brought up the second report of the Committee appointed on 7th May to bring up a Bill or Bills to give effect to the resolutions adopted on taxation proposals on customs duties and income tax, submitting a Bill.

Again I want to take up with the Minister the question of the position in Namaqualand. The Minister told us on Friday last how he had acted in his official capacity as Minister and how he had acted strictly according to law in these matters. I would like him to look at the position from a different angle. I would like him, if possible, to look at the equity of the matter, to look at the question as to how it affects the people who are interested there, which I submit, is a consideration which the Government in dealing with such subjects should keep in view. Broadly speaking, there are two grievances that the people of Namaqualand have against the Minister. The first is that he stopped prospectors from prospecting just after he had issued the licences, and the second grievance they have is that prospectors when they found diamonds were refused discoverers' rights. The second matter it at present sub judice in the courts, and I do not propose to say anything much about that except that the allegation has been made, and strongly made, by different, parties there, that there was nothing in the Minister's statement last year to let people understand that the law was different from what we have always thought to be the law in this country, that if a man found diamonds in payable quantities on the prospecting area he would, most things being equal, be entitled to discoverers' rights on that area. In fact, some people go so far as to say that the Minister's representative in Namaqualand, the magistrate who was acting as mining commissioner, actually told them that. The further allegation is made against the Minister that he arbitrarily fixed certain zones, that he said " I am fixing certain zones in Namaqualand; it is either the oyster bed zone or some other, and I am only giving one discoverer's right for each of those zones." People said that was not according to the law as they read it, and certainly the Minister did not give any hint of that in 1927, when this question was raised by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) when the Minister said that if they found diamonds they would be entitled to discoverers' rights. That is one grievance that the people in Namaqualand feel over this matter, but it is before the court at present and judgment has not been given yet, and one does not want to enter into it too deeply. There is the other grievance that prospectors have been stopped after they took out licences by this proclamation the Minister issued in February. I cannot do better than read a copy of a letter sent to me and addressed to the Minister from a farmer in Namaqualand. This is what he says—

This is what prospectors argue in Namaqualand: they say—and some of them some considerable time before this great discovery was made were in the field—people said they went to the magistrate at Springbok, paid money for prospectors' licences and they were stopped, and in the case of this man whose letter I have read, three days after he had actually pegged his ground, he was stopped. People argue, and, I submit, with considerable force, that the Government by accepting the fees for the prospecting licences has entered into a contract with them and that the Government was bound to grant them the period for which they had taken out licences in which to pursue their prospecting operations. The complaint is that the Minister acted—nobody alleges he acted in anything but good faith—and stopped this prospecting. Some people allege that he acted illegally. This-matter is also sub judice at present, and I must accept that the Minister acted legally. The argument is also used that notwithstanding that the Minister broke this tacit contract he entered into with all the prospectors, they have not been offered a refund of the licence moneys. Not only that, but the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) can bear me out, they spent thousands in prospecting, and one syndicate, I am informed, spent £20,000 in prospecting and they have nothing. After this rich find people naturally flocked to Namaqualand. As far as they could, the people conformed to the law, and after prospecting was stopped people paid hundreds in pegging. One syndicate paid £15,000 for a block of claims in Alexander Bay. The people do not dispute the Minister's and the Government's right to act in the matter and to take any action they think to control the market, but when they do so, even after the passing of the law last year, they did not contemplate for a minute that titles would be taken away which actually existed. [Time limit.]

The hon. member will pardon me if I say that he is an interested party in one matter. He will not take it amiss. He has a full right to acquire interests —

I am surprised at the Minister, I must say.

It is perfectly proper, and the hon. member ought really to have apprized the House of the fact that he is interested in some respect—he is interested in the Nolte claim. There ought to be no secret about it. It is perfectly legitimate for me to point it out to the Committee. That is no reason for ignoring the hon. member's argument, and I do not propose to do it; but necessarily I must discount something of his argument. The hon. member has skilfully attempted to draw me into a discusion of the legal aspect, which is the subject of litigation, and I do not intend to be drawn into that for a moment. As to having stopped prospecting, I thought Namaqualanders realized, more than anyone else, how grateful they ought to be to the Government for having stopped prospecting, because, otherwise, they would have been flooded by thousands of people from the rest of the Union. When I was there in April last year, they certainly realized that very fully. Then the hon. member says we have refused discoverers' rights. I am not going into the pending legal aspects at all. He, as a Transvaaler, as an intelligent attorney and a man of experience, knows as well as I do. [Afrikaans expression.] There are always a number of applicants for discoverers' rights. In the nature of the case there can, in certain areas, be only one discoverer. I am not going into the legal point about the magistrate having told some of these people that they were entitled to discoverers' rights in that particular area—that is before the courts—and the Government cannot be, bound by a casual expression of opinion by a magistrate, an administering officer. Then the hon. member mentioned this letter. There, also, that party is materially interested on his own behalf, and he has been answered. There was recently an application by one Rossouw before the court at Pretoria, who has several times seen me, and took proceedings against the Government; his application was dismissed. He alleged that he had been interfered with, although he had pegged, but the hon. member must bear in mind that the licences are issued, as I explained on Friday—perhaps the hon. member was not here—for the whole of the Cape Province. One of the prominent conditions of the contract is that the licence may at any time be curtailed as regards any particular locality and district. There is no iniquity about that at all, and the Government have acted on it. From the letter. I thought it was stated that this gentleman took out a prospector's licence in December, 1927. Evidently it must have been December, 1926.

February, 1927.

Before the prohibition was promulgated. He has been treated like anybody else.

That is the complaint.

I have already explained that again and again. The hon. member also said that no refund of the licence moneys has ever been offered. I do not know whether, legally. I can refund those moneys. If they have in mind a particular area where prospecting has been prohibited, I do not see how they can claim a refund of the moneys. The licence is for the whole province. If a request is made to the proper quarter, it will, no doubt, receive due and fair consideration. It is a minor point. The hon. member asserts that we are taking away titles. That is the whole legal question. I have been at pains for the last eighteen months or two years to explain that all our laws recognized only one title—that is where a man has made a discovery and the department has said it is a genuine discovery. He then gets a discoverer's certificate, and that is his title. In the Rossouw case it was alleged that we interfered with his rights, but the court, nevertheless, dismissed the application. There has been the wildest speculation in these prospecting areas. We had the advice of the law advisers that these prospecting licences were purely personal: it was never intended that they should be the subject of speculation.

It has always been done.

No, it is purely a personal right. If " A " has a prospecting licence and does not wish to proceed with his prospecting, he simply allows his claims to lapse, and " B " comes along and takes them. The sum mentioned by the hon. member shows how rampant this speculation has become. The speculation in options in Namaqualand has been simply astounding. I hope hon. members will give me the credit for explaining this matter times without number. I wish to refer to the statement that the action of the Government has been arbitrary, and I am glad to see the right hon. member (Gen. Smuts) back in his place, for on Friday afternoon, after putting a few questions to me, he disappeared while I was endeavouring to answer him to the best of my ability. I want the right hon. member to indicate what practical steps he thinks the Government should have taken in regard to Namaqualand, or the diggings in general. He has never come forward with any constructive criticism, and has no concrete proposal to make. It is simply criticism, nothing more. I invite him to throw nut a practical suggestion, and I will deal with it as fairly as I can. On Friday the right hon. member said there was talk of favouritism. I challenge him to give the source of that talk —where is it going on? I mentioned the name of that association in Namaqualand and two capitalists—Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and Sir Abe Bailey, who are his political friends and supporters, not mine. Does he suggest that the talk is that I favoured these gentlemen? If he does suggest that what is the origin of that talk?

I said I did not accuse you of favouritism.

I want the right hon. member not to take notice of abominable tittle-tattle, but to tell us on what he founds that statement. I invite him to do so, and am prepared to sit down at once and let him reply to me.

I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister, namely, the salt industry in the interior. We find it in the Estimates under the sub-heading (d), page 121. The Minister knows what the position of the salt mines is. Now it is my privilege to represent a constituency in which about 60 to 70 per cent, of the salt of our country is produced, and the state of affairs there is particularly unsatisfactory. Already under the former Government the condition was unsatisfactory and attempts at improvement failed, and the position is still unsatisfactory. Efforts have been made to come to an agreement among the producers to arrive at an agreement whereby the small as well as the large producers can exist. Unfortunately those efforts under the former Government failed. The present Government made an effort to help the producers by introducing protection, and by that means putting the industry on a sound basis, but this too has appeared insufficient. The result is that there are to-day, according to my information, a large number of producers in my constituency who complain that if no steps are taken to improve that state of affairs then a large number of producers will go to the wall. There are producers whose products amount to several thousands of pounds and who have lost a great deal, and the position is such that they have applied for a thorough enquiry to be made into the state of the industry. Last week I asked the Minister to give returns of the salt produced in the Union. The answer was: 1924-'25. 65,333 tons; 1925-'26, 88,754 tons, and 1926-27, 88,643 tons. While the production was already large in the past it is still always growing. This production in the interior is more than the demand for salt in the interior to-day. As against this according to the returns the importation of salt is still increasing considerably. For example, in 1926 it was 5,742,263 lbs. as against 9,000,383 lbs. in 1927. The position is thus very unsatisfactory, especially as regards the interior where the producers can find no further sale while the importation is still increasing. I have her an extract from a letter from a producer in which he mentions that a producer in one single district has firmly resolved to make use of his position to squash as much as possible other producers, that is to say that he wants to squeeze out many of the small producers and establish a monopoly. The Minister will agree that this is a very unfavourable state. A considerable sum of money has been invested in the salt mines and not only does it provide food for many workers, but in addition there is the fact that the large majority of these people who work there are whites. Now my request to the Minister is to institute a thorough investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries, and that steps be taken to put the salt mines in a healthy condition. I have here a report that the Board of Trade and Industries are willing to institute an investigation, but must first enquire into another industry. It is a newer industry, but I do not want to say that because of that it is less important, namely the cotton industry. I hear that if an enquiry is made into the state of the cotton industry then the Board of Trade and Industries will be willing to enquire into the salt industry. Seeing that this matter has been pending so long, I hope the Minister will give me the assurance that the investigation will not be put off too long. Another point on which I wish to touch is the state of ground for diggers in the Cape Province. I must say that I feel great admiration and respect for the patience which the Minister of Mines and Industries has shown and is still showing, in this critical time of the diamond industry, especially where there are so many people who are interested in the diamond industry and who place their personal interests before the national interest. As there are thousands of people who think of their own interests apart from the general interests and where moreover there are people who make the position worse because they are trying to gain political advantage from it, and not only try to obtain political advantage, but also in all sorts of ways make unscrupulous statements. I say that I have much sympathy with the Minister. From the Transvaal side much is being done to direct the attention of the Minister to the Transvaal diggings, and I think this is right, because a large part of our income comes from there, but on the other hand the Minister must not lose sight of the interests of the diggers of the Cape Province. I accept that the Minister will agree with me that the diggers of the Cape are remaining very quiet, although the need for ground exists not only in the Transvaal, but just as much in the Cape Province. I think that as a representative from the Cape Province, it is my duty to draw attention to the difficult circumstances of the diggers of the Cape Province, and therefore I ask the Minister when considering the granting of ground for digging not to think only of the Transvaal, though I do not grudge them anything. He must also act justly and fairly towards the Cape diggers. It seems to me that a great deal of discretion is left to the officials who are a long way from the office, and though I do not wish to express any doubts about them, yet I wish to express the hope that the Minister will also think of the Cape diggers.

I want to refer the request of the hon. member for an enquiry by the Board of Trade and Industries in connection with salt to the board, and I shall go into the question of what can be done. My impression is that the matter was gone into a few years ago, but it seems that there are other points which the hon. member wishes to be enquired into, matters of national importance, and then I would like to give my co-operation in order that another enquiry should take place. As regards the proclamation of ground the hon. member should take into consideration that there is a great difference between the Cape Province and the Transvaal. The problem really lies in the Transvaal. Lichtenburg with its thousands of diggers is the storm centre of the problem. It lies not so much in the Cape Province or in certain parts of the Transvaal, where there are only a few hundred diggers, but in Lichtenburg with its thousands and thousands of unfortunate people. The hon. member will thus understand that in our attitude we make a good deal of practical difference between the throwing open of farms in the Transvaal and the Cape. In any case, I am looking into the question of what I can do to meet the requirements of the diggers in the Cape Province too. Here I just want to read a letter which I have received to-day. Hon. members no doubt have seen that some time ago there was a great demonstration at Lichtenburg, but recently there was a congress of certain people and interests at Potchefstroom, and I have no doubt that there are people who take a delight in stirring up the diggers. As I have often said the diggers are radically divided amongst themselves. One delegate after the other comes, and the last one always rejects what has gone before. In order to show how seriously the position in the past has been exaggerated, I wish to read this letter. Of course the diggers in the past have always aimed at Namaqualand. This is always what they wanted. The movement was not so much the immediate position in the Transvaal, but Namaqualand has always been the aim. In this letter I was again requested to receive a delegation from Lichtenburg. I shall certainly receive them, and what they place before me will be thoroughly considered by me. The letter reads—

The Government has so far always had an open mind in meeting people as far as the regulations are concerned. It speaks for itself that in connection with the new system, namely the lottery system, we must learn from time to time, by experience, and this is the first and only request from the date the regulations were promulgated that people have approached the Government in connection worth the lottery system. In the past the subject was always " Namaqualand " and nothing else, and the proposals with which they came were always so absurd and impracticable that the Government, although it considered them seriously, had no doubt as to the answer. Fancy a request that we should out of the wealth of Namaqualand—which after all will also prove to be limited—make a capitalist with £5,000 of every poor white in the land and that the State then should undertake for him and his children and grandchildren the administration of this £5,000. Can any person think of a more absurd and impracticable proposal? Then there are, as I have said, tens of thousands of people who would object to being treated as poor whites who do not possess a capital of £300. I am sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is again not here. He delivered a speech at Claremont on the 29th March last and said that the Government had enticed the diggers to Lichtenburg in thousands and had proclaimed farms without limitation while the old Government kept the farms closed, and that to-day we must pluck the bitter fruits of that wrong policy. In other words he definitely said that we tried to use diggings as a solution of the poor white problem and unemployment. This is entirely devoid of all foundation, and is an absolutely reckless statement. There is no one who ought to know better than the hon. gentleman himself that there is not a grain of foundation for it. I have made this clear so often already, and the hon. gentleman knows it well enough. He is an ex-legislator and an ex-Minister of the Transvaal and he knows well that under the laws of the Transvaal, until they were recently repealed, we were always on the horns of a dilemma. If we proclaimed we were forced to proclaim because every inch of ground could be mined under the guise of prospecting, but what was more was that the intensive cutting up of farms compelled us from time to time to proclaim, because we had to prevent the owner from subdividing a farm of, say, 5,000 morgen into thousands of small portions, and the public after once the farm had been proclaimed would not have a single inch of it. How can the hon. member then say that we in an unfair way, by means of our proclaiming enticed thousands of people to the diggings. On the contrary, we have always warned diggers against the overcrowding at the diggings. That thing has been said in a responsible and reckless manner only to stir up excitable minds and to make political capital.

I do not know whether the Minister expects to get his vote through quickly. I must, with all due respect, point out to him that he might give us a chance to talk a little and not keep us all the time changing from one subject to another. I was rather surprised that the Minister said he had to discount my remarks to some extent on account of my being interested in Namaqualand. The Minister knows the case very well that I am indirectly interested in. It has got nothing to do with taking out prospecting licences before his proclamation. That part of the case I am not interested in and the question of discoverers' rights I am not interested in either.

You might have become the discoverer on the ground on which you were prospecting.

I have got no rights at all, and I must say I rather take it amiss that the Minister should bring in this question. I am no more interested than he or any other member. The Minister knows that, and that is why I rather deprecate it.

