as acting chairman, brought up the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts as follows:

Your committee, having considered the schedules referred to them on the 10th instant, viz.: Schedules of gratuities and pensions granted to persons who on the 31st day of May, 1910, were in the permanent employment of the Railway Administration and whose services have been dispensed with owing to a reduction in or re-organisation of staff, or for other good cause, and which it is intended to cover by the proposed new clause 84 in the Railways and Harbours Service Bill, beg to report as follows:

Your committee, having considered the new clause 84 proposed to be introduced in the Bill should be confined to gratuities, and that the words “and benefits” after “gratuities” should be omitted in the first, sixth, seventh and ninth lines of the clause, as printed on page 676 of the Votes and Proceedings. Your committee are of opinion that in regard to pensions the amounts involved should be dealt with upon the same lines as other statutory pensions, being submitted to Parliament to be specifically voted whether as unauthorised expenditure or in the annual appropriation as the case may be.

The report was ordered to be considered to-morrow.

as acting chairman, brought up the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

They recommended the award to Agusta R. van der Spuy, formerly teacher, of a pension calculated on a total service of fifteen years; to H. H. Orren formerly private, Cape Mounted Police, the award of a pension in terms of section 15 of the Cape Police Act No. 12 of 1882; to G. C. Grant, formerly Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cape, of a pension calculated on a total service of seventeen years as a teacher, with salary at the rate of £450 per annum; that the Superintendent of Education, Natal, be authorised to place the name of A. Day, teacher, on the register for pension purposes; breaks to be condoned in the service of D. R. van Alphen, teacher; J. H. Pienaar, teacher; M. J. Botha, teacher; J. A. Liebenberg, teacher; F. M. B. Paterson, teacher; M. T. Pepler, teacher; and T. P. Faure, teacher; and that the petition of E. C. van Gorkum be referred to the Government with a view to the payment of certain moneys which appear to be due to the estate of the late W. M. van Gorkum, as stated in the report furnished to your committee by the Acting Under-Secretary for Finance, Pretoria.

They were unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained: H. Wright, J. W. McLachlan, F. Stembridge, J. E. Symons, P. M. van N. Kuyper, A. J. Fuller, A. C. Versfeld, H. Dijkman, G. Montague, A. E de Beer, W. Stephen, H. E. Pontz, S. A. van Coller. S. W. Snijman, N. P. C. Raaff, J. R. Bresler, R. A. Simmons, M. S. Raath, H. Fife, F. M. Grant, W. J. McEvoy, G. R. Savage, F. White, A. W. Templer. W. G. Glennie, J. R. Dodd, L P. White, J. H. Ward, S. J. Chandler, R. N. Hammond, H. Sundstrom, and A. M. Nicholson.

The report was ordered to be considered in Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday, 5th June.

Correspondence relative to an application for compensation from the widow of the late F. T. Pengelly, drowned on 9th December last while acting as Instructor to the Cape Naval Volunteers

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

Proclamation No. 855 of 1912 regarding rules and regulations for conversion of leasehold farms in Zululand into freehold.

Papers relating to land grants (Nos. 74 to 78).

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

announced that the Governor-General recommended the appropriation contemplated in certain proposed amendments to the Bill.

This recommendation was referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

read the following letter, dated Munich, April 30, 1912:

Mr. Speaker,—I have the honour to tender my resignation of my seat as member for Greyville in the Union Parliament.—-Yours faithfully,

JNO. G. MAYDON.

gave notice that on Monday next he would move that the House declare that a vacancy had occurred in the representation of the Greyville division.

I wish to call attention to Order XXVI., standing on the Order Paper for to-day in the name of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell). When the hon. member introduced the Bill in question the Order for the second reading of the Immigrants’ Restriction Bill was already standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of the Interior, and as, upon the second reading on this Bill, the subject matter of the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Jeppe can be discussed, the Order for the second reading of the Contract Immigrants Bill must be discharged.

moved that the Bill be now read a second time. He said that the object of the Bill was to make provision for meeting certain unauthorised expenditure incurred during the financial year ended March 31, 1911. The House would see, front the Controller and Auditor-General’s report for that year, a summary of unauthorised expenditure on page 380. The Select Committee on Public Accounts had dealt with this unauthorised expenditure, and hon. members would see, from the Votes and Proceedings of this House, page 1001, the report of the Select Committee thereon. It would be seen that the committee recommended that unauthorised expenditure amounting to £142,150 7s. 4d. should be authorised by this House to cover the expenditure incurred during that period.

said that he had no objection to the contents of this Bill, but he thought it incumbent upon them on that side of the House, at any rate, to make protest against the manner in which this Bill had been introduced. The question as to whether the method of its introduction was in order had been already raised, and Mr. Speaker had ruled that the matter was in order, and, so far as that was concerned, there was no doubt that they could not further discuss it. But because Mr. Speaker had ruled that the Bill may be introduced in this manner, it did not necessarily follow that the Government were right in exercising the power which his ruling gave them of introducing in the manner which had now been adopted a Bill now brought forward by a private member, and it did seem to him that, though it might be, in terms of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, competent for that private member to introduce this Bill and competent for the Government to arrange with a private member so to do, yet in arranging in this manner the Government were setting what was, after all, a most dangerous precedent—(hear, hear)—and they were not, as they should, doing their best to maintain the traditions of the House and to see that the ancient forms of Parliament should be strictly observed. Their ruling was apparently based on section 62 of the South Africa Act.

It was impossible for any Bill to be introduced providing for appropriation without the authorisation of the Governor-General. The authorisation in this case had been given—the Minister of Education on the previous day read a message from the Governor-General approving of the appropriation—but it did not seem to him that that authorisation was given to a private member. As he understood Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the previous day, it was to the effect that the Governor-General had authorised the appropriation, but he did not specify the person who was to bring in the Bills.

I must point out that the hon. member said he did not question my ruling, but he proceeds to question my ruling. (Ministerial “Hear, hear.”) I must point out also that the hon. member for Barberton brought up the Bill in his capacity as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and if the hon. member would look at the proceedings in the old Cape House he would find that the invariable practice had been for the chairman to bring up such Bills.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the old Cape House of Assembly the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was almost invariably the Treasurer-General or somebody acting for the Treasurer-General? (Hear, hear.) That is how the whole business has arisen. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in this House is no longer the Treasurer-General. But it is a moot point whether it is desirable that the Treasurer-General should be chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The point was often raised in the Cape Parliament, but I would be assuming a virtue now which I have not always practised if I pressed this point. It is quite proper that the chairman of the committee should bring up the Bill, but it is a moot point whether the chairman should be the Treasurer-General, because, after all, the Public Accounts Committee is a critical body sitting upon the deeds of the Government. (Laughter.)

It is perfectly competent for a member who is not a member of the Government to bring up the Bill on the authority of the Speaker, and there is nothing in the Act of Union to prevent any private member from bringing in a money Bill in this House if he has the consent of the Governor-General.

said that he was not in any way questioning Mr. Speaker’s ruling, but was simply questioning the advisability of the Government availing itself of the power that the Speaker’s ruling gave it. He referred to clause 243 of the Standing Rules and Orders under which the House acted.

That rule has been abrogated by section 62 of the Act of Union, and the hon. member is not at liberty to question the correctness of the ruling I gave yesterday.

No, sir, I do not wish to question your ruling, but I do say that because you have ruled that it is competent for the Government to adopt this procedure it does not follow that they are well advised in adopting it. Proceeding, he said it seemed to him that if this procedure were carried to its logical conclusion there was no saying where they would end. He was not dealing with the present Government, but any Government at any time might shirk its responsibility by delegating its powers to a private individual. He thought it was a most dangerous precedent for the House to adopt. He did not question Mr. Speaker’s ruling. His point was that this procedure created a dangerous precedent, and with the object of emphasising what he had said he would move that the Bill be read that day six months.

seconded the amendment.

said that there was no question as to the House supporting Mr. Speaker’s ruling, because it was obviously the right ruling; but he thought that it pointed to a most unfortunate state of affairs. It was a point which the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders should take into consideration as early as possible because it affected the responsibilities of the Government. The Government was responsible for this expenditure, and it had to come to this House to be relieved of that responsibility, but surely a Minister of the Crown was the proper person to come to the House and relieve the Government of its responsibility in regard to unauthorised expenditure. He trusted that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders would take the matter into consideration and amend the rules and revert to the practice which had been followed in the old Cape Parliament, and in the House of Commons, that a Money Bill must be introduced by a Minister of the Crown.

said that die only wanted to draw attention to one aspect of the case which had not been considered. The Bill now before the House really emanated from the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and it was quite possible that it might be so constituted that not a single representative of the Government was on it. It seemed to him that the practice here was a sound one, and the objection raised by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) was not a good objection. The Bill came from the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There was no arrangement between the Government and himself with regard to the introduction of the Bill, and there was no delegation of the Government’s power. He, as chairman of the committee, as the mouthpiece of the committee, came forward with the Bill.

said that the point raised seemed to be a very important constitutional one. The statement made by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) as regards the procedure of the House of Commons was not correct.

