from W. Ross, Forest Department.

Correspondence in connection with proposed purchase of site for School of Agriculture, Orange Free State.

Blue Book relating to enforcement of British arbitration awards.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

asked his right hon. friend the Prime Minister if he would now be prepared to make a statement as to what would be the character of public business, because since Monday a serious change had taken place, and he hoped his right hon. friend would now take the House into his confidence and tell hon. members what Bills he desired to put through and what Bills he intended to drop.

said he was glad the question had been asked. He hoped to make a statement on the subject to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved that the Bill he now read a third time.

said before the question was put, he thought it would be a suitable time to ask his right hon. friend the Prime Minister if he were prepared to make an authoritative statement in connection with the extraordinary position of affairs which they had just experienced in that House. His hon. friend the late Minister of Finance had made a statement of a very clear and it seemed authoritative character, with regard to the reasons which had actuated him in severing his connection with the Government in a most dramatic manner last Saturday. After that statement the Minister of Railways got up and made an equally clear statement, the most extraordinary thing being that the statements were opposed to each other save in one particular item, and that was the system of water-tight compartments, in which hon. Ministers opposite discharged their duties. What he had simply risen for was to say that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister that it was due to the House and to both the late Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways that he as head of the Government should inform them what were the real reasons and how far they could accept the statements of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways. It was not only fair to the Government and the House but to the hon. gentlemen themselves, that a statement should be made to the House upon this most important question without further delay.

replied: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that these differences should exist between two members of my Cabinet, but what I regret more especially is that these differences, which, as I say, did exist and still do exist, have been raised on the floor of this House, while they ought to have been fought out in the Cabinet. This is, in my opinion, a question which should not have been dealt with in this House. (Hear, hear.) The two Ministers concerned are men with whom I have worked for a long time, both well-known and highly-respected South Africans. I regret to say that I think that both statements we had before the House yesterday were not in all respects carefully considered. I honestly think that these differences could have been far better solved in Cabinet, and it would have been far better if the matter had gone further in Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) But that has passed now, and today we have before us two statements, and we are faced with very difficult circumstances. It is my painful duty now to say a few words on this question, although, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this question should not be dealt with in this House. (Hear, hear.)

The first matter on which a difference has arisen between the two hon. members is in regard to the question of tariffs, and, after having listened to both statements, I wish to say this: that the details in regard to the reduction of tariffs have not been discussed by the Cabinet, and the hon. member for Barberton is quite correct in his assertion on this point. But what we did discuss was: what the effect of these reductions in the railway tariffs would be upon the various parts of the Union—and the Minister of Railways is correct there. I repeat, Mr. Speaker; that the details of these reductions have not been discussed, although the general effect was considered.

Another important point raised was in regard to the new programme of railway construction, and, to a very large extent, my hon. friend the member for Barberton is correct in his assertions there. He is correct where he says that so far as the reports of the Board, which are now upon the table of the House, were concerned, the Cabinet did not discuss the matter, and this report only came into the hands of the Ministers on Saturday last. In that respect, therefore, the hon. member for Barberton is entirely correct. The railway programme was discussed in Cabinet. For instance, the new lines recommended in the report were circulated to each Minister and although not all details were given, the mileage and expenditure were given. In connection with those lines differences arose, and the Minister for Railways consulted with the other Ministers who were better acquainted with certain lines, and which they could recommend.

But I wish to say here at once that in none of these cases was the hon. the member for Barberton in accord with this programme, and he personally did not vote for this programme. (Hear, hear.) On that point he is correct. As a matter of fact, both statements on this matter are correct, though somewhat exaggerated. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Barberton, I repeat, expressed himself against this new programme, and did not vote for it. As regards the general question whether the Cabinet has been sufficiently consulted on railway matters, I must say that this is a matter teeming with difficulties. I think that the Cabinet was not consulted sufficiently. (Opposition cheers.) But for that the administration brought forward certain reasons. The Railway Administration considers that under the Constitution they are constituted an altogether separate administration. When the Cabinet discussed this matter from time to time, they (the Cabinet) have always taken up the standpoint that whatever the attitude of the Railway Board, the Cabinet is at the head of the Administration, and that all important matters must be referred to the Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) After Union, Mr. Speaker, the Government went through extremely difficult times; but as we are proceeding, we hope that these difficulties will diminish. A terrific quantity of work was placed into the hands of the Government, as all people with experience of such work will be able to understand. I agree with my friend the member for Barberton when he says that the Cabinet must be consulted more. I think matters will then work better, but at the same time I may say that nobody is entitled to maintain that at present we are going in a wrong direction

But, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet must be held more directly responsible. A spirit is prevailing in South Africa and in this House, which is very eager to delegate large numbers of matters to Boards. The Railway Board is the first institution of that character, and that Board made the position more difficult. Power should not be taken away from those who may be held responsible. Let us take the point referred to by the hon. member for Barberton—and I may say this matter was carefully gone into by the Public Accounts Committee, and it has also been before the House—that of the unauthorised expenditure. That, Mr. Speaker, is the sort of administration which must not be allowed in South Africa—(cheers)—and in this matter I quite agree with the hon. member for Barberton. When that matter came to the notice of the Cabinet, immediate steps were taken to prevent a recurrence. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours, told the Cabinet that he did not know anything about it. Well, that is the whole position. I again wish to express my sincere regret that these differences have been discussed here, whereas the whole matter should have been threshed out in Cabinet. (Hear, hear.)

asked the Minister when hon. members might expect the report of the Manager of Railways? He thought that it was about time they had the report and he hoped that when it was brought forward it would be found to contain sufficient information to enable hon. members to find out exactly the position of each railway.

said that after hearing the Prime Minister’s statement on the really important matter involved, namely, the resignation of the Minister of Finance, he wanted to say that the family quarrels of the party on the other side of the House were not of great importance to those who were not members of the party, but what was of very great importance to all members and to the whole country was that they should be able to form some degree of the reality which Ministers attached to the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. There was a very great difference of opinion between the two hon. members concerned as to what “consulting” consisted of The point raised by the hon. member for Barberton was that last year’s railway programme had not been submitted to the Cabinet, whereas the Minister of Railways and Harbours said that it was submitted and accepted by the Cabinet. Well, last year’s railway programme was submitted to and accepted by the House, but every member would agree with him when he said that when it was considered by the House there was not sufficient material laid before the House to enable it to give the matter serious consideration. So far as one was able to judge from the statements of the two Ministers in relation to that point, he ventured to think that the late Minister of Finance had rendered a very great service to the country. Now, when one compared carefully the statement made by the hon. member for Barberton with the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, they did not appear quite as diametrically opposed as they did when one listened to them. Then there was the matter of the reduction of railway rates since Union. As he had already said in the House, in the absence of any real report from the Railway Board, it was impossible for any independent member of the House to come to any conclusion as to what part of the population would be benefited by the reduction in the rates. Obviously, one supposed the Cabinet was collectively responsible for the reduction of railway rates, but what he wanted to know was whether other members of the Ministry were content with the meagre announcement of the reduction of railway rates without that knowledge, without that information, the absence of which, apparently, the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) thought justified him in refusing any longer to accept the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. Then there were various other points where the evidence of the two Ministers conflicted, and what he would like to ask hon. Ministers, or any one of them, was whether there was anyone who rebutted the statement of the hon. member for Barberton that the reports of the Board on the new programme were only in his hands after notice had been given of the introduction of a Bill to carry out that programme. Because, as he read, the South Africa Act, he understood that programmes of railway construction were first decided by the Cabinet, and then the Board was asked to report upon them. Now, as he understood the hon. Minister of Railways, the fact that there should be new construction was the first fact decided upon, and he did not find that the terms of the South Africa Act were being acted upon in the spirit or in the plain reading of the Act, that the Government as a whole was collectively responsible for decisions as to giving orders to the Board that such-and-such railways should be reported on. How far Ministers chose to regard their collective responsibility to the Cabinet, it was for them to decide; for the members of that House and the country it was very important to know and be able to have all the evidence before them to form a judgment as to whether the action of the late Minister, because he did not choose to look upon his collective responsibility as merely nominal, was right or not. So far as their information was concerned, the late Minister had taken a very grave and a very right view of the collective responsibility of Ministers with whom he had been associated.

who was received with general cheers, said he was very glad that the opportunity had been given him of referring to the incident that happened in the House on the previous afternoon, because the matter had now, if he might say so, rather been removed from the arena of party politics for the reason that he viewed the question as one of principle and one that affected his personal honour. He made a statement in the House on the previous day—a very important and a very serious statement—after the fullest consideration. In that statement he made certain specific charges. First of all, he explained generally the reasons why he had severed his connection with the members of the Cabinet. His first objection was that the Government was not adequately consulted by the railway administration; and, second, that the railway administration was acting contrary to the provisions of the South Africa Act. Then he proceeded to give certain details as to why he had made those charges to which a categorical denial was given by the Hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He thought that the House was entitled, and he thought the country was entitled to know from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, or one of his colleagues, whether the statement which he made was incorrect. (Hear, hear.) Apart from the fact that he was associated with the Right. Hon. the Prime Minister for a number of years, he thought he was entitled to have it stated whether he spoke the truth or not. The country and the House were also entitled to know whether he spoke the truth or not. He had listened attentively to the statement of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and he must say that it was unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues had knowledge of all the information, and it was in their power to place that information before the House. (Cheers.) His right hon. friend had the information to say either “yea” or “nay” to that House. Either the hon. member for Barberton was right or the hon. member for Barberton was wrong. (Hear, hear.) Surely he was entitled to have such a statement from the Prime Minister? (Cheers.) He was not going to let the matter rest until he had a satisfactory statement in that House from the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues. He was going to press until the truth, and the whole truth, was given, and he would not rest until the truth, and the whole truth, was placed before the public of South Africa. One charge he made was that the railway reductions, amounting to some £600,000, were not submitted to the Cabinet. He repeated that charge. (Hear, hear.) The House would recollect that the reductions were made in two portions, the first involving a sum of £465,000. and the second involving a sum of £151,000. He was inclined to agree with the hon. member for Jeppe, when he said that his (the speaker’s) statement, and the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours, were not altogether inconsistent, and that was why he found fault with the statement which was made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours.