Are you not going to appeal with your case?

We have heard the Minister's argument, and I think it is a bit thin. The Minister disclaims any rights to prospectors because they took out licences for the whole of the Cape Colony, and they could well have understood at the time that some part of the Cape Colony could be withdrawn. The Minister knows as well as I do that the people who went to Springbok to take out licences to prospect did not want to prospect anywhere else but in Namaqualand. They went for a specific purpose, indeed after the proclamation the magistrate at Springbok refused to grant a licence to prospect in the Cape Colony. The argument, therefore, that people took out licences at Springbok to prospect through the whole colony, and, therefore, had no right to say: " You broke your contract ", I am afraid is a bit thin.

That is only a repetition of the legal arguments. Let us leave that to the courts.

That is the point I want to make to the Minister, even if the Government is legally right, it has some right to treat its subjects with equity. The people had a right to come to him and say: " Even if you are legally right, we ask you to refund our licence moneys." Then the next step is, if once you accept the principle that you have to refund their licence moneys, to go to the Minister and say that he ought to refund the money they had expended in prospecting. It is the same principle. I may take him a step further and say that he should compensate those people who bought up prospecting areas and whose rights he, as Minister, has taken away on behalf of the State. These people claim much more. They say that the State is to-day making use of what they disclosed by their prospecting operations, is making use of all the information that they found, and all the information that is obtainable and has been obtained through their spending money, the State is making use of that information, and going to put up a State digging.

You know they were a lot of speculators. Who sits behind Rossouw in the case?

I don't care. It has never been admitted in this country that a man cannot go and buy a prospecting right, but it is the Minister who, since he took office, has ridden the high horse.

It was common cause on both sides of the House that the subdivision of farms was an evil.

Let it be an evil, but it was only the Minister of Mines who came and said: " You shall not do ft, and if you have done it before, even if you have done it according to law, I will make it illegal, and I will come down upon you." There is nothing in our law to prevent a man from selling his prospective area. What has been decided in the Rossouw case? The only thing decided in that case is: "At present you have suffered no damage, you can go on with your case." That is all that has been decided. When we objected to the Minister's peregrinations into State mining, he said: " You tell me what to do. Why don't you give us a line of action? " It is our job to criticize, and he is put there to take the right line. He is in charge of the thing. If he wants some advice, let him put the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) there, and he will show him what the right line is. I suppose he wants the right hon. member to settle this question as he settled the flag question, and as he is taking a leading part in settling the native question.

When I stopped on Friday I was busy pleading for my poor people who since 1924 have been in distress, and then from the other side I had to hear the cry " Shame." The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who used the word, probably forgot the days when he came in as a young doctor and the farmers put him on his feet. He ought to be grateful, but not when someone else pleads, for their interests to say that it is a shame. How can he say this when this country has been kinder to him than the land of his birth, and the people have been kinder to him than the people from whom he came? However. I return to the interests of the poor people. The other day the Minister told us that now, in May, only he has available the returns for January and February with respect to the effect of the limitation of the diamond production. The Minister has, however, given the assurance to quite a little number of people who came to see him that he and the Government would, in June, consider the proclamation of other farms. I have here, however, the " Die Burger " of the 17th April, and the promise which he gave appears therein mainly that when the production of the alluvial diggings, up to the 30th June, is known, the Government will be ready to consider the position in accordance with the data then available. Now I ask myself the question when the returns up to the 30th June will be available if now he knows the results only of January and February. Then he will know only in October or September what the result was up to and including June. If this, however, is the intention, then I shall be very much surprised. The Cabinet can decide only in accordance with the data which the Minister places before them. Section 115 gives the Minister the power to make any limitations. Now I would like to ask the Minister if there are no more alluvial diggings which can be developed and for which later, too, limitation will be necessary. There are still a good number of such fields. If the Minister says that he is going to limit them all equally then from our side there will be no objection. The people in Namaqualand, however, will now begin to become uneasy as to what will happen in June about Namaqualand. Will they have the right in June to prospect? I think that from the words of the Minister I have the right to conclude that in June he will consider whether he will permit the people of Namaqualand to prospect. I would like to remind the Minister that Sir Ernest Oppenheimer himself said that if the production of the alluvial fields did not exceed £6,000,000 there would be no need to fix a quota. The Minister is now busy fixing, and if he reduces it to £3,000,000 a year who will then make up the other three or four million pounds? Will it come from the State diggings, or will the big companies make it up? The Minister is now limiting prospecting to six prospectors each with ten assistants. The Minister will be able to limit this to two men with ten men each. We, in Namaqualand, will be satisfied with such a limitation as long as it is applied everywhere else. We do not, however, wish that prospecting shall be allowed in Lichtenburg while Namaqualand remains closed. It is a matter of public interest for my electors, and they will take it amiss of me if I do not trouble the Minister. I am not alone in pleading this. The distress is so great that they have sent a deputation of 50 people. The Minister himself has said that there are 1,500 people in distress in Namaqualand. Now, if he gives work to 60 people on the State diggings there will still be 1,400 left. If he permits prospecting every man in his circle gets work, and many of the poor people can give help. In the neighbourhood of Lichtenburg people can find other work, but not in Namaqualand. Let the Minister now declare here if, in June, he will allow prospecting, or let him say that it will not be possible. We are not satisfied with this uncertain state, and if there is limitation we want it to be uniform. Our requests are reasonable. Namaqualand is now groaning under the total closure. Some people have already sold their farms for a mere song because they have lost hope, and do not know when prospecting will be allowed again. The Minister must give us a little information. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that I must say something too, but the question of the diggings is so important that I cannot remain silent. We shall be very glad if a way can be found to solve the problem, and create contentment amongst the diggers. The difficulties are great, but much can be done to solve the problem. The Minister or the Government has great powers, and can limit as they like. Where this is so the Government must now relax as much as possible in order to satisfy the people. We cannot wait, but must do something so that the people can get work and make a living. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) here has spoken about Namaqualand, but the condition among the diggers in general is critical. The Minister made a promise to reconsider the matter, but I should like to know why the farms which are already available and in connection with which it has been said that they will be thrown open are not yet thrown open. Why is there this long dawdling? The people are sitting and waiting for the performance of the Minister's promise. They were satisfied with this promise, but it is lasting a long time before it is being carried out. I think it is very desirable that the Minister should throw open the few farms, especially in Ventersdorp, so that the people can get work and make a living.

I still want to press the Minister for an answer whether people will be allowed to prospect or not. There is still talk of a crisis in the diamond market, I cannot understand it. It was to be understood before we accepted the new law, but why then has a new law been accepted. Surely the crisis is passed now? As far as the State diggings are concerned, I would also like to ask the Minister to whom is he going to dispose of the diamonds. To the syndicate? Then he is again in the claws of the lion. The Minister has made a promise, but this will not provide the people with bread. The people in Namaqualand want bread. They are not begging for food, but they are a class of people who ask for work so as to earn their bread.

It must be clear to the hon. member that the providing of work has nothing to do with my department. We are dealing with the vote, " Mines and Industries," and the Government has accepted the principle, and they are standing by it, that digging cannot be regarded as a solution for unemployment and the poor white question. No thinking person can take up that point of view and the Government has come to this decision. Experience has taught us abundantly that digging is no permanent solution of those problems. Then the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) said that a deputation of 50 people has been to me. Has the hon. member forgotten that more than half of the deputation, or, at any rate, the half when I had spoken to them and asked them if they had come in connection with diamonds, had said that they had come in connection with poverty. Only half of the people took an interest in digging, and what was the attitude of that half? The cat was out of the bag. It appeared that at most 80 farmers in Namaqualand who own private ground were of opinion that there were diamonds on their farms, and to give them a chance to sell their farms and make a small portion, they do not mind what will become of the thousands of people who will come to Namaqualand if prospecting and digging are allowed there. This attitude is really the most selfish imaginable, but the Government must keep in mind the danger for those thousands of people. Let me warn the hon. member for Namaqualand. If he brings Namaqualand under the impression that after June it will be thrown open, that he does so at his own risk and on his own responsibility. The great difference between Namaqualand and Lichtenburg and other parts of the Transvaal is that in Lichtenburg and those parts of the Transvaal we are faced with an accomplished fact, and we have there a diggers community of thousands of people, while Namaqualand has never yet had a community of diggers. What did those people do in the past? There it is a question of poverty, and if a solution must be found for that, then it must be found in another direction, and not by way of an increase in the community of diggers. I want to warn the hon. member not to bring people under a wrong impression. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) asked me why there has been so much delay. The hon. member will appreciate that we have many difficulties. I have already often pointed them out. The new system is an experiment, and we are learning as we go along. The surveying of farms and the drawing for claims have taken much longer than we estimated. Then there the difficulty of water. As far as the farm Goedgedacht, for example, is concerned, the drawing has been delayed because there is no water there. According to information, there will be a movement of population of about 25,000 to 30,000 people who will come to this farm. Thus the Government must first of all he very careful of the presence of water before the farm can be drawn for. The hon. member knows that the Government has many farms which can be drawn for such as Mimosa, Hartebeestpoortlaagte, Vetpan, Welgemeend, Kings ground at Delportshoop, Bynespoort and many others. There are enough farms on the list. The hon. member, therefore, ought not to be worried about prospecting, but we are not going to draw in such a way that we shall again have an enormous population which is entirely out of proportion to the carrying capacity of the farm.

In his speech on Friday afternoon the Minister said that the prospectors at Holfontein exceeded their rights by working out the farm instead of prospecting it. I do not know if the Minister is in full possession of the facts, but I can give the Minister the assurance that the prospectors at Holfontein did not exceed their rights, because it has scarcely been well prospected, and though it has been stated that enormous quantities of diamonds were obtained, it cannot be so, because the production of Holfontein was scarcely sufficient to prove that the farm was rich enough to be proclaimed as a diggings. Anyone who has been on Holfontein will agree that it was properly prospected and that the farm has not been worked out, but that it was prospected in the usual way, and that small holes were made over the whole farm. It was in the interests of the owner to find out if there were diamonds in payable quantities on the farm or not. We knew that the Minister could apply the proclamation to a portion of the farm or to the whole farm. It was, however, in the interests of the owner to find out what the wealth of diamonds on the farm was, because then he could fix what he could get for it, and in order to fix this it was necessary to prospect. It is well known that prospecting activities on Holfontein did not take place in such a measure that it can be said Holfontein has been worked out.

They were not bona fide prospecting activities.

Then I do not know what the Minister understands what is meant by prospecting.

Thousands and thousands of pounds' worth of diamonds were taken out during the prospecting activities.

The Minister will agree that the diamonds that were obtained at Holfontein were lawfully obtained.

It was not prospecting, but the winning of diamonds.

It may be that there were a few places where many diamonds were found; but even those places were not worked out. It is impossible to say that Holfontein was worked out. The Minister will agree that the owners of farms in Krugersdorp suffered terrible damage when the proclamation forbidding prospecting was issued. The Minister should have said that the farms which were already being prospected would not come under the proclamation. The farmers could have got good prices for their farms, and some were nearly sold, but when the proclamation was issued then all the farms which would have been sold were not sold. The owners suffered great loss through this. I know of a person who two days before the proclamation was issued, began to prospect his farm. And he incurred a great deal of expense for this, and he even used white people, because he was afraid of using kaffirs for prospecting. To-day he is not allowed to go on. We have approached the Minister to throw open Krugersdorp too for prospectors. The Minister must understand that there are a large number of people who have difficulty in making a living. Why then is a chance not given to prospect at Krugersdorp too? I can give the Minister the assurance that if he comes to Krugersdorp then he will see that the people there made only small holes in order to find out where the richest places are. It is in the interests of the owner that prospecting should be well done, and this does not take place in an irregular manner. I think that in the circumstances where the Minister knows that there are people who have spent thousands of pounds, and where farms have nearly been sold, he should have allowed those people to prospect further, but he need not allow new farms to be prospected.

I must say that. I am surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). The hon. member does not seem to know yet that it is an accepted principle of the Government to stop members of the public who are not diggers from becoming diggers. He speaks of the poor people in the district of Krugersdorp. I have just before said that the Government do not admit and no thinking person will admit that digging can be a permanent solution of unemployment and of the poor white question. The experience of diggings shows that of the people who go there that 70 to 80 per cent, and even 85 per cent, become pauperized and sink. Thus there is from 15 to 30 per cent, of the diggers who succeed, even at Lichtenburg, which is considered as the richest alluvial digging so far. Why, then, are there thousands of people who, according to statements, are perishing from hunger? This is a matter which any South African who loves his people, must see. The hon. member says there is a case where someone two days before the proclamation invested his money for prospecting activities; but those people were warned. Did they not then see the reports which appeared in the newspapers? The papers throughout the whole Union published very detailed reports in connection with this question. They clearly intimated that the proposed legislation had as its very object the stopping of prospecting. If people then still began to prospect and to buy farms, then they did so with their eyes open and on their own reponsibility. And it is not the ordinary farmer who is hit by it, but in the majority of cases speculators who long ago bought the farms for a song, or obtained options on them. The Government is not there to protect the options of speculators. The Government must take into account the danger which thousands and thousands of people run if the Government does not intervene. I have already said that in the months of January, February and March, 2,000 prospectors' certificates were applied for to the magistrate of Lichtenburg alone by people who generally at all events were never diggers. What then becomes of these unfortunate people if we permit them to become diggers? Then the hon. member says that those prospecting operations did not take place improperly on certain farms. It is the fact, however. The hon. member knows that Holfontein has been worked out while, nominally, prospecting for diamonds was going on. It was not bona fide prospecting, and the hon. member knows it. The hon. member complains: " Why are diggings not proclaimed in Krugersdorp ?" The answer is that there never were diggers in Krugersdorp, and because we do not allow digging in Krugersdorp, and because we ought to be thankful that we have no digging community there, just so, we wish in Krugersdorp and other places where there are no diggers, to prevent a digging community arising. In areas where a diggings population exists, the Government have enough farms to proclaim so that it is not necessary to permit prospecting activities, and the Government will, when necessary, proclaim farms as alluvial diggings, not because we like to, but because circumstances compel us to do so. We must, however, proclaim no farms as diggings in areas where there never were diggings.

When one hears the complaints from hon. members in the Transvaal, and from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), one would think that those were the only sections of the population who are suffering from the prohibition proclamation with regard to prospecting for diamonds. The Free State has preserved silence, not because they are not suffering in the circumstances, because the alluvial diggings in the Transvaal with their overproduction have their repercussion on the Free State as well, especially in my constituency. I am sorry to say that we in the Free State were not exempted from the consequences of the proclamation. Diamonds are not found in the Free State to such an extent as to cause trouble, as in the Transvaal, but in my constituency the proclamation had an effect which affected some people very severely. The trouble with us is that prospecting has gone on for years, but the diamonds are not found in such great quantities, as to justify a place being proclaimed a diggings. Pipes of diamondiferous ground run through the whole area, and in most cases enough are found to enable the prospectors to live until they come to a place like Theunissen, where a mine can be proclaimed. A few little mines arose in that way in the past. Now there are many farmers who have made a profit out of the prospecting. The right to prospect is not abused, but it is done in a lawful way. Enough diamonds are found to provide a living, and this enables the prospectors to keep on till they find the mine. There are farmers who receive £800 to £1,000 a year in prospecting money and the people who used to have incomes like this now find things hard because the revenue is suddenly taken away. On the whole, I think that the attitude the Minister takes up is perfectly logical, and in the long run it is the only standpoint maintainable. I think his reply to the criticism on the prohibition of prospecting was devastating. Prospecting for diamonds under present circumstances when there is so much overproduction is not allowed until it is known what the effect is. I do not wish it to be overlooked that the people in the Free State have been very hard hit by the prohibition, and if the Minister will in six months consider whether he can repeal the prohibition, I hope he will also bear in mind conditions in the Free State. The position there differs entirely from that in other parts of the country, and there is no danger of flooding the market. Either the farmers themselves do the work, or they employ someone, but the creation of the diggers population as in other parts of the country is not possible. There are people in my district who are having a hard time.