It is correct.

quoted the procedure, which he said was to be found in page 614 of May’s Parliamentary Practice, and said that here the Government would be departing from the recognised practice if it delegated its authority, granted by the Governor-General, to a member who was not a member of the Government. Such procedure had never been followed in any of the Houses of Parliament in South Africa or in the House of Commons In conclusion, he asked whether the Minister would make a statement as to whether it was the intention to adjourn from the following evening until Monday?

said there seemed to be some confusion of thought on the subject, and he thought that before anything was done the House should be clear on the point. The Bill was not placed before the committee nor was it understood by the members of that committee that a Bill was to come before the House. His impression was that the report of the committee would be presented, that a Minister and, perhaps, a member of the committee would be delegated to bring up a Bill on the subject. He did not think it desirable that the House should adopt the practice that the Bill should come straight from the committee. The committee should content itself with bringing up the report and then throwing the responsibility on the Government to give effect to its recommendations. There might be a difference of opinion between the committee concerned and the Government of the day. If they went on with this Bill they would create a precedent that would be found difficult to get rid of in the future.

said that this involved no question of financial policy. The views of the Auditor-General were referred to the Select Committee, which had reported. There was no question of financial policy; the committee was only asking for covering authority.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Maritzburg North. There might be a difference of opinion on the subject between the committee and the Government of the day. The responsibility should be on the Government to bring up a Bill on the committee’s report, and if they did not do so, then they would be liable to criticism.

replying to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, said it was intended to move on the following day that the House should adjourn until Monday.

said he quite recognised the circumstances which had placed the hon. member for Barberton in a peculiar position. It was the precedent that worried hon. members on the Opposition benches. The Convention seriously discussed this matter, and it was unanimously agreed that it would be taking away from the responsibility of the Government if it were permissible for a private member to do anything of the sort. An hon. member, even on the Government side, might get the consent of the Governor-General and bring in a Bill in conflict with the views of the Government, but which might be very popular and embarrass the Government. Theoretically it was possible for an hon. member to get the Governor-General’s consent and introduce a money Bill.

You can’t get it.

Theoretically it is possible.

No.

If one member can do so another member can do the same. In conclusion, he said that the Government might even try to do something that way winch it would not do itself.

The amendment was withdrawn.

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

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the House do now resolve itself into committee on the Bill, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the Chairman report the Bill without amendment.

Agreed to.

reported that the committee had agreed to the Bill without amendment, and asked leave to bring up the report to-morrow.

Agreed to.

moved the following further proviso to the amendment he moved on the previous occasion: “And provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to any Judge appointed prior to the commencement of this Act.”

said he disagreed with the amendment. It was impossible to lay down that every Judge, no matter how short a time he had been on the Bench, should be immediately entitled to a pension of £400, and it was also wrong to say he was bound to retire at a certain age. Such an amendment would only serve to increase the Pension Fund. The Supreme Courts already cost the country far more than £100,000, and the number of Judges was too great, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. member for Newlands. From a report which had been laid on the table in the Senate, it appeared that the Judge who had worked the hardest had only sat 182 days. Other Judges sat 63 and 59 days, and one Judge only sat six days in 1911. In view of these figures it was the speaker’s view that the number of Judges was too high. He was glad to see the reductions which had been made in the present Bill, but thought that they could go a little further. He moved a further amendment that the pensions be £1,000, £900, and £700.

said it was painful to think that a certain section of members of that House were ready and willing to drag down the Bench to a level which would be a disgrace to South Africa. The Bill was a concession to the tendency shown last session to cut off expenditure in the very direction which would injure people in a vital fashion—(cheers)—and the Minister of Justice had given in far more than he ought to have to the tendencies of some of his supporters. He could not understand the hon. member for Edenburg (Mr. E. N. Grobler). Last night they had a discussion on extravagance. (Opposition cheers.)

said the hon. member could not refer to last night’s debate.

said there had been occasions when they had pleaded with the hon. member to assist them in reducing expenditure. What did they get? (Opposition cheers.) If the spirit shown in the amendment were manifested in the House with regard to the Judges, and eminent barristers realised that they were to be treated in the spirit shown in the Bill, they would refuse to take seats on the Bench. The amendment of the hon. member for Edenburg was monstrous. There was, so far as he could see, not much to be gained by the amendment of the hon. member for George, but he could see no reason why they should not support it if they brought it to the vote.

said he hoped the advice would not be followed.

was against any pensions at all for judges, as they received salaries which were very large. Members of Parliament often worked just as long as judges but they received only £400 per annum, of which £100 was held back, and they got no pensions. He certainly objected to increasing the liabilities of the State in this indiscriminate manner.

said he was somewhat disappointed with the discussion that had been raised. He had never advocated low salaries, the only thing that he had taken exception to was the question of pensions. He hoped that the House would not adopt the motion. It did not require a great deal of ability to be a member of the House, but it required some brains to be a judge. He always thought that the scale of salaries should be £2,500 minimum and pensions limited to £1,000, and he thought that if they received that they were very well paid.

supported Mr. Grobler’s amendment, and thought that with a salary of £3,000 the Chief Justice could easily save £1,500, whilst when he retired he got £900 as a pension. If they went on in this manner, providing for large pensions, they would greatly handicap the country through a disproportionately large pension list. Their pension list already amounted to three-quarters of a million.

said that he would like to point out that the hon. member who had just spoken was under a misapprehension. He wanted them to pay very large salaries to the judges and then he would give them very large pensions.

£1,000 a year.

thought the hon. member was a fair and just man, but he had not considered the position of the judges in this matter. It was not a case of allowing judges to retire at 65, but allowing young men to retire. The hon. member pointed out that several of the judges when they were supposed to be doing nothing were actually on sick leave or doing work in chambers. The hon. member (Mr. Grobler) had apparently forgotten that under this Bill as it stood the Governor-General may grant anything he liked when a person had become incapacitated owing to permanent incapacity of mind or body. A judge ought to know what he was going to get. In that respect the hon. member for George had certainly effected what he considered to be a great improvement in the Bill. He would draw the hon. member’s (Mr. Grobler’s) attention to a few of the salaries paid to other Civil Servants. He proposed that the judges should have a pension of £700. There were Attorneys-General receiving £1,800 and £1,200, and there were professional assistants in the Attorneys-General’s departments drawing £800. The hon. member now wanted to give a judge on pension less than the salary paid to men in the Minister of Justice’s Department. He could not think that the hon. member was serious, but, if he were serious, he was insulting the intelligence of that House by telling them that £700ayear was good enough for a judge when he retired. He hoped the hon. member would not press his motion.

objected to the amendment of the hon. member for Edenburg. The hon. member had said the Bill was only recently published, and yet he had discussed it with his constituents. The two statements were totally at variance.

The amendment moved by Mr. Brown was negatived.

moved in the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands to insert “72” in place of“70.”

said he hoped it would be made clear from the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands that it was not intended to apply to any judge at present on the Bench. (VOICES: That is clear.)

said he was prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers.

accepted the amendment.

suggested that it would be desirable, in view of the important changes which would be effected by the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands, that these should be embodied in a distinct clause, which could be drafted and considered at a later stage.

said he would withdraw his amendment for the present, and adopt the hon. member’s advice and bring up? new clause at a later stage.

said that, in regard to this matter, he had had no particular case in his mind. He had considered the matter entirely in the light of the facts presented. He suggested that the minimum pension be £500.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Brown and Mr. Struben were withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Keyter and Mr. E. N. Grobler were negatived.

moved, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Currey: In the first line, after sub-section (d), after “service” to insert “or portion of a year.”

moved, as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Currey: In the sub-sections (a), (b), (c), and (d), before the amounts respectively, to insert “at the rate of”.

The amendments proposed by Sir Henry Juta and Mr. Alexander were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Currey, as amended, was agreed to.