He did not say that the Government did not approve of the policy of railway rate reductions. The whole Cabinet was in favour of that. They were agreed on that point. It was one of the provisions of the South Africa Act. His charge was that the items in respect of which these reductions were to be made were never submitted to the Cabinet. That was the charge which he made out yesterday—that the details of the reductions in railway rates were never submitted to the Cabinet. He did not think that a member of the Cabinet could tell that House a single item on which a reduction had taken place.

I agree with that.

I am sorry; I misunderstood what you said.

I said I agreed that that was so.

said he was glad that the Prime Minister had made that statement. So far as he was concerned, if that was so, then he was satisfied. The Prime Minister had stated that the Cabinet was not consulted on the point. Now, he would deal with the programme of new railway construction. He had said on the previous day that for the first time on Saturday last he saw the engineers’ reports, and the reports of the Railway Board, and he would say again that his colleagues did not receive this information earlier than Saturday last. But his (the speaker’s) point went further. He said that under clause 130 of the South Africa Act—and he hoped hon. members would follow this point very closely—that any proposal for the construction of any works or any new line of railway, before being submitted to Parliament, must be considered by the Board, which should report upon and advise Parliament whether such works should be constructed or such new lines laid down. He said that the meaning of this clause of the Act was this. The Government had to make the proposal. The proposal had to come from somewhere —not from the man in the street. Neither the Board nor the Minister of Railways and Harbours could make the proposal, but the collective members of the Government had to place the proposals before the Board for consideration. Only then did the functions of the Railway Board come into operation, and only then did the Board examine the projects and proposals. That that was also the view of the Railway Board—the report of which was signed by the Hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours—was apparent from the first paragraph of the report. This report was dated April, 1912. The first paragraph stated that in accordance with the provisions of clause 130 of the South Africa Act the Board had the honour to submit its recommendations with regard to the construction of the following lines of railway upon which it had been requested by the Government to report. He would like to ask the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues, when the Government requested the Board to make this report—when and where, and how? Of course, it might have been at a Cabinet meeting at which he was not present. If that were so, then he must bow his head. But the fact was that he was entitled to a specific answer.

He asked when and where the Government asked the Railway Board to frame this report, and until that statement was answered specifically that statement which he made held good. They had the statement of the Minister that it was only six weeks ago. If that were so, then the Board must have started on its task six weeks ago, and not earlier. That was clear, because the Board had no right, under the South Africa Act, to make any such examination until it was requested to do so by the Government. There was internal evidence to show that there was an examination into these matters more than six weeks ago. He would leave that point there. Another charge which he made was the large expenditure that had been incurred since Union upon the regrading, relaying, and other alterations in the lines of railway, and he said that none of these works had been submitted to the Cabinet or the expenditure sanctioned. The reply to that was that the expenditure had been sanctioned by Parliament. He (the speaker) denied that. No portion of this relaying and regrading work was submitted to the House. Then he was told on the previous day that this relaying and regrading dealt with cases where railway lines had become obsolete and where a rail or so, which had been worn out, was taken out and replaced by another. He would show that not single rails, but miles and miles of new rails, had been laid. As he said on the previous day, he did not wish to imply that he thought this work was not necessary, but what he did claim was that work involving the expenditure of enormous sums of money should not be authorised by one Minister or the Board, but should be sanctioned by the Government. Upon his general charge that the Government, as a Government, was not consulted by the railway administration, he wanted to read to the House the letter which he referred to on the previous day, and which he addressed in January last to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. After he had read the letter he would ask the House to say one of two things—either the statements which were contained in the letter which he addressed to the Prime Minister were true or false. If they were true, then the whole of the charges which he made on the previous day were supported by that letter. If they were not true then—then he did not know why he was not told at the time he addressed the letter that the statements in the letter were not in accordance with the facts of the case. As he explained on the previous day, it was arranged that a Cabinet meeting should be held in Cape Town for the purpose of considering the new railway proposals and the railway estimates. That took place, as he had said, but none of the railway proposals were submitted to that meeting.

He went on to read the letter which he had addressed to the Prime Minister, in which he stated that he considered a radical change was urgently necessary in the relations between the administration of railways and members of the Government. He had felt for some time that the methods adopted by the railway administration in connection with railway affairs had strongly tended to set up a department which regarded itself as distinct and independent from the Government. The things upon which he complained were rapidly becoming worse, and he was sure that they should not be tolerated any longer. His objections might be summed up under two heads—first, that the members of the Government were not consulted on important matters affecting the railways, and, second, that no attempt had been made to give effect to the provisions of section 137 of the South Africa Act, which provided that in administering the railways due regard should be paid to agricultural and industrial development, and the promotion of means of cheap transport for settlement of an agricultural and industrial population in the inland portions of the Union. He added it was unnecessary to refer in detail to matters under the first heading, as he had frequently mentioned them to the Premier, and the Premier had agreed with him, and it was notorious that all members of the Cabinet, except, perhaps, one (it was obvious who that one was) had not been consulted, as they should have been, on various important railway questions, except for the very meagre information extracted from the Press regarding the weekly traffic earnings. He went on to state in the letter that no figures or statements of railway receipts or expenditure, or statistics as to the position, were ever submitted to the Cabinet, and members of the Government repeatedly complained that they were left in total ignorance with respect to railway matters. He said that important new positions in the Railway Department had been created, high appointments made, and high salaries fixed without reference to the Government. At that time the Railway Board, he was informed, was busy inspecting certain projected new lines, but that the Cabinet had not been consulted or even told where these lines were to be.

“Let me comment here,” said Mr. Hull, “if the statement had been inaccurate on January 24, surely I should have been told so by the Prime Minister and my colleagues —but I was not.”

The letter went on (continued Mr. Hull) to state that, although they were then within a few days of the assembling of Parliament, the railway estimates and accounts had not been submitted to the Cabinet, and that only the previous day (January 23) he had been informed that the railways had incurred expenditure unauthorised or illegal and without the Cabinet having been informed, and that he understood that the amount involved would be more than £2,000,000. He said that there should be a reduction in railway rates of at least £1,000,000 during the ensuing year, which should be made to apply chiefly to through and long-distance traffic, and that nothing had been done in regard to the excessive rates for inland traffic, which still continued. He stated that “they” were chiefly instrumental in getting the clause inserted in the Constitution, and were induced to go into Union relying on effect being given to it, but that, so far, nothing had been done, and that the reduction of rates had been chiefly in the Cape Province. He added he did not think this state of affairs should continue, and concluded by stating to General Botha in his letter that he regarded the matter of such importance that he would be glad if they could discuss it in Cabinet.

This letter contained internal evidence entirely supporting the statement he made yesterday. (Opposition cheers.) He wanted again to assure the House that when he wrote this letter and he wrote the memorandum nobody ever suggested amongst his colleagues, not even the Minister of Railways and Harbours, that any of the statements contained there were not in accordance with fact. The only point to which the Minister of Railways and Harbours took exception was the statement that high salaries had been fixed and high appointments had been made without the Government’s authority. The Minister said that the Cabinet had been consulted about these matters. That was, comparatively speaking, a minor point, compared with the other points In addition to this letter to show that there was some evidence, evidence outside, to corroborate the statement he made in the House yesterday, he presented to the Prime Minister a memorandum of the information he considered should be supplied periodically by the Railway Administration to the members of the Cabinet individually. He had reason to believe that this memorandum, of which he held a copy in his hand, was sent by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and he should read it also, because it strongly corroborated the point of view that he took up consistently and strongly corroborated the statement he made yesterday.

What is the date?

It was presented a few days after the letter was written.

He proceeded to read from the memorandum a list of various statements and returns which he had requested should be regularly supplied to the Cabinet, and which he explained the Cabinet had never been allowed to see, contrary to practice which had prevailed in the Transvaal and other colonies prior to Union. Among other things he had wished to secure was that when any work was projected copies of the reports upon which the proposal was based should be furnished, and the matter should be discussed in the Cabinet before surveys or other steps were taken. Proceeding, Mr. Hull remarked that it was a most dangerous thing for engineers to be surveying the routes of railway lines or Railway Boards to be running over the country inspecting railway routes. It only excited the people, and they became disappointed afterwards if the lines were not built. He wished all these proposals to be first examined and then only sent to the Railway Board or engineers. Again, when any important alteration in rates was contemplated he wished the particulars thereof sent to each Minister and the matter discussed before the alteration was carried into effect. Mr. Hull went on to say that he thought this document, together with other documents, afforded the very strongest evidence that it was possible to obtain, apart from direct evidence, in support of every one of the statements he made yesterday.