Is the hon. member suggesting legislation?

No, I do not recommend any legislation, but the Minister promised that in six months he would reconsider the position of prospecting operations, and I expressed the hope that he would then bear in mind the interests of the Winburg district particularly. I will merely, as an example, mention one case to show the Minister our difficulty. I know of a man at Theunissen who some years ago bought a farm. He was not rich, but he decided to buy the farm with his small capital because he knew that there were diamondiferous pipes on it, and he hoped to find a mine. He worked hard prospecting, but unfortunately his expenses exceeded the value of the diamonds. The signs, however, were very promising, and he accordingly bonded his farm for £2,000. He continued, and last year he discovered a place which promised to become a mine. The ground he washed did not leave any doubt that he had actually found a mine, and if he could continue, he would be able to pay off the bond on his farm. He had extracted £600 worth when he was stopped by the proclamation. I know the man, and I fear that if his case is not met he will have to give up his plans. That is an example of the difficulties we have in the Free State, and I hope that when the Minister considers the matter he will remember conditions in the Free State, and particularly in my district.

The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) must, of course, remember that legislation and many proclamations under the legislation always cause damage to someone or other. It is unfortunately necessarily so. Every new law encroaches on existing rights to a greater or lesser degree. I have particularly great sympathy with the people in the Free State, because I know that the prospecting done there does not coincide with that of the ordinary alluvial fields. The ordinary diggings practically do not exist there, nor do mines or rich pipes. What they have there are tears which they call fissures, and the yield is not much. The hon. member will however, understand that it is very difficult to make an exception in connection with prospecting operations, because, as soon as the Government departs in the least from a general prohibition, there are numbers of people who immediately talk about favouritism. There have already been insinuations of favouritism, and it will create great dissatisfaction if one section are given permission, however small the scale may be on which the prospecting takes place. I want to give you an example of the jealousy that exists among the diggers. They grudge each other bread. Take the State diggings which we are going to establish in Namaqualand. Do you know that great jealousy and envy exist about the employment of 50 people out of the 1,500 poor Namaqualanders, and that the envy comes from the rest of the Union, especially Lichtenburg. They grudge their own fellowmen bread. The Government simply said that it required ordinary workpeople, and that it was easy to teach them the work by means of a few experienced people, and that as these people were on the doorstep in Namaqualand we could not at great expense get people from hundreds of miles away. Now the hon. member says that farmers who have farms have suffered great losses. That may be true, but the hon. member will of course understand that the diamonds on the farms remain there, and the better the policy of the Government in connection with diamonds, and the improvement of the market is, the more will the farms retain their value, and appreciate in value, but the worse the Government's action, the more will the farms depreciate. I am glad the hon. member in the main agrees with the policy of the Government, I am pleased also that I have just received the figures of the output for March and April. I understand there is a grievance among the diggers that we do not regularly publish the output from the alluvial diggings as in the past. Many of the diggers think that this is another of the intrigues between the Government and the big magnates. That is the sort of nonsense that is circulated. There is nothing secret about it, and there is not the least reason why the yield from the diggings should not be pub I fished except that we might damage the market. As soon as the public outside, the people in the Union and in the rest of the world, see that there is an enormous production of diamonds, the diamond market receives a shock. With regard to the output from the alluvial diggings, however, it was 6½ million pounds last year. The total production of our country was about £12,000,000, so that the alluvial diggings produced as much as the mines, and they were unlimited last year, and still are today. In January the output was £250,000, in February £364,802, an appreciable increase on January. In March the amount was £378,379, again an increase; for April I have just received from the under-secretary the calculated —not the final—figures, namely, £266,000. It is very satisfactory, a reduction of £100,000 in comparison with March. If we had the figures up to the 30th June we should be better able to reconsider the position, and we are going to do so.

The Minister has just told us that the deputation came here to plead on behalf of the poor people in Namaqualand. I was present when the deputation was elected, and they were instructed to plead for prospecting on private farms. If they pleaded for poor people they went, of course, to the wrong Minister.

Two other Ministers were also present.

But they wanted to see the Minister of Mines. Shortly before the Easter vacation many people visited the Minister, such as the hon. members for Losberg (Mr. Brits), Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers), Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick), Yentersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) and myself, and we asked the Minister what we could tell our constituents about diamonds. The Minister said the Government was going to consider the position. We were thus given hope, and if I gave the people a wrong impression, then the Minister is just as much to blame as I, because he said we could tell the people that the Government was going to reconsider the matter, and he did not exclude me. I have all along been afraid of Namaqualand being made an exception. As a matter of fact, I fear that Namaqualand will be further penalized. It has had years of drought and is it now to be punished as well because it produces diamonds? Namaqualand surely cannot always be excluded. It, would surely be a cruel thing. If, e.g., diamonds some day were found in Worcester and the inhabitants of the Worcester district were to be prevented from dividing the benefits, but other people were to be imported to reap the benefits and not the people who had built up Worcester. I do not want Namaqualand to be given a back place. If there are to be restrictions let them apply right throughout the country. The Minister has the power. If I send someone out with a cart and horse, and he has the reins in his hands, and the cart overturns, then I do not blame the horse, but the driver. The Minister can limit the yield in various ways. There is an agreement with the mines for the production of £8,000,000 per annum. It has two more years to run when it can be amended. My question is who will provide the rest to supply the world demand if the production of the alluvial diggings is restricted. We want Namaqualand to have just as much chance as the other parts of the country.

Do you want to restrict it to Namaqualand people?

There are not only 80 farmers in Namaqualand, but at least 200 farms where there are diamonds.

I ask whether you want to limit it to Namaqualand or will also allow people from other parts.

I am not pleading on behalf of outside people.

Do you want people from other parts to be prevented?

If I could do so, yes. If there are people who have options, we cannot prevent them. I want equal restriction, and not that Namaqualand should be penalized. The people there are in a wretched state and if the Minister cannot assist them, some other scheme must be evolved. But we possess the diamonds there, and why should we be made an exception of?

I just want to reply to the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). He said there had been no illegal prospecting on Holfontein. Unfortunately I told the Minister that illegal prospecting for diamonds was taking place on Holfontein. That is a fact, and I just want to put the hon. member right. Holfontein can be divided into three parts, C, D and E. D has practically been completely prospected; C has practically not yet been prospected, and E has been well prospected. I agree with the hon. member that the Minister ought to have a lottery on Holfontein I want again to ask the Minister in a friendly way to give his attention to Goedgedacht. I hope the Minister will have enquiry made about water in the neighbourhood. It is not really necessary, and the Minister could proclaim at once because water does exist there. In the past, the search for water was never a difficulty, the diggers merely applied for the ground and provided water themselves. I receive almost more telegrams and letters than there are diamonds on Goedgedacht. I have here a further telegram: “Resolution passed at meeting last Saturday for you to approach the Minister to immediately proclaim a number of farms, viz., Harte-beeslaagte. Goedgedacht and Holfontein. No water on Goedgedacht. 4,000 to 5,000 diggers.”

I hope water difficulties will not delay the Minister any longer. If the Minister does riot, do it we shall have the greatest trouble in the world with the diggers of Lichtenburg. If the Minister throws Goedgedacht open, I want to ask him to give the preference to the Moot river diggers. They are very respectable and loyal to the Minister and the new Act.

I want to ask the Minister to make a statement with regard to the recent discovery of asbestos in the Pietersburg district. We consider it of the greatest importance, and would like to know whether the Minister shares our optimism. I understand a mountain has been discovered and that additional farms have been purchased there and people with experience in these matters have obtained options which, however, will lapse if no development takes place. I want to ask the Minister to give a grant for the construction of the road over Beyers’ Nek. The hon. member behind me says that the name will possibly assist in favourably disposing the Minister. One cannot possibly expect a grant from the Provincial Council, and actually there is only asbestos. I therefore ask the Minister for a grant for the road.

Since this question was debated in the House before, considerably Increased attention has been given to it, and one can quite understand that there is a certain amount of anxiety on the part of those interested in it as to what the whole policy of the Government is, and to what extent it will trespass and interfere with existing interests. I sympathize with the difficulties the Minister has to face, and this Namaqualand discovery has added considerably to his troubles. I thank him for having met the difficulties so far by throwing open several farms for the use of diggers so as to give them some chance of continuing their occupation. What we were afraid of is that he would close alluvial diamond areas down and get rid of the diggers. Instead of putting a stop to over-production, as he evidently intended, the Minister has arranged for further farms to be proclaimed, and they are now being worked by diggers. So the difficulty has been temporarily got over, but what we are afraid of, and, indeed, very seriously afraid of, is that when the session closes the blow will fall on the diggers, and the intention of the Government will be carried out to get rid entirely of this digger industry. After the close of this session, when public opinion cannot be brought to bear effectively, there will be the difficult position of diggers having their occupation preserved. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that somehow or other the interests of big producers are considered first. The Government protest that they are on the side of the poor man, but we see a tendency to play up to the powerful interests. [No quorum.] We all agree to limitation of output, but differ in regard to the proportion which should be given to the respective producers, and we are very much afraid that, instead of the balance being held even, the big interests will always be considered first. There is a disposition on the part of the Government and of the Minister to believe that the big producers control the market, or, in other words, make the diamond market. As a matter of fact, they may, to some extent, control prices; but the market itself, and its extent, is decided by consumers the world over. Therefore, to give credit to the big interests that they are specially to be considered, because they make and control the market, and absolutely provide for the sale of diamonds, is quite a mistaken idea. Once more, we would ask the Minister to assure us that he is going to limit the output of the big producers and to see that it will be a fair deal as between the two interests. I know that the Minister may say it is very difficult of attainment. It may be difficult to adjust it to a meticulous nicety, but not half and half roughly, and the big producers are those he ought to hold down to a maximum with the firmest hand. I am not amongst those who wonder that there is a disposition on the part of the public to think that the Government are actuated by motives of preference to big interests. I will give one or two instances to show how that idea has gained ground. A corespondent writes to me —

We get these instances of preferential treatment which the public canot understand. I could give another instance, that of the Phoenix mine in the Winburg district, which shakes the confidence of the public. Although people were stopped from prospecting in that area and ruined, the Phoenix mine was allowed to continue working. [Time limit.]

What action does the Minister propose taking on the report of the Mansergh Commission on fisheries? Last year we were told that the matter was receiving attention. The commission made recommendations in regard to fishing stations for Hermanus, Whitesands and other places. We have heard a great deal about diamonds which are certainly an article of luxury, but fishing is as important as diamonds, for fish will supply food for the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) and the rest of the people of the country. Fish has become a very popular and inexpensive article of diet with the farmer and his employees. If our fishing industry were developed, we would employ hundreds of men, but, unfortunately, there is a lack of safe harbours. At a comparatively small cost very secure landing places could be provided for the fishermen. I hope our Labour friends will assist in securing harbours for the fishermen. Unfortunately, they are not here, but they are ably represented by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay).

If we have finished with the all-absorbing topic of diamonds, I should like to know what has been done for the benefit of the fishing industry. The report of the Mansergh commission was a very exhaustive one, and the personnel of the commission—including a harbour engineer and an old public servant—commanded every confidence. The fishing industry on the south and east coast of the Cape Province is very badly handicapped through lack of harbours. Between East London and Cape Agulhas there are some of the finest fishing banks in the world. Between these two points is a place where you could make an exceptionally good harbour for fishing-boats and trawlers and coastal traffic, and capital would be forthcoming for the provision of cold storage and other necessary buildings in connection with a large fishing industry and land would be provided. Is any practical notice likely to be taken by the Government of the Mansergh report? We should do all we could to increase our fishing population. Only a very little needs to be done by the State to encourage the fishing industry on a bigger scale than it exists to-day. The fishing industry on the whole is in the hands of certain people who have their interest in certain localities, and naturally one cannot expect much assistance from them in the development of any other harbours. I am afraid another reason for the lack of development of our coasts is that we have the administration of the harbours in the hands of the Railway Administration. I do not think we can expect railway people to do very much to encourage a coastal trade, because, naturally, it would interfere with the revenues of the railway. The whole trend of this commission’s report with regard to fishing is that there should be a central authority. Inland fishing should also come directly under Union control. At present it is in the hands of the provincial councils. We have visitors from other countries and reports of experts, all agreeing that our waters in South Africa lend themselves to the establishment of inland fisheries on a very big scale, which would have a very marked effect on the food supply of the country. There is great difficulty in this province in keeping adequate hatcheries going, and there is lack of co-ordination between one province and another. I think the fishing industry has been the Cinderella of the industries of the country. It would be a big source of revenue, would give employment to numbers of men, and would help in developing a sea sense among the population, of which there is much talk, but little is done to encourage it. The commission has rather skated over that point of a central Union authority, because, I suppose, they did not wish to hurt the susceptibilities of various provincial authorities, but throughout the report there is the hint that there should be a central control which ought to be Union control. I will read a passage from the report on page 76. [Extract read.] That all helps to bear out the argument that these smaller harbours should be developed, two or three of which I know have railway facilities, have safe harbourage and three parts of the work already accomplished. One such harbour, Port Alfred, had a considerable amount of money spent on it in years gone by, which is lying wasting for the need of very little work to make it a really good harbour. The fishing survey has discovered one of the finest fishing banks in the world off the west coast of the Cape; off our southern coasts as well, we have equally good banks of a kind of fish which is equally valuable for fresh food supplies and for exportation. There is another paragraph, which is full of significance, which states—

That, I think, is a very broad hint which we know is justified, that there is a good deal of clashing and overlapping, and, above all, there is not sufficient official interest taken in the subject to give it that attention which is its due. We have lost two good friends of the fishing industry and research into its potentialities in the late Dr. Gilchrist and Mr. Warington Smyth.

I would like to rapport what has been said on the question of the fishing industry. It is more and more becoming recognized that, as in other countries, there are not great industries such as the manufacturing or agricultural or mining industries, but that the fishing industry can, as a primary industry, itself be a big branch of the real industrial life of the country where you have the possibilities such as you have round the coast of the Union. When we come to regard the question of fishing here, first of all we have to consider what the possibilities are in regard to supply, and, of course, the possibilities can only be decided by a continuous and thorough system of research. The “Pickle” has been doing very excellent work for some years past, and, while I have every sympathy with the necessity for economy, I regret to notice that the Minister has surrendered, of the £10,000 which was set aside for scientific research, £2,500 odd. I think that that £2,500, instead of being money saved, is money wasted, because that was money meant for the development of that very great asset which we have got round our coast. The growth of the industry has been quite great during the last few years, both for the food supplies of the country here and also, I am glad to say, for export. We cannot expect to develop our fishing industry properly unless we have a proper system of administration, and I have, for years, urged that the necessity, in this respect, is to have administration under one control, and that control ought to be the Union Government. This report, which-has been referred to, indicates, on pages 1 and 2, the difficulties that are due, and largely due, to the divided authority in regard to fishing matters. Mr. Warington-Smythe, Union Secretary for Mines and Industries and chairman of that commission, points out that it is evident that the present system, with its want of co-ordination in regard to fishing matters, cannot conduce to rapidity or efficiency in carrying out those measures which are necessary for the development of our fishing industry as a whole. He also stresses the need of a central fishing authority. Now, while you have this divided authority, you cannot hope to have that efficient and rapid development which our fishing capacity round the coast here calls for. The harvest to be reaped is undoubted, and there is no doubt that, as, for instance, in the researches on the west coast and on the south coast, and with the further discoveries made in Natal of the crayfish resources there, every time that research work is undertaken some more or less big discovery is made in connection with the fishing industry. This matter is important also from the point of view of the development of what has been referred to as the “sea sense”, and the possibilities of employment of labour. I would have thought that one of the things that the Labour party here would have done would have been to back us up in this respect, and point out the immense possibilities in the employment of labour round about our coast, which would bring about a fine, hardy race of sea people. When we come to consider the development of the fishing industry, you require, not only a central system of administration and the scientific research, but you also want proper fishing harbour accommodation This report has gone very exhaustively into the position of affairs on the west and south coast, and pointed out what is required for what is called inshore fishing. At a very small expenditure in this connection a tremendous lot of good to the industry, as a whole, could be achieved.