The amendments proposed by General T. Smuts and Mr. Fichardt were withdrawn.

moved to add at the end of the clause: “Provided, however, that all pensions under this Act shall be reduced by 25 per cent. per annum for each year if such judge resides for more than seven months outside the Union of South Africa.”

withdrew his amendment, which he moved on a previous occasion, in favour of General Smuts’.

said that he hoped the hon. member (General Smuts) would not press his amendment. It was clear that they were not going to gain much by passing the amendment, and after all a judge might have to go to Europe for his health and visit baths which did not exist in this country.

said his intention with his amendment was not to catch a man here and there, but to put a stop to the practice of people coming into the country, getting fat salaries, and then leaving the country on big pensions. He pointed to the amounts paid in pensions outside South Africa, namely, £125,000, although they were trying all the time to get immigrants into the country. This was a matter of principle, he held. They wanted people to settle in South Africa and live here with their children. He would be satisfied if the Minister would assure him that this principle would be laid down in the Civil Service Bill, but not otherwise.

said that the hon. member had suggested a course that would not befit the dignity of the country, nor be of benefit to it. One reason why such a large number of men lived in Europe was not owing to the fact that they had served their time and were drawing fat pensions, but because they had come out intending to spend their days here, but had been retrenched, and given a pension that would not support them in this country. This sort of thing would save the Treasury 6d. and cost £1, and he said that if they persevered in this sort of thing, a great deal of harm would be done the country in the future.

thought the hon. member for Ermelo should with draw his amendment, especially as they were dealing with one special class of people belonging to this country. He would agree to the suggestion to make this uniform, but objected to judges being specially selected for such reductions, whilst the same did not apply to other people

said he endorsed every word that had fallen from the hon. member for Fordsburg. He strongly objected to any such principle being introduced, and he thought that the Minister had taken up a very clear attitude on the subject. What right had they to deal with the incomes of gentlemen who had faithfully served their country? He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn.

said he hoped that the amendment would be withdrawn. He quoted a letter from a lady, who wrote that though they were only staying in England “until the boys are educated, our hearts are in Africa.” He pointed out that seven of the nine judges in the Cape were sons of the soil.

appealed to the hon. member to withdraw, saying he did not think that the House should go to the vote on the point. The amendment was obviously ridiculous, and should be withdrawn.

The amendment moved by General T. Smuts was negatived.

New clause 6,

moved: That the following be a new clause 6: 6. Every person appointed after the passing of this Act to the office of (a) Chief Justice of South Africa; (b) ordinary judge of appeal of the appellate division of the Supreme Court of South Africa; (c) judge president of any such provincial or local division of such Supreme Court; or (d) puisne judge of any such provincial or local division, shall, on attaining the age of 70 years, retire from such office.

said that in America Judges retired at 70 when their health was not good. The ages of compulsory retirement in some other countries were as follows: New Zealand 72, and Canada 80.

They have cold weather there.

Does the hon. member mean to say that the warm weather takes away his intellectual capacity? If so, it’s a very poor admission. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Brown stated that in France the retiring age for Judges was 75, Italy 75, Austria 70, and Spain 70. There were four members of that House who were over 70 years of age.

It’s time they retired.

That is a gratuitous insult. (Opposition cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Brown said that the average age all over the world was 75. He would move as an amendment to insert two after seventy. The extra two years would make a difference when it came to the question of calculating the amount of pensions the Judges were to receive.

hoped that neither of the amendments would be accepted, for they were both futile. Some men at 70 were mentally far more efficient than some men were at 60. It was a question of whether they wanted to retain a man on the Bench who was no longer able to do the work. A man might be unfit for the position at 62, and yet under these amendments he would go on until he was 70. They would not in this way secure what they were aiming at, which was to get a man off the Bench if he were not sufficiently strong to do the work. If they did not have a regulation to this effect they must leave the matter to the ordinary pressure of public opinion. But if they wanted to be on the right side they should say 75 or 80, and then they would be sure that most men would have to quit the Bench. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) for an extra two years simply took his breath away. The hon. member had been a great exponent for reducing the position of the Judges. The hon. member’s great point in favour of an additional two years was that as they had not brought the pensions down so low it would make a great difference to a Judge if he could stay on the Bench for two years more. That contention was really absurd.

said he fully agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, in regard to the addition of two years. There were more cases where 70 was put down as the retiring age than any other figure. New Zealand was the only country which fixed the age at 72, and why the hon. member (Mr. Brown) should be so enamoured of 72 he could not understand. In the French Supreme Court of Appeal the retiring age was 65, and in Australia and Hungary the age was 70. He was rather in favour of having it below 70. (Ones of “No” and “Quite right.”) If they said that a Judge should retire when he was bodily or mentally infirm that would mean nothing. South Africa had had only a few cases in which judges had become unfit for the performance of their duties. Because one judge who was over 70 was doing his work very well, were they going to jeopardise the safety of the country so far as the judiciary was concerned by assuming that every judge over 70 would have sufficient strength to do the work that was required of him? Consequently it was wrong not to make some limit. Therefore he sympathised with the amendment of the hon. member for George.

The amendment moved by Mr. Brown was negatived.

The new clause moved by Mr. Currey was agreed to.

On clause 6,

said he would like to raise the question of the Court vacations. In some Provinces they were longer than others. No judge could take leave of absence as a right, and it would be far more satisfactory if a judge’s leave of absence were specified in the Bill. He hoped that the Department would make some regulation upon this matter. He moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

said that particular matter had been receiving his serious consideration and he had consulted some of the judges upon it. This condition of affairs could not go on as it had been going on.

On sub-section (a),

did not think it was the correct thing to depute these powers to the Governor-General. The judges should not be left to the caprice of the Government and it should not be in the power of the Government to exercise any pressure upon the judges.

said this gave the Governor-General power to grant leave of absence. The Governor-General granted leave now, but he agreed with the hon. member who had last spoken that the judges should have no discretion in the matter at all. He would ask the Minister whether it would not be best to put this matter in a Bill. After all, the judge stood between them and the Crown and the judge should be independent, and therefore he thought his leave of absence should be fixed by Parliament

said it would be something extraordinary to have judges’ leave of absence fixed by Act of Parliament. There was not a single country where that was done. There should be similarity and uniformity, he quite believed in this matter of leave of absence. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Heidelberg, the independence of the judge was guaranteed through the fact that his salary was fixed by Parliament, but in regard to his leave of absence that was a different thing.

instanced a case of a Judge who was so diffident about asking for leave that he went on working until he absolutely broke down. Others who were less diffident, or rather felt that they were entitled to get their leave, made application, and got it much more frequently. He saw no objection to having regulations drawn up that would rule in the cases of all Judges in all Courts, and thus bring this matter into uniformity.

suggested as an amendment at the end of paragraph “A” to provide that no regulations be of force unless and until they had been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

thought the hon. member should have put his amendment the other way round, and say, provided that such regulation should have force and effect unless and until, during the session it had been laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, it had been disapproved of. He moved to add at the end: “Provided that every such regulation shall be of force and effect unless and until during the session in which it is laid, upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament both Houses shall by resolution disapprove of the terms thereof.”

agreed, and withdrew his amendment.

expressed his willingness to accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

On sub-section (b).

moved an amendment to insert, after “or” in line 33 the word “are”, and to insert after the word “absent” “on duty,” so that it would read “on duty or are absent on duty.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On sub-section (c),

thought that paragraph “C” should be deleted, as it was a matter of ordinary administration.

thought it was a very necessary institution in the interests of the public. The shorthand notes should be properly kept so that they could be referred to if necessary. Certain Judges had intimated that unless they be given two or three shorthand writers they would not allow any shorthand writers in the court. But the employment of shorthand writers was a great convenience to the public. A man could engage a shorthand writer so that if the case went to appeal he could have the evidence to rely on.

said he agreed with the hon. member for George. It was not so much that the shorthand writer was wanted for the convenience of the public in order that they could have the evidence noted down correctly, for many preferred the notes taken down by the judge. That was not where the public got the benefit; it was in the interests of the public that litigation should be made as inexpensive as possible. Wherever there was a shorthand writer they could get through in a day two or three times as much as if the judge had to take down the evidence. His hon. friend seemed to think that judges did not like shorthand writers. Had he not rather been making the mistake of reducing the number of shorthand writers to such a small number that when the Court was going to sit in three divisions there was such a competition for the services of the one shorthand writer that nobody knew who was to get him. Let the Hon. the Minister make no mistake. He (Sir H. H. Juta) did not suppose that any judge would object to having a shorthand writer, but they could not make one go the round of three courts, and if the exigencies of business were such that one had to carry on one’s work in several courts, which was their experience in Cape Town, and had been for some years, they must have a proper number of shorthand writers, and that was the fact he was referring to. Shorthand writers had been so reduced in numbers that there was not enough to go round. It happened the other day in a case of great importance that they wanted the shorthand notes of evidence taken so that the transcript could be in their hands about an hour before going into court, for the sake of both judge and counsel, as an important point was to be raised. It was necessary the judge should have the evidence as well as counsel. He himself was the counsel to raise the point, and he got his notes at 10.30 and had to give it up. He could not do it in a few minutes. The Hon. the Minister should make a liberal allowance with regard to shorthand writers, because it was undoubtedly a saving to the public. The Minister might also consider that it was in the interests of the public to have a shorthand writer on circuit. Why did the Minister want a regulation for this? Surely it was a matter within the control of the Minister. Surely he did not want power to make regulations to say how many shorthand writers there should be. He only hoped that the result of the discussion would be that the Minister would increase the number of men in the public interest. He would mention, for the benefit of the cross-benches, that shorthand writers in the courts were necessary in the public interest, and not that of the practitioners, in whose interest it really was that a case should last as long as possible.

