from W. J. Bennewith, for leave to contribute arrears to Pension Fund.

from J. D. Shannon, for leave to contribute arrears to Pension Fund.

from Ethel M. Baker, Milnerton Public School, for condonation of breaks in her service.

from J. W. Horn and 100 others, for remission of repatriation debts.

from W. S. Metcalf, for leave to contribute arrears to Pension Fund.

from Josephine G. Mays, teacher, for condonation of a break in her service.

had given notice of the following question, which had been standing over since March 24th: (1) Whether he is aware that a circular has been issued prohibiting the sale of golden syrup to natives and coloured people working on the mines; and, if so (2) whether timely notice was given to shopkeepers dealing in golden syrup to enable them to dispose of their supplies; and, if not (3) whether he will take into consideration the desirability of having the circular so amended that dealers in golden syrup may have an opportunity to dispose of their stock before the circular is put into force; and (4) whether in future the interest of shopkeepers in matters of this kind will be taken into consideration?

now replied as follows: (1) No such circular has been issued. A circular was, however, issued by the Director of Native-Labour to Inspectors in the Rand Labour Districts on January 7, 1914, directing them to interview mine managers in their respective districts and to request them in the event of a strike to instruct compound managers to prohibit the entry into compounds of golden syrup and pearl barley, and, further, to use their influence to prevent the sale of these articles to natives by storekeepers on their properties during the duration of any strike. The object in view was to prevent the entry of liquor or the ingredients from which native drinks are commonly manufactured into the compounds. (2) Circumstances did not permit of timely notice being given to shopkeepers with a view to their disposing of their supplies of golden syrup. (3) As already indicated, the circular does not prohibit the supply of golden syrup, but urges mine and compound managers to take such steps as may be practicable to prevent the sale of golden syrup which will be used for the manufacture of intoxicating drinks. It does not, therefore, require any amendment. (4) Representations have been made by agents of the storekeepers concerned in so far as they have been affected by the circular, and these are engaging consideration.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) How many drills are now at work on Crown land in Bechuanaland; (2) whether it is proposed to augment this number of drills, and if so, by how many; (3) how many bore-holes have been put down, and with what result?

replied: (1) Five Government drills are now at work on Crown lands in Bechuanaland. (2) It is not proposed to augment this number for the present. (3) Forty-five bore-holes have been drilled to date in the Genesa block and on block F.C. 6 and on the small block east of F.C. 6, of which 33 have been successful, yielding supplies varying from 1,400 to 80,000 gallons per day.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the instructions given to the surveyors entrusted with the survey and sub-division of Crown land in Bechuanaland with regard to the size of allotments; and (2) when it is proposed to proceed with the allotment of farms already surveyed or whether allotment is to be defined until both blocks Nos. 2 and 5 have been surveyed?

replied: (1) The instructions in question provide for sub-division of the land into farms of approximately 2,500 morgen. This is in terms of a recommendation submitted by the Land Board, Orange Free State, after a personal inspection of the land by certain of its members. (2) It is proposed to deal with the land in terms of the Land Settlement Act, 1912, and as soon as a sufficient number of farms have been surveyed to justify the expense of another inspection by the Land Board before mentioned (which will have to value the land in terms of the law) the necessary “ Gazette ” notice will be published. I am informed that so far no diagrams have yet been received from the surveyors at present carrying out the survey.

said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a personal statement. On February 10, in consequence of an answer made by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Ficksburg, I stated in the House that I had publicly charged the Prime Minister with attempting to bribe me, and that my ground for this charge was a sentence in a private letter written to me by him at the end of 1912, in reply to a letter of mine stating, inter alia, that I disagreed with his action in expelling the hon. member for Smithfield from the Ministry. The sentence was: “I had thought of something nice for you, but it is best to leave everything now until the trouble is over.” I at the time understood this as intending to imply that the Prime Minister wished me to know that he had something of value which he was prepared to give me if my conduct during the crisis commended itself to him, and that the real meaning of the words was: Keep quiet and you may hope to get something nice. It was in the belief that the Prime Minister’s words meant what I have said and that I was under a duty in the matter that I referred to the incident at Pearston and subsequently read out at Bloemfontein the words to which I objected, and expressed the opinion that they were intended as an attempt to bribe me. After the Prime Minister had made his statement in this House an interpretation of the words other than that which I had attached to them was for the first time suggested to me. That other interpretation was that after my taking an open stand against him in regard to the Ministerial crisis the Prime Minister was not prepared to offer me what he had previously thought of offering me for fear that his motives might be construed and that he might then be exposed to the accusation that he was endeavouring to influence me unduly. Had that interpretation been suggested to me in time I should not have referred to the matter in public or in private. I now desire in the most public way to accept it, and to withdraw unreservedly the charge which I made against the Prime Minister of attempting to bribe me and to express regret at having made it.

said: Since the, discussion which took place last Wednesday on this matter, a complete confession has been voluntarily made by one of the clerks in the Defence Department. After that confession, which is in the fullest terms possible, it will be unnecessary to pursue the matter further, as I do not think it would serve any useful purpose. I would, therefore, like to move that this Order be discharged from the paper.

Before

Does the hon. member object to the Order being discharged?

Yes. His only reason for objecting was that he did not think it fit that the incident should be closed on the mere statement of the Minister of Defence. It had been alleged by the Minister that some thief or spy had given the information, and it was further made to appear as if some extraordinary secret had been divulged, whereas the real secrets were contained in the documents destroyed. The Minister had also made insinuations against members of the Postal and Telegraph Service—

I said some thief or spy.

Yes. I so frequently mix up the Minister with the editor of the “Cape Times ” that I have probably fallen in error. Continuing, he said Ministers were very unfortunate. They always did things from excellent motives, but other people placed a different construction upon them. For example, they maintained that Martial Law was not proclaimed in order to suppress Trade Unions

I must point out that the merits of that matter cannot be again discussed. The point before the House is whether this Order should not be discharged.

thought he was entitled to review the proceedings which led up to the incident now before the House, in order to show why the Order should not be discharged. Those proceedings were looked upon by the country as being an attempt to pass some degree of contempt on his colleagues and himself. But he thought he had better stop at that point. He had quotations from the Minister’s speech which made him (Mr. Creswell) out to be in possession of more information than he had given to that House. That Defence clerk was going to be punished, although the information divulged was only of a nature that was frequently supplied to members of that House.

ruled that the member for Jeppe’s remarks were irrelevant to the question before the House.

said he would content himself by supporting the motion that the report be discussed.

The question “that the report be now considered” was then put, and the “Noes” were declared to have it.

