on the whole in favour of the maintenance for the present of central control over matters relating to agriculture, we hold a strong opinion that every effort should be made to decentralise the administration as far as possible by giving greater responsibility to executive officers of the central department in the Provinces.” In paragraph 11 the Commission said: “Bearing this consideration in mind, we are not disposed to recommend at the present moment any substantial enlargement of the powers of Provincial Governments. We think that any such measure should be deferred until it can be seen whether public opinion will favour the establishment of the subordinate local authorities to which we have referred.” The Commission was of opinion that the system already in existence at the Cape of local government and Divisional Councils was more convenient than that of the Provincial Councils. The question of agriculture in regard to the Provincial Councils was coming up for solution. The Government was calling together the representatives of the different Provincial Councils. The Administrators would meet, and they hoped to discuss this question, as well as the Financial Relations Commission’s report, more fully with them. It was very likely that this session the Government would bring forward some proposals. They ought not to move too hastily, but there was no doubt that the question of the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces called for solution. They could not continue as they had gone hitherto, the Union Parliament supplying the funds and another body seeing to their expenditure. So he thought that probably this session the question would have to be solved. Then the question of agriculture, what the Provinces should have charge of, could also come up for discussion, and perhaps for solution.

The hon. member had mentioned some matters which could devolve on the Provinces, for instance, tea and sugar in Natal.

Local industries.

said let them take the wine industry at the Cape. He was sure that if the hon. member carefully considered this question he would see with what great difficulties it was surrounded. He did not think that the Cape wine farmers would exactly thank the House if, as a result of their deliberations, the wine industry came to be looked upon simply as a local industry. (Ministerial cheers.) The same point held in regard to sugar in Natal. Once they restored the impression that prevailed in former years that the sugar industry was simply a local industry and that other parts of the Union had a free hand in regard to it in dealing with railway rates and so on, he was sure their hon. friends from Natal would not thank the hon. member for his suggestion. They had to consider very carefully to what extent they looked upon industries as provincial. The Commission had raised the question of expense. If they gave the wine industries, the question arose who was to ties, the question arose who was to collect the Excise? The industry would split up into a number of aspects, which would be dealt with by different Governments, and in the end, he feared, there would be misunderstanding and more trouble than under the present system. If the hon. member would help them to think out some solution of the question, the House would be more grateful to him than for some recent motions. (Ministerial laughter.) The hon. member had stated that the Government was encroaching upon the duties of the Provincial Administrations, and that the Prime Minister was encroaching upon the functions of the Education Department, by asking for money for household science to be taught in the agricultural schools. What was meant was something different from domestic science as known in the Cape. Some years ago the Agricultural Department of the Transvaal very wisely started a policy of sending young South Africans to schools, colleges, and universities in other parts of the world for special training, and at present they had a large number of these students in various parts of the world, learning highly scientific agricultural training, and who, when they returned, would be a real strength to the Agricultural Department in this country. A Miss Van Duyn had been sent to Canada to study household science, rather from the agricultural than the domestic point of view, and she had come back highly efficient. She would now start teaching household science of the agricultural type in connection with these agricultural schools So the hon. member would see that they were not trenching on the ordinary educational work of the Provinces. It was the universal experience that the Agricultural Department could deal with this kind of education better than the Education Department could. He had seen quite recently that a similar arrangement had now been made in England. That charge of the hon. member’s was therefore based on a misapprehension.

He now came to the last charge made by the hon. member, namely, that the Public Health Bill now before the House infringed on the powers and functions of the Provincial Councils. He did not agree with the hon. member, although the matter might perhaps be open to some argument. There was nothing in the Constitution to support the hon. member ; there was not a word about public health in the Constitution. What was given to the Provinces in the Constitution was the control of the various local authorities, and of course questions of public health might arise incidentally in regard to them. But he thought that all medical men in South Africa and all public health authorities were agreed that it was necessary to have a central department of public health. (Cheers.) If each Provincial Administration, each local authority, had to deal in its own sweet way and its own sweet will with questions of public health, what would become of it? He had resolutions from one conference after another of medical authorities urging him far beyond the distance he would go. They wished him to keep in this hands the entire control of public health in South Africa. He could not go so far because he thought they must carry out the Constitution, and all incidental questions of sanitation and so on that arose under the local authorities should be dealt with by them, and to that extent they were under the control of the Provincial authorities. But there must be a point at which the central power would step in Occasion might arise when a local authority was so remiss in the execution of its duty that in the public interests, when the public health was seriously endangered the central authority should step in. That power would be useful, although it was improbable that they would ever need to use it. He had discussed the point with one Provincial authority, and they stated that they had the intention of having a similar clause in their Bill. But there was not the slightest intention of trenching on the field of the local authorities. He had, he thought, disproved the charges made by the hon. member. He had done so not in a hostile spirit, but with a view to meeting the real point in each case. Then the hon. member went on to mention about the bureaucratic system under which Ministers became figure-heads. The whole innuendo was that the Government were supervising to an enormous extent the various authorities, apart from the personnel. That was not so. He could go through department after department of the Union and show the hon. member that on the contrary very little had been centralised under Union. Practically all problems of local administration that existed before Union continued to exist to-day. There might be cases such as that mentioned by the hon. member regarding the Harbour Board, but the powers of the Harbour Boards were curtailed not under Union, but some years before. So that charge failed. Reverting to the Agricultural Department, he had seen some wild statement, from a platform, some months ago, that the Government had actually taken from this Province its viti-cultural expert, and the speaker went on to say that perhaps they would also take the vines to Pretoria. (Laughter.) That seemed a good platform joke, but there was not a tittle of truth in it. No attempt had been made to take either. The same administration also remained in dealing with cattle diseases. The only difference was that central controlling officials had been removed to Pretoria. That might be a charge against the Act of Union, but it could not be a charge against the Government. However much decentralised the execution might be the control must be central, and that central control had gone to Pretoria, but so far as he knew nothing else in regard to the Agricultural Department. Another hon. member had made a different charge, which was based on the idea mooted by the Public Service Commission that the agricultural colleges and schools in the various Provinces should fall more under local administration than they had hitherto. The secretary of the Western Province Society had in a long laboured communication to the press put forward his views on the subject.

It was a question that was very difficult, and he thought the Public Service Commission argued it very clearly in their report. It was contained on page 33 of the fourth report, and read: “The present needs of South Africa and other considerations already referred to require that the control of agriculture should be vested in the Union Government. Delegation of activities to the Provincial Councils is not a matter immediately desirable, though it is recognised that the time may arrive when it would be convenient to regard them as local agents, or even to entrust certain functions to them. A central organisation has been designed, comprising a number of divisions complete within themselves as regards their technical work, and grouped in convenient numbers under special administrative officers. The Union of South Africa, however, embraces a wide area, and as all matters cannot suitably be dealt with from the Administrative capital, local representation in some form or other is required. To an extent this must be effected through the agency of detached officers of the department, whose spheres of operations are largely confined to a particular district (e.g., veterinary surgeons), and indeed local requirements of a certain kind can hardly be provided for in any other way. For some other functions of the department (chemistry, entomology, horticulture, etc.) it would be an expensive arrangement to maintain detached agents, with perhaps clerical establishments, at various points throughout the Union territory. But, unless an alternative is found, such a course must be adopted, and, in spite of its drawbacks, this would, as already stated, appear to the Commission to be preferable to the building up of agricultural establishments attached to the administration of the Provinces. The Commission has given much consideration to this question of local representation, and is of opinion that an attempt ought to be made to have local requirements and inquiries dealt with and replied to by the agricultural colleges. The Commission is well aware that such a method of providing for all work that is essentially local in scope and interest differs widely from methods hitherto in force in South Africa. It will be in the nature of an experiment, but the principle is one which has attained success in other countries, and there is no sufficient reason, in the Commission’s opinion, why it should not prove successful here.” Hon. members knew that that was the system which, as far as he remembered, proved successful in England. There, local inquiries and advice were given by local authorities to which the Agricultural Colleges were attached. In America there was the same system. In all the States they had local authorities. And although they had had no such system in South Africa before, the Commission said that rather than have small technical departments in each of these matters, chemistry, entomology, and so forth, they should have good expert men in the Agricultural Department so that in the various centres and localities they could give advice. That was going to be an experiment, but if the experiment was successful he was sure it would be a much better and a more efficient way than building up bureaux and institutions all over the Union. So much in regard to the Agricultural Department. Take the Department of Commerce and Industries. There had been no centralisation at all. In the Department of Defence, what had been centralised and what was going to be centralised was simply the executive control ; but the whole of the administration subsisted on local powers. The Department of Finance was the same. It was carried on through Civil Commissioners, and, in some quarters, it had special revenue officers. In certain important centres it had Revenue Departments. Here in Cape Town there was one constituted from the old Treasury. The same would be the case at Bloemfontein and Maritzburg, so that he did not think in regard to finance over-centralisation could be urged. Take his own Department, that of the Interior. Practically every matter that arose was dealt with locally, whether it was public health or any of the various activities that his Department was concerned with. Here in Cape Town, during the time he was away from Cape Town, he was keeping up a local agency. Mr. Cousins, of the Immigration Department, was the agent for his Department in other matters besides immigration. It was the same with the various other Departments. If they looked at irrigation they would find that the whole of South Africa was parcelled into circles, and engineers were placed in charge of each circle. Only matters of policy were referred to the Central Administration. The Department of Justice was decentralised. They had Magistrates, Attorneys-General, and so on all over the Union. The Department of Lands was, of course, to a large extent, decentralised. They had Deeds Offices and Surveyors-General in various parts of the country. All those customs they had in South Africa remained, and it was only the controlling authority that was centralised. So he could go on through all the other Departments; but he did not think it was necessary.

