in support of the petition from H. J. Steyn.

from the widow of the late Thomas Screech, in his lifetime caretaker of Government Buildings, Bloemfontein.

First Report of the Tuberculosis Commission.

Schedule of Pensions—South African Railways—as at 30th September, 1911: Report of a committee appointed to report on certain matters concerning the railway workshops, 1911-12.

communicated a message from the Senate transmitting the Bill, in which the Senate had made a certain amendment.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the amendment be now considered.

seconded.

Agreed to.

put the amendment in clause 1, which was agreed to.

moved that the House do now resolve itself into committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

moved, pursuant to notice, that it be an instruction to Committee of the Whole House on the Bill to increase the scope of the Bill by making provision therein for the making of advances by the bank to co-operative associations or societies of alluvial diamond diggers, and that the committee have leave to amend the title of the Bill accordingly. He said that the Bill provided for financial assistance being given to farmers and farmers’ co-operative societies. The object of the measure was to stimulate agriculture, and the development of the national assets of the country by making advances to farmers and farmers’ co-operative societies. But there was another industry which was in very much the same position as the farming industry, to which it might be said to be closely allied, which required financial aid in order to develop one of the great national assets, namely, the alluvial diamond industry. Sixteen hundred Europeans and 8,000 coloured men and natives were engaged in this industry, which last year produced £525,000 worth of diamonds.

The men who were engaged in that industry could not be described as “mining magnates.” They were at the extreme end of those whom they were apt to speak of as “mining magnates.” They might be looked upon as more or less a branch of the farming industry. In the first place, they were engaged in developing the natural wealth of the country. They were still more tied up with the land, inasmuch as the great bulk of them were farmers. He supposed at least 50 per cent of them had been farmers, and that 85 per cent of them would be farmers as soon as they could see their way. The river diggings had been a place of refuge over and over again to men who had been temporarily in difficulties owing to the bad times, to which we were all subject in this country. It was no doubt true that these men had not a great deal to offer in the way of direct security for advances—(hear, hear)—but he believed that the industry was admirably adapted for co-operative societies. There was a large movement on foot amongst the river diggers to frame amongst themselves societies for mutual co-operation and help. The riding on of water was one of the matters which could be very much better done by co-operation than by individual diggers. As to the question of security, he claimed that the alluvial diggers had as much security to offer as the second class of those for whom provision was made in the Bill. If the House did not accept the proposal that day, he believed that the time would come when they would say that they must be fair and just all round, and that they must assist this very deserving class of men by giving them advances under the Land Bank scheme.

seconded Dr. Watkins’ amendment.

said he would like to support the hon. member, and he hoped the mover would accept an amendment to add, after “alluvial diamond diggers,” the following words: “and co-operative associations engaged in other mining enterprises.” (Hear, hear.) He would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this proposal. There were various directions in which the Government might place at the disposal of these people advances from the Land Bank, while carefully safeguarding the interests of the public. He thought the Minister might well accept the amendments so that, at all events, the matter could be discussed in committee, and, as a tentative measure, let such grants be tied up as closely as he liked to safeguard the interests of the bank.

seconded the further amendment.

said he thought the river diggers deserved some consideration. If these men were allowed to co-operate, they would get a better price for their diamonds. There were thousands engaged in diamond digging, and he thought they claimed some consideration from the House. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendment.

would accept the proposal that had been brought before the House. (Ministerial cheers.) His (the Minister’s) recollection of the hon. member as a business man in the early days at Kimberley was vivid, and he should be one of the Last to ask the Government to embark on such a speculative proposal. He (the Minister) was not unmindful of the good work of the river diggers, and he would be pleased to assist them if he could, but he would point out that the Land Bank Bill was not the place for such a proposal. They knew that the hon. member had brought this matter forward for the reason that the majority of his constituents were hard-working river diggers, and he (the Minister) was certain that if the diggers did not loom up so largely in the hon. member’s constituency, they would not have heard such a speech. The hon. member, on the second reading, welcomed the Bill as being founded on business principles, but he now proposed something that was not a business proposition. These men were engaged in a precarious occupation and he pointed out how difficult it would be to secure any advances that might be made. Their title was a precarious one, and they suddenly disappeared. He did not see how it was possible for the Government to accept the proposal; and he thought that his hon. friend the member for Jeppe had a wrong idea of the principles of the Land Bank Bill. He pointed out that the position of the farmer was different from the alluvial digger, who was engaged in a speculative and precarious business. As a business proposition it was one on which the Government could not embark.

said that it was good business for the Government to advance money on diamonds.

pointed out that the hon. member had not the right to reply.

said the Minister had stated that he had brought the matter forward because of his constituents, and yet they were always being told to look after the interests of their constituents.

The amendment was negatived.

The motion was also negatived.

The motion to go into committee was agreed to.

moved in line 13, after “Union” to insert “and shall include a society formed for the purpose of making advances to its members on the security of their several and joint liability. As he had pointed out on the second reading, there was no provision for advances to the poor man, and in support of the principle he quoted the conclusions of the Transvaal Commission on the subject. If the Minister of Finance would accept this amendment it did not commit the bans to anything that was not a perfectly sound proposition and which would encourage these societies to lend money to poor people.

said seemed clear that section “A” was not the proper place to put it. In fact, he thought it ought to be made a substantive clause. The powers already possessed by co-operative societies were very wide, in fact he could not understand why a body of poor farmers, if they wanted to form a co-operative society, could not do so.

said with regard to these co-operative societies they went to the bank and borrowed money and then lent it to farmers. When the harvest was gathered the money was repaid.

said if the Minister was satisfied with what he (Mr. Jagger) was including in the Bill then he also was satisfied. Therefore he would withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

It was agreed to omit “and by the Minister of Agriculture.

said the discussion on the Central Board should be reserved for clause 13. He moved that the clause be held over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved to insert the word “credit” between “agricultural” and “bank.”

thought the amendment unnecessary, as the term Agricultural Bank explained itself.

said the bank would probably have to do more than lend money, it might have to foreclose mortgages and sell securities.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to add at the end of the clause “upon such conditions as the Board may determine.” He said that, as the clauses stood, before a man could get his money, he had to refer to three Acts of Parliament. It would be much better if the text of the Bill were simplified, because these cross-references were undoubtedly highly complicated.

said that, instead of simplifying matters, the suggestion would make confusion worse.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 4, Control of operations of the bank by a Board,

proposed as an amendment that the Board should consist of six members, instead of five, as contemplated in the Bill.

said the amendment could not be put if it would entail increased expenditure.

said the payments would come out of the funds of the bank.

said that all the funds of the bank would be public funds. He would like the committee to consider whether a chairman and five members were not too many already. A chairman with one member from each Province should be sufficient. The amendment would not necessarily mean increased expenditure.

moved that the number of members be reduced from five to four.