Surely it would have been senseless on his part to address a communication of this kind to the Prime Minister, and it would have been senseless on his part to pass this memorandum on to the Minister of Railways and Harbours unless occasion had arisen before this date for the supply of this information. He did not want to prolong this discussion more than was necessary. He wanted to assure the House and he wanted to assure his late colleagues that it was a most unpleasant thing to him. He would much sooner the thing had not happened, but he could not, in justice to himself—it was unfair to the country and it was unfair to himself—remain under the stigma that the statement which he made yesterday was not based on fact, and if the House still wanted further information then he said, in heaven’s name, give him an opportunity of producing the evidence in support of the statements, and give the Minister an equal opportunity of controverting these statements. (Hear, hear.) He did not want to be unfair to him. He thought the Minister spoke on the spur of the moment, and that he would not have made the denials which he did make there if he had been acquainted with all circumstances. He (Mr. Hull) wanted to appeal to the members of the Cabinet. They knew what he was saying was right. It was voluntarily told him time after time: “You are right; we do not get sufficient information from the railways.” What had he done that they should sit still and refuse to say whether he was right or whether the Minister of Railways and Harbours was right? (Opposition cheers.) Surely, in the interests of public life, they should get to the bottom of things, and he promised him and he promised hon. members that he should not again refer to this, but he could not allow the charges to remain where they were. It was true that his hon. friend the Prime Minister had made a statement that afternoon which, to some extent, justified the position he (Mr. Hull) took up, but he did not think that his right hon. friend went far enough, and he would appeal again to his colleagues to say who was right and who was wrong. (Opposition cheers.)

who rose amid Ministerial cheers, was understood to say that it was the first time that he had known such matters debated in that House. He was not going to divulge Cabinet secrets or talk about matters that belonged strictly to the province of the Cabinet, where they should have been settled and fought out. (Ministerial cheers.) He would however, refer to one or two matters. Now, first in regard to the letter which was referred to. He said to General Botha that it must be a joke: he could not give effect to the South Africa Act and reduce the rates, he said, since the Treasurer had taken all his excess. How he could give effect to the reduction of rates he did not know. It was almost an audacious thing to make a complaint against him that he had not reduced rates when the Treasurer took all his balances from him. (Hear, hear.) That was his reply. He did not want to say anything more. He could refer to several matters. He only wanted to say this, that in the speech which the hon. member made yesterday he said he thought he (Mr. Sauer) was quite unaware what he staid. Naturally he spoke on the spur of the moment. If he had had the statement probably he might have said a good deal more about it. He had to speak immediately, and what he said was the fact. He was quite prepared to take the statement made by the Prime Minister, and he did hope that, after that, this unpleasant matter should have closed. This sort of thing might be very pleasant for those who sat opposite. (Ministerial cheers, Opposition dissent and cries of “Withdraw.”)

rose to a point of order.

Well, perhaps it is pleasant to some of them. (Cries of “Withdraw.”) Yes, I am ready to withdraw, but I will say that it is the way to do irreparable harm to the party to which we belong, and that I feel convinced cannot be the intention. With that I will close the matter as far as I am concerned, and I sincerely hope that we have heard the last of it. No possible good can come of pursuing the subject. Only one word further with regard to this unauthorised expenditure. I may say when I heard that I was astounded, but I may tell the House that included in that unauthorised expenditure was an amount for additional interest on railways. The Treasurer asked me for payment of that £450,000 knowing perfectly well I had no Parliamentary authority, and afterwards they made that a part of the charge against me. I say nothing more. I regret extremely this discussion, but I hope that this is the end of the business. I will now move the third reading.

said he thought it was necessary to make it clear how the position struck the Opposition and the country. Two statements had been made and submitted deliberately to the decision of one who alone could give a final decision—the Prime Minister. The decision had failed to clear up all the doubts. It must be finite clear from the manifestations in the House that the sympathy of the House had been with the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull)—(cheers)—founded upon the belief that he had made a stand unselfishly upon a constitutional point for the good of the country and for the interest of the Government of this country. (Opposition cheers.) Most certainly there could not possibly have come anything from that side of the House to move him to do that. But the point the country was faced with was that the man who was believed to be in the right by the bulk of the House was obliged to leave the Government in order to vindicate his position, and the gentleman who was believed to be in the wrong was retained in the Cabinet. The impression given by that fact was that the Prime Minister endorsed the action of the Minister of Railways. That was the only interpretation that the country could place upon it, and for his part he thought that the request made by the hon. member for Barberton was a perfectly reasonable one, and made in the interests of the country, that the matter should be cleared up, and that they should know from the Prime Minister whether the Government endorsed the attitude and the statement of facts made by the hon. member for Barberton or not? It was quite a serious question, and it was not a personal matter to the country or to them. The hon. member for Barberton was the Minister who had carried out the financial policy; he differed on the question of financial policy with the Minister of Railways. The latter was triumphant in that he remained; the hon. member for Barberton had failed in that he was obliged to leave the Cabinet. It must be perfectly clear that there was a change in the financial policy—one policy had been abandoned and the other policy had been adopted. (Ministerial cries of dissent.) Of course this was not palatable to the hon. gentlemen who supported the Minister of Railways. It must be clear to the House that many of them must endorse the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Barberton, because they had helped that attitude for eighteen months. (Sir L. PHILLIPS: Hear, hear.) All the charges formulated by the late member of the Cabinet were charges made by the Opposition last session. They charged the Minister of Railways with embarking on a programme without any money to carry it out and without any authority from the Cabinet or Parliament. (Opposition cheers.) As to the diversion of the sum of two and a quarter millions from one account to another by the railway people it was the business of the Minister of Railways to have known about it, for he had introduced the Bill stating that funds should not be diverted from one purpose to another. It touched the policy of development and it touched them who lived inland very seriously, because what they attempted in the National Convention—the establishment of a railway authority which would be outside party politics as far as it could be, which would try and improve the position which obtained in the old colonies. They had tried to substitute something else. They had substituted something else—an absolute autocrat. (Opposition cheers.) Here were the capacities in which the Minister of Railways had acted: Chairman of the Board, with a casting vote which was never granted in the Convention, so that he required only one member of the Board to agree with him to secure a majority on the Board; a Cabinet for the Railway Board represented by the Minister sitting at the Board, who gave the word to the Board, as he gave it to the Cabinet, not in writing, but by message when he chose. So that he had constituted himself the Cabinet, the Chairman, the Board, and the Governor-General-in-Council. (Opposition cheers.) And there was no possibility of the country knowing who was responsible and who was determining the policy of the country.

It was the same with railway rates. He (Sir Percy) did not want to raise the question of the Provinces; he wished to heaven we had no Provinces—(cheers)—but some other division, by which we could group our railway systems into groups or classes. The revision of the railway rates had made a profound impression inland, where the railway rates went all in one direction. What were the facts? The Cape railway system earned last year £2 17s. 9d. per cent. towards the payment of interest; the Free State, £6 11s. 7d.; Natal, £6 5s. 2d.; the Pretoria division, including Delagoa Bay, £8 10s. 1d., and the Johannesburg division, £14 4s. 7d. The shortage on interest in the Cape Province was £184,000—nearly three-quarters per cent. Was it conceivable that the statement made by the hon. member for Barberton as to the feeling up-country was not well founded? Of course it was well founded. For eighteen months they had brought it forward, incessantly warning the Government what the effect would be and how the whole purpose of that provision—which the Minister of the Interior most aptly described when advocating Union—the whole purpose of that had been turned aside and had been used as an instrument of oppression. No country could prosper unless its inland portions were developed. They wanted to know what was the financial policy on which the country was to be run. They wanted from the Prime Minister a statement which would clear up the present impression, which in the House and in the country was that the hon. member for Barberton was perfectly right, and another impression was that by the hon. member for Barberton having to go, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours remaining, that the latter’s policy received the most effective endorsement of the Cabinet. They did not know where they were, and therefore he begged to ask the Prime Minister to accept the adjournment of the debate in order to enable the Prime Minister to clear the matter up. He (Sir Percy) begged to move the adjournment of the debate. (Opposition cheers.)

seconded.

said the Prime Minister—in justice to the Cabinet, to the hon. member for Barberton, to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and to the House and to the country—should agree to the adjournment of the debate, because if the Prime Minister agreed to the adjournment of the debate he (General Botha) then naturally would move immediately afterwards the adjournment of the House so that the Prime Minister could discuss this question with his colleagues. (Ministerial laughter.) His hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs evidently had taken up a new position today.

What is the matter?

