brought up the Report of the Committee of the Whole House reporting the Bill without amendment.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

objected.

then moved that the Bill be read a third time to-morrow.

seconded.

Agreed to.

brought up the Report of the Committee of the Whole House reporting the Bill without amendment.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

objected.

then moved that the Bill be read a third time to-morrow.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Return of Special Warrants issued under section 48 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, April, 1912.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) What is the total number of (a) miners suffering from miners’ phthisis, and (b) dependants of miners, who have been sent to England and other countries, respectively, at the instance of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, in the following classification: A. (i.) Married miners; and (ii.) unmarried miners and widowers without dependants accompanying them. B. (i.) Widows without children; (ii.) widows with children and number of latter; (iii.) wives without children accompanying their husbands; (iv.) wives with children and number of latter: and (v.) children without parents: (2) by what lines of steamers were the said miners and dependants sent out of South Africa, and what was the cost of passages in each case; (3) were any miners or dependants sent on any of the Union-Castle steamships, and, if not, why not; (4) is it a fact that certain miners and de-pendants were, in the instance of at least one steamship, berthed upon the same deck and at the same end of the deck with Chinese, Indians, and Kafirs, without any separating partition, and if so, what is the name of the vessel and to which line does it belong: (5) what kind of food and accommodation was specified in engaging passages, and what was supplied; and (6) how many miners died (i.) during the voyage, and (ii.) since repatriation?

asked that the question stand over, as the information desired had not yet reached him from Johannesburg.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether there is any system of apprenticeship in the South African Railway workshops, if so. (2) what is the minimum age at which youths are apprenticed; (3) what wages do they receive on starting; (4) what are their yearly increments of pay; (5) how many years have they to serve before being considered qualified artisans; and (6) if there are no regulations, whether he will cause regulations to be drawn up and published for public information?

stated in reply: (1) Yes. (2) Cape: 14 to 16, and over 16 in very special cases. Transvaal and Orange Free State: 15 to 16, under 15 in very special oases, and up to 18 if matriculated. Natal: 14 to 16, but apprentices starting under 15 do not enter second year of apprenticeship until 16 years of age. (3) Cape: 2d. per hour. Transvaal and Orange Free State: 5d. per hour. Natal: 2d. per hour. (4) According to age of joining. Particulars are as follows: Cape.—14 years: first year, 2d.; second year, 2d.; third year, 3d.; fourth year, 3Jd.; fifth year, 4d.; sixth year, 5d.; seventh year, 6d. 15 years: first year, 2d.; second year, 2½d.; third year, 3d.; fourth year, 4d.; fifth year, 5d.; sixth year, 6d. 16 years and over: first year. 2d.; second year, 3d.; third year. 4d.; fourth year, 5d.: fifth year, 6d. Transvaal and Orange Free State.—14 years: first year, 5d.; second year, 5½d.; third year, 6½d.;. fourth year, 7½d.; fifth year, 8½d.; sixth year, 9½d.; seventh year, 10½d. 15 years: first year, 5d.; second year, 6d.; third year, 7d.; fourth year, 8d.; fifth year, 9d. sixth year, 10½d.16 years: first year, 5d.; second year, 6½d.; third year, 8d.; fourth year, 9d.; fifth year, 10½d. 17 years and over: first half, first year, 5d.; second year, 7d.; third year, 9d.: fourth year, 10d.; second half, first year, 6d.; second year, 8d.; third year, 9½d.; fourth year, 10½d. Natal: first year, 2¼d.; second year,. 3d.; third year, 3¾d.; fourth year, 5¼d.; fifth year, 7½d.(5) Term of apprenticeship is as follows: Cape: Minimum of five years, but up to age of 21, so that boy joining at 14 would serve seven years. Transvaal and Orange Free State: Minimum of four years, but up to age of 21. Natal: Minimum of five years up to age of 20. After completing apprenticeship, employees are required to serve for a period as improvers. There is at present no uniformity as to term of improver ship, but period will be definitely fixed in new conditions when agreed upon. (6) Whole question of training of apprentices and terms and conditions of apprenticeship dealt with by Workshops Committee in their report—vide pages 31 to 34. of Blue-book U.G. 33, 1912—and recommendations of committee in this respect are being considered by administration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

What was the gross revenue received by the Government cold storage at Maritzburg for the last financial year; (2) what proportion of this revenue was derived from farmers; (3) what was the total loss of this cold storage for the last financial year, after including interest on capital, depreciation, etc.; (4) what were the principal items stored during the last three months; and (5) when do the Government intend to cease competing with private enterprise for the sale of ice from this cold storage?

replied: (1) £1,660. (2) £818. (3) £4,526, inclusive of interest, £1,233, and depreciation. £830. (4) Butter, seed potatoes, and beef, all Colonial produce. (5) This is being considered. For the information of the hon. member I may state that the cold storage at Maritzburg was erected by the Natal Government some time before Union for the storage of meat, butter, and other agricultural produce. During the time East Coast fever was at its height in Natal the store was fully occupied with the storage of beef, but now the disease has abated the storage of meat has practically ceased. It was originally intended to close down the store this wear, and the municipality were approached with a view to taking it over. This they declined to do, but on the urgent representations of farmers in Natal it was decided to maintain the store for one year more in order to ascertain whether there was any likelihood of its being used more freely by the farmers. If greater use is not made of it, the store will be closed at or before the end of the present financial year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) What is the reason for the unusual delay this year in connection with the supply of guano; (2) whether he is aware that in consequence of that delay farmers in the Western Province are being seriously hampered in their ploughing operations; and (3) whether he intends to take steps to obviate such delay in the future?

replied: (1) Owing to the unusual demand for guano late last year and early this year the stock on hand was completely exhausted. (2) The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. (3) The best method of disposing of the guano is being considered. For the information of the hon. member I may add that the guano was purchased almost entirely by farmers in the Western Province, and that as soon as it became apparent that the shocks would be exhausted, a notice was inserted in the “Government Gazette,” the “Agricultural Journal,” and 17 newspapers. Seven hundred and seventy-five tons of the new season’s crop have just arrived, and other shipments are expected very soon, but I would point out to hon. members that the consumption of this season’s crop now means that there will be a still greater deficiency next year.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what is the maximum carrying capacity of the Natal Railway between Durban and Charlestown, and what is the highest tonnage carried in any one day during the last six months over the said line?

I hope to be able to give the hon. member the information shortly, and will be glad if he will allow his question to stand over for the present.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) How many Government drills are employed within the Union; (2) where are these drills at present employed; (3) how many are employed on Government work; and (4) what are the rates charged to private employers?

replied: (1) Sixty-five. (2) Government drills are available for hire under the regulations in the following areas: (a) Transvaal (whole); (b) Cape, in the following districts: Mafeking, Vryburg, Kuruman, Hay, Herbert, Kimberley, Barkly West, Gordonia, Prieska, Kenhardt, Namaqualand, Van Rhynsdorp Calvinia, Sutherland, Fraserburg, Carnarvon, Laingsburg, and Prince Albert. (3) Twelve drills are boring for Government departments. Two drills are boring for the South African Railways. Seventeen drills are boring on Crown lands. (4) The conditions under which Government drills are hired are fully set forth in Government Notices 1,120 of 1910 and 693 of 1911. The rate charged is £4 per diem.

asked the Minister of the Interior what are the names of the persons at present employed in the Land Banks or institutions proposed to be incorporated under the Land Bank Bill, who, for the purposes of these banks or institutions, are now performing the functions of a notary public or conveyancer?

replied: In the Transvaal the functions of notary public and conveyancer to the Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank are performed by J. C. Steyn, and during his absence by J. P. Jacobs, both of whom are officers of the Land Bank. In the Orange Free State the same functions are performed by W. F. Hoptroff, the secretary to the Land and Agricultural Fund Board. In Natal, the services of an outside notary public are obtained, but the preparation of bonds is done by the manager, E. T Mullins.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether it is possible, without delay, to change the postal service between Strydenburg and Cloetesdam, in the district of Hope Town, into a weekly service?

replied: It would, of course, be possible to make such a change, but the point is whether a change would be justified, seeing that it could only be effected at considerable additional cost to the public. The existing fortnightly service is carried on at considerable loss and, in the circumstances, the Postal Administration could not reasonably be expected to make any change that would have the effect of increasing that loss.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been directed to the serious manner in which “San Jose” scale is spreading in the district and town of Standerton and, if so, whether he will state to the House what steps he intends to take to combat and eradicate this plague?

said there is no pernicious scale known in Standerton district, except in the town of Standerton and in Meyerville, which are badly infected. The Government has decided that it would not be justified in continuing the policy originally adopted of destroying infected and suspected plants in infected areas, and that the best course to adopt will be to spray suspected and infected trees during the winter which, if properly carried out, is effective and not very expensive. The Entomologist will give demonstrations in spraying at Standerton when the proper time arrives.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) Whether he still intends to introduce during the present session the Bill “to regulate the residence of natives on land in certain portions of the Union and to prohibit the unauthorised settlement of natives on any land”—which was published by him on December 6, 1911; and if not, (2) whether he will without delay make a commencement with removing to their locations natives who are contrary to law’ squatting in the Transvaal, some of whom received notice as far back as 1910; and (3) whether such a procedure was not approved of at meetings of Fieldcornets and Native Commissioners in the districts concerned?