He wanted hon. members to bear in mind at once and make them judge this aspect of the Government. It was this, that here, before, in South Africa, their system had, to a large extent, been to centralise control. The only place where local government had been followed was here in the Cape ; but, with that exception, the whole of the administration had been centralised. What was the result? The result was that most of their laws presupposed centralised control. Of course, hon. members knew that the Governor-General meant the Executive Council, which meant that all those matters which had to be dealt with under the old system by the Government had to go to the Governor-General. And, no doubt, a certain amount of delay arose from time to time. People said there had been a good deal of loss of time in referring matters to Pretoria ; but if hon. members were to see the enormous amount of business dealt with week by week in the Executive Council, they would see that there was a limit, beyond which the Government could not go. And he thought in future, if they wanted to decentralise and wanted to forward a policy which he thought was necessary in the interest of South Africa, they should be more careful in passing their laws to say that they did not require the intervention of the Governor-General-in-Council too much, because, whenever they had that, it meant that matters could not be devolved on some subordinate officer. He had spoken at some length on that matter, and, let him say this, in conclusion, he could assure them that instructions had repeatedly been given to the departments to give as much discretion to the local officers in other parts of the Union as possible. But difficulties arose, which were sometimes almost inexplicable. Officers, he thought, were timid, and afraid to exercise such wide discretionary powers now as they used to, and repeatedly referred matters to the central authority. Time had repeatedly been lost simply because officers had been chary of making use of the powers they had. Of course, there were cases where it would be difficult to entrust local agents with authority ; and dangerous, too. The hon. member referred just now to the case of expenditure by some local officers. He would understand that was a matter which would have to be dealt with by the central authority. Where they gave a local officer authority to spend money, they might easily land themselves in a nasty position. He was sure that the instructions that had been! referred to were being carried out, and if the Government continued to do its best not to centralise, but to meet public convenience as much as possible, then he was sure that the initial difficulties they had encountered, and the inconvenience which had been caused would grow less and less. In conclusion, he wanted to say that no doubt there had been a good deal of dissatisfaction and a good deal of inconvenience ; but, on the whole what struck him most was the enormous success, the most unexpected success, with which the great Union machine had started here. Hon. members who had made themselves interested in constitutional questions and problems which had arisen in other countries who had also united, would agree with him that nowhere in the world was there an instance of such a vast organic change as that which had been accomplished in South Africa, taking place with so little friction and so little concern. Really, the man in the street saw no Union, so little had the change affected the daily habits and convenience of the public; and the result was that the machine was moving forward, not without some clogging; but if hon. members would co-operate with the Government, he was sure in a very short number of years people would see that this Union had been the greatest blessing that had ever been vouchsafed to this country. He was sure the people of this country wanted to see the administration of the Union a success, and he hoped that this House and the Government would meet them, and continue to meet them, as far as possible in the future. (Opposition cheers.)

said he thought the hon. member for Cape Town Central was to be congratulated on the clear and convincing manner in which he had brought forward this subject for discussion and, if he might be allowed, he would like to compliment the Minister of the Interior on his almost instantaneous conversion. They who were members of the Convention and of Parliament, had laboured under a misapprehension. They understood that the Minister was strongly in favour of the bureaucratic system of government. They now heard that day that he was not in favour of that system, and he was sure that they were all of them extremely grateful for his conversion. He was, however, rather doubtful when his hon. friend, as he was so capable of doing, covered up the whole of his argument in a maze of words, so that really one did not know at the conclusion of his speech what was going to be the policy of the Government in connection with the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town Central. When the Minister said that it was impossible for them to advance in any way other than they had done, under the terms of the Act of Union, he could tell him that that was absolutely and entirely opposed to the view held by the vast majority of the people of the Union. He would take one department—agriculture. He was certain he was advancing the views of 90 to 95 per cent. of the farmers of this country when he said they considered that the Agricultural Departments that existed in the various Provinces previous to Union had been absolutely broken up and destroyed before anything had been brought forward in their place. That was the view held by the agricultural press throughout South Africa There was a paper published in Bloemfontein, which he might say was an admirable production. It was called the “Farmers’ Weekly.”

To whom does it belong?

I do not know who it belongs to, but I believe that 5,000 copies are circulated among the farmers of the country, irrespective of party. That paper strongly condemns the policy adopted by my right hon. friend. Proceeding, Sir Thomas Smartt said that the farmers, as their views had become known, were all against the policy of centralisation adopted by the Department.

His right hon. friend had plainly told the country that his object was to make the one monumental work of the Government the development of the agricultural resources of the country. He could tell the right hon. gentleman that, if he did not alter the system that had been adopted by the Agricultural Department, instead of making it a success, he was going to assist in making it a failure. They had been told that the system adopted by the Department was the system which had been adopted with such marked success by the United States and Canada. He would like to say, in the most uncompromising manner, that the system adopted by this country was absolutely and entirely opposed to the system adopted with such success in the United States and by Canada. What was the best example of the success of an Agricultural Department? He could not give his right hon. friend a better statement than that which appeared in the “Farmers’ Weekly.” If the Department were in touch with the farmers throughout the country, all was well. He thought the consensus of opinion among farmers at the present time was that the Agricultural Department of the Union was not in touch with the farmers throughout the country. Under the Convention, he agreed with the Minister of the Interior that a certain amount of centralisation was necessary to be carried out. They could have centralisation as laid down in the Constitution, without accentuated centralisation as carried out at the present time. The Department of Agriculture in the United States was conducted on the basis of decentralised centralisation, and the Agricultural Department of the Union was conducted on the basis of centralised centralisation. They could have control in the central department, but they should have officers throughout the Union who had powers to administer the ordinary work of the Department in the same manner as they had in the Irrigation Department, under the Minister of Lands. Prior to Parliament meeting, what was the state of things in this Province? Where could the farmer go for information but to Elsenberg? The principal at Elsenberg recently referred to the fact that the College was not staffed and equipped to carry out the ordinary duties which his right hon. friend, under his scheme of reorganisation, had imposed upon it. He maintained that they were not going to have content among the farming population until they altered their whole system. The Department should be staffed with technical instructors and experts as lecturers throughout the country, so that they could practically bring scientific information to the farmer on his stoep throughout the length and breadth of the Union. During the last ten years an enormous advance had been made in this country in agricultural development, and in no place had that advance been greater than in the Free State. There was no doubt that under the admirable system introduced by Lord Milner, and the experts brought out by Lord Milner, agriculture had been completely changed there, and the development that had taken place had been enormous. Sir Thomas Smartt went on to refer to the manner in which the Agricultural Department in the Southern States of America was reorganised by an official who had four clerks in his central office, but (added Sir Thomas) he had large numbers of administrators and technical officers in the field, who came into daily communication with the farmers.

That is what we want.

I entirely agree with my hon. friend. I ask my hon. friend: is that what you have got?

We are getting it.