He thinks it is an extraordinary thing that I should support the proposition for the adjournment of the debate. Continuing, Sir Thomas said the question affected the dignity of the House and the Cabinet, and if for no other reason the Prime Minister should make a clear and distinct statement. The House and the country had the right to know what was the policy which the Government was going to adopt, and whether the railways were going to be developed on the lines of the Minister of Railways and Harbours or those of the hon. member for Barberton. Under those circumstances, and so that the Prime Minister should accept his responsibility—out of which it was impossible for him to get—he (Sir Thomas) hoped that he would agree to the adjournment of the debate, so that immediately afterwards the adjournment of the House could be moved for the purpose of enabling the Cabinet to discuss the question and to come forward with a policy which could be understood—a collective policy and not a watertight compartment policy which they had heard had been adopted in the past. (Opposition cheers.)

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was negatived.

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

The hon. member opposite said that in consequence of what had happened yesterday and in consequence of the resignation of his hon. friend behind him, and in consequence of the Minister of Railways remaining in the Cabinet, there must be an abandonment of the position taken up by his hon. friend that sat behind him, and he wanted some clear and definite statement upon that matter. Now, a clear and definite statement upon that point involved no question of policy, and he would simply come to deal with the facts. (Hear, hear.) To his mind in this trouble, as in other troubles that they might have in South Africa, they should endeavour to dissociate themselves entirely from the idea of Provincialism. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend had said that a certain policy should have been followed in terms of the Constitution, and it was stated that in standing up for that his hon. friend had been abandoned, but no question of policy had been raised at all. Whatever view hon. members took of this trouble that had arisen, he would say to them, do not let them look at it from a Provincial aspect (Hear, hear.) In the statement which his hon. friend made yesterday, he studiously avoided that aspect altogether, and tried to get away from the interests of the Provinces, which always tended to overshadow other interests. (Hear, hear.) The trouble in this case was largely due because of two reasons. In the first place, they had in the Act of Union incorporated a new system in South Africa. Before that they were working under separate systems and under certain Governments, but in the Convention they thought that the railway system was of so much importance that a separate system should be established. This was very largely a novel system of machinery created in South Africa, and that system was not working well yet. (An HON. MEMBER: “Why?”) His hon. friend asked him why; simply because no great object in life has been achieved in a fortnight. (An HON. MEMBER: “You have had two years.”) To the Cabinet principally this had been a most inconvenient matter, because the Railway Minister dealt with the Board, and the Minister assumed certain functions with regard to certain matters which the rest of the Cabinet feel they ought to share as a whole. The difficulty arose under terms of the Constitution, and he agreed with what had been said in the House, that this matter should be cleared up, and they ought to know what were the actual functions of the Board in relation to the railways of the country, and what was the general position of the Cabinet and the Railway Board. He was very much in sympathy with his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) in the attitude he had taken up, but he differed with him upon one point, and that was the point of patience, because he thought they ought to make some allowance for the complicated institutions with which they started. The system they established under the Act of Union was right, and could be assimilated to the systems of the country, and therefore no change was necessary.

He was sure that that would be the solution in the long run. No question of policy, which the hon. member (Sir. Percy Fitzpatrick) had referred to, was raised in this matter, but his statement was based entirely on the authority of what was said by his hon. friend behind him. His hon. friend (Mr. Hull) gave specifically to the House the grounds upon which he had resigned from the Cabinet. Among those grounds there was no statement in reference to any abandonment of policy by his other colleagues, and he certainly hoped that the policy which his hon. friend had stood for in the Cabinet might win. There was no question about that point, and he thought the whole Cabinet would agree with that.

Why has he had to leave then?

The grounds on which he left are different —(Opposition laughter)—and he stated them very fully in the statement he submitted to the House yesterday, and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has dealt very adequately with these grounds. His hon. friend behind him gave three heads under which he arranged his facts and which supported the action which he had taken. Well, he took the last one first. He said that there was a railway programme before the House involving a large sum of money and at a late date, and even on the day on which notice was given of the Railway Bill the reports of the Railway Board were not placed in the hands of himself and, he imagined, also of his colleagues. That was the most important charge he made, and it was the main ground upon which he left the Cabinet. And on that ground his hon. friend was perfectly right. (Hear, hear.) But in saying that his hon. friend was perfectly right, they could, when they got to the Railway Bill, go into the whole grounds and the facts of the case, and hon. members would hear how these matters shaped themselves, and why it was the Railway Board’s reports were not in the hands of Ministers until last Friday or Saturday. But the fact stated by his hon. friend was perfectly correct. Now, what was the attitude assumed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours on that question. Did he deny that statement? He did not deny that statement. And there was really in the two statements which were laid before the House yesterday as little conflict as possible on this most important point (opposition laughter, and cries of “Oh, oh.”) He knew in what state of mind hon. members opposite had listened yesterday to these statements. They were simply waiting for a sensation, and in their own minds they were magnifying the sensation instead of listening carefully to the statements that were being made. The Minister of Railways and Harbours stated another fact which was also correct. He stated that this railway programme, although it was quite right they did not have reports before them, was discussed and settled by the Cabinet. That was perfectly true. Hon. members opposite immediately rushed to the conclusion that these two statements were in conflict, but as a matter of fact the Minister of Railways had from time to time consulted the Cabinet on the new lines he wished to build, and with the exception of the hon. member for Barberton, who disagreed with this programme to the end, the other members of the Cabinet agreed to it.

Without seeing the report?

said the Cabinet had not been consulted as to the details of the reductions. The Minister of Railways said that the Cabinet had been consulted, and there again they were both correct. (Opposition laughter.) Hon. members were simply trying to get as much conflict into these two statements as possible. He wanted to draw the attention of hon. members, as the Prime Minister had already done, to the statements actually made yesterday. These two statements were both correct. His hon. friend was quite correct that these reductions were made purely on the authority of the Railway Board. The Cabinet had not been consulted when the reductions were made. But one thing did happen, and his hon. friend was correct that the effect of these reductions as affecting the various parts of the Union was properly discussed by the Cabinet. He was not sure that his hon. friend behind him was not perfectly correct. (Opposition laughter.) He hoped hon. members would follow him. The assumption of his hon. friend behind him was that whenever rates were altered in this country they should be altered not merely on the authority of the Railway Board, but also on the authority of the Government, and he (the Minister of the Interior) agreed with him that that was right, section 56. But hon. members opposite were not in agreement with that policy. The difference between the two hon. gentlemen was that the effect of the changes was discussed, but the actual reductions were not, and his hon. friend behind him took exception to that. Well, on that point his hon. friend behind him was quite correct. He thought that when changes were made having far-reaching effects on the country they ought to be discussed and there should be no doubt in this House that whatever the authority of the Railway Board the final say in railway rates and in any change affecting the country should emanate finally from the Government. There was one other ground. There was one other charge, and that was that the Cabinet were not kept informed of important steps that were taken in connection with the railway administration. The Minister of Railways yesterday denied that charge, but at the same time mentioned the fact with which hon. members on both sides of the House would agree that the work of the Government had increased enormously, and the tendency had been for Ministers to be so engrossed in their own affairs that it was not possible for them to meet day by day in Cabinet and discuss important questions arising in connection with their departments. His own opinion was that that was no adequate excuse for not discussing important questions arising in the railways or other departments, but hon. members would understand that they had been working under very abnormal conditions. They had an enormous amount of work thrown on them immediately after Union, but he hoped that in future it would be possible for Ministers to take far more cognisance of the work of the different departments. He believed that there had not been sufficient consultation about these matters, and the tendency and the impression was that the railway administration had drifted apart from the rest of the administration. His hon. friend behind him had resigned on these three grounds in protest of that tendency. He was sorry that his hon. friend had resigned, because if he had remained in the Cabinet there was no one he was sure who could have helped more powerfully than the hon. member for Barberton in bringing things into the right lines. Now the position was that his hon. friend had resigned on these three grounds and the House knew exactly the full and complete grounds for the resignation. The resignation was entirely honourable. He wanted the railway administration to be run in the closest touch with the rest of the administration of the country, and he thought the whole House would agree with him and he thought the Minister of Railways agreed with him also. (Opposition laughter.) There was no doubt that there had been a tendency necessitated by the circumstances of the inception of Union for Ministers to attend to their own affairs and leave others. That system did not work well, but in future they would have to keep to the good old lines adopted under Responsible Government. He thought there would have to be a definition of the functions of the Railway Board. That would have to take place.

We want them.

said that his hon. friend the Minister of Railways had stated that he was going to introduce a Bill in which that definition would take place. Discussions such as these did not tend to the public interest. After all, they were there to do very important work, and they had a very difficult job before them in the present legislative programme, and he hoped hon. members opposite, having now had sufficient sensation, would proceed with the business before the House.

said that he would like to touch on one or two points which had been raised by the Minister who had just spoken. First, he would like to protest against the insinuation of the Minister that this most serious question was regarded by hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House as a matter for entertainment. Then they were accused of having dragged into this controversy the question of policy and the divergence of Provincial interests, which, he might say, was as much regretted by hon. members on his side of the House as hon. members on the other side of the House. As he understood the hon. member for Pretoria East, there had been a misunderstanding on the point as to the reason why the hon. member for Pretoria East moved the adjournment. He thought that this was a question of policy, about which they were in the dark, and one that should be cleared up before they went any further. What was that question of policy? It was not, to his mind, a question of the constitution of the Railway Board, it was not a question of whether the National Convention was right or wrong when it set up this Railway Board, but the question of policy seemed to him to be whether the control of the railways, expressly provided for in the Act of Union, has been exercised by the Government collectively. That, to his mind, was a question of policy, and upon that policy they were in the dark, in spite of the statements that had been made that afternoon. It seemed to him that the Minister who had spoken last had attempted—he would not say that he had succeeded—to take the debate away from the real issue, by dealing with the question of the functions of the Railway Board. He had almost given hon. members on that side of the House to understand that the experiment of the Railway Board had proved a failure, and that it was time to consider whether they should not go back on what had been done. Looking at the matter clearly, he did not think that that had anything to do with the matter. Exactly the same situation might have arisen—would have arisen —had no Railway Board been constituted. (Hear, hear.) This was clear from what happened last session in connection with the new railway programme. That was one of the complaints which the hon. member for Barberton had brought against his late colleague, that that programme of railway construction was not properly considered by the Government before it was placed before Parliament.