Owing to the large amount of financial and other business before the House, which it is essential should be passed this session, it is feared there is little or no prospect of the introduction of the Bill referred to this year. (2) The Government propose to take early steps with a view to the carrying out of the existing Squatters’ Law wherever practicable, each case being dealt with on its merits. (3) Under instructions from Government, the Native Commissioners met the Field-comets and Sub-Native Commissioners during last year, for the purpose of discussing proposals for carrying out the law. Various suggestions were made, which will now be dealt with, action meanwhile having been suspended in view of the proposed legislation.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) At what price per article have contracts been entered into with Messrs. Webb and Co., London, and Messrs. Hammond and Co., Newcastle; and (2) what guarantee the Minister has that these contracts will be executed under proper supervision, and not under sweating conditions?

replied: (1) The following are the prices under the accepted tenders referred to: Messrs. Webb and Co., London.—Khaki serge: Postmen’s tunics, 7s.; postmen’s trousers, 5s. 8½d.; telegraph messengers’ tunics, 6s. 3½d.: telegraph messengers’ trousers, 5s. 2d.; telegraph messengers’ knickerbockers, 4s. 8d. Messrs. J. Hammond and Co., Newcastle.—Grey drill native suits, 7s. 8d. (2) The contracts were accepted subject to proper supervision being allowed during the process of manufacture, but it is not practicable for the Government in making such contracts to inquire into the labour conditions under which the work is carried out.

said: It is my sorrowful duty to have to inform the House that the Minister of Finance has resigned as a member of the Government. It is not necessary for me to go into the reasons which have moved my honourable friend to take this most grave and regrettable step, as I understand that he wishes to make a statement himself to the House. I only wish to give expression to my pain and sorrow at losing a colleague who has given such loyal service to the country during a most critical and strenuous period of its development, and whose place it will be so hard to fill adequately. (Cheers.) As a member of the late Transvaal Government, of the National Convention, and of the present Government, my honourable friend has rendered the most distinguished services to South Africa, and I hope he will render still further services to the country in the future. (Hear, hear.)

The resignation, coming as it does unexpectedly at the present stage of the session, will occasion some inconvenience in connection with the Parliamentary work of the Government. The Government, however, hope to do their best to avoid unnecessary delay with the work already before the House. The resignation of my honourable friend will necessitate a reconstruction of the Departments of State and a rearrangement of portfolios, but this matter will require careful consideration, and will necessarily have to remain in abeyance until the end of the session.

In the meantime the Minister of the Interior will, for the remainder of the session, be responsible for the discharge of the duties, of the Minister of Finance.

who rose amid cheers, said: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. I fully recognise. Mr. Speaker, that in view of the important and responsible position which I occupied in the Government until a day or so ago, it is my duty to the House and to the country to make an explanation of the reasons which induced me to place my resignation in the hands of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister. (Cheers.)

In the statement which I am about to submit to the House, I shall endeavour to give a simple narrative of the facts as they present themselves to me without any embellishment or comment, and I shall leave it to the House and to the country to draw their own conclusions and to form their own judgment as to whether my action was in the circumstances justified or not.

I need hardly assure the House that I am exceedingly sorry that I have been compelled to leave the Government. On all important matters except the one which led to my resignation, there has been complete harmony and agreement among the members of the Government and myself. The House will, therefore, understand that it is a very painful thing to me to sever my connection with the Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, to state the matter quite shortly and concisely, the reason why I have retired from the Government is because I do not approve of either the methods or the policy which are being pursued with regard to the Railways. (Cheers.) That is the sole and only question upon which I am in disagreement with the policy of the Government. I wish to make it clear that the point of disagreement has not arisen suddenly or for the first time now. The question has, so far as I am concerned, been a serious one for some time past, but I have always hoped that the matters to which I take objection would be altered and adjusted.

Shortly, my objections may be put under two heads:

Firstly, that the members of the Cabinet, and certainly I, as Minister of Finance, have not been consulted on important matters affecting the Railways and their administration, and which I regard as of vital importance; and

Secondly, that the provisions of the South Africa Act relating to the Railways are not being observed.

Let me refer to some of the matters, upon which I base my objections under the two heads just referred to: I have observed with growing apprehension a tendency to regard the Railway Administration as something entirely apart from the Government of the country—(hear, hear)—a disposition to treat the Railway and Harbour Administration as something for which Ministers have no collective responsibility. (Hear, hear.) This is a situation that I, as Minister of Finance, cannot acquiesce in. I take a wider view of my obligations to the House and the taxpayers at large, and hold that I should fail in my duty if I did not take a full share of responsibility for all important measures affecting the Railway Administration.

Manifestly, if owing to any error of judgment or other cause, the Administration should become unable to meet its obligations, the burden would be shifted to the shoulders of the general taxpayer. But I should be in an impossible position if I had to face the country with taxation proposals to meet deficits for which I was in no way responsible. A year ago a large programme of new railway construction was submitted to and adopted by Parliament without an adequate opportunity being given either to the members of the Government or to this House of that full examination which a programme of this magnitude deserved. However, as much of that programme had been examined prior to Union by the then separate Railway Administrations, and as a certain amount of hurry was perhaps unavoidable in the circumstances which then prevailed, the Government deferred to the inevitable and agreed to the programme without insisting upon the production of engineers’ reports and other material necessary to enable a proper estimation to be formed of the merits of the proposals. Since Union, the Railway Administration has adopted a large programme of works involving relaying, re-grading, and altering existing lines, and necessitating the expenditure of many thousands of pounds. Very large expenditure has already been and is still being incurred on these works. My objection is, that these works and expenditure should not have been embarked upon or authorised unless and until they had been submitted to the Government for approval. (Hear, hear.) I do not say that the work was not necessary. I am unable to express any opinion, as I have no facts to judge of the matter, but the principle of spending large amounts of public money without at least Treasury approval is wrong. (Hear, hear.) Again, important reductions in railway rates, amounting, I understand, to nearly £600,000, have been made since Union, but none of these reductions were submitted to the Government for approval. Further reductions involving a sum of three-quarters of a million are I believe contemplated, but neither in this case have the other members of the Government or I been consulted or given an opportunity of considering the proposals from the point of view of the general financial policy of the Government. Being most anxious to avoid a recurrence of the previous year’s experience, I have been urging upon the Hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours since September last the imperative need of submitting any proposals which he might have for any new line of railway to the Government for its consideration before such proposals were referred to the Railway Commissioners for their examination and report in terms of the South Africa Act. (Hear, hear.) I also emphasised the necessity of the Cabinet in other respects being placed in a position to discharge its responsibilities in relation to the general financial policy of the Railway Administration. I understood that all the members of the Government agreed with me as to the necessity of the matters just referred to being supplied to the Government. (Hear, hear.) In spite of repeated requests to the Railway Minister to submit his proposals for new constructions and for reduction of rates to the Cabinet, the matter was put off from week to week, and eventually at the beginning of December last it was definitely arranged that all the members of the Cabinet should meet in Cape Town on the 15th January for the express purpose of having these proposals submitted and discussed.

Although the meeting took place on the appointed date, no proposals of any kind were either submitted or discussed. In consequence of this unsatisfactory state of affairs and in view of the early assembly of Parliament, I deemed it my duty to address a letter to the Right Honourable the time Minister on the 24th January, in which I recapitulated the matters of which I complained, and urged that a radical change was necessary in the methods of the Railway Administration. In the meantime I had also discovered that the Railway Administration had authorised certain expenditure amounting to over £2,150,000 in excess of Parliamentary authority and without any reference to, or knowledge of, the other members of the Government. On Wednesday last, the 15th instant, I intimated to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister that I had decided to retire from the Government on the grounds that I had previously indicated to him and on the further ground that proposals for new railways were on the point of being submitted to Parliament without a single report from any engineer or from the Railway Commissioners having been submitted to me, or so far as I am aware to the rest of my colleagues. I was furnished for the first time on Saturday last (after notice had been given for leave to introduce the Railway Bill) with a copy of the report of the Railway Board on the projected new lines, and I believe that others of my colleagues were no better off in this respect. I observe from the first paragraph of the report that the Railway Commissioners state: “In accordance with the provisions of clause 130 of the South Africa Act, 1909 the Board has the honour to submit its recommendations with regard to the construction of the following lines of railway, upon which it has been requested by the Government to report, for the information of Parliament.” I am not aware that any such request was ever made by the Government. It was certainly never authorised at any Cabinet meeting at which I was present. These are, in brief, the circumstances under which I felt it incumbent upon me to sever my association with the Government, and I submit that there was no other course open to me. Had I remained in the Cabinet until the end of the session, as has been suggested, the effect would have been that I would have acquiesced in the perpetuation of methods and of a policy which I regard as utterly unbusinesslike, wrong in principle, and contrary to the spirit and meaning of the South Africa Act. (Cheers.) There is one other word I would like to say in reply to the very generous words of my hon. friend. I realise, of course, that I have considerably embarrassed my colleagues in leaving them, but I want to assure them that except with regard to railway matters I am willing to give them all the assistance in my power—(general cheers)—to carry such measures that came under my charge, such as the Estates Duties Bill, the Land Bank Bill, and other measures. (General cheers.)

