from T. Webster, a teacher in the Bensonvale Institute, praying for the condonation of certain breaks in his service, or for other relief.

moved that Order 15—the second reading of the Children’s Protection Bill—be discharged, and set down for Wednesday, May 21.

Why?

I wish to get a move on.

The motion was agreed to.

brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

The report was as follows: Your committee begs to report that it has had under consideration the papers and correspondence referred to it, and begs to recommend the grants, etc., of land as set forth in the accompanying schedule, viz.:

1. (1) Disposal of agricultural lots on Crown farms, division of Calvinia.
2. (2) Excision of farm “Oliphants Hoek” from demarcated forest area, George.
3. (3) Lease of buildings and premises of Adelaide Co-operative Creamery.
4. (4) Grant, for library, at Lady Frere.
5. (5) Lease of new residency site at Middelburg (Cape).
6. (6) Grant, for hospital, at Fort Beaufort.
7. (7) Lease of harbour land at Humewood.
8. (8) Reservation of Government-avenue and paddocks, Cape Town.
9. (9) Grant, for school purposes, at Port Alfred.
10. (10) Lease of harbour land at Humewood.
11. (11) Lease of hotel premises at Hutchinson station.
12. (12) Lease, at public auction, at Fishwater flats.
13. (13) Grant of portion of Commonage at Dysselsdorp.
14. (14) Sale of portion of railway reserve at Cookhouse.
15. (15) Grant, for church purposes, at Butterworth.
16. (16) Lease, for fishery and residential purposes, division of Malmesbury.
17. (17) Lease of site at Table Bay Docks.
18. (18) Lease of farm at Van Rhynsdorp.
19. (19) Grant, for school purposes, division of Calvinia.
20. (20) Grant, for plantation purposes, at Mount Frere.
21. (21) Grant, for school purposes, at Herbert.
22. (22) Withdrawal from Buffelsfontein forest reserve. Bathurst.
23. (23) Lease, for fishery and crayfish canning purposes, Malmesbury division.
24. (24) Lease, for crayfish canning purposes, Port Nolloth.
25. (25) Lease of railway land to East London Municipality.
26. (26) Excision from demarcated forest reserve, near Sir Lowry’s Pass.
27. (27) Sales, by Public Debts Commissioners, of properties in Table Valley, Cape Town.

Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works of the South African Railways and Harbours, year ending 31st March, 1914.

Return of officers of the Forest Department who have reached the age of 60 years and have not been retired.

said that, before proceeding with the Order of the Day, he would like to reply to a question which had been put by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. F. H. P. Creswell), who had asked what was the death-rate among natives recruited for the mines from territory north of latitude 22 deg.: (a) On the mines of the Witwatersrand, and (b) in the compounds of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. Mr. Sauer said that the death-rate on the mines in March was 71.8 per 1,000 per annum, and in April 51.5. The death-rate in the compounds of the W.N.L.A. was: March, 229.6, and April, 214.6 per 1,000 per annum. The hon. member for Jeppe had also asked whether the mortality figures hitherto supplied by the Native Affairs Department included the death-rate in the compounds. The reply to that was in the negative. The hon. member had also inquired what addition should be made to the mortality figures, in order to give a true statement as to the rate of mortality. The mortality figures for 1910-11-12 should he increased by the following rates:

Are those additions?

Yes. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said the total rate of mortality among tropical natives in the Transvaal and compounds prior to their employment on the mines was as follows:

He also had a return for January,

February, March, and April, giving the death-rate on the mines and works for those months. The rate was: January, 44.6; February, 64.1; March, 71.8; and April, 51.5.

The mortality, including the compounds, was as follows: January, 115.1; February, 117.6; March, 118.5; and April, 73.4. Now, he would like to say that he inquired the reason how it came that the deaths in the compounds were not included in the returns of mortality, and after having done so, he came to the conclusion that there was a considerable amount of blame to be attached to the Witwatersrand Labour Association and the Native Affairs Department, but he thought it right to add that he did not think there were any improper motives. The fact remained, however, that very important information was not supplied, with the result that the information regarding these tropical natives which had been published to the world was entirely misleading. His predecessor had stated a considerable time ago in Johannesburg, when he met the representatives of the Mines, and the question of the rate of mortality was discussed, that unless there was a serious reduction in the rate of mortality amongst tropical natives no further recruiting would be allowed. Since he had become Secretary of Native Affairs he had kept very close watch on the rate of mortality.

He felt it his duty especially to do so, and he might say that Parliament and the people of this country were anxious to see that mortality among natives was kept as low as possible, and if it exceeded what might be called a reasonable extent, then the question arose whether this recruiting should not cease. After having considered this very carefully, the Government had come to the conclusion that they could no longer permit recruiting of these tropical natives. (Labour cheers.) In doing this the Government were simply discharging the duty that fell upon every Government and upon every Parliament, to see that the mortality of persons, whether European or not, employed by the Government or within the area of the Government, was such as not to make it what one might almost call a scandal. (Hear, hear.) His opinion was that every motive required that the recruiting of tropical natives should be stopped, because the mortality was of a character that, should it continue at that rate, it would be little less than murder. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances the recruiting of natives from tropical countries for work in the Union would not be allowed. (Labour cheers.)

asked whether the mortality in the compounds was before the distribution to the mines?

Yes, it was before distribution. The average stay in the compounds was 22 days.

thanked the Minister for his statement. They were very glad to hear it. He inquired whether there were similar discrepancies in the figures published concerning the mortality of natives recruited south of these tropical parts.

I am not in a position to give the information required to-day, but will do so as soon as it is available.

Might I ask the hon. Minister if the figures showing the deaths in the compounds were given in any publication?

The figures not furnished monthly appeared in the report issued by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association.

, continuing the debate on the second reading of the Immigrants Restriction Bill, said that in all other countries except South Africa they had somebody to give information as to what was required in emigrating to South Africa. If they asked people why they did not receive that information, they would tell them there were no means in London whereby they could get it. There used to be a department in London where they could get the information required, but today that was out of the question, and there was nobody who could give them information. He felt that there should be some means whereby the Government, or some responsible person, should be able to give information, so that a person before he embarked for South Africa would know that he would be allowed to land. It was stated that a Board of Appeal would be called together as soon as possible, but to prevent immigrants being deported when they arrived in South Africa, powers should be given whereby these Boards of Appeal could be called immediately. Besides this, he thought that there should be another authority to appeal to besides these Boards, and that was the Supreme Court. As to the Bill itself, there was the question of the Indians in South Africa to be considered. If an Indian was permitted to enter the country as a citizen, then he should be treated as a citizen. He wanted to see undesirables kept out of this country, but once they allowed people into this country, they should treat them fairly.

Continuing, he said he would like to know when tuberculosis became infectious? (Laughter.) Medical opinion was to the effect that tuberculosis from its earliest stages was not only infectious, but highly hereditary. Those who had been brought up in the country knew of the ravages of tuberculosis, and those who could look back forty or fifty years knew that then the country was free from this disease. But the Cape’s resorts for consumptives and its beautiful climate were advertised and had brought sufferers from other parts of the world. He thought they regretted that at the present time. Seventy per cent. of the deaths were directly or indirectly due to tuberculosis, and the disease was devastating the coloured population. Beaufort West had been free at one time, but now it was one of the most tubercular districts in the country. With that facing them, hard though their action might appear, they had to protect their own country first. A definite line should be drawn so that no person suffering from tuberculosis would be admitted into this country. People suffering from tuberculosis might come to the country with £100 and £200 in their possession, and be forced into their beds, and when their money was gone they became a burden on the taxpayer of the country. In conclusion, he said that, taking the Bill as a whole, it tended in the right direction, but in committee stage many amendments must be insisted upon before the Bill could become law.

said he had not intended to speak on the Bill, had it not been that the hon. member for Weenen, supported by the hon. member for Tembuland, had made an attempt to give freedom to the Natal-born Indians to wander over the different Provinces. He (the speaker) objected to the suggestion that Asiatics born in Natal should be allowed to spread all over South Africa. The people of Natal had got the Asiatics in with their eyes open in order to secure a little temporary prosperity. And now when these Asiatics had become a burden, they wanted that burden to rest on the shoulders of the rest of the population. Well, the people of the other parts of the country were just as strong in the opposition to this suggestion as the people of the Cape had been in 1849, when they had objected to the Cape being made a criminal settlement. (Hear, hear.) The people of Natal, or rather those who had imported the Asiatics, had enjoyed the advantages of that importation, and were now selfishly trying to pass the disadvantages on to other people. He objected to the suggestion that this Bill should, first of all, be submitted to Mr. Gokhale or any other visitor, however distinguished he might be. The only body to whom the Bill should be submitted was this House. Another remark the hon. member objected to was that the Bill of last year had not been passed as the result of the attitude of the members on the Government side of the House, The attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had been the cause of the Bill not passing last session, but, after all, the new measure was a much better one, as it did not follow Australian lines. This Bill said exactly what it aimed at, which the other one did not do. In conclusion, Mr. Nicholson dealt with the question of tuberculosis, and held that people suffering from this disease should not be allowed to land. There were already quite enough people in this country who were suffering from that disease, and a peril which half a century ago was unheard of had now become so threatening that it was necessary to stop the entry of any more tuberculosis patients.

began by quoting the following by the right hon. member for Victoria West: “Let no more of them in, but out of regard for the humanity which we share with them, treat decently those that are here.” With which sentiment he (Mr. Rockey) entirely concurred. Now they were told that the chief reason for this extraordinary Bill was to placate the Imperial Government. Was it at all likely that the Government of the British Empire, which had been founded on truth and justice, would approve of a Bill of this sort, based on narrow exclusiveness and on hostility not only to the Indians, but British and alien Jews?

