from inhabitants of Lydenburg, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.

from white workers on the Witwatersrand, in opposition to the removal of the “‘colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations (fourteen petitions).

brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

The report was set down for consideration on Friday.

in moving that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the new taxation proposals, said he would like to make a suggestion with reference to the motion. Hon. members would see that there were in this motion four separate proposals. The first section dealt with the income tax, the second with the land tax, the third with the Excise on matches, and the fourth with the tariff. There had been a considerable amount of discussion already on these proposals in the Budget debate, and he was very much afraid that, if a general discussion were taken on all these four proposals on the motion, a great deal of time would be spent, and not much object would be achieved. He would, therefore, suggest a course which he thought would lead to some saving of time and to a more adequate consideration of the proposals. He would suggest that they have no general discussion on this motion to go into Committee, but that, when the House had gone into Committee, hon. members should take these proposals seriatim, and deal fully and adequately with each proposal. (Hear, hear.)

Not this afternoon.

We would first take the income tax and go fully into it, and then the land tax, and discuss it fully in all its bearings, and so on with the other two proposals. If that were done (continued General Smuts), a great deal of time would be saved, and the result would be far more advantageous to the House and to the country than by another general discussion, in which every hon. member would discuss all four proposals, which would lead to a great deal of debate without any enlightenment. They could take the consideration of the committee stage at a future date, but that day he did not think they should have any formal discussion. He wished to point out that no hon. member would be bound by going into Committee. Every member reserved his liberty to speak on those proposals.

said he thought the proposal of the Minister of Finance was a practical one—

interrupting, asked the Minister to repeat his remarks in Dutch.

repeated his remarks in Dutch.

said he had wished to say that he thought the proposal of the Minister was a practical one. As the Minister had said, it would not commit them to the approval of any one of the proposals. As far as the general debate was concerned, they on that side of the House had already expressed their disapproval of the policy pursued by the Ministry. They had expressed the opinion that the expenditure was excessive, and that there should be no necessity for fresh taxation. He now thought that the most practical course to adopt was to get to grips with the taxation proposals in Committee.

said he would support the suggestion of the Minister. He pointed out that they could better deal with the details in Committee, and he was very glad that the Minister was going to adopt that course. The only point he felt doubtful about was whether in discussing any particular proposal it would be possible to go into certain figures with the object of showing whether there was any necessity for taxation being put on. He supposed that if the course suggested were adopted a certain amount of latitude would be allowed hon. members.

said he had always understood that a motion of that sort had a relation to the second reading of a Bill—that by passing the resolution to go into Committee they agreed to the principle. He thought it possible that the Minister was providing himself with a back-door through which he could run on the little question of land taxation. (Laughter.) Then perhaps the Minister would eventually say that the proposals were not a big thing after all, that it was not something that the Ministry need stand or fall by. He (Mr. Creswell) thought that by passing the resolution to go into Committee they would bind themselves to taxation.

We don’t.

(continuing) said that of course when they went into Committee on a Bill they could throw out each of the clauses, but when a Bill had passed a second reading they had agreed to the principle of it, and that was the stage when they dealt with the Government’s policy Inadequate, absurd and ridiculous as those taxation proposals were, the Minister was at least leading his flock along the proper road by suggesting a tax on land. There were other matters in the proposals which he did not know whether they should oppose or not. There was the question of taxing foodstuffs, and he thought those proposals were very unsound. There should also be a smaller exemption with regard to the land tax. A greater burden should be placed on the shoulders of the people who owned the land in the country. He repeated that he thought that by going into Committee the House would approve of the principle of further taxation.

said he quite agreed with the suggestion of the Minister. Some extraordinary statements had been made with regard to the figures.

No, no, you cannot go into that.

said the House might be establishing taxation on an entirely unsound basis.

said he was glad the Minister had taken that course. He supported the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). If they went into Committee could they give alternative proposals to taxation? Several had been suggested, and he hoped the Minister would agree to the Committee being given power to discuss those proposals. It seemed to him that they would be adopting a wrong order by discussing taxation before they knew what the expenditure was which they had to provide for.

said he took it that the Minister considered that it would serve the convenience of the House to adopt the proposal made by him and that the House was in no way committed, and that they would have an opportunity for freer discussion by adopting that course. It was distinctly understood that they were in no way committed to the proposals of the Minister. He thought the future would show that there was no desire on the part of the Minister to go on with his taxation proposals until he had given the House an opportunity of dealing with the Budget. When the Minister had got the Budget through he would be, to a certain extent, independent. He hoped it would not be long before they would have an opportunity of dealing with the Estimates in Committee.

said that in reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, they would have an opportunity of dealing with it at a later stage.

said that if the Opposition were sincere it could not support the motion to go into Committee on the proposals, as they had said that no new taxation was necessary.

was understood to say that he thought the House should not go into Committee until the Estimates had been passed for the reason that reductions might be effected, and the Minister might be able to remit some of this taxation.

The motion was agreed to, and the Committee stage set down for Friday.

pointed out that the clause only made provision for the Municipalities of Cape Town and Kimberley and met the circumstances. Any other Municipalities that unified would have to bear this in mind and amend their wards.

asked why a man should be chosen from a particular ward? Would it not be sufficient to say that he should be a Councillor? There might be a suitable man at Rondebosch, and according to this he would have to be taken from Sea Point. Any Councillor should be good enough if the Council were so disposed. He thought the Minister should delete the proviso in line 19.

spoke, but his remarks were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said he thought there was something in what the hon. member for Newlands had pointed out.

said that his reason was going to be that which was put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens—that the Cape Town Municipality wanted it. The real reason was that it was not intended to give Cape Town all the representatives, but preserve Woodstock, Sea Point, Rondebosch, and other places their representatives. The original Bill stated that the representatives should reside in the wards, but that was thought too harsh, and it had now been made to cover the representatives elected for an area.

moved, in line 20, after “question,” that the words “or part thereof ” be inserted.

thought that the point had already been made clear.