And a lot of people employed.

That is my point. It will help to find employment for a very large and hardy class of people. I would like to emphasize what the commission says about Hermanus. After considering the possibilities of the fishing harbours and fishing places all round the coast, I would like to direct the Minister’s special attention to the recommendation on page 36 of the report. [Extract read.] In regard to these two harbours, particularly Hermanus and also Still Bay, which has been referred to, special recommendations are made. I would like to ask the Minister whether that survey as recommended by the commission specifically is being made, and whether estimates are being framed in regard to the provision of a sheltered harbour and mooring area for fishing craft. The Minister, if he has been to Hermanus, will know what it means to have a heavy gale of wind blowing down at Hermanus when these fishing craft are out. It is a place which, the commission points out, is worth developing to a great extent, and I would urge upon the Minister that steps should be taken to carry out these proposals as soon as possible. The best thing you can do is to get the best harbour you can down there, and the best time to do it is as soon as possible. I would like to urge upon the Minister that, apart from the question of the administration, of the scientific research and of the development of harbours, there is one further great point, and that is the development of the means of access to these harbours and the means of transportation. I do not know whether hon. members have read the report sent out a little while ago, I think it was by the Imperial Economic Committee, which, in the course (of its enquiries, dealt with the question of the transport of fish. [Time limit.]

I am very glad that hon. members who have been talking so much about diggings are a bit silent and that they now give us an opportunity of speaking. They have put the Minister out of his good humour this afternoon. I trust they will now stop talking about diamonds. I want to assist the Minister in getting his vote passed, but I just want to bring something to his notice in connection with our bays. Hon. members have talked before me about their bays, but the Minister has been to Still Bay. He then asked me what do you want? I told him to have a look, and he would see for himself. The next day the Minister came and said: “I know what you want”, I shall not say much about it, but the boulders there are so bad that only flat-bottomed boats can come in and trading boats cannot pass through. A report has been made, and if what is there recommended is carried out, I shall be satisfied. I do not say it must be done this year, but as soon as possible. The Minister knows what is said in the report. There are only a few rocks that have to be removed by dynamite to enable the boats to go to sea. It will not cost much money, but the poor people to-day cannot go in and out. I shall be satisfied if the commission’s recommendations are carried out as soon as possible. The Minister said that the construction of such a harbour comes under the Department of Railways and Harbours. I want to point out that if Cape Town needs a good thing, like oysters or soles, it has to come from Mossel Bay. The harbour will not cost much, and it is badly needed. I hope it may yet be constructed this year.

There are just a few more words I want to say. I do want to ask the Minister whether the Economic Committees report I have referred to has been considered by him or his department, because it shows the modern position of science in regard to the transportation of fish, and it opens up a very important series of points for investigation as to what the value and effect are of transportation and cold storage. The latter report shows some remarkable results of its investigations. I would like to ask whether investigations have been made by any department here as to the best methods of transportation of fish for the long distances they have to travel overland in this country, and also to places like Australia and even England. One further thing our commissioner’s report lays great stress upon suitable accommodation for trawlers, and points out that Table Bay is, and must be, for some time, the central place for these trawlers. Remarkable figures are given as to the extent of trawling operations and the results and so on. I should like to ask whether special consideration has been paid, in this development that has taken place in Cape Town harbour, to the interests and requirements of the fishing boats which travel from Cape Town and also the trawlers which come to Cape Town, because very important considerations are involved. We know of the great harbour developments that have taken place, but we also know that the fishing industry is for various reasons rather apt to be made to take a back place, and I do ask the Minister to deal faithfully with his friend, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and see when these arrangements are being made for harbour accommodation that the fullest possible regard is paid to the interests of both fishing boats and trawlers.

I move—

for the purpose of discussing his policy on the encouragement of the oil industry. We shall not get an opportunity again this session, I am afraid, and to me, at any rate, this matter seems of very considerable importance and some urgency. The Minister has very courteously allowed me to have access to a report that is written by Dr. Meyer and endorsed by the Board of Trade. It was a private report, but I understand it is now being published, and the Minister has also courteously given me permission to make use of it. To a layman, it seems a very able report indeed, and it discloses a position that I think we, in this country, should take very serious notice of, and I am not inclined to apologize for keeping the House on this matter, therefore. Dr. Meyer deals in this report with the large and growing demand for oils in the Union, and the figures he gives in regard to the importation are perhaps greater than people think. He says that in 1922 the importation was 15.3 million gallons; in 1923, 27.5 million gallons; in 1924, 39.4 million gallons; in 1925, 37.5 million gallons, and in 1926, 54.5 million gallons. The largest figure is for petrol, and he says that in 1926 the importation was 34.5 million gallons of petrol alone into the Union. It is also shown that of this large importation of petrol, 60 per cent, comes from America and 40 per cent, from the Dutch Indies, When you come to paraffin and kerosene, almost the whole 100 per cent, comes from America, and lubricating oil, 92 per cent, from America. As is shown in the report and as can be very easily understood, this country is in a very precarious position where it is dependent entirely on importations for such a very important matter as fuel. He shows very clearly in this report how enormously petrol consumption has grown in America, and is expected still to grow, and if there is for any reason a shortage of petrol in America, supplies may be cut off, and they will refuse exportation, so that if we were hindered in any way from obtaining our petrol from America, we should be in a very serious position in this country. The report goes on to show how essential it is to develop our own resources, and if for no other reason than that we would keep in this country an amount of £3,000,000 that we spend annually on imported oil, it is very essential that we should try and develop our own local resources. The writer examines the possible resources of increasing our oil supply or developing our oil supply, and he discusses the matter of natural petroleum and comes to the conclusion that it is not likely that in this country we shall find a very large supply of running oil. We know that various geologists and mining experts have before this reported adversely as to any large supply of oil in this country. Then he examines a question in which I am rather more interested, and that is the shale position in South Africa. I have kept the House more than once on the question of torbanite and oil shales, and will not add anything further. The writer examines the matter very fairly, although perhaps too conservatively. I think it might be accepted that the knowledge we have of the extent of torbanite and oil shales, not only in Ermelo, but in the rest of the Transvaal, is necessarily very limited on account of the little experimental work that has been done. On the whole, I agree, as a layman naturally, with the report of Dr. Meyer on this point, but I think he is somewhat conservative. I think if we develop and come to our torbanite and shale resources they may appear to be larger than they are to-day. What is very interesting is the exhaustive enquiry into the process of converting our coal into oil. Generally the position is taken up, and I believe quite correctly, that so far there has not been found a system which is a commercial success. The writer considers that the amount of oil that can be extracted, or so far has been extracted, is comparatively small, and most of the processes have not shown a very large percentage of oil obtained from coal. He is inclined to favour one process—the Bergis process. If we take into consideration that our coal beds are enormous in this country, and that it is estimated that South Africa carries 250,000,000,000 tons of coal, we can readily see what a sphere is open for us, and if we can arrive at a process and the State can assist by developing this industry to try to convert coal into oil what an advantage it will be for the country. The point I want to make with the Minister, and why I venture to intrude upon him at this late stage, is that people are still very much interested in shale and torbanite and in this oil industry, notwithstanding the setbacks, drawbacks, and the adverse reports they have had regarding torbanite in the Ermelo district. People are still investigating, and if the Minister could tell the House and the country that he has received favourable recommendations in this report and in former reports and is sympathetically considering them, it will perhaps immediately assist. One definite group has told me that if the Minister will state publicly and definitely that the Government is prepared to give an oil bounty on the lines indicated by the report of the Oil Fuel Committee the Government appointed some time ago, they will be prepared to start an industry and put money into it. If the Minister is not prepared to make a definite statement now, he might consult his colleagues, and he might make a statement before we go home or on the Bill incorporating the estimates. The Writer also makes the recommendation—

It will perhaps be remembered by hon. members that I raised this issue two years ago, and I think I am correct in stating that the Minister of Defence, then acting for the present Minister, would not state definitely, but stated generally, that they were inclined to the policy of protection. Perhaps the Minister on this point could satisfy us at once that the Government in the first place would protect this industry against foreign competition, and perhaps allow certain raw material which is required to assist this industry, to come in free. That is the effect of the first recommendation. The second one is that £252,000 should be made payable by the State in respect of bounty-on motor spirit and mineral oil of South African manufacture based on sales value, and when the sales value reaches £2,300,000 the bounty should cease. It is recommended that on the first £200,000 it should be 5s., on the next £250,000, 4s. and so on; on the last £1,000,000 it should be 1s. [second recommendation read.] The matter has already been referred to in this House, but the Government has not yet told us what its views are on the matter. Dr. Meyer recommends strongly that they should be prepared to give an oil bounty. The Minister may say it is late in the year, but I think if he is satisfied that this policy should be followed he can tell the country so, or perhaps he can confer with his colleagues and make a statement before the House rises. That would materially assist in developing the industry. The third recommendation states that the South African Iron and Steel Corporation when it is appointed should buy oil and tar products which can be refined in this country [recommendation read]. I am not committed to this particular form of the recommendation. I see the Minister smiles, and he is hoping to get an admission from me that we should encourage a State industry. No. As appears from this report, the torbanite and shale beds are rather limited in extent, and these people would be encouraged to work them and take out the crude oil if you could help them to avoid the expense of refining it, If the State could assist in the erection of a central oil refinery, the expense these people would be put to in trying to bring the industry to fruition would be very much less. Government might help them on the pound for pound principle. There is a further recommendation that an official fuel research institute be founded by the Government. The people who benefit by it should contribute towards the expense, which is estimated at about £30,000. The report shows how wasteful our use of coal is, good coking coal being burned in engines. A research institute could show us how to use the coal in a more economical manner. The Minister should, this session if possible, give the country some hint as to the Government’s intentions.

It is quite a pleasing diversion to go from diggers and diamonds to fisheries, oil and coal. The hon. member (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is on much surer and more instructive ground than he was earlier in the afternoon, but do not let us attempt to fly before we can walk. I indicated the other day the lines that we are likely to follow. We appointed a research committee in March, 1927; it is very active and is bearing all these questions in mind. We have practically decided to appoint a geologist who will devote all his time to this question. As regards the fuel research institute, the Minister of Finance will have to be consulted. It will cost £30,000.

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS: Not all at once.

But I am convinced that ultimately our coal will prove of much larger benefit to the country than the wonderful Witwatersrand has proved as regards gold, so we are very favourably considering the establishment of this oil research institute. The other point raised by the hon. member will have to be considered after the appointment of the oil research committee. The Government will have to consider their recommendations as well. The report from which he has quoted has not yet been laid before my colleagues. The whole of the facts will have to be considered after we have taken the steps I have just mentioned. I do not think the hon. member need be pessimistic about the proposal to establish an oil research institute, although I cannot make a definite promise. The Government, however, will be very sympathetic. The people who are interested in the establishment of an oil refinery, unfortunately all want a monopoly, which we certainly cannot grant.

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS: Naturally.

The hon. member has had something quite tangible from me, and he ought to rest content with it. I cannot promise to make a further communication before the dose of the session, but I will endeavour to discuss the matter in the Cabinet as soon as I can.

*The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) asked whether in the lottery on the farm Goedgedacht we can give a preference to the Mooi river diggers. That will be very difficult, and I fear it will cause much fuss and dissatisfaction, and the game is not worth the candle. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) asked me about a road to Beyer’s Nek. I explained on Friday that there was nothing on the estimates for roads for mines, and I have already given the reason. With regard to asbestos, I may say that the Government mining engineer will visit Zoutpansberg after the session, and inter alia investigate the presence of asbestos.

I want to answer a few of the observations of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) with regard to the closing down of the alluvial diggings. The hon. member has a wonderful knack in which he closely resembles the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) of saying things that are entirely unfounded in the meekest and most pious manner, with gentle and velvety word?. He thinks nothing of making a statement here that is entirely unfounded. I have never, at any time, offered, nor has the Government expressed the desirability of closing down the alluvial fields entirely. I defy him to prove it. These irresponsible statements really ought not to come from men who occupy such positions in the House. There is not a shred of foundation for such a statement. What I have said all along—I do not care whether a man is my supporter or not—is that it is obviously the duty of the Government to reduce this disproportionate population on the diggings, and to bring it into consonance with the capacity of the diggings. If you have diggings which can only carry 10,000 people you cannot think of having 30,000 people there. That is all we have said. Our whole legislation, comments on the legislation, and administrative actions go to show that we are out to reserve the alluvial diggings for the small man. There is not a shred of truth in the statement with regard to big interests. The hon. member instanced the Phoenix mine. The difference was that the mine had been an established fact before the prohibition came into force, whereas all the other propositions stopped, by that proclamation were prospecting propositions. As regards fisheries, I am much interested in the remarks of the hon. members for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski), Albany (Mr. Struben), Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst). I realize, as I do in the case of our coal, and oil potentialities, that in the fisheries you have an enormous field for development. You have there perhaps a very considerable means for the solution of the unemployment problem. The Government is extremely sympathetic. Last year I promised to communicate with the provincial administrations. I have done that. Unfortunately they say they will confine themselves strictly to what are their functions. I have also corresponded with the railways and harbours, and the position they take up is that we must proclaim these places minor harbours and the Department of Railways and Harbours will deal with them. I am convinced that steps must be taken to help these people, and as soon as the report is completed I will take all these recommendations, and as soon as my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours returns, I will discuss them with him and with the Cabinet, and we will see what practical steps can be taken to help these people. As regards trawlers and fishing boats in Table Bay harbour, that is a matter for the Railway Department, and I think steps are being taken to make special provision for their protection and the development of our docks.

I think the Standing Rules and Orders Committee might take into consideration the adoption of a better system than we have at present in discussing all kinds of subjects one after the other. We have, during the last two or three hours, discussed diamonds, fisheries, harbour works, coal and several other subjects in a rambling and ineffective way. I think as a practical body, we ought to evolve some better scheme of finishing one thing before starting another. I want to say a word or two regarding the Minister’s statement in reply to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) regarding the possibility of establishing an industry in this country for extracting oil and petrol from shale and coal. There is no doubt the Minister is sympathetic, and up to a point his statement is very satisfactory, but I was very sorry to hear that he intends to delay considering whether a bonus should be offered for the production of oil and petrol from either shale or coal. He says he wants to wait until he has a report from the committee which was set up. I do not think he is likely to get any further light on the subject in addition to the information which he has from the valuable report he received two or three years ago. I refer to the report of the committee consisting of Dr. van der Byl and others, who went into the matter thoroughly and recommended the offer of a bonus. Since this matter was discussed, about two months ago, on my motion, I have had numerous letters from persons who are willing to put money into an experiment of this sort. They want to begin to produce oil and petrol from shale, or torbanite, I think is the correct term, and also from coal, and they are anxiously awaiting a statement from the Government as to whether a bonus will be offered, because experiments will be very costly and machinery will be required, and it would be difficult to get private persons to put their money into such experiments unless there were some prospect of earning a bonus. I would urge the Minister not to wait, because he has all the information before him from the acknowledged specialists we have in the Union at the present time. I do not think it is possible for him to get a more learned and able body of men than those who reported a few years ago.