Had they any assurance that this Bill would really meet with the concurrence of the Indians of the country? Most of them knew that it did not meet with that concurrence. They were face to face again with the movement of passive resistance, which, with all its bitterness and individual suffering, disturbed the Transvaal only a year ago. But they were faced on this occasion with a movement which was likely to be emphasised because it was going to spread throughout the Union. He was bound to say this, that during the long time that this passive resistance movement went on no act of violence was done. He would appeal to the Government to sink their narrow prejudices and try to obtain a statesmanlike solution of this complex question. Would this Bill be read for one moment in the British Houses of Parliament? He ventured to say that no Government would dare to bring such a measure forward in the British House of Commons. These were British subjects of a great dependency with over 300,000,000 people controlled, not by force, but by a beneficent Government. That was the way in which we held India to-day, and it was the way in which we should hold the black races in South Africa, too. (Hear, hear.) If these 150,000 Indians had votes, he wondered whether the Government would bring in this one-sided Bill. They would see the Premier holding out the double hand of friendship, and the Minister of Finance going down on his knees and crying, “Baal, we cry to thee.” (Laughter.) They would possibly see the Minister of Justice holding out a few calico sheets. (Laughter.) The cause of the trouble was unquestionably the Transvaal Act, No. 2 of 1907. It would have been a proper and an honourable act if the Minister of Finance in 1908 had risen and said he would repeal that Act then. If they wanted a common-sense solution of this question, all they had got to do was to repeal Act No. 2 of 1907, and allow the existing Acts in operation in the rest of the Provinces to continue, and leave the rest to administration. He was sorry they had got to maintain these provincial boundaries, simply because local prejudice was against giving these people freedom of movement within the Union. In the name of all that was just and right, he said they should let these men move about with perfect freedom to visit their relatives, and so on, under proper safeguards.

He found from the census that the Indian population within the Union was as follows: Cape, 6,000; Natal, 133,000; Transvaal, 10,000; Orange Free State, 106; total, about 150,000. That was equal to 3 per cent. of the native and coloured population, 2½ per cent. of the total population; and 11½ per cent. of the European population. The area of the Union was 492,000 square miles, so that if they absorbed all these Indians they would get one-third of a person to every square mile of the Union. If this country, considering the sparseness of its population relatively to its area, could not absorb these people, then we were a poor crowd altogether. (Laughter.) The clauses of this Bill were in his opinion an insult to the intelligence and fair-mindedness of this House. They were an insult to the Jewish race and an insult to the British Indians. The Bill aimed at pressing disabilities on the Indians, and the practical prohibition of the entry of Jews into this country. It was proposed to give to the immigration authority or other person plenary and autocratic powers to reject these people, and bring all these clauses against them. If he were asked to provide a solution, he should say that they should bring in a Bill divided into three chapters, viz.: (1) dealing straightforwardly with the Indian question; (2) dealing straightforwardly with the immigration of Jews into this country; and (3) dealing with dissolute Gentiles. He would appeal to the Minister to burn this Bill.

said the hon. member (Mr. Rockey) reminded him of the fox which had lost its tail, and having lost his tail in the Transvaal the hon. member wanted the Free Staters to lose theirs as well. The hon. member suggested that because the Free Staters had no Asiatics in their constituencies they were prepared to vote against their importation. He (Mr. Fichardt) might retort by asking the hon. member how many Jews there were in his constituency. The hon. member also suggested that the Bill should never have come before Parliament, as no one would have dared to introduce it in the British House of Commons, but his (Mr. Fichardt’s) duty was to this House. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. member desired to take the British Parliament as a precedent he would ask him what chance there would be for a Workmen’s Compensation or Insurance Act passing through the Union Parliament?

We have a Workmen’s Compensation Act.

proceeded to state his objection to many of the clauses of the Bill. The Board appointed by the Minister under clause 2 was endowed with judicial authority, and had to sit as a final Court of Appeal on the freedom of the people, and was removable at any time by the Minister. He (Mr. Fichardt) could not agree to an arrangement by which Judges were to be under the immediate control of a Minister. As to clause 2, if an unfortunate immigrant had to find the whole of the money mentioned therein, he must arrive here with a fortune. The Bill, it seemed to him, was not only going to keep out Asiatics, but very considerable capitalists, and by the time the Immigration Department had finished with an immigrant, he would have very little money left. (Hear, hear.) The Bill not only made it extremely improbable that a man would come out here on the off chance of being sent back at his own expense, but no shipowner would dare to bring him out, because shipowners would have to deposit considerable sums of money in order to meet charges for the maintenance of prohibited immigrants and the cost of their return to the country whence they came. With regard to clause 4, was the Minister to judge from the cut of a man’s clothes whether he was economically capable? Power was given under the Bill to prohibit people landing who were likely to become a public charge, but they must not overlook the fact that apart from the possession of money a man’s ability to work should be considered as the possession of sufficient means to justify his admission. The sort of men we wanted were those who were able to work. Under clause 4 (G) a South African who was mentally afflicted might be prevented from landing.

He would like to call the attention of his Free State friends to some dangers in the Bill. Under clause 5 any member of His Majesty’s Forces would be able to come into the country. He would like to add the words “on military service,” for he was informed that retired soldiers were still considered as being members of His Majesty’s Forces. The clause as it stood would admit Asiatic troops. With regard to sub-section (D), his fear was that a treaty might be entered into with the Portuguese Government, and that thus any number of Asiatics might enter through the Mozambique Province. Another objection to the Bill was that if a young South African went to Europe to study and remained there more than three years, on his return here he might become a prohibited immigrant. (Hear, hear.) Under clause 19 a South African on his return here would have to submit to a medical examination if he were suspected of being afflicted with any disease. As to clause 22, sub-section (c), why should provision only be made for those who had infringed the law with regard to the gold and diamond mining industries. Continuing, Mr. Fichardt said he wished to offer a general objection to the Bill altogether, and he could not help expressing his extreme disappointment that the Bill should have been laid before the House. He had hoped that a Minister from the Free State would have been actuated by one of the soundest principles that the Free State ever held. His first objection was that the Bill was an Immigration Restriction Bill, secondly that it was designed to meet the sentiments of benevolent people who lived somewhere in the neighbourhood of Downing-street, and thirdly, that it was not framed in the interests of South Africa generally. As far as he could see, this miserable measure was going to frighten away the very immigrants we wanted, and would allow Asiatics to come in by a backdoor as often as they liked. The people in Europe would very soon find out that these restrictions existed, and they would be frightened away. No one would deny that we wanted a sturdy white population settled on the land and no one would deny—not even the Prime Minister when he spoke with his London voice—that this population must partly come from oversea. Would the Bill help them to that end? Why could they not have a straightforward measure, instead of this double-barrelled Bill, which was designed to deceive the Asiatic, and to prevent those we wanted from coming here. The hon. member for Victoria West had told them that economically it was not advisable to have Asiatics in South Africa, and that their presence lowered the standard of wages. He would not go into the conditions in Port Elizabeth, where Asiatics had been pressing the white men to the wall; nor would he go into the conditions that prevailed in the trades and professions, and even agriculture, where Asiatics had driven many white men from the field. It was also acknowledged that no one in South Africa, except possibly a few cranks, desired to see South Africa filled up with Asiatics. These were all urgent reasons why they should keep these Asiatics out of South Africa.

Because of the sentiment—not in South Africa, but outside it—they came in with a weakening Bill. The unanimous opinion of South Africa was against the importation of Asiatics. Then why not take their courage into their hands and stop this importation? They should not only put a stop to the importation of Asiatics, but they should endeavour to act gradually to deport those Asiatics already in South Africa. He could not enthuse over the protection that was given to the Free State in this Bill. If it were a good law to prevent Asiatics from entering the Free State, why was it not a good law to prevent them entering other States of the Union. He wanted to warn the Free State members that the provisions of the Bill would not protect them in the Free State, but would only postpone the evil day. One of the first things that these people would agitate for would be to break down the protective barriers. He would ask hon. members to notice what was going on in the Transvaal. Had they not noticed this policy of passive resistance? They were agitating there now, until they forced open the doors of the country. Once they were in South Africa, there would be very great pressure, not only from South Africa, but from oversea, to break down these barriers in the Free State. A number of coolies were already in the Free State as traders who had no right to be there. What he believed the hon. member for Weenen wanted was to push half of the coolies in Natal into the Free State. The economic pressure would be too much for the people in that Province to stand, and they would fall back upon the Free State. Personally he would rather see a very bad Bill remain on the Statute-book than a partially bad Bill. He would like to know whether there were any members of that House in favour of Asiatics, and if they were not in favour of them, it was their duty to bring pressure to bear upon the Minister, so that he would draft a Bill such as was wanted. Why was it that they could not pass a direct and simple law like that in the Free State? The Act in the Free State contained twelve effective clauses, with the result that the Free State was not troubled with many Asiatics. It was pointed out that the Free State passed this law when an independent State, but when it was a Crown Colony State, they were satisfied with the law, and took it over. If a Crown Colony could adopt such a law, then he thought that the Union Parliament could do so as well. He thought a direct Bill would give less offence if they stated specifically and definitely what they meant. This coming Bill served only to deceive the white man. It was much better to tell a man before he started that they did not want him in the country, than for the Minister to say when he arrived here that he was not satisfied with his appearance, and that he could not pass the dictation test. The hon. member then moved the following amendment: To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “The Order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged, and the subject-matter thereof be referred to a Select Committee—the committee to have leave to bring up an amended Bill, and that it be an instruction to the committee to include in such amended Bill provisions similar to those contained in Law No. 33 (Orange Free State), dealing with the exclusion of Arabs, Chinamen, coolies, and other Asiatic persons, and the prohibition of such persons from holding fixed property, trading, or settling in the Union, subject to any vested interests—the committee to consist of nine members.”

seconded the amendment.

said that he desired to deal with the Bill from the general standpoint, not from the Imperial standpoint, and here let him say that he did not believe that this Bill had been brought in because of Imperial domination or intimidation, because the Imperial Government had always allowed latitude to its self-governing Colonies. After proving the point by referring to the exclusion of a shipload of coolies by the Queensland Government, the speaker went on to say that he desired to soothe the feelings of the hon. member for Woodstock. He was as much against people suffering from tuberculosis coming into this country, but, after quoting authorities on the subject, he did not think there was need for all the alarm which had been suggested by the hon. member for Woodstock. He was understood to say that that hon. member had referred to the lack of information about South Africa that was to be found on the other side, but he (Mr. Haggar) had always found that literature for the asking was always to be had in the big towns of the United Kingdom. If they needed immigrants, then they should do what other countries were doing. Those countries sent agents who lectured on these countries, and exercised sound judgment as to the people whom they sent out to those places. That was what New Zealand, the Argentine, and Queensland had done, and those countries who did not send agents got the scum and the riff-raff of Europe. He believed that Queensland had put a stop to it, and said that if they had more immigrants they must have immigrants of a different character. Of late years the immigrants that had been going out to new countries had not been of so good a class as those who went out years ago, and the class of immigrant that was going out to Australia, for instance, was inferior to the class that went out fifteen or twenty years ago. The people who were travelling out at present thronged the towns, and the country was poorer, and Australia, in this regard, was not as well off as some people imagined. Did they need immigrants, as some people had argued? Judging from the speech of the Minister of Justice they did need immigrants, and he said that there was work in the country for those who were willing to work. He (Mr. Haggar) did not think he was right, but the Minister occupied a responsible position, and therefore, his words carried a good deal of weight.