said he was afraid that the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had not quite followed him. He must correct the hon. member in one particular. In the first place, there was only one Province where the number of shorthand writers had been decreased, and that was Natal. In the Cape they had been increased, the same in the Transvaal and in the Free State, where they had had no shorthand writers before they had been introduced. They were a necessary institution. He agreed with the hon. member as to having shorthand writers on circuit. The Civil Service made certain recommendations as to the number of shorthand writers to be assigned to each court. In Natal they had had six shorthand writers for one court. There they did away with two or three. The Cape asked for more. They had got more. In one Province he was informed by the Judge-President eighteen months ago that he did not see the necessity of a shorthand writer, but seven months afterwards this same Chief of the Bench there declared from the Bench that, unless he gave him two or three, he would not allow the one he had given to the Court to officiate in the court That could not go on. Somebody would have to intervene and say that this was as much as could be done by the Government He hoped to make regulations for the various courts, and when the matter came up on the Estimates, Parliament would have an opportunity of saying whether it agreed or not.

said that in Natal the shorthand writers, his information went, were employed, not in the Supreme Court only, but there was a Circuit Court to which a shorthand writer was attached. Both the judges and the practitioners had given the most abundant evidence that the taking away of these shorthand writers would lead to delays in the cases. He would ask the Minister to consider whether in the long run it would be a saving to the Government and the public to do away with these shorthand writers, and whether by saving a very small sum, they would not be adding immensely to the inconvenience of the judges, the practitioners, and the public.

said that he was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. He had received a letter in connection with this question last year from the Incorporated Law Society in Natal, stating that they viewed with alarm the reduction of the number of shorthand writers in the courts, as this would handicap the administration of justice in Natal and lead to delay in litigation.

said he did not think there should be any difficulty in settling this question among hon. members who understood it. He pointed out the severe strain involved by a long spell of note-taking and the work which was afterwards required to complete the transcript, estimating that a man who was engaged for two hours in taking a note would require four hours to execute his transcript.

said that the great thing that was wanted in the courts was to have the transcript next morning, after the notes had been taken. He gathered from the Minister that he thought if the regulations were laid on the table, that would be a sufficient safeguard, and that he did not feel inclined to delete this section. He (Sir H. Juta) would move to add at the end of the clause: “Provided that every such regulation shall be of force and effect unless and until during the session in which it is laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament, both Houses shall by resolution disapprove of the terms thereof.”

Agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved that the consideration of the schedule stand over until clause 1 has been disposed of.

Agreed to.

On clause 1,

The amendments which had been previously moved were withdrawn.

The clause was negatived.

New clause 1,

moved that the following be a new clause 1: (1) A person appointed after the commencement of this Act to the office of (a) Chief Justice of South Africa; or (b) ordinary Judge of Appeal of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa; or (c) Judge-President of any such provincial or local division of such Supreme Court; or (d) Puisne Judge of any such provincial or local division, shall receive as annual salary in respect of such office the sum mentioned in the second column of the schedule to this Act opposite to the name of the office. The said Chief Justice and ordinary Judges of Appeal, the Judge-President and Puisne Judges of the Transvaal and Orange Free State provincial divisions, and the Judge of the Griqualand local division shall in addition be paid, for so long as the Governor-General may determine, a local allowance not exceeding £250 per annum. Such annual salary shall be the remuneration mentioned in section 100 of the South Africa Act, 1909: Provided that if a person who held the office of Judge-President or Puisne Judge at the commencement of this Act, be transferred there from to the office of Chief Justice or ordinary Judge of Appeal or Judge-President (as the case may be) and thereby a less salary would be paid to him under this section than he received in respect of the office of Judge-President or Puisne Judge (as the case may be), he shall continue to receive as Chief Justice or ordinary Judge of Appeal or Judge-President (as the case may be) an annual salary not less than he received as such Judge-President or Puisne Judge (as the case may be): Provided further that no such local allowance shall be paid to the said Chief Justice or to any ordinary Judge of Appeal unless he reside at Bloemfontein. (2) The provisions of any law in force at the commencement of this Act which determined the remuneration to be paid to a Judge-President or Puisne Judge of any provincial or local division shall cease to apply in respect of the remuneration of the Judge-President or any Puisne Judge of that provincial or local division appointed before the commencement of this Act, but since the 31st day of May, 1910. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall, in so far as they relate to annual salary, apply also to the Judge-President and the Puisne Judges of the Eastern Districts local division appointed before the commencement of this Act. These provisions shall also apply both as regards annual salary and local allowance to the Chief Justice and Puisne Judges of the Orange Free State provincial division, and to the Judge of the Griqualand local division, appointed before the commencement of this Act.

said he thought that the original clause was much better than the new clause. It would be better once and for all to fix the allowances by Act of Parliament.

said he never thought of taking away a local allowance once a judge was appointed with a local allowance. The hon. member for Three Rivers wanted to deal with the future. Conditions might change, when these allowances could be taken away. It had nothing to do with pensions. If a judge went to the coast he would not get the local allowance; if he went to the interior the more expensive place—he would get the allowance.

said they would have the undesirable state of affairs of one judge drawing a local allowance while another did not. Perhaps there might be a middle course. Perhaps they might state that when conditions changed the allowance could only be removed by Parliament.

said he appreciated the Minister recognising Bloemfontein as the judicial capital of the Union, but he would point out that this did not carry out the real intention. He took it that an allowance was compensation to a judge for living in an expensive place, and not the reason that attracted him to a place. At any rate, they had got a little this year and might perhaps get more next year.

suggested that the local allowance—not the salaries of judges—should be dealt with in the Estimates each year. He accordingly moved, in sub-section (1), after “in addition be paid” to omit all the words down to “per annum”, and to substitute “such local allowance in no case exceeding £250 per annum as may be provided in the Estimates of Expenditure for each financial year.”

said that whatever it was called, it was a case of money going into a man’s pocket.

thought that the allowance should be fixed by an Act instead of having a discussion of this sort in Parliament each year.

hoped that the Minister would consider the point.

said he recognised that there was a great deal in what had been said. If hon. members would leave the clause over he would draft another and bring it up on the report stage.

asked the object of sub-clause 2.

said that it practically only affected Natal. He promised the Judge-President of Natal that this would be inserted in the Bill.

asked whether the clause would affect the emoluments of judges since appointed in other Provinces?

No.

The amendment was withdrawn.

The new clause was agreed to.

On the schedule,

moved that the third column be struck out.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, and leave granted to bring up the report to-morrow.

moved that the House go into committee on the following: That the Committee of the Whole House on the Native Disputes Bill have leave to consider a provision empowering the Governor General to make regulations, imposing fees of office for services performed in and about the hearing and determination of any dispute and the issue of any order under this Act.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved as an unopposed motion that the House do now resolve itself into committee and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.

I object.

Then the motion cannot be put.

thereupon moved that the House go into committee to-morrow.

Agreed to.

moved that the House resolve itself into committee on the main Bill.

said that as far as the Transkei was concerned, the foundation idea of the Bill was being carried out, but it was feared that the present position of affairs there might be altered under the Bill to the detriment of the people in the Transkei. If the Minister was prepared to accept the amendment that the Bill should not apply to the Transkei and that natives should be allowed to have legal assistance there would not be so much objection to the measure.

The fear was if the Transkei were not excluded from the operation of the Bill quite a different code of laws might be drawn up to the existing laws, which had been drafted as the result of the deliberations on the Commission on Native Laws and Customs which sat in1883. Quite apart from the question of his constituency there was the bigger question involved, which he had endeavoured to put before the House the other evening when the Bill was last before it—that was, that the House was asked to take a retrograde step and to put back the hands of the clock in regard to the great native question. He had then endeavoured to show that the measure might have a tendency in that direction—not to lift up the native people to our level, but to give them every encouragement to go back to their old customs including polygamy and everything else. What had brought the Bill into vogue? The fact that there were certain districts in the Cape Province proper occupied by a large native population, and in these districts native disputes were not settled by native custom. In regard to the other Provinces, the Bill was scarcely necessary, for Natal had a native penal and civil code, disputes being settled according to native custom under that code. So Natal did not need the Bill. Bechuanaland hardly needed the Bill, although provision was made in the Bill for chiefs to report to the magistrates their decisions in cases settled according to native custom. He rather approved of that. He thought he was right in stating that the Native Commissioners and the Assistant Native Commissioners in the Transvaal were also in a position of being entitled to settle disputes by native customs. In the Free State the population was not very large, and belonged to Basutoland to a great extent, and so the question hardly touched them. This Bill virtually meant the putting of several of the districts of the Cape Colony upon the same level as the Transkei in regard to this matter, but they must understand that in the Cape Colony natives had been lifted up to a greater degree of civilisation. Turning to the Bill, he found that it was taken almost word for word from the report of the Native Affairs Commission of 1910. The chief grievance seemed to be that wives may forsake their husbands, and although the husband has paid a certain amount of cattle, these cattle were not recoverable. The Commission of 1910 recommended that something should be done by way of remedying certain hardships. The hon. member said he wanted to take them a little further back, and that was to the report of the Commission on Native Laws and Customs of 1883, of which Colonel Stanford, Sir Bisset Berry, and Dr. Stewart, of Lovedale, were members, and hon. members could not do better than refer to that occasionally when studying the native question. Among the recommendations was that only the marriage of the first wife should be recognised. The Commission deliberately decided that although it would be a bad policy to prohibit polygamy, yet they thought that only the first wife should be recognised after five years’ due notice of the regulation had been given. These recommendations had not been carried out, and now they were in 1912 instead of 1883. If a mistake were made in giving too much recognition of lobola and all marriages of native custom, the native mind might think that Parliament was rather in favour of polygamy than otherwise. That would be a pernicious idea.