The amendment was negatived.

said he thought that provision should be made for the inclusion of other municipalities in the Cape area.

said that the Bill had been drafted to meet such cases.

The clause as printed was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

said that this Bill would be a permanent reenactment of the Natal Health Laws. Until they had had a general Public Health Act for the Union these Acts were re-enacted.

said he would like to ask the Minister if he would give some hint as to when he would introduce this general Public Health Bill? They were only allowing this apparently harmless little measure to pass through on the distinct understanding that the Minister was going to deal with this very important question. As a matter of fact there were certain provisions—

The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I am coming to this clause, because I object to the delegation of these powers to the Minister of the Interior or any other Minister. Were it not that I sincerely hope that this will be only a temporary measure, I would take strong exception to this clause.

said he had given instructions some time ago for a comprehensive Public Health Bill for the whole Union to be drafted. That was now being carried out. His hon. friend knew that he (General Smuts) had never been very successful in dealing with small Bills in relation to public health. He had made several attempts, courageous attempts, to smuggle through small Bills, but the medical members of this House wanted a big Bill. Nothing would satisfy them but a big, comprehensive measure dealing with every detail of the subject, and his experience of this House was that it was easier to get a big Bill through than a small Bill. He recognised the urgency of the big Bill, but his hon. friend (Dr. Macaulay) knew that one of the reasons why this legislation had stood over had been the inquiry entrusted to the Tuberculosis Commission. (Laughter.)

Where is their report?

I don’t know why the hon. member for Boksburg is so hilarious over this, but there is no doubt that the subject of tuberculosis is one of the most serious aspects of public health in this country, and to introduce a Bill dealing with public health which does not seriously deal with that question would be a farce. We are waiting for this report. I am told that the report is now finished and has either been handed in or will be handed in. The report will be published and will be considered, I think, next session or the following session. The House should have some opportunity of devoting its attention to this important question.

said that he would be almost inclined to congratulate the hon. gentleman on the almost indecent haste with which he had proceeded with this matter. (Laughter.) Three years ago he had informed the House that it was a matter of such pressing urgency that it would not brook delay, and now they were told that it was still under consideration and it would be another session before it could possibly come before the House. He thought it was only on a par with the rate at which consolidating legislation, which was so necessary to the country, had been brought forward by the Government.

said that this was not simply a re-enactment of the Natal Act. The Minister of the Interior had not explained to them his reason for abolishing the post of Health Officer in Natal. Why he should have abolished the post of Health Officer in Natal and put himself in his place, he (Dr. Watkins) did not know. Why not drop the second clause altogether and simply re-enact the old Natal Act? The Minister had now told them that they were re-enacting this practically for all time.

said that the post of Health Officer in Natal was abolished four years ago and also the Board. During the past two years they had had no Health Officer at all, and a very unfortunate state of affairs had arisen in some of the districts of Natal. He hoped that hon. members would not oppose the passage of this Bill.

said that he had given a promise to his hon. friend (Mr. Henwood) that he would assist the passage of this Bill. It was said that the post of Medical Officer in Natal and the Board had been abolished for four years. If that were so, he could see no reason for the presence of this second clause in the Bill, and he would move that it be deleted. If the clause remained in he would propose that the Act should continue in force for one year only, for if the Bill went on the Statute-book as a permanent measure it would further delay the introduction of a comprehensive Public Health Bill for the whole of the Union. The prevalence of leprosy, syphilis, and tuberculosis showed that the public health of South Africa was in a most deplorable condition.

said that what the hon. member for Victoria County had stated was quite correct. If the clause were omitted a Board of Health would have to be appointed. Since Union public health had been a Union matter with a principal Medical Officer of Health who had assistants in the various Provinces. If the Bill were made an annual one there was a danger, through stress of work, that it might not be possible for it to be re-enacted, and very often it was in the power of one or two members to block necessary legislation. For instance, the hon. member for Boksburg would have it in his power to block the Bill, as he was attempting to do now. Natal gave its Medical Officer such large powers that it appointed a Board to watch him and put a check upon him. The country would not suffer by having the present Bill on the Statute-book until such time as there could be a Public Health Act for the whole of the Union.

The clause was agreed to.

moved, as a new clause, “that this Act shall only be in force for one year from the date of enactment.”

said the Minister’s explanation had brought the amendment upon him, for after three years’ delay the Minister suggested that in another year or so we might have a Public Health Act for the Union. It was the Minister’s own speech which induced the hon. member for Boksburg to put that necessary pressure on the Minister to bring forward what was a most important and pressing measure.

said he was sorry to have to differ from his leader on this matter, and he hoped the hon. member for Boksburg would not press his proposal. Whilst he (Mr. Robinson) appreciated that it was desirable that a general Public Health Act should be introduced at the earliest possible moment, if the Bill now before the Committee were made an annual one and it was blocked, then Natal would be without a Public Health Act. The hon. member for Victoria County had not exaggerated the evils which existed in Natal owing to the absence of a Public Health Act.

The new clause was negatived.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

moved: That, in the special circumstances, the action of the Central Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank in financing itself by means of a bank overdraft, as specified in paragraph 8 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts [S.C. 1.—1914] (Public Accounts), be condoned. General Smuts said the House had twice considered the matter very fully. On the Additional Estimates it had a full afternoon’s discussion on this matter, and later on—on the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts—there was another lengthy discussion on the subject. The Board of the Bank had done full penance for what had happened, and it had now given the Treasury the formal assurance which hon. members wanted that in future the Parliamentary vote would not be exceeded. That being so, the House should now formally condone the Bank’s action.

said that while he would not oppose the motion he did not see what they would gain by it. It was the first time he had heard of people being condoned for breaking an Act of Parliament by a resolution of Parliament. The reason he would not oppose the resolution was because he thought it was a good thing that matters of that sort should be brought before Parliament. The Minister might not be aware of the fact that in the minds of the members of the Committee there was a feeling of dismay as to the affairs of the Bank. He did not feel satisfied that due care had been exorcised in the conduct of the Bank, and he thought that when the interests of the public were so vitally concerned greater care should be taken.