thought it would be simpler to have a Board in each of the four Provinces, with one central general manager. He did not see any justification for a huge Central Board at Pretoria. He would like to see the Bill withdrawn and a fresh one introduced for separate banks.

hoped that the number of members of the Board would not be increased, as the Board should be a strong one. At the same time, he thought it would be better to have a separate Land Bank for each Province. (Cheers.) A Central Board, by making advances all over the country, might land the Union into a financial crisis, from which it would be very difficult for it to recover. (Hear, hear.)

agreed with the Minister’s suggestion, and disapproved of an extremely large number of officials. A Board of five could do as much work as a Board of six, he held, and personally he would favour a smaller Board with larger emoluments.

said that in Natal the administration had been perfect, and not a single loss had been incurred. There was no reason to contemplate any change in the Natal Land Bank’s efficiency. The suggestion of the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Orr) was a wise one. (Hear, hear.)

supported the suggestion of the hon. member for Potchefstroom. It would have been far better to have left the Land Banks of the various Provinces as they were. Otherwise, he would not do away with the Local Boards, but simply have them to fill advisory duties. The Provincial Land Banks had been successful, so why should they be done away with? Local Boards would be in much closer touch with the people than a Central Board would be.

said he entirely agreed as to the Boards, but as to the idea of having separate banks for each of the Provinces he could not understand how such a proposal could be made. There should be one Board at Pretoria, and all the others must be Advisory Boards. (Cheers.) Practically, the decisions of the latter as to granting small loans would never be questioned. The expense of Local Boards would not be so tremendous. He happened to belong to an institution which had the control of very nearly as much money as the Land Bank would have; in fact, the Land Bank was going to be its rival. He wondered if the Land Bank would conduct its business as well as did the institution to which he referred. That institution was Irun on most economical lines, and the expenses of the Local Boards were very small, and the very best men in the country sat on them.

Everything depended, in a matter of this kind, as in everything else connected with Government business, upon the appointments made. Wherever they were having disappointments in the running of their Union, it was due to the badness of the appointments made. The blame for that rested on the Government. The system was one Central Board and Local Boards in each Province. He would have two Local Boards in the Cape Province. As for having separate Boards with powers to grant loans in their own districts off their own bat, he did not think that would do at all.

supported the last speaker. There ought to be six members of the Central Board, the Cape and the Transvaal to have two each, and the other Provinces one each.

said he would like the Minister to give them some information on this point.

said he thought this question was discussed on the second reading. He indicated then what his views, and the views of the Government, were, that they were to have a Central Board which would be stationed at the administrative capital, and that that Central Board would be assisted by Local Boards in each of the Provinces. Whether those Boards would have advisory functions merely, or advisory functions plus executive functions, was a matter which would be discussed later on, on section 13. He did not agree with the suggestion that there should be four separate banks. He thought the position would be a perfectly hopeless one. They would have four different policies and four different systems of security. He hoped they would stick to the principle of one bank, with one Central Board.

said that the Minister was wrong in his assumption. The proposition was that there should be one bank with four Boards, and those Boards should have the power, up to the limit which he (the Minister) had proposed in a different section, to make grants up to £500. All the securities were laid down in the Bill itself.

The amendment to substitute “four” for “five” was agreed to.

Mr. Grobler’s amendment accordingly dropped.

said the idea was to have a Central Board with one man representing each Province. They would have to pay that man a very high salary. If they had local Advisory Boards, that would not be necessary. What they wanted to do was to get their Central Board as strong as possible then they would have their Advisory Boards, who would do all the local business and who had local knowledge.

said that the power reserved under this Bill to the Government was not restricted to one Province, but it extended to all the Provinces. The Governor-General might appoint Advisory Boards in all the Provinces. He was hoping, on the score of expense, that there would be no necessity to appoint an Advisory Board in the Transvaal. If the Central Board found that it could deal with the whole of the business of the Bank, including the business of the Transvaal, why should a local Board be appointed?

moved to add the following new sub-section, viz.: “(6) The members of the Board shall not be engaged in any other business and shall devote their whole time and attention to the affairs and business of the bank.” He said he did not know who were going to be members of the Board, but he knew that the Government were going to appoint them. (Hear, hear.) He did not know whether any members of that House were likely to be members of the Board.

They cannot be.

I said “likely to be.” I do not know whether any members of this House are going to give up their seats for the purpose of making room for other members to come in. There is no prohibition for any member giving up his seat to-day and taking a seat on the Board, and it is still possible that an amendment may be moved that nobody who at present is a member of this House may become a member of that. Board for a specific period after relinquishing his seat. Proceeding, he said he was of opinion that, as a substantial amount was to be paid to members of the Board, they should give up their whole time to the duties of their office.

said that in the Cape anybody holding offices of profit under the Crown, or connected with institutions lending money, were disqualified.

said that some of the disqualifications were mentioned in a later part of the Bill.

said it was an extraordinary way of drafting a Bill. He moved the insertion of the words “nor any person who has within twelve months been a member of such body.”

supported the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, saying they could not forget what had happened in the Transvaal two years ago, when there had been a retirement in favour of the Prime Minister. He asked the Minister what qualifications that gentleman had had, and the reply was various qualifications. He challenged the Minister to deny that that gentleman was elected not because he was a farmer, but because he retired in favour of the Prime Minister. If they passed such an amendment such a thing would be impossible in the future.

moved a further amendment that after the word “Council” the following words be inserted: “And no person who has re signed a seat in the Senate or House of Assembly or the Provincial Council within 12 months of such resignation.”

supported the amendment.

said that on the face of it the proposal was ridiculous and an insult to the House. This amendment had been flung at him without a chance being given him of considering the point. He rather agreed with the hon. member for Jeppe. A member who might not be re-elected to the House would be barred for ever.

Twelve months.

It is very feeble.

opposed the amendment.

pointed out that there was at least one instance where a member of Parliament vacated his seat to take up a certain appointment which was in the gift of the Government. What they wanted to do was to take temptation out of the hands of the Government.

said it seemed to him that if people had as little confidence in members of Parliament as members of Parliament had in themselves, very few of them would be there at all. The mere fact that a man was a member of Parliament ought not to disqualify him from being a director in a bank. Take the Administrators of the Provinces, for instance; most of them had been members of Parliament, but they divested themselves of political partisanship when they assumed office.

pointed out that it was not the members who distrusted themselves, but many of them distrusted the Government.

opposed the amendment. Anyone who was capable and trustworthy was fitted to be a member of the Central Board.

said his hon. friend stated that it was an insult to accept such an amendment, but in his opinion it was an insult to have the clause in at all.