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

Ayes 37.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and J. Howat, tellers.

Noes—49.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jaerer, Andries Lourens

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Marwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

said he would appeal to the House to allow the hon. member for Jeppe to make a personal explanation in a matter that affected his standing, and he (Mr. Merriman) hoped that that would be allowed.

was understood to say that if the hon. member was allowed to make a statement dealing with the conduct of that House, nobody would be allowed to reply.

said there was nothing before the House.

said he would ask for a ruling in order to make sure, as there appeared to be some misunderstanding. He took it that the Select Committee would continue with its work, and then report to the House in the ordinary course.

said there was nothing before the House, and the incident closed.

in moving the second reading of the Workmen’s Wages Protection Bill, said that after the somewhat electric atmosphere that had pervaded the chamber during the last few days members, he thought, would feel it a relief to turn to a little practical measure such as the one before the House. Last year the hon. member for Roodepoort brought up the matter of protecting workmen’s wages and introduced a Bill, to which objection was taken on certain grounds. The Bill was mainly objected to on the ground that it extended the rights of contractors, sub-contractors, and persons who sold building material, and gave greater rights than under the common law. It was felt that though the Bill was excellently conceived, it ought to be withdrawn and that a Bill dealing specially with workmen’s wages should be introduced, and the Government undertook to deal with the matter. The present Bill was confined to protecting the wages of workmen who might be employed by contractors. It did not seek to give workmen employed by Government departments, by municipalities, and other employers, any greater rights than at present, but because contractors in the past, usually small contractors, had finished buildings, and, after having received the contract price, suddenly disappeared without paying their workmen’s wages, it had been found desirable in this country as in other countries to protect these wages. This did not interfere with the usual legal process with regard to the recovery of wages.

To protect wages it was provided in the Bill that moneys payable by the principal might not be assigned by the contractor to any of his creditors, and the creditors might not attach money payable by the principal to the contractor without the workmen’s wages being secured. The workman was entitled to receive a fair share of the value created by his own work, and the procedure in order to make good his claim was very simple. If wages were not paid on demand, the workman might serve notice within 48 hours, and require the principal to retain in his hands and not pay the contractor sufficient money to meet the workman’s claim. If the contractor had some dispute with his workmen it might be necessary for the workman to issue process in the magistrate’s court, and after judgment had been obtained the money was then attached in the hands of the principal, and after the lapse of a short while, to allow the chance of appeal, must be paid over by the principal to the workmen. If the principal did not want to retain the money he could pay it into the hands of the clerk of the court, where it would remain, subject to any order of court or agreement between the parties. The machinery was most simple, and the least expensive that could be devised in the circumstances. The amount of wages that could be attached in this way was £25, and the law would protect those who through poverty or other causes were unable to assert their legal rights. It was thought better to fix a definite sum instead of making it an indefinite sum. In the event of workmen being employed by a sub-contractor, then the workmen would have the same right to attach money in the hands of the principal contractor due to the sub-contractor. There was a clause which provided that any number of workmen might combine together in the institution of an action for the recovery of their wage? instead of each workman being required to raise his action separately. The Bill he might claim, had been carefully drafted, although he would not say perfectly, and some advantage had been taken of legislation on the same subject in other parts of the British Empire, and he claimed, with all due modesty, that it was an improvement on legislation in other parts of the Empire.

said that the Bill dealt only with workmen who worked with contractors, and did not touch the whole question of the securing of wages for work, which was the object of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar) in the Bill he had introduced the previous year. They now had a Bill of 15 clauses which did one thing only, and that was that in case of contractors it gave the workmen the right to go past the contractor to the principal, but if there was a sub-contractor, the workmen did not even got that advantage. They might have a case of a bricklayer going to the principal which the carpenter could not do. The Minister had said that the Bill was carefully drafted, but the hon. member referred to clause 2 to show that it was not. Proceeding, he said, with regard to the men engaged by small employers, that when they were financially embarrassed they found that they got their wages in arrears, the financial embarrassment became acute, and the estate became insolvent, and they found numbers of workmen not getting their wages. That was an evil which the Government ought to try to remedy, and that ought to be included in such legislation. Alluding to the 48 hours’ notice, the hon. member said it was rather a short time, and if the workman did not give notice within that time he had no claim. He got no preference, and got no benefits under that Bill. There was no protection given until something took place, and no absolute protection that the workman was going to get his share. On the whole, he supported the second reading, but would move amendments when the Bill came into Committee.

said that he certainly appreciated the action of the Minister who had introduced that Bill that day. It was some years too late, but he supposed: better late than never. He (Mr. Haggar) was always inclined to take half a loaf when he could get no more, and whether the Bill was incomplete, so long as it went in the right direction, he was thankful for small mercies. With the principles they were all in hearty agreement. He was very sorry to find that, after reading that Bill and all the law, the Bill was imperfect in its development. He was not there, however, to offer carping criticism. Referring to the Bill he had introduced the previous Session, he said that the exception which had been taken to it was not on the merits, but because it came from a wrong part of the House. There had been so many interested persons who thought their interests were at stake that they had thought his Bill should be put out. Proceeding the hon. member said that the area was altogether too limited. He failed to see why a sub-contractor should not be protected, and why a merchant should not be protected in the supply of material. He had no doubt that recent events had, to a certain extent, impressed the Government, but he did not want to rub it in. The hon. member said that there was an omission in the Bill in regard to weekly payments, and when the Bill came into Committee he would move for the insertion of a clause in favour of weekly payments in the event of no other provision having been made. In the absence of any other understanding, payments ought to be made weekly. A man was only paid a portion of what he had earned, and was not paid in advance, but the money was his own before he received it, and that being so, he had a first claim. That Bill was very largely a hash-up of the Queensland Bill. He did not object to that, but the Queensland Bill had been based upon the experience of 53 years of New Zealand, Victoria, and New South Wales, and in the Queensland Bill they found an important proviso that workmen when they did enter upon work might give notice to the principal or owner that in the event of the contractor not paying them at a given time they would call upon him, so that the principal had his eyes opened. That was an excellent provision, and had worked very well. The principal was not taken by surprise, and was able to prepare for it. He hoped the Minister would also provide for that in the Bill. If the money was not paid in 48 hours, and supposing that took place on a Saturday, on Monday at 12 o’clock the contractor might disclaim. Then the man had to go to the court, and had lost his time. It was very clumsy, very inconvenient, and very wrong.