Yes, and getting it very slowly. Proceeding, Sir T. Smartt said that the whole system had been broken up, and nothing had been put in its place. He would like to know where was the tobacco expert? Where was the mycologist?

Then there were admirable experiments carried out in connection with the crossing of cereals. His hon. friend had referred to the statement which was presented at the meeting of the Western Province Agricultural Society. He could tell his hon. friend that the statement which was read by the president of that society was submitted to the committee of the society, which was composed of representative English and Dutch farmers, and that the expressions of opinion were unanimously endorsed by those committeemen, and he further believed that the statement had been endorsed by other societies of a similar character throughout this part of the country. He only quoted these instances to show that there was gross dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs in connection with the Agricultural Department. This had all been due —and he was glad to see that his hon. friend the Minister of the Interior had departed from that policy to-day—to centralising everything and everybody at Pretoria. They would never remedy this state of affairs unless the Department was properly reorganised and qualified men were sent about the country in order to get into touch with the farmers and their needs. It was a matter of vital importance to the country, for as he had said over and over again, agriculture was the premier industry of the country ; and he would ask the right hon. gentleman who had charge of the Department to do what he could to put things in a better state. It was a question of administration. His right hon. friend had in his department a number of responsible officers. He did not think there was a responsible officer in the Department who had had practical experience with agricultural development in the United States of America and Canada who approved of the new system. Did any of the heads of departments approve of the change? Surely under those circumstances they were justified in coming forward and saying that it was time that a change for the better took place in connection with the administration of the Department. The Government was able to provide under the Act of Union. They had established a department of sheep and wool, which he understood was in charge of an officer who, he believed, held a very admirable record in the service, but they on that side of the House wanted to know whether he had practical experience with the pastoral industry. Under that department the administration of scab had been placed. Formerly they were told that it would go under the Veterinary Department.

No.

It was never the intention? Then my memory must be failing me very badly, because when we had a discussion on the Diseases of Stock Bill we were told that it was going under the Veterinary Department. If that was not so, why was it that Mr. Allan Davidson, an officer who had rendered invaluable service in connection with the eradication of scab, was given notice at the termination of his appointment? He understood that the reason of this change was that the scab work was going to be placed in charge of the head of the Veterinary Department, though the was glad to say that the notice of cancellation which had been issued to the Chief Inspector had been withdrawn. He only quoted these instances to show the state of affairs that existed at the present time. There was another point. In the last session of Parliament the Diseases of Stock Bill passed the House without, he was glad to say, a division. On October 24, without the people of the country being consulted, a series of regulations were issued—he spoke feelingly on the subject because he and others had suffered loss in consequence of what had happened. Those regulations dealt with the simultaneous dipping of sheep. It was therein stated that a time would be decided upon when there should be simultaneous dipping of sheep throughout the Union. On January 12, owing to a great deal of pressure which he understood came from the Free State, the Government issued a new series of regulations which stated that simultaneous dipping would not apply to flocks that had a clean bill of health for the previous twelve months. The other day his right hon. friend in answer to a question addressed to him from one side or other of the House, said that the Government had now come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to carry out simultaneous dipping this year. Did his right hon. friend see the difficulty in which he had placed the farmers of the country? Continuing, the hon. member dealt with a circular which was issued by Civil Commissioners in January, to the effect that it was desirable to obtain the opinion of farmers as to the best time for the dipping of sheep. The hon. member said that at a meeting of the Britstown Agricultural Society it was decided that January or February would be the best period for the dipping of sheep. He (the speaker) was present, and told the meeting that there was to be simultaneous dipping throughout the country. They telegraphed to the Prime Minister, saying that they thought January and February would be the best months for dipping. He pointed out that the farmers of Victoria West and Carnarvon held a meeting, and came to the same conclusion.

At any rate, the telegram that was despatched was acknowledged, and that was the last that was heard of the matter. His charge was this—that surely the Government had time enough after the passing of the Diseases of Stock Act to make inquiries of the farmers of the country as to which would be the most suitable time for dipping. What happened? There were many farmers who, in the ordinary course of events, and who had clean bills of health for their flocks for the previous twelve months, would have shorn their sheep in October, waited for the simultaneous dipping that was promised in the regulations. The farmers refrained from doing anything until the January regulations came into force. When he (the speaker) got hold of the new regulation in quite a casual manner, exempting clean flocks from simultaneous dipping, he immediately wired to his manager telling him to go on with dipping. He understood now that there was to be no simultaneous dipping.

For very good reasons.

Then my answer is that these reasons might have been discovered last September. Continuing, he said that many of the farmers had lost owing to these regulations, and he pointed out that in the majority of cases, owing to the delay that had been occasioned, that the wool had deteriorated to the extent of ½d. and 1d. per lb. by refraining from dipping, owing to the regulations—since cancelled—for three or four months. Now all these things could have been avoided. The hon. member went on to refer to the dismissal of Mr. Palmer, of the Free State Agricultural Department, at two hours’ notice, saying that a member of the House would never treat a coloured servant in such a fashion. Could the Government expect anything but unrest and chaos in the Department when such things happened? He alluded to the Free State’s tributes that were paid to the worth of Mr. Palmer. After the banquet. Mr. Palmer went to Pretoria and gave his evidence before the Civil Service Commission, and within two hours of starting on the leave which was granted by the Government, he was dismissed. He asked his right hon. friend—he saw that the Minister for the Interior agreed that the facts were correct —how under administration of that sort they could expect satisfaction and peace when there was no security of tenure. The Department was in a chaotic condition, and had lost the sympathy and good will of most of the farmers of the country. Until the Department was reorganised on the basis of de-centralised centralisation they would never have a satisfactory administration of the Agricultural Department. He hoped his right hon. friend would not consider what he had said as being uttered in a party spirit. He (Sir T. Smartt) considered the interests of agriculture far above that—(hear, hear)—and he was certain that hon. members on the Government benches felt as strongly as he did that the position of the Agricultural Department was a danger to agricultural development and to the prosperity of the farmers of the Union. (Cheers.)

said that the last speaker had spoken highly of the Department of Agriculture in the Free State, but that every question had two sides to it. The “Farmers’ Weekly,” which had been mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, was a newspaper the contents of which was simply correspondence, which was outside the responsibility of the editor. Too much hurry had been shown in removing the Agricultural Department from Bloemfontein. Mr. Palmer was a zealous official, who had done much for the advancement of agriculture, but his staff was a miserable one, and consequently Mr. Palmer could not do very much. The Department had cost in administration £53,000 per annum, but that money was thrown away. They had had quite enough of unnecessary officials. The Free State wanted its agriculture to go ahead, but not to pay for an office full of officials who could do nothing else but write letters. Experts were necessary, but after the removal of the office from Bloemfontein, headquarters did not seem to trouble about sending them. The two experts now in the Free State had done more good than all the remaining officials. There had never been a tobacco expert in the Free State. The great fuss which had been made on the removal of Mr. Palmer came chiefly from Provinces other than the Free State. On the subject of simultaneous dipping, he thought it would be difficult to get three or more districts to dip at the same time. In his own-district it had been decided that the most suitable time for simultaneous dipping was from 15th March to 15th April. Simultaneous dipping was difficult, and it would be hard to make a success of it. When he had been asked whether all officials were to be removed to Pretoria, he had replied that the Government were advised to economise, and that centralisation was necessary in the interests of economy. It was for those reasons that Mr. Palmer was dismissed. Union itself had been brought about partly in order to obtain economy of administration. The public demanded economy, and agreed that some officials must be removed. At first petitions were signed in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Palmer, but afterwards these were torn up.

doubted whether such questions as simultaneous dipping had anything to do with centralisation. As a farmer himself, he had something to say about the Agricultural Department. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had made it appear as if great dissatisfaction existed amongst the farmers at the centralisation of the Agricultural Department. He (the speaker) had attended a congress of farmers in Cape Town last year, at which no complaint was made of centralisation, but it had been recommended that there should be closer contact between experts and the public. Those experts came much in contact with the public, which was indeed part of their work. It had been said that they should give lectures more frequently, but it was not easy to get the farmers together for such a purpose. The Agricultural Department had done much to promote lectures, especially at exhibitions ; but although townspeople attended them from motives of curiosity, the farmers did not attend. They must, however, not stop these lectures, seeing that they were useful. Since the last sitting he had attended meetings of the Agricultural Union, at none of which were complaints made of centralisation. The intention of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was that the experts should mix more among the public. If that were done, more experts would be necessary, with a consequent larger expenditure, and it was doubtful whether that was necessary. On the subject of simultaneous dipping, the Select Committee last year had recommended that it should take place between the 1st March and the 31st May. The time appointed was therefore not unknown.