Polygamy was diminishing slowly, but if the natives got the idea that it was approved by Parliament it would extend. There were movements which came over nations, races, or tribes, for good or evil, as over individuals, and there was a movement which had come over the native mind during the last few years, a kind of reaction from civilisation towards the old barbarism. It was our duty as a superior race to sympathise with them where contact with our civilisation inflicted hardship upon them. Time should be given, but let them not do anything, especially as a Parliament, that would give the natives the idea that their customs were right, and thus tempt them to go back to polygamy and all their other old customs. He moved that the order for going into committee be discharged, that the Bill be withdrawn, and the subject matter be referred to the Government for investigation. He moved that in no party spirit, and he would ever strive to keep the native question apart from a party question. Next month there was to be a Missionary Conference; would it not be wise to put the question before them and get their opinion upon it?

in seconding the amendment, said the Bill was gazetted a considerable time ago, the second reading took place a long time ago, and the Government were in a great hurry to get the second reading through. There had been ample time for the Government to prepare their regulations and lay them before the House, but they were still in the dark as to what the Government proposed to do. Speaking of Natal, he said the Native Courts would be taken away, and they had been working in good order since 1875. The natives understood them and the procedure, and it was not desirable that there should be any alteration at the present time. It would be disastrous immediately to consolidate native laws in the Union. Natives were so essentially different that it would be almost impossible. At this period of the present session the House was rushed, and native affairs were serious. It was not a proper time to bring forward matters relating to native peoples. He supported the motion of the hon. member for Tembuland.

It being five minutes to 6 p.m.,

Mr. SPEAKER stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted by the House on the 26th April, he would now adjourn the debate.

On the motion of Mr. MEYLER,

The debate was adjourned until to-morrow.

suggested that the sub-votes be taken seriatim after the general discussion had been concluded.

acquiesced.

said that they were expecting a reply from the Minister of Agriculture in regard to matters raised last night.

said he did not want to interfere with what was agreed upon last night, and he would not press his motion until the general discussion had been finished.

said the hon. member for Border had spoken yesterday in a rather offensive manner of members on the Government side of the House. He had referred to the “remschoen party.” The speaker would define the hon. member for Border as a member of the “castle-in-the-air” party. The hon. member had accused the Prime Minister, of abandoning his agricultural policy in favour of party interests, but had not given any particulars. The speaker thought it best to have one Department to represent the various farming interests. The cattle diseases law was a good one, though no doubt there were complaints of minor importance. It would be undesirable entirely to prohibit the transport of cattle in infected districts. The new Bill had contributed a great deal to the diminution of scab, and the hon. member for Border was quite wrong in saying that in consequence of defective control scab was increasing. The Government had provided the opportunity for the construction of cattle dipping tanks, and where that had not been done it was not its fault. In the speaker’s opinion the cattle belonging to natives in East Coast fever districts ought to be branded.