The late Minister had admitted that there were extenuating circumstances in that instance, and that that was why he did not take such a serious view of the question. It could not be said that it was owing to the Railway Board that such a state of affairs occurred. They on that side of the House complained about the matter when the programme was placed before Parliament. They complained, not that the proposals had not been considered by the Cabinet, but that they had not been submitted to the Railway Board for consideration. They never considered the programme to any great extent, and no reports on the subject were placed before that House. The fact was that the Railway Board had nothing to do with the circumstances which had led to this regrettable situation. It was a question of policy whether the words of the Act of Union meant what was suggested—whether the control—that over-riding control and responsibility—had to be shared by the Government as a whole or that one Minister should take the whole thing into his hands. That seemed to him to be clear. It seemed to him that it was upon that question that the hon. member for Barberton had found it necessary to sever his connection with the Cabinet. There were two inferences to be drawn, and they had to take their choice. Either the Prime Minister was not satisfied that the facts alleged by the hon. member for Barberton was a correct statement of the case, or if he was satisfied that the statement was a correct statement of the facts as they occurred, then he was content that there should be collective responsibility. Either the facts were not so serious as the hon. member for Barberton had led them to believe, or the Government had deliberately acquiesced in the policy whereby one Minister undertook the control of the railways. He submitted that it was a question of policy that was at issue, and that the House and the country should not be left in the dark. On the personal issue he had no desire to address the House. It was as regrettable to hon. members on that side of the House as to hon. members on the other side of the House to see a question which should not have come out of the doors of the Cabinet thrashed out in that House. How that could have been avoided it was difficult to say; when one Minister flatly contradicted the statement made by a late colleague the matter had to be thrashed out. To his mind the question was one of policy, and a question that demanded the gravest consideration.

said he had followed the various speeches on this painful subject very carefully, and he quite agreed with every word spoken by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. He wished to say that he agreed entirely with the hon. member for Barberton when he complained of the manner in which information was withheld, or rather of the manner in which it was given. The majority of his colleagues were fully in accord with the hon. member on that point. These matters were discussed, and the attention of the Hon. the Minister for Railways and Harbours was directed to them, and although the matter was seriously gone into, this had always been done in the very best spirit. So little had they been inclined to depart from the policy now advocated by the hon. the member for Barberton that they had said that they must insist upon this policy being carried out and that they would support him. But at the same time he wished to emphasise that nothing was done or said in a spirit of hostility towards the Minister of Railways and Harbours. They must realise that the Minister of Railways from the date he took over the management of the railways had been faced with great difficulties in regard to the Board which was a new body still to be developed. They must understand that the Railway Board had not been gradually developed so that everyone knew exactly what its functions were. There was no natural evolution, it was simply an outcome of the Constitution—“ex machina.” The Government had to do the best they could, and to-day they were still trying to do so. The hon. member for Barberton was quite right in his assertions on this matter. He (the Minister of Justice) had, however, always felt that they were not justified in blaming the Minister of Railways, nor to say that they refused any longer to work with him. They had felt that the Minister of Railways had wished to carry out the right policy, but that circumstances so far had prevented him from doing so.

At the same time, however, he sympathised entirely with the position of the hon. the member for Barberton. Parliament was in session, and he was Treasurer, and if anything went wrong the blame would in the very first place fall on his shoulders. (Hear, hear.) The Treasurer would feel matters more than any other member of the Cabinet, who would not be directly concerned. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, he sympathised with the late Treasurer, who had been desirous to have matters placed right. But if the Minister of Railways did not act in accordance with that policy, it was simply due to circumstances. He regretted the Treasurer’s resignation, but all the same sympathised with him as he might have been called upon at any time to accept the responsibility if anything went wrong. In that step the Treasurer had acted most honourably. (Hear, hear.) He had listened carefully to both speeches, and could not say that either the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Finance had said a word which one could say was untrue. (Hear, hear, and Opposition laughter.) Only they had looked upon the circumstances and conditions from a different standpoint, and had argued in different directions. (Hear, hear.) As far as the facts were concerned, he must repeat that he quite agreed with the statement of the hon. member for Barberton. (Hear, hear.)

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

said that the proposals contained in this clause were very drastic, and he hoped they would be very carefully considered by the committee. Arbitrary powers were given to the bank in certain eventualities, such as the death or insolvency of a debtor, without any recourse whatever to the Courts, to take possession of the assets. The Chambers of Commerce throughout the country saw a new principle, viz., that the bank was going to be allowed to proceed to execution without any recourse to the Courts, but simply because the bank happened to be a creditor it was going to have the authority, if certain contingencies arose, to see that the assets which were pledged were forthwith realised. This clause was giving to the Land Bank powers which the Government itself did not possess. The Land Bank was going to be preferent in an exceptional degree. As he understood, the only reason which had been advanced in favour of this provision was on the score of saving expense to the bank. He did not consider that that was an adequate reason. Why should the saving of a small expense stand in the way of continuing a process which was a protection to every creditor? He submitted that a case had not been made out why that preferential treatment should be given to the bank. He moved in sub-section (ii), line 62, to omit all the words from “notwithstanding” to “law in line 64, and to substitute “on an order from a competent Court”; and in subsection (iv), line 5, to omit all the words after “purchaser” to the end of the subsection.

said he did not see any reason why they should always stick to the old system of summoning a defendant before proceeding to execution. He thought it was right in exceptional circumstances to depart from that system, and in the case under consideration he thought they had a good reason for making a departure. It seemed to him that the only effect of keeping to the old system was to provide a few guineas for junior advocates. (Laughter.)

said that he did not propose to follow the hon. member in his reference to junior advocates. He bowed to the venerable seniority which covered the hon. member from head to foot. (Laughter.) If such an exorbitant tariff as that mentioned appeared to apply in the Zoutpansberg he was very sorry for the hon. member’s clients. (Laughter.) Under the clause, proceeded Mr. Alexander, a man might have paid up every penny of his instalment to date and then die; then Government could step in and seize everything. They would also be introducing a new law of insolvency and nobody could disturb the Government’s right of preference. It was a new principle to allow sheriff officers to go in without the authority of a Court. Under the old English law a landlord could distrain on his tenant’s goods, but that did not hold good here. Government in the ordinary way had to go through the usual procedure in order to recover money owing to it. In conclusion, Mr. Alexander said he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon, but should that not be carried, he would move to omit the word “die” in sub-section (a).

said he could meet the hon. member (Mr. Alexander), but he thought the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon went too far. The Transvaal law worked very well, and, as far as he remembered, the clause was taken from the New Zealand Act. He would move as an amendment to substitute “three months after demand by registered letter has been made for repayment of an advance, and after due notice to other mortgagees, without recourse to law, can enter upon and take possession,” etc.

moved in lime 43, after “unpaid” to omit all the words to “thereof,” in line 45, and in line 62. to omit all the words from “notwithstanding” down to “law” in line 64, and to substitute “three months after demand by registered letter has been made for the repayment of the advance, and after due notice to the mortgagees and without recourse to law.”

said he presumed that the Minister would bring in a measure applying the principle to other mortgagees as well? He did not for one moment think that the Minister would say that this was any advantage to the debtor, because he could sell the property himself, or give the bank a power of attorney to sell it. The sole and only object was the bank The Minister would see that this was a very dangerous principle altogether, to put judiciary power as well as power of prosecution, in the hands of the Land Bank. If there was a breach of agreement alleged, let them go to the Courts and settle the point

admitted that there was a good deal of expense connected with the judgment and the levying of execution, but all that was for the protection of creditors. It was not only the attorneys that filled the bill of expenses, but there were other expenses as well. The amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior only dealt with the mortgagee but what became of the general body of creditors? What did they find? Actually that a man’s property might be signed away without his consent. That might be an Australian principle, but he protested against it being introduced here. Unless the Minister could make it plain that concurrent creditors were protected apart from mortgagees, he was not prepared to meet him.