said that one of the reasons which led him to speak on that subject was that he would not like the impression to go abroad that only the Cape had grievances in regard to excessive centralisation. (Opposition cheers.) One or two instances had come under his own observation. The people of Durban frequently had great trouble in getting the railway officials to give them definite replies even to the simplest questions. For instance, if information were required as to alterations in railway rates no definite reply could be obtained until information had been sent from Pretoria. Then, lost property found at Durban was forwarded to Johannesburg. A lady left her umbrella at a railway station near Durban. It was sent to Johannesburg, and on applying for it at Durban the owner was informed that she would have to pay the carriage on it to and from Johannesburg and twopence a day cloak-room fee. (Laughter.) He had been informed on very good authority that it used to be the custom for certain imported articles to be analysed at Durban, but now they were sent to Johannesburg for this purpose. This meant a delay of weeks, instead of days as before, though the work could be as efficiently done at Durban as at Johannesburg. These small matters gave great irritation to the public, but he did not suppose the Ministers themselves were aware of all these things. But there was a more serious question arising out of this matter. It sometimes happened that vessels required assistance. On one occasion a vessel was in dire need of assistance not many miles from Durban, but the port captain could not send out a tug until he had permission to do so from Pretoria. This permission was not received for 24 hours. Fortunately there was no loss of life as the result of the delay. The local officials should have a certain amount of authority given them. The Minister of the Interior had made an excellent and instructive speech, but, as usual, had tried to prove too much. He had assured the House that everything was satisfactory, and the Government had no wish to over-centralise, but there could not be the least doubt that there was excessive over-centralisation. The newspapers were full of complaints, and previous speakers had admitted the fact. The Minister of the Interior had said that only 298 officers had been transferred to Pretoria, but he had omitted to inform the House that these were probably heads of departments and chief clerks and men mostly in authority. These officials probably insisted on having everything referred to them, and thus the trouble arose. (Opposition cheers.) It was the centralisation of authority that was causing all the trouble. (Renewed cheers.) The Government was to blame for having had so many charges brought against it, for if it had dealt with matters at the proper time that debate would not have been necessary. Government should not have lost so much time in appointing the Commissions provided in the Act of Union, such as the Civil Service Commission, Financial Relations Commission, etc. Had they appointed these at the proper time, and in the proper manner, some of the recent debates would have been avoided. However, he did not think the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) had made out a case that Government had acted contrary to the Constitution, and he would move that the words “and against the letter and spirit of the Act of Union” be deleted.

who seconded the amendment, said the Minister had; practically admitted that there was over-centralisation, but he had excused it and had ascribed it to the fact that Union had not got into its full stride yet. That would have been a reasonable excuse if Government had not had means at its disposal to avoid the things of which they complained. Most of the discontent was due to the fact that Ministers had left too much to the heads of departments. Then, people in the outlying districts had great difficulty in getting a decisive answer within a reasonable time. Continuing, he said the Minister of the Interior had to all intents and purposes admitted the charge, and had applied the excuse that the Government had not had time to deal with the matter thoroughly. He hoped the Government would practise what the Minister of the Interior had preached to them, because it was the soundest exposition of how a Government ought to be run they had yet had. The Minister preached the soundest doctrine possible, but they never heard of it being carried out. It was for that reason that they brought up those questions, and hoped the Government would bring up the matters and deal with them. (Applause.)

said he did not quite see how it was possible for the Government to accept a motion of this sort even if it were amended. It was a motion of censure, because undoubtedly it said that centralisation had been excessive and contrary to the public interest. He listened to the speech made by hon. members of the Opposition and, of course, the motion—as the right hon. gentleman stated, the terms were of censure upon the Government. There was no question about that. They had already had two votes of censure on the Government moved, and no doubt the House was rather dead. It was rather difficult to have three votes of censure in three days running. (Ministerial cheers.) He listened with the greatest possible attention, and, he might say, pleasure, to the extremely eloquent speech of the Minister of the Interior. He had never heard him before to such advantage. A friend of his said “What a man he would be for a jury”—(laughter) —and as he went on speaking he (the right hon. gentleman) said to himself, “Why apparently this is the best possible Government in the best possible country.” (Laughter.) Again, he wanted to act the part of candid friend, if they would allow him, to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and say, undoubtedly, there was a good deal in this country of dissatisfaction, but he felt bound to say, a good deal of it was groundless. It was inseparable from things, and he fancied if they went through this colony, when it had its own separate Government, they would have heard in distant parts—not in Cape Town—some of the complaints they heard now ; because the man at Kokstad, having then to apply to Cape Town, found it nearly as irksome as the man in Stellenbosch now having to apply to Pretoria. And, also, he did not think, in the minds of some of the people who had spoken, there was allowance made for the very difficult task the Act of Union imposed on the Government. (Ministerial cheers.) It would have been very difficult indeed to have set a machine like this in perfectly smooth working at the present time. (Hear, hear.) He must say, frankly, to the Minister of the Interior, that it seemed to him that the machine had been put a little on the wrong track, possibly owing to the very great difficulty of the Act of Union itself. Now, as one of the Convention and as the one—he thought he was speaking correctly—who moved those Provincial Councils in—he felt very strongly on them because the was a very great advocate of local government, and they were faced with the difficulty, when they were framing the Act of Union, that one-half of the Union —that is to say half the population of the Union —were under local government. The rest of South Africa had nothing of the kind, and it would have been quite out of place and indeed an impossible thing for them in the Convention to have carried out a system of local government applying over the whole of South Africa. To at once say they were going to take the Divisional Council system, or something adapted from the Divisional Councils, and at once impose it on the Transvaal, Free State and Natal, would have created, at once, an obstacle to Union, almost insuperable. So then they tried this idea of Provincial Councils. Well, he would not say that they were at all perfect. There was a great difference of opinion in the Convention as to the advisability of splitting up the Government into small circles, which, undoubtedly, would have been much to the liking of some people in the Union, but would have been difficult in the Act of Union. Then they got that imperfect system. They had got to have those Provincial Councils, and they had to allow them to spend money which they had not to supply themselves. Well, a more fatal plan, if it was persisted in, could not be imagined. That was intended, of course, to be only temporary, until this Financial Relations Commission had reported, so that they could see exactly where they stood, because it stood to reason that a body which had got to get its money from some kind of impersonal body of taxpayers would simply lead to extravagance. Every man and every member had only got to go to the Government to get as large a grant as possible earmarked for the Provincial Councils.