regretted that the hon. member for Border had opened up a general debate, which would not help forward the business of the House. The other speeches were all more or less of a general nature, and occupied a good deal of time. If the vote were afterwards dealt with item by item, they would have the same debate again in sections and cover all the points once more. That was not a proper way of dealing with the Estimates, which should be dealt with one point at a time. He was bound to admit he had seldom listened to a speech containing more generalities than that of the hon. member for Border. It was entirely based on what, had appeared in newspapers and pamphlets, and was entirely unsupported by facts. If the hon. member had stated facts, it would be easy to answer them, but it was impossible to answer vague generalities drawn from newspapers and pamphlets. The first charge made by the hon. member was that he (the Minister) had placed the interests of his party above those of agriculture. The accusation was an unworthy one, and could only be justified when there were facts to support it by. Without facts to support it the remark ought never to have been made. During the time he had been Minister of Agriculture he had sacrificed pretty nearly all considerations in the interests of agriculture, and had always made clear what his policy was in that respect. That policy had been applied throughout the Union. The attack was based on a newspaper report of a speech by the speaker delivered at Losberg. The hon. member had apparently forgotten that, in company with the speaker, he had been a member of the Select Committee appointed to deal with cattle diseases, and had forgotten also what difficulty was found in obtaining a unanimous report. The committee went through the regulations, which were then very incomplete, and to those members who had objections to the Bill it was clearly explained that in certain parts of the country in times of drought it would be necessary to act considerately by means of regulations. It was on that understanding that the Bill was agreed to. At Losberg the speaker had told the people, who were rather dissatisfied, that regulations would be made to deal with certain matters. He had pointed out that the regulations were based on the law, but that they would only be applied in so far as they were consistent with the interests of the country. Where it appeared that the regulations could not be applied in certain districts, the speaker had recommended them to come to him (the Minister) to remove the difficulties. And now he was attacked for that. It could not be shown that the regulations were suitable for universal application. Changes in the regulations were not of a character inconsistent with the principle of the law. It had clearly appeared that in some places the regulations would have to be modified, and wherever modifications had occurred, they had been an improvement. The second attack of the hon. member for Border lay in the fact that last year’s report of the Agricultural Department had not yet been published, and that this fact had only come to light when the Select Committee on Public Accounts had reported. When Union was brought about there existed four Departments of Agriculture, and it had caused them a great deal of trouble to convert them into one department. That was a sufficient reply to that complaint. It had been clearly declared before the Select Committee that in future the report would appear each year. Last year’s report was in part in the hands of the translator, and for the other part in the hands of the printer. The third attack by the hon. member for Border was on account of the fact that the re-organisation of the Department had to await the speaker’s return from England. He could not imagine by whom that fairy tale had been originated, and had never heard that the work of a Government was postponed when a Minister happened to be away. He had clearly explained last year that the reorganisation of his Department would depend upon the report of the Civil Service Commission. Last year he (the Minister) had been assailed because he had not introduced economies in his Department, and it had been plainly pointed out that they must first wait for the report of the Commission. The speaker desired to state further that he was fully responsible for all that had taken place during his absence, which had all been done with his consent. In particular he acknowledged responsibility for the discharge of certain officials. In such a department as that of Agriculture they had to deal with many different laws and regulations; the consolidation of all those regulations and laws could not take place in a moment, but had to be handled with care. The question of salaries and allowances was a difficult one, and in his Department there had been some dissatisfaction, for the following reason. Some time ago several chief officials in his Department met to consider the question of re-organisation, and they recommended the so-called bureau system, as adopted in America. But if that system had been adopted, a large number of highly-paid positions would have had to be created. The speaker would have liked to have adopted that system, but if he had adopted it, he would certainly have been severely assailed. The present was not a suitable time in which to apply the bureau system, as the population was too small, and the burdens would be too great. If circumstances got better in those respects, they might proceed steadily in the direction of the bureau system. If they now adopted a system of ten or twelve bureaux it would be both top-heavy and too dear. When the speaker decided he would not introduce that system, he was blamed by certain of his own head officials, but he had only acted in the interests of the people and the country. The fourth assault of the hon. member was based on three points, namely, re-organisation of the Department, destruction of the Provincial Departments, and over-centralisation. No facts were given in support of those charges, and if the hon. member had only studied the question, he would appreciate what had been done. His speech was misleading in that respect. The speaker then proceeded to quote from the report of the Civil Service Commission, which expressed itself in favour of having one Department for the whole Union. He felt when that report had appeared that he was bound to give effect to its recommendation. Last year two most important laws were passed affecting agriculture, namely, those dealing with cattle diseases and diseases of plants. It was laid down that those diseases were to be dealt with by the Union Government, and by passing those laws Parliament had approved the principle of one Department of Agriculture for the Union. There was only one Minister of Agriculture, and if there were several departments it would be impossible for the Minister to be in each of them at the same time. No doubt they could have a staff of officials at Bloemfontein, Maritzburg, or Cape Town, but what could they do there? What use would they be? It would simply mean that the expenses of the country would be unnecessarily increased. It was impossible for a Minister to delegate his authority to others, and the hon. member for Border must see that his speech could only assist provincialism. The hon. member was wrong in saying that all head officials had been removed from Bloemfontein to Pretoria. The speaker then gave a list of the six experts who had been removed from the Cape to Pretoria, the remaining officials being, he said, bookkeepers and clerks. None of the experts from the Free State or Natal had been sent to the Transvaal with the exception of Mr. Lounsbury and Mr. Challiis, who had been replaced by others. The whole agitation against over-centralisation was artificial and exaggerated, and could not be supported by facts. In each of the Provinces there were fewer clerks, but on the other hand there were more experts. The position had been much improved owing to the agricultural schools, the students from which would afterwards render good services to the country, and there were also 26 young people studying abroad. It was plain therefore that not so many officials had been taken to Pretoria as had been made out. Then the hon. member for Border charged his Department with going backwards, and with exhibiting a total lack of policy. The speaker proceeded to give a list of officials who had been dismissed since Union, and added that the hon. member for Border had not explained at whose dismissal he was dissatisfied, and it was therefore impossible to answer the complaint. Most of those dismissed officials had been offered other appointments at the same salaries, which they had refused. Naturally they could not have four secretaries to a Department. Since the bringing about of Union a number of new appointments of experts had been made, which the speaker proceeded to give in detail. He asked where could they find the “remschoen party” in his Department. It was not a question of going backwards, but of going forward, forward, and again forward. They had now more experts in the Department than there were before Union, though a difficulty lay in the fact that the newly appointed persons were not all fully acquainted with the local position of affairs. His Department was an educative one, in which the many experts were instructing the people. Wherever exhibitions were held, there the experts were to be found holding meetings and instructing the public. The hon. member for Border had criticised conditions in the Free State, and got his information from one newspaper. The speaker did not always believe what was said in newspapers, and would gladly hear the opinions of representatives of the Free State as to conditions formerly and the present conditions. Each of the Provinces has now one or more agricultural schools except the Free State, where three farms had been laid out as experimental farms, but it was found that none of the three were suitable. He did not wish to criticise what had been done by late Governments of that Province, but it was necessary for the present Government to purchase other farms. The speaker had received letters from leading farmers in the Free State expressing satisfaction with the present administration. The recommendations of the Civil Service Commission with regard to the re-organisation of the Department had been adopted. Notwithstanding all the difficulties with which they had been faced since Union, that Department had been improved, and their expenses had been reduced by £117,000, of which not a word had been said. The hon. member for Border had also attacked the Department in connection with scab, and had censured the sympathetic” manner in which the law had been applied, though he admitted it should be applied with “consideration.” What in the world was the difference between applying a law with sympathy and applying it with consideration? The hon. member said the regulations were not strictly carried out, and that trekking from one part of the country to another was still permitted. This was a fact, one of the few facts stated by the hon. member. They must, however, remember another fact, and that was that the people who trekked with their sheep lived in a part where water was very scarce. He found from the magistrates in those places that there was no more water to be found for the sheep. The people trekked away, and would infallibly trek away whether allowed to or not. Some had been prosecuted and punished. In those districts thousands of sheep had already died from want of water and a total prohibition of trekking would simply ruin the people. He remembered a similar case immediately after the bringing about of Union in the Free State. The law there forbade trekking the sheep, but the speaker had found himself obliged in the interests of the people to break the law and to allow 600,0 sheep to get away. The public had approved his action, but of course that kind of thing could only be allowed in special cases. To allow all those sheep to die could not possibly be justified. It was possible to cure a scabby sheep, but how was it possible to cure it when it was dead? He was bound to admit that certain farmers in the Cape and other Provinces neglected to keep their sheep clean even when they had the opportunity to do so, and in that respect he agreed with what had been said. If those farmers did not keep their sheep in a better condition during wet seasons the block system would have to be adopted, and the trekking of sheep totally forbidden. Instead of complaining in that House about slackness in the cleansing of sheep, hon. members would do better to use their influence in their own constituencies, and not seek to draw party advantage out of the matter. The people trekked without permit, and sheep had even been taken out of the train in cases of transport without leave. Despite what the hon. member had said, the position with regard to scab showed a real improvement. There was a more general disposition to dip, and the sale of Cooper’s Dip had grown much larger. Still there was too little supervision, and too few inspectors, but when once that point had been put right, five years would show a great improvement. The hon. member for Border had further said that information concerning scab in the Transvaal which was not complete had been laid on the table. The fact was it was not the custom there to count the scabby sheep, but if the disease broke out on a farm the whole farm came under quarantine. The hon. member also said that when the Jameson Ministry resigned, the position with regard to scab was better than the present position. From the figures given it appeared that in 1903 there were 12.3 per cent. of sheep with scab, and that figure in 1911 was 3.34 per cent. One could not attach much value to those figures. At the slaughter places in Johannesburg there was perhaps the most exact inquiry with respect to scab. In 1911 out of 717,000 sheep 81.000 were found to have scab. Of those 81,000 sheep 73,874 came from the Cape, 4,412 from the Free State, and 3,406 from the Transvaal. For that year the hon. member for Border gave the percentage at 3.34, though from the figures given it would appear that the percentage was much higher. That was in the time when he (the speaker) had nothing to do with the carrying out of anti-scab measures in the Cape. Since then severer measures had been taken than formerly, and in the beginning of last year scabby sheep brought to Johannesburg were sent back again That action had caused heavy losses to the farmers, with the result that they were now more careful and more anxious to use dip to clean their sheep. Another reason for the greater number of scabby sheep reported in the Free State was because it was the custom formerly to count only sheep obviously suffering from scab, and to calculate the average from it. The custom now was to count the whole flock as infected, with the result that the percentage was increased without, however, any increase in the disease. There were, for instance, in Bechuanaland about 400,000 or 500,000 sheep, but the inspectors in that large territory were insufficient in number, with the result that the Department knew practically nothing of what was going on with regard to scab. He quoted that to show what value could be attached to the figures. The hon. member for Border had also criticised the Department on the subject of the extermination of East Coast fever. There was still a lack of facts, however. When Union was brought about the speaker paid a visit to Kokstad in order to devise measures to oppose the introduction of the disease from the Transkei into the Cape proper. He had done his very best in consultation with influential persons and the Chief Magistrate, whose influence amongst the natives was very great, to persuade the natives to dip their animals. There were now many dipping tanks in the Transkei, and dipping was in that way encouraged. They must not forget that it was much more difficult to govern a big native population than a white population though he was bound to say that the natives in the Transkei had helped like one man to stop East Coast fever by means of regular dipping. There were rich farmers in the Eastern Province who saw the East Coast fever coming, and yet provided no dipping tanks. It cost them a great deal of trouble to persuade, the people to construct these tanks. In certain parts of East London compulsory dipping had been proclaimed since January, but still the number of tanks was insufficient for all cattle. After returning from Kokstad he had attended a meeting of farmers at Maritzburg, and found that conditions in Natal were deplorable. There were then many buyers of slaughter cattle, and not a single magistrate had anything to say about East Coast fever. At that meeting the speaker had invited the farmers to support him on two points, in the first place to make the magistrates the heads of the districts in connection with East Coast fever, and in the second place to dip their cattle instead of selling them. The speaker had also held a meeting of magistrates at Ladysmith, and had himself cancelled some 370 licences of speculative buyers. Only magistrates had power to permit the transport of cattle, and the result was there had been a complete revolution in Natal. The Natal farmers had taken the bull by the horns, and the present position was that there was not the slightest fear of their getting East Coast fever. They bought farms, set up dipping tanks, and even imported cattle from elsewhere. Cattle breeding made good progress, and the Province itself would soon be prosperous. It was not correct to say that the speaker’s policy in regard to East Coast fever was a policy of shooting and fencing. The hon. member for Border evidently knew nothing of the circumstances. During the year 1911 not a single animal had been shot in the Transkei by the speaker’s direction, nor in any other part of the Union. The same thing applied to the present year, with the exception of cattle which had strayed from infected districts, or which had been unlawfully moved. The speaker had only dealt during a small portion of the year 1910 with the East Coast fever outbreak in the Cape. It was not their policy to shoot. The hon. member ought to know that there had been a camp with 600 to 800 cattle, that the animals had not been shot, but that they had all perished. The principle of fencing had not been applied in the Transkei, the fences along the Umzimkulu and the Kei having been erected by the speaker’s predecessor at the Cape. He had from the very beginning recommended dipping, and remained to-day a supporter of dipping. If the hon. member for Border had been better acquainted with circumstances in the Transvaal, he would be the first to admit that the system followed there had produced good results. The disease broke out in the Transvaal three years before it reached Natal. The actual cause of the disease was not then known, and was only discovered afterwards by Dr. Theiler. Under the Crown Colony Government a law was passed empowering the Government to fence a farm at the cost of the owner immediately there was an outbreak of East Coast fever, and after the grant of Responsible Government the system was continued until the disease was got under control. In isolated cases they destroyed the cattle, and where the cattle were salted, the calves produced by those animals during the subsequent period of 18 months were destroyed until the farm became entirely clean. The result was that whilst in 1908 there were between 400 and 500 infected farms, there were now no more than 160. That improvement had been brought about without dipping tanks, and although it had taken longer, the expense and the loss of cattle had been less than in Natal. Last year only 45 animals in the Transvaal had been attacked by the disease. In the Transkei many dipping tanks and spraying machines were now being set up. They had allowed the Chief Magistrate there a sum of £3,000 last year in order to supervise the dipping of cattle by the natives, and Dr. Theiler had also inoculated many animals there, so that there were now 18,000 animals which were salted. In accordance with the Bill passed last year to provide loans for dipping tanks, they had (already got 248 such tanks erected, and many others were in course of erection, so that there would soon be a sufficient number of them. It had been agreed in concurrence with the Department of Native Affairs that dipping tanks should be constructed in all locations outside the Transkei in the Cape Province. In the Border districts there were 28 dipping tanks erected, and in the locations in Natal 192. That showed that the Government were doing all they could to encourage the use of dipping tanks. In January, February, and March veterinary surgeons had lectured on the same subject, so that the public could be instructed as to the advantages of this system. The hon. member for Border had stated that the law dealing with cattle diseases had been passed in April of last year, and that nothing had been done in connection with compulsory dipping until January of this year. That was a fact. The hon. member had, however, forgotten the other fact that the law was only published late in the year; there had been a good deal of work in connection with the regulations, the veterinary surgeons having pointed out that they were not sufficiently complete. As soon as the regulations were finished the Act was published, and compulsory dipping began in January. But what was the use of compulsory dipping in the absence of sufficient tanks? Were they to punish the people concerned? The hon. member for Border said they had done nothing, but if that was so, how was it that East Coast fever had not spread from the three farms where it had broken out? The fact was that measures were immediately taken to protect the public. If the Government went further than it now went, they would be reproached with favouring the policy of doles. The speaker had already explained the facts concerning the transport of the cattle at Mount Fletcher and Mount Currie. Action was taken on the advice of the chief veterinary surgeon and local magistrate, and the speaker had been informed that it was purely a question of the transport of cattle from one healthy district to another subject to severe restrictions. It was possible that the allowance of transport was an error, but if so it was committed in good faith in the interests of the country. There were many difficulties connected with the proclaiming of districts, and they could make better progress by means of co-operation than if they attempted compulsion. The speaker always found it best to deal with the magistrates and Divisional Councils, and with their help things went smoothly, but failing that help it was hard to do anything. When once a district was infected they were in favour of compulsory dipping, but where that was not the case they were opposed to it. The speaker intended personally to visit the several districts, but they could not hope suddenly to convince everybody that the tick was the cause of the disease. He encouraged the erection of dipping tanks by allowing those who had them to take their cattle to market without severe conditions. Was he to prosecute everybody who had a tick on his farm? Or because he had not a dipping tank? It was much better to use their influence to persuade the people to set up tanks. The speaker had a large number of chief officials in his department who were all enthusiastic agriculturists. They were also capable persons, and he trusted they would not lose their energy. (Cheers.)