That suggestion struck him as being particularly wise. They wanted to save the workmen all the money they possibly could. In 1906 that matter was discussed in the Natal Parliament, and on that occasion they got part of the Bill through, but they could not get the whole of the Bill through. What he was asking now was that the Minister should introduce the proviso he suggested. There was a form prescribed in the Bill with regard to the manner in which a workman should put in his claim. In Queensland there was a much simpler system. There a workman had only to send in a written claim. Then again, here a definite sum was mentioned in the Bill, and he thought that that provision ought to be altered. The Queensland Act laid down a time limit of 30 days. What they principally wanted here was a guarantee that where a man could earn his wages he should get them, and that he should get them without friction with his employers. He hoped that the Bill would be passed by the House in proper form; but he wished to suggest that a Select Committee be appointed to go into the matter thoroughly, and then perhaps they might have before the House a satisfactory measure.

said he thought the Bill was an honest attempt to protect workmen and enable them to recover their wages from employers. The principle of the Bill was to give a workman the first charge on any money due by a contractor. He did not know whether the Minister had calculated what the immediate effect of the Bill would he. There was a large number of contractors who, unless they got financial assistance, could not submit a tender for work, and it was a feet that once that Bill became law it would be difficult to get anybody to advance a contractor money unless the lender was given cession of the contract. What would happen was this— they would throw the contracting work into the hands of the rich men who could finance themselves. Section 2 of the Bill contains a provision that would operate very harshly on any creditor of the contractor. There was another phase of the matter in clause 3, which dealt with orders from a merchant in connection with contracts. The whole Bill went directly against any sort of cession which would prejudice the rights of any workman. He would like to point out what would be the position of a contractor if he could not give an order on a principal who was not protected by law—that would place the contractor in a most invidious position. With regard to the question of the position of workmen in case of the insolvency of the employer, he pointed out that in the Cape Colony there was no protection for their workmen in the recovery of their wages. They had the position here now that to all intents and purposes the workman had no preference at all, except in certain cases in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Companies Act, and under Act 15 of 1856. The principal thing was that they should have uniformity in the laws of the different Provinces of the Union. He thought it was only right that they should give preference to workmen in the matter of the recovery of their wages in the case of an insolvent estate. He hoped that that phase of the matter would have the consideration of the Minister. He agreed that there were many details in the measure that should be considered by a Select Committee.

said he thought the Minister ought to be satisfied that the Bill was somewhat imperfect. The Bill went too far in some directions, and not far enough in others.

It was not possible within the four corners of this Bill to protect the merchants. Frequently the principle had been enunciated that whenever Government brought in a measure, good or bad, the Opposition must oppose it. But that was a policy that the Unionist Party was not going to accept. The Unionist policy was the one laid down by Sir Starr Jameson about four years ago, when he said that, whenever the Government brought in a measure for the general interest of the country, it was the duty of the Opposition to support that measure. (Hear, hear.) If it were the duty of the Opposition to oppose on every occasion the hon. members on the cross-benches should not support this Bill, because they stated that they had been sent here to oppose the Government. Yet they heard from the mouthpiece of that corner of the House that they were going to support the Bill, and quite right too. The Bill was imperfect, and would not secure the end which was aimed at. For instance, if the workman had to wait 48 hours before he could make any attachment, he would find that all the money had gone. (Hear, hear.) The moment the wages were due to the workman, and he had applied for them to the contractor without success, he should be able to make an attachment. They might congratulate the Government, at any rate, that at last, after the many strenuous years in this House, and all the efforts made by the Opposition to induce the Government to introduce something of an industrial nature, they had now got something. (Hear, hear.) The Unionists were thankful on behalf of the workmen, for they also represented them. Unfortunately, however, the workmen were led to believe that the only people who could look after their interests in the House were the corporal and six men on the cross-benches.

In principle he welcomed the measure, but it did not go far enough. Why should there not be a complete and comprehensive measure, which would protect all employees? It was generally believed that workmen and employees of all classes had some protection so far as the payment of wages was concerned, but the sooner the minds of these people were cleared of the idea that they had any preference, except in a few solitary cases, the better. The words in line 12, “no first charge shall exist,” were liable to lead to a great deal of litigation. Supposing an attachment were made by a workman on a Monday for his previous week’s wages, and on the following day the contractor sued was made insolvent, under the Insolvency Ordinance the cost of the administration of the estate would be a first charge on the estate, so that there would be two first conflicting charges. He was afraid that if the Bill went through as it was drafted, legal complications would arise. The New Zealand measure contained a provision that, in case a principal failed to pay his workmen, he was liable to a fine of £50, or three months’ imprisonment. The Government of the Union had not protected the mercantile community sufficiently. There were many defects in the Bill, and it was quite possible, if it were sent to a Select Committee, it would emerge in a better form; but it was the duty of the Government to bring its measures forward in such a manner that they could be dealt with in the House. If the Opposition were to blame, it was for the help they had given to the Union Government in Select Committee. One great defect of the measure before the House was that employees could not be paid until seven days after attachment. There was another unfortunate provision that employees must obtain judgment within two months, but in the Transvaal it sometimes took three months before a person could get judgment. Supposing an employee, owing to illness, could not proceed with his case, the object of the Bill would be defeated. There was no provision in the Bill, where an employee was forced to go to the magistrate to get an order upon the principal to retain his wages, as to who should pay the costs of that order and the stamp upon it. Provision should be made for that. The whole of the Bill should be very much simplified. He was in thorough accord with the hon. member for Roodepoort when he said that the procedure was too complicated. Again, he considered that if a principal paid the contractor, as they might suppose he would, on a Saturday, it was the duty of the contractor to pay the employee at once. If he did not do so, the employee should be able to lodge a caveat without delay.

said that a complaint had been made that sufficient notice had not been given of this Bill. In all fairness to the Minister, he thought he should say that the Bill was sent round in the latter part of last year to most of the Chambers of Commerce.

Which Bill?