A member of Parliament cannot hold an office of profit under the Crown.

said it was quite possible that a member of Parliament might be asked to resign, and they could simply tell him that the next appointment on the Land Bank would be his.

said it was a curious reversal of the order of procedure, because, as a rule, they laid down what qualifications a man must possess, but here they sought to lay down what qualifications he should not possess. As long as a man was a member of Parliament he was good enough to be a director.

said he had sufficient confidence in the Government to believe that they would only appoint honest and capable men. In the Transvaal able men had been appointed, and the only argument urged against the composition of the Board was that it consisted of farmers. No maladministration could, however, be proved. (Hear, hear.)

said as he understood this would be an office of profit under the Crown, it was unnecessary to insert that clause at all.

said he could not understand why the clause should not be accepted. An Act of Parliament should lay down how these appointments were made.

could not understand why a member of Parliament should be debarred from serving upon the Board of a Land Bank.

said that what they ought to do was to silence any criticism of this sort, and the fact of a man resigning his seat for the purpose of being put upon the board of directors of the bank was something they ought to avoid. If a member of Parliament resigned his seat, and the vacancy were filled by a candidate belonging to the same political party, and the person who resigned was immediately appointed to an important public position, that, rightly or wrongly, created a bad impression in the public mind. In a Bill introduced in the Cape Parliament in 1907, it was provided that no appointment should be given to anyone who was incapacitated from holding an office of profit under the Crown, this including members of Parliament. Whenever the Minister of Finance found that his Bills were subjected to the slightest criticism, he jumped up and down like a Jack-in-the-Box. (Laughter.) That encouraged criticism, instead of turning it away. The object of the proviso in the Cape Bill was to prevent the possibility of anyone saying that any political considerations whatever had entered into the making of appointments. (Hear, hear.) He believed the Minister did not wish to see political considerations imported into the Board, but when he objected to a reasonable amendment of that character, the impression it gave was that he had something of that sort in his mind. The Minister should have no objection whatever to accepting a reasonable amendment of that character. The amendment commended itself to the ordinary good sense of the members of the House and the public.

said that if these appointments were made from political partisans, then it would be assumed in the country that only people belonging to that particular party were going to get assistance from the bank and people who did not belong to the party of the Minister would feel that it was no use their going to the bank, but that the bank was intended to support the friends of the Government. An extremely improper appointment had been made on the Board of the Transvaal Land Bank—

Why; because he has a Dutch name?

Nonsense.

Because he retired from Parliament, and as soon as he resigned, he was jobbed into a salaried office. No explanation or justification had been given for that appointment. Are we to have more provision made for more friends of my hon. friend?

said that when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had talked about the Minister jumping as and down like a Jack-in-the-box, these words very forcibly came to his mind:

(Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Louw said he did not know the circumstances to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had referred, but if the person referred to was good enough to be elected to represent a constituency, that certainly showed that he was no fool, but was a man of some standing and character, and was good enough to be appointed a director. (Hear, hear.) Supposing the Government was to consider that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth was the best man in the Union for the post, and they asked him to become managing director, would it be fair to debar them from so doing? Where else were they going to find suitable directors, except from those who had taken part in politics? It was all nonsense to speak of entirely withholding political influence. Government could take members from the Opposition side as well. It would be most difficult to find suitable men who did not mix in politics. He hoped the amendment would not be accepted, and if a member of Parliament wished to resign in order to take a seat on the Board, he should be allowed to do so.

said that when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth first put forward the amendment, he (Mr. Orr) almost fell into the trap. He thought it was an amendment proposed on Cape lines, and that, as such, it ought to commend itself to the good judgment of the House. But when the hon. members for Weenen and Fort Beaufort dotted the “i’s” and crossed the “t’s” of the amendment, he (Mr. Orr) came to the conclusion that it was proposed solely as a subtle attack on the Prime Minister. (Ministerial cheers.) For that reason, he would vote against it. He believed that the object of the amendment was needlessly to censure the Government for having consented to the appointment of the gentleman who gave way to enable the Prime Minister to take his seat in Parliament.

said that as the amendment stood in his name, he could assure the hon. member for Maritzburg that, as far as he was concerned, the motive the hon. member had hinted at was entirely foreign to his object. Would it not be worth while to let the clause stand over, so that some safeguard of the sort might be made. Even members of the Ministry were human. One knew that in these matters arrangements were come to every day, and they wanted to prevent appointments being given to people who were not fitted for them through political influence.

said he was glad that the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Orr) had salved his conscience in some way. (Laughter.) The hon. member was under a misapprehension, for the principle had been passed by the Cape Parliament. He (Sir Edgar) would not hesitate to attack the Prime Minister if he thought he ought to be attacked. The recent appointment was an illustration of what might happen, and he was afraid would happen, if the amendment were refused.

said they were arguing on the matter of principle. He would like to see the suggestion embodied in the amendment put into the Public Trustee Bill. There was an instance in the Transvaal where a member of the Legislative Council resigned, and made way for someone else, and subsequently was put into a similar sort of appointment as that.

Sir Edgar Walton’s amendment was withdrawn.

The amendment moved by Mr. Creswell was negatived.

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

said he would like to say that he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis. The proposed sub-section would practically mean that no man of business in South Africa could accept office on this Board.

said that he could see no reason why certain of the high public officials should not have seats on the Board.

said that there was a provision made that members of the Board should receive two guineas per day or part of a day. He took it that this Board would be sitting at least 300 days each year.

I agree with that.

said he thought that £600 a year would be sufficient to induce good men to come forward and give their whole time to the work. (Cries of “No.”)

said he had considered the point as to the inclusion of members of the permanent Civil Service on the Board, but, on full consideration, he thought it would be unwise to adopt such a course. He thought it was better that they should have business men, or men who knew what was required of them, apart from the Civil Service, except the chairman and general manager.

said that, if they were going to sit 300 days a year, that meant that the members would have to reside in the town. It meant that farmers could not very well sit on the Board.

said he did not see why one or two members of the Service should not sit on the Board. He thought the Surveyor-General would be a useful member of such a body.

said that the Government m the Cape were in a very dismal plight from having officials to lend money. They had some most competent officials lending money, “and.” added Mr. Merriman, “a fine mess they got us into.”

I would like to answer my right hon. friend on that point. There the system was at fault. With one official you lent out over £600,000. That is what we have got to pay for now.

said it was quite competent to obtain the assistance of Civil Servants when required without putting them on the Board. He thought such a step would be very invidious.

The proposed sub-section was negatived.

On clause 5, General manager,

said he thought it was quite right that the general manager should be the chief executive officer, but that he should preside at the meetings of the Board seemed to be putting him in the wrong place. The Board was there to see that the general manager did not go astray. He would move in sub-section (1) to omit all the words after “bank”.

said he hoped his hon. friend would not press the amendment. It would be better to have one man to whom they might look.

said he must enter a protest against such an extraordinary policy. It was a wrong principle to have the duties of chairman of the Board and the general manager vested in one man. He did not like the Bill; but he wanted to make it a good measure seeing it had been brought forward.

said that the general manager would naturally be chairman, according to clause 4.

said there would be no possibility of a check if such a principle were adopted. He suggested that the amendment be accepted, and that an outside person be appointed as Chairman in order that there might be a check on the operations.

said the other clause contemplated a Civil Servant being the Chairman. In putting in an outside Chairman more money would have to be spent, and there was the danger of two dividing authorities. He pointed out that every year Parliament would be able to criticise the vote for the Land Bank.

said that it would not be much consolation to criticise after £500,000 had been lost. He did not think that the Chairman should be a very highly-paid official, and he pointed out that the Chairman of the Standard Bank did not get more than his fellow-directors. He did not think the Minister should frighten the Committee in that way. The Chairman would be a man of some standing, and would be proud of his position.

said that his right hon. friend raised another point —that the manager should not have a voice on the Board.