I wish to compliment the Minister upon his statement in regard to the fishing industry. The Minister has now seen the matter in a new and correct light. He has now admitted that the provincial councils are really not the proper bodies to deal with harbour development. Last session he still fixed his hope upon these bodies. He has made further investigation and has now come to the conclusion that, after all, the central authority is the proper authority to deal with what I think I am entitled to call this great national industry. We have no conception of the great importance of this fishing industry, and the only way in which we can assist the people who are engaged in this precarious work is by harbour development, protection of the fishing harbours. The Government for years past has done most useful work in the survey of our fishing grounds. That work is still continuing. That, of course, refers to deep-sea fishing and technical and scientific points in connection with the industry, but the real point which I desire to bring, and which in the past I have brought to the Minister’s notice, is the great necessity of helping the inshore fisheries. It is wonderful the large number of Europeans who are engaged in this industry. In my constituency I believe there are at least about 2,000 souls (Europeans) directly dependent upon this industry. At Hermanus, you have a population of about 1,200 Europeans who are dependent upon the industry. At Gans Bay, a farm owned by the Government, you have a European settlement of over 500 souls (Europeans) dependent upon this industry. At Hawston, in my constituency, you have a mixed population, coloured and white, engaged in this industry. The Minister very properly, after the House adopted the motion which I submitted a few years ago to inquire into the question, appointed this commission and the commission brought up what I consider a most valuable report. The point I wish again to reiterate is that, unless these people get harbour protection for their boats so that they will be enabled to acquire motor-boats of considerable dimensions, it is impossible for them to make a success of the industry. Here in Cape Town you have got protection. If you in Cape Town to-day had still to resort to and rely altogether upon the rowing boat, your industry would really count for nothing, but it is the motor-boat and the protection they get in the docks that has enabled the fishing industry to be of considerable magnitude here in Cape Town. At Hermanus you are very close to the Agulhas Bank, which is the most wealthy fishing ground in the whole world. Scientists say there is no fishing ground to equal it on any coast in the world. But the rowing boat cannot do it. It cannot reach the Agulhas Bank from Hermanus, Gans Bay or Hawston. The only way they can do it is by motor-boat, and a fairly powerful motor-boat. What we require there is harbour development, harbour protection, a sea-wall behind which these motor-boats can find protection and safety. The Minister has no conception of the amount of private capital which has been lost by people who have bought a motor-boat for £1,000. These boats anchor there in the deep water. The first storm that comes the boat is shattered on the rocks. Thousands of pounds have gone to waste in that way. I say that the State has an obligation in regard to this important industry. I am glad the Minister has abandoned all hope in regard to the provincial council. The sooner he takes steps to alter the Act of Union—which I believe in its present form provides that unless the harbour is proclaimed the only body to look to for this industry is the provincial council—the better.

Why don’t you get rid of them?

That is another question, also important. I am dealing with another important question. I cannot sufficiently impress upon the House the great chance we have of building up a great fishing industry and export trade. There is the trade with South America, and Australia has a very poor fish supply, and we are doing a big trade with Australia. There is not only the external trade, but there are the internal markets for fish, the farming community, apart from the number of people it gives employment to, and it is wonderful what a love our people have for the sea once they have taken to the sea. You find Europeans for generations abiding by this industry, and to the best of their ability trying to make it a success, and I think the State will be doing a laudable thing for this country by taking a tangible interest in this industry. You have a big harbour here at Kalk Bay. I have no objection to that, it is very necessary, and it is that kind of work we want all along the coast of our country. Our boats cannot seek protection in the rivers; we have to abide by the sea and on the coast we have to assist and develop this industry. It is a marvellous food supply. The Minister has no conception of its value to our people as a food supply. In my constituency it is a marvellous asset to our agriculture. Apart from that, you take the agricultural value of it. What about the offal? The offal of fish in other countries is a big asset in agricultural development. At Hangklip it is a very big asset there. They use the offal of the whale for manure, and if there is one thing our country lacks it is phosphates which the bones of fish supply. Our country is also very deficient in lime. [Time limit.]

A case which has lately been before the courts and which has evoked a considerable amount of comment and criticism— especially of the Government’s action—is that of the Union Steel Corporation versus the Minister of Mines and Industries, and I think it is the duty of the Minister, and the time has arrived, to give Parliament information what the facts are in regard to the Union Steel Corporation’s case. When Act 41 of 1922 was passed, one of the conditions was the production of not less than 50,000 tons of steel to secure the payment of a certain bounty. The Union Steel Corporation received a letter dated 5th July, 1923, from the then Secretary for Mines and Industries, sent on the instructions of the right hon. F. S. Malan, then Minister of Mines and Industries, which contained every encouragement to this company to go on, and to earn this bounty. [Letter read.] This company, with the object of earning this bounty, again approached the Government in 1926 owing to the fact that the time was running out during which the bounty was offered, and on the representations of the company the Act was altered and it provided that the date should be 1st April, 1926, instead of 1st April, 1924. The company engaged an eminent blast furnace engineer to alter the furnace and set to work to obtain the bounty. It would appear from a statement made by Major Butler, chairman of the Board of Directors [extract read] that when the industry had carried out its part of the bargain the Government treated them in the way in which they have treated them. I would like to know from the Minister—I make no charge—from the facts disclosed Parliament is entitled to hear from the Minister what position was actually taken up by the Government.

What about the judgment in the court?

The court gave judgment in the first instance in favour of the company, and that judgment was reversed. I am not so much concerned with that. What I am concerned with is that by an Act of Parliament we were to give bounties under certain conditions. The company say they complied with the conditions, and the chairman of the company said that the Minister has taken up an attitude that the Government is not satisfied that the conditions are being complied with. Major Aubrey Butler, at the annual meeting of the company on the 20th ultimo, made use of these words—

This statement contains a serious charge. The claim may have been defeated by a legal quibble: we here are concerned with the facts. It is a matter which concerns the honour of the State, for if these people have earned the bounties they are entitled to receive them. A clear and unequivocal statement is required from the Minister as to what the position really is.

Coming events cast their shadows before. It is quite evident to me that the avidity of various members to take part in the debate foreshadows a general election. But I do not impute that to the last speaker. I explained the whole matter last Friday, and I hope, when I have concluded my reply, the vote will be passed. I would like the hon. member to read the judgment of the Appellate Division, and I will give him a copy. Both the court below and the Appellate Court found that the Minister had devoted considerable time and attention to the exercising of his discretion under the Act. The Appellate Division held that the Minister could have demanded more than he actually did, and he could have said: “Before I consider the payment of bounties up to 1927 I will wait until January 1st, 1928, and see what you have actually produced.” As a matter of fact, the Minister did not take up that attitude, for he was willing to consider favourably the granting of the bounty in that year itself, but on the facts as laid before him, he was not satisfied. You may as well go and ask a judge why he gave judgment. I am quite willing to give the main reason, which was that their figures for six months if doubled did not show their capability of producing 50,000 tons per annum. As regards steel, they were far short, and as regards iron they were materially short. On the data laid before the Minister the Minister was not in the exercise of his discretion satisfied. As I say in my correspondence with them, I do not want to prejudice the position, and I think only harm might result if we go into the matter further.

That is an extraordinary statement which the Minister has just made. What harm can result in discussing the matter in this House. I cannot believe that the Minister is going to allow himself to be so prejudiced and take up the attitude that we can discuss the matter, and he does not care what happens.

Your usual imputations !

What did you mean by it?

I am not going to answer.

I would like to know, if the existing industry turns out 50,000 tons of pigiron, whether he will then pay the bounty. As I understand the judgment of the court it is that the court itself cannot inquire into whether the industry was capable of producing 50,000 tons. That the court held was a matter entirely in the discretion of the Minister. They said they could not go into the question as to whether or not the industry was capable of producing 50,000 tons. When the blast furnace was to be blown in the Union Steel Corporation gave notice to the Minister that they intended to start producing, and asked whether he required anw further information. I submit the existing industry has conclusive proof that it is capable of producing 50,000 to 60,000 tons of pig-iron a year. They were never given that opportunity.

Business suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I think it is right that the House and the country should know that under the Bounties Act those who claim the bounty are absolutely under the authority of the Minister. The Minister has got absolute power in this matter to decide whether or no the bounty shall be paid, according to the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Bounties Act is perfectly clear in this respect that it states “provided such bounty shall only be paid if the Minister is satisfied,” etc. It is in the power of the Minister, notwithstanding the information given to him, positive information as to the capacity of the plant, to say: “I am not satisfied,” and it appears that the attitude now taken up by the Minister is: “I will not be satisfied with any information I am given; the only satisfaction which you can give me is to produce 50,0 tons.” In other words, the Minister insists upon the production of 50,000 tons before he will pay any bounty at all. I think it should be stated that when this matter came before the Transvaal Supreme Court two judges gave judgment against the Minister, and on the matter going to appeal that judgment, was upset, but in any circumstances it proves one thing, that, as far as the legal position is concerned, there was a considerable doubt as to whether the Minister’s attitude was right or not. Therefore, I say this is a matter which is not so easily disposed of as the Minister would ask this House to believe. I say that in equity, apart from the legal position, the existing industry is entitled to be paid that bounty. The Minister is adhering to the strict legal position, but I claim that under that section there is sufficient information to have satisfied him that the existing industry is capable of producing 50,000 tons per annum. I want to say that in point of fact the existing industry actually produced far more pig-iron than the country can consume. Therefore, they had to restrict their production until such time as there were sufficient subsidiary industries to absorb the pig-iron they were producing. They closed down in October last and they have not yet disposed of all the pig-iron they previously produced. I submit that if the industry were worked up to its full capacity it would produce more than 50,000 tons of pig-iron per annum. I would like to tell the Minister that I made no insinuations against him at all. I made no insinuations against his integrity in so far as the application of this Act is concerned. He has adhered to the legal interpretation of the Act, but I submit the Minister has gone too far. He has adhered too strictly to the Act. In August next the blast furnace is to be restarted at Newcastle, and I hope that next year they will have satisfied the Minister that they can and will produce 50,000 tons of pigiron per annum. Under the Act, apart from the legal interpretation, it was never intended that the industry should produce from the first year 50.0 tons. The intention was to start an industry, and that there should be sufficient proof that the industry would be capable of producing 50.0 tons per annum. It did not say it actually must produce that, but that apparently is the interpretation the Minister is placing upon the Act. I submit the Minister in equity to the existing industry should have paid that. I am astounded to hear that a protection of front 17 to 20 per cent., which was granted on manganese and chrome steel for rod and bar mills is being taken off, and I want to know why. It was granted as short a time ago as 1926. Is that another nail in the coffin of the existing industry? I understand the existing industry is on the point of producing these particular articles. The Minister of Finance made no mention whatsoever. [Time limit.]

The hon. member is a problem to me. He started off by saying why was I afraid to discuss the matter, and he clearly implied if the matter were discussed here, would I become prejudiced against the Union Steel Corporation. He knows that if a case is sub judice it is not discussed as a matter of fairness in this House.

Is it sub judice?

The case has been decided by the Appellate Division, and I appealed to my hon. friend on Friday night, and I said that they had not yet decided whether they were proceeding to the Privy Council, but they had intimated they might do so and you might regard the case as sub judice.

I am sorry; I was not here.

If the hon. member would be a little less suspicious, it would smooth things very considerably.

On a point of explanation, I was not here, and I did not understand that the Minister had made that statement.

I promised the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) I would give him a copy of the judgment of the Appellate Division, and it is at the disposal of the hon. member also. He will see the Appeal Court consisted of the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice de Villiers, Sir Johannes Wessels, Mr. Justice Curlewis and Mr. Justice Stratford. In the court below the judges absolutely accepted my testimony. I was cross-examined for two and a half hours by Senator de Wet, and my testimony was unconditionally accepted in both courts. Senator de Wet openly stated that he did not, for a moment, question my bona fides in the matter.

Who does? I am not questioning them.

Why does the hon. member start oft by saying what am I afraid of—“are you afraid of yourself?” That was practically his argument to-night—“is he afraid of his own mind towards the Union Steel Corporation?” No good is gained by that sort of thing. I do not want to detain the committee by reading from this judgment, but the judges of the Appeal Court said they could not possibly see what other finding I could have come to on the data laid before me, and so far from my ever having taken up the attitude that the Union Steel Corporation had actually to produce for a year and place the accomplished fact and result before me, it was I who disapproved of the suggestion made by the Board of Trade to me—because under the Act they are my advisers on technical things—a suggestion that I should wait for the year to pass and then pay them on the actual production. The Appellate Division said I would have been perfectly justified in taking up that attitude, but I never did so because I tried to deal as fairly as possible with, these people. It was also stated the chairman of the board had said at a meeting that the sympathetic atmosphere that had existed suddenly changed when the Government gave more concrete shape to the vague idea of coming forward with legislation for big iron and steel works. That is absolutely incorrect. I have often told hon. members what I told Mr. Isaac Lewis. When I personally brought forward the Bill for extending the years I warned the Union Steel Corporation that the fact the Government extended the years could not in any way influence the Government with regard to their policy of a State-controlled iron and steel works. Then it was also stated that I had repudiated the action of my predecessor, the hon. F. S. Malan. That was stated by the chairman of the Union Steel Corporation at this public meeting. That is also altogether unfounded. The Act requires the Minister whoever he is for the time being, to direct his mind to the data laid before him from time to time, and if a Minister to-day were simply blindly to follow the decision of a previous Minister and the facts were to come before a court of law, the court of law would set aside, on the application of any party having any locus standi, the action of the successor, because there is nothing more elementary than this, that where a discretion is by statute vested in a person he must bring his own mind to bear upon the matter. I doubt very much whether it is the right procedure to ask a Minister—or anybody for the matter of that who happens to be a member of the House and where a statute has vested a discretion in him—why he has decided so and so. You might as well summon the magistrate, or judge, or Minister, or any ask him why he has decided so and so. You must remember that Parliament has thought fit, for reasons of its own, in this respect to make the magistrate, or judge, or Minister, or any person for that particular purpose a judge. It is not purely an administrative act on the part of the Minister. Supposing that I personally had decided in exercising my discretion under the Act that the bounties ought to be awarded, and I had taken the matter to the Cabinet or to my colleagues, who had come to know of my inclination or decision, and that I allowed myself to be overruled by my colleagues in the Cabinet—ten Ministers against one Minister— the Union Steel Corporation had come to know of this, and had gone to court; that I was called as a witness and said to the judge: “I personally exercised my discretion in favour of the company, but my colleagues declined the bounties ’’—the court would laugh me out of court at once and say: “Parliament has, by statute, vested that discretion in you, and in no one else, and you are responsible for the exercise of that discretion: and as we find from your own testimony that you have not carried out your discretion, which was in favour of the company, we will give judgment in favour of the company.” Surely the hon. member recognizes that I should not be overborne by my colleagues in that. The legislature intended that I should act in a judicial capacity in this respect, and it is not desirable that one should be asked to justify his attitude in the House.

I should like the Minister to make the following clear. I notice this newspaper says that the position will be considered when the returns up to the 30th June are known. Rut the Minister said he would consider the position with regard to prospecting in the month of June, I should like to know whether the Cabinet will actually consider the matter in July, and whether the Namaqualand position will also be considered.

The Minister has not replied to the question I put to him with regard to the cancellation of the duty.

I am sorry. That is a matter for my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance. Customs duties are imposed by the Department of Finance.

It comes under the Minister of Mines and Industries.

It is really not my department; but I will go into it.