If that was persisted in it would grow, and therefore the sooner they got to this business of dealing with the matter the better. It was a very important question, because the Hon. the Minister of the Interior, in his speech, seemed rather to think they should wait and try how things worked. He was afraid that if they did wait they would find that more would be done in the opposite direction to the one that was safe in this country. It would tend to extravagance, because the Provincial Councils would very soon find their strength and put their pressure on the Government, and it would be a very difficult power to resist. Therefore, he did not think they could tackle this question too soon. They had to fill in the outline ; they had to put some muscle on the skeleton of the Act of Union in this matter. He spoke of one the other day—the Civil Service—but he thought that this was even more important, because if they persisted in a certain position the result would be, in the Cape, an attempt to do away with what local government they had got. They would say: “The other places are getting everything done by the Central Government, and it is an injustice that we should pay for our own services.” And, human nature being what it was, they would sacrifice their birthright for a mess of pottage. That was what it would end in, because it was easy if they had an impersonal providence to supply their wants. Now, with regard to the question of centralisation of authority, he was very glad to hear the sound, admirable doctrine laid down by the Minister of the Interior. It struck him that his intellect was striving with his natural man. Naturally an efficient and energetic man liked to do things himself. He did not like to see other people making blunders and making mistakes, but he (Mr. Merriman) would tell them his experience was: it was better to let people make mistakes in the management of their own affairs, and let them learn by the experience of their mistakes, rather than have a better man doing their work for them. Therefore, he was very pleased that the Minister agreed with that, and he hoped the hon. gentleman was going to act up to that, and he would minimise as far as possible the evil effects. There was a classic instance: that of the watering-pot of Graaff-Reinet. Well, of course, there were such things, and other things, of all of which people would complain. (Hear, hear.) He would not go quite so far as some of his friends did about the Agricultural Department, but if there was a little less red tape in answering things and getting the machinery put into motion, it would be a good thing. But, still, if they were to have a lot of little departments all over the country, it would be a very expensive thing indeed, and they were already crying out about expenditure. If he might give a word of counsel to his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, he would say the direction in which the Agricultural Department should work was rather in trying to assist local bodies to do the work themselves, and to give a certain amount of assistance to them. He was not going to give a lecture on Agricultural Departments in other countries, because ho thought they saw that in some countries that had been the soundest policy adopted. Only let them be fair. There was an absence of local effort in this country which they must all deplore, and if his right hon. friend could do something to get over that and stimulate the feeling and stimulate the efforts of local organisations, and get the people to help themselves, he would do something more than anybody else had done to help agriculture. (Cheers.) It was the greatest thing in administrative work to get the people to help themselves as far as possible. Now, he did not like having said this, but he felt so strongly in favour of local government and administration, and he was anxious to strengthen the hands of the Government in any step they took to put that on a proper footing—he did not like to say in negativing this motion that everything was going on in a satisfactory manner. Looking to the difficulties that there had been in putting the whole machine into working order, he was not inclined to put all the blame upon the Government. He thought there had been a tendency, which the Minister of the Interior allowed, that able and efficient officers were apt to take too much power into their hands, and that a great deal of difficulty had arisen from that. A good deal of irritation also seemed often to arise from very small matters. That thing could be stopped by, as the Minister of the Interior said, having some power given to officials in different centres, who could decide these matters up to a certain limit. Since the House had met, they had had two reports from the Financial Relations Commission. Practically one report only dealt with this question of centralisation. That was deserving of the very gravest attention, and he would be sorry indeed if this session went by without some action being taken upon this report. (Hear, hear.) If the Government adopted a policy and laid a policy before the House, he thought it would do very wisely indeed. If it also adopted some rules by which it would be possible to do away with many of these petty irritations all over the country, he thought it would do very wisely indeed. He did not want anybody to think he was doing or saying this by way of complaint or grumbling, but he would like to move in line 3, after “that the,” to omit all the words to the end of the motion, and to substitute “attention of the Government should be directed to the need that exists for some effective system of local administration.” That was simply nutting into plain language what the Minister of the Interior had said. He thought it would express, as far as he could make out, the feeling of the House, and show the country that they were not insensible to the fact that there was some need of further devolution of power from the Central Government. (Cheers.) He moved accordingly.

seconded the amendment.

pointed out the inconvenience and danger in Natal of the removal of the Bacteriological Department from Pietermaritzburg, and stated that, in matters belonging to that department, a delay of a few days, such as was inevitable in communicating with Pretoria, might have the most serious consequences in many cases.

said that the speech made by the right hon. member for Victoria West was one of the best he had heard from him. The Government had not the least objection to the right hon. gentleman’s amendment, and would accept it. The hon. member for Newlands had complained that hon. members on the right side of the House had been impolite to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, when that gentleman had delivered his speech. He (the Minister) felt bound to admit that he had difficulty in replying to what the hon. member had said. After the insulting language which fell from his mouth some days ago, there was every reason why the Government should not reply to him. He (the Minister) was not disposed to answer the hon. member until he apologised for the use of unheard-of language, or else had repeated his charges outside the House. (Hear, hear.) When one listened to the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, one came almost to the conclusion that what he said was correct, though in fact it was not. The hon. member had spoken of certain newspapers which had attacked the Agricultural Department, no doubt referring to the “Farmers’ Advocate,” the paper which was always opposed to the Department.

said he referred to the “Farmers’ Weekly.”

said he knew the “Farmers’ Weekly,” but the “Farmers’ Advocate” was printed and published in the same place, and had always disapproved of everything coming from the Agricultural Department, and it belonged to the Opposition. Like all other departments, the Agricultural Department made errors, but they did their best to repair them. The Department had undoubtedly passed through a heavy and a difficult time, more difficult than ever before. There had been great expectations from Union, and it had been expected that after Union everything would suddenly be improved, but it had been forgotten that uniformity could not be brought about in one day, especially in a great country like South Africa. He had therefore expected from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, as one of the fathers of the Constitution, that he would help the Government. It was possible the hon. member was angry at the shortness of the supply of anthrax medicine, but the demand had recently been so great that in a single day about 5,000 boxes of medicine had been issued. The Department had not expected so great a demand. The medicine could not be preserved too long, as it would lose its strength. They did not order too much at a time, and the supplies had to come from Europe. He (the Minister) regretted that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said the Agricultural Department was not in touch with the public. At congresses and at deputations he (the speaker) had spoken to all the farmers who had visited him. He had held many meetings in the North-West and in the Eastern Province, and on no single occasion had there been any complaint of lack of touch between the Department and the public. The Department’s experts travelled over the whole of South Africa, and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort knew it. There must be a central point in the Union where the heads of departments were together, but the remainder of the experts were sent out all over the Union, and the speaker had given them the right to act practically as they thought fit. There were several experts stationed in the Cape. Mr. Lounsbury was in the Cape, and also Mr. Malley, the latter being temporarily occupied in inquiring into the matter of the San Jose scale. The number of experts in the Cape had not been diminished, although a few had been exchanged for others. It had been further complained that chemical examinations of soils were no longer held by Dr. Juritz in the Agricultural Department. That was incorrect. Chemical work was now all done in one department. Such work was formerly done in chemical sections of each department, but as that did not result satisfactorily, it had now been decided that all the different sections should come under one Minister, so as to avoid double work. Dr. Juritz would continue to examine the soils. The public demanded more scientific farming, and more experts were therefore required. Dissatisfaction arose because sufficient scientific advice could not be obtained. They wanted more experts, so that they could hold lectures all over the country. Lectures were given now at exhibitions, but there should be more still. Capable experts were expensive. A good tobacco expert demanded £1,200 per annum. At the present moment there were 28 young men from the Transval studying in other countries who would be trained as experts, and in the ensuing year some of these would return as experts. They must, therefore, exercise a little patience. Those young men had been born here, they knew the people and the country, and would certainly do good work. The Free State had never had a tobacco expert. The one from the Transvaal was still there, and Mr. Scherffius had become a Union official. He (the Minister) sent out experts at once when the people themselves wished to undertake anything. At East London they wanted to plant cotton, and he at once sent his experts there to help and advise the people. It had been complained that very efficient work had been stopped in the Free State, but he knew nothing about that. He did know, however, that an agitation had been started, and that it was baseless, as the public had been wrongly informed. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had spoken of the capable Transvaal experts, but those experts were now at the service of the whole Union. Mr. Scherffius had already visited many of the farms at the Cape, together with Dr. Theiler and Mr. Davis. Those travelled about a great deal, and their travelling expenses figured substantially on the Estimates, and altogether the Department did its best to remain in touch with the public. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had complained of the measures taken in regard to scab, but did not say exactly to what his complaint referred. No experts had been taken away from the Cape, but only the administrative officials in accordance with the Constitution, and for that the speaker did not hold himself to blame. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had quoted the Irrigation Department as an example, in which every engineer in a certain section could exercise authority.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continued his speech, saying that the Agricultural Department was run on the same lines as the Irrigation Department. There were chief veterinary surgeons and entomologists in Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Maritzburg. In the Cape there were Messrs. Malley and Dryer, though the last mentioned had resigned. Mr. Malley helped for the time being in other Provinces in the matter of the San Jose scale, but would shortly return. Mr. Van der Merwe was stationed in Bloemfontein, but was temporarily working in Maritzburg. There were two dairy experts in the Cape Province, two in the Free State, one in Natal, and one in the Transvaal, and farmers everywhere could, therefore, obtain information. Still the number of experts must be increased, as dairy production was a section of farming to which more attention should be given. More instructors would be required, so that the people should devote themselves to obtaining produce of the best quality. The wool section also had its branches in the Transvaal, Orange Free State, Cape and Natal, and that section also was not centralised. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had stated that the people lived in ignorance, and could not find expert help. To that he (the Minister) answered that there was more being done in the Cape to-day for farming than ever before. There were at present seven qualified young men travelling from farm to farm in the Cape Province for the purpose of giving advice in all matters of farming. Then it had further been complained that these officials had not been given more authority, but it was certainly dangerous to give officials too much authority, and to pass over to them the power of the Minister, and so long as they held the Minister responsible, he could not hand over his authority to someone else. In the Irrigation Department each engineer had his own area under his authority, but before deciding important matters he must always consult Pretoria, seeing that the Minister was there. Ministers could not of course be in all places at one moment. Then the hon. member for Newlands had complained of the fact that the Civil Service Commission, in its report concerning the Agricultural Department, had adopted the recommendations of the Secretary for Agriculture. That was no reason for complaint. It showed that the secretary was a most capable man. It was proposed to follow here the American system in which all the local work was done by the local colleges, and not by the Department. There were now colleges in all the Provinces. It was intended to increase the number of colleges, so that farmers everywhere could obtain information, and those colleges were very suitable for that purpose. If they were established to give instruction to a number of young farmers, then they should at the same time give advice to farmers. At those colleges there was always sufficient accommodation, and stabling. For a farmer who visited a college there was always something to be seen which might be useful to him He saw a new machine, or a better breed of cattle, or a new method of ploughing which he himself could perhaps adopt, whilst it would be impossible to see such things at an office. As the right hon. member for Victoria West had stated, it would not do to have everywhere petty agricultural departments, as it would increase the number of officials, enlarge the costs, and would result in loss to farming. The inquiry into the nature of soils in the Western Province would be continued. A special expert would be sent to Elsenberg to examine the soil, and at the same time to supervise the Malmesbury station. With one hundred million people in America, there was only one Department of Agriculture, and all local work was performed by local colleges. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said a good deal about scab and the regulations. He had been a member of the Select Committee last year, and knew what difficulties had been discussed and removed. No change had been made in the regulations until he (the Minister) had returned from England. It had not been laid down in the regulations when dipping should take place. In order to ascertain which was the best time for dipping, the Department had applied for advice to all magistrates and Divisional Councils. And now it was asserted that he had done wrong in consulting the Divisional Councils. Up to now he had not received all the answers. In the meantime it had become late, and he now asked if simultaneous dipping must perforce be carried out without knowing what was the most suitable time for it. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the number of dipping tanks was quite insufficient. He had expected that in the Cape Province there would have been more tanks. How could they order dipping to be done, when there were no tanks? Simultaneous dipping was therefore postponed, with the result that all the newspapers were full of complaints of the spread of scab, as if every sheep were now suffering from scab, and as if scab was prevalent everywhere in the Free State. The hon. members from the Free State had assured him that those assertions were incorrect, and he could quote figures to show that things were not so bad as they had been made out to be. On the re-organisation of the department, certain officials had to be discharged. Mr. Davidson was dismissed because the post of chief inspector in the different Provinces had lapsed. He was sorry that the services of Mr. Palmer had to be dispensed with, but it was impossible to maintain four Directors of Agriculture. Mr. Palmer had asked for six months’ leave when he (the speaker) was abroad. Leave was given, but the Minister of the Interior called Mr. Palmer and told him he would be retrenched, as the position was to be abolished. The Minister said he wished to he fair, and to give him notice before he went away on leave, and Mr. Palmer was grateful for that action.