Well, a Bill to protect workmen’s wages. Proceeding, he said that only yesterday he had some copies of the Bill distributed to the Master Builders’ Association, and he had a reply from them this morning, stating that they had no fault to find with it. As to the position of builders’ merchants in this Bill, he must say that he considered that they were not dealt with unfairly. It was true that the workman had the first call upon the product, the building, or whatever it might be. That, he thought, was only fair. In any case, it might fairly be asked why should the merchant who supplied materials get a preference over the workman’s wages? What had been done now was that they had given the workman his proper preference. After all, the workman only got a preference so far as his own wages were concerned. He thought it would have been well to have followed the New Zealand Act in regard to its provisions as to breaches of contract. With reference to the question of wages, in cases of insolvency, that, to his mind, was a matter that could only be dealt with under an Insolvency Act. As they knew, an Insolvency Bill was on the stocks at the present moment, and he had no doubt that, when that Bill was brought forward, it would consolidate the insolvency laws of the several Provinces. With regard to shopkeepers and employers of that class, he really did not see why the lien should be extended to cases of this kind. The employee had his remedy against the assets of the employer, and could institute his action forthwith. With regard to the maximum preference allowed for, he considered that it would have been better to have taken a basis of time rather than to have specified a maximum amount. He thought this was a short and comparatively simple Bill and one that could be properly threshed out on the floor of the House, and that there was no necessity to send it to a Select Committee. He cordially supported the motion for the second reading.

said that, generally speaking, he supported the Bill. What he had to say he did not wish to advance in any contentious spirit. He thought no measure was more urgently desired, especially amongst building trade employees. Cases had been repeatedly brought under his notice where workmen had lost their wages, owing to the sudden disappearance of their employers. The few points he wished to bring forward were rather in the way of little details, though they affected the main principle of the Bill. They on those benches had all along contended that a Bill of this kind should be based on time and not on a lump sum. They had always contended that wages should be paid weekly. Because there was no provision of that kind, they found themselves almost on the first clause in some difficulty. A limit of preference was specified up to £25, and they were absolutely in the dark to know how that sum was arrived at. If provision were made for the weekly payment of wages, they could limit the period over which the preference should extend. The Bill, to his mind, was very limited, though not in the sense mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, because the definition, he found, extended to almost all work. The Bill was limited, however, because it did not go far enough to provide that wages should be paid weekly, and there was no provision—no very necessary provision—that the principal should retain certain portions of the contract money for the purpose of protecting the workman’s lien. The Public Works Department retained certain moneys on contracts executed under their direction, and he thought everybody else who gave out building contracts retained certain moneys until the building was finished, and for some time afterwards, so as to see that the work was properly performed. In the opinion of members on those benches, part of this money should be retained for the purpose of seeing that the workmen’s wages were paid. He noticed that there was a limitation in regard to the preference which might lead to some complication. The workman’s lien was limited to the work he had actually performed for the principal. They knew that in some trades, a carpenter for instance, it was quite common for a man to be engaged on one job for two days, on another for a few days, and to finish the week on a further job. Who was the principal in a case of that kind that he had to look to at the end of the week? Then there was the case of the Workman who was engaged inside the workshop making doors and performing other work required for a building. The man who did that work had no idea who the principal was.

He maintained that there should be retention money, and that the workmen should be entitled to know who the principal was for whom the work was being done. It seemed to him, having gone into the matter very deeply, that as far as building work was concerned, the application to a principal did not go far enough. It should go to the extent of saying also that the owner of the land should be made a responsible party. They had speculative builders acquiring short leases of land on which they erected jerry buildings, and when the time for payment came they could not be found. In Johannesburg this was continually taking place, and of course the buildings reverted to the owner of the land. Mr. Sampson went on to quote from an authority to show that the man who had an interest in the land was the party who should be made responsible. It was quite possible that an owner and a contractor, in collusion, could get over this Act, the former paying the latter something for his trouble in erecting buildings and then leaving the workmen and merchants unpaid.

But the owner of the land would advance money on the building.

said the owner in that case would do nothing of the sort. He thought the Act of 1887 for the better securing of workmen’s wages was a very good Act, and that some of the clauses relating to the payment of workmen’s wages might be introduced into the Bill as a separate chapter. The member for Bechuanaland said this Act was going to throw the work into the hands of the big contractors. Well, that was what it was undoubtedly going to do, but it was not the big contractors, but the small ones, who failed, and the effect, therefore, of the Bill would be beneficial, because they did not want men without capital speculating solely on the wages of the men, because, after all, it was with the wages of their workmen that these men speculated. He hoped the Minister would pass the Bill with some slight amendments with regard to the better securing of workmen’s wages, but that he would pay no regard to such amendments as related to second and third liens, at present.

agreed that workmen should have a preferent claim for their wages, but it seemed to him there were two aspects of the the question. There was the contractor and the workmen, and the contractor and the merchant who supplied the material. He did not think the member for Cape Town quite realised the meaning of some of the clauses in the Bill. (Cheers and laughter.) Clause 2 struck him (Mr. Baxter) as an extremely strange proposal which might prove a hardship against the merchant. It laid down that, the contractor, having received payments from the principal, these payments could not be attached by the merchants to whom he owed money.

That is a misprint.

That, of course, makes a great difference, but it seems strange that the Minister did not announce the mistake before. He (Mr. Baxter) did think that, while making the wages of workmen a first charge, the merchant should have the power to attach the remainder of the money. Another point was that the Bill appeared to be placing very great power in the hands of workmen. It gave, them practically the power to hang up the payment of moneys between the principal and the contractor, and it was conceivable that certain circumstances might arise in which a very wrong use of the power might be made, and he thought a penalty should be attached for any such wrong use made of it as out of spite or malice moneys might be stopped between the principal and contractor, although the former was quite prepared to pay the contractor the amount due to him. The Bill as it stood at present could not prevent such a difficulty arising.

agreed with the principle of the Bill that workmen’s wages should be protected. The definition of the word “workmen,” however, and the difficulty of ascertaining the extent of the liability of the principal needed some explanation. It seemed to him that the Bill was inconsistent in that respect. Continuing, he was understood to say that while the workman could recover in the magistrate’s court, there was no protection afforded the principal. When they took the case of a man employed to do certain work, there was no liability on the contractor until the work was finished. He was now looking to the daily-paid men, and he thought some clearer provision should be made.

said that in that Bill they were creating another first charge. They had already passed a number of Bills creating first charges—under the Fencing Bill, under the Land Bank Bill and so on. He thought they would do well if they did something to bring those first charges together under one heading. How that first charge was going to work with the other first charges would be a difficult matter to deal with. They should deal with it with the view to ascertaining what position it was going to occupy. If they dealt with the first charges properly the employer, on entering into a business transaction, would be able to see where he was, and the workman would be able to ascertain his position. He thought the Minister might look into the matter.

said he thought that everybody sympathised with the idea of protecting the wages of workmen. He thought, however, that they should also give some consideration to other creditors, and he thought the question of a first charge would be simplified if provision was made in the Bill for wages to be paid weekly. He thought that such a clause would give general satisfaction

said he thought that on the whole the Bill had met with a favourable reception, and he thought that a good many of the remarks really applied to the claims of workmen in insolvency cases. They did not however, seek to regulate preference under insolvency. He had also been told that forty-eight hours was too long for the workman to wait before he took steps to protect himself. He thought that was a reasonable limit because a shorter period might do an injustice to the contractor. Then they were told that the Bill was introduced owing to recent events, but he would point out that it was published on December 22, before certain events happened. Objection had been taken to the workman having to go to court, but if there was a dispute he did not know who could better settle it than the magistrate. The hon. member for Roodepoort suggested that the employer should settle the dispute, but he (the Minister) considered that would be a dangerous principle to introduce. He thought that some of the clauses might be altered, and he said that the notice paper could be so arranged that the House could go into committee on Monday.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

pointed out that Monday was very early for the Committee stage, seeing the importance of some of the amendments.

also pointed out that this would not give time for amendments to be placed on the paper.

said he hoped the House would agree to his proposal and he was prepared to meet the hon. member for Von Brandis and see whether they could not get over any difficulty that he might experience.