said he hoped the committee would not agree to sub-sections 2, 3, or 4. It was introducing a most extraordinary and drastic principle that a Land Bank should be entitled, when a man’s money was due, to seize his property and sell it without his having an opportunity to show that the money may not be due, that he had a counter-claim, or other evidence which from experience he and others knew were often raised in the Courts. It was a power which was not at all necessary in the circumstances. The bank was not supposed to grant money except upon first mortgage, and surely its security was sound, but why a man should be deprived of setting up a defence was one of the most drastic revolutions compared with what had always obtained with regard to banks in this country. Sub-section 3 gave the bank the power to deal with the land upon any terms and conditions it pleased. It did not matter whether the man had other creditors or whether they had to be consulted or not with regard to realising the property for the benefit of all concerned. Surely that was a most unfair thing: it should not be left in the hands of a creditor to dispose of the property so that his own pocket may specially benefit. He did not approve of sub-section 4, and thought they should not be allowed to make advances irrespective of other people’s rights and then go in first. That amounted to a principle which they should not endorse. He moved the deletion of sub-section 2.

said the Minister of the Interior would admit that the clause was a very drastic one and contained a novel and dangerous principle indeed. It constituted the Department as sole arbiter in saying whether a man was carrying out his contract. The hon. member for Potchefstroom wanted now to eliminate “three months” in line 43. If the Government was determined that this principle of selling a man’s farm without his consent was to go through in that Bill it was not too much to give him at least six months; that was to say he must be three months in arrear with his interest and he must get three months’ notice that it was meant to sell his property. What was three months to a man who often only got one post in six weeks, and who might be away from home? The House should satisfy itself before the Bill left the committee that a man must be three months in arrear and have three months’ notice before his farm could be sold. It must be taken into consideration that his creditors had certain rights and that it would frighten a number of farmers who would decide not to have any dealings with an institution that was going to take upon itself such drastic powers and sell a man’s land without having obtained the judgment of the Court. The Minister should very materially alter the clause, and he suggested it should stand over. They could not get away from the fact that the clause was giving powers to the Government which were too dangerous altogether.

pointed out that even if the bank lent only on 60 per cent. of the value of the farm, it might happen that if they had to sell the farm it would produce less than what was lent on it. The proviso that the loan could be recalled if the money was spent otherwise than as agreed should be preserved. Experience in the Transvaal had shown the need of that.

said the reason why the banks were prohibited from giving to the full value was to provide against a contingency of such a character. He thought that the arguments of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, were unanswerable, and he was surprised that the Minister of the Interior had not accepted the amendment.

said that fourteen days’ notice was quite insufficient, and so indeed was three months. He knew of cases where, owing to drought, the farmers had left their farms for nine months. The clause gave the bank too much power.

said he did not think the clause was brought forward for the benefit of the debtor. Here they were interfering with what he considered was the inherent right to appeal to the Court. A man might be doing the right thing, but the bank might consider otherwise. The Government might as well ask for the same drastic powers in regard to taxation. He did hope the Minister would allow the clause to stand over for further consideration. It might even be redrafted.

said he wished to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, but in order to make the clause less drastic, if the other amendment were not carried, he would move that the words “or other security” be deleted. He thought that these words were exceedingly dangerous and should be excised. He moved in line 5, on page 24, to omit “or other security,” and in line 6, after thereto,” to omit all the words to the end, and to substitute “subject to all existing legal rights.”

said that if they carried that amendment, they would not be able to go into subsection (2).

said he was not moving that the amendment be now put. He did not mean his amendment to be put before the amendment on sub-section (2).

moved that the clause should stand over.

said that the clause had been discussed for a long time now, and he thought they might come to a vote. The amendment of the hon. member for Caledon had no sense. It was far better if his amendment were to be adopted to delete the whole clause. (Hear, hear.) He thought the clause embodied a very He thought the clause embodied a very important privilege, which they wanted to give to the bank. It was a privilege which was not exceptional in that House, or any other. He hoped that the committee would hesitate before expunging the clause, because it would lead to the avoidance of costs of litigation and execution.

said he could not for a moment accept the position that, in order to save a few pounds in a few exceptional cases, they should interfere with a man’s right to be heard as to whether he owed the debt or not. Provisional sentence was a very cheap and expeditious mode of obtaining one’s remedy. He pointed out that if they were to take away a man’s property, when he was in a position to point out that the debt was not due, or there had been some arrangement made or he had a counter-claim, the costs would be very much greater, because he would then have to proceed against the Government by way of interdict, which would be followed by an action.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Cronje, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Baxter in sub-section (ii), were withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Neser in sub-section (a) and the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander in sub-section (c) were agreed to.

The amendments moved by Mr. Neser and the Minister of the Interior in sub-section (ii.) were agreed to.

called for a division.

Why not divide on the whole clause?

withdrew the call for a division.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Nathan and Sir Henry Juta were negatived.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Krige dropped.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior, to omit sub-section (iii.), was agreed to.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Baxter in sub-section (iv.) were negatived.

put the question, that sub-section (iv.), proposed to be omitted by Mr. Nathan, stand part of the clause, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

suggested the omission of this clause, because he did not think that any co-operative society would accept any such liability under the condition laid down.

refused to agree.

Clause 40 was negatived.

moved to omit “and audit” in the heading.

Agreed to.

On clause 41, Accounts,

thought they ought to alter the date of the closing of accounts from March to December 31, as then they would be able to get a report during the session of Parliament. If they kept it at March they would not get a report for another year. He moved to substitute “December” for “March.”

said he would accent the amendment.

Agreed to.

said he would like to move that the following be a new sub-section, to follow sub-section (b), viz.: (c) The General Manager shall furthermore prepare an annual and full report for direct submission to Parliament within fourteen days of its annual session.

said it was unnecessary.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 44, Power of Governor-General to make regulations,

moved to alter the first line so as to read: “The Board may, subject to the Governor-General-in-Council, make” regulations, etc.

could not accept the amendment, as it seemed to him that it went further than was necessary.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

withdrew his amendment, and on sub-section 2 moved to delete “14 days,” and substitute “one month”, so that it would read: “no such regulation shall continue to be of force and effect if within one month after it has been laid on the table of both Houses,” etc.

said he did not see why a Land Bank with a small staff should have a superannuation fund. It would be a failure; it should be established on a larger scale, and he would suggest that they should make it that the superannuation fund established under the Public Service Bill should be available for this bank.

pointed to sub-section (g), which remarkable statement, he said, gave the Government power to state what should be the rules of good husbandry. He thought the Department of Agriculture, which was running at a loss of ten to twenty thousands a year, were the last people in the world to whom they should look for any rules as to what should constitute good husbandry, and he hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would consent to the deletion of the sub-section.

said the contention of the hon. member was hardly borne out by fact. He went on to instance the case of an agriculturist who had revolutionised agriculture in one part of England, but nevertheless became insolvent.

moved the deletion of paragraph (g) of sub-section (1).

said he thought his hon. friend was looking upon the paragraph too seriously. It was taken from other Acts as a precaution, and might become necessary. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Castle, he thought that a fortnight was too short, and that a month would be better. Regarding superannuation, his hon. friend (Mr. Duncan) was very busy. He did not know whether he was preparing a scheme. (Laughter.) They had passed a previous clause (No. 6, sub-section 3), in which it was stated that Civil Servants who were transferred to the service of the Land Bank would continue on the pension fund —that was, a person already on the pension fund would remain, notwithstanding his transfer to the service of the bank. Of course, that did not deal with cases where the bank appointed its own officials. He did not want the Public Service Commission to recommend the appointment of officials for the bank. It would be a waste of time to pass a law for these people, in order to get a pension fund for them. He thought the clause was all right, and he would not attempt to draft an alternative scheme.

assured the Minister that he had not been preparing a scheme. (Laughter.) He wished to move an amendment to give Parliament reasonable time to consider these important regulations. He moved in line 43, before “such” to omit “no” and to substitute “every”; in the same line to omit “continue to”; in line 44 to omit “if within fourteen days after” and to substitute “unless and until during the session in which”.

thought the amendment a useful one.

thought the country was already taxed heavily enough. He referred to the number of young pensioners the country had to keep, and thought, especially as there was a Bill under which they should make it as easy as possible for people to get money, that it would be out of place to start a heavy pension fund. Let them pay good salaries instead. He moved now that paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) be deleted.

said he did not see any sound reason in the statement that had been made by the Minister. “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” was, he thought, the meaning of good husbandry. Though he was against the principle of the Bill he wanted to minimise the effect of possible happenings.

said that it was impossible to give a good definition of what was meant by good husbandry. The Land Bank sent out an inspector. When he found a man was not doing progressive farming he had the power to make him farm in a better way. If the clause were not in the Bill the inspector would not have the right to do anything of the sort.

How many employees were there in the Transvaal Land Bank?

Not more than twenty.

That is just the point. Even suppose you had forty men they would not be sufficient to form a fund. Continuing, he said the better plan would be to allow these officials to insure in a good insurance company and pay part of the yearly premiums. He suggested that the clause should be withdrawn and another dealing with the insurance proposal brought forward.

What is the position of a Civil Servant transferred to the bank? Does he continue pension rights?

Just as though he were in the Public Service.

said that when the committee was dealing with clause 6 he asked the then Minister of Finance what would be the position of Civil Servants who were transferred to the bank and their pension rights. He was sorry that he was unable to follow the answer The hon. member for Rustenburg seemed to be under the impression that as soon as the man was transferred he would lose his pension rights.