said that some days ago he had called attention to the manner in which the Bank was conducted and had pointed out that the people who applied for money were principally farmers. Very large amounts had been advanced. It seemed that since the matter had been before the House the Pretoria Society had gone into liquidation. Proceeding, he quoted documents to show the position of various branches of the bank. Those things did not bear out what the Minister had said about the business experience of the gentleman who conducted the institution. He found, for instance, that there was an application from the Potchefstroom Society for an advance of £110,000, and went on to read a report of a meeting of that society, at which it had been suggested that the society should be wound up. Yet it was proposed that those people should have so large a sum as £110,000. Of course, the reason was that if they applied to other banks they would have to pay a higher rate of interest. He did not think that any advance greater than £5,000 should be made under the Act. They found such large amounts, for instance, being advanced, as £50,000 for Lichtenburg, and £20,000 for Pretoria, and so on. Those sums were far too excessive. It had been understood that the various associations were under the control of the Cooperative Department of the Government. Yet they had the Pretoria Society, which was next door to the Government Department, being allowed to break their own rules. To his mind that was extremely unsatisfactory. He knew perfectly well that the bank was safe, but it was not fair to get farmers in the country who knew nothing about business, into a mess of that kind. Another reason he objected was because the advances were used very largely as a means of speculation. He remembered a case which took place last year when large stocks of mealies were held over. Many of those mealies might be in a sound condition, but a lot of them were not sound, and it was not good business to entourage a thing of that sort. Was not the farmer the last man who should be encouraged to speculate?

He did not know whether the crop of mealies was going to be sufficient for local consumption, or whether there would be a large surplus for export. The man who went in for speculation had to go very carefully into figures, but for an ordinary farmer to speculate could only lead to one result, to bring him to ruin eventually. If they continued this policy of big advances they would bring the majority of farmers to ruin. He pointed out that in Denmark there were 1,911 members of the Union, and the average capital worked out at £2,510. In Great Britain there were agricultural distributing societies. In one Union there were 62 members with a share capital and loan of £40,000, doing a business of £870,000.

said he thought that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth should not ask the Minister to make a radical change because the Select Committee on Public Accounts did not go so far. What he felt was that the Department of Finance was kept in ignorance of the proceedings of the bank until the last moment, when the position became very serious indeed. It would be a good thing to have a representative of the Treasury on the Board, but the trouble was that he might be outvoted and the Treasury would be held responsible. He asked the Minister to give the bank definite instructions to keep the Treasury advised from week to week of what was being done, and to see that the Minister was furnished with a transcript of the minutes. Then the Minister would have knowledge of what the tank was doing and could instruct the bank to go slowly or call a halt.

who seconded the motion, said he thought the bank should give the Minister a weekly statement as to how many applications had been received, how many granted, and how much money was still at the disposal of the Board. The suggestion of the hon. member for George was not practicable, because there was a danger of the Government being accused eventually of bringing political influence to bear on the Board. He thought it would be a mistake to dismiss any of the members of the Board, and he thought the Board had had a warning now, so that in future there would be no need to find fault with the bank again.

said he did not want to say unpleasant things, but all the onus seemed to be thrown on the general manager of the bank. That gentleman for years and years was a Civil Servant, in a position which made it incumbent upon him to be extraordinarily careful. It seemed inconceivable that that gentleman, immediately he was promoted, should throw to the winds all the principles he had acted upon tor so many years. He could not help thinking that the real trouble was: there was too much business for friends in the appointment of members of the bank, instead of the Government thinking of the public interest. For himself, he was defending the position of the man who was not able to defend himself. This man had been dealing with trust funds for years, and had ever one word been said that he had betrayed that trust? Who got the advantage of these particular overdrafts he did not know, but if that was inquired into, it might bear a suspicious resemblance—

To what?

To placate friends who might be useful. Continuing, he said that the state of affairs was so unsatisfactory that they should get to the bottom of it. He could imagine letters written with the tongue in the cheek from the Treasury. If the Government had a clear case, let them make it to that House. They had not explained why a sum of £2,000,000 was advanced merely to change the mortgagee, and only one and a quarter million advanced for improvements and the purchase of stock. Was that the purpose for which the bank was instituted? He thought that no attempt had been made to see that the bank was run in the farming interests of the country He was by no means satisfied with what was disclosed in the evidence. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said that they had got to the bottom of the matter. He could accept that, because he knew the hon. member was very careful, but he wanted to know if there was more behind this state of affairs.

said he thought the House would agree with him when he said that the managing director of the bank might well say, “Save me from my friends.”

Are you one?

said that if they made anything out of what had been said, it was that the managing director of the bank was so weak and incapable for the position that he allowed himself to be over-ridden by some nominees of the Government. The hon. member said: “I don’t say that that is the case, but it might—” Was that the way for the hon. member to defend his friend? Would he have retained his position for one moment after what had happened? The hon. member had made the insinuations to which he dare not give expression. More innuendoes had come from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. He (Mr. Orr) could find no trace of any proposal made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth with regard to the management. Mr. Orr went on to say that they had had this matter fully discussed in the House and also in a Committee-room upstairs. They came to the conclusion that the managing director and the Board associated with him had erred, and erred grievously, in overrunning their funds, but they did not find that there was what he might call moral blame to be attached to them in the matter. The manager and the Board honestly believed that they were doing the best in the interests of the country in going to the bank and getting overdrafts rather than stopping the whole of the advances.