I said that he might have a voice on the Board, but I would not give him the position of Chairman.

said the system in the Transvaal had worked very well. There they had had a separate Chairman, and he would like to know why they did not propose the same procedure now.

said in the Transvaal the general manager had proved practically nothing but a clerk, who, although he drew a high salary, had continually to go and get his instructions from the members of the Board. In these circumstances he had felt strongly in favour of the Minister’s suggestion that a capable general manager should at the same time be Chairman of the Board. The Transvaal manager was obliged constantly to consult the Chairman.

could not understand how a general manager, who should be a servant of the Board, could at the same time be the leader of the Board. He would like to have some information.

said that if his hon. friend would look at the section he would find that the general manager was not the servant of the Board.

said he thought the general manager was a servant of the Board.

said that if the title of General Manager was kept the whole of the Board ought to control the General Manager.

said that so long as they got the right man things would go right. But would it not be possible to let him be a member of the Board, and appoint one of the other members as chairman?

said it was an essential part of his scheme that this man should be the chief executive officer, and the four others would hear what he had to suggest.

thought they were placing too much power in the hands of the man whom they styled the General Manager.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 6, which deals with the appointment of the staff,

said that if he understood the Minister aright he wished to place it outside the power of the Government to influence an appointment. They ought, he urged, to allow the appointment of clerks and officers to be made by the Central Board, and he moved in lines 36 and 37 to omit “subject to the approval of the Minister”; in line 37 to omit all the words from “upon” to “approved” in line 38; in line 40 to omit “subject to the like approval” and to add at the end of sub-section (1) “but no appointment shall be for a longer period than one year at any one time.” That was a good provision, for they might have an appointment made for five or ten years, or more, and he thought the country should not be saddled with such appointments.

said he could not see any reason why the appointments should not be made by the Public Service Board, as provided in the Public Service Bill. He protested that no provision was made for recording pensionable service, and he thought it would be advisable to leave the whole of the appointments in the hands of the Board, so that rates of service would be continuous.

said he could not understand how they were going to reconcile the two different rates. Suppose a man went from the Civil Service to the bank, or from the bank to the Civil Service, for a number of years. If his salary was higher, how were they going to calculate his pension—upon the salary he would have been entitled to in the public service or upon the salary he had been obtaining in the Bank? If a civil servant, entitled to £360, say, was taken into the bank at £400 and was employed there for five years, how would his pension be calculated? He thought it was a difficult matter, and should stand over.

said the officer would remain a Civil Servant. The further explanation was inaudible. In respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, surely the Minister must have power to say that the staff was too large or the salaries paid were too high. The Minister would be responsible to Parliament. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis, he thought no decent man would take service.

said he quite realised that it was the ordinary procedure of getting out of a difficulty by saying that members did not know anything of what they were talking about, but he could easily retort that the Minister did not understand the clause. A civil servant might be drawing £360 a year, and when appointed to the bank he might get £500 a year. On that amount he would be entitled to make his contribution towards the pension fund, and in that case he would be better off than the ordinary Civil Servant. Supposing, however, he went back to the Civil Service, did he go back to the same position that he formerly occupied, or to a position carrying the salary he received at the bank? In that case, he would have an advantage over the other civil servants.

said he could not find anything in the Act that said how a man should contribute to any pension fund.

said it seemed to him that the sub-section was perfectly clear. A man before taking up the appointment would ask what salary he would receive and the length of the appointment. The appointment to the bank would rank, he took it, in the same way as his ordinary work in the Civil Service as regarded the superannuation fund.

Mr. Nathan’s amendments were withdrawn.

moved to omit “an appointment” for the purpose of inserting the word “reappointment.

The amendment was agreed to.

said they were having a lot of cross-arguments which did not bear upon his amendment at all. He had taken the trouble to look into the Bill, and what he wanted to explain was that there should be a limit to the staff. The Board, headed by the General Manager, should be able to tell who were and who were not competent to hold positions under the bank. It was absurd to say that they could not get good men unless they gave the appointments for a longer period than one year.

thought the Dutch version was wrong. He did not know what “gebondenheid” meant.

suggested “voorbehoud instead.

said the term as printed was correct.

On clause 8, Officers of bank may act as conveyancers,

moved the deletion of sub-section 1 as follows: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or regulation made under a law, all mortgages or documents of pledge or other securities under this Act, as well as deeds of transfer in favour of the bank executed for the purposes of or under this Act may be prepared and executed by any officer of the bank specially appointed for the purpose, and any such officer may, with respect to such documents, perform the functions of a notary public or conveyancer. All such documents shall, if registrable, be accepted for registration in any deeds office or other registration office in the Union.” The mover said he was horrified at a Cabinet, in which were seven legal gentlemen, agreeing to a clause of that description. He failed to see why the bank should not take into its employment persons properly qualified to do the work.

objected to the amendment, and said the law in the Transvaal had worked satisfactorily. The intention of the Bill was to make it as easy and cheap as possible to obtain money if they had the recognised security.

did not see what right Government had to appoint a layman to do such work. He moved to add at the end of sub-section (1): “Provided that no such officer (other than a person who prior to the commencement of this Act was in the employment of a provincial bank, and in that capacity performed services similar to those hereinafter mentioned), shall perform, with respect to such documents, the functions of a notary public or conveyancer unless he is a person who has been admitted as such in any superior court of the Union: Provided further, anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law, any person so admitted as a notary public or conveyancer may render professional services as a whole time member of the staff for a fixed salary in lieu of professional fees.”

moved, in line 6, after “purpose” to insert “by the bank.” He was sorry that he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis, but he would accept that of the hon. member for Ladismith. Similar provisions to the one objected to existed in the Transvaal, Free State, and Cape Land Bank Acts.

said the Minister had said that the bank was to be run on business principles. When property was transferred to other financial institutions, stamp or transfer duty had to be paid, but if property was transferred to the Land Bank that would not have to be paid. This would give the latter a very great advantage over other institutions.

moved the deletion of sub-section 2 as follows: “No stamp duty or transfer duty shall be payable in respect of any transfer of property to the bank, no stamp duty shall be payable in respect of any transactions entered into under this Act or any such documents aforesaid, and no office fees shall be payable at any Deeds or other registration office in respect of documents registered as aforesaid or searches made therein.” The mover asked why the Land Bank should be favoured over other institutions doing similar business, adding that it would be a bad day for South Africa if other banks refused to make advances to farmers. The Land Bank was going to compete with other concerns in the same line of business, and it was only fair that it should pay the same taxes as they did.

asked if it were the practice in the Transvaal for the Land Bank to make any charge for the preparation of transfer deeds or mortgages.

replied that in the Transvaal all the deeds had to be prepared by the Land Bank when advances were made by it. He hoped the committee would not agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, for they should distinguish between transfers passed in favour of the Land Bank and transfers passed to other institutions. If the Land Bank paid transfer duty Government would practically be paying duty on property passed to itself. The essential difference between that and other banks was that the profits of the Land Bank would go to the people of the country, whereas in the case of other banks the profits went into the pockets of the shareholders.