There was not work for all who desired to do it. They could get the labour if the return was fair; on the other hand, they had a large amount of labour which was not being given any adequate opportunity. He did not know one country from which they could get the labour they pretended to require in any large quantity. The hon. member went on to quote the case of a gentleman who came from the southern part of Italy in 1909, and offered to supply five thousand labourers for the mines, and said that at the end of their five years’ contract these men would settle on the land and become small farmers. That gentleman told him that there need be no fear that these people would enter into competition with the white people of the country, for the simple reason that they were so low that they had no desire to rise. He (Mr. Haggar) had told that gentleman that they did not want that class of people in this country. The labour that they needed, or pretended to need, was so scarce that there were countries in Europe that were crying out for labour of the right kind. Too many people held the idea that population meant wealth. Population did not necessarily mean wealth. He quoted the case of Denmark, about which they had heard such a lot, to show that the country was prosperous, though she was losing her population in proportion faster than any other country in the world. It was quite a different state of affairs when it was a productive population; the people of this country was not reinvesting their money in the country, but sending it out, and receiving no adequate return. It was suggested that this Bill was the only means of opening the door to the poor whites, but he (Mr. Haggar) said that all the immigrants they could get would never solve the problem which was a product of their system. A lot had been said about the immigrants that were going to Canada, but what became of those immigrants? For five months of the year, so he was well informed, there was a demand for a large quantity of labour at a wage which could barely keep those people for five months. The result was that two-fifths went to the United States, two-fifths returned home, and the remaining fifth stayed in Canada. Most of the land of Canada, he was understood to say, was in the hands of capitalists who got these people to go out and take up the land, but when their capital was gone the capitalists got back their land. Continuing, he said that he agreed with the term restricted immigration because unrestricted immigration would mean a decrease in wages and the standard of living would be brought down.

In some parts the Bill was as badly drawn as the Beer Bill was. In clause 4, sub-section 1 (a), “no person or class of persons deemed by the Minister on economic grounds” was spoken of. We imported an enormous quantity of rice into this country. We had nobody here who understood the growing of rice thoroughly. Much land was suitable. The production of rice would certainly be justifiable on economic grounds. Would the Minister allow him to bring a few Japanese here for four years to teach people how to grow rice, and then send them back again? He would be prepared to put £20,000 into the Standard Bank, to be forfeited if those men were not returned within the stated time. Then we imported a large quantity of merchandise, ostensibly British, but really Japanese. He was prepared to bring four men here for four years to teach the local people how to produce these articles, and when they had taught the people how to produce these articles those men should go back to their own country. Again, he was prepared to put £20,000 into the Standard Bank as a guarantee of good faith. If those were not “economic grounds,” what were they? Then again the section spoke of the “standard or habits of life.” The Minister spoke about men who had more than one wife at a time. We had brought the Malays here with their religious convictions and habits for our own benefit. The indentured Indians, many of them had one, two, and more wives. We had brought those people here for our own advantage. He asked what right had this House to deal with any of their religious customs or any of their manners or marriages within their own areas? He did not think we should meddle with people on any of these grounds. Sub-section (b) spoke of “any person who is unable, by reason of deficient education, to read and write any European language.” There were many people whom they could not call deficient in education who could not read and write any European language. The clause went on “to the satisfaction of an immigration officer.” The Minister used words to this effect, that the man should be tested in a language which he knew. If that were so, he asked the Minister in good faith to introduce what would be a tremendous improvement in this one clause, and after “to read and write any European language” to insert “chosen by himself.” Sub-section (c) spoke of “any person who is likely if he enters the Union to become a public charge by reason of infirmity of mind or body.” That was very vague. They wanted something more than that. The objectionable point was this: “because he is not in possession for his own use of sufficient means to support himself and his dependants.” That evidently meant that he must have a certain amount of money. He would like to ask what position Australia would have been in if a clause like that had been enforced years ago? Thousands of men had gone to that country without half-a-crown in their pocket. Those were the people who had made Australia what it was to-day. He hoped the Minister would see his way to alter this clause. He was glad that the Minister had brought in a Bill to restrict immigration. We had had too much unrestricted immigration in the past. We did not want undesirables in this country, but we did want these aggravating, restrictions taken away. If we did want immigrants, which at present he doubted, there were people who were prepared to pay their own passages to come here. As to the language question, the test of language had never yet been applied in Australia to Europeans. He hoped the Minister would concede this one point, that the language should be the language chosen by the immigrant himself.

said he was astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand. The hon. member now came forward as a great statesman of the Union. The hon. member had given no reason why the Bill was bad for the Free State, but merely said that the Free Staters would have to beware of the future. The hon. member was afraid that the provisions of the Bills would not be carried out so far as concerned the limiting of Asiatics to the Provinces where they lived. But did they pass laws as dead letters? Of course, the position of the Free State would remain as at present. In his (Mr. Cronje’s) opinion the Bill was a great improvement on previous legislation, and it was even an improvement on the Free State law. The Free State would be better off under the present Bill than under that which was proposed last year. Under the Free State law, Indians could obtain permission to remain in the Free State for two months, but under the Bill before the House that was not allowed. Having been for a time abroad, the hon. member had forgotten the history of the Free State The amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand was simply designed to kill the Bill, although the hon. member had seen that the Free State was satisfied with it. A Select Committee was quite unnecessary. In Committee of the House they could make whatever modifications were found necessary.

said he regretted that the emigrants who passed through Cape Town on their way to Australia were not going to remain here. (Labour cheers.) They were the very class we required to develop this country. It had been said that the agricultural interest was paramount, and he contended that the people he referred to should be received with open arms, for they would be an invaluable asset. But, coupled with an immigration scheme, we must have land settlement and the right to expropriate land not beneficially occupied. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Nathan then quoted from a letter to the “Cape Times” written by Mr. Collingwood Hughes, containing extracts from speeches by the Prime Minister on the subject of immigration. Speaking at the Imperial Conference in London, the Prime Minister said: “I am very much in favour of supporting emigration to South Africa. I want agriculturists, and for that class I am prepared to spend money. And I hope if we get over this difficulty with the Union-Castle Co. to make provision to support our immigration scheme, because we are in favour of it, and we are going to encourage it to a large extent.” At the Eighty Club lunch, the Prime Minister stated: “We have a very large country in South Africa, but it is a country full of problems, and we ask that we should be helped to solve our problems in the best possible manner. In assisting people to emigrate to our part of the Empire, we ask you to send your very best men. We have any amount of room for a large population in our country.” Speaking in the House on April 29, the Prime Minister said: “He first accused General. Hertzog of having neglected his work in the Department of Justice … and riding about telling the people that the importation of immigrants would be a crime. General Hertzog, interrupting, said that this was not true, but what he had said was clearly written down, viz.: ‘It would be a crime to use money from the public Treasury to bring in immigrants before our own poor whites had been helped.’ The Premier, continuing, said this was exactly his standpoint… At Losberg he (General Botha) had said that he was not in favour of immigration until the thousands and tens of thousands in South Africa had been helped back to the land.”

Continuing, Mr. Nathan asked whether they were to accept as the Government’s policy the statement of the Minister who had introduced that Bill, or the statement of the Prime Minister? The country was hungering for an expression of opinion on which it could absolutely rely. Mr. R. Arthur, president of the Australian League of Australasia, had stated that he was convinced that lads from 15 to 21 years of age formed some of the best immigrants. Large numbers of them went to Australia, where, during the shearing season, they earned from 10s. to £2 per day. Would it not be a glorious thing for South African farmers if boys could be brought out here, be given good homes and their keep, and be paid 10s. a week?

Make it 5s.

I don’t know at what rate of pay the hon. member began. I know I began at absolutely nothing— (laughter)—and I am not ashamed of the position I have attained, and I hope he is not. Continuing, Mr. Nathan observed that the mail contract contained a mere pittance of allowance for the encouragement of immigration. Everything went to show that the Government did not want immigration. (Hear, hear.) Could not the Prime Minister have made better terms with the Union-Castle Co.? We could make up our minds that for the next ten years we were not going to have a good class of immigrant. Canada, however, was an object-lesson as to the advantages of immigration on a large scale. Coming to the Bill, the hon. member said that it was designed to give the Minister such unfettered latitude that no sensible person could support it. The Bill could exclude the British Cabinet Ministers or even the King of England if he came out here to open the Union Buildings. He hoped the Bill would not be translated into law, and that it would not appear in its present form on the Statute-book. If it were translated into law, it would cause dissatisfaction and discontent.