I must disagree with the Minister’s view that we are not entitled to discuss his attitude in regard to the discretionary powers vested in him by statute. I submit we are entitled to discuss any discretionary powers vested in the Minister by this House, and if the Minister has acted in an arbitrary way in the exercise of powers he has obtained from this House, it is a far-fetched doctrine for him to say that we are not entitled to discuss same. I hope this doctrine will not be accepted by hon. members, because if it was accepted it would mean that when once Parliament has vested special discretionary powers in a Minister it would not have the right of discussing the exercise of these powers at any future time. If Ministers, once they obtain these powers, want to exercise them as an absolutely autocratic right, and the House gives the Minister that power, I have nothing more to say. I want the Minister to understand that so far as any criticism is offered, it has not been directed against his bona fides, as I believe he is perfectly bona fide in the action he has taken. I do not want him to throw it out at me that I am making any insinuations. If I want to say a thing I will say it directly, and not by means of an insinuation. I hope the Minister will accept that. I think that the Minister, in the exercise of that discretion, has not done so fairly as against this company. The Minister has a different view. I think the Minister has gone too far and struck within too narrow limits in exercising that discretion. I do believe that the corporation would have been able to satisfy him with reference to their capacity for production of the required quantity, if the Minister had asked for that information. He waited until the actual claim was made, and then turned round and said he did not believe they had that capacity. They have expended a great deal of money, and produced pig iron. The Minister has a certificate from one of the leading blast-furnace engineers that the capacity of the blast-furnace at Newcastle was 50,000 tons per annum of pig-iron. I am glad the Minister does not now absolutely insist on that production of 50,000 tons before he will consider the payment of any bounty. I came to the conclusion that the Minister had decided that no bounty would be paid because no provision had been made—I think I was right in drawing the inference. I am glad that the Minister has an open mind still; that being so. I have nothing further to say, and I hope that the existing industry will take steps to produce further evidence to satisfy the Minister that they are capable of this 50,000 tons per annum, and that they are entitled to receive the bounty.

The Minister said to-day that the Government would consider in June the allowing of prospecting in July, and he now says that I am making the statement on my own responsibility. I just want to point out that there were five of us who all understood the same thing. I should like to know whether the Government will consider it in June, or only when the June returns are known, and also whether the interests of Namaqualand will be borne in mind. I think that in view of the Minister’s statement that I said it on my own responsibility, I have the right to expect the Minister to reply.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has raised a point of importance, so important that if we remain silent after the Minister of Mines has enunciated the doctrine he has just put forward, we would be sadly failing in our duty. I understand that the Minister claims that when Parliament has committed to him an administrative discretion, there is no power on the part of Parliament to inquire thereafter into the reasons which may have actuated him in the exercise of that discretion. This doctrine is the logical consequence of our sitting here and being compelled to watch the Government take to itself time after time power to administer particular laws without control by the courts of law. We have protested against this tendency, and pointed out that it may interfere with the rights of the subject, and now we have this logical sequence— i.e., the Minister, feeling able to inform an hon. member that it is improper for him to put a reasonable question relating to the method by which an administrative discretion has been exercised. I can understand that where Parliament in its wisdom, or unwisdom, has given to a Minister power to exercise an administrative discretion which cannot be challenged in a court of law—that abuse or error in that exercise could be corrected only by taking away that power, for the conferring of which Parliament would have to bear part of the responsibility. But the Minister now claims that Parliament will not even be able to inquire into the reasons animating him in exercising his power. This is worse than Fascism; it is an absolute arrogation by the Minister of a right to conduct his department without reference to Parliament. Let us suppose a particular matter of this kind was referred to a select committee for enquiry and the Minister was called as a witness before it. According to the view expressed by the Minister, he would be entitled to say to the committee: “I decline to answer your question or to admit your right to judge of what I have done. I have been put in a position equivalent to that of a judge.” In courts of law the decision of the most capable judge may be questioned by a court of appeal, but in a case like this, Parliament is, according to the Minister, powerless, and hon. members must perforce remain silent. If that is the state to which we have been reduced by the action of the Government it is time to protest, and I strongly support the hon. member in his objection to the principle now enunciated.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 26, “Union Education”, £789,561,

All the Minister’s votes show an increase—£46,000 this year.

Were you not a member of a deputation to the Minister asking him to increase the vote still further? I was grievously disappointed.

The Minister of Finance is wrong.

I am glad to hear it, but I saw it in the paper.

The vote last year showed an increase of £92,000. I am justified in calling the Minister extravagant, for every one of his votes is higher. The outstanding feature of the education estimates is the rapid increase of expenditure. The provincial expenditure on education in 1911-Ί2 was £1,647,000, and it increased in 1925-’26 to nearly £7,000,000. The money spent by the Union Department of Education in 1911-’12 was £114,000; 1915-’16. £124,000; 1920-’21, £364,000; 1925-’26, £633,000, and the present year it is over £700,000. There seems to be no stopping it.

Are you opposed to it?

Of course I am opposed to this rapid increase of expenditure. The present year is just the same. In 1926-’27 his own vote increased £81,000. In 1927-’28 £92,000 and in the present year £46,000—over £220,000 in three years. Of course the underlying reason for this enormous growth of expenditure, especially so far as the provincial councils are concerned, is the fact that they have not to raise the money themselves. The biggest part of the money is paid over to them by the Union Government. How can you expect to have economy under such arrangements? One authority raises the money and another authority spends it. The time is rapidly coming when you will have to put all education under the Union Government. Higher education is under the Union Government; recently you have put industrial, agricultural and technical education under the Union Government; you have only left now, as a matter of fact, primary and secondary education under the provincial administration, and, of course, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows, expenditure there is growing every year. This particular province is in financial difficulties already, I believe, and you will never get into a sound position until you bring the whole of the educational system under the control of the Union Government and do away with provincial councils entirely.

I have come to expect a speech from the hon. member such as we have heard now. However much the hon. member accuses me of extravagance, I am very glad to see he has still a good deal of confidence left in me, because he advises Parliament not only to leave me with the administration of higher education, but to take away from the provinces and put it all in my hands.

It is the system I want changing.

I am not going to be so unkind as my colleague the Minister of Finance and tell the House what has taken place in my office. In any case I think I can give the hon. member the explanation of the increase there has been in this vote, not only this year, but in previous years. In the first place, we have regulations under the existing Act, and I must carry on the administration in accordance with these Acts and regulations. I have not the power to change the Acts unless that power is given me by Parliament.

You changed the regulations the other day.

I cannot change the regulations—every alteration of the regulations has to be approved of by Parliament. I inherited these Acts and regulations from my predecessors. These regulations were approved of by the Cabinet and by Parliament during the time my hon. friend was in office. I cannot be held responsible for the increasing expenditure year after year under these regulations. What I did was to take steps as far as possible to put a stop to that tremendous increase of expenditure. The first step I took was to appoint a commission to go into the whole question of higher education, into the question of the subsidy paid under the existing regulations to universities and university colleges, to see whether there is any overlapping at present in the work done by universities and university colleges on the one hand and technical colleges and technical institutes on the other, and to help us to prevent that in future. One result of that inquiry which I initiated was that I came to Parliament this year—the earliest opportunity I had of doing so—and asked Parliament to approve of an alteration in the regulations. Instead of giving higher education students the right to increase their expenditure over the previous year by 10 per cent., I limited the increase to 5 per cent. Altogether the extent of the increase in this year’s vote is on account of the right which these institutions have to increase their expenditure by 10 per cent.; I have limited that to 5 per cent, otherwise it would have been much higher. Let me assure the House that on this vote there is no higher education, institutional, university or university college that is going to receive a higher subsidy than 5 per cent, more than it received the previous year. That is something to the good.

Certainly.

In any case I have not been so extravagant as my predecessor. As far as the technical institutes are concerned, some of them we have kept within the 5 per cent, limit, but there are a few where that was impossible, those being, of course, new institutions—Port Elizabeth and East London. These technical institutes were started only last year and the year before, and where they are just starting we cannot possibly keen them within the 5 per cent, limit above the expenditure of the previous year. With regard to the increase in connection with the administration, we have gone a step in the direction which my hon. friend has mentioned to the House, although we cannot go the whole distance, and that is to take over a portion of the educational administration from the provincial administration. Certain vocational schools were taken over. That entailed, naturally, much more work in the Union Educational Department.

There is no reduction on the provincial side—that is the pity.

The provincial administrations must answer for that. In any case the public service commission have to go into the whole question of the increase of the amount of work in the Union Education Department, and no expenditure was incurred under the head administration which had not been recommended and approved of by the public service commission. That is the explanation.

I just want to ask the Minister if he will call the attention of the higher education authorities to the prevalence of cruelty to animals in this country. The Minister smiles. I am very serious about this. I would ask the Minister, is he aware that the prevalence of cruelty is already a blot on the fair name of South Africa? I would ask him if he has read the remarks which have been made by distinguished visitors to our shores on this subject. I would remind the Minister that cruelty is the vice of the uncivilised. All the people in this country are not civilised, not even all of one colour are quite civilised in their relation to animals. We heard in a recent discussion in a Bill before this House a great many things which were very unpleasant to hear in connection with animals and their treatment in South Africa. I would ask the Minister, does he not consider it would be advisable to draw the attention of the higher education authorities to this state of things and ask them to work through the rising generation, to take a saner view of our duties in that respect? Perhaps some of us are past praying for and we must build our hope on the rising generation. I am sure the Minister in his studies has read what Herbert Spencer has said—

After all, what is the object of higher education except to develop a community that is capable of acting fairly towards one another, let alone the dumb creatures, and if there is any truth in Herbert Spencer’s statement, surely it would appear, from our observations in this country, that we might effect a great improvement in our relationships to one another by instructing the young as to their duties to the lower animals. One sometimes is very distressed to hear what people think of what they see in South Africa in regard to the treatment of animals here. I know that they teach the humanities in the universities, but not humaneness. They are two different things. It might be well if the Minister drew the attention of our higher teaching authorities to this matter. He might, too, in his capacity as Minister of Education for the whole Union circularise the provincial administrations and suggest to them that in their primary schools more attention might be paid to nature study. I am sure it would have very good results indeed in many ways. I hope the Minister will take this seriously. Very many people take it seriously and are very much distressed at what is going on. A good deal of this cruelty is not deliberate, I admit, it is through carelessness, not wantonness, but a great deal of harm might be done by want of care, and if the young people in our universities and primary schools receive instruction on this essential duty of civilised humanity, I am sure the results will be well worth working for.

I just want to ask the Minister whether he will bear the trades school at Jacobsdal in mind. The facilities at the school are very disappointing. I do not say that the headmaster is responsible, but the building is very inadequate. There are many children from my constituency there, and the complaint about the lack of facilities is great. There is no provision for cleanliness and the like. The teaching is praised, but the building is unsatisfactory, and I would like the Minister to attend to the matter.

I am not going to take up much of the time of the Minister. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is very much concerned about the increases. In looking up the list I find that almost every university and university college in South Africa has got an increase in its grant. The only one selected for a reduction is the Natal University College, which has a reduction of £850. Perhaps the Minister will inform us of the reason for that. He might also perhaps tell the committee when the University Commission’s report may be expected. I think that report would help us very much in discussions on this question of university education.

The remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) can be understood, because it is his duty to advocate economy and a reduction of expenditure And although I am not anxious to speak about the deputation of which I was a member, I want to say that I am not afraid to advocate economy where necessary, just as well as I can imagine circumstances where more expenditure should be incurred. But, although we advocate economy the hon. member himself, when the shoe pinches, is not for economy, and he has himself spoken about an increase of grant for the University of Cape Town, the richest university in South Africa. I only mentioned this to show that when the shoe pinches us we feel in sympathy for more expenditure on education. I mentioned the other day a department of education where I thought enough was not being done. Actually nothing is being done in it. The answer of the Minister compels me to return to the matter. In his answer he stultified himself by saying that the children I referred to either came under the Mental Defectives Act and could therefore be placed in the Witrand or Alexandra institutes, or that they came under the provincial administration. The Minister created the impression that enough was being done in that connection. His answer showed me that he did not understand what I meant, or that he has forgotten his new Bill of three weeks ago. In that he obtained special power to look after the children. I want to tell him what the law says in the matter. He has power to establish schools for (a) physically deformed children, mentally deficient or subnormal children, besides those who are certifiable under the Mental Defectives Act of 1916 (Act No. 38 of 1916). I refer to these children who come under the Act on vocational education and special schools. It is clear that that is not the child who comes under the provincial administrations, nor the child who can be put into the Alexandra institute. Otherwise why has special provision been made in the statute book? It clearly said there that that is the child who does not come under the 1916 Act. The Bill was passed, but the Minister said that it was actually not necessary, because the children can either be sent to the provincial administration, or to the Alexandra or Witrand institutes, and it is exactly because the Bill was passed that I said I hoped the Minister would provide for this class of child. The Minister however created the impression that provision was already made for them under the provincial councils, but he knows just as well as I do that the provincial councils have made no provision for that class of child, nor can they be sent to Witrand or Alexandra, which is the very reason why the new Act was passed. At Alexandra there are children who have been taken away from bad parents or similar cases, and most of the children have been sent there on the recommendation of the magistrate, and have gone through the course. I refer to the child who cannot go to the ordinary school, one who in some way or other has certain brain incapacity, but yet can be educated under good supervision, and who is the child of respectable parents, who do not want to send it to an institution like the Alexandra. It is calculated that there are 3,000 such children in our country. They cannot go to the ordinary school. It is true that application can be made for the admission of the child to the Alexandra or Witrand institutes, and possibly it may be granted, but what parent will do so if children are sent there on the magistrate’s recommendation? The respectable parent of weakminded children will not do so. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the matter. He said that education for the normal child was not yet sufficiently provided for, and that it was therefore not yet lime to provide for the education of the subnormal child. I do not think the Minister meant that. It is true that enough has not yet been done for the education of normal children, but the child I have referred to forms the class of people that fills our gaols, people who are an evil and a danger to the country, and who increase our poor whites, and it is rightly said that with proper expert training those children may become good citizens. Then we need not rush to the desperate remedy of sterilization which the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) mentioned the other night. I also want to ask whether the Minister has thought about the question of the children in reformatories I want to ask him whether he has already considered the removal of the establishments that come under the Department of Justice, and to put them under the Education Department and to change them from institutions into educational establishments. I fear that the present reformatories often do more harm than good. The children do not have the proper supervision there as the supervisors are often ex-policeman who have previously dealt with convicts. There are no people who have had special training in order to be able to make good citizens of the unfortunate children. What I felt about reformatories and the children there was that the proper training did not exist, and that the teachers were not trained for the task. What we ought to have in the first place is teachers who are specially trained for this kind of work, so that the children can get the right kind of instructors and not policemen as is the case to-day. I hope the Minister will not mind my emphasising the matter in this way, but I am convinced that it is of great importance to our people that provision should be made.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central (Mr. Jagger) refers to the taking over of industrial, trade and technical schools, and complained that although the Minister’s vote has been increased and although he has taken away obligations from the provincial councils, the provincial council of the Cape Province has made no proportionate decrease in its expenditure. If obligations are taken away from a body, it is its duty to reduce its expenditure proportionately. In connection with this I want to ask the Minister if there is not a great danger that, as the Minister has taken over trade and technical schools from the provincial councils, the provincial councils will try to throw more and more of their responsibilities on to the Government. Is there not a great danger that by the extension of local schools by adding a domestic science course, for example, they will not be inclined to say that it is something the Union Parliament must take charge of and so the development of the schools will be injured? I think there is a danger in this direction, and would like the Minister to give a little consideration to the question whether extension of other technical courses, which formerly came under the provincial councils, will not be injured owing to the tendency. Then in relation to the amount of £3,000 for the Afrikaans dictionary, I want to ask how far the work has advanced. The Minister knows that I take a great interest in it, and I should like to know when he thinks that valuable book will be in our hands

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the system followed for the matriculation examinations. If my information is right, only 50 per cent, of the candidates passed last year, and two previous years. It undoubtedly casts a serious reflection on our secondary education, if, out of every hundred parents who possibily make the sacrifice in very difficult circumstances and by depriving themselves of necessities fifty must expect in advance that their money will be thrown away. The people sacrifice very much to have their children educated and prepared for the struggle of life, and it is an extremely serious matter that so many children waste their time, and so many parents spend their money in vain. The matter deserves the attention of the Minister and of the responsible authorities, and the question which immediately arises in this connection is whether the Department of Education and the Universities send such a poor class of teachers to the country that only 50 per cent, of the pupils can pass. I further want to know what other department of State will be satisfied with 50 per cent, capacity, and why the parents must be satisfied with it. Who is responsible for the position? Is it the teachers or the examining body?