All the profits that this bank would make would go to the State. He could not see on principle, why this department, which was a sub-department of the Government, if it bought properties and took transfer, should be called upon to pay transfer or stamp duties In regard to the point raised by the hon. member, the fees chargeable by the bank to borrowers, he would find set forth in the schedule all those fees included the cost of preparing documents as well as registration. As to the other question, it seemed to him that they were only taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another pocket of the Government.

said he thought the borrower should pay the dues on mortgages.

said he grieved very much that the Minister did not accept his amendment, because they had been doing the wrong thing in the Transvaal and Natal.

said he was surprised to hear the Minister talking about money being taken out of one pocket and put into another pocket of the Government. Surely he must see that on those lines the Government must be the loser, because the State would be absolutely sacrificing dues. Again, the Minister had indicated that transfer dues might be handed over to the Provincial Councils, so that, if that were the case, the loss would fall upon the Provincial Councils.

said that the clause said that no stamp duty should be paid on any transaction of the Land Bank. It seemed to him that they did not know how far that would lead them, and that it was a bad principle. The Land Bank should pay the same stamp duties and fees as any other institution.

said he thought there was something to be said in favour of no stamp or transfer dues being charged on property transferred to the Government, but he did not approve of the rest of the sub-section, and he therefore moved to delete all the words after “bank” to the end of the clause.

said the question was whether a borrower would in any way evade the transfer or stamp duties under this clause?

urged that the sub-section should be deleted. The bank was to be run as an ordinary business proposition, and it was not fair that its transactions should be excluded from the payment of duties that other banks had to pay.

moved in line 6, after “officer” to omit “of the bank,” and in line 7, after “and” to omit all the words down to “conveyance” in line 8.

said he had tried to make the position clear in the distinction that he drew. He must say that the second part of the paragraph did seem to him somewhat unfair. It gave an advantage to borrowers from the Land Bank which no other. Borrowers possessed but let him say in justification of the second part that he had taken it over from existing legislation in the Transvaal and the Free State. He would be prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Caledon. (A VOICE: “No.”)

objected to the Minister accepting the amendment, and held that this would have the effect of increasing the charges to the borrowers. They might just as well increase the rate of interest to. 6 per cent. If the State intended to help people, they should do so as cheaply as possible, otherwise it was useless to do anything at all. In the Transvaal the system had worked satisfactorily, and there was no necessity to make any change.

said his hon. friend must surely see how unfair this was going to be This bank was to lend money only to a certain section of the community—the agricultural section. They did not grumble about that, but they did expect the institution to pay its way. It was not going to pay its way if it did not pay all the expenses and the taxes connected with it. If the bank did not nay those expenses and taxes, it was a subsidy taken from the other taxpayers of the country to help this particular institution, and for this year and some years to come the Treasury was going to suffer, because what the bank saved would be placed in the reserve fund.

said that the Transvaal Bank had got a reserve fund, and had made no loss. The Transvaal Land Bank had incurred no losses, but created a reserve fund.

I never said they lost. If you are going to do away with these charges, you are simply going to build up a reserve fund. We object to that. Let them build up a reserve fund in a legitimate way.

I think that is in favour of the people.

said he did not think that these banks should have special facilities, because if they did not pay the charges paid by other institutions, then the Treasury would lose money. The Minister was departing from the very essence of business principles at the outset.

asked the Minister to explain the matter in detail.

said he could not understand the hon. member for Barkly. The banks were established for the purpose of allowing people to get money as cheaply as possible.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Nathan and Mr. Griffin were negatived.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance and Mr. Becker were agreed to.

put the question: That the words proposed by Mr. Krige to be omitted in sub-section (2) stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

moved that the clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 10, Remuneration of the members of the Central Board,

moved to omit this clause, and to substitute the following new clause: “(10) A sum of £3,600 shall be appropriated annually out of the funds of the bank for the remuneration of the members of the Board, other than the general manager. Out of this sum shall be paid to each member quarterly an allowance at the Tate of not exceeding £600 per annum: Provided there shall be deducted at the end of each quarter of the year from any sum payable to any such member in respect of the meetings of the Board from which he has been absent without leave during that quarter, a sum which bears the same proportion to £150 as these meetings bear to the total numbers of the meetings of the Board in that quarter. Every such member shall, in addition to this allowance, and the general manager shall in addition to his salary, be paid his reasonable expenses, incurred for travelling and subsistence while engaged on the business of the bank. Such expenses shall be in accordance with a tariff framed by the Board and approved by the Minister, and shall be paid out of the funds of the bank.” In the course of his remarks in support of his amendment, Mr. Grobler said the members of the Board must be capable persons, acquainted with the conditions of the country; these people should be able to devote all their time to the affairs of the bank. If this amendment were not accepted, he contended that the Government would be obliged to appoint people living in the vicinity of Pretoria.

said that as the amendment would increase expenditure it was out of order.

said that in his proposal as it appeared in the Bill It was, of course, quite possible for a member of the Board to receive more than £600 a year. Therefore in the amendment as it stood, it would not be an increase of taxation.

urged that his amendment would result in a diminished expenditure.

said the hon. member proposed the members should receive a sum not exceeding £600 a year. The funds of the bank were supplied by the State, and out of the funds there was to be drawn £600 a year for each member of the Board. The Minister had said it was possible for a member by attending—he (Sir E. H. Walton) presumed the Minister meant by attending every sitting—he might receive more than £600. Did he contemplate there was going to be a meeting every day of the week?

Certainly.

said his hon. friend did not understand how these institutions were conducted; he did not understand the a b, c. They would sit once a week; take the Mutual

That is quite different.

replied that it was not in the least different, and the directors sat once a week. The object of the Land Bank was not to create employment for a few people. The object of the legislation was to do certain things, and as far as the work was concerned his friend, the hon. Minister, relegated that to the general manager, and if that official consulted his Board once a week, or, in special cases, twice a week, it would be as much as was required. So little did he approve of the principle that he had an amendment to move to the clause, namely, in line 37, after “bank,” to insert “provided that no member shall receive more than £210 in one year.” That was reckoning at the rate of two meetings a week.

said he entirely endorsed what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had said. It was scandalous to pay the directors for work which was going to be done by the managing director. The Board ought to be called together once a week and the list of loans would be submitted to it for its recommendation. To pay £600 a year was simply to create soft jobs for a few people. There was no institution in the country that paid on anything like that scale.