said he thought the member for Cape Town, Central, had done a service to the farming community of this country by pointing out the dangerous policy adopted, by the Board in making such large advances to co-operative societies. He found from the report before him that already £299,000 had been advanced out of the funds of this Bank to co-operative societies, and in the report dealing with the period under review there were applications from the same societies for a further £193,000. All he could say was that if the farming community of this country did not pay attention to matters of this sort they would find that the Land Bank, instead of being a blessing to the farmers, was going to be a curse. The Government was certainly responsible. It was never the intention of Parliament, when it established the Agricultural Bank, that it should be utilised for the purpose of stimulating speculation amongst the farmers of this country. In the end the farmers were going to suffer from a policy of that kind, and he said unhesitatingly that the Government had been remiss in their duty in allowing such a policy to be pursued. He was not a little nervous lest many of the advances made by the Bank had been made on the basis of the very high prices which had been reached for land. Those of them who knew something about the prices which had been paid for land—and he was the last in the world to decry the value of land in this country, especially irrigable land— knew that it was not in the interests of the farmers that in any period of speculation land should be boomed above its value. They knew that there was now a temporary lull in the price of land. They also knew that farmers had been encouraged to go in and very often buy really above their resources. There was another matter which, he considered, showed a great fault in the management of this Bank. He found during the period ended December 31, 1913, that out of the resources of the Bank, which, he thought, they had all understood was established for the purpose of encouraging development and assisting small men who had no capital of their own to come in and become landowners and assist in developing the resources of the country, a large proportion, he had almost said the main proportion, of the resources of this institution had been used for paying off existing liabilities. During the period under review, out of a total fund of £1,500,000, £662,000 was advanced in order to discharge existing liabilities on land. He had former statements in connection with advances of this character, and he found that since these Banks had been established there had been advanced for the purpose of paying off existing liabilities on land, prior to the amounts he had mentioned, in the Transvaal £955,000, and in the Orange Free State £209,000, so that practically during the period of the banks’ existence nearly £2,000,000 had been advanced in discharge of existing obligations. He asked the House if that were the manner in which they were going to assist the small producer in this country. (Hear, hear.) There would come a period of time when Parliament would not be able to advance this money, and he maintained that the policy of the Land Bank should be to assist the small man, the man who could not get credit in the ordinary way. He believed that the Land Bank could be made an admirable institution for the benefit of the country, but he said that the Government were responsible for its policy. That policy should be that advances should be made in the direction of assisting men to go on the land and not in the direction of assisting people to pay off existing mortgages and become large landowners. They had already had example of the bad effect of making large advances to co-operative societies. Co-operation would never be successful unless they had many of the farmers banded together in the institution. So long as they advanced large sums to these societies, they would certainly have uneconomical administration and a desire to speculate with money that had been got easily, forgetting that it had to be repaid.

said the previous speaker had told the House that the object of the bank should be to help people who had no land. What, then, was to become of the people who had been forced after the war to mortgage the land heavily? He (General Smuts) held that one of the great things achieved by the Land Bank had been to help these people who found themselves under excessively heavy obligations. But, of course, hon. members of the Opposition always found fault. As to the argument against the co-operative societies, the hon. member for Cape Town Central, forgot that by advancing money to such societies every individual member of such society was helped. He denied that in any instance money had been advanced for speculative purposes, and the more farmers were encouraged to join cooperative societies the better it was for the society. The manager and the board of the bank had undoubtedly gone too far, but they had acted in good faith, and he trusted that the motion of the Minister would be agreed to.

said he regretted to have heard the remarks of the hon. member for Newlands. The hon. member was young, and it was most out of place for him to have insinuated anything like what he had done. If the hon. member made similar remarks again he (the Prime Minister) would have to make him understand that it was the duty of hon. members to protect people who wished to do their duty. (Hear, hear.) There was no doubt that the manager and members of the Land Board had acted in a bona-fide manner. Had that not been so the Public Accounts Committee would undoubtedly have brought the matter before the House. Yet the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed to have suggested that the Bank had acted as a political body.

said he had neither meant nor suggested anything of the sort.

said the manager and his board had gone too far, but no crime had been committed. People who were in a difficult position had been helped, and therefore their mistake could be condoned. In regard to the co-operative society argument, he held that where farmers agreed to have all their mealies sold through one channel, there was a legitimate opening for the Land Bank to help. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Cape Town had not said a word about co-operative societies which borrowed from ordinary banks. The difficulty of the Committee was to get the consumer in direct touch with the producer. The object of the co-operative society was not to eliminate the middleman, but to see to it that the middlemen did not profit unduly at the expense of the farmer. There was a time when the Transvaal producers had to sell their mealies at 5s. per bag, whereas the mines paid as much as 12s. or 15s per bag now, and took 600,000 or 700,000 bags per annum. The middlemen formerly put the difference in their own pockets. Until the co-operative society came into existence the farmer was never in a position directly to deal with the mines. But to-day the producers were directly supplying the mines in accordance with tenders with three to four hundred thousand bags of mealies and were getting fair prices. The Land Bank and the co-operative societies had done more good for the development of the country than any other institution. (Hear, hear.) Money wolves before the days of the Land Bank prevented the farmer from doing anything. The Land Bank enabled people to remain on the land and progress. In regard to the remarks of the leader of the Opposition that a fallacious value of the ground was being created as the result of the work of the Land Bank, he (the Prime Minister) wished to point out that nowhere in the world was the value of the land so low as in South Africa. Therefore it would be good to let the country become aware of the full value of the land. Dealing with the argument that the advances made had been too large, General Botha remarked that only a very small percentage of the advances had been in large amounts. The management of the Land Bank would not again make themselves guilty of a similar offence.

deprecated the remarks of the hon. member for Newlands, which could have nothing but bad effects. Speaking from personal experience, he said that he knew that the Land Bank had done excellent work. Apparently the remarks of the hon. member for Newlands had been prompted by jealousy. The Opposition apparently wanted the farmers to sell their land at 5s. or 7s. 6d. per morgen. He had personally made use of the Land Bank after the war, as he had lost everything. Since then he had repaid all the money. Others had done the same as he had, and the land was now worth £3 to £4 per morgen—hence the tears. It was not necessary to debate at such length the action of the Bank in arranging for an overdraft, as they had full securities in the form of mortgage bonds.