The stupid children.

No, because the 50 per vent, cannot be increased. It remains 50 per cent. I think the matter must be investigated. It is a well known fact to every teacher that there is an annual slaughter among the candidates for the examination in one or other of the subjects. One year it is history, if possibly there is a history enthusiast amongst the examiners. Another year it is Latin, another mathematics, or science, as was the case last year. A teacher of a well known school told me that he made a test this year with one of his best candidates. He gave him the matriculation papers of the previous year to answer, especially the mathematics papers, and the candidate obtained 100 per cent, marks, doing everything correctly, but when he sat for the examination he only obtained about 40 per cent. There is no stability. The teachers have no further confidence in the system of examination, they do not know where they are, and I think the Minister will do well to enquire into the cause of the trouble. Hundreds and thousands of children are disappointed, they can work as hard as they like, but must always be uncertain when the examination comes round, and fear that they and their parents and teachers will be disappointed.

The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M Van Zyl) mentioned a grievance about the matriculation examination. Let me tell him that the examination does not come under my department. There is a Joint Matriculation Board created under the Act of 1916, and representing the universities which are interested, owing to this being an entrance examination, and representing lower education, which is interested in it because candidates are there prepared for the examination. I am so far concerned with the matter that probably in June or July this year I shall convene a conference in Pretoria of persons and bodies interested to consider the revision of the system of examining. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asked whether the provincial council, after we had taken over vocational education, and had relieved them of the responsibility, would not be handing over too much to us, and what they were doing with regard to vocational education, and if no overlapping was taking place. He wants to know if it is not a wrong system for the departments of education of the Union and of the provincial councils to be responsible for one and the same function, and whether it does not cause a doubling of expense. He referred to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had said, namely, that, if we took over certain functions the provincial councils were reducing their expenses. There was in one respect a little vagueness in connection with agricultural schools. Several provincial administrations had agricultural schools of a certain kind under them as well, and the Union department took over agricultural education in the main. The hon. member knows that there has been a strong demand throughout the country for more agricultural education, and there was therefore a danger that, in taking over the work, although the provinces still continued agricultural education to a certain extent, there would be overlapping. The position practically was that the provincial administrations could establish agricultural schools, and if they became vocational schools they could be handed over to the Union Government, in other words they could face the Union Government with an accomplished fact. Therefore, the year before last, I convened the conference of the Agricultural Department, the Education Department and the provincial councils, and we arrived at a clear decision as to how to go to work so that we should not be doing the same thing. I certain amount of agricultural teaching is done in the primary schools, but it is merely to inspire a certain bent for agriculture in the schools, but vocational education in the proper sense of the word does not come under the provincial administration. The special trade education comes under my department.

Domestic science schools?

It can be given in the primary schools as a special subject, but as soon as the institutions are specially equipped as domestic science schools they fall under the Union Education Department As far as my information goes, good progress is being made with the dictionary, but whether it will be completed within the specified time of three years is questionable. It appears to be a bigger job than we originally expected, but it is progressing well, and we hope to be finished within two years at any rate.

How many men are engaged on the work?

There is only one chief editor responsible, but there are a large number of collaborators all over the country. Most of the language experts in the country are co-operating in the preparation. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has again raised the point of mentally defective children. The hon. member must not come to the conclusion that, if a Minister is given power to take over certain education from the provincial administrations, there will actually be something done at once. It is often the case that the powers are not immediately exercised. My statement the other night was quite correct, namely, that the ordinary normal child who is backward comes under the provincial administrations, and the child who is mentally deficient comes under the Mental Defectives Act, and for them provision is made in the institutions I have already mentioned.

I am speaking of the intermediate class.

In connection with the boundary cases, the new Act gives us powers, but I do not think that we can at present go so far as to establish new institutions ad hoc. If anything has to be done I should prefer to have it done in the existing institutions if possible. We must, as much as possible, avoid creating new institutions. We have a great many as it is. The hon. member spoke about reformatories. In the abstract there is a great deal to be said for having the same system as the educational institutions for backward children, or children under the Child Welfare Act, and we discussed the matter on these lines in the Cabinet, or rather amongst Ministers outside the Cabinet. We thought it best, all things considered, to leave things as they are for the present, but I think that so far the idea of the hon. member can be met so that the magistrates at present do not so quickly send a child appealing before them to a reformatory. The bent towards crime must be particularly strong before that happens. Even if a child shows criminal tendencies, it is sent to one of the existing institutions under the Child Welfare Act. One thing is very desirable I think, and we shall try in future to take action in that direction as we have funds, namely to classify the children under the Child Welfare Act better. The institutions for children are doing excellent work, and much can be attained by better classification. The hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) spoke about the facilities at the industrial school at Jacobsdal. When I took over vocational education it was quite clear to me that there were somewhat too many industrial schools in the Free State, just as in certain parts of the Cape Province. The child in the industrial schools does not have so much chance of being placed, therefore I am very doubtful about the establishment of new, and the extension of existing, industrial schools. The Jacobsdal school has done much good work, but has not proved that it has much vitality, and although we may possibly make certain improvements—a matter to which I shall give attention—we shall not be able to spend much money on it.

†As to the Natal university college the subsidies to universities and university colleges is determined under existing regulations and on the basis of fee income. Under the general purposes grant the Natal university college receives less because its fee income is less.

Fewer students.

Probably. The report of the commission on university education is in my hands and is being translated and we hope it will be published at a very early date.

I see there is a new appointment—Domestic Science Inspectress, £501. What are the functions of this lady to be? Is she to inspect the whole Union?

Yes. We have a large number of domestic science institutions for girls. I took practically all of them over from the provincial administration. Previously they were not inspected at all; that was very unsatisfactory, and this lady, who was a great success in one of the schools, has been appointed to visit all the domestic science schools throughout the Union.

I can trace only three of these training schools in the estimates.

These centres mentioned are not ordinary domestic science schools. There is one, for instance, at Tulbagh belonging to the A.C.V.V., one at Bethlehem, one at George and quite a number of others. She has to visit all these.

The Minister of Finance is hardly fair to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger.) The hon. member did not object to the reduction from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent., but what he did object to was that so little notice was given to the universities to allow them to prepare their estimates. The hon. the Minister will remember that it was an established practice up to the end of last year to allow an extra emolument to a public servant who had obtained a university degree, and with that in view, various colleges and universities had established extra-mural classes for training the students who were unable to pay the expense of a university education. Now the Government have altered all that from the 1st of this year. I should like to ask what effect that has had on the extra-mural students—whether the colleges have suffered in numbers and to what expense they are likely to be put? In Pretoria we put up a building costing something like £15,000 to meet the big demand for these extra-mural degrees and classes. The Minister has also reduced the bursaries of students in the various colleges by £1,500. The calendar of the various colleges is made up at the beginning of the year. I should like to know now this has affected the number of students at the various colleges?

I see in the report of the Education Department, on page 32, that a scheme is suggested for the extension of agricultural trade schools. The department points out the great need for them. About 17,000 children annually leave school after Standard 6, and at least half of them, of course, are from the countryside. They get practically no vocational education for life, and the Secretary for Education points out the need for extension of agricultural vocational schools on the countryside. I am glad that the Minister emphatically replied to another member that there is a need in the country for development in that direction. A scheme is proposed here to divide the country into 30 areas, and in time to establish at least one school in each area. I should like to know what view the department takes of the scheme, and if it is carried out whether it can be expected in the near future in view of the need for the institutions. We feel that action must be taken in this direction. I want to raise another point in connection with special schools, and it concerns about six. In view of the taking over by the Union Government I should like to know what the position is as to the salaries and pensions of the teachers in these schools. They compared particularly unfavourably with the Government schools, and if it were not for the love these people have for the work, education would have been entirely impossible. Then a question in connection with a resolution which was recently passed by the Provincial Council of the Cape. The Select Committee on Public Accounts issued a particularly interesting report on education. I do not want to enter into the great storm in the education world, but to point out the great expenditure in connection with training schools and on higher education. One resolution of the select committee says that primary teachers are trained both in the provincial and in the Union institutions. I want to ask whether the data are correct. In the other resolution (No. 3) the difficulty is repeated, but the last resolution is the most important, where it says that, when the Union Department educates teachers for primary education, the provincial administration will be obliged to give the first preference in the appointment of teachers to applicants who were trained in the provincial institutions. It seems to me to be a very important point, because if it is so, the first question would not be capacity, but where the candidate was trained. That would create great disappointment amongst people who have spent so much money on education.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what is becoming a hardy annual to me, and that is a plea for the blind in the country. On page 138 certain grants are made to institutions. If you look at the footnote you will see Worcester blind school and deaf and dumb school, Grimley Institute, Kingwilliamstown, and Cape Town are provided for. I want to put in a plea with the Minister and the Government to find some contribution towards the assistance of the Braille library for the blind which has been established at Grahamstown by private enterprise, by private charity and by a very fortunate bequest which was made to that institution by certain trustees about three years ago. I do not know whether the Minister is conversant with the history of it, but I want here and now in this House to pay a public tribute to the wonderful work which has been done by Miss Wood in establishing that Braille library, which has brought light and sunshine and joy into the lives of many poor men and women who have never known what it is to see anything, and others who have lost their sight after having had the use of it for some years. I think the Minister and I, in a minor degree, know what it is to lack the full use of our eyes. What about the poor people who have never seen and never known what anything means so far as sight is concerned, to whom the bringing of literature into their lives through the Braille library is a joy which we cannot appreciate? I think it is really necessary that we, as a country, should recognize the good work that is being done and make some contribution to enable the library to extend the work which has been undertaken. There was a certain Mr. Bannerman who died same years ago and his trustees have made a grant to that library that has enabled it to expand and to extend its work and acquire its own building. I want the Minister to distinguish between the ordinary books for the blind and the Braille books. We know that the Braille books are much more convenient to use and transport and more easily produced. These books are going right over the Union to-day. I want to thank, on behalf of this institution, the postal authorities and the railways for the reduced rate at which they carry these books throughout the country. They are sent to blind people right over the country, without distinction of race or province. Although the centre is where it is, these books are sent to any blind person in the Union who is able to make use of them through his knowledge of the Braille type. What is wanted is a certain number of people who are able to get about and instruct the blind in the reading of Braille type. Further, we want assistance towards getting these books typed in Braille. Then, of course, there is the incidental expense of running an institution of this sort, which, to-day, is entirely borne by private generosity, and the bequest that was made I cannot too strongly urge this plea upon the Government. There is no grant made except for the aid through the post office and railways, but I think we ought to make a definite grant to this institution on the same basis that we make it to the Worcester and other blind schools in the country. It is true that these people are, most of them, adults. Many of them have lost their sight during the war, others were born blind, and others have become blind owing to various accidents, but I do not think we can over-emphasize the obligation that every individual in the country and the State, as such, owes to these blind people, whose lives are very dreary indeed, and I cannot convey the deep sense of the appreciation of these people which one gets from reading a letter from one of these blind people. I have seen letters from them, telling what a difference life is to-day when they have this Braille type and these books. The choice of books is necessarily very small, but the more we can extend that scope and make these books of every kind available to these people, I think it is our duty to do so, and I do regret exceedingly that I do not see anything on the estimates this year to provide some sort of grant towards this institution, and I make bold to say that it will be the nucleus of a truly national library for the blind of the Union. Vast sums of money are not required. We make grants to these other institutions under Vote “J,” very useful and very necessary, but I maintain that this is one of the things that we, as a people, owe to our less fortunate fellow-citizens, and I would like to see something, even at this late stage, provided on the estimates for the assistance of that institution. I know the Minister can do it; it can be done by way of supplementary grant. I have not been asked to bring forward this matter, no one has approached me on the subject, but I am interested in and have been watching the work of this institution, and I recognize that it is our duty to assist it, whether we are asked to do so or not. On the vote is a sum of £1,500, little enough in all conscience, as a grant towards our art galleries, but I say we, who have all our faculties, cannot sacrifice enough to make some contribution to the amelioration of the lives of these blind people, and if we can vote £1,500 to the art gallery, we can at least give £300 to £500 towards an institution of this sort. I again appeal to you and the Government to put something on the estimates so as to make some provision for the assistance of this institution, which is doing a splendid, patriotic and national work for the country.

With reference to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said about the expenditure, we all feel that we must not prevent any lawful expenditure on education. The Minister’s reply was that he was following in the way of his predecessors. I know the Minister well enough to know that, if he were convinced that a better way could be taken, he would take it. I should like to ask a few questions about our expenditure. The expenditure on higher education for the year 1925-’26 was £278,575, about £190,000 was received in university fees, so that we have to provide about £89,000. The total cost per student was £89, of which the State paid £50, the costs of administration were £11,217. Our expenditure in 1911-Ί2 was £107,880 on universities and in 1921-’22 over £277,000, in 1925-’26 about £329,500, and in 1928-’29 more than £789,000. The number of students increased from 1,171 in 1910 to 5,898 in 1925, and the number of professors and lecturers from 182 to 537. The question arises whether the number of professors is not too large in proportion to the number of students. I am glad to hear that the report of the Van der Horst Commission will be in our hands in a few days. One thing they enquired into, I think, was the relation between the number of students and of professors. When we see the amazing progress in education, the question arises whether the money we spend is indeed justified, and if we get value for it. Another question is whether the expenditure on examinations is not too large. I notice an amount of £5,500 on the estimates. Will the Minister tell me whether it cannot be reduced? Then I notice that in the departmental report the University of Cape Town, which has a splendid body of students, states in what direction the students are pursuing their studies; Stellenbosch does not do so, nor the Witwatersrand. I think it is of importance to state what classes the students there are attending. The University of South Africa also states it very clearly. I further want to emphasize the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) about the vacation courses. The impression is that some of the men only attended the classes for the purpose of getting higher salaries. That, of course, was not the intention. The object is to give the officials and young people who work well an opportunity of being trained for a higher grade is very desirable, and in this respect I should like to see the Minister give more facilities.

I wish to ask a question in regard to items on pages 136 and 137. It will interest the committee to know what is the reason for the expenditure of £2,000 on labour account under (f) (2), and then on the next page, also labour account, there is an amount of £2,250 for trades and housecrafts schools, a total amount of £4,250. That seems a large amount to be expended on labour only in these training schools. Also on page 137 there is an item, one white labourer £48. That is, £4 a month for a white labourer. That seems a contrast to the principle we have always heard that white labourers receive higher wages. Anyhow, a labour account for £4,250 seems to me a very excessive amount, and an explanation would be very interesting.

I just want to ask a question in connection with the Tweespruit school in the Free State. Some time ago there was a report in the press that the departmental policy in connection with this school was to be changed. In the past the school was specially for such students as were unable to pay, poor students who were being trained as foremen on farms and the like. The school did very good work, and the demand for men trained there was always so large that the head of the institution could not meet all the applications from the farmers, now it has been notified that in future paying students will also be taken, that is to say, from the more well-to-do class. If it is so what will happen about the others? It will be very hard to take them away. If paying students are taken, it goes without saying that the poor class will be pushed out, and that the school will ultimately finish in the hands of the better-off class.

I notice in this vote under (e) (3) on page 136, there is a new school at Delgaersdrift, £1,500, and then on the following page a new school at Wolmaransstad, £2,500. What schools are these? Should they not be provided for by the provincial council in the Transvaal? I would also like to ask where the Minister has put down provision for the school at Riversdale. There is a new school provided there.