Every taxpayer was a shareholder in this bank, the only difference being that he had no voice in the management. If they put £2,000 for the payment of these directors, they would be going far enough—in fact, far more than any other institution. Really he was going to say that his confidence in the Treasurer was shaken. This was going altogether too far.

I would like to point out that the total sum paid to the directors of the Natal Land Bank is £225 a year, or £56 10s.a year each.

pointed out that the hon. member for Umlazi had omitted to mention that one of the directors of the Natal Land Bank was a Civil Servant, therefore his salary would have to be added to his director’s fee. Proceeding, the Minister said he was not so foolish as to think that his proposal was the best, but these four directors would have to devote a considerable portion of their time to the business of the bank. Was it likely that they were going to get men to surrender their business for the sake of two guineas a day? He thought they would have to make up their minds to compensate these gentlemen. They were entitled to their travelling expenses and a reasonable amount besides.

moved that no director should receive more than £210 in one year. That allowed for two guineas a meeting. If the general manager had to meet his directors every day, what time would he have to devote to the business of the bank?

said he did not think it fair to compare these directors with that of a profit-bearing institution. His right hon. friend called it a scandal, but they wanted strong men upon this Board and they wanted a strong man for general manager. Was there a man in Pretoria strong or capable enough to do this work? He understood that the idea was to have one man for each Province. Here they had to deal with the matter of £5,000,000, and were they going to put these millions into the hands of people who had nothing else to do than earn this £210 a year? It was a necessity that these people should be paid fairly for the work they did.

pointed out that the manager would be the strong man and the directors would not be such important people as were made out.

said £600 a year was too much and £200 a year too little; he thought that £400 a year would be ample. He moved to insert “£400.”

said he would withdraw his amendment. Did his hon. friend suppose that anybody was going up from Cape Town and going to live in Pretoria and devote his time to this Board for £600 a year? The thing was ludicrous. The Chairman was going to be very heavily paid indeed. Quite right. He would have a vast amount of responsibility. The other men were to be advisory people and people like that. They had collected a very good Board for the South African Mutual in Pretoria. They had found no difficulty; they had got first-rate men. They were not restricted to members of Parliament. They did not pay handsome sums. He was only asked just now whether the directors got £500 a year. They got a very modest sum divided amongst the whole lot of them, which, when they were all present, came to about £60 a year each. He was inclined to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. He hoped they would be moderate in these things. The whole sittings of the Board should not take long. They might have 20 applications before them at a sitting and a list would be submitted for approval.

said that the information of the right hon. gentleman in regard to the duties of the Board was quite beside the mark. Each application that came before the Board was carefully gone into by every individual member of the Transvaal Board. As to the suggestion that they should pay the members £210 a year, they had better do away with the Board altogether and leave the matter in the hands of the general manager.

said that, if what the hon. member said was correct, they could not get the right kind of man for the work at £600 a year. It seemed to him that there was an entire misconception of the duties of the Board. The business of the bank, if the understood correctly, would be practically conducted by the general manager. He would make investigations and he would place a list of the applications before the Board. All the Board would have to do would be to supervise and, in general terms, decide whether the loan should be granted. The only object of the Board was to supervise the general manager. He should support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central.

did not conceive that the functions of the directors would be confined to that. He thought their duty would be, as it had been in the past in each of the three Provinces, to examine every application—(hear, hear)—and come to an independent decision in regard to each application. (Hear, hear.) He would like to place before them some figures to show the amount of work which these three Boards had to do. In Natal, during the year ended March 31st last, 796 applications were received, involving loans of £444,000.

What do the Boards receive?

They get two guineas a meeting.

£56 a year.

No, no.

We had it in evidence.

They get two guineas per meeting, and a maximum of 150 guineas a year.

How many meetings do they have?

As many meetings as the business of the bank requires.

Since the inception of the Transvaal Bank in November, 1907, 7,680 applications had been dealt with, involving a sum of £3,300,000. In the first eight months 2,054 cases were dealt with, in the next 12 months 1,965, in the following year 1,431, and up to March 31, 1,304. In the Free State—the bank had only been in operation 12 months—3,390 applications were dealt with, involving a sum of £1,261,000. He wanted to show that it was nonsense for hon. members to talk so glibly about these matters.

said he was contradicted when he said that the Natal members each got £56 10s.

I did not.

The Minister shouted out that I was wrong. I want to know his authority for the contradiction.

said the one proposal was too low, and the other too high. He did not think it was too much to pay a business man £2 2s per meeting, if he devoted a considerable amount of time to the affairs of the bank. Therefore he would suggest that the clause be adopted as it stood.

said he would like to explain that last year the total amount paid to members of the Natal Land Bank was £220 in the aggregate, or £56 10s per member. He would also like to point out that though there were 600 applications the Board got through all the business in 16 meetings.

said it appeared as if hardly any hon. member realised the extent of the bank’s business. The Board would have to deal with £6,000,000, and how would it be possible for a man to travel, for instance, twice a week from Cape Town to Pretoria to attend Board meetings? He urged that it was essential that they should appoint a Board which should live in Pretoria and examine all claims there. They required the best men they could get If the members of the Central Board were only to meet occasionally it would be necessary to give more work and higher remuneration to the Local Boards.

said he did not think they could agree with the dictum of the hon. member for Yeoville so far as the duties of the Board were concerned. He pointed out that the Transvaal Act had worked most successfully. He moved to omit all the words from the beginning of the clause down to “bank” in line 57, and to substitute: “There shall be paid to the members of the Central Board (other than the general manager or person appointed under section five to act as such) an aggregate sum not exceeding one thousand six hundred pounds per annum, which shall be distributed quarterly amongst the members according to the number of Board meetings attended by each such member.”

said the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg was based upon the assumption that the Board would be composed of six members. As it was to be composed of four members, he moved that the amount in the amendment be altered to £2,400. The hon. member as a late director of the Transvaal Land Bank had had much experience of the work. Every member of the Board should personally go into every application in order to avoid failure. He would urge that the salary of every member of the Board be £600, while a reduction should be made for every meeting they did not attend. That principle worked well in this House, and should work equally well where the bank was concerned.

moved that further consideration of the clause stand over.

May I take the opportunity of correcting my hon. friend, who has been endeavouring to correct me? I did not attribute these functions to the general manager—it was the Minister of Finance in his first speech. (Hear, hear.)

said that in the Transvaal when one of the members of the Board resigned, the remainder divided the whole of the fees between them.

The motion that the clause stand over was agreed to.