Oh! No.

said that if all transferred Civil Servants retained their pension rights there would be fewer men to form a fund. He moved in line 47, after “same” to omit all the words to the end of the clause.

said that under clause 6, Civil Servants who were transferred to the service of the bank retained their pension rights. He could quite follow the argument that had been raised that the fund of the bank would be very small and would start in a most inauspicious fashion.

The number won’t grow.

said that he could not agree to deleting the clause, but he would give the matter his attention later on.

said that such a small fund would not be able to afford the required pensions. It would be far better to drop the whole thing and allow Civil Servants who were transferred to retain their pension rights.

The hon. member could not have been listening. I have explained twice that the point is dealt with in clause 6. (Laughter.)

asked what would happen to the man with £200 in the service who got £400 from the Land Bank?

That has been passed.

said there was no necessity for this clause being included in the Bill. Why could they not drop the clause and decide on another which could be inserted?

said in order to save time he would agree to the deletion of the sub-section.

said that he would withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan).

The amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger was withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Wilcocks, Mr. Duncan, and Sir Henry Juta were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Fawcus was negatived.

On clause 45, Employment of inspectors and valuators of property,

moved in line 54, after “Act” to omit all the words down to “him” in line 57; and to omit sub-section (2).

These amendments were negatived.

The clause as printed was negatived.

New clause 45,

moved that the following be a new clause: “45. (1) The Board shall from time to time appoint a reasonable number of fit and proper persons in each district to inspect and value properties for the purposes of this Act, and may in its discretion remove any person so appointed. The Board shall at the expense of any person so appointed cause notice of his appointment to be published in the “Gazette” and in a newspaper circulating in the district in respect of which such appointment has been made. (2) The fees and travelling expenses of valuators so appointed shall be payable by the bank in accordance with tariffs framed by the Board and approved by the Minister. (3) Every magistrate, field-cornet, police officer, the Postmaster-General and any officer under him shall, without additional emolument, when required by the Board, report on any cases submitted to him, and generally act as agent of the bank. (4) The Board shall have access without fee or charge to the valuation roll of any local rating authority and it shall be the duty of officers of every such authority to supply without fee or charge to the Board, upon application, particulars as to any valuation of ratable property on which such local authority has power to levy rates.”

said that he would accept the amendment.

said that the clause directed that every magistrate, field-cornet, or other person in the employment of the Government should, at the request of the Central Board or the Local Board, report on any case submitted to them. He submitted that it was a dangerous principle that they should allow magistrates to make valuations. Magistrates very frequently were moved from one place to another, and they were not competent authorities on the values of land. He hoped the Minister would stick to the very sound principle of having a man who was a sworn and experienced valuator to make the valuations.

Read the amendment on the paper.

moved the omission of all the words from “Act” down to “him,” thus deleting the portion of the clause to which he had taken exception.

said he had moved a new clause which would meet the case mentioned by the hon. member.

withdrew his amendment.

said he did not see why they should not let the clause stand as printed and leave the matter to the discretion of the Board.

said he had misunderstood the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He found that the hon. member’s amendment was not exactly the same, in fact, it was considerably different from his point of view. He, therefore, would move the deletion of the words in question.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 47, Penalties,

said he noticed that the clause read “and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment with hard labour for a period not exceeding five years.” He thought that an option of a fine should be provided and he, therefore, moved before “imprisonment” to insert “a fine of £500 sterling, or in default of payment to”.

said he was agreeable to the course suggested, but he would go the whole hog and move that the clause should read “to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding five years, or to both.”

The amendment was altered to read: In lines 17 and 25, respectively, after “conviction,” to insert “to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds sterling or”; and in lines 18 and 26, respectively, after “years” to insert “or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

Agreed to.

moved, in line 34, to omit from “or sits” to and including “advance” in line 36.

wished to know how a man was to be punished.

According to the section 47.

That has nothing to do with it.

withdrew his amendment.

On clause 48, Fees, costs, etc.

moved in line 42, after “pay” to insert “to the bank”; in line 43 to omit “Fifth” and to substitute “Fourth”; in line 56, to omit “Sixth” and to substitute “Fifth”; to omit paragraph (b) and the remainder of the clause and to substitute the following “(b) The valuator’s fee and his travelling expenses, according to tariffs framed by the Board and approved by the Minister. In the event of the advance being refused, the applicant shall be entitled to a refund of fees paid by him, less an amount of ten shillings together with the fees and travelling expenses (if any) of the valuator.”

wished to know whether the amendment did not involve increased expenditure.

A comma has been misplaced.

said Acts of Parliament were not construed according to commas, and he had misread the amendment. He moved to omit “and” before “fees,” and to substitute “together with”.

said the amendment only made the clause more obscure.

said the trouble was that if he did not accept amendments hon. members argued and said he was very obstinate, and if he did accept the amendments hon. members like the hon. member for Barkly West, who was usually perverse in these matters—(laughter)—wished to know why.

I object to that.

I withdraw it. (Laughter.)

The amendments were agreed to.

On the first schedule, Laws repealed,

moved that the Natal Land and Agricultural Loan Fund Amendment Act, No. 24 of 1909, also be repealed.

The amendment was agreed to.

On the second schedule,

moved to omit the whole of the second schedule.

The amendment was agreed to.

On the third schedule,

moved, in lines 7 and 8, to omit “at the expiry of the first half-year,” and substitute “when five and a half years have expired from the date of the advance.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On the fourth schedule,

moved on page 36, line 3 of covenant (4), after “aforesaid” to insert “or in the insurance thereof”; and in line 3 of covenant (5), after “effected” to insert “or renewal thereof.”

asked whether the Board referred to was the Local Board or the Central Board.

said that since the Bill was introduced the Local Board had lost its functions, and, therefore, the term would mean the Central Board.

moved in covenant (6), line 4, to omit “without any notice or demand whatsoever.” and in the following line to omit “for three months.”

These amendments were agreed to.

On schedule 5,

moved to insert the word “each” before “application.” and to omit the remaining items of the schedule. He thought the bank should be able to depend for its revenue upon the interest it charged and not upon fortuitous charges like fees.

The amendment was negatived.

pointed out that no provision had been made for charging fees on sums above £2,000. He would move therefore the following addition: “On application for an advance exceeding £2,000, for every £1,000 or fraction thereof, £1.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On schedule 6,

moved after the fifth item to insert “for every advance exceeding £2,000, for every £1,000 or fraction thereof £1.”

Agreed to.

On clause 2,

moved in line 38, after “Act” to omit all the words down to “board” in line 41.

Agreed to.

On clause 9,

moved in line 24, after “board” to omit all the words down to “board” in line 27.

Agreed to.

On clause 9, Execution of documents and signing of cheques,

moved to delete the words, in line 24, commencing “or if” to the end of the section.

The amendment was agreed to.

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

said he thought that “and that £2,400” should be deleted.

That would be £600 each for four directors.

thought they would meet weekly. (An HON. MEMBER: “Once a month!”) He thought it would be necessary the Board would have to meet once a week, and would have to go to Pretoria. There would be an enormous number of applications. He remembered when the Transvaal Land Bank was started, in the first few months there were thousands of applications, and there would be a much larger number of applications coming to that Board, and they should not rely on the general manager, with such assistance as he would get once a month. The Board must keep a vigilant eye on the bank. It might be possible to get the right people for £600, but his only doubt was whether that sum was too small.

said that, as a matter of fact, that sum was either too much or too little. This bank was very different from the Transvaal bank. It was essentially a one-man office. Large powers had been given to the general manager, and the directors were not going to have the same amount of work as in the Transvaal bank. The point was that £600 was not sufficient for a man to give his whole time—they could not get the right men to do that; it would be better to give the directors so much a sitting, say, three guineas a day. Six hundred pounds for a man residing in Pretoria would be too much, for his whole time would not be required. The hon. member referred to the case of the South African Mutual. In that instance very capable men met once a week, and received, he thought, £2 2s. a sitting. He did not think there would be any difficulty in getting first-class men to come once a week.

said he would be extremely sorry if the general manager of the bank did all the work and then placed the result of that work before the Board. What he thought would happen was that the principle that had found favour in the Transvaal, and had worked well, would be adopted in the case of this measure. Every member of the Board of that bank made a valuation. Then the valuations were compared and the Board’s valuation fixed. After that the amount of the advance was fixed by the whole Board. If the general manager had to do everything it would simply be a one-horse show. The case quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was quite different to the one before the House at the present time. The Board of the South African Mutual dealt with applications for policies of insurance.

There are investments.

There are very few. Continuing, he said that in respect of the point that was raised he could only speak of the Transvaal; he could not claim that he had had any experience in the Cape. He thought that the only safe way of doing things so far as the Land Bank was concerned was to follow the course that had been followed with so much success in the Transvaal. He considered that they would be unable to get men to do the work for less than £600 a year, and he pointed out that those who were appointed must have no interest, according to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that was accepted, in any other institutions of a like character. He hoped that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not raise any objection to the amendment.

said that when the committee was discussing as to how many times the Central Board should meet it was proposed that the Board should meet once a week, and more if required. The hon. member for Rustenburg and other members on his side of the House opposed the suggestion.

I did not oppose.