It would be most unpopular, and it might even result in riot. (An Hon. Member: Ach!) They had been told that there was a desire on the part of the Government to meet the wishes of the immigrant population in this country, as far as possible. He used this expression advisedly. They could not give everything that everybody demanded. There were a large number of Indians in the country who served the interests of the country, and now the hon. member for Ladybrand said he would help to deport them. He would like to say, for the information of the hon. member for Vryheid, that this Bill was going to deprive British citizens of the right of access to the Courts of the country. That would be a fatal error, and why was it never thought of before. Apparently they had no such law. He noticed the hon. member shaking his head. Well, if he would refer to clause 23 of the Canadian Act, he would find that there could be no appeal to a Court of Law, “unless,” and this was the point, “such person is a Canadian citizen or has a Canadian domicile.” The Minister evidently had not read the whole of the clause. This Bill was going to encourage bureaucracy. It was going to encourage what they all suffered from in the Naturalisation Law, under which the Minister had power to allow or reject. The only safeguard they had was in the Courts of Law. It was true that the Immigration Officer gave a reason for his rejection of an immigrant, but it was a very meagre document. If the reasons for rejection which were placed in the hands of immigrants were also furnished to that House, they would have the best information and also the explanation of the immigrant himself. A person could be ejected from this country by a word from the Immigration Officer. That should not be so. He thought the Minister should have some control over that, and he asked that the Bill should be amended in that respect, so that nobody could be deported unless by warrant of the Minister. Even a policeman can arrest anyone without a warrant. So much had been said about clause 4 (a), that he would only ask the right hon. gentleman whether this clause 4 (a) did not nullify the rest of the Bill? They might just as well have said that everybody was to be entitled to come into the country, unless the Minister objected. Again, the Bill was going to leave it to the Minister and his officials. What was meant by sufficient means? A man might come out to the country with only £2 or £3 in his pocket, but, he might be very well educated and have brains.

He might be rejected because he had not sufficient means, whereas a man with £50 or £100 in his pocket may be allowed to come in, although he might be of no value to the country whatever. Proceeding, the hon. member said that people who read the Act on the other side of the water would come to the conclusion that South Africa was not the place for them. In his opinion such a Bill should be torn to pieces, and the hon. Minister should try again; if he spoke from the bottom of his heart he would admit that he was not satisfied with the Bill himself. If he tried again perhaps he might succeed in the end. With regard to his secret service, or getting information from other parts of the world; that might be of use for political purposes, but they wanted immigrants to come on to the land and then they could proudly say that they were a nation, and not till then.

He would point out that there was no provision to make this country a haven for people who were fleeing from religious persecution. He had hoped that the Government would accept that principle, but he found no trace of it in the Bill. But what stuck most in his Parliamentary gizzard, to put it vulgarly, was that if anybody, even one born in this country, who left the country and stayed out for three years, might be prohibited from coming in again. Even the Canadian Act did not go so far as that. They might find it very useful, of course, to exclude somebody who had been three years away. As to the educational test, a man could be examined in a European language, and might be told that he would be examined in Spanish. Before he knew where he was he might be back across the equator. That was what would happen. It had happened in cases they all knew of. There was an extraordinary provision which prevented a man from being allowed to land, and if the man desired to appeal, the Government had the right of taking him from the ship and putting him somewhere, perhaps in a donkey shed, and he was supposed to be in the custody of the master of the ship all the time. Fancy the Government putting the responsibility on the master of the ship while the man was in the custody of the Government, and if anything went wrong the master would be responsible. That was enough to keep people out of the country. The shipowners would be inclined to say that they would not take people. In his (Mr. Nathan’s) opinion, there should be an office on the other side of the water so that people who came to these shores would know they would be allowed to land. There were pitfalls in that Bill in every direction. The Immigration Officer had the right to demand a declaration that a man had a right to be in the country in such form as he (the Immigration Officer) desired. There was no exemption in that matter. The Bill did not provide that there must be reasonable ground for suspecting that any particular person was undesirable or had no right to be in the country. It was at the sweet will of the Immigration Officer. The burden of proof was also thrown upon the man. To carry that to its logical conclusion any of them might be compelled to show that their forefathers had the right to be in the country fifty or more years ago. That might seem ridiculous, but he was saying that to emphasise how ridiculous the Bill really was. He referred to a case which happened in the past of a member of Parliament coming from the West Coast, well known to the Immigration Officer, and could not be allowed to land because he had not a sufficient amount of money in his possession. Of course, somebody heard about it. They had placed on the Statute-book an Animal Diseases Act, and they were told that if it were put into force there would be a riot, but what was the good of putting Bills on the Statute-book if they were not to be carried out? He was afraid if that Bill were placed upon the Statute-book it would be rigorously carried out. There was great trouble in store for the Government. He could see that sticking out a long way. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman in introducing the measure made very light of it, as if he thought it was a Bill dealing with the making of sweets or something nice, sugar in beer, for example—(laughter)— something that was going to make everybody happy; but he would warn the Minister that if he forced the Bill through with the Government’s docile strenuous majority he would have a hornet’s nest round about his neck which would make him very unhappy.

referred to a telegram which he had received and had promised to read it to the House, but before doing that he would like to say that he was very much disappointed when he saw the Bill. He had heard of a promise that they should have an Immigration Bill, and he noticed that the first part did say that the Bill was to consolidate, etc., and to provide for the establishment of a Union Immigration Department, but when they turned to the end of the Bill he found that it said that the Act may be cited for all purposes as an Immigrants’ Restriction Act. They got the sting in the tail there, and in reality it was an Immigration Prohibition Bill. He would like to see that provision was made for immigration into this country. What inducements, he would like to know, were being offered for immigrants to settle in this country? He could not find a clause dealing with that. The Bill was to keep people out of the country. He believed that every member on both sides of the House was strongly in favour of the restriction of undesirable immigration into this country. Even the Indians in this country were not in favour of the further immigration of their own people. They should certainly do all they possibly could to keep out undesirable immigrants, and so far as that went he was with the Government and with the Bill, but he was not prepared to support the drastic restrictions and unnecessary provisions which were laid down in that Bill. Those had been fully dealt with by hon. members who had spoken. He fully agreed with the first portion of the speech of the hon. member for Ladybrand, although he dissociated himself with the hon. member’s latter remarks. With regard to the much discussed clause 4 (a), it seemed that any young South African going to Europe for educational purposes might be kept out of the country when he returned. He (Mr. Oliver) had another fear, that if he or any other member on his side of the House went away for three years most likely it would be the opinion of the hon. Minister that they were not suitable persons to be readmitted to the country.

Continuing, he said that any member of that House who voted against the Government might be considered by the Minister an undesirable, and he warned hon. members on the other side, who intended to vote against the measure, not to make any long trips oversea. During his Parliamentary career he had heard an hon. member tell another that he was an idiot, and he would point out that idiots were not allowed to enter the country. (Laughter.)

said that the hon. member must not call an hon. member of that House an idiot. (Laughter.)

said he had not done so. He was assuming that the Minister might consider that he was one. (Laughter.) He was as strongly opposed as anyone to undesirables being allowed to enter the country, but those who were in the country, he contended, should be treated with fairness and justice. He considered that if this Bill was passed they would have a recurrence of the Transvaal trouble, which would spread to other parts of the country. He was sorry the hon. member for Ladybrand had said they should turn all the Indians out, because he would draw his attention to the Indians who had been born in Natal. The Bill would not satisfy the Indians of this country, and their position would be worse than under the old Act. The Government would be well advised to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Umlazi by dropping the Bill, and repealing Act 2 of 1907. That would remove the cause of so much trouble in the past. Proceeding, he read a telegram which had been addressed to the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. It had come from a mass meeting of British Indians, residents of Kimberley and Beaconsfield, who strongly, but respectfully, protested against, and view with alarm, the provisions of this Immigration Bill, inasmuch as it did away with existing rights and privileges, and was absolutely contrary to the assurances given by the Imperial Government to Mr. Gokhale. The message also expressed the gratitude of the Indians at the strenuous opposition put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, He also protested against the Government in that measure refusing to recognise the religious rites of Indians in respect to marriage. What right had the Government to decide a point of that kind? He thought the Minister should either do away with some of the restrictions, or withdraw the Bill.

said that though this Bill was a slight improvement on the one against which he protested last year, there were many provisions which were unpalatable, and very difficult for the House to accept. He thought, however, that if they wished to restrict Asiatic immigration, it would be necessary for them to have a Bill of this character, but he considered that this measure was dishonest. He sympathised with the Minister in having to introduce a measure of this kind, and it was questionable whether they would do any good in passing the Bill in this form. Personally, he thought there was a good deal against it. If it were passed, he did not think it would be long before the Indians would agitate for withdrawal of administrative discrimination against them on the ground that, being British subjects, they had a claim to be treated as British subjects. If they had a straightforward measure there would be no necessity for introducing some of the dubious provisions which they found in this measure. There was a fear that the Minister might apply these restrictions to anybody, and he thought there was good ground for that assumption. He drew attention to the case of a well-educated young lady, who went to Europe to finish her studies, but whom the shipping companies refused to book to South Africa until she possessed £20. He drew attention to another case where a young lady who came out to be married was prohibited from landing at Cape Town and was forced to go to Delagoa Bay to be married. They did not want undesirables in this country, but he was afraid that many desirables were being kept out under the present laws. He thought he was obliged to vote for the Bill, because they entered into Union on the understanding that the immigration of Asiatics would be restricted. It was not a Bill that he liked, but he thought it might be given a trial, though he would warn the Minister that some of the provisions were extremely dangerous.