I need hardly say that I regret exceedingly the situation that has arisen, and that I am held responsible for bringing about this unpleasantness and putting my colleagues into a position which cannot be very agreeable. Now, I would refer to as few matters as possible. With regard to the statement of my hon. friend, I was not aware what he was going to say this afternoon. If I had I would have been able to show that in several respects there are some serious errors of fact. I would like, first of all, to refer to the spending of £2,100,000 without the authority of Parliatment. I may say —I don’t want to introduce anything controversial or say anything in order to give unpleasantness—that I was no more aware of the expenditure of this £2,000,000 than any other member of the Cabinet. All members of the Public Accounts Committee know that it was owing to an error by the Accounting Department that that expenditure was incurred. Now I will give the facts in connection with the question of the reduction of railway rates. As a matter of fact, I informed the Cabinet that it was intended to make a reduction of railway rates to the amount of £470,000. It was only after a rather animated discussion—I do not want to give away Cabinet secrets—that it was agreed to reduce the rates. That is a matter of a year ago, and fault has been found with me because in the reduction the largest portion happened to fall to the Cape, but I did it because I wanted to equalise railway rates all over the country. (Cheers.) Now there are only two other matters I want to refer to. The hon. member has referred to the question of the railway programme submitted last year, and says it was submitted late in the session, and that neither the Cabinet nor Parliament had ample opportunity to consider it. All I can say is, that the programme was submitted to the Cabinet, and accepted by the Cabinet. There was not a single member who objected. It is true it was put before Parliament somewhat late, but I have explained that owing to peculiar circumstances it was absolutely impossible to produce it earlier. To-day is the first time I have heard of any exception so far as my attitude was concerned in producing it late. With regard to the present programme, it was discussed whether there should be railway construction or not, and the hon. gentleman is in error, I am sure unconsciously, when he says we were to discuss it immediately on arrival in Cape Town. The question of submitting a railway programme is not an easy matter. The question did arise in the Cabinet—I am sorry I have to refer to it—as to whether there should be an additional railway construction programme for the present session. And when it was decided, instructions were given by me, on behalf of the Government, that certain lines should be surveyed, and I intimated to my colleagues that if any of them wished to suggest any lines to be surveyed with a view to considering whether they should be part of the programme, I should be very glad to have suggestions and to give instructions accordingly. Some did make suggestions—all the world knew these surveys were going on. Some did suggest lines, and eventually when the Board returned with their reports, a programme was submitted by me six weeks ago—the present programme—in which every line in the programme was accepted by the Cabinet, except one additional which was suggested by the Prime Minister to be considered with a view of it forming part of the programme. Delay was then occasioned, the Board was instructed to inspect the line, and so soon as the Board had reported in regard to it the line was also submitted and the Cabinet approved—as far as I know the whole Cabinet approved—of the programme which is now submitted to the House. Now, sir, I am very sorry that there is any difference at all, but I think it right that these facts should be known. I confess I do not quite know what the implication is as to not carrying out the provisions of the South Africa Act. Let me say this, I presume it is in regard to rates. I have reduced no rate except the mealie rate without discussing this matter with my colleagues. When most of my colleagues were absent from Pretoria I reduced the mealie rate, and I mentioned it to those there. (Opposition laughter.) But of every other railway rate reduction the Cabinet was informed. Ever since the formation of the Government I have, as all my colleagues have, been very anxious that the provisions of the South Africa Act should be given effect to so far as reduction of railway rates is concerned. The only reason why we have not been able to do that more was that whatever balances there were, were appropriated, as provided in the South Africa Act, towards meeting deficiencies on general revenue. That is the only reason. I have urged as far as I could that we should as soon as possible cease taking revenue from the railways for general purposes so that we could apply it as provided for by the South Africa Act, but the necessities of the Treasury were such that they took this money from me year after year, and this year is the very first year—and I can say even as regards this year that I was asked to contribute at first a very much larger sum than I am giving here, but because I used what influence I have to reduce the amount taken towards general revenue, I was this year able to have a larger amount to apply to the reduction of rates—and this is the very first year the Railway is free to apply generally revenue towards the reduction of rates. It is hardly necessary to say how much the Treasury has taken; in the two years and ten months, including the present year, the Treasury has taken £5,179,000 from railway revenue towards general revenue. As soon as I was free to do so, I gave effect to the South Africa Act. The result is, that during the present year a reduction of £750,000 will be made. In regard to the reduction we are about to make, the Board and myself have been busy for the last ten or twelve days elaborating a scheme, and I have told my colleagues that as soon as the Board has its proposals ready I shall submit them to the Cabinet before announcing in Parliament what reductions are to be made. It is no easy matter to alter rates, and to know exactly how they should apply. It is my intention to submit it to the Cabinet, and as soon as it has had the approval of the Cabinet, to inform Parliament what will be done.

There is only one other matter: relaying and regrading. With regard to that, all the money required for that is submitted to Parliament—(hear, hear)—and then voted. I do not say it is intended to be insinuated that this was done by me in secrecy, without the knowledge of anybody —it has always been submitted to Parliament, and Parliament has voted it. I have heard a good deal said in the Lobbies and elsewhere about the unusually large amounts for relaying and regrading. I am continually told that most of it is to go to the Cape Province, the same as was said in regard to the reduction of rates. But why has there been considerable relaying and regrading? It was because of the policy begun in the Transvaal and in the Cape prior to Union, that we should take out light rails on main lines when constructing and substitute heavy rails. (Hear, hear, and “Quite right.”) If there has been one police that is it. That is the secret of the whole question of this relaying. It might be, and possibly it is, that we are relaying somewhat more in the Cape Province than elsewhere, but the obvious reason is that in the Cape we have got much longer main lines. And I have not pursued a provincial policy, but acted as a Minister of the Union and endeavoured to carry on railway policy for the good of the whole Union and not on provincial lines. The position of Minister of Railways is extremely difficult as things stand at present. On the one hand there is the Board, which is very jealous, and properly jealous, of its rights. On the other hand, there is the Government, which is anxious that it should be consulted at all stages, and it is very difficult at times to carry out your functions and duties, giving satisfaction all round.

The fact is, to be perfectly candid, perhaps all of us in the Cabinet have carried on our business in more or less of the watertight compartment system. (Opposition cheers.) Let us be perfectly candid, it is not confined to the Railways, but extends to every other department. Let me say this, if the Railways and other departments are to work in harmony, with which I quite agree, then the Treasury must be reciprocal but I know just as little of my hon. friend’s affairs as he says he knows of mine. Although in every case it would be an exaggeration to say we did not know, as in the main we did know the position more or less. And I only want to say in conclusion that the impression conveyed that I carried on proceedings in a high-handed manner, disregarding my colleagues, is not correct, and in the two particular cases referred to—the two programmes—both were submitted to the Cabinet and both were approved of by the Cabinet, and I was not I aware of this strong feeling on this question until quite recently.

What about the report of the Railway Board?

As regards the report, I am very glad I am interrupted. When the last programme was submitted there were particulars of the lines; there was the mileage and the cost, and I said to my colleagues “I have not got the report, the Board had taken some considerable time,” but I told the Cabinet what the report of the Board was. I had given each the mileage and the cost, and said in this particular case the Board had approved and sanctioned it, and that I agreed with the report of the Board. As soon as I got the report from the Board I handed it in, and I confess it seems to me that with the information, with the knowledge that the Board approved of it, I thought that the rest would be a matter for the Minister of Railways to deal with. And if I had been asked, or if it had been suggested to me, that I should delay the railway programme in respect of which exception is now taken for a week or a fortnight, until the report was ready, until further consideration had been given, I would readily have done so. But I was not asked—it was never suggested. I am accused of being arbitrary—a false accusation—I am always ready to meet my colleagues as far as possible and give them all information it is in my power to give, and I gave both Mr. Hoy and Mr. Robb instructions long ago that any information asked for by the Treasury on financial and other matters was to be supplied in full. Well, I say information could have been asked for, and, if it had been asked for, it would have been given. Nothing to me is more painful than to have any difference with colleagues. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that any difference on political grounds will end here. But I have endeavoured to give this House an absolutely correct account as to the actual facts of the case. We might have communicated more with one another. In conclusion, I express my regret again at what has happened, and now I only want to thank the House for having listened to the statement I have had to make.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill relating to immigrants under contract to work for an employer within the Union.

seconded.

Agreed to.

thereupon brought up the Contract Immigrants Bill, and moved that the Bill be now read a first time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time, and put down for second reading to-morrow.

moved that the petition from the Rev. P. J. Pienaar and 240 others, inhabitants of Ventersburg, Kroonstad, and Hoopstad, Orange Free State, praying that Ventersburg, together with certain portions of Kroonstad and Hoopstad (specified in the petition) be declared a fiscal division, presented to the House on the 15th April, 1912, be referred to the Government for consideration.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the petition from H. J. Steyn, praying that the patent for a cancer remedy granted to him by the Government of the late Colony of the Cape of Good Hope be extended, together with all other supporting petitions, and the petitions praying that the said H. J. Steyn be allowed to practice as a medical practitioner from inhabitants in the Union, presented to the House on the 7th, 8th, 10th, 14th and 15th May, 11912, be referred to the Government for consideration. The mover explained that Mr. Steyn had practice d for fourteen years under an authority given him by the Colonial Government, and had helped hundreds of persons who suffered from cancer. He hoped the present Government would extend that authority.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the petitions from A. R. Robertson and 40,677 others, and from B. G. Badenhorst and 13,509 others, citizens on the Witwatersrand, directing attention to the prevalence of native crime, more especially of outrages on women and children, and praying the House to consider the desirability of increasing police protection; of establishing compounds for the natives and their women; and of establishing training schools for white and coloured female domestic servants, presented to the House on the 7th May, 1912, and the 15th May, 191)2, respectively, be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for inquiry and report.

seconded.

said that the hon. member was aware that the Government had intimated to the House its intention to appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole of this matter, and he thought it would be much better that the petition should go to that Commission. If the hon. member would amend his motion so as to refer the petition to the Government for consideration, he would see that it was laid before the Commission.

moved as an amendment to omit in the last line “Select Committee on Native Affairs for inquiry and report,” and to substitute “Government for consideration.”

seconded the amendment.