The Bill was set down for Committee stage on Monday.

moved the adoption of the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and said he did not think there was really any need for him to go into details, because they had discussed it very fully the other day. There was, however, one thing that he wished to make clear He was not hostile to the Land Bank, but what he did hold strongly was that they made advances on too large a scale. He did not think it was necessary that the State should make such large advances. The large land owners should look after themselves, but what he was in favour of was continuing the advances to the small men who could not go to the banks and borrow. That was the essential “work of the Land Banks. He wished to draw attention to the conclusions the committee had come to with regard to the position of the Land Bank. It was very strongly impressed on the committee that the policy of the Board was founded on a wrong conception of their duty. Instead of adhering strictly to the Act of Parliament the Board considered it had the right to interpret the intention of Parliament although that might be opposed to the Act. Last session Parliament passed an Act under which the Bank got £800,000. One would understand that Parliament had granted £800,000 and no more. What did the Board do? The Board took up the position that so long as applications came in and were in order they should go on making advances although the £800,000 had been exhausted, and that it was the duty of the Treasury to make further advances. That was where he thought the Board went wrong.

Having quoted from page 174, Mr. Jagger went on to say that, of course, hon. members would see at once that the root cause of the trouble was that the Board considered that they were justified in making these advances, although they had exhausted the moneys given to them by Parliament. On page 13, in the Appendix, there was a letter addressed to the Treasurer, in which they asked for a cool further advance of £25,000, and there was no authority given to the Treasurer to make that further advance. On page 17, hon. members would find that there was another similar demand, and here they asked for a cool £20,000! A more dangerous doctrine had never been expressed by a public official in the handling of public moneys than that. No official ought to go beyond the exact limits laid down by that House in regard to expenditure. The Auditor-General had been appointed for the express purpose of seeing that no money was spent beyond the authority of Parliament, and once they departed from that strict principle, it would not be too much to say that, with all the spending officers they had, that country would soon be landed in ruin. That report brought out that it was not the business of any officers to spend money beyond the authority given them by Parliament. They were not to worry about what they thought was Parliament’s intention in carrying out the order of Parliament, and that could not be too strongly impressed upon the Board.

There was a further point that he would like to refer to, which was the expense of running the Bank. As the report showed, it was something like £29,172. They had laid on the Table of the House a return showing the staff of the Bank. Now it appeared from the return that there were in the Pretoria Office no less than 64 officials. In the Cape Town Office there were four officials, in Bloemfontein six, in Pietermaritzburg two, and in Port Elizabeth two. Of course, he was not in a position to judge what the men had to do in the other offices, but he could form some judgment of what they had to do in the Cape Town Office, because he was more acquainted with local circumstances, and he did say that in the Cape Town Office the staff was most extravagant for the work which had to be done. They had a secretary, who drew £800 a year; a conveyancer, who received £360; a clerical assistant, who received £120; and a shorthand writer, who received £145—to pass sixteen bonds in a whole month! If he could take Cape Town as being indicative of the other offices, hon. members would see the extravagant scale on which the Land Bank was being run at the present moment. A staff had been created to do a very big business, instead of doing what a business man did, who started with a small staff, and increased the staff, as business increased. He mentioned that because it was the duty of the Government to look into that question of the working expenses, because at present they were on a most extravagant scale. The Public Accounts Committee had been thoroughly justified in going into the whole of that matter.

said that he rose not because the hon. member who had just spoken had spoken as a party man, but he had spoken purely as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and it was useful for the House and for the country to know that the committee, members of which had been drawn from all sections of the House, was absolutely unanimous in the report drawn up. (Hear, hear.) The committee had found that a serious departure had been made from the manner in which public finances should be conducted, and it was not for the Director of the Board to say what Parliament intended, or that the Board knew the intentions of Parliament better than it did itself. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), in the remarks which he had so ably made, had mentioned that during the time when the Board had been in a state of financial peril they had entered into a contract for erecting public offices at a cost of £19,000, and had entered into the contract before they had got the approval of Parliament to the land. It must clearly be made known that such action on the part of members of the Board would not be tolerated by that Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Section 33 of the Audit Act had been held not to apply to the Land Bank. It laid down that no bank should lend for public purposes without the authority of Parliament, but it had been held that these purposes were not “public purposes.” How the lawyers had been able to arrive at that decision he was not able to tell, but he hoped that when an amendment of the Audits Act was made—as it was intended to make shortly—section 33 should be made clear that it extended to public services. He rose to make it quite clear that that matter was in no sense a party matter.

Hear, hear.

said that he congratulated the hon. member who had just resumed his seat on the manner in which he had tackled the subject. It was a healthy sign; and the country was indebted to the Auditor-General for drawing the attention of Parliament to that matter. It was all very well the hon. member (Mr. Orr) saying that that was no party matter, but which party and the friends of which party had got the value of that enormous amount of money? (Cries of “Oh!”) Well, he was not afraid to say it. He said that they were the friends of the other side who had got it, and he had foreseen that when the Bill had been introduced, and had mentioned the fact at the time. In the Transvaal the objection had also been raised that the money Would find its way into the pockets of wealthy men who were able to obtain advances elsewhere.