said excellent work had been done by the Land Bank and the co-operative societies, which had saved many farmers from absolute ruin. He was astonished at the remarks which had been made by the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of the advances to co-operative societies. He, personally, represented a big society at Pretoria which had received an advance from the Land Bank. The money was good, and the Government could get it back any day £ for £. The Land Bank had proved itself a blessing to many farmers.

said he regretted that the Government had not been able to give more money to the Land Bank. In his district the Land Bank had first of all, promised certain advances and then had been compelled to withdraw the promise. He for one would assist the Government in its endeavours to make the Land Bank a success, and he trusted sufficient funds would be given to that institution next year to help as many people as possible. Wherever loans had been promised every possible attempt should be made to carry out the promise, as otherwise people might be placed in a most awkward position, and they might be tempted to bring actions for damages. If the Land Bank had overdrawn, at any rate it had done so in the interests of the country. He thought that too much money had been lent to societies, as a result of which loans to private persons had to suffer.

said that in paragraph 22 of the Act, with which the Minister was familiar, there was an important question raised—that of where the Land Bank could borrow money. He hoped that the Minister would give them some assurance as regarded that matter.

said he appreciated the point, but the legal position was perfectly clear—that the Land Bank could not borrow money outside the grant given by Parliament. They had made that position perfectly clear in law. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton) had asked why they did not bring in an amending Bill. He did not think that an amending Bill was necessary under the circumstances, and he was informed by the Auditor-General that a resolution of that House was sufficient. He regretted that in the criticism from the Opposition so little sympathy had been shown with the Land Bank. It had been working under circumstances novel and difficult, and he was sure their work would not be made easier by some of the carping criticism which had come from hon. members. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth had launched forth on a general attack on the management of the bank, which he (the Minister) did not think was justified. No recommendation had been made by the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the management of the bank. He did not think the state of things that had occurred would ever be likely to occur again. Proceeding, he said that the manager of the bank was a very capable officer, and was responsible for that kind of work years ago.

He was only the clerk, he was not responsible.

said that in the Transvaal the manager was Master of the Court for many years; he was chairman of the Investing Board, and was responsible for the investment of very large sums of money. It could not be said therefore that he had not had experience in that kind of work. The other members were capable men, and he repudiated the suggestions of the hon. member for Newlands that political considerations had influenced their appointment. He did not think those remarks were justified in the least.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had criticised the large advances made to the Co-operative Societies, and said that from lack of business ability in the management of these co-operative societies a great danger was being run by the members of the societies, who might find themselves in difficulties. The activities of cooperative societies in this country as compared with European countries like Den mark were on a different basis. He thought people did not understand the difference between co-operation as it had been working in the interior and co-operation as it had been working in certain European countries. There were a number of comparatively poor people who lived within call of each other, clubbed together, brought together their savings, and built up a little capital. They progressed until the movement attained enormous dimensions, but the societies themselves remained very small, and with a very small capital. Here in the Transvaal those societies were worked on an entirely different basis. There were societies in the Transvaal producing hundreds of thousands of bags of mealies; their turnover was enormous. The question was how could such societies be financed? That was a difficult question. They had societies which took over large amounts of produce from consumers, and a large amount of money was required for the purpose. He would agree that in some cases the advances had been too large. At a conference which was held by the co-operative societies with the manager of that Land Bank it had been decided that in future that the amount of the advance in each year should be settled after consultation with the Board of the Land Bank. He thought, therefore, they would not hear again of advances which ought not to have been made. It so happened in the great majority of those cases the advances happened not to be very large, but it was quite impossible to keep them within such small limits as the hon. member had mentioned. If the Land Bank refused to make the loans, private banks would not refuse. As a matter of fact the co-operative societies in the Transvaal had had more dealings with and borrowed more money from private banks than from the Land Bank. The control which the Land Bank intended to exercise over societies had been largely nullified by the private banks having made advances in connection with which the Land Bank had made conditions. The private banks were, however, more and more coming into line with the conditions imposed by the Land Bank and to see that they would have to be carried out. Experience was a very-heavy taskmaster. With regard to the Pretoria Society which had gone into liquidation, the members had to pay up, and they had done so. Then there was another co-operative society which had also gone into liquidation. He had no doubt the bank was completely covered, but it was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, because the hundreds of members who belonged to that society looked to the management of the society to safeguard their interests. He assured the House that the difficulties and dangers were fully understood, and his influence all these years had been going in the direction of helping the societies and of making them understand the enormous responsibilities which rested on them. Whatever the Treasury could do, the Minister went on, would be done to safeguard the interests of the State. As to the suggestion of the hon. member for George that the bank should supply him with a transcript of its minutes, other arrangements had now been made which would make the position satisfactory. The advances to the bank would in future be made monthly, the outcome of which would of course be that a cheek would be placed on the expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the Minister said that his idea had always been that co-operative societies could be one of the greatest possible blessings to the country, but that on the other hand they might easily become extremely dangerous. (Hear, bear.) Even in the Cape, where co-operation was started by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth—although he must say it had been started on a wrong basis, they had to wipe off debts of £50,000 last year. In the Transvaal the matter was on a far larger scale, and the activities of the cooperative society were greatly in excess of what they had been in the Cape, and their turnover amounted to £800,000 per annum. Unless the affairs of these societies were managed with the greatest business ability there must be disaster, and he trusted that the difficulties and responsibilities connected with the position would be more and more appreciated by the directors so that the co-operative movement might become that blessing to the country which it was intended that it should be when it started. In years gone by farmers got only as much as 5s. and 6s. per bag for their mealies, but all that had changed now, and as the result of the societies’ activities farmers now obtained their fair market price.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That in terms of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Land Bank Act, 1912, interest at the rate of £4 per cent. per annum shall be payable by the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa to the Minister of Finance on all such moneys as the Minister may, from and after the 1st April, 1914, pay to the bank under the provisions of sub-section (1) (c) of the aforesaid section of the Act. In explaining the motion, the Minister said it also was intended to carry out the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. The committee had pointed out that the money they were at present advancing to the bank was costing above 4 per cent., and they only got 3½ per cent. for accepting the risk from the Land Bank. It was brought forward that the rate of interest should be raised to 4 per cent. They had saddled the bank with certain obligations; in respect of some loans they could only charge 4 per cent., but in regard to other loans they could charge 5 per cent., and more than 5 per cent. Until those obligations had been settled, however, they could only get 4 per cent., and should not, therefore, be called upon for more than 4 per cent.

seconded the motion.

said that by paying the amounts monthly they would not have a check on what was going on. They wanted to know the promises and commitments that were made. It was information of that sort that was required. If they did not get that information, they were going to get into trouble. The Minister of Finance passed an aspersion on the manager of the bank when he said the responsibility for the transaction—

That part of the motion has been passed now.