Agreed to.

‘The motion as amended was agreed to.

moved that the petition from Eva Vollenhoven, presented to the House on the 14th May, 1912, praying that her husband, Cornelius Vollenhoven, at present detained on Robben Island as a leper, may be allowed to return to his home, be referred to the Government for consideration. The mover said that Vollenhoven was an old man, and he hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration and thoroughly investigate his condition. If it were found that he was afflicted with leprosy, then the hon. member suggested that a larger amount be paid to his wife for her support.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to

for the Minister of Lands, moved that the House go into committee on the following: This committee concurs in the purchase by the Government of the following farms for the purpose of a site for an Agricultural College near Bloemfontein, viz.: (1) The farm “Cypress,” No. 89, situate in the district of Bloemfontein, in extent 1,323 morgen 498 square roods, from Pieter Jacobus Pretorius, for the sum of £13,238 sterling; and (2) the farm “Klipfontein,” No. 240, situate in the district of Bloemfontein, in extent 661 morgen 549 square roods, from Jan Gysbert Pretorius, for the sum of £6,619 sterling.

seconded.

said it would have been advisable in the first place to have referred this matter to a small Select Committee.

The motion was agreed to.

explained that the purchase of these farms was rendered necessary on account of the establishment of an Agricultural College in the Orange Free State. The original farm purchased, “Tweespruit,” was found to be good for stock but unsuitable for experimental purposes. Because of this, the Government were advised to purchase a suitable site, and after various farms had been examined, it was found that, under all the circumstances, it was best to purchase the farms for the purpose desired. The advantage of having these farms lay in the fact that the site was near Bloemfontein and people would be able to consult the Agricultural Department located at the college as well. Although the price seemed high, the Government thought it best to pay it, rather than risk paying a smaller price for a site that might not be suitable. He moved that the committee concur in the purchases above referred to.

said in expressing the hope that the committee would pass this, he would like to give a few observations upon the general question. He was sorry, however, that the Government could not get a site near Bloemfontein, but the reason was that the owners of farms would not sell. So far as the price of £10 a morgen was concerned, that seemed an excessive price, because land in the neighbourhood did not cost more than half that, but the question was that farmers would not sell unless at the price they wanted. He was sorry, however, that it was the intention of the Government to abolish the experimental station at Groot Vlei, which had been a Government farm as long as he could remember. Money spent upon Government experimental stations like this was not wasted.

raised the question as to whether the Government intended to establish other agricultural schools in the other Provinces.

said the Cape had two agricultural schools—one at Eisenberg and one at Grootfontein. The Transvaal had one at Potcheftroom, and Natal one at Cedar. The Free State, however, had no such school. The Crown Colony Government put up an experimental station at Tweespruit, but it was unsuitably situated and too cold for the purpose required. The present Government then tried to get suitable farms, but most of those offered were too dear, and £12 10s. per morgen was usually asked. For Bishop’s Glen, which appeared to be the most suitable place, they were even asked to pay £13, and as there were other difficulties as well, the negotiations in respect of that farm were allowed to fall through. The Government now recommended the farms mentioned in the motion. They were in the neighbourhood of Bloemfontein, and thus easily accessible both for students and teachers.

said that the procedure which the Minister was adopting was a most unusual one. He asked the House to vote £20,000 for the purchase of land—not for the establishment of an agricultural school, but for the establishment of an agricultural college. The motion read: “The committee concurs in the purchase of the following farms for the purposes of an agricultural college near Bloemfontein.”

That is wrong.

said that he would tell the Prime Minister that that mistake could not have occurred if he had taken the proper steps and placed the departmental reports and the expert reports on the table as to the suitability of this property for the establishment of an agricultural school, for the House would have been in full possession of the facts. The usual procedure in a matter of this sort was to refer the matter to a Select Committee. That was done when the question of establishing an agricultural college in the Eastern Province came to be considered. There was another thing that the Prime Minister had not referred to. They were not alone asked to spend £20,000 for the establishment of an agricultural college. Surely the businesslike way would have been to place before the House statements as to what the cost of equipping the college was. He was not going to cavil at the expenditure of £20,000 for the purchase of land for the establishment of an agricultural school, but he wanted to be certain that this was the best place. He had got rid of the provincial idea. All he wanted to know was that sufficient of these schools would be established throughout the Union to meet the requirements of the rising generation, who were prepared to engage in agricultural pursuits and who would be taught those pursuits in suitable institution on a scientific and practical basis. He did not wish to oppose this motion, but he considered that it was not treating the committee fairly not to place the whole of the facts before them as to the suitability of the land, the reports not alone as to the cost of the land, but also as to the proposals in regard to the cost of equipping this school, the staff to be got, and the yearly expenditure which the House would be required to vote. He had had no opportunity of knowing whether £10 per morgen was a reasonable price. He was not opposed to the establishment of an agricultural school in the Free State, but he did say that they ought to be assured that it was on the best site and that it would be thoroughly and properly equipped.

said the last speaker was quite wrong. Money had already been voted for an agricultural school at Tweespruit, but that place was not suitable for an agricultural school. Then there were Bestersput and Grootvlei, two farms in the possession of the Government, but both were unsuitable. Grootvlei was far from the railway and was dry. Then the Government commissioned Mr. Holms, of Potchefstroom, to make a report, who did so in favour of Bishop’s Glen and one of the farms now recommended. Bishop’s Glen was not obtainable, and the Director of Agriculture, being asked for his advice, gave it in favour of the two farms now proposed to be bought. Both farms had plenty of water, they were close to the town, and there were several buildings erected on them.

said they had no evidence that the ground was worth the money it was proposed to spend upon it. When did these farms change hands last and what price was paid? At what price had other farms in the vicinity been sold? No man would deal with his money as they were asked to deal with Government money that afternoon. If the Land Bank was going to transact business in this way then he was afraid they would be disappointed with the institution. Such things as this had a bad and mischievous effect on the country, the finances of the country, and ground in that part of the country by setting up an artificial value. He did not think they would be justified in spending this large sum of money unless they had full and detailed evidence before them. Would the Minister tell him if this land could be rented at 6 per cent., and that a man could make an income out of it?

said since the last speaker had left the Free State the value of land there had risen tremendously, and he congratulated the Government on getting the land at this price. The farms in question were most suitable for an agricultural school.

said he understood the Prime Minister to say that he was bound by the old Free State resolution?

No, I said that the Free State supplied the money.

said they had no reports to show that other farms had been considered by the Government. They had simply a general statement of the position to go upon. The Prime Minister had stated that he wished the College established near the railway, so that people could visit the place and obtain information, seeing that the Agricultural Department at Bloemfontein had been abolished. That was one of the suggestions of the somewhat dubious Civil Service Commission that the Agricultural Colleges and schools should be local Agricultural Departments in the Union. He did not want to be a party to agreeing to such a proposition at all. He hoped the Prime Minister would reconsider his decision as to the Agricultural Colleges being made places where the public could go to get information on agricultural matters.

said the hon. member for Barkly had proved himself to be a stranger to the Free State, and the hon. member for Bloemfontein also appeared to be a stranger in his own part of the country. The price was not too high, as such farms never came on to the market. The most inferior farm in the Bloemfontein district had recently been sold for £5 5s. 6d. per morgen, while on January 22 a dry farm, at a distance of seven miles from the farms mentioned, was withdrawn from auction at £7 per morgen.

asked whether they could not have a valuation of the land laid on the table? If hon. members were spending their own moneys they would take care to have proper valuations made. Every week he saw dozens of valuations of land from all over the Free State, but he had never seen anything approaching this valuation, and the valuations he saw were not low ones, because they were made by those applying for loans. The highest he ever saw was £5 a morgen in the Bethlehem district, and £5 to £6 a morgen in the Ladybrand district, but he had never seen anything in the Bloemfontein district approaching the price that Government proposed to pay. The average valuation was £3 per morgen.

said it was satisfactory to hear the opinions of private members as to the valuation of the land, but there was no responsibility attaching to that, and the committee ought to have some idea as to what the real value was. Then the Minister had not told them what the nature of the land was, what was on it, or what it had been used for. At the price proposed to be paid, the very first charge would be £1,000 a year. What was to be the size of the school, and what was to be the number of the pupils? He thought they were making the education of farmers unnecessarily expensive. When people were working with Government money, there was a tendency to inculcate rather extravagant ideas in young farmers. Government schemes were more fitted for men who had what were called “cheque book farms.” He was glad the place was to be called a school and not a college, but he would like to have the difference between the two explained. Unfortunately, if one voted against the proposal, one would be supposed to be voting against the establishment of an Agricultural School, but it was very difficult to vote on a thing like this without any information whatever beyond a bare short statement by the Minister and the opinions of individual members.