said that Mr. Palmer got notice of his dismissal two hours before his departure.

said that Mr. Palmer had to be retrenched, and instead of letting him go and then sending him a cable, notice was given him before his departure. The Department made progress every year, and hon. members who lived by farming would not permit it to go back. (Hear, hear.) The manner in which scab was at present being fought was wrong. Large sums of money were being spent yearly in the eradication of scab, yet scab continued. No sooner was a man appointed as scab inspector than he was regarded as a farmer’s persecutor. The Department had created something new, and that was a sheep section, formed with new people, who did not go out to persecute but to give advice to farmers. The experts had taught the inspectors how to shear the sheep, to classify and pack the wool, and to select the sheep, etc. Those inspectors could now advise the farmers in everything concerning sheep and not solely in regard to scab. The people were new, and would probably win more confidence among the public, and thus achieve better results. The Government would accept the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, as it removed the sting from the motion itself, and because the amendment correctly reflected the policy of the Government. (Hear, hear.)

said that it was a very good thing to have responsible men in the Provinces, and there was no doubt that the country was suffering from over-centralisation at Pretoria, He recognised that it was necessary to transfer a number of officers to Pretoria, and he thought that the figures given by the Minister had shown that the transfers had not been so excessive as some thought. The whole point was that officers in responsible positions had not got discretionary powers. The Civil Commissioners of the Cape complained that they could not get their accounts passed. His firm, too, found that it took months to get accounts settled instead of days, as under the old regime. It was not only the Opposition that complained. There were complaints in the press of the Government. They all said the same thing. It was all right for the Prime Minister to defend his position and his department, but it was calculated to cause his defence to be suspected when he defended himself by reading a newspaper which was never mentioned instead of the one named, and saying, “It belongs to you.” There was one thing he regretted—he thought hon. members would regret it—and that was the demonstration that took place in the House that afternoon, and he hoped that that course would not be pursued.

You walked out.

We have never walked out.

In 1903.

The hon. member must keep to the question before the House.

We never walked out, and if we had, two blacks don’t make a white. Continuing, he said that the Prime Minister was in a difficult position, and surely it was not for him to endorse the mistaken action of his followers. They did not object to the centralisation of individuals, but the centralisation of departments. The way in which the Scab Act was being administered was an example of what was taking place. The hon. member referred to the sets of regulations that had been issued, and dealing with East Coast fever said that last year the Prime Minister said he would be pleased to spend a million in order to help it out. Though repeated warnings were given it was only the other day that regulations were issued. The result was that there was much alarm and much anxiety in the district which he represented. Surely the Prime Minister saw the necessity of having a decided expression of policy from the Government because there was grave anxiety with regard to the Department. The complaints that had been made on that side of the House, and echoed on the other side, were by no means groundless. (Hear, hear.) There was some necessity for making the Agricultural Department more active in the interests of the country. If the Prime Minister did not like to listen to complaints from that side of the House, let him listen to the more numerous private complaints of hon. members sitting on the Ministerial back benches. The Agricultural Department should be more carefully managed than it had been in the past. As to Mr. Palmer, the moment his retrenchment had been decided upon, he should have been made acquainted with the fact ; surely the Prime Minister does not wish us to believe the policy of his Department was undecided when he left for England. It would have been wiser (proceeded Colonel Crewe) for Government to have delayed making many of the alterations it had done until the Financial Relations Commission had reported. The charge against the Government was that it used more haste than necessary. The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was a dilatory one, and would have no effect whatever. He (Colonel Crewe) would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Mr. Henderson), which took the sting out of the main resolution, and which he understood the hon. member for Cape Town would accept.

said the Opposition, as had been usual lately, had been fighting a rearguard action. (Ministerial cheers.) It was quite evident when the debate was opened that the Opposition blamed the Government for having too many officials at Pretoria, but when it was found that only 298 new officials had been sent there, a rearguard action became necessary—(Ministerial cheers)—and the Opposition, instead of blaming Government for having too many officials at Pretoria, blamed it for taking too much authority to Pretoria. The Public Works Department had been singled out for criticism. The present system had unanimously been agreed to by the Provincial Councils. (Hear, hear.) With one exception, that method had proved a success. The one exception, perhaps, had been the Free State, but lately since the people there had realised the position, things had worked very much smoother, and he had not the slightest doubt that in the future the system would be carried out with success. (Hear, hear.) To appease the feelings of those living in the Cape, he would say that there were more district engineers and larger staffs in the Cape than there were before Union. (Ministerial cheers.)