Quite wrong.

said it was the hon. member who was quite wrong. He admitted that the wealthy men gave security, but they might have gone elsewhere for the advances. The hon. member went on to refer to co-operative societies.

pointed out that they were dealing with the Land Bank.

said that large amounts were loaned to co-operative societies and that was the reason there had been that enormous overdraft. He, therefore, submitted that but for the advance of those large amounts there would have been no necessity to delay payment. He hoped the Bank would keep within the limits at their disposal in future. They had got the word of the hon. Minister that he would put his foot down and stop it. If the directors would not act within the four corners of the measure it was the duty of that House to give them the boot.

said that the hon. member who had just sat down was the only one who suggested that the Land Bank had been run on party lines. If the hon. member had been on the Public Accounts Committee, he would have seen that there was no suggestion of that sort in the whole course of that long and somewhat full examination of the General Manager of the Bank. Proceeding, he said he only rose to make the suggestion that they should give the General Manager a limited capital once for all, and there would be no necessity to come to that House year after year for big or small amounts, as the case might be. He (Mr. Currey) would go further, and limit the advances to a much smaller amount than they were at present. In his opinion, the Minister would be well advised to limit the advances to £1,000. The object of that Bank was to help the poor men, and, according to the evidence of the Manager of the Bank, a great deal of good had been done in that direction. To adopt the suggestion he had made would enable the good work to be continued, even if operations were limited to £1,000. He hoped the Minister of Finance would consider those aspects of the question.

spoke in favour of the limitation of the amount of loans, but went further than the last hon. member, and suggested that no loan to any individual should exceed £500. He was convinced that ultimately they would have to come to that. The man who had security to enable him to raise £4,000 or £5,000 could easily get the money elsewhere. If they continued to lend £1,000 and upwards, they would never have sufficient capital. He had insisted on that point again and again. He regretted that an attempt had been made to make the matter one of party politics, and he believed that the report would have a wholesome effect, and that the Manager of the Bank would not venture to exceed the limit put upon him by Parliament in future. The hon. member went on to say that he believed the Manager had acted in the best interests of the country by exceeding the amount entrusted to him. The management of the Bank could not be held blameless, but the advances made from time to time had the effect of creating something of a land boom. When the Land Bank reduced the rate of interest to 5 per cent., other institutions came down; and as the price of land went up, it was easier to get money. That created a bit of a boom, and if the Land Bank had stopped operations last year, there would have been created a panic, a crisis that would have been very much worse for the country than the small amount of money over-spent. He did not want to justify the management of the Bank in exceeding the limit. He thought they should have acted with greater discretion from the beginning, but they should not be blamed too severely for what they had done. The suggestion had been made that the manager should have been dismissed, but he was a most meritorious officer and a most conscientious man. He had tried to do his duty according to his lights, and had done the country a great service by exceeding the limits put upon him. He did not think, however, that he would advocate that in future. After that report, the management would be careful of what they did. He (Mr. Neser) knew that the manager had protested in many cases, but he had to carry out the wishes of the majority, and the correspondence between the manager and the Department of Finance showed that the Government was aware of what was going on. With regard to advances to Co-operative Societies, the suggestion had been made that they should restrict loans to such societies to £10,000. That might be all very well in theory, but it would not work out in practice. Cooperative societies consisted of very large numbers of members, and they dealt in very large amounts of produce. What earthly good would £10,000 be to some of them? It had been pointed out that a small number of those societies had failed. There should, of course, be a very close check upon them, but so long as they had sufficient security they should be given sufficient facilities. Through those societies the Land Bank reached the very poorest men, and it was quite wrong to say that because co-operative societies got large sums the poor men were deprived on that account.

said that as a Labour member it was with some diffidence that he took part in the discussion. But as a member of Parliament he thought he ought to have something to say on that matter. He thought the House was indebted to the Public Accounts Committee for having brought that matter so prominently forward. The report of the committee showed a state of affairs which would not have been disclosed had the report not been brought forward. He did not believe that the funds of the bank had been employed for political purposes, and he thought it was ungracious of the hon. member for Yon Brandis to have made a statement to that effect; but he did contend that the funds would be used, in the main, in the interests of the rich men. He had put that point of view before the House when the Land Bank Bill was first discussed, and he had then asked the House to limit the maximum amount of money that might be lent and also to fix a minimum at a very low figure. That point would be more thoroughly understood when it was remembered that a great many of the sums that were lent were lent on good security—he believed that—but some of the money had been borrowed in the past by people in order that they might repay previous loans. It had been brought very clearly before the House that where a farmer had embarked on a loan the Land Bank would be prepared to lend him money in order to liquidate the loan, irrespective of what he had spent the money on. The Government had borrowed money at an interest of 4½ per cent, and had lent it out to farmers at 3¾ per cent. He strongly supported the contention of those hon. members who said that Parliament must have a thorough and complete check on the money that was lent by the Land Bank. If larger sums of money were necessary for the Land Bank, let them be granted, but let it be done by a vote of the majority of members of that House. He hoped that the House would bring about legislation to deal with the matter. Some further inquiry was necessary in connection with the working of the Land Bank from that point of view. The rich man appeared to have no difficulty in getting a loan from the Bank, but the poor man was absolutely unable to obtain even a very small sum, and he thought that that was a matter which was worth the attention, not only of the House, but of the Land Bank itself.

thought it would be the last time that the Land Bank would exceed its rights in the way it had done. He wished to point out that whilst the Land Bank had disposed of a larger amount than the House actually granted it, it would have been a most serious matter if, three months after the passing of the Land Bank Act, the Land Bank had been forced to close its doors. If in the past his motion that the capital of the Land Bank should be fixed Once and for all had been agreed to, all this difficulty would not have arisen. As regarded the proposal that the amount of advances to each man should be limited to £500, he feared this would not have satisfactory results. Most of the applications were for amounts up to £500, and it would not be right to exclude the few applicants for larger amounts. The secretary at Cape Town had a salary of £800 before Union. He had been removed to Cape Town after Union and had retained his then existing salary, as so many other officials did. In regard to other remarks, he wished to point out that, after all, the manager was only a member of the Board. Under the law the Board had the right to put up new buildings, and was not required to ask the consent of Parliament. The hon. member for Maritzburg, North, need not be uneasy on that point. He (the speaker) thought the responsibility for what had happened should be shared alike by all members of the Board.

said he did not wish to make any attack on the manager of the Land Bank, but he did think that it had been shown that the present system of management could not be continued without great danger. From the speech of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, it seemed that under the present system there was even more danger than would appear from the report of the committee. They were told that the Chairman or the General Manager was not responsible —that he was in the hands of the Board. Were they in the position that an irresponsible Board could decide how much money should be advanced? That Board had no responsibility to Parliament, and was it to be left in sole control of the scattering of public money about the land? He did not think a more dangerous principle could be set up. He thought the House ought to have a clear Understanding that that position could not be taken up by the Board. It was laid down in the clearest manner that the Board was not limited by Parliament. The hon. member for Potchefstroom had said that they could not suddenly stop the operations of the Land Bank—that it was like a bad habit, and that once they began they must do a little more. Were they to be told that, having begun that sort of thing, they could not stop it now?