said the Minister of Agriculture had referred to the speech of his hon. friend who sat behind (Mr. G. Blaine) as an onslaught, and full of nothing but generalities. But for two hours he found it necessary to answer these generalities, and deal with them point by point. Two facts came clearly out: either the right hon. gentleman found it necessary to reply to the speech, or his Department was in such a bad way that he felt it necessary to get up and make out a case for those who sat behind him. The first point made by his hon. friend the member for Border was that there was no report. Since 1910 this House had had no report from the Union Department of Agriculture. What information it had obtained had to be wrung out of the right hon. gentleman, and they only got a report of the Department of Agriculture after he had been thoroughly punched and thoroughly well attacked. Would the light hon. gentleman lay on the table the figures which he had quoted with regard to scab?

They are on the table.

I hope that in a most important department like the Agricultural Department there will be reports. Continuing, he said he did say it was unfair to ask the House to vote the agricultural estimates without having any information from the Department as to what had transpired during the past months. Reports of the Department should be laid on the table so that hon. members would not be in the dark when voting large sums of money. He was afraid that he had got to sympathise with the right hon. gentleman. He was perfectly certain he had had considerable difficulties in re-organising the Department of Agriculture. Everybody was willing and anxious to make allowances for re-organisation, but what they complained of was that the right hon. gentleman came to that House and got Acts of Parliament passed with the assistance of members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House, which would not have been passed otherwise, and failed to enforce them within the following months. If he did not intend to put compulsion into operation, why did he ask Parliament to pass compulsory laws? It was absolutely humbugging the country to pass these laws. He told the House that he was prepared to put them in force. But what did he do? He took shelter behind the regulations. He had a very distinct recollection of watching for the regulations, because his own district was concerned in the outbreak of East Coast fever in the Transkei, with which they were threatened. The right hon. gentleman had said that there were only two outbreaks in the East London district. Had he got the figures of the number of deaths within the last week? Would he give them to the House? And would he, week by week, give the figures of the number of cattle infected and the number that had died? If he did, he would find that there had been a tremendous number of infected cattle, and that also a large number of cattle had died recently.

I spoke of two different outbreaks.

The point is that it has not to be judged by the number of outbreaks as I define them, but the spread of the disease is to be judged by the number of cattle infected and the number that have died, and if he put a return on the table for the East London district it will clearly show that the spread of the disease in that division has been at a great rate. Continuing, he said that the member for the Border was perfectly correct in every statement that he had made. On April 20, 1911, the right hon. gentleman made a distinct statement in response to a question of his (the speaker’s). He asked him: “Will you proclaim the Act in force in those divisions that ask for it through their Divisional Councils?” And what was the answer? The Prime Minister said that he would put it into force at once—“at once” became January of the next year. The Act was actually put into force in January of 1912. And what had happened in the meantime? On May 17, 1911, the East London Divisional Council approved of compulsory cleansing, and asked that the Act be put into force, not immediately, because they were not prepared to do it on that day, but in September, when they would be prepared. Did the right hon. gentleman put it into force, or did he take steps to see that it was put into force? No. On June 8, the Agricultural Union met at Port Elizabeth, and the president was Mr. P. W. Michen, of Cradock. That gentleman was not, at any rate, a member of the political party to which he (the speaker) belonged. And what did he say? He said it was time that there was a compulsory universal Dipping Act, otherwise the fever would spread all over the country. And what did the Congress do? It passed a resolution, which was unanimously adopted by both Dutch and English farmers, which strongly appealed to Government to immediately formulate regulations making dipping compulsory in all districts threatened with East Coast fever. Now they were farmers, not politicians, who decided that, and who saw the necessity for compulsion. The Chief Veterinary Surgeon was present, and addressed the delegates on the subject of East Coast fever. He said that the Stock Diseases Bill had not yet been put into force, for the reason that they had not had time to consider the regulations fully. He heard the echo of that that night. The regulations were said to be the cause of the whole of the trouble. There was considerable alarm at that time, and the Stutterheim Farmers’ Association, a body of men of most progressive habits, received a letter from the Chief Veterinary Surgeon, who stated that it was impossible to forecast the policy to be adopted in the event of East Coast fever breaking out in that district. That was some time in December. In the meantime these regulations were being drawn up, and he presumed, seeing the importance of East Coast fever, the Agricultural Department would have shown itself in earnest in drawing up the regulations. They were published in the “Gazette” in January. They were under 2½ inches in length, and yet they were the excuse for not putting the Act into force on the promise of the Prime Minister made in April, 1911, until the following January of 1912. If any hon. member looked at the “Gazette,” he would find that the difficulty of putting the Act into force was not because of the regulations. There were no regulations to speak of. But that was the excuse offered by the right hon. gentleman for not putting the Act into force. He (the speaker) did not blame him for making that excuse. It was put into his mouth by the heads of the Department, who knew far better than that, if they chose to let the House know. They knew perfectly well the importance of dipping. They knew the Department should have been more active than it was.

Now the right hon. gentleman said that he hoped to have the assistance of the hon. member for the Border in his example, and in assisting him to bring other people to see the necessity of dipping. Well, he (the speaker) could only say that he always had, and would continue to have, that assistance. The hon. member for the Border had got a dip, and there were many farmers in that part of the country who were prepared to do their duty. But what was the Government doing? In his own district, he regretted to say, there was a large number of farmers who had not got dips, but ought to have them. But what was the example of the Government? The Government was responsible for a very large portion of the East London Division, which it held under trust for native reserves. But would they believe it, that there was not a single dip upon the Government ground? In the neighbouring district the Acting Magistrate of King William’s Town had gone round the natives and induced them to put up tanks, acting under instructions, or, at any rate, with the cognizance of the Minister of Native Affairs. Another thing was that he always understood the Department maintained a certain amount of arsenite of soda, but again, would they believe it, there was no dip in Easy London, where the Act was put into force There was no arsenite of soda on hand when the Act was put into operation. But that was not the first time. There had been complaints in the Transkei, if not during the administration of the right hon. gentleman, at any rate, during the time the present Minister of Education was Minister of Agriculture in the old Cape Parliament. There was a shortage of dip in the Transkeian Territories, the administration of which the Government was responsible for. The Chief Magistrate of the Transkei had done a very great deal, but he was not the Department of Agriculture, and if he were taken before a committee of that House and asked whether he had the support of the Department of Agriculture, he (the speaker) would like to know what his answer would be.