On clause 12, The bank not to make advances to its members or to officers of the bank, or to certain other members,

moved that no advances be made to members of Parliament. They were not the class of person for whom the bank was to be instituted. Members of Parliament were otherwise provided for. (Laughter.)

said he was getting a bit tired of members of Parliament being looked upon as potential criminals.

said members of Parliament had a seductive way about them. (Laughter.) They might very well pass this self-denying Ordinance.

said he hoped the amendment would not be passed.

said if the amendment were carried members of Parliament would be driven to the banks.

hoped the amendment would be carried. When the Natal Land Bank Bill was going through Parliament, he discovered that several members of the Natal House had already negotiated loans from the Land Bank, and they were very angry when he proposed an amendment to prevent members obtaining loans. (Laughter.)

said he could not understand the amendment. The amendment cast a slur upon the members of Parliament, and he was getting tired of these reflections being cast upon hon. members. Why should members of Parliament if able to give the required security be excluded from getting advances if they required them? Were they not equally fit to get such advances as others? (Hear, hear.)

hoped the amendment would be accepted.

said people when they read their newspapers on the following morning and saw the discussions that had been taking place in the House that day would say “What a sorry crowd these members of Parliament are.” (Laughter.) He could not understand hon. members opposite. They had practically suggested that the Bill was introduced for the benefit of the supporters of the Government.

said similar discussions had taken place practically in every Parliament which had passed a Land Bank Bill in order to prevent scandal. He moved as an amendment the insertion of “board” after “central.”

thought the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth rather unworthy of the House. (Ministerial cheers.) He did not see why a member of Parliament, if he had any security to offer, should be debarred from making an application for a loan. The Board could not grant loans in secret. The advances had to be secured by mortgages, which would figure in the Bond List, while full details regarding the loans would be published in the “Government Gazette.” Hon. members opposite were anxious to prevent jobbery, why did they not in 1907 put in a similar clause?

We did.

was proceeding to read clause 30 of the Act referred to, when there were cries of “Order, order.”

I beg pardon. (Cheers.) There was nothing to cheer about; he did not agree with the clause.

said that in the Dipping Tanks, Fencing, and Irrigation Acts this provision now proposed had not been inserted, and he could not see why members of Parliament should now be regarded as a lot of criminals. (Laughter.) Surely if they could give sufficient security they should be treated in the same way as others. We had always understood that members of Parliament should be the best men in the country. (Hear, hear.) Especially as this provision had not been laid down in the other Acts it should not be inserted in this Bill.

said they must take into consideration that the bank was not for such people as members of Parliament, but was for the poorer people; it was not for people who were well to do.

Oh!

Well, it is not intended for wealthy landowners. There was always a suspicion that members of Parliament could use influence with the bank that other persons could not use.

suggested humorously that the amendment should have gone a little farther, and should have debarred not only members of Parliament, but their relatives and friends, but in deference to hon. members opposite, he would not add those words.

I suggest also your constituents. (Laughter.)

said they were to legislate for the country and not for themselves—(hear, hear)—and what he was trying to put before the House was an appeal for a clean public life

You are starting rather late.

“I hope not”—in the Cape. But they could not be too careful in matters of that kind in public life. It was a right thing to prevent members of Parliament from using any influence they had to obtain loans. Any man who became a debtor increased his responsibilties and gave the bank an influence over him. Let them be absolutely clean-handed in these matters. It should be rendered practically impossible for any member of Parliament to exercise any influence over the bank.

Mr. Henderson’s amendment was negatived.

put Sir E. Walton’s amendment, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

moved: In lines 64 and 65, to omit “local” and to substitute “advisory”; in line 66 to omit “central”; in line 67 to omit “local” and to substitute “advisory”; in line 70 to omit “a local” and to substitute “an advisory”; on page 10, in sub-section (4), lines 6 and 7, to omit all the words from “No advance” to “resolution”; to omit sub-sections (7), (8) and (9) and to substitute new sub-sections as follows: (7) Every Local Board shall consider and transmit all applications submitted to it, with its recommendations thereon, to the Board, and generally shall advise the Board upon all matters as to which that Board may require its advice. (8) A Local Board shall have no executive functions, but shall act as agents for the Board. He held it would be a dangerous principle to allow local Boards to make advances up to £500, which would have the effect of three-quarters of the advances being made by such local Boards, which would make it impossible to have a uniform policy. He therefore moved, in consonance with his remarks on the second reading, that these local Boards should only have advisory powers. Unless his amendment were accepted, there would be friction.

moved in line 63, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”; in lines 63 and 64, to omit “as he deems necessary”; in line 64, after “establish” to omit “a,” and to substitute “at least one”; and in the same line, to omit “any area” and to substitute “every province.”

said that he wished to move the deletion of sub-section 7.

suggested that the subsections should be taken seriatim.

said he thought that the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Rustenburg and the amendment of which he (Mr. Clayton) had given notice raised the whole question of the clause, and if they took the sub-sections seriatim those amendments could hardly be appropriately dealt with. The amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) would take away from the Local Boards every vestige of power. Those Boards had stood the test of time in three of the Provinces, and the Minister himself recognised that by giving them powers to deal with loans up to £500. He (Mr. Clayton) contended that if these Boards could investigate securities which were offered in exchange for loans up to £500 they were equally competent to investigate loans to the amount mentioned in his amendment. His proposition would leave the Boards in the three Provinces practically as they were, and extend the system to the Cape Province, except that the co-operative societies would have to go to the Central Board, and larger amounts than £2,000 had to go to the Central Board in any case.

said he thought the feeling of the committee was that the sub-sections of the clause should be taken seriatim. He moved accordingly.

The motion was agreed to.

On sub-section (1),

said he thought Mr. Van Niekerk’s amendment was rather drastic, because they did not know even what an “area” was as mentioned in the sub-section.

said he knew the present Government would appoint such Boards, but they never knew what might happen in future.

maintained that the Local Board should have only advisory powers.

did not agree with the hon. member for Rustenberg that Local Boards should only have advisory powers. The Boards should have powers to act, and experience in the Free State and Natal had taught them that if they wished to achieve success, such powers should be given to the Local Boards.

felt inclined to move the deletion of the whole clause, but for the fact that so many hon. members were in favour of them. He feared the Local Boards would be sources of expense, delay, and strife, as every Local Board would try and get as much money as possible for its own particular area. In addition to that, one Board for the Cape Province would be insufficient. He feared Local Boards would involve considerable delay, while the expenditure connected with such bodies would also be considerable. If they must have Local Boards, their powers should be advisory, and nothing more.

said if Local Boards had the power to make advances the delay of applications having to come from other parts of the country would be avoided. He did not fear that there would be any competition amongst those bodies, but on the contrary they would co-operate. He could not see what difficulties could arise, as they would all act on one system.

agreed with the amendment, and urged that Local Boards would work against each other to get as much as possible for their own areas. The Central Board was the responsible body, and if these Local Boards were granted the power to make advances up to £500, the central body would have nothing to do. If this were done it would be far better to give every Province a Land Bank which could be responsible for its own affairs.