The powers placed in the immigration officers’ hands were too large. Section 4 (1) gave them power to remove any person from the Union or any Province without the slightest reference to the Minister. Then there were further very drastic powers in section 23 of a similar character. The maintained that such a serious step as that should be taken by the Minister, and the Minister only. The immigration officer was the only person who was to be satisfied that any person entering the Union was the wife or child of any person already in the Union. He thought it would be a very wise thing to say that the Minister should be satisfied. Again, the immigration officer might, at his mere whim, call upon any person to satisfy him that he was not a prohibited immigrant. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Roodepoort in his remarks relative to the language test. He thought it must have been owing to a mere error of draughtsmanship that it was not laid down in subsection (b) that the choice of language should lie with the immigrant. Another objection was that the powers and jurisdiction of the Appeal Board were not sufficiently defined. Again, there was no protection whatever for persons who were naturalised. He hoped that the Minister would take these remarks into consideration, and introduce the necessary amendments. When that was done, he should be reluctantly compelled to vote for the Bill, and would be prepared to give it a trial.

said he could not say that this latest attempt of the Government in the field of immigration restriction was much of an improvement upon the previous attempts. He thought that some of the new clauses were more objectionable than those of previous Bills. Last year’s Bill, they were told, was based on Australian legislation, and it made the education test to be not less than fifty words in any European language. They were not informed, however, that, though this provision was contained in the Australian Act of 1901, the dictation test was not, and never had been, imposed upon persons of European race entering Australia. In 1911, according to the records, the persons admitted who passed the education test were nil, while the persons admitted without passing the education test numbered 139,020. During the eight-year period, 1904-11, the number of persons who entered Australia by passing the education test was only six, while those admitted without passing the education test numbered 618,410. This year they were told that the present Bill had been framed upon the provisions of the Canadian Act, but that Act differed in very many respects from the Bill now before the House. The Canadian Act contained a great many exemptions not mentioned in the present Bill, and was called, not an Immigrants’ Restriction Act, but an Immigration Act, thus showing that the desire in Canada was not to restrict immigration, but to regulate it. In 1911, 311,084 immigrants were admitted into Canada, while during 1909-10 no less than 1,614 Chinese entered Canada after paying the penalty of £100 per head. In other respects the Canadian Act was far ahead of the Bill at present before the House. It gave the right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of the Board. He considered that the Board under this Bill was not properly constituted, and that at least one member ought to be a medical man. Clause 3 prohibited any Court of Law from having jurisdiction in these matters. That, he thought, was a very objectionable feature. Under clause 5 any person who was absent three years, not merely from the Union, but from a Province, could be subjected to all the objectionable forms of a prohibited immigrant before he could come back again to that Province. The clauses relating to the masters of ships were more drastic than any contained in the Australian and Canadian Acts. How was it possible for a captain to prevent prohibited immigrants from landing if his ship were moored alongside a quay? In Natal this difficulty was overcome by the master of a vessel being able to arrange with the Immigration Department to provide guards over the ship, the ship’s master then being exempt from responsibility. If the restrictions were carried out strictly, how could ships’ masters know who they ought to bring out, while they ran the risk of almost any of their passengers being refused permission to land here.

The Bill would absolutely stop all immigration—(hear, hear)—and South Africa would be put in the black books of the world. He hoped the points he had mentioned would be rectified before the Bill went through. The fines for unintentional breaches of the law were far too heavy. One of the principal objections to the Bill was the clauses which tended to introduce a very strong provincial element. He understood that when this Bill was being drafted all the Free State objections to it were met. That was not the proper way to introduce legislation if certain Provinces were to be exempted from the operation of certain laws. Union was now an accomplished fact, and we had to bear one another’s burdens, whether we liked them or not—(cheers) and if we were to have ring fences put around different Provinces, we were going to be in a very parlous state indeed. The Minister of the Interior should try to get the hon. members behind him to take a broader and more enlightened view of the matter. (Opposition cheers.) The number of Indians in Natal was 130,000, and these people were increasing much more quickly than the white population. If these Indians were confined to Natal, what was the position going to be? They could not place all the responsibility on Natal; they were only making the position more acute.

Who brought them into Natal?

The people in Natal; the sugar planters (Labour laughter and cheers.) Those people were not entirely to blame, for it was the desire of Natal from the very beginning that these Indians on completing their indentures should go back to their own country, but the Indian Government would not allow the Natal Government to force them back. Consequently, the Indian preferred to stay in Natal, for his position there was very much better than in India. These people (went on Mr. Henderson) must be provided for and given the means of earning their living. Consequently they must take any work that was offered, with the result that they would oust the white people. Another result would be that manufacturers, planters, and farmers in Natal would be able to obtain labour at a cheaper rate than would their competitors in other parts of the Union. Naturally they would be able to undersell their competitors and the position would become more acute year by year. It would pay the Government to repatriate all the Indians born in India as soon as possible, or to arrange for them to go up the East Coast or to Mauritius. (Cheers.) Otherwise the position would become so acute that the Government would have to provide for them. When Mr. Gokhale visited Natal recently, and the impossibility of Europeans competing with Indian traders was pointed out to him because of their different modes of life, he admitted it, and blandly suggested that it would be better if the European adopted the simpler life of the Indian, and so be able to compete with him. (Laughter.) He did not like the Bill at all, and he was very much inclined to favour the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand in so far as it proposed to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Failing this, he thought the Bill should be withdrawn, altogether, and the Transvaal Act No. 2, 1907, be repealed.

said that they had heard that many of the best people were being driven out of the country. It was the duty of the Government to look into this. With regard to immigration itself, it was the duty of the State to inquire thoroughly into the nature of the immigrants who desired to come into the country The Minister of the Interior stated that we must not do anything to complicate the situation. No one appreciated more than he (Dr. MacNeillie) the difficulties of the Imperial Government with regard to this question. The British Empire consisted really of two empires—one of these was the Empire of India. It consisted of two entirely different civilisations, and it was impossible for these two types to mingle. They all knew well the evils that had followed the introduction of indentured labour into Natal. The hon. member for Potchefstroom, if he liked, could have told them the conditions which existed in his constituency. The hon. member for Heidelberg also could tell them that white traders were being ousted by Asiatic traders. Then with regard to his own constituency, they were threatened with the introduction of Asiatic traders, but he was glad to say that now it was one of the very few districts that was entirely free from them. He was going to oppose this motion, first, because he thought it did not tend to make for uniformity. It would perpetuate old Provincial differences, and again he intended to oppose it because there was no demand for it. He had heard the member for Cape Town, Central, say that under the present law they could keep Asiatics out, and Natal members said they were in the same position; therefore he agreed with the member for Cape Town, Central, that the Bill should be withdrawn. In the Bill itself the first item he would refer to was in section 2, sub-section (1), paragraph 2, persons having magisterial business or administrative experience. He thought that there was no man more qualified to be upon the Board of Appeal than a medical man. (Hear, hear.) They wanted people in this country who were mentally or physically fit, and there was no one better able to advise upon that point than a medical man. If the committee stage of the Bill was ever reached, he was going to move to that effect. He thought that the medical examination should be conducted at home and that the greatest care should be exercised over the introduction of persons suffering from tuberculosis. At the same time, he believed that people who were able to support themselves might derive great benefit from such a climate as the South African climate and eventually prove a source of wealth to the country.

said now they found that Natal, having got a very large number of immigrants, was not anxious to retain them, and wanted to pass these Indians over to other Provinces. He did not see why they should want to get rid of their incumbrances at the expense of the other states. He thought they hardly required an Immigration Act, if it were not for one broad point, and that was to prevent Asiatics coming into the country. That was really at the bottom of the measure. These Indians that wanted to come into the country wanted to come in as traders, and hon. members on the other side would find that the constituencies they represented would suffer the most grievously from such introduction. The ordinary Indian native would not come here of his own accord. He would come if invited, or indentured. It was the Indian trader who was anxious to come bore. Therefore he thought they hardly required a special Immigration Act for keeping him out.

He maintained that the Act was a reasonable one, and if they analysed all the objections that had been named they would find that not a single desirable person would be kept out of the country by the Act. He did not think it inflicted any hardship upon the class of persons they wanted in this country; indeed, that class would hardly be subject to immigration investigation. It was the class they did not want who would be refused. They were all agreed they did not want more Asiatics in this country, nor undesirable people of European descent. They had to be very careful with their large preponderance of natives, who they allowed to come into this country. The Imperial Government recognised that when they decided not to send convicts here. Nobody should be admitted who would have a deleterious effect upon the native population.

said that if he were to be guided by the remarks of the hon. member for Von Brandis, it would seem that lawyers could read anything they liked in a Bill in order to bring people into difficulties. As regarded the title of the measure, he could not see why they should cavil at that. After all, it was a Bill to prevent the immigration of undesirable persons, and not of desirable immigrants. The hon. member for Von Brandis had referred to their small population which should be increased. They had in the Transvaal 5,000,000 morgen of land in the hands of foreign owners. As regarded the question of Asiatic immigration, he thought no one would deny that the position was getting dangerous. For the white men the question was one of self-preservation, and he agreed that the matter should be courageously tackled. At the same time he agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that those Asiatics in the country should be fairly dealt with, and he thought the Bill aimed at dealing fairly with such people.

Mr. Theron was still speaking when

It being five minutes to six o’clock p.m.,

stated that in accordance with the sessional order adopted on the 2nd instant, he would now adjourn the debate.