I know, but I am only making this remark. (Laughter.) He cast an undeserved aspersion on that officer. The Minister makes some charming speeches, but they don’t give me any sense of security.

said that as for a little while the Government might have to pay more than 4 per cent., he thought that the amount should be not more than 4¼ per cent. The State ought to be paid what the money actually cost.

said he intended to move that the rate be 4¼ per cent. The rate suggested was going to be charged on future advances. He pointed out that of the money advanced the fact was that it had been advanced at 3¼ per cent, whereas it had cost the Government 4¼ per cent. He quoted from evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, where the Secretary of the Treasury said that money which cost 4⅞ per cent. in London was lent to the Land Bank at 3¾ per cent. The balance to-day of £4,200,000 would still continue to pay 3f per cent. Taking the figures of last year, £1,125,000, that was costing them £6,125 more than they were getting for it was that not a very strange state of affairs? Here the Government had put forward proposals for fresh taxation and at the same time was subsidising the Land Bank to the extent of £6,000 a year. On the loan vote there was a further advance to the Land Bank of £750,000, which would come under the 4 per cent. If it cost them the same as last year there would be a further subsidy of £1,785 in the advance to the Land Bank.

It was proposed to subsidise the land-owners of this country out of the taxpayers’ money and at the same time the Government came with proposals for increased taxation. What made the position worse was that the Government, while subsidising the Land Bank to the extent of £8,000 a year, taxed the other banks of the country. The two largest banks would be charged 7½ per cent. on their profits, and at the same time the Government would be subsidising the Land Bank out of the taxpayers’ pocket to the extent of £8,000. Was there any sense of fair play and justice about these proposals? The Prime Minister said that the bank did a lot of good to the country, and he (Mr. Jagger) agreed, and would point out that when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, introduced and passed his Land Bank proposals for the Cape Colony he (Mr. Jagger) supported him. He also said that this bank was of great benefit to the country. Were not the other banks of benefit to the country, and he pointed out the amount that these institutions had advanced.

pointed out that this was merely a question of interest.

said that this had an important bearing on the question. He was showing that they were subsidising this bank by not charging a sufficient rate of interest. Would any hon. member deny that the other banks did a great deal of good to the country? In the interest of the Land Bank and in the interests of the farmers he appealed to the Government to place this institution on a proper basis, and he hoped the landowners would have more respect for themselves than support anything of the kind. If the Government borrowed at 4¼ per cent. and lent at 5 per cent., the difference would meet the working costs, which came out at .66. He had received information that day that there were more clerks in the Land Bank office than work could be found for, and that was borne out by facts. The advances for one month totalled £150,000, and that surely was not sufficient work for all these clerks. He also was told that the salaries paid were higher than those paid to ordinary Civil Servants.

He maintained that, if economies were effected, a margin of 15s. between the rate at which the bank received money and the rate at which they lent it was sufficient. Recently he was informed that the bank had obtained new premises in Pretoria, and had actually signed a contract for the erection of a new building before Parliament had given its approval to the sale of the land to the bank. They had had an offer of another building—an old building —by the Bank of Africa, at less than half the amount that this new property was going to cost. The land and building were expected to cost something like £25,000. They had had a building offered at less than half that sum. Was that studying economy? Not only that, but they had gone outside, and had engaged an architect to prepare plans, etc., while he was given to understand that they had the right to call upon the Public Works Department to furnish them with plans for that building. The large profit that the bank had made —last year they made £30,000, after paying working expenses—in his opinion, encouraged extravagance. He was certain that if they had not had this large margin to go on that they had had in the past, and had not made this large profit, they would not have gone on the extravagant lines that they had followed. If they saw that 15s. was going to be the margin that they had to work on, they would be able to run the bank quite easily on that, covering working expenses and having a small reserve fund. If that were not sufficient, then he thought the rate of interest should be raised. He most strongly protested against the taxpayers of this country being called upon to subsidise the Land Bank in this way, that they had got to borrow money and pay a higher rate of interest for it than that at which it was lent to farmers.

said he did not understand that the hon. member had moved an amendment.

said that he wished to move that the rate of interest be 4¼ per cent.

I don’t know that that would be in accordance with section 20 of the Land Bank Act. The section says that the rate of interest shall be fixed by resolution of Parliament, passed upon a Message there to by the Governor-General.

said he hoped that the Minister of Finance would agree to his proposal. He would urge upon him to accept 4¼ per cent. Later on, if the rate of interest fell, the charge could be brought down. Let the taxpayer, at any rate, be free from any contribution on account of this bank.

(in answer to Sir E. Walton, Port Elizabeth. Central), was understood to say that he had a Message from the Governor-General.

asked whether, if the Message from His Excellency suggested that the rate should be 4 per cent., it was not competent to say that the rate should be 4¼?