I will just reply to the questions raised. The hon. member for Pretoria has asked a question about the extra-mural students; whether there has been a decrease or not. He also asked the same question in connection with the reduction of the number of bursaries that were given to the various higher education institutions. The reply is that the higher education Commission which has gone into the question generally of higher education has given special attention to the position of extra-mural students. I understand that important recommendations with regard to that will be made, and I do not think we are just now in a position to discuss that question. In how far the number is affected by the alterations made, I can only say that the expenditure cannot be affected, because it is based on the fee income of the previous year. In any case, I have not the figures. The academic year has just begun, and I have not got the figures with regard to the number of students. With regard to what the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has said, I have no information in regard to that.

It is spread over all votes.

I am informed by my colleague that it does not affect this Vote particularly.

*The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked for more agricultural schools. All I can say is to repeat that, however desirable agricultural schools in the various parts of the country may be, the Government does not intend to make any expensive experiments in the matter. Agricultural schools of this kind can only be established in the best centres which must be selected for the purpose, namely, the places where there is the best chance of the schools proving a success. If it is proved that the schools are a success there, then it will be possible to extend the system. I fully admit the importance of more agricultural education for the sons and daughters of our farmers, but I wish to emphasize that we must not be too hasty. We must go slowly, but surely. The hon. member also asked a question about the salaries and pensions of teachers in the special schools we recently took over. I admit that, in some of the schools, the position was very unsatisfactory, but a noticeable improvement was effected last year, and further provision is also made in the present Estimates. A question was also asked about the training of primary teachers in higher education institutions. I can say here that that is one of the matters which will be discussed at the conference to be held in Pretoria. It is also one of the questions enquired into by the Higher Education Commission which no doubt has made recommendations to prevent duplication of work. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) asked me whether there was a good proportion between the number of professors and students at universities. It is difficult to say. It may happen that in some cases professors have to be appointed, although they only teach a small number of students. There must be professors for all possible professions and occupations, in order that the sons and daughters of our country can be educated in every profession or calling. Where the number of students is insignificant we must, to prevent the duplication of work, take care as far as possible that there is a proper division of teaching in the various institutions, so that no unnecessary professors are appointed. This all comes within the co-ordination of higher education which was also investigated by the commission. I can tell the hon. member that the grant to universities and other higher education institutions is not based on their expenditure, nor according to the number of professors, but the allowance is calculated according to the fees received. That is practically according to the number of students, and not the number of professors. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) spoke about the Tweespruit institution, and enquired whether, as the institution was now made available for paying students it would not lead to the nonpaying ones failing to find room there. I do not think there is any danger of that. This institution is one of the successful ones which will subsequently be considered from the point of view of extension if it is found necessary.

What is the reason for the alteration?

The reason is that the poor class of student usually comes from poor parents, although we have made no provision for supplying the kind of agricultural education to children of farmers who are able to pay.

They can go to Glen.

No, Glen is not the proper place because a different kind of education is given there. We only want to provide for the practical education of the children of farmers who can pay.

†The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked for information about the school at Delagersdrift. It figures as a new school, but really it is not. The position is that the school was an agricultural school which I took over from the province. After that the provincial administration of Natal decided to start an intermediate school with a strong agricultural bias, and that would have resulted in overlapping, and we decided not to continue this school of the Union Education Department. Then the matter was dropped. While we voted money on the Estimates the year before last for Delagersdrift it was not done last year. The provincial administration of the Transvaal changed its mind. We are reopening that school. It is a small settlement. At Wolmaransstad this is an industrial school more particularly for the children of diggers on the alluvial diggings in the Transvaal who wish to be industrially trained. It is very necessary. The Riversdale school to a certain extent is not new. We took it over from the Dutch Reformed Church. We thought Riversdale was the best centre for the south-western districts, and we had land there which was bought by the previous Government. It was much more economical to begin there than elsewhere in the south-western districts.

Is it a by woner school?

No, it will be fee-paying. As to the question put by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) a great deal of labour is required in connection with agricultural schools. Taking all the centres into consideration, the amount for labour is not excessive. Perhaps a good deal may be said for the granting of a subsidy to the Braille library for the blind. Although the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has raised the point the institution itself has not asked for any subsidy, but if they approach me I will go into the matter thoroughly.

The Minister is entirely wrong in the matter of labour for the agricultural schools. Surely the students should be able to do all the work.

So they do.

Then why do you put down £4,000 for labour.

It is not for one school only.

All the work should be done by the boys themselves.

We are pleased to hear it from you.

It is only commonsense. These boys have to earn their living, and if they don’t work from the start what good will they be on a farm?

To a large extent the hon. member is right, and to a very large extent the instruction in these agricultural schools is of a practical nature. We expect the boys to work and they do work, but they also receive instruction in the school, and you cannot expect them to do only practical work. That would not be an agricultural school.

Will the Minister lay on the Table the report of the commission which has been enquiring into medical education for natives? There are a number of native students at Fort Hare, and after they have passed a two years’ medical course, no further provision is made to continue their training. If the idea is that they should be able to render medical assistance to their fellows in the native territories, a two years’ course will be absolutely useless.

The matter is a very important one and has been engaging the attention of the Government. A large number of natives has been going overseas to America and elsewhere to be medically trained, but if at all possible, that should be avoided. If we could train the natives here, that would be best from every point of view. A small beginning was made in training natives medically at Fort Hare, but the difficulty is that they cannot get very much practical training, the nearest hospital being a small one at Lovedale. The idea is that after receiving their theoretical training at Fort Hare they should have a practical course in a hospital at Durban, where they will obtain experience in connection with tropical diseases which they are likely to encounter in Zululand. The whole question was a very difficult one, especially with a view to what could possibly be done by way of assistance for medical training of non-Europeans in South Africa by the Rockfeller foundation. They sent out representatives to South Africa, who investigated the whole position here, and said they were willing to contribute for that purpose, if a feasible and acceptable scheme to which the Government would give its approval, could be brought before them. For that reason, too, a commission was appointed to go into the matter. That commission was appointed by the Prime Minister as Minister of Native Affairs, owing largely to the fact that in connection with the medical training of natives a substantial contribution will be expected from the native development fund. I believe the commission has finished its work, though I am not sure they have reported.

I think they have reported.

Then the report must have been submitted to the Prime Minister as Minister of Native Affairs. There is a very difficult question that has also to be settled, and which was also enquired into, I believe, by that commission, and that is the feasibility of having a class of native medical practitioner who is not as fully qualified as a European—qualified in a university but with a minor qualification. I believe that system has worked very well in some other territories in Africa, and it is a question whether that would not be a right policy to follow in South Africa. What has been reported on that question I cannot tell the House.

I am glad to see that the Minister is keeping this matter before him. He will recollect I raised the question two years ago, and also last year. I asked for this report to be put on the Table about six weeks ago, and the Minister of Native Affairs then promised it would be. The report has been completed, but unfortunately it has not been translated yet. We are waiting for it, and the authorities at Fort Hare and the natives are waiting very anxiously for it, because I think it contains some very interesting matter. I have read the report, and I think if the recommendations are followed it will help a great deal to solve the problem of the medical training of natives. Last year the Minister knows he passed a Bill prohibiting what he called witch doctors from practising in Natal. These so called witch doctors are not really witch doctors. They are herbalists, and they are prohibited from practising in the Cape Province. Seeing the natives are prohibited from getting the medical assistance they have been used to, it is the duty of the Government to make some contribution towards assisting them. I notice the Native General Council at Umtata has asked the Government to contribute something to provide for these native students who are now being educated at Fort Hare. I saw from the discussion that several students are now taking their examination for the second year course. Fort Hare only provides for the second year course. What is to happen to these students now? Are they to be thrown on the veld, and told they have’ no further hope? Representations are being made by the General Council which I shall forward to the Minister, and I hope he will take them into consideration, and if it is impossible to complete the medical education of a certain number of students in this country he will, at any rate, consider an application that is being made, to continue their courses overseas. I do not think more damage could be done to the Fort Hare institution and to the native students who are aspiring to this education, than simply to give them a two years’ course and make no further provision.

I believe the commission has gone into that.

Yes, I believe so. This report, however, has not been translated, and so it can be laid on the Table, but when it is translated I hope the Minister will study it and continue to take that interest he is taking in the matter, which I very much appreciate and which the natives will also appreciate.

I hope the Minister will be able to give some assurance that he will give some attention to the matter I have brought to his notice. I can assure the Minister it is causing a great deal of acute mental distress to many people in this country, and I think it is within his power, by means of circularizing the provincial administrations in connection with primary schools, and also higher schools and universities, with regard to that portion of moral philosophy which deals with our relation to animals.

Yes.

I think this report is of such great importance that perhaps the hon. the Minister will inform the committee if he will enquire into the matter and see if it is possible to have it translated before the termination of the session, and laid upon the Table, and if possible printed. I do not think there is any document which will be more eagerly studied by those who take an interest in native affairs and by the more intelligent of the natives themselves than the recommandations made in this report for the purpose of doing something to improve the position of the students now at Fort Hare.

I will enquire into it.

I hope my hon. friend will see that it is printed and circulated so that, at least, the authorities at Fort Hare and the native papers can have an opportunity of studying it. So far as funds are concerned not only the Rockfeller institute, which I know are extremely anxious to help if a scheme can be developed, but many of the natives themselves will be only too anxious to support a fund of that character.

I should like to ask the Minister what the position is with reference to the scheme of establishing an agricultural school in the Eastern Transvaal. The Bethal municipality offered to give certain ground. I would like the Minister to say

The hon. member can discuss it under the Agricultural Vote.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is right, because the proposed agricultural school will, if established, come under the Education Department. Before the school is established provision must first be made in the Loan Estimates, because there are no buildings, and I think the hon. member had better bring it up under the Vote, Loan Funds.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 27, “Child Welfare,” £225,980,

I want to call my hon. friend’s attention again to an increase in the vote.

There is no increase.

Oh, yes, £10,766. I called my hon. friend’s attention to this last year, and he then promised to go into it. He then said he thought it had got to the top, but that does not appear to be the case. Does my hon. friend intend to get all the children of the Union under this charge? When are we going to come to an end to this increase year after year? I remember when this vote was under £100,000.

I would like some information as to the method of paying out these grants, under item B (1), the grants for the maintenance of children under the Children’s Protection Acts, £124,000. I think, that a very large part of that, at any rate, is paid out to the child welfare societies, and in some centres the amount appears to be merely passed on. In other centres there is supervision of the payment of these grants. They properly supervise the recipients, and it is followed up to see that the children really get the benefits of these grants. In some cases, apparently, the money might just as well be sent to the magistrates and paid out. I would suggest to the Minister whether it would not be possible and advisable to have some definite scheme laid down under which these child welfare societies act, because it has come to my notice that the matter is dealt with in different ways in different centres.

I want to say a few words in connection with this vote which is important to my constituency. Under the heading Grants to Certified Institutions and maintenance of children under the Children’s Protection Acts £124,000 is put down for the coming year, as against £119,000 for last year. This is apparently an increase of £5,000, but the increase of children which is expected in comparison with last year is according to the foot-note 250 European children, and 50 coloured children more. I have tried to calculate what was spent on the children during the past year, and I find that, on the whole, including the expenditure under the supplementary estimates, precisely £124,000 was spent last year. How will the Minister manage to spend the same amount while having more children? Here we have the amount of £119,000, but I understand as already stated that £124,000 was spent. I know that this amount does not actually concern the Minister of Finance. I am prepared to admit that this amount has much increased during past years, but that happens because the law has only been applied in the last few years, and at some places the people are only now discovering what their rights are under the law. I think it is going too far not to increase the amount further now. I have had many cases under my notice of children in my constituency on whose behalf applications were made, and who were recommended by the magistrate, but they were refused admission. I think that is going too far. The Minister must not think that the children are recklessly admitted. It is not so easy to get them into an institution. I know of a case of children who were certified by the magistrate of Winburg. The orphanage at Winburg admitted them, and after it had spent on every child for clothes, etc., the Department of Education comes and says that they do not approve the admission, and they will not pay the grant. The institution loses after it has admitted the children £67 10s. I want to point out that there are many children in the institutions for whom the State need contribute nothing, and it is much better than a Government institution. I want to point out to the Minister what the existing position is, and what children are refused. I want to quote the case of a child whose home was at Winburg. The family consisted of ten children, and the father and mother died in 1922 and 1923. There was a married daughter, and her husband was a day labourer earning £5 a month. The child he adopted he could not support on the £5 a month, because it was not sufficient for his own family. It was impossible for him to provide for the child on his income of £5 a month, and it was sent to the orphanage at Winburg. After it had been there some time the department said that it was not a case of a committed child, because it could live with a family, that is the man who earns £5 a month. I know of seven or eight similar cases. I particularly want to point out to the Minister of Finance that the money here being voted is not expended on children who do not need it. There is no provision made this year for the placing of new children.

If that support continues as at present we shall have all the children in the institutions.

Well, I think you cannot well expect that a man with an income of £5, on which he has to maintain his family should still take in the child of another.

There are many children in the orphanages who are not orphans at all.

Then they come under the childrens’ protection Acts, but there are many cases where children are refused, although the family are not able to maintain them. Valuable work is being done by private institutions, and I agree that they are better than Government ones, and I agree with the Minister when he says that we must not allow the Education Department to do the work which rests with the provincial councils. Yet I think we must not be too hasty in restricting the admission of children.

I am now in a difficulty. Members on the one hand say that we spend too much money, but other members say we must spend more. I think, therefore, that the amount on the estimates is just the right one. I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that there is no increase as against last year. There was a large amount on the supplementary estimates, because it appeared that the amount on the estimates was not sufficient to meet the needs, and if we include that, then the amount this year is not larger. We cannot economise more unless to a certain extent we underfeed the children. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) complained, just as child welfare institutions and various other institutions from time to time do, that we sometimes refused to bear the expense when magistrates committed children to institutions. We go carefully into all the cases, and the complaint is that we are too strict and often keep children out who should be looked after in the institutions because they would otherwise be neglected. We therefore cannot retrench any more. I want to point out that it is much cheaper for the State to have the children who fall under the Children’s Protection Act in the institutions and to take them away from their surroundings, than subsequently to pay for them when they lapse into crime and are sent to the prisons. The hon. member for Winburg comments on the fact that this year we are not putting more money down to provide for the needs, but the number of children who will be admitted increases every year, because a large number of children leave the institutions. Those who are eighteen years leave the schools, and when they are twenty-one the State is completely relieved of them. The schools are, of course, comparatively young still, and it goes without saying therefore that the number who have attained the age for leaving schools becomes larger every year, and, therefore, there is more room.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has asked in what way we pay our maintenance grants to children. For that purpose we make use of the child welfare societies, and, we cannot do otherwise, because if we use our own machinery, it will again mean a great increase in the vote for the year. The child welfare societies are, there for the purpose of looking after these neglected children and bringing them to the notice of the magistrates, and they render us very valuable services in connection with the administration of the Act. For that purpose we give the general council of the societies about £600. As far as the proper use of that money is concerned, if there are any complaints about the way in which the societies do the work we will investigate the matter. We have inspectors to see how the children in private homes are being looked after.

Last year the grants to orphanages was £3,000. This year the amount is only £1,800, but the year before last it was £3,600. If there are any deserving institutions, certainly they are the orphanages.

As a result of the influenza epidemic in 1918 a large number of orphans, particularly in the Cape and the Free State, were taken under the care of the Government and were sent to orphanages, to which an annual grant was given. Naturally a number of children have since left these institutions, and consequently the expenditure is reduced.

I was not reflecting on the work of the child welfare societies. Which of them gets special grants for supervision?

The grant is given to the soceties in general.

Vote put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee to-morrow.