The debate was adjourned accordingly until to-morrow.

said that for 20 years in the Cape and for 7 years, he thought, in the Free State, they had been praying for the eradication of scab, with the result that according to the last report of the Inspector of Scab nearly a million sheep and goats in the Cape Province, 180,000 in the Transvaal, and 370,000 in the Free State were still suffering from scab. In the Cape they had spent over a million and a half on the eradication of scab, and yet they had a million sheep still suffering This was an unsatisfactory state of affairs when they knew from the example of Australia that scab was capable of eradication. If they could eradicate it in Australia why could they not do it here? The conditions were almost the same. He threw out the suggestion, to the Minister of Finance, seeing that probably next year he would he wanting money, that he might adopt the Queensland plan and throw the expense on the flock owners themselves. The right hon. gentleman on the previous day said that they could not drive the people. But surely flock owners would not object to paying and so ridding their flocks of the disease. There were about 46 million sheep in the country, and if flock owners paid at the rate of 5s. 6d. per hundred that would cover all the expenditure. He thought the time had come when something of the kind would have to be done because they could not expect the taxpayers of the country to go on paying year after year up to £130,000 a year. In the Cape they had paid over a million and a half for the benefit of one section of the people, and that section, if it was willing, could easily rid their sheep of the disease. He did not want to particularly tax these people, but he thought the time had come when it was necessary to bring some pressure upon them, so that they would zealously make efforts to rid the country of scab. Once they made it to the interests of everybody to get rid of scab they would soon get rid of the disease. It was no use bringing in regulations when they were not followed, and he thought it was better to make it in the interests of flock holders to exterminate scab as quickly as possible.

asked a question in regard to the report of the sheep inspectors, but was hardly audible in the Press gallery When would the report appear? There was more scab amongst merino sheep than amongst Afrikander sheep, although the Minister had yesterday asserted the contrary.

said that during the Budget debate he took the opportunity of making some remarks with regard to scab, but, unfortunately, the Minister of Agriculture was not in his place, and so he would briefly reiterate what he had then said. He went on to deal with the simultaneous dipping of sheep, and said that owing to the tardiness of the department in taking action no simultaneous dipping was done last year. When he was going to dip his sheep in January last he was stopped by the inspector, who told him that there was to be compulsory and simultaneous dipping in March, and that he had better wait. In the “Gazette” of February the 18th there was a notice stating that compulsory dipping would be started on March the 1st and continue until. April the 30th. He was pleased to see something was done, though he did not understand the two months period. He read down further to see what the instructions were, and then found that in places mentioned underneath the dipping was to extend from March 1st to November the 30th. He found that a number of places had been excluded from the two months period, and given nine months in which to compulsorily dip sheep. They knew how long the “Gazette” took to reach farmers in the backveld, and yet the notice was published on February 20th and dipping was to commence on March 1st! There was no reason for this short notice, because they had not been suddenly attacked by the disease. The point was that two-thirds of the Cape and half of the Free State had been excluded from it Some of these places were brought back again, not into the one month, but into the two months period, but there was still left a fair number with nine months. Or the 29th March he found another notice in the “Gazette” amending Government Notice No. 284, which had come into force on the 1st March. This provided that in certain districts the period of dipping was to be altered. Certain districts—Prieska, Calvinia, Sutherland, Namaqualand, and Van Rhynsdorp—were still left under the nine months period. They were to have compulsory simultaneous dipping, but they might dip any time between March 1 and November 1. (Laughter.) He was sure the Minister would be glad to give them some explanation about this extraordinary state of things.

He regretted to hear the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture that the people of this country were a very stubborn people, and would not be driven or submit to the laws. His experience of them had been exactly the opposite. He said unhesitatingly they were a law-abiding people. They were a stubborn people, who liked their own way, but once the law was laid down they obeyed that law. If they knew that by a little agitation they were going to get the head of the department to shift from pillar to post, was it likely that he was going to get his laws obeyed? With such a vacillating policy, were they going to see scab exterminated from this South Africa of ours? He thought not. He would also like the Prime Minister to give him more information in regard to the case of Inspector Berry, of Barkly West, who was suspended on the 22nd February and had been promised a magisterial inquiry. He put a question to the Minister on the 8th April, and was then informed that Senior Inspector De Wet, who laid a charge of insubordination against Berry, was not in a position to produce the necessary evidence owing to pressure of duties due to the simultaneous dipping of sheep then in operation. He (Dr. Watkins) was not aware whether the inquiry had yet been held, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would be able to tell them what had happened in that respect.

said that there was a distinction between the scab laws of the Native Territories and the other parts of the country. In the other parts of the country the owners were responsible for dipping their sheep, and the inspector had to see that it was done. In the Native Territories, the inspector was supposed to dip the sheep himself. He thought that this method tended rather to the increase than the eradication of scab. Formerly, the Native Territories had less scab than many of the districts of the Colony. In the Territories now, the number of sheep placed under one inspector was generally between 60,000 and 70,000. The largest number of sheep that could be dipped by one man in one day was between 500 and 600. (Cries of “Oh” and dissent.) He was not a dipper himself, but that was his information. He was giving the evidence put before him. (A Voice: It is wrong.) If the calculation were correct, it meant that about 15,000 could be dipped by one man in a month, so that the number allotted to each inspector would take about four months to be dipped. As there are two dippings in each simultaneous dipping period, that meant eight months’ work for one man, and three months in which to do it. The labour put on the inspectors in the Transkeian Territories had been detrimental to the eradication of scab, because they could not accomplish the work. The orders were that the sheep in the Territories were to be dipped twice in the spring and twice in the autumn. It would take one man about a year and four months to carry out that work, and the Government gave them six months to do it in. It was impossible under the circumstances for a man to do his duty, and good conscientious inspectors suffered, while careless ones were tempted to scamp the work. Another grievance of the sheep inspectors is that having only lately been put on the fixed establishment, there was little or no pension for them when their services were disposed with, on account of age, etc. He instanced one particular case of the kind, and hoped Government would do something for such cases.

A resolution had been passed by the Transkei General Council, a body of natives who were far more advanced, he was sorry to say, than some sections of European farmers in certain parts of the country. (Loud Ministerial cries of dissent, “Nonsense,” and “Withdraw.”) He said the natives were far more eager than certain sections of the European farmers were to get rid of scab. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) The Transkei General Council offered to relieve the Government of the task of dipping sheep, and that the people who owned the sheep should bear the cost of the work. (Loud Opposition cheers.) Would hon. members on the Government side agree to do that? (Hear, hear.) Did not that prove what he had said? It proved absolutely the truth of what he had said. (Cries of “Withdraw.”) The Council appointed a committee to find out what the cost would be, and it was found that 370 assistants would be necessary to carry out simultaneous dipping, the total cost per annum being £17,940, which it was proposed to cover by imposing a charge of one halfpenny per sheep. Even those hon. members who did not agree with the position he took up would say that these people deserved the encomiums which had been passed upon them, and he would be wanting in his duty if he did not bring this matter most prominently before the right worthy—(laughter)—the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture. There was another matter he wished to bring before the House. Recently the District Council of Glen Grey had increased the tax on adult males from 7s. 6d. to 10s., this having been done with the permission of the Government. The extra 2s. 6d. was to be used for the building of dipping tanks. The Council had decided that the people in each location should fill and empty the dipping tanks, but some districts objected to this, as they thought the 2s. 6d. should cover this work, and the Council should pay for it. The magistrate had taken it on himself to refuse permits for the removal of cattle to the people in such districts, whether the cattle were dipped or not, and the people held that he had no legal right to do so. (Hear, hear.)

expressed his surprise at the remarks of the two previous speakers. The hon. member for Barkly had in a long speech done his utmost to blacken the Prime Minister, but the hon. member forgot that the curing of scab was not as easy as making a couple of pills. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Tembuland by his remarks had proved his ignorance of the subject he had spoken about, and he (Mr. Venter) denied that natives were more anxious than white people to get rid of scab. The people of the Eastern district had never complained that the law was enforced too strongly. What they had complained of was that the law was not enforced strictly enough at a time it should be, and too strictly when it should not. He thought that the system of compulsory simultaneous dipping would have satisfactory results. So far as regarded the number of sheep which could be-dipped per diem, his experience was that they could deal with from 1,500 to 2,000. On the whole he thought the Government had taken the proper course in endeavouring to secure the co-operation of the public. In regard to the closing of roads, he asked whether a scab inspector could close any road he wished to. He thought that meant giving rather too much power to scab inspectors. In conclusion, the hon. member said that by means of co-operation alone could they succeed in eradicating scab. By force or by trying to drive the people, they would achieve nothing. Therefore he urged that farmers should do their utmost to help the Agricultural Department. It was not a bit of use blackguarding the Agricultural Department at every turn.

said that the most disappointing thing he had listened to for many a day was the reply of the Minister of Agriculture to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, when he asked if the people would not submit to the law what was he to do? That seemed to him (Mr. Blaine) that the policy of the Prime Minister was to be dictated by the most retrogressive section of the farmers. The Minister said those people would trek. Well, if the hon. Minister did not know how to deal with a position of that kind he should not hold the position he did. He said that if the recommendations of certain members of that House were carried out it would mean a revolution. Was the hon. Minister then always to consider the prejudices, and the laziness and ignorance of the most backward section of the farmers as opposed to the more progressive? Was he to be dictated to by the retrogressive section of the farming community, and was the progressive section never to be listened to? If so, his policy was a backward one. Where did it come in that he was encouraging progress? He did not see that the Minister was encouraging progress at all. The progressive farmers were altogether too law abiding. In Australia they dealt with the question of scab in no time. Here in this Colony they had had a Scab Act for over 25 years, and he was not far wrong in regard to certain sections when he said there had not been any advance. Were they to wait for such people to learn? There should certainly be some gentle compulsion. He did not want any high-handed action in order to make these people pay for the privilege of having scab, they did not recognise that they paid heavily already, through the prices paid on the market for their wool. If they would get rid of scab, they would get much better prices for their wool. It was very difficult to deal with a Minister who took up the attitude of the right hon. gentleman, and it seemed that the progressive section would have to go to war. He noticed an item of £2,000 for the supervision and demonstration of dips. Surely it was unnecessary to demonstrate a simple matter like that to farmers! The proper thing for any Ministry to do who were really in earnest, was to say that farmers must have their sheep clean or they would be fined. They should be made to learn their business. There was another point he would like to touch upon—the matter of simultaneous dipping. He must regard simultaneous dipping as carried out heretofore in the Colony, and as it was going to be carried out, as impossible. It was absolutely absurd to attempt to carry out simultaneous dipping under those regulations. The one attitude was to fine a man who was a danger to his neighbour. Hitherto the fines had been very light, and when the right hon. gentleman took up the portfolio of the Minister of Agriculture, they thought they would have some proper administration of the law.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that he had been reading a long controversy regarding lime and sulphur dipping, and he was pleased to see that Government insisted upon lime and sulphur dipping. There was one thing about lime and sulphur which placed it at a disadvantage—it was not a proprietary dip. That was the whole secret of the agitation against lime and sulphur. He dared say that there were not many in that House who had had experience of as many varieties of dips as he had. He had used 14 or 15 patent dips, and all his experience went to show that there was not one to equal lime and sulphur for the eradication of scab, and he would say without hesitation that there was nothing to touch lime and sulphur for cleansing the sheep. In respect of damage to wool, he remembered being asked to write a letter once before when a controversy of that kind took place, and as the clearest proof of the harmlessness of dipping and the small amount of damage done to the wool by dipping in lime and sulphur, he brought forward the price he had received on the London market for his wool. His opponent said that he had received those prices not because he had dipped in lime and sulphur, but in spite of that. So long, however, as he received the high prices he was quite satisfied. Every dip injured the wool to a certain extent, but farmers ought to know that the proper time to cleanse their sheep was during the summer. If they would only dip when the yolk was up, they would not harm the fibre in the least. In conclusion, Mr. Blaine referred to the appointment of a principal sheep and wool expert, and he understood that a gentleman had been appointed to that position. With regard to one of those wool appointments, he referred to an old man who had done good service in the Cape Colony—a man who, to a certain extent, was a pioneer and a sorter of wool. This man appeared to have been overlooked, and a man of short service had been appointed. He would like the Minister to explain the reason of the passing over of that man.