entirely agreed with the hon. member for Standerton. The idea of making a central Board responsible for all this money and then allowing five or six little Local Boards to dole it out, would bring about an impossible state of affairs, and they would get into a mess in no time. The Local Boards should be purely advisory. He implored the committee not to tolerate for a moment the idea of a central bank with four little casual banks, each granting loans on its own credit. Better by far to have a separate bank in each Province.

said that since the drafting of the Bill he had had the advantage of listening to the criticisms directed against the measure during the second reading debate, and after listening to those criticisms he was inclined to agree with the proposal. (Cheers.) He thought it would be better to have one Central Board, and to establish Local Boards with advisory powers to investigate and make recommendations, so that the applications in the different Provinces would go to the Advisory Boards in the first instance and the Advisory Boards would make recommendations to the Central Board. He would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg. (Cheers.)

was sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. Minister. The Standard Bank had branches all over South Africa, which could make advances. (Cries of “No.”) It was only when a matter was doubtful that it was referred to the head of affairs. The Land Banks had done excellent work in the different Provinces, and that had been Tendered possible only by the knowledge possessed by the Local Boards. He did not see why the business should be centralised in one place; that would not expedite business.

endorsed what the previous speaker had said. It would be better now for the Minister of Finance to withdraw the Bill and to substitute ultimate and complete centralisation. The Advisory Boards would have no power, for a man would grow to be old before he got his loan.

said that if the Central Board were to be responsible for the working of the bank, it must have control.

said he heartily agreed; they must have one body responsible. It would be most dangerous to set up five or six subsidiary banks in connection with which, too, better remuneration would have to be provided.

said what hon. members seemed to want was not one Land Bank, but four separate bodies. If they wanted to have one Land Bank, there would have to be one central authority responsible for its management.

opposed the amendment, and feared, if the Local Boards only had advisory powers, considerable delays would be caused. He held that certain powers should be given to these Boards, which should be subject to the central powers. Centralisation should not be carried too far.

also opposed the amendment, and feared there would be great disappointment if the principle of Local Boards were abolished. If it were the intention to have one Advisory Board in each Province, they might just as well have no such Boards at all. There would be no harm in these Boards making small advances, as every borrower would naturally have to give proper security. He agreed that centralisation was often wrong.

deprecated the principle of over centralisation, which they now saw being enforced. He regretted that the Free State Board, which had done excellent work in the past, should now be abolished. The settlement of loans in Pretoria would only lead to delay. Why should the Local Boards not be responsible to the Central Boards? Furthermore, the amount of £500, to be granted by Local Boards, could be reduced to £250 or £300 if hon. members thought £500 was too much. He would move a further amendment: “That the Governor-General shall appoint at least one Local Board for each Province.”

asked what his hon. friend actually wanted? To have separate Boards all over the Union would be impossible.

said that nobody proposed to institute Boards all over the Union. They wanted to continue the present Boards. What guarantee had they in the Free State, the Cape, or Natal, that if these Boards were only to be Advisory Boards, any portion of the money in the hands of the Central Board was going to find its way to those that needed it in those Provinces?

said he was one of those who felt that the Minister was making a mistake in going back on the proposal that he first laid down. If they were going to have one Central Board, and make the Local Boards purely advisory bodies, the usefulness of the institution would be circumscribed.

said it was not correct to say that he had gone back on his original proposal. His hon. friend would see, if he looked at the first Bill that was published in the “Gazette,” not the Bill now before the House—

They vary so, these Bills.

said his hon. friend did not want to be corrected. His first proposal was to have these Boards purely with advisory functions. Subsequently, against his better judgment, he was induced to put forward the proposal in the Bill before the House, but after full consideration he had come to the conclusion that the first proposal was the better one. In regard to the suggestion that the Advisory Boards would involve delay, he did not agree with that at all.

said he regretted exceedingly that the Minister had departed from the excellent suggestion contained in the clause they were now discussing. The results which had so far been achieved were a proof that the less centralisation they had and the more accurate local knowledge they had on these matters the better. Whatever centralisation they had under this Bill was going to reduce efficiency.

said that the Boards had done good work in the past, and he had not heard any good case made out for reducing their usefulness in the future.

said he hoped that the amendment would be accepted, as that was the only way the bank could be run on sound business principles.

pointed out that long delays would occur, and he supported the amendment of the hon. member for Zululand.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Van Niekerk were negatived.

The amendments proposed by Mr. P. G. W. Grobler, in sub-section (1), were withdrawn.

On sub-section 2,

moved an amendment regarding staffs.

hoped that the amendment would not be pressed, as they did not wish to create expensive staffs.

moved that, instead of three, there be five members on the Board.

said he could not agree.

said that under the present proposal, Natal would lose some of the excellent men by whom they had been served. It was the critical point of the Bill.

The amendment was negatived.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew.

Mr. P. G. W. Grobler’s amendment was withdrawn.

On sub-section 3,

thought that members of Local Boards should hold office for four years, instead of two years, as proposed in the Bill.

An amendment to that effect moved by Mr. Clayton was negatived

Mr. P. G. W. Grobler’s amendment was withdrawn.

On sub-section (4),

Mr. P. G. W. Grobler’s amendment was agreed to.

On sub-section (5),

suggested that sub-section 5, dealing with the fees of members of Local Boards, should stand over.

moved that members of the Local Boards should be paid two guineas a sitting instead of one, as proposed in the Bill.

ruled the amendment out of order.

It is not in my power to do it.

Here is a Bill involving six millions. Is it not possible to propose this alteration? It would be no greater expenditure.

It is an increase of salary.

said they could get the best men in the city to attend directors’ meetings for a guinea. Then the responsibilities of the Local Boards had been decreased.

said members of the Boards would have to come from all over the country. The comparison of the hon. member for Cape Town was not a fair one.

On sub-section (7),

on sub-section 7 moved an amendment, that the words “provided that the aggregate amount of any advance or advances made by a Local Board to any one applicant shall not exceed £500” be omitted.

moved to report progress.

This was negatived.

said he had no wish to keep hon. members out of their beds, but they had had a long discussion from all points of view, and it would be a pity to have the discussion all over again.

said the Minister had changed his mind, and adopted a suggestion that the whole of the business should be centralised, and as a protest they should divide.

said that while he agreed that the Boards should be made effective, he was in favour of the amount being limited to £500, and he was anxious to support the principle that the Boards should be really live ones.

The amendments moved by Mr. Clayton were negatived.

put sub-section (7). DIVISION.

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

moved a new sub-section (7), as follows: “Every Advisory Board shall consider and transmit all applications submitted to it with its recommendations thereon to the Board, and generally shall advise the Board upon all matters as to which that Board may require its advice.”

urged that the Minister should consent to report progress at this stage.

said that they had settled the principle and there was no need for any discussion.

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

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