The resolution must be in the form of a Message.

said that this proposal would not mean an increase of expenditure, but a decrease of expenditure.

said that he gave his ruling on the basis that as long as section 20 stood and it was not amended he could not accept the amendment.

said that, if the Minister had still to bring a Message from the Governor-General, he would perhaps bring it with a proposal of 4¼ per cent.

said that the Minister wished to raise the interest payable to 4 per cent., although the Government paid more, but, as the Minister had pointed out, the Bank had to advance money at 4 per cent. for certain purposes under the Act, such as the erection of windmills, fences, and the making of boreholes. The bank was established for the development of the country and had to advance money for purposes like fencing and boring. He could not understand why members should insist upon the bank paying precisely as much as the country paid. Far greater sums were lost on harbours and other public services, yet there were no complaints. Why then should this be called a “monstrous scandal”? Was the loss of £280,000 on harbours which the interior had to pay through the railways not a “monstrous scandal”? Considering the services of the Land Bank, he could not see any justification for raising the rate of interest. It was unfair, because the money market was a little high at present, to raise the rate of interest. The country as a whole derived benefit from the activities of the bank and even merchants gained indirectly.

said he would ask the Minister to consider very seriously the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He hoped the Minister would withdraw his resolution and bring forward another on the lines suggested by the hon. member.

He really could not see how any member on either side of the House could justify the present state of things, whereby money was lent to the Land Bank at less than it was costing the Union. The hon. member for Fauresmith had put forward a certain argument which seemed to him (Mr. Duncan) to show how strongly members on the opposite side felt the weakness of the case. Did he know that the Land Bank had saved the farmers of this country from paying interest at rates of 8 and 10 per cent? The Prime Minister had told them that before the Land Bank was established they had to pay interest at 8 and 10 per cent. on advances from banks and other institutions in the country. If that were so, was it unreasonable that they should pay 5¼ per cent., say, to the Land Bank? Must they insist on getting money from the taxpayers in order to pay 5 per cent. instead of 5¼ per cent.? The good sense of members opposite told them it was not right that the general taxpayers should be asked to subsidise this institution, which could continue to be a great help to the farmers without being a burden on the general exchequer. Why should the taxpayer go on subsidising the bank? The bank ought to be conducted strictly on business lines—(hear, hear)—and on those lines it could still be of great help to the farmers, but as soon as it ceased to be conducted on business principles extravagance would be encouraged. The bank should pay the Treasury what it cost the Treasury to find the money.

said as the matter appeared to him farmers would not have to pay a higher rate of interest. All that would happen would be that the bank would have to be more careful with its investments. He thought the bank should be placed on a solid basis, so that there would be no objection to make advances to the bank, because it should not be forgotten that the bank had often to lend out money over long periods of time. He feared it would not create a very good impression in the interior when it was pointed out that the general taxpayer had to pay up to cover the loss in managing the bank.

said the hon. member opposite had assumed that the interest at which money was now being borrowed was fixed at 4¼ per cent. The rate at which the Government had been borrowing varied from time to time. The day might come when the Government might be able to borrow at less than 4 per cent., but the bank would continue to pay 4 per cent. until Parliament ordered otherwise. From 1912 to the present day the Land Bank had been paying 3¾ per cent., but the bulk of the money was borrowed by Government at a little over 3 per cent. The Transvaal Land Bank, which had been taken into the Union, had obtained £2,000,000 from the Transvaal Government, which borrowed it at 3,169 per cent. If the rate of interest were fixed at 41/4 per cent next year we might find that we could borrow money at less than that rate.

Then you would reduce the interest.

But it would not be reduced to the borrower from the bank. We need not look with such minuteness at this matter. Money will not always remain as dear as it is to-day; that is impossible.

It may take some years.

said there was nothing extraordinary in what they were doing. They had the same arrangements in regard to the irrigation loan. It was proposed to advance this year half-a-million at 33/4 per cent. for irrigation purposes. In dealing with public matters like irrigation and improvements effected by means of advances from the Land Bank they did not study too closely the business basis. It was fair to raise the interest to 4 per cent., but if the rate at which the Government borrowed money went up he would have to ask for another increase, and he would not hesitate to do so.

The motion was agreed to.

That this House authorises, under section 39 of Act No. 29 of 1912, the retention in his office or post of interpreter in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court until the 31st May, 1915, of William Martin Austin, who has attained the age of 65 years. The Minister explained that the motion was brought before the House in terms of the Public Service Act. Mr. Austin had a very extensive knowledge of seven native languages and also spoke English and Dutch. The Government had experienced considerable difficulty in finding a person with similar linguistic attainments. Mr. Austin’s salary was only £300 a year and his pension would be very small. The judges of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court were of opinion that Mr. Austin should be kept on, at any rate for another year, which would give ample time to find an efficient interpreter in his place.

regretted that the Minister had not placed an indefinite period in his motion. It was felt that people were pensioned off too early; he would therefore move that the motion be for an indefinite period.

replied that under the Act it was necessary to lay down a definite period. He had to give the House the assurance that the official was able to do his duty, and it might be impossible next year for him to give that assurance. As to the question of pensioning an official, it would be unfair to younger officials to allow persons to exceed the time at which they should leave the service, and this was only done in exceptional circumstances.

The motion was agreed to.

said that the matter was before the House last on Friday, the 24th of April, and when it was under consideration there were two motions before the House. One by Mr. Krige, that the petition of No. 22, H. Goddard, be referred back to the Select Committee, and the other by Mr. C. L. Botha, who moved that the order for consideration of the Committee of the whole House be discharged and that the report be re-committed. That was where the debate stood adjourned. He put the question that these matters be recommitted.

The House agreed to that course.

said that since the matter was previously before the House the petitioner, Mr. F. C. Botha, had died.

moved that the House go into Committee forthwith.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the adoption of the report, and said that since the report was brought up notice had been received of the death of Mr. F. C. Botha, and if it were in order he would move that the name be deleted, but he wished to say that if the Government could see their way to do anything for the petitioners he hoped there would be some consideration showed towards the widow of the deceased petitioner, who was left in a most destitute condition.

suggested that the hon. member should move an amendment.

said that there was no amendment necessary. Those were petitioners who had suffered severely during the war and were left in a destitute condition. The committee took the view that the cases had been decided by the two Commissions which sat in the colonies previously. Those were very hard cases indeed, and the committee thought they had done all they could by referring them to the Government for their support. There was no objection to the case of Goddard being taken back to the committee, as the Department of Finance had added something to the report. He moved that the report be adopted, with the exception of R. W. Tanner and H. Goddard, which should be referred back to the committee for consideration; and the name of F. C. Botha be deleted.

suggested that the hon. member should move that Nos. from 1 to 13 should be adopted.

moved that as advised.