asked what was the meaning of the item £1,000 for a store for sheep dip. They had long urged that the Government should supply cheap dipping materials to the farmers in the Free State, but they had been told that the Government could not set up a shop. Then why was it done for other districts? He noticed that in certain districts the Government did supply dipping materials. He hoped this would be extended to other districts. In regard to an item of £2,000, “supervision of and demonstration in dipping,” he held that farmers themselves should bear such expenses. They had to do it in the Free State.

said the hon. member for Border had referred to the fact that they had had scab in the Cape for the past 25 years, and yet he wanted the disease to be instantly eradicated. Did the Opposition do that when they were in power? He held that in dipping the conditions prevailing in the various Provinces should be considered. Otherwise scab would not be eradicated, but the sheep would be killed. In the Transvaal they had to trek with the sheep to the bush-veld, and it was there that the animals became infected. The hon. member went on to urge the necessity for more scab inspectors being appointed, and pointed out that in the whole of the bush-veld there was only one inspector. It was in the bush-veld that the disease should be first eradicated. He objected to dipping material being supplied cheaper to natives than to European farmers. In the Pretoria district the Department supplied it to the natives at 4s. per gallon, whilst Europeans had to pay 6s. 6d. per gallon. That looked like a monopoly, and the time for monopolies had gone by. He thought white people ought to enjoy the same privileges.

brought up the case of Mr. F. G. Meyer, formerly sheep inspector at Boshof. He was removed last year, and he wanted to know whether some arrangement could not be made to take this man back into the department. He was in the employ of the department for 6½ years, and at the end of 1911 he was removed on account, he was told, of some reorganisation. It was found afterwards that it was not on account of reorganisation but because of some representations being made. Once more they found that a member of the Assembly had been boasting round the country that he had got rid of this man, and this had never been refuted. He wanted to know from the Prime Minister whether there was any real reason for the removal of Mr. Meyer. Mr. Meyer carried most excellent testimonials from the chiefs of the departments and the officials of the Agricultural Department. He doubted whether there were many inspectors in the service who had better testimonials, and if the Minister wanted the duties of sheep inspectors carried out thoroughly he should take the opportunity of taking back into his service a man of this class.

said that some hon. members seemed to wish to make a second Budget debate on this vote. Replying to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, as to why there was an increase in the vote for scab, he wished to say that the increase was due to the fact that scab had never before, as now, been properly tackled in the Cape. There were parts which had never yet seen a scab inspector. But there were other causes for the increase. In the case of inspectors who became ill, there was no one to take their place. The filling of these temporary vacancies would cost £2,800 per year. Then there were increments, in all accounting for this increase. However, the position in regard to scab in South Africa was much better than ever before. There was much more co-operation, and much more energy than before in this respect. Now Johannesburg was their best testing place in regard to scab, and he could say that last year 83,000 more sheep than the year before had been taken to Johannesburg, so that, in all, about 800,000 sheep had been slaughtered there, there being very little scab among these sheep— certainly much less than before.

If they were to have a tax such as suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, they would see that the effects would be very bad, as it would practically mean placing a tax on the progressive farmer who wished to get his sheep clean. Replying to a question by the hon. member for Prieska, the Minister said there was more scab among bastard sheep than among woolled sheep, which was to be understood owing to the fact that it was the wool farmer who suffered most from scab. As a result of the drought, it had been difficult to cope properly with scab this year. As a matter of fact, the sheep were so weak and thin that they could not be dipped. As a result, there might, perhaps, be a little more scab now, but the precautions taken were such that they could properly deal with a possible repetition of the drought. Replying to the hon. member for Barkly, the Minister said he wondered whether the hon. member had spoken seriously. He pointed out that if the drought was too serious in one district, that district need not come under the compulsory simultaneous dipping regulations until November. The successive Proclamations had been the outcome of rain falling in various districts, the magistrates being advised that dipping had become practicable. Magistrates in the various parts of the country had been asked originally to advise as to the best time for dipping in their districts. The reports of these magistrates had been awaited, so that something practical might be achieved. It was impossible to compel dipping when there was no water. As regarded the suspension of Inspector Berry, the Minister pointed out that, when the hon. member (Dr. Watkins) had originally asked the question in this respect, the Chief Inspector had been busily engaged in connection with the simultaneous dipping. He (General Botha), however, had at once given instructions that the inquiry should be held as soon as possible. Replying to Mr. Schreiner, General Botha said that, with a view to educating the population, the scab inspector in the part of the country he had referred to had helped the people in fixing up the dips and dipping the sheep. That was to prevent accidents. The hon. member was mistaken in regard to the number of sheep that could be dipped every day. A few thousand could be dipped daily by one man. He had received certain suggestions from the people in the Transkei, who wished to appoint their own people to deal with the dipping. However, Government supervision would have to remain, but he thought there was much in the suggestions of these people, who, if they wished to cooperate, should be allowed and encouraged to do so. It was in accordance with the regulations that officials who reached the age of 65 had to retire. It was the Minister’s duty to comply with the law, and he did so. On the question of keeping the tanks full, and afterwards emptying them, he held that the people who had tanks were responsible for them. As regarded the question of the closing of roads, raised by Mr. Venter, General Botha said that no scab inspector could close a road without the consent of the department, and if any such case occurred he would be glad to get the particulars.

The Minister went on to express his disappointment at the remarks of the hon. member for Border. They had thousands of people to-day who were not satisfied or aware that the tick was the cause of the disease. It was hopeless to try to drive 45,000 people to dip their cattle. They must gradually be educated up to the matter. If they wished to drive the country with the sjambok, they would never get matters right. The example of Australia had been quoted. But what had it cost Australia to exterminate scab? If the hon. member for Border had been in his place at the time he had introduced the Cattle Diseases Act, he would never have got the Bill through. He had gone further than anyone else had ever done. He did not agree with the remarks made the previous night by the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir J.P. Fitzpatrick), in regard to forcing people. They must go on gradually, and he (General Botha) would always be in the forefront to eradicate the disease. But they must be practical and not spoil everything by wrong steps. The hon. member for Border had said that he (General Botha) was afraid of a rebellion. He was not; but he did not wish to cause discontent through misunderstandings. He was willing to lay on the table the lists of people who had been punished in connection with scab. Personally, he was not so much in favour of simultaneous dipping. The circumstances this year had made such dipping practically impossible, and scab had been spread. In regard to the £1,000 for dipping materials, the speaker pointed to the necessity of having such materials in the outside districts, and where access to the towns was difficult. However, nothing was given away, and all the money was returned. The department did not sell dip to natives. They and the Native Commissioners had made arrangements with the shopkeepers to supply a good dip. It was expected that white people would be able to help themselves.

said he was sorry to see that the Prime Minister had lost his temper on account of the criticisms that had been advanced. His right hon. friend made certain references to him because he (Sir Thomas) disagreed with what he said about Australia. His right hon. friend had said that the disease had been stamped out in Australia by the ruthless slaughter of animals, but if he would look up the subject he would find out that it was by ruthlessly administering the laws of the country irrespective of persons, and when it was necessary administering it by a posse of police, that the disease was stamped out in Australia. And really, when his right hon. friend turned to the hon. member for Tembuland and told him he hoped the scab inspector would not follow his advice and dip six or seven hundred a day, but that they would dip thousands a day, he gave the House the reason why scab had not been stamped out. Anybody who knew anything about the dipping of sheep knew that in 99 cases out of a hundred the animals had to be caught and thrown into the dip. In ordinary circumstances one must allow the sheep to dry before putting them in the kraal, and, therefore, more than six or seven hundred could not adequately be dipped in a day. They had to be kept in the dip for one or two minutes, and the reason why there was still so much scab was because the farmers would not take the time and trouble to dip properly.

The stuff had got to boil, it had to be drawn off, the dip to be measured, and the sheep put through. His right hon. friend took credit to himself for having passed the Diseases of Stock Bill. When he (Sir Thomas) went to England he was interviewed on the question, and he gave the Prime Minister every credit for passing that Bill through the House, because he believed that having passed the Bill and having the machinery, he would administer the Bill in a thorough and efficient manner.

So he did.

The Minister of Finance says “So he did.” Will hon. members who sit behind him say “So he did” when the districts which they represent—the people holding the political views of my right hon. friend—rose up in protest against scabby sheep being allowed to travel through the districts? The farmers of Hopetown district protested against scabby sheep being allowed to trek through the country bringing disease in their train.