said the Government had sent Mr. Holms to examine the farms that were offered. The Government had set its eye on Bishop’s Glen, but the price asked was £12 10s. per morgen. The Minister of Lands also wanted the river lands, but the owner refused to sell. The Government then offered to pay £10 per morgen, but that also was refused. The farm belonging to Mr. Pretorius was afterwards examined, a very suitable place, close to the railway and in the neighbourhood of the town, and it had its own water. The river nan right through it. There were four dwelling-houses on the farm, a dam, and three windmills, and the farm was suitable for both large and small cattle. By drawing water from the river a large portion of the ground could foe irrigated. The Government had also caused other farms to be examined, amongst others Welgevonden, but there also £10 was asked, and the farm was not so suitable as that of Mr. Pretorius. South of Bloemfontein there was another farm, which, however, was 9,667 morgen in extent. It was situated on the railway, and the price asked was £7 per morgen. But the Government did not want so much ground as that, 2,000 morgen being more than sufficient. But for 2,000 morgen the owner wanted £10 per morgen. It was very important to get a farm that was on the railway and in the neighbourhood of Bloemfontein. If they went further away from the railway they could buy at £3 to £6. There were also the two farms Spits-kop and Griegfontein, both of which were offered at £10 per morgen. The Government therefore concluded that for the two farms proposed in the motion £10 was not too high, in view of all the facts and of their general suitability for what the Government wanted them for.

said that surely the reports ought to be laid on the table. He did not want to oppose this, because if it were really a suitable site he was prepared to support it. What he thought ought to be done was that they should report progress and ask leave to sit again, and, in the meantime, the papers could be laid upon the table and members could then have an opportunity of consulting them.

said he was quite prepared to accept the motion to report progress. If the members wanted all the details he would lay them on the table. He would move to report progress.

Progress was reported and leave granted to sit again on Thursday.

referring to Mr. M. Alexander’s amendment, said that under the existing circumstances they were entitled to their pensions.

said that no distinction was to be made by the Minister between the case of a man who was found guilty, say, of theft, and one who was found guilty of a minor offence, such as coming late. It was out of all reason that a man should have all his pension rights swept away if he committed a minor offence, even if he had twenty-five years’ service.

said that he was unable to put the proviso which had been moved by Mr. Alexander, as its adoption would involve expenditure.

said that, in face of the Chairman’s ruling, he could not accept the proviso.

moved that the chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the decision given by the Chairman, and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

The House resumed.

stated the point which had arisen in committee, and that the committee desired to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling thereon, and that he had accordingly been ordered’ to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

asked the hon. member to state the grounds upon which he claimed that the proviso did not increase expenditure.

submitted that there was no increased expenditure involved by his amendment. He simply sought to maintain a man’s pension rights.

said that if the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had felt that he was right he would not have moved this amendment. The very fact of his moving the amendment was to get something which the police did not at present enjoy. The position was this, that if a member of the police force did something for which he was discharged, his pension, for instance, would not go with him, but would immediately cease. The hon. member wanted to secure something more tor the police, in the form of compensation, than they were at present entitled to.

submitted that the proviso did not ask for any increased monetary advantage.

said that the position seemed to him to be very much on the same footing as a Parliamentary allowance. Suppose the Act stated that they were to lose their allowance if they were absent one day, and the committee proposed to put in a clause that they should only lose their allowance if they were absent three days, there would, he submitted, be no increase of expenditure.

said it appeared to him that, if a man had not committed an offence, the money was already provided for which he would receive his pension, but if he committed a certain offence that money was not used to pay his pension, but was returned to the fund.

said that this proviso went very much further than they went in other branches of the service. It all depended on the offence as to whether a man was dismissed, and they had recently had a case where a man was dismissed, and he came by petition to Parliament to ask for consideration of his case.

said that in this Bill, under the clause they had already passed, they spoke of a man who was fined for the breach of any regulation. It seemed to him that the rights of a man ought to be more safeguarded than they were in the clause.

said that what was brought home to him was the extraordinary awkward position some of them were placed in if this were to be the principle. On another Bill in Select Committee they proposed removing certain offences from the classes for which a man was liable to deduction of pay. They could not do that, unless they had the authority of the Governor-General to introduce a money clause. They prevented men’s contributions from being confiscated.

said if the Minister’s contention were correct and the interpretation of the amendment meant increased expenditure, then the Minister was claiming greater power for himself than the House may think.

If the proviso proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, were adopted, the persons affected would get greater rights than they possessed today and greater rights than were contemplated under this Bill. As a consequence a greater burden may be placed upon the consolidated revenue, and that being so, I agree with the ruling of the Chairman that such a provision, if put into operation, as no doubt it will, would impose increased expenditure. I think, therefore, that the Chairman is correct in ruling that the proviso cannot be considered by the committee.

Mr. Speaker left the chair, and the House resumed in committee.

stated to the committee Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

asked the Minister if he had considered the amendment he (Mr. Struben) put yesterday, which he thought was very important. Those things never got beyond a certain point, and he had a case in mind, though he would not burden the House with details, of a man who was suffering to-day under a grave injustice because the matter did not come to the notice of the Minister. The approval of the Minister should first be obtained before a man could be reduced, discharged, or dismissed.

said it seemed to him to be contradictory to put him in the position of first having to give his approval to a sentence and then, after the sentence had been given, to make himself into a Court of Appeal. It was simply in order that in case a man did appeal to the Minister that Minister should be in an impartial position that he had the words “with the approval of the Minister of Justice” struck out. The judgment of the Minister would be warped by the ex parte manner in which the case had been brought to his notice, while he would have already given his approval and would find himself more or less hampered in any tendency to reverse his previous decision.

said the point was that in the Minister’s own section 18 a man who got discharged might appeal to the Minister; it did not matter whether the man appealed or not, the matter must come before the Minister for his approval before the order took effect, and now the Minister was allowing that proviso to go.

said that the Minister’s objection was that having considered a case in the first instance he could not sit as a Court of Appeal. If it was applying to the ordinary lay mind there would be a great deal in the argument, but to his (the Minister’s) judicial mind anything ex parte would be forgotten, and the case would be weighed in the balance as it was then presented.

The first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander, in line 35, to insert “found” and the amendment proposed by Mr. Nathan were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Struben was negatived.

On clause 19, No member of the force shall, without the permission of an officer of or above the rank of inspector, sell, pledge, lend, or otherwise dispose of any animal, saddle, bridle, gun, clothing, ammunition, or other article of equipment which, by the regulations, he is required to keep and possess, and every sale, pledge, loan, or other disposition of any of those articles shall be null and void.

asked what was the meaning of allowing members of the police force, even with the permission of an inspector, to pledge their guns, ammunition, or horses? He thought the object of a police force was to have guns, ammunition, and horses.

If the hon. member knew something more about the police force—(Hear, hear.) The men had their own horses. It was private property.

said he had never heard of a police force that supplied its own guns and ammunition. How could the inspector give a man the permission to sell his gun and ammunition?

I don’t propose that.

moved the insertion of the words “which are his own property” after the words “any saddle, animal or bridle.”

said they were told that police officers were supplied with their uniforms.

In the future.

Isn’t it the case now?

Not in all cases.

said it would be a pernicious practice to continue. Continuing, he said that sometimes stuff became obsolete and had to be sold and somebody had to be authorised to sell the stuff.

said he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. Surely the hon. member for Springs did not mean that every constable could sell Government property.

With permission.

The hon. member for Springs could not have read the clause or he would not talk in that way. It would be a vicious principle to continue. He moved the insertion of the words “a commissioned officer” in place of “an officer of or above the rank of inspector.”

said he was surprised at the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. He seemed to exercise his ingenuity in starting a hare. He was surprised at his hon. friend starting a hare—

A March hare.

I am surprised at him starting a hare of this character. Continuing, he said his hon. friend knew that there were certain circumstances under which a man could sell stuff and the Government would lose. They must provide in this direction in order to protect the property of the Government. A man could only sell with the permission of a specified officer and only in such an instance could the Government fail to recover its property.

said he had done his level best to follow the Minister of Justice, and he supposed that it was his (Sir Henry’s) fault that he could not follow the Minister. They did not want members to sell their guns or ammunition, and no authority should be given for the sale of Government property. Therefore the clause should be divided into three: first, with the permission of the inspector, no member of the corps might lend his gun or ammunition; second, with the permission of the inspector any member of the corps might dispose of his own property; and, third, with or without permission, no member should be entitled to dispose of any Government property. He proposed as an amendment to omit after the “rank of inspector” all the words down to “possess” and to substitute. “lend any animal, saddle, bridle, gun, clothing, ammunition, or other article of equipment which, by the regulations, he is required to keep and possess, and no member of such force shall without the permission of such an officer sell, pledge or otherwise dispose of, any such article which is his own property, and no member of such force shall sell, pledge or otherwise dispose of any such article the property of the Government”; and in line 49, before “every” to insert “save as aforesaid.”

accepted the amendment.

suggested that if the clause were permitted to stand down, and be given to a Third Standard schoolgirl to parse, she would say that the clause meant “no member of the force shall dispose of any animal, etc., which he is required to keep and possess.”

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander in line 45 was negatived.

The amendment proposed by Sir Henry Juta was agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander in line 49 was withdrawn.

On clause 27,

moved, in line 62, to omit all the words after “warrant,” to “as” in line 65, and to substitute “containing the signature of the person reputed to be”.

Agreed to.

On clause 29, Payment of special constables,

asked the Minister of Justice if he took to himself powers to insist that any individual should become a special constable?