Pardon me. I do not think that the hon. member’s memory can be very good. Continuing, he said it was agreed that the Board should meet at least once a month. The great argument the Minister advanced was that under the Bill they had one general manager—not five managers—and he remembered his hon. friend on his right (Mr. Jagger) saying to the Minister of Finance, “Then the policy of your bank is to have one strong man as general manager.” There was a great deal of opposition from the other side of the House at the suggestion that the Board should meet at least once a week on the ground that that would not be necessary. It was contended that the Local Boards would supply all the details, and that the Central Board would not want to go through all the details. Now, when it came to a question of payment, there was quite a different song. Now the Board was going to meet every day, and, perhaps, twice a day if necessary.

was understood to say that he did not oppose the proposal that the Board should meet once a week.

said that the sound example which was furnished by the Land Bank of Natal was one that could be followed with profit. He pointed out that the total fees paid for the four members of the Board for dealing with all the business of a year—which involved a sum of a quarter of a million sterling—was only £225. while the total cost of the whole business was only £1,300 a year. That was an example that might be followed, and it would be paying men far too much for the little they would do. As the hon. member for Cape Town, Central had remarked, £600 was either too much or too little to pay the men who would be appointed. He pointed out that the valuators were the men on whom the country would have to rely; the Central Board would only deal with the business aspect.

said it was necessary that members of this Board should reside in Pretoria. There were heaps of good men in Pretoria who would be very glad to do this job for the Land Bank at £600 a year. Had it not occurred to the Minister that it was proposed to give these men more than members of Parliament got for sitting there night after night? (Laughter.) There were heaps of men who would be pleased to serve on this Board for £100 a year. It was a position of honour.

said that they did not want a dummy Board. They wanted a Board that was going to take an intelligent interest and a business interest in this concern, and, if they wanted that, they must pay for it. The whole of the members of this Board must reside where the Board was going to meet. They must have whole-time men, and offer a salary that would induce good men to come forward. They did not want men who would do it for the honour of the thing, as the hon. member for Langlaagte had said. No man in this country or any other country did anything for “the honour of the thing.”

said he hoped his hon. friend in charge of this Bill would listen to reason. He would like the Minister to tell him what the manager of the present Land Bank in Pretoria got. He understood that that gentleman got £1,800 a year.

£800 a year.

Is that the whole of his emoluments from the Government? The chairman of the bank draws £800.

said that the chairman drew £400.

Does he draw any other salary from the Government?

He is Master of the Supreme Court in the Transvaal.

Practically, he is getting £1,600 or £1,800 a year.

£1,600.

Well, my hon. friend tells me that he gets £1,600 a year. What does he get that for?

For services rendered.

Because he is a man with special qualifications, and is able to give special attention to this important institution. Proceeding, he said that why he was opposed to the proposal of the hon. member for Rustenburg, was that he believed an institution of this sort must have a thoroughly trained and thoroughly qualified gentleman in supreme control of the institution. What they wanted was a Board of directors, who would be paid a reasonable sum for services rendered. If the headquarters of the bank were at Pretoria, as they must be, they must have on the Board people engaged in business within a reasonable distance of that place. He would propose as an amendment that three guineas be substituted for two guineas, provided that no single director should be paid more than 300 guineas in one year. Reckoning that there would be two meetings a week, that would mean a remuneration for each member of the Central Board of 312 guineas. A proposal of this sort erred on the side of liberality. (Hear, hear.)

said that those with experience would agree that the members of the Land Bank should have fixed salaries, and that £600 was a modest amount. He feared if the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort were accepted they would not act in a practical manner, and would not have the supervision which was necessary. On the Board they required men with practical knowledge of the value of ground in the country. He considered they should exert themselves to get the best men possible on the Board. Under the amendment they would not get the sort of people they wanted, as business men would not travel hundreds of miles for £3 3s. The business of the bank would be a very important one, and therefore they should have such a Board able to make a thorough success of the matter. The hon. member opposite always advocated the appointment of Boards. Well, they suggested a Board here, but let them have a good one. He should withdraw his amendment.

said he did not quite understand the reference of his right hon. friend when he said they were always anxious to appoint Boards. If the right hon. gentleman would carry his memory back he would remember that he and the gentlemen from the Transvaal who supported were anxious in the Convention to establish both a Railway Board and a Civil Service Board. The only Board that they had sought to establish was a Board in connection with the Defence Bill, and it was proposed that that should be unpaid. The Prime Minister seemed to be surprised that they should object to large salaries being paid to men who would only act as directors, but he would point out that in the Transvaal Act it was only proposed to pay at the rate of £2 2s. per meeting; what they proposed was on a much more liberal scale. He could only protest against the money of the taxpayer being wasted in this manner.

said if these directors met only once a month, then £50 was far too much to pay them; but he did not think they would find men willing to come up to Pretoria to attend weekly meetings for £600 a year. Most of these men would be taken from the neighbourhood of Pretoria, and, in that case, 300 guineas a year was quite ample.

replying to the hon. member for Caledon, pointed out that what he said was “provided the total remuneration should not exceed 300 guineas in any one year.”

said the hon. member for Rustenburg did not realise the difference between that bank and the Transvaal bank. The whole thing was going to be very much changed. He could understand the directors of the Transvaal bank giving attention to matters not in the ordinary purview of directors, but far more responsible work was going to be placed upon the management, and the consequence was that not so much of the work would fall upon the directors. Two meetings a week would be ample. (Hear, hear.) The manager would receive the applications and his duty would be to get all the valuations. It would only be when he had got his reports tabulated and ready that he would bring his proposals before the Board, who would see his reports, a matter that would be disposed of in ten minutes. In one day they could get through a whole batch, which could not be, done in connection with the Transvaal Bank. In Natal about 16 meetings in the course of a year sufficed and they got very good men there. He knew a director, a man of great experience and ability, who had to travel from Durban to Pietermaritzburg, and he thought they could get similar men residing in Pretoria or Johannesburg. He did not think that the system of getting men from each Province was practical or necessary. Six hundred a year was too little for a practical first-class business man to devote his whole time, and if a man volunteered to give his whole time for £600 a year he would not be worth it and would not have the necessary ability.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort of £3 3s. per day, with a maximum of £400. He pointed out that as they were going to have local advisory Boards and valuators, in addition to a central Board, they would be able to get suitable persons at Pretoria or Johannesburg or wherever the Central Board might sit. It was therefore not necessary to fetch the directors from all the Provinces.

said he did not think it necessary to go further than 300 guineas a year, which was £3 3s. a sitting for two sittings a week.

said that if hon. members only formed a clear idea of what Board members would have to do they would not object to the payment of £600 a year. He thought it was necessary to pay that amount, because the work was of a responsible character. They wanted a representative Board, and there would be members from different Provinces. (Cries of“No, no.”) Oh, yes, there would be a great cry from the Provinces. Under these circumstances he thought it only fair that they should pay a reasonable sum to each of the members of the Board. The Local Board was a nonentity and the Central Board would be the responsible body. The local bodies were not advisory bodies, because their powers had been curtailed. All the time of the members of the Board would have to be devoted to the work.

said that very high salaries would have to be paid if they were to have highly-qualified men from different parts. He did not think it necessary to have representatives from all parts of the country, and he pointed out that the members of the Board would decide matters in the light of any evidence that might be submitted. He thought that £3 3s. a meeting was enough remuneration for members who might be appointed. He thought they would get very capable men for the sum stated.

said that he was told that members of the Board of the Transvaal Bank had had to sit as often as four or five times a week. He thought they ought not to take a provincial view and say that each Province should be represented on the Board. He was of opinion that three guineas a day would be sufficient, and that the amount should be limited to £400 a year.

withdrew his amendment, and moved that the scale of remuneration should be three guineas a day, the amount not to exceed £400 a year.

said that he thought the scale suggested by the hon. member for Prieska would meet the requirements of the case.

said that he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He thought there was some misunderstanding in the minds of some of the members. He did not think they were going to get a man to go up to Pretoria from the Cape, who was capable of doing this work, for £600 a year. Even if they had such a man he would be of no more value to the Board than a member resident in Pretoria. It would be a calamity to go and create now four billets like that, and it would be against the interests of Pretoria as well as of everybody else.

said that for the first two years at least the Board would have a lot of work to do. He thought that £400 a year was a very reasonable amount indeed. He hoped the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska would be accepted.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Kuhn was withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Mentz and Sir Edgar Walton were negatived.

The amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt was agreed to.

On clause 18, The business of the Bank,

suggested that the clause be omitted and the following be substituted: “Subject to the provisions in this Act specifically prescribed, the business of the Bank shall be (a) to advance money to farmers on mortgage of land within the Union; (b) to advance money to, and to guarantee the carrying out of contracts by, co-operative societies; (c) to advance money to farmers holding land under agreement of purchase from the Crown; and generally to make any such advances and to do any such acts as the bank may by this Act or any other law be authorised to make or do.” The Minister added that nothing was said about dipping tanks, but they were covered in the last section of the clause. If the new clause were accepted a large number of amendments on the old clause would fall out.

said it would be very difficult to say on the spur of the moment what the effect of the new clause would be, and he suggested that it should stand over so that members could see it on the paper.

thought the hon. member’s suggestion should be followed, and he moved that progress be reported.

Progress was reported and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.