Continuing, he said there was no good in having perfect legislation if the Minister of Agriculture was not prepared to administer it perfectly. And while they had this disease it was no good issuing Proclamations and altering them the next day. Ho acknowledged that there might be periods of drought, but it was not that night that they first heard of the alteration of these Proclamations. He brought the matter to the notice of the House two years ago—they were issued to-day and altered to-morrow. Why was that done? It was owing to the representations brought to the door of the Government and the desire of the Government to meet every section of the people throughout the country. It was utterly impossible to deal with a contagious disease—if they wanted to stamp it out—in that way. There was never drought in every part of the country. The reason they were told that there had been sympathetic treatment was owing to the drought, but there was not always drought. What has been done in Australia could be done here if the laws were efficiently administered. If they did not do so the disease would be with them always, and it was costing the country hundreds of thousands of pounds. It not only affected the man who had scabby sheep, but it affected everybody who had sheep, because while there was scab there was no security on the wool market. He alluded to resolutions passed by the Divisional Council of Phillipstown. The majority of people resident in that district held the political views of his right hon. friend. If he would only adopt a determined attitude the majority of the Dutch and English farmers of the country would be with him and they would stamp out the disease. At the rate things were going they would be in the same position 20 years hence. One excuse advanced was that they could not dip because the wool was long and the sheep were weak, but when the wool was long there should be no necessity to dip. They were never going to eradicate scab if they allowed these scabby sheep to travel through the country. Dealing with the Minister’s criticism with regard to what had been done in the Cape, Sir Thomas pointed to the fact that as the result of investigations inspectors were forced to pass an examination to show that they were competent. He believed that if Mr. Allan Davidson was given a free hand he would clear the country in three years. A good deal of advance was made, but they never had the law which gave them the advantages which the Diseases of Stock Bill gave. They never had the cooperation that the right hon. gentleman had in this House in the passing of that Bill. The right hon. gentleman knew that, in view of having the Bill passed, the Opposition took the extraordinary course of having only two members as members of the committee, and when the Bill came into the House it was largely supported from the Opposition side of the House, and the criticism was largely from the other side of the House. It was owing to the opinions expressed by hon. members on the Minister’s side of the House that progress had been of the character it was. Those were the people who dictated the policy so far as scab eradication was concerned. He would ask anybody in that House, or any farmer outside, if they had formed the opinion that the farmers who kept their flocks clean did not get the protection they were entitled to expect. The Prime Minister did not know the support he had behind him. If he would only consider the people who were desirous of stamping out the disease, and not those who were desirous of moving their sheep, whether they were clean or not. Was it not the hon. member for Pretoria, South, who said during the evening that people must be allowed to remove their sheep when the period of trekking came round. If the people who considered they must move their sheep when the trekking period came round realised the law was to be rigorously enforced, they would see that when the period came around their sheep would be clean, and there would be no difficulty.

Proceeding, the hon. member said he would like to make a suggestion. He agreed that there was no dip which was so likely to eradicate the disease as lime and sulphur, but he would like his right hon. friend to use his Chemical Department and his scientific officers for the purpose of seeing if a dip of an easily made and cheap character could be recommended to the farmers for occasional dipping. In many Karoo districts at the present time the tick had increased largely, and they found that although lime and sulphur was the best dip for dealing with the scab insect, it would not kill the tick. He would be glad if some investigations could be made to settle upon a dip which would not be injurious to the sheep, and not injurious to the wool, and which would kill the tick as well as the scab insect. It was becoming a serious matter in the Karoo, and the tick was becoming a serious danger to the country. With regard to the item, “Purchase of wool for instruction purposes, £3,500.” he thought that amount was rather large, and he would like to know the reason they had for spending such a large sum.

regretted that the previous speaker should have spoken after him. The £3,500 referred to was for the purchase of wool for the agricultural college, so as to teach the students in regard to sorting, etc. The wool was again sold afterwards.

said he did not see the point that was going to be gained by that kind of gag which had been put out by the Prime Minister about frightening people and that sort of thing. He had made a statement about what he (Sir Percy) said the previous night which was not correct. He did not talk about forcing 70,000 farmers—

I never quoted 70,000 farmers.

Well, make it 20,000, or any number the hon. gentleman likes. What he said perfectly distinctly was that if they could enlist the sympathy of nineteen-twentieths of the farmers he was not concerned to see the one twentieth would not rebel against the law.

The only point he could see about rebellion and talking about resistance and all that, was that it would encourage people to do it. The result was to incite the people, whom, he (the Minister) had just said, were ignorant of the subject, to this very resistance that he had just complained about. The complaint against the Prime Minister was not that he passed the law last year, although there were no signs that the law was going to be what it came out at the finish. The law was good enough. There was no cordiality shown to the proposal that powers of compulsion should be taken. They on that side pressed that the Prime Minister should at least take the powers. Coupled with that there was a suggestion that they should even put up a million of money to pay for all the dips, and charge three or four per cent. per annum, and in time it would all be paid off. All this was suggested in detail. His hon. friend (Mr. Blaine) said the present system penalised the progressive farmer, and the Prime Minister retorted that a proposal for taxing these men would penalise the progressive man. How would he do it? What tax would he have to pay in comparison with what he lost when three years ago scabby sheep passed through his farm at night. Others had got it. That was the tax they paid for the purpose of allowing scabby sheep to be trekked through the country and no protection. If these people chose to have scabby sheep, let those sheep die scabby on their own farms, instead of trekking through the country.

said he would like an answer from the Minister in regard to a recent appointment of a wool expert He understood that a Cape Colonial expert had been overlooked in favour of a man of much shorter service.

said that he had had no answer in regard to the case of ex-Inspector Meyer.

said that the wool expert was an extremely capable man. He pointed out how the country was divided into two districts, with McNabb in charge of the Cape and part of the Free State and Maddison at the head of the Transvaal, Natal, and Vrijburg. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Weenen, he could not make any definite promise as to Meyer’s reemployment, but he would advise the inspector to make application to the Sheep Department, so that his application might be considered on its merits if a vacancy occurred.

said that when this matter was brought up in the House last session, the Minister of Agriculture promised that he would look into it, and he understood that he had also promised the man himself.

I did not. I promised nothing to anybody.

The sub-head was agreed to.

said he would like to see reduced or wiped out altogether the item of £19,000 for purchase and maintenance of animals for experimental purposes. He objected to this item because of the large amount of money involved, and the very few satisfactory results they had so far received from such extravagant expenditure. So far, they had had very little better than a policy of waste. Let them take the many thousands of pounds they had spent in the Union in trying to cure, before they had tried to understand, what was called tick fever. The authorities were not at all agreed as to what tick fever was. The hon. member went on to criticise the value of the tuberculin test. We were wasting money over this matter, and the methods of the bacterological experts were discredited. Leprosy was connected with the question of bacteriology, and he wished to show that we were wasting money. (Cries of “Order.”)

The subject is veterinary research.

The presence of a germ in the blood is no proof at all that there is a disease, or that the germ causes a disease. The hon. member was proceeding to quote from the “Lancet” and to refer to the methods adopted to cure cases of hydrophobia, when he was again called to order. He resumed his seat with the remark, “Ignorance is worshipped.”

emphasised that the country profited from the money spent on experiments on animals As a result of these experiments inoculated mules could now go into the most unhealthy parts of the country. The last speaker would not have made his remarks if he had been better acquainted with the facts. Millions of pounds had been lost owing to horse-sickness. They had already found a cure for the disease in mules, and Dr. Theiler had found a specific for horses also. The item ought not to be deleted.

said that a month or so ago the Minister of Agriculture promised that he would take certain steps to deal with the outbreak of lamziekte in the south-eastern districts, but the farmers there stated that nothing had been done, although the Minister had led them to believe that experts would be sent from the Agricultural Department. The farmers were being ruined, and one had lost everything. So far as they could see, there was no visible cause for the disease.

wished to know whether Dr. Theiler had succeeded in getting some experts to deal with gal-lamziekte, and whether the Government proposed establishing some experimental stations.

said he had the greatest sympathy with the farmers in the Port Elizabeth district whose cattle were suffering from gal-lamziekte, and regretted that the experts had not yet found how the disease referred to could be successfully coped with. So far, however, they considered that it would be useless to establish a further experimental station. The disease was spread over the whole country; and more stations would only make the inquiry more difficult. Experiments were continued at Onderste Poort. Dr. Theiler had found that cattle which had been muzzled and had been fed in the stable did not contract the disease. Therefore they had concluded that the disease was the result of the grass eaten by the cattle. Dr. Robertson, who knew Port Elizabeth well, was making the researches at Onderste Poort. In regard to the question by Mr. Wessels, he (General Botha) had sent a cable to the High Commissioner to instruct Dr. Theiler who was at present in Germany, to get two more experts, but no reply had as yet been received. The vaccine that was supplied in Bechuanaland was being examined.

said if the Minister of Agriculture would look at the correspondence he would see that two experts were in favour of the establishment of a local station, as the conditions in the south-eastern districts of the Cape were very different from those which prevailed in Bechuanaland. This, however, was stopped by orders either from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture—at least, so the local farmers said.

wished to know how Dr. Theiler was progressing with his horse sickness investigation. Horse sickness was causing considerable loss at Durban.

There is no quorum in the House.

Never mind.

Go on.

said that so far as the remedy for horse sickness was concerned, it had proved successful. The inoculation was proceeding, and it was anticipated that it would be nearly as successful as the remedy for mules.

The sub-head was agreed to.

moved to delete the items of £300, engineer-in-charge, Vryburg Cold Stores, and £543, maintenance and running expenses, a total reduction of £843. He said that it was clear that these stores had done much to increase the value of property in Bechuanaland, and that the farmers had derived considerable benefit from them, but he thought they ought no longer to be a charge upon the State, but should be run by the farmers of Bechuanaland.

hoped the hon. member would not insist on his proposal. He agreed with very much of what he had said, but hoped the amount would be left on the Estimates this year, and he (the Minister) would try to get a co-operative society to take the matter over. The district was a poor one.

The amendment was withdrawn.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On reaching vote F, Botany and agronomy, £2,828,

rose to point out that they were dealing with the agricultural vote, and he drew attention to the absence of farmers on the opposite benches. He said they would have to go and look in another part of the House to find them; that was the interest they were taking in the matter. With the number then occupying the benches on the Government side of the House, they would be glad to divide on a no-confidence motion.

said it would be impossible to get the vote through that evening.

said he hoped they would go on a little longer.

said they had been sitting every day this week on committees from early morning. The Prime Minister’s appeal was not a reasonable one, and the House was nearly empty.

pointed out that they had passed the scab vote already, and sometimes it took them four days to do that in the old Cape Parliament.

appealed to the Prime Minister to report progress, and said it was unreasonable to expect them to sit late night after night. They had got on exceedingly well indeed, and they should not be put to difficulties in getting home.