No.

moved, the following amendments: In line 1, after “Minister or,” to insert “subject to the approval of the Minister”: and in line 5, after “occurrence,” to insert “or whenever it is necessary in connection with the arrest, detention, or transport of persons liable to detention in custody.”

The amendments were agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved in lines 1 to 3 to omit “become inapplicable and which may be repealed by the Governor-General,” and to substitute “cease to apply in the circumstances described in that section.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 4,

moved, in line 37, after “incorporation,” to omit all the words to the end of sub-section (c), and that the following be a new sub-section, to follow sub-section (c), viz.: (d) “If any member of such police force or portion of the police force refuse to accept such conditions, then (i.) if he is serving under contract for a specified period he shall serve as a member of the South African Police until the expiry of that period, but subject to the conditions of the contract; (ii.) if he is not so serving, he shall serve as a member of the South African Police until the expiry of three months from the date of the notice of retirement given to him but subject to the conditions applicable to him before the incorporation. ‘In either such case the said member shall not receive any gratuity or annuity unless under the pension law applicable to him he has at the date of his retirement, become entitled thereto by reason of age and length of service.

said it was rather difficult to follow the amendment, and he would like to have some assurance from the Minister that this would not diminish the rights and privileges of the men.

No. It does not deprive them of a single right.

said when he proposed his amendment upon this clause he was under a misapprehension. He thought if a man had served a definite period and refused to accept the new conditions, he should be allowed to retire on superannuation. He understood now that it was not the intention to allow any pension or gratuities unless a man was entitled to them. Therefore his amendment fell through.

said there was a number of men who were under 50 years of age and who had been in the service for 20 years and over. Here they were forcing new conditions upon men, and surely they ought to be considered. He knew a lot of cases which would be affected by this.

said he did not quite see the hon. member’s point. So far as concerned the majority of these men, it would be to their detriment, because for £40. £50, or £60 they would be surrendering the big rights they would enjoy afterwards.

asked whether policemen aged 45 now in service would be allowed to remain in the service?

repeated that the men continuing the contract would continue under the old conditions of the contract until the expiry of such contract.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan was withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by the Minis term of Justice were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Struben was negatived.

moved that the Bill be reported with amendments.

said that he would ask the Minister to consider the point as to the present position of the police in the Cape Colony. They were subject to the Governor-General. What he wanted to know was whether, under this Bill, those men would be in any worse position.

said that he would consider the point, and give the hon. member an answer at a later stage.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Thursday.

moved in sub-section (2), line 17 after “mortgage,” to insert the following proviso: “Provided that when any payments made under this sub-section amount to a sum not less wan £100 sterling the same may, at the desire of the mortgagor, be applied in reduction of the principal, in which case a pro rata reduction shall be made either in the number of future payments or in the amount of such payments.” He said that they were in the unfortunate position of having to open negotiations with a new party. He thought the late Minister of Finance was prepared to accept the amendment. He considered, however, that the justice of the amendment would readily be seen. He thought the Acting Minister of Finance would see the fairness of not taking five per cent. from a man when they were only giving him three.

said that the late Minister of Finance, it seemed to him, had an amendment on the paper which would meet the case even better than that moved by the hon. member for Barkly.

said that he was prepared to move the amendment of the late Minister, which appeared on the paper, but with certain modifications. He moved, in line 64, to omit all the words from and including “All such payments” to “mortgage,” in line 71, and to substitute the following: “All such payments shall as from the date when the next half-yearly instalment falls due be credited with interest at the same rate-as the rate payable by the mortgagor in respect of the advance, until such payments and interest thereon are equal to the amount due to the bank. Thereupon such payments and interest shall be set off against that amount, and the mortgagor shall, on payment of the prescribed fees, be entitled to a discharge of the mortgage.”

said that in sub-section (1) there was a provision made that no rebate of interest would be allowed in respect of any repayment made during the first five years after the advance was authorised. That practically meant that no borrower would repay any portion of the loan during the first five years, and he wished to place it in the power of the borrower to repay at any time. Surely the object of lending a man money was for the convenience of that man, and if he was in a position to repay in less than five years why should he not repay? He would move, therefore, in lines 52 and 53, to omit the words “during the first five years after the advance was authorised” and to strike out the word “no” before “rebate,” in line 57. The clause would then read very much in favour of the class of people whom they were desirous of helping. That was to say, that they could at any time repay the money, and they would be credited with interest at the same rate as under the bond. If the Minister agreed in regard to the first portion of the clause, the second portion would necessarily fall to the ground, for the second portion said “after the expiration of five years.” He would move the deletion of the words from “after,” in line 59, down to the word “pounds,” and then in line 65 to insert before “rate” the word “same”, to read, “at the same rate,” and in the same line to omit after “rate” “three per cent. per annum” and to substitute “as is chargeable under the bond.” The effect of the whole of the amendments, continued Mr. Nathan, was that the mortgagor might at any time pay back the money and thereby save himself the interest and he would receive interest at the same rate as was charged him. He hoped the Minister would consider the amendments that had been moved.

said that as the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly had been accepted, there was no reason for the amendment of his hon. friend.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

withdrew his amendments.

supported the amendment of the Minister of the Interior, which, he said, did away with a very great grievance.

moved the omission of the following words: “No rebate of interest shall be allowed in respect of such repayment,” and the insertion of the following: “He shall at the same time pay interest accrued on any such sum or sums up to the date of repayment.”

suggested that they should follow the Australian precedent.

The amendments of the Minister of the Interior and Mr. Neser were carried, and that of Dr. Watkins was negatived.

New clause 26,

moved that the following be a new clause: “26. (1) In lieu of making any such advance for a period of 30 years as is subject to the provisions of sections 24 and 25, the Board may grant a cash credit not to exceed the sum of one thousand pounds to any one farmer at any one time. Such farmer may from time to time draw against such credit such advances as he may require, and may from time to time make repayments on account of such advances, provided that the amount owing by him to the bank and outstanding at any one time shall not exceed the amount of such credit. Such farmer shall pay interest to the bank at the rate of five per cent. on the daily balance of the amount outstanding. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law, the drawing of the whole or any part of such advance after the repayment of the whole or any part thereof, shall not be deemed to constitute a novation of the debt so long as the bond securing the advance remains uncancelled. Any bond to secure an advance under this section shall be in the form prescribed by the Board, and any such advance shall, together with the interest thereon, be repaid within five years from the date of the advance. (3) Save as in this section is specially provided, an advance, made under this section shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act relating to advances upon first mortgage of immovable property.” The mover urged that it would be useful if a farmer could from time to time draw small sums as he required the money. This would considerably increase the usefulness of the Bill. He spoke strongly in favour of the open-credit system being introduced into the Bill.

said it would be a pity if a clause of that kind were rejected hurriedly. It would really be a valuable thing to have the open credit system adopted. There would be no risk to the bank, and the advantage to the farmer would be enormous. He said he would be sorry to see the principle rejected in a hurry.

said he was sorry to have to sound a discordant note. If the Government were going to give a farmer the privilege of a current account, why should not the same facilities be given to a townsman who owned town property? It was not the intention of the measure to interfere with other institutions, and, in his opinion, it was a wrong principle for the Government to start as a banking institution.

said that the greatest drawback the farmer had to meet was the sacrifice of his stock and produce, simply for the want of a little financial assistance. The difference between the townsman and the farmer was very great.

said it seemed to him the new clause would constitute a danger to the bank, especially as applications might come in for thousands of pounds. If applications were received for all the money, then no one else could be helped, and this would defeat the objects of the bank. Thousands of pounds might be lying in the bank without drawing interest.

said the officials of the bank would be sensible enough not to grant such large amounts under these conditions. Every bank in South Africa, he held, would be prepared to give credit to people in these circumstances. He trusted the hon. member for Ficksburg would not allow his imagination to run away with him.

agreed with the amendment, although it might slightly increase the interest charged by the bank.

said that in dealing with the argument of the hon. member for Ficksburg, the bank would have to keep approximately £800,000 lying idle. Then it was said the Government might deal to the extent of twelve millions. They had no right to do that because it would be entering into a speculation. The clause was drawn up with the object of helping the farmers, but he would show how it did not help. The bead office would be at Pretoria; how would that help farmers living in Clanwilliam or Somerset Strand; how were they going to draw £5 or £10? It would not benefit the people whom the bank was intended to benefit, and it was not the business originally contemplated. It was banking, pure and simple, and large sums of money would be lying idle. He was strongly opposed to the clause.

also feared that if this amendment were accepted they would be starting an ordinary banking institution.

shared the objections of the hon. member for Ficksburg. The new clause would mean more officials and more expense, and therefore a higher interest would be required.

thought the clause was covered by the previous clause. He would also like to point out that they were putting it on a 5 per cent. basis, and here they had a daily balance, and he did not know whether his hon. friend knew what a daily balance meant. The interest had to be worked out every morning, which was going to lead to an enormous amount of work. He was afraid that the Minister would find that the machinery was not sufficient to do the work. Again, they could not have branches of that institution in every village as other banks had.

strongly supported the amendment, which would make the Bill, he said, very popular. The position of a farmer was that he had usually no banking account, and yet he often wanted small amounts at short notice, and this the amendment would provide for.

said that he hoped that the committee would agree to that amendment, and he felt that it would be a very useful clause, but the only objection he had was that the rate of interest should not be the same in that case, but higher, and he would move that the rate be 6 per cent., instead of 5.