During the present financial year nearly 1½ million's had been advanced by the Bank, and this would lead to a boom in the price of land. (Hear, hear.) Who would get the benefit of that and who would pay the piper? The country would pay the piper and the landowner would get the benefit. The time would come when the Board would have to curtail its advances because it would have no money left to advance. (Hear, hear.) Let them be wise in time and stop this dangerous and undue inflating of land values which was being caused by these advances. The hon. member for Springs, he believed it was, raised the very important point as to what was done with this money. Would it increase the productive powers of the country? He very much doubted it. Out of the 1½ millions advanced in 1913 only £216,000 was for the purpose of effecting improvements, but £662,000 was lent for the discharge of existing liabilities. Was that a sound state of things? Was any inquiry made as to what these existing liabilities were incurred for? Not at all. He understood that the word of the applicant was taken as to what he was going to do with the money, but there was no complete system of inspection to see how far he was carrying out the purpose he stated when he applied for the money. Then £525,000 had been advanced for the purchase of land. No wonder there was a boom in land. (Hear, hear.) We had gone into this business on far too extravagant a scale. If we had been a little poorer when we started it we should have taken care to limit the maximum amount advanced to any one person, and also to see that advances were made only with a view to increased production. The present management of the board ought to be replaced at once by some body which would respect the authority of Parliament and would see that money was advanced only for the purpose of increasing the productive powers of the country. He did not agree, however, that the Bank had been used for party purposes. (Cheers.)

said he did not think it was correct that the Bank had been used for party purnoses—(hear, hear)—but at the same time he must say there were some expressions used in the correspondence which he did not like to see. The manager of the Bank stated he did not like to embarrass the Government. They had only to read the correspondence to see that the manager got uncommonly little support from the Treasury (Cheers.) If there was one person he (Mr. Merriman) pitied after reading the correspondence it was the Minister of Finance. There was a vague idea that the Minister of Finance was an autocrat, but judging from the correspondence he was the most simple and tame autocrat he (Mr. Merriman) had seen. The Minister was simply flouted by the gentleman at the head of the Bank, who evidently thought the Treasury was bound to find him money. The Treasury told him he must restrict his advances, but he said he was going to appeal to Parliament. But he had mistaken Parliament altogether, for however anxious hon. members might be to assist the people they were going to look after the finances of the taxpayer because they knew that eventually all the loans were going to be a burden on the fixed property, and sooner or later it was going to come back on the landowners. He liked the tone of the Treasury’s letters, but it did not sufficiently insist on carrying out its policy, but he dared say that the Minister of Finance had something else to do at the time, and that about January it was very difficult to devote the whole of his attention to the Land Bank, there being some other trifles to look after. (Laughter.) The name of this institution was a misnomer—it was not a bank at all, it was a loan company. A bank was an institution which collected money as well as paid it out, but the Land Bank only paid out money, and when it had exhausted its capital it was tied up.

That was the fate of all mortgage companies in this country. A chill came, the price of land fell, and—although it would not happen in this case, because they had the credit of the State behind them, in the case of private mortgage companies they were seriously embarrassed and closed down. Let them study the history of mortgage companies in South Africa—a rise in the price of land and then contraction. The difficulty of doing what was in the mind of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) when the bank was started was to limit the advances to a certain sum. After the bank’s capital was all invested what were they going to do? If it were an ordinary bank they would grant open credit, and the borrowers’ receipts would be paid into the bank, and the thing would keep itself going. But how were they going to do that with a mortgage company with all its funds invested? The effect of this bank and the plunging of four millions into land had been to raise the price of land—that and the optimistic times through which we have been passing. It was very difficult to contract their operations.

He cordially subscribed to the strictures that had been passed on the management of the bank which, he thought, should have been more careful. There were many large amounts on the list of loans. That was not the idea of Land Banks in other countries, which were started with the intention of setting the small man on his legs. (Cheers.) Land Banks in those countries had not to deal with capitalistic landowners. (Cheers.) That was pointed out at the time the bunk was started, but Parliament was sanguine. It had been said that this manager who had run us into a mess was only a servant, and that people must blame the Board. But the manager had two votes on the Board, his own and a casting vote. He had really a controlling voice on the Board. The management of the bank ought to be overhauled.

He hoped that the Government would be well advised and would, either through the means of the committee that presented its report or through some other means take friendly counsel, with regard to what should be done as to the management. It was very necessary indeed that a rigid inspection should be made by some independent authority, outside the bank, altogether as regarded the value of the advances. This money had been advanced at a time when values were very high. The advances as far as things that came within his knowledge went, seemed to be sound, but there was no doubt that a higher rate of valuation had been taken than many companies would advance upon and that the money had been advanced at a time when the value of land had been inflated. There should be an independent audit of the advances. In regard to the strictures passed on the money being spent not for the purpose for which it had been borrowed, he thought that the member for Rustenburg had, to a considerable extent, cleared that up, because they had inspectors who went round and examined yearly these loans to see whether the man had bona fide invested the money and, if he had not the money was called up, as it should be. But he thought that the whole question wanted a narrow inspection by some person outside, appointed by the Government. It was evident that we could not go on in our present condition borrowing millions of money for the purpose of scattering it helter-skelter and raising the price of land against the purchaser, against the agriculturist, because if they were going to artificially raise the price of land they were going to embarrass the agriculturist. The capitalist was benefited for the time. After that, the burden fell upon the purchaser. We could not borrow money in this way, unless we stopped all public works and confined ourselves to the business of a loan company. That was not the business and function of a Government. He ventured to tender advice to the Government upon that matter, because he was sure that artificially raising the price of land was a bad thing for this country. If it were raised by the labour of the people, well and good. If it were raised by capital being scattered all over the country, easily got, they might do more harm than good. In this connection he saw an interesting extract the other clay from the evidence of a gentleman in Natal called “a well-known farming parson.” The evidence was given before the Dominions Royal Commission. This gentleman said that he had no hesitation in saying that, in a sense, the Land Bank had meant the ruin of many men. Money was easily obtained and as easily spent. Money that had been obtained from the Land Bank was often spent on other things than farming. Mr. Merriman, proceeding, said that, of course, if that did take place, it would only be what had taken place everywhere else. Whether money was got from a banking institution or a Land Bank, the same story could be told. “Light come, light go,” said Mr. Merriman, in conclusion, “and a borrower is the slave of the lender, but my counsel to the Government is to take this matter seriously and take into your Counsel either some other Select Committee appointed by yourselves or the Select Committee which has already reported upon it, and let us have a friendly conference and see if we cannot amend the Act in some way, so as to strengthen the hands of the Government and turn this into a useful institution upon a sound financial footing.” (Cheers.)