It was stated that although these officers were stationed in the various districts they had no authority. That was not correct. He knew the District Engineers today had more authority than in the old days before Union. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member, the mover of this resolution, referred to the state of affairs in the Customs Department. They were not very important, and were more or less correct. He complained that in dealing with the refunds these could not be obtained without reference to Pretoria. That was so. It was found quite necessary that this should be done. The method was that the first application was made to the local collector. It was then forwarded to the Customs auditor, who was stationed in: Cape Town, and by him sent to Pretoria for payment. That system was rendered necessary owing to mistakes having been made when the other system was in force. These remarks, he thought, would explain matters in connection with the departments over which he had control. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he also had a very grave charge to bring against the Government, inasmuch as the centralisation of authority in Cape Town affected him most seriously. (Laughter.) The amount involved was 2s. 6d. The dispute arose with the Postmaster of Maritzburg, and the error could not be rectified without reference to the Postmaster at Cape Town. He thought the members of the Opposition were in too great a hurry to hurl their complaints at the heads of the Government. One matter he wished to bring to the notice of the Government was the inability of persons living in outside areas in Natal to obtain revenue stamps. Great inconvenience was felt by many when wanting to stamp documents, as they could only obtain such stamps in the town. Why should country post offices not be supplied with these? He was extremely glad to hear the Minister’s explanation regarding the complaints of over-centralisation, and that some of the chief towns of the Union had suffered through being deprived of Civil Servants. He would support the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West. (Mr. MERRIMAN: Hear, hear.)

said that in common with a great many others he had been reading the report of the Financial Relations Commission, and it had given him a great shock to learn from the Minister of Commerce and Industries (Colonel Leuchars) that it was incorrect. Appended to the document was an Appendix B, which contained a circular from the Public Works Department to the Administrators of the various Provinces, and in it it was clearly stated that no advice was asked from the Provincial Councils or the Administrators as to how they would propose to deal with public works, but it said that the views and intentions of the Cabinet on the question were briefly as follows. Then the whole system was laid down, which was to be followed. The Administrators apparently felt there was no comment necessary, because it was an instruction from the Union Government. Then he noticed that the report was dated January 26, 1912, not one month ago, and in that report he found this: “We think, however, that it is the intention of the Act to place upon the Provincial Administrations the whole responsibility for the execution of the public works with which they are concerned; and that they must decide for themselves after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods, whether they will avail themselves of the assistance offered by the Union Government or not.” But, apparently, other arrangements had been made since then. He would like that matter cleared up, because it was of extreme importance to know whether this was an authentic document or not. (Opposition cheers.)

said the hon. Minister of Commerce and Industries had accused him of a rearguard action. He did not know if he was present when he (Mr. Jagger) made his remarks, because he, from the first, laid stress on the fact that this over-centralisation for the most part arose from the over-centralisation of authority in the first place, and in the Agricultural Department in the second. He (the Minister) also stated that this policy in regard to the Public Works had been adopted after consultation with the Provincial Councils. He would like to see when the Provincial Councils were consulted. He had never seen any reports in the papers that the Provincial Councils were consulted. On page 10 of the Commission’s report it was stated that “the arrangements are described in a circular letter of the 13th October, 1910, from the Minister of Public Works to the Administrators of the four Provinces.” There was nothing said there about a consultation. The report said: “Provincial Public Works.—These are already assigned to the Provinces by section 85 (vii.) ; but under arrangements prescribed by the Union Government.”

That was after consultation.

Oh! but where is there any proof of consultation? Surely if there had been any consultation it would be mentioned in this document. It says “prescribed,” which, if I understand the word, means “ordered.” There is nothing said about acquiescence by the Cape. I should like to get the opinion of the Provincial Council when it is in session as to the arrangement Proceeding, Mr. Jagger said that his hon. friend the Minister of Commerce and Industries said that refunds could not be paid by the Customs without reference to Pretoria. Surely there ought to be some line drawn and not, as now, every small item having to go up there, even if only a few shillings were involved. He had heard elsewhere the complaint mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg of over-centralisation in Cape Town during the sittings of Parliament. What, however, they complained of was that there was no authority left to the local people. He was glad to find from the speech of the Minister of the Interior that he had been under a misapprehension in looking upon him (General Smuts) as a demon for centralisation, though he was sorry that the Minister had not told him what the intention of the Ministry was in regard to local government in the future.

A conference is being called.

said he thought the Minister had rather misunderstood his remarks in reference to the encouragement of agriculture being left to the Provincial Councils. He did not mean for one moment that they should treat the products of the wine industry as a Provincial matter ; that should be a Union matter; but he said, seeing that the wine industry was purely a local matter, it would probably get more attention from a Provincial Council largely concerned in it from the locality than it could possibly get from the larger area of the Union. Take, for example, the tobacco industry in the Western Province. It had been remarkably successful, but let them consider how little had been done for it compared to what was done in the Transvaal. His idea was that, if they put these matters under the Provincial Councils they would give far more earnest attention to them than could possibly be done by the larger agricultural authority. As regarded public health, his hon. friend had said that there was no reference to public health in the Constitution, but it was clearly and distinctly laid down that municipal institutions must be under the Provincial Councils, and a large part of the work of municipal institutions was concerned with public health. What he (Mr. Jaeger) had laid stress upon was this centralisation of authority. The Minister stated that there had been no change, so far as he was aware, in regard to the powers that existed in the central offices before Union and now. He thought the Minister must be wrong, at any rate, in one respect, and that was as to the disbursement of money. Officers did not seem to be able to pay out 6d. without sending the account to Pretoria. He had a letter saying that a milk account had to be scrutinised by clerks in Pretoria before being paid. It was the same all over. He understood that prior to Union, Civil Commissioners had power to pay out up to a certain amount without reference. Why could not the same be done now? Surely the officers should be allowed to use a certain amount of discretion with public accounts. He pointed out that there was so much delay about the payment of accounts that the small men were squeezed out of competition, because they could not afford to wait. He would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson), but could not let the Government off as lightly as the right hon. member for Victoria West suggested.

The amendment of the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Henderson) was put, and declared carried.

That the words from “centralisation” to “interest,” proposed to be omitted by Mr. Merriman, stand part of the motion, and declared the “Noes” had it.

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

then put the substitution of the words proposed by Mr. Merriman, which was agreed to.

The amended motion read: That this House, while recognising that the Act of Union contemplated certain centralisation in the administrative seat of Government, is of opinion that the attention of the Government should be directed to the need that exists for some effective system of local administration.

This committee recommends the award of a pension of £250 per annum to J. B. van Renen, late Civil Commissioner and Resident Magistrate, Albert, to take effect from the date of the adoption of the recommendation by Parliament.

asked the Minister of Justice under what conditions Mr. Van Renen left the service?

replied that the reasons were all submitted to the committee, and the papers had been tabled. It was a rather long story, and he thought it would be best if the hon. member looked into those papers. He might say that he had caused an investigation to be held, and upon the report received he considered it his duty, and the duty of the Government, to take the steps which they had taken. Of course, under such circumstances, when one dispensed with the services of an officer for reasons of that kind, one could not say that he should receive a pension, but it might be left to Parliament to take into consideration any set of facts placed before them. He had said that he could not take the case into consideration, adding that there was Parliament to go to.

said he did not know anything of the facts of the case, but he had no doubt they were amply sufficient to warrant the Government in the action it had taken. The gentleman in question was a man with many friends, who had sent in numerous petitions asking that he should be awarded some consideration outside the law, and the Select Committee had recommended that he be given a pension of £250 a year. That seemed to be entirely wrong in principle and subversive of discipline in the service. (Cheers.) He knew cases in which engine-drivers and men of that class had been dismissed for conduct, he dared say, not so reprehensible as that which led to the dismissal of this gentleman, and not only had they not received any pension, but the sums they had paid into the SuperannuaFund had been withheld from them. They did not come to that House with streams of petitions. The case illustrated the fundamental injustice that a practice of this kind necessarily involved. He believed men came to Parliament with cases of that kind because they had been encouraged to do so. If Government took up a strong position and said it would give no pensions beyond those allowed by law, they would not have people coming to Parliament with petitions.

said he did know something about the circumstances of the case. Many petitions had come in signed by people who recognised the admirable services this gentleman had rendered. (Ministerial cheers.) He (Sir Thomas) remembered that under the old Cape system a Civil Servant guilty of misconduct could have been reprimanded and his status or emolumente reduced. He maintained that that House was the last Court of Appeal to which everyone should have the right to come. The gentleman in question had served the State for 58 years, and but for the unfortunate circumstances that had occurred would in two years’ time have been entitled to a pension of £425. (An HON. MEMBER: “£460.”) And he had a wife and children. The House would only be doing its duty in reconsidering the case, and he trusted that it would grant the pension. (Hear, hear.)

said he agreed with every word that had been said by the hon. member for Fordsburg.

agreed that the House was the last Court of Appeal, but having appointed a Select Committee on Pensions, Parliament was entitled when the committee presented its report, to know the grounds on which the recommendation was made.

agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The Minister of Justice had stated that Parliament could act as it thought fit, and he hoped that the recommendation would be agreed to. He (the speaker) had read all the documents, and the recommendation of the committee was fair. The Cape Civil Service Act still existed, in which eight different methods were indicated for the treatment of a case such as that. It was the Minister’s opinion that the man had the right to apply to Parliament. Van Renen would have been entitled to about £460 per annum. He had worked well, as was evidenced by the many petitions, and they should support the committee.

said he wished to identify himself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The principle of the thing was that they had a Standing Committee which took out of their hands what they all felt could not be in their hands. This was one of those cases in which the Government found a man unfitted to fill the position he held. This man had become gradually involved in not seeing the trend of his behaviour and the Government found it was necessary to dismiss him. The lapses that he was guilty of were lapses that could be put down to premature old age creeping over a man. He had served the Government for 38 years without a mark against his name, and he served them well; but they found, by reason of his age, he was unfit to keep his position. The very men who laid the complaints against him came to the House and signed a petition in his favour. It would be an act of injustice not to consider his past service and not to consider that they were taking a man unfit to face the world now and casting him upon the world. (Hear, hear.)

said that perhaps, as chairman of the committee, he should say something. The attitude which the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. P. Duncan) took up seemed to him almost to exclude the idea that he would consider this question on its merits. He said “no matter what the merits of the case are, dismiss him.” But he did not think that argument should be entertained. The House had decided that a committee shall decide those persons who, by law, were entitled to pensions. Therefore, the hon. member would excuse him for saying on this occasion his argument was hardly level. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. Stockenstrom) asked whether the committee disagreed with the recommendations of the Minister of Justice. Well, the committee did not do anything of the kind. The very fact that the man was so dealt with—and he might say he took it that the committee concurred with the attitude taken by the Minister of Justice. Now, referring to the practice of the Cape, there were still cases which he could recall somewhat similar to this, where, after a very considerable period of service, the infirmities of old age or other reasons made men no longer fit to carry on their duties. He wanted to say that, as far as he was concerned, he took no exception to the action of his hon. friend the Minister of Justice. He personally concurred in it when the matter came on for decision. He had no reason to think, after looking at the documents very carefully as chairman of the committee, that the Minister of Justice made any other than a proper recommendation in the circumstances. They had had a great number of petitions presented to the House in favour of a pension to Mr. Van Renen. He did not attach very much weight to petitions himself—(hear, hear)—still, the fact remained that this gentleman had rendered very long service; that, as far as he could gather from the papers, there had not been any previous complaint against his conduct—(hear, hear)—and that he was a married man with a wife and children. He must say that when a case of that kind came before the committee he was always divided—his head told him to go one way and his heart told him to go another. He usually found it was safer to follow one’s head, and he did so on this occasion, because he voted against a pension being granted. He did so reluctantly. He thought the proper thing now, having once appointed a committee, would be to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again, so that members would have an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the facts and of voting on the merits. All the facts were now in possession of the House, and it was important that this, the first case, that came before them, they should deal with calmly and judiciously and with a full knowledge of the facts. He moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again on Wednesday next.

referred to a remark made by the Minister of Education on Saturday in regard to public health. Throughout the country, he said, it was realised by prominent men that efforts must be made to keep down diseases amongst the people. Much had been said last session, and even this, about cattle diseases. It was much more pressing that they should tackle more strenuously the subject of the public health. There were no statistics since 1908 to show the mortality in regard to tuberculosis. When he went to fight an enemy he first obtained all the information he could about him. In the same way they should gather all available data regarding diseases. Proceeding, he referred to a few of the diseases which generally fell under the description of “other diseases.” He told hon. members how malaria was spread by the agency of the anophilis mosquito. Even Pretoria had been mentioned as being affected by this terrible disease. Many of their finest districts were so visited by malaria that they were hardly habitable, and it would be a great benefit to the country if it could be eradicated. Then there was Malta fever, which greatly enfeebled anyone it attacked. He urged that in view of the spread of tuberculosis energetic steps should be taken to combat it. He knew that many people came here in a consumptive state. But that was not the whole of the trouble. Tuberculosis attacked children, and he had seen some fearful cases of children with bones touched by this disease. Often the clothes of a person who had succumbed to tuberculosis were sold to coloured people, and the disease thus spread amongst them. A consumptive person going to the mines was an especial source of danger, for miners suffering from phthisis fell easy victims to its attack. The natives were also affected by its presence amongst them. What was required in the first place was accurate statistics. Then proper use must be made of disinfectants. No immigrant should be allowed to Land here unless he had a medical certificate saying that he was free from tuberculosis. A strong Select Committee should be appointed to go into these matters. There should be a Minister of Health for South Africa and a Medical Board. As a doctor he saw the dangers that were perhaps overlooked by others. He came from one of the healthiest districts of the Colony, and it was often put to him by his constituents what he would do in Parliament to stop the ravages of disease in the country. For these reasons it had been his duty to speak on the subject.

said that legislation dealing with public health took them one step further along the road. Last year they pointed out the danger of the position which the Minister of Health took up, but he was sorry to say that he (the Minister) was still unregenerate. He hoped, after the reasonable attitude the Minister had displayed that afternoon, he would be kind, and that there would be needed alterations in the measure by the time it got to committee. Would not the Minister decentralise a little from himself, and put more power into the hands of the medical officers? Continuing, he referred to the case of the plague at Durban, and said that the Minister had to admit that he had had to act illegally. If there had been a medical officer at the head of the department, he did not think that that gentleman would have needed to act illegally. They must have a medical officer at the head of the Department, so as to deal with epidemics of disease in the country. They wanted a medical man at the head, so that he could deal promptly and effectively with outbreaks of disease. If he wanted enormous powers, then he could go to the Minister. He still hoped that the Minister would take these matters into consideration before many days passed.

said the Bill seemed to do away with what they had been accustomed to in Natal—the Medical Department, under the care of a Board, subject, of course, to the Minister. Legislation was passed in 1904, and the Bill provided for a Medical Board, to work with the Medical Officer of Health for the Colony. He pointed out that there had been no friction, and that the scheme had worked in a wonderfully successful manner. It was far better to have four or five of the best medical men of the country on a Board to assist the medical officer in connection with public health. He pointed out that the Bill before the House was a very drastic measure, and referred especially to the clause dealing with municipalities, to whom he did not think it would appeal. The plague had cost the Cape Colony £609,000. Would it be fair for Government to call upon the towns concerned to pay half of that amount? In the Cape the Government had paid four-fifths, and in the case of diseases imported from oversea, the Government defrayed the whole of the cost. The towns, very naturally, contributed very largely to the funds of the Government. When disease was brought from oversea, Government should pay the whole of the cost. He was sorry nothing was mentioned in the Bill regarding tuberculosis, which disease was increasing. In 1907, the death-rate in England and Wales from tuberculosis was 1.11 per 1,000; in Cape Town it was 1.76. Cape Town had done a lot to cope with the disease, while Durban had two medical officers, and it had imported an expert to deal with tuberculosis. He hoped the Commission would report, and that the Government would take action. He hoped they would see that as the Bill was not quite efficient, the time was not ripe yet to pass it until they dealt with all diseases. Also, it had been stated by the Government that they had not yet decided which portion of public health to hand over to the Provincial Councils. If that was so, why should they pass this Bill now, when soon they would have to pass another giving the Provincial Councils their portions. They could, with advantage, renew the Natal Act, which had worked well for ten years. He hoped the Minister would see this way to either withdraw the Bill, or refer it to a committee, so that some portion of the principle could be amended. They wanted a Bill that would be efficient and that would work without friction. (Hear, hear.)

said he thoroughly agreed with the hon. member who had just spoken. The Minister said it was a simple little Bill. That was his complaint. It was too simple. They required something more comprehensive. He also said this was intended merely to give him power in connection with such a case as had occurred in Natal. Well, the Minister was warned last session to deal with the public health in a more thorough manner than he had in the past. The scourge of miners’ phthisis should alone have urged on the Minister the necessity of having an efficient department of public health. It would almost seem that the Minister had hardly realised the ravages of the scourge of tuberculosis in this country. It was spreading among the coloured people to a terrible extent all over the country, and the disease was so insidious that they never knew when it was at their doors. Their children might contract it from servants. However, as he had much to say on the matter from a municipal point of view, he would move the adjournment of the debate until Monday.

The motion was agreed to.