I know.

Then the right hon. gentleman has got all the information, and gives nothing to the House except what he gives in his speech. There is no report. There is no information at all about the spread of East Coast fever and scab. Proceeding, he said the Department was absolutely failing in its duty, and the country ought to know it, and instead of making excuses it would be far better if the right hon. gentleman would go and put it right. From May, 1910, they had had no reports and no information, and there had been laxity of which the House was aware, and whilst making all allowances for the difficulties in connection with the re-organisation of the Department, he did say that the right hon. gentleman should set to work, and put his house in order. He supposed that the Prime Minister would tell them something about co-operation, but he must say that he had been disappointed. He had waited for an hour and a half for the use of the word co-operation, and it had not been used. They did not usually wait so long.

Don’t you want co-operation?

Of course I do; but I want common-sense with co-operation. (Laughter.) I don’t want to be told that the Department is most harmonious. Proceeding, he said they had been told that the Cabinet was harmonious, but what had been seen recently? One of the most important members of the Cabinet had to go because he found it too harmonious. (Laughter.) The Cabinet was too happy a family for the Treasurer to remain, and somehow the House tumbled along without a Treasurer or a Treasurer unattached. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman had said that because they passed certain Acts last year they confirmed the policy of Centralisation. But had they any opportunity of confirming any other policy? The Act of Union laid down that agriculture should be under the Provincial Councils to an extent to be defined by Parliament.

The Prime Minister was the Leader of the House. Had he done anything to remit any of the powers of that House in regard to agriculture to the Provincial Councils? He thought there were a good many of them who would within reason, because there must be strong central control, like to see a certain proportion of the local work remitted to the local Councils, who were far better able to manage it than they were who were so overburdened with work, and the Councils, to some extent, subject always to the central control, should manage their own local affairs. He did not remember that the Prime Minister had suggested anything else but centralisation. The Prime Minister had said it was impossible to keep four directors. Quite so; of course it was impossible to keep four directors and four secretaries of agriculture. But why did he get rid of the best? Why did he get rid of one of the best men in the country, a man whom, whatever the Free Staters may say now, they would admit, at the time he was in the service of the Free State, gave the greatest possible satisfaction? The right hon. gentleman had referred to the number of clerks. The point was that the number of clerks was of little importance to the administration of agriculture, compared to the other important matter. He said that he had increased the lecturers at the college. That was most satisfactory, that there were a large number of people who had learnt slowly but surely that agricultural education was necessary to farming. Then he attacked the hon. member for Border on his third charge. He (Mr. Blaine) had said that the regulations had to stand over until the Prime Minister returned from England and the Prime Minister had pointed out how unessential it was for the Prime Minister to be there, but that the regulations were all published in his Department. But, as a matter of fact, his hon. friend was perfectly correct. They had to stand over until the Prime Minister came back. There were no regulations issued until he came back from England. He did say this that his hon. friend was justified by the Prime Minister when he spoke about shooting and fencing. It was only with the assistance of that side of the House that the policy of shooting was stopped in 1910, as the right hon. gentleman admitted there was shooting of cattle in the Transkei. It was a policy that was dropped for the simple reason that there was a danger of very serious irritation throughout the country if it were carried on. It was not an inherited policy. The hon. member (Mr. Blaine) was perfectly correct in his statement that there had been a shooting policy, that a large number of cattle had been shot, and that there had been shooting in the Transkei.

But the Premier tried to get out of it by saying that in 1911 and 1912 there was no shooting. That meant that sanity came to the Department in time. But there had been a very serious amount of shooting, and it was only because there was a strong representation from the Chief Magistrate of the Transkei and others that it was stopped. And the right hon. gentleman said, regarding the policy of fencing, that he was going on with it because the farmers desired it.

At their own expense.

Did you give no assistance?

No.

Then what did the Government do with it? On the Estimates last year there was a very large sum down for fencing.

£58,000.

said there was no doubt about it the Prime Minister had wisely taken up the policy which had been impressed upon him most strongly in the House, the policy of dipping; and it was the one and only policy that was going to do any good and that was going to stamp out East Coast fever. And he could only tell them this, that he would have the absolute assistance of every kind they (the Opposition) could give him, provided he kept at it. But if he was going to give way and water down the regulations for this one and that one, he was going to be attacked on every occasion. He had endeavoured to make the point that the spread of East Coast fever was far greater in the Eastern districts of the Cape Province than the Prime Minister had tried to make out; furthermore, that the Government had not been active and was not active now in assisting by example, and according to the allowances of the law, to stamp out the fever. He ventured to say there would be very little done in the Agricultural Department unless the Prime Minister did something to strengthen his hands and get a little energy into his Department. (Opposition cheers.)

said the last speaker had succeeded as little as the hon. member for Border in convincing the House that the Department had been going on wrong lines. The representative of Border had quoted “The Friend” as evidence of the general dissatisfaction in the Free State, but that dissatisfaction came from Bloemfontein, and not from the Free State. The dissatisfaction began in Bulawayo and Port Elizabeth. In Bloemfontein petitions were signed expressing dissatisfaction, but not in the Province generally, and in Winburg there was not a single petition. It had been said that the best men in the Free State had been dismissed, but who were the best men? There had been a question of their dismissal even before Union. Despite the retrenchment of high officials, the Free State was making good progress, and was well satisfied with Mr. McMillan, and they had now a man who could teach farmers how to sort their wool. The hon. member for Border had complained of the Prime Minister’s speech at Losberg, in which the Minister had expressed his readiness to remove difficulties in connection with the regulations. That was quite proper. The hon. member had also said that scab in the Free State was increasing, and that was incorrect. Scab in the Free State was diminishing. The hon. member had evidently extracted all his wisdom from a pamphlet which had been sent to him, which pamphlet, however, contained merely a prediction that scab would increase. It also contained a complaint as to the appointment of bad inspectors. Those inspectors were not bad, and they thoroughly understood their business. Formerly a man had to be a relative of the sheep inspector in order to secure an appointment, with the result that inspectors then were incapable. There was a great improvement to be observed, which the hon. member for Border admitted, and they had to thank for that the Minister of Agriculture. All that shrieking about retrogression in the Free State amounted to nothing, as the Province was making good progress, and was well satisfied with the Department.

hoped that the Prime Minister would agree to report progress.

Finish the general debate.

pointed out that the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Wodehouse had spoken for two hours and ten minutes. That showed that the Prime Minister thought this to be one of the most important subjects that had come up for discussion before that House. Under those circumstances, and as it was impossible for them to deal fully with the important subject that night, he thought the Prime Minister would only be acting fairly if he would allow progress to be reported at that late hour of the night. He pointed out that only one hon. member on his side of the House had had an opportunity of speaking.

said that he regretted that his hon. friend adopted such a tone. The previous evening the hon. member for Border (Mr. Blaine) had made a long speech to which they had listened with great care, and now the hon. member (Sir Thos. Smartt) objected to his making a full reply to that speech.

said that he did not intend to infer anything of the sort. He had complimented the Prime Minister on his able speech, and seeing the importance of the debate, had asked him to allow progress to be reported.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Blaine) had delivered a long speech, and had made an attack on his Department the previous evening, and he (General Botha) would not have made such a lengthy reply if he had not been asked to do so by hon. members of the Opposition. His first intention had been to let the debate proceed, and then have replied at the conclusion. He was afraid that what would now happen was that they would have that debate all over again on other points and individual items in the agricultural vote. Could they not conclude the general debate to-night and deal with the details of that vote to-morrow night, so as to obviate a double debate? He, for one, did not care to take up the time of the House with long speeches.

said that the procedure suggested by the right hon. gentleman would take a great deal longer than the suggestion which he (the speaker) had made. The Prime Minister, in the course of an able speech, had replied to the criticisms of the hon. member for the Border. They had discussed the general aspect of the situation, and he thought that time would be saved if progress was reported and the debate continued next day on the general issue. This would obviate much discussion on the details of the vote.

Their desire on that side would be to criticise the debate on the basis on which it had begun for the purpose of limiting the discussion on individual items. The right hon. gentleman had made a certain statement in regard to scab. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) had certain things on that subject he desired to bring before the House, but he did not want to bring these things up twice.

said that if that was the idea to discuss these matters on the general debate, he would have no objection, but the idea had been mooted that every vote would be taken seriatim. He accepted what his hon. friend had said, and he would move that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

said that the right hon. gentleman must know that the committee, naturally, must take every vote seriatim. As far as his influence on that side was concerned they would have a full discussion on the whole of the general administration, but they did not want to take up time by having that discussion over again on individual items.

said that surely there was a misunderstanding. They would have the discussion on the general policy and when they had done that they would want to ask questions on certain heads. Otherwise, Parliament would be reduced to a farce.

hoped that the Prime Minister would not give way. Much time was devoted to discussing various items by the Opposition, and at the conclusion the Leader of the Opposition spoke sweetly, and then the Minister met him. (Laughter.)

Don’t get angry.

The motion was agreed to.

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