May I point out to my hon. friend that you can get an overdraft at the bank now at 6 per cent. with the security you propose? If you give security on first mortgage, or two good securities, you can get money at 6 per cent. Continuing, he said that as to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had said, the object of that clause was that they were going by that clause to encourage people to borrow a lump sum of money up to the top hole of their credit, and when a man was not accustomed to have a thousand pounds, got that in the bank, he was not going to spend it all at once on improvements, but took it out in small portions, and the money, as the old saying went, was burning a hole in his pocket. (Laughter.) That institution was making a profit on 5 per cent., which was, of course, less interest than the Government paid or extracted from the bank.

said that their experience in that country was that a man who had already borrowed money never got on; and surely that was a wrong principle to go on! If they wanted to pauperise their people, give them cheap money.

said that he wanted the Chairman’s ruling, whether the passing of that clause would not mean an increased expenditure? (Laughter.) A large staff would be necessary.

replied in the negative.

said that he agreed with the view taken by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton). It was to be feared that the money of the bank would be used for speculative purposes. A higher rate of interest might drive the people away.

said that he supported the new clause.

said that he had this objection to the new clause, that it would result in large sums of money lying in the bank, which brought in no interest. The bank would thus lose on such transactions. He thought that the proposed new clause should stand over.

supported the amendment, and said there was no question of money being kept in a little bag for a borrower. (Hear, hear.) He did not think, however, that the amendment would be availed of very greatly, and in the circumstances he hoped no further objections would be raised to the clause. The clause was in nowise dangerous.

said he was extremely anxious to help the poor farmer, but this could not be done by increasing the interest. As the amendment stood, it was not all safe. If it were made safe they could prudently reduce the interest.

said he thought this clause, on the whole, a good clause; but it needed some amendment. In the first place it was a radically wrong principle to advance money for a period of thirty years. The second point was that if they were going to give advances of £1,000, they had to limit the time for which they gave them. They could not give a man credit for £1,000, and say he could have it for an unlimited time. He would suggest that in line 3, after the words “cash credit,” the Minister should insert “for such periods as may be agreed upon.”

It is only five years. Read section 2.

said he thought it would be better to have a limit. The second point was that he strongly held that it was undesirable that they should raise the interest charges. They wanted to help the poor man, and therefore they required to make their interest charges lower than were usually charged by the ordinary channels. He would move after the word “require” to insert “in sums of not less than £50,” and in the first line on page 99, after the word “advances” insert “in like sums.” It seemed to him that the machinery would be comparatively simple, and the bank would then be able to make the advances and without too great a tax upon its staff. It would then be of great assistance to the farmers.

was understood to say that the hon. member in moving an amendment of that sort should consider the farmer who lived a long way from anywhere. He was the sort of person who was going to take advantage of this clause. They were only going to have one office at Pretoria, and the Board was going to work more or less through the Magistrates.

said he thought the thanks of the committee were due to the hon. member for Clanwilliam (Mr. E. B. Watermeyer) for his very excellent suggestion. He did not think the arguments of the hon. members for Von Brandis and Ficksburg would hold water. There was an excellent postal service in this country. He would like to support the amendment made by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. H. C. Hull), and that was that six per cent. should be charged upon these credit accounts. An hon. member had said that it was usual to get money at six per cent., but he thought that the ordinary bank charge in a case of this sort was eight per cent.

said that under clause 22 a loan of £50 could already be obtained. He disagreed with the previous speaker in respect of the additional interest, because it seemed to him that it was the small man who wanted these facilities.

said the hon. member for Zululand did not seem to see the point.

hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment, for if some farmers could get money easily, it would lead to their ruination. (Cheers.) The fact that farmers could borrow money without trouble, and for no specific purpose would lead to extravagance and speculation

wished to know what provision there would be to see that the money was used for the purposes specified in clause 18?

said ghosts had been raised. A farmer would have to tell the Board what the advance was to be used for. What check was there in the whole of the Bill for the advances that would be made under the measure? The man would have to apply the advances for the purposes specified. There would be no danger to the State through the making of these advances. The object of the clause was to prevent a man having to pass a bond for each fresh advance, and also to prevent the extravagance that might result through a man obtaining a big advance, for which he would have no immediate use.

wished to know whether, in cases of that sort, a bond would have to be passed.

replied in the affirmative.

The amendment of Sir L. Phillips was negatived; that moved by Mr. Hull was agreed to.

moved in line 11, after “per cent.” to insert “per annum.”

Agreed to.

moved that the interest should be paid on the maximum monthly balance.

The amendment was carried.

On clause 26,

moved to omit this clause and to substitute the following new ‘clause: “26. (1) Every application made for an advance under section 24 of this Act shall be transmitted to the magistrate of the district in which is situate the greater part of the security proposed for the advance; (2) every such application shall be accompanied by a valuation of the property offered as security and the valuation shall be made by a valuator appointed by the bank; (3) the magistrate receiving the application shall report as to the value of the said property, as to the character, ability, occupation and general suitability of the applicant, and as to the advisability of making the advance. The magistrate shall transmit the application and his report to the bank.”

thought the old clause should be omitted and no clause substituted in its place. He thought it unfair to the applicant that there should be a confidential report as to his character, and that he should have no access to that report or any means of defending himself. Neither was it fair to the magistrate that he should have the opportunity to exercise favouritism. It should be left in the hands of the bank’s officials, and he objected to the secret reports, both from the point of the magistrate and the applicant.

The new clause 26 was agreed to.

On clause 27, Purposes of, and security for, advances to co-operative societies,

moved to omit words which had the effect of requiring authority by a resolution passed by a two-thirds majority. The effect of his amendment, he said, would be to make the section more workable.

The amendment was agreed to.

in sub section 4, moved to omit “without the approval of the Minister,” which would leave the sub-section reading “No advance made under this section shall exceed £10,000. Without the omission he pointed out the amount could be unlimited.

said some of the co-operative societies dealt with hundreds of thousands of bags of mealies, and they could get advances on the purchase price of the mealies. They could not be satisfied with £10,000, but would want much larger sums of money, and the security was perfectly ample.

The amendment was withdrawn.

said the hon. member had withdrawn the amendment, but it was a most dangerous principle to pledge the credit of the country for huge sums of money. It was not the intention of a Bill like that. They were proposing to lend money to these cooperative societies for speculative purposes. Eventually those people would be asking to be let off.

said that surely the Land Bank would see that there was ample security for any advance made. He thought securities by co-operative societies were far better than anything in the way of mortgage money of individual farmers.

On clause 28, Advances to co-operative societies in form of cash credit account,

moved in line 51 to omit “daily” and to substitute “maximum monthly.”

moved that “five” be omitted in line 50, for the purpose of inserting “six” in front of “per cent.” He asked why the co-operative societies should get money at a lower rate of interest than the farmers?

spoke against the amendment.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander was negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

spoke in favour of the “average monthly balance,” instead of “maximum monthly balance.”

said that they had just passed a clause in which “maximum monthly balance” figured. He did not think they should alter it now.

said that that was in regard to a large amount, while this clause dealt with small amounts. There was no comparison.

On clause 29, Guarantee by Board of contracts of co-operative societies,

said that that was a dangerous clause, and he moved that it be struck out. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member could vote against the clause.

moved in line 52 to insert the words, “to the extent of not more than £10.000 sterling” after “guarantee,” as, he said, there should be some limit. He further moved to omit sub-section (5); and in sub-section (6), line 26, after “bank a” to insert “minimum.”

said he objected to a guarantee at all; and to encourage people to sell futures was a most deleterious thing, and he hoped the clause would be expunged. (Hear, hear.)

said that the clause was a blot on the Bill, and he hoped it would be expunged or amended. It was totally unsound and unbusiness-like. There ought to be some greater safeguard, and if they were going to have such a clause at all they must have a proper guarantee from the societies.

said that the liability of those societies was limited. These societies should be able to get that money even for export. The only loss that the bank would have to guarantee was 4s. a bag of mealies, that being the case in the Transvaal.

said that he did not think there was as great a risk as his hon. friend (Sir L. Phillips) thought, and he did not see how the small farmer was going to get his produce on the market unless there were cooperation. In Canada farmers simply put their mealies in a bin at the railway station.