said he felt, as the right hon. gentleman had said, that it was necessary that the Government should take into consideration what steps they were going to take to safeguard them against a repetition of what had gone on in the past and safeguard them in the future against any abuses or dangers that might accrue to them from the Land Bank. A suggestion had been made by the hon. member for George, who said it was important to fix the capital of the Land Bank, and that if they did fix the capital at a certain amount that would be a great security. But he (Dr. Watkins) was afraid that it would not be any real security. They were not in the position of an ordinary bank, but were a loan institution. The Land Bank would always be able to get an overdraft if they continued on the lines that they had gone on in the past. He would like to read one or two extracts to the House. The hon. member quoted from the General Manager’s evidence and said that being the view held by the authorities controlling the Land Bank, it was extremely important, to prevent their being brought into the same position again, that some strong steps should be taken by the Treasury, not simply to say that they should not do it again, but to prevent their doing it again. It had been said that they could not borrow money for the Land Bank without the consent of the Minister. Now it was laid down here, by those who were managing the Bank, that they had the right to borrow money with out the consent of the Minister, because the Bank was a separate entity. That required defining. Certainly other Banks would always lend the Land Bank money, because it would have as security all the bonds for loans that it had already granted, The State had no mortgage upon these. The Bank had the bonds in its own possession. It seemed to him that the Minister would have to take the matter into very serious consideration.

Dr. Watkins proceeded to quote from a Blue-book, showing that no general inspection of properties took place, but only in such cases where there was any doubt about the manner in which the money had been used. He was sure it was not the intention of that House to lend money to an unlimited extent or for purposes other than actual improvements. With regard to the rate of interest charged, that should bear some proportion to the rate which the State paid. They could not afford to pay a higher rate than that for which the money was advanced to the Bank. They had also to look at the effect which the borrowing of these large sums of money had on the borrowing powers of the country. People would say that it was sound business to borrow at 4 per cent. and lend it out at 4½ per cent., but if they increased the National Debt by many millions of money, they would certainly interfere with the rate at which they could borrow on the market, because they were not increasing their national assets by borrowing money to lend out to farmers. If this money was being spent upon railways, it would figure as a national asset, and would consequently reckon as such by investors when the Union went to the market for a loan. That was one reason why they should go very carefully when borrowing large sums of money for Land Bank purposes.

said there were only two points he wished to touch upon. He was sorry to hear the member for Potchefstroom say that the directors of the Land Bank had done a great service to the country by exceeding the amount of money voted. He (Sir Edgar) could not imagine a more dangerous practice, and for the directors to have exceeded the amount at their disposal by 50 per cent. was not something to be considered of great benefit to the country, but something which almost constituted a crime. If that sort of thing went on, it would leave the country in an uncomfortable state of mind as to whether a similar laxity did not exist in regard to the improvements for which the money was loaned, and whether, in point of fact, they were not doing more harm than good in lending money too easily. With regard to co-operative societies, he thought facilities should be extended to these, because it was purely for the conduct of business. He admitted that the question of inspection was a difficult one, because there was not nearly sufficient inspectors to visit the large number of properties affected. It was practically admitted that no real inspection had taken place. He did not want to say a word against the general manager, but that officer had not had a month’s training for that class of work. He had never been trained to the work of a moneylender. Yet they had given him that work to do under a Board, the members of which were not trained to the work. He did not want to say a word against the Board either, but they were not trained to that work, and that Parliament should delegate the power to lend money to people who were not trained for the work was a very unwise thing to do. He hoped the matter would be dealt with by a Select Committee, or if not that the Minister would overhaul the whole thing and bring about a radical change.

did not agree with the doctrine expressed by the hon. member for Barkly West, who said that the amount of money lent out on first mortgage should not be considered as an asset to the country. If they had lent the money on a good margin of security he (Sir D. Harris) considered it was a first-class asset and should be included in the assets of the country. It had been stated that if the Bank had refused to lend money last year there would have been a panic, but their refusing to lend money on property would not cause a panic. Loans were lent for a fixed period, and there was no fear of a panic in regard to the question of land. Proceeding, he said he agreed that the Bank should have a limited capital of £5,000,000, and loans should be limited to £1,000. That would meet the exigencies of the case. The general manager of the Bank and his Board seemed to have an idea that the Government had the fountain of Croesus. They appeared to think that if they wanted money, all they had to do was to go to the Government for it. There had been no collusion between the Government and the Land Bank. If hon. members would read the correspondence they would see that the Government had all along tried to prevent the Land Bank lending money in excess of the money voted by Parliament. He thought that the manager of the Bank would in future be very careful not to exceed the limit.

said that from the remarks of the last speaker it might appear that the lending of money to pay off existing mortgages was a desirable thing. He was pleased that the Public Accounts Committee had expressed itself in that manner on the subject of the Land Bank.

said he hoped, it would be possible now to bring the discussion to a close. He thought that everyone would agree that not only that discussion that afternoon but also the discussion the previous afternoon had been necessary. The discussions on those two occasions had been of such a nature that they had deserved the most careful consideration, not only of the Select Committee, but of the House. He did not think the remarks of the Select Committee were beyond the requirements of the case. The Government adhered to the position that was shown in the correspondence between the Finance Department and the Land Bank. It was unnecessary for him to say that the attitude of the manager of the Land Bank could not be adopted by the Government nor by the Land Bank itself. One made allowances for the manager who had had to deal with a peculiarly difficult position, and they could not too closely examine the arguments that had been advanced. He thought that the discussion that had taken place had had this good effect—that in the future a change would be effected in the policy of the Land Bank. Hon. members would see from the report of the Board that a circular had been issued indicating a change of policy. The amount of the loans was a matter that could be dealt with by Parliament itself, but he agreed that the principle that no loan should exceed £500 might be laid down. The hon. member for George had suggested that they might get out of the difficulty by fixing the capital of the Bank, but as had been pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria West, that would not solve the difficulty. In no case could they give power to the Land Bank to raise its own capital. In any case they would have to use the machinery of Parliament in placing any definite amounts at the disposal of the Land Bank, and he thought that if there was any repetition of what had taken place, large deductions would follow. He did not anticipate, however, that there would be any repetition of what had taken place in the past. He did not think there was any necessity for the drastic action suggested by the hon. member for Fordsburg—he thought the investigations of the Select Committee and the debate in the House would meet the justice of the case, and that they would achieve the object they had in view. He had no objection to the report of the committee being adopted. (Cheers.)

The motion was agreed to.

The House rose at 5.55 p.m.