That’s quite another matter.

said that he knew that; but here in South Africa they must give the farmer some other consideration, and that was by means of co-operation. In the Transvaal that system had been introduced with the idea of abolishing the middleman.

said the clause opened the door to undesirable practices. He suggested that, instead of passinging the clause now, the Minister should defer its consideration, so that its dangers could be removed. It was not the business of the bank to carry out the contracts of societies. If they were going to pay no heed to sound financial principles, they should pass the clause; but they would be wise to postpone it.

objected to the clause being held over. If a man ploughed more land in the hope of selling mealies to the mines, and the bank helped him, it could do so without risk. Surely it was not the object to do irreparable harm to co-operative societies, which were essential in order to enable the small man to get a reasonable price for his products? The great difficulty at present was that the producer could not reach the consumer, owing to the middleman being in the way. The object of the co-operative societies was to bring consumer and producer into immediate contact. He pointed out that a few million bags of mealies had already been shipped away through the instrumentality of the co-operative societies. The banks enabled societies to store produce during periods of over-production, and to wait until prices had risen. Through a co-operative society a farmer could obtain 7s. to 9s. per bag for his mealies, but without it he would have to be satisfied with 5s. or even less per bag. If the hon. member’s suggestion were accepted, the position of co-operative societies would be made impossible, and the principle of cooperation would be destroyed.

said it seemed to him that they were talking about two entirely different things—one legitimate enough, and the other wholly illegitimate. The legitimate thing was that the co-operative societies should help a man to keep his mealies until the price went up, and the other thing was encouraging these people to go and contract with his hon. friends over there for 20,000 or 30,000 bags of mealies, not having the mealies and not being sure of getting them. They then could not get the mealies, there being a shortage or there being a bad crop. They had sold short, and they could not deliver. Then they had to go into the open market and buy at a serious loss to themselves. That was taking place now, and it would continue to take place. And, of course, they were not going to stop at mealies. They were going to do it with brandy, and they would get into such a mess in this country that they would not see how to get out of it. That was not co-operation. They were spoiling co-operation, and would kill it if this were to continue.

said his right hon. friend misunderstood him. He had said he thought it was an illegitimate thing to guarantee a contract unless the bank had reason to believe that the members of the society had produced, or could produce, the product; and in the second place that they had a guarantee from the members of the society that that product would be used exclusively for the carrying out of that contract. But the basis on which this was carried out in this clause was wrong, and, therefore, he would suggest again that they should defer the consideration of this clause. They were passing legislation in this clause which he did not think existed anywhere else in the world, and which was entirely unsound and improper. He had an amendment at hand which he thought would meet the case; but he thought they should postpone the clause. He thought they should remove that part of the clause which dis tickly encouraged unsound principles of finance.

said he realised they were entirely in the hands of the Minister in this matter, but he thought the Minister should allow the matter to stand over. The hon. member who said that it was necessary to have a Government guarantee to ensure the export of mealies was entirely wide of the mark. In Natal they did not require that. They had a Mealie Growers’ Association, which did the work for them. The dangerous part of the clause had been pointed out; it was the principle of guaranteeing contracts. The Prime Minister said they should eliminate the middle man, but he could not see the necessity. He did not become a millionaire in dealing with mealies. He hoped the Minister would yet accept the suggestion made.

thought they were at cross-purposes. The object of the co-operative society would be to help the farmers pending, say, the sale of their mealies in London.

objected to the guaranteeing of contracts, and suggested that the clause should stand over.

did not think that was necessary. The clause was not a new one, and was in the Transvaal Act. He moved the deletion of sub-clause 3, which made one society liable for the default of other societies.

said there should be some provision for the recovery of the interest, plus loss in the case of default.

did not see why sub-section 3 should be withdrawn.

said the withdrawal of the sub-section would simply re-establish the position under clause 2.

asked how many guarantees had been given?

said under the old Transvaal law it was found impossible for the societies to combine in a contract with the guarantee of the Land Bank. Now, however, the Land Bank could assist the societies successfully. There had been a failure of a co-operative dairy.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Nathan were negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

On clause 31, Members of society to remain liable,

moved, in line 44, after “withdrawal,” to insert “until the Board is satisfied that the society and its remaining members are capable of discharging the debt or obligation.”

said the principle was a dangerous one, and it did not apply to ordinary partnerships.

said that under the Transvaal law a member of a co-operative society might resign as soon as the annual balance-sheet showed a credit. That should be the proper thing, otherwise if they held a member of a society for ever liable not a single man in his sound senses would ever join such a society. (An HON. MEMBER: “He never will.”) If the clause remained as it stood in the Bill it would kill the co-operative movement entirely. The Transvaal law went too far, again, in the other direction, for the accounts might be cooked and the members might do anything to escape liability, but to prevent that, discretionary power was given to the Lank Bank Board. He challenged the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, to make a study of co-operative systems in other countries and he would find there was an easy way for members to get out of the society. He thought the amendment was perfectly reasonable.

said he did not object to a member going out of a society, but what he did object to was that if in one year a loan was advanced to a society consisting, say, of 60 members for £10,000, and in the next year ten of the men left the society, he did not want those ten to be liable for what happened after they had left, but they should share the liability incurred while they were members of the society.

said farmers had become members of cooperative societies on the understanding that they could resign on three months’ notice, and now hon. members seemed to want to make it impossible for any member to resign from such co-operative societies.

said the Minister of the Interior had supported changes in the Bill in an admirable way, and he thought from what was taking place it was the duty of the committee to scrutinise very carefully every clause of every Government Bill that came before the committee. (Laughter.) Perhaps, in the circumstances, the Minister would allow the clause to stand over, because on his own showing it was worthy of reconsideration by the Government. There should be some limit of time which would allow a man to contract out of the society, but the clause, as drafted, practically prevented him in any circumstances whatever from contracting out. (HON. MEMBERS: “No! No!”) Well, he remained liable. Would not his hon. friend promise some period of time in which a man should be allowed to contract out?

said that as a matter of fact a man could get out very easily if the society was solvent; he had only to resign and there was no risk whatever to him. It was only when the society was not solvent that there was risk, and that was precisely the time when they wanted to keep him in.

supported the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle.

said he could not see how it was going to involve any particular danger to the principle of co-operation or to the bank. They could trust the other members of the society to safeguard their own interests.

pointed out that he was in favour of the clause as it stood, and was against the amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, which had been introduced into the clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 33 was negatived.

New clause 33,

moved that the following be a new clause: “33. Advances shall be made by the bank in respect of the cost of dividing fences, in accordance with the provisions specifically set forth in the Fencing Act, 1912.”

Agreed to.

On clause 36, Remedies of bank against defaulting debtor.

moved on page 22, line 66, after “advance” to insert “upon such terms and conditions as appears under all the circumstances to be just”; on page 24 to omit paragraph (3); and after line 8 to add the following proviso: “Provided that no such sale shall take place until the expiry of at least fourteen days from the date of a notice in the ‘ Gazette ‘ stating the date, hour, and place, and the terms and conditions of the sale.”

moved, as a further amendment, to delete, in lines 64-65, the words, “and sell by public auction,” as he thought that would be to the benefit of the mortgagor, and he did not see why the Government should be placed in a different position to the ordinary person. He also moved the deletion of paragraph (iv.) on page 24.

regretted that the latter amendments had been moved; and said that due warning would be given in three months, and he thought that would be quite sufficient. He did not think additional costs would be necessary at the end of that time. He opposed the amendment.

said that he would go even further than the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). They were introducing a most unbusinesslike principle, which he thought would have far-reaching and undesirable results, and he would move the following amendment: In sub-section (ii.), line 62, to omit all the words after “made,” and insert the following: “issue legal process in the ordinary course, in a competent court, for the seizure and sale of the whole or any part of the security for the advance.

said that he would like to ask the Minister the reason for the stringency of sub-section (c).

said that it was unnecessary to insert in the Bill the common law remedy which lay in the power of the bank, so that he thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. C. J. Krige) unnecessary, and the objection of the hon. member for (Rustenburg had been met.

said the legal costs connected with such sale would amount to a considerable sum, and he could not see why such large expenses should be incurred, especially as a defaulter was given three months’ notice. He therefore opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon. The hon. member for Von Brandis wanted the bank to take possession of a property, but that was useless so long as the bank had not the right to sell it. The hon. member might safely withdraw his amendment.

thought the hon. member might have addressed his remarks to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. C. J. Krige). His amendment went very much further than that of the hon. member for Von Brandis) (Mr. E. Nathan). He would like to tell the hon. member that if he meant to tell the House that in Zoutpansberg it cost £100 to get provisional sentence on a mortgage bond the attorneys there were reaping a richer harvest than they were anywhere else. The hon. member for Rustenburg was not fair in dealing with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He was entirely incorrect. Immediately a man died, the Government could step in and sell the whole of the estate before the executor could make an inventory, and in the case of an insolvency, the Government could step in before the trustee was appointed. Surely that was an unheard of proceeding. As it was, the Government would have the title-deeds of the property, and what more could they desire? The Government could easily obtain provisional sentence on a mortgage bond. The clause went very much further than the Government were entitled to go. They had every protection, and there was no necessity for such drastic powers. He would support the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon.

also objected to the clause as printed, and held that it was unfair for the bank to sell a man up when he was three months behind with the payment of interest. The clause made no reference to the giving of a warning. It ought to be given. Other mortgage holders, he urged, should also be given notice of any steps to be taken.

said he could not think that the Government were going to press the clause as it stood. He could not agree to that. It shut out the Courts of Justice to a man. If a man could not pay his rent for three months, or even if he did not deal with the money as the authorities thought he should, the Government could take his property away. It was not a proper provision to have in the Bill. A man might have a difference with the Board, and he must have the right of appeal to the courts of law. It was incomprehensible that such a matter should be submitted to the House, and he did not think the House would support it. If the bank made a mistake the country must pay for it. If proper precautions were taken, the bank should not suffer any loss, and it should not shelter itself in the way proposed.

said it would be well if hon. members left this matter to the representations of the “platteland.” He feared that the steps advocated by the hon. members would involve considerable expense. In this part of the country it was a matter of much more than a guinea to get an order of the Court. The principle was not a new one as far as the Free State and Transvaal were concerned, nor was it new in England. He thought that defaulters should be warned by registered letter, and that due notice should be given to other bondholders. He therefore moved, in line 43, after “unpaid” to insert “after a demand for the same has been made by registered letter”; in line 62 to omit “notwithstanding” and substitute “after”; in the same line to omit “not”, and in line 66, after “and” to insert “after proper notice to the other mortgagees.”

Progress was thereupon reported and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.