The motion was agreed to.

moved on paragraph 2 of the petitions of H. Goddard and R. Tanner be referred back to the committee.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that Nos. 8, 9 and 10, J. J. M. Jacob, J. J. F. Britz, and D. H. Jacobs, be referred to the Government for their consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

asked an explanation from the Chairman as to whether the recommendations of the Pensions Committee in referring to the petitions of C. Long and J. S. Marwick were in order. The report of the committee states that they were unable to make any recommendations, as all legal remedies had not teen exhausted. Surely, he said, they should not force upon petitioners who came to the Government for their just rights the necessity of going to the Courts; that was expecting too much. One would think it should not be the wish of the House to put petitioners to legal expenditure such as that.

on behalf of another hon. member, also held that it was a wrong principle. He had before him the case of Mr. Marwick, who had had long service in Natal and had rights there in regard to some period of time being added to his service. It was wrong in principle that if a man had a just claim he should be asked to so pursue a legal remedy. He took exception to the report of the committee, on the ground that it stated that the applicants had not exhausted their legal remedies. He moved this Committee recommends that the petitions of C. Long and J. S. Marwick be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration.

said that he hoped the Committee would not accept the suggestion. These two gentlemen were officers of the Natal Government in the days before the Union, when the Transvaal enjoyed Responsible Government. They left the Natal service and went to the Transvaal, and they stayed on during the period of Responsible Government. Then the Transvaal Government decided to dispense with their services. Under the Natal rule, these gentlemen were entitled to a certain period being added to their service for pension purposes. The Transvaal Government gave each a lump sum and a pension. These gentlemen were retrenched by the Transvaal Government, took the lump sum they were entitled to under the Transvaal Act without protest, and the pensions they were awarded for service in the Transvaal and Natal. One got £1,000 and the other £800. Having got their pensions and their lump sums, they turned round and said they were Natal servants, and entitled to the complementary service, and they based that claim on an Ordinance of the Transvaal. They read the Ordinance one way, the law advisers of the Government read it in another way, and then they came to that House with a petition. They asked the committee to interpret the Ordinance, but the committee was not a Court of Law, for at best it tried to be a Court of Equity. His (Mr. Currey’s) opinion was that these gentlemen could not have it both ways. He submitted that the House was not the forum to which these gentlemen should appeal.

said that before the pension law of 1906 was passed in the Transvaal, the officers who had been transferred from the Natal service approached Sir Richard Solomon, who was then at the head of the department, and asked that their pension rights under the Natal Act might be secured. A clause was put in which was intended to give that security.

That is the legal question.

said that the law was amended to meet the cases of these officers. What was in his mind when the recommendation was passed was that the Government should make it easy for these men to state a case and get a ruling, because this Point affected many other pensioners.

The amendment was negatived.

moved that the cases of Greeff and McKay should be referred to the Government, with the object of seeing whether suitable work could not be found for these men on the railways.

asked whether the Government had taken any steps to find these men suitable employment?

The motion has not been passed.

said they might make a recommendation to the Government, but they would not know whether anything would actually be done.

said that the hon. member for George was showing a lot of faith in the Government when he recommended that action would be taken in these cases.

said it was only reasonable to take it for granted that the Government would do what it could.

thought it was rather invidious to discuss the matter without the Minister of Railways and Harbours being present. He had not the same faith in the Railway Department as the hon. member for George. He was glad that the Minister had returned, and he hoped he would answer the question

moved that the case of J. Key should be referred back.

pointed out that that recommendation had been passed, and that he could not allow the hon. member to go back.

appealed to the Minister of Railways and Harbours to answer his question with regard to Greeff and McKay.

said that the hon. member could put the question on the report stage.

Won’t it be too late then?

The hon. member can bring the matter up on the report stage.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he would ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours to take a personal interest in this recommendation and give it his favourable consideration, so that these men would not be thrown on to the streets.

said he did not know what the hon. member meant by taking a personal interest. (Laughter.) He was afraid that he could not, even at the solicitation of hon. members on the cross-benches, give a blank cheque or make any promise in regard to these matters. He had not the pleasure of the acquaintance of these two gentlemen or any knowledge as to their cases. All he could say was that his department would, as it always did, pay due regard to any recommendation that Parliament made.

The motion was agreed to.

referring to the case of Mr. J. M. Conroy, said he believed it was the general feeling that some injustice had been done to this man, and he hoped the Government would see that a proper inquiry was made, with a view of ascertaining whether something could not be done.

moved: This Committee recommends that the papers relating to the proposed award to Mrs. H. H. Elliott, widow of the late H. H. Elliott, Maintenance Engineer, South African Railways, of a special pension, or alternatively, a gratuity, in recognition of the services of her late husband, be referred to the Government for consideration.

said that there was a matter immediately preceding the one mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, on which he would like the Chairman of the Committee to give some information. He might be wrong, but he had an impression that the petitioner concerned only desired to commute his particular pension or gratuity, or whatever it was.

was understood to say that the Government had agreed to the commutation of a pension of £7 11s. 4d. The papers on the subject had been referred to the committee, and the committee, with the advice before them, did not see their way to adopt the recommendation of the Government.

Sir T. W. Smartt’s motion was agreed to.

The resolutions were reported and considered forthwith.

moved the adoption of the resolutions.

The motion was agreed to.

rising amid cheers to move the second reading of the Fruit Export Bill, said that in moving this Bill he had not the slightest doubt that he would have the support of every member of the House. (Laughter.)

You are an optimist.

said he recollected that in 1909 a similar Bill was introduced in the Cape House of Assembly, and strongly supported by the Leader of the Opposition and opposed by the Leader of the Government at the time. (Laughter.) In spite of that they had passed the Bill through the House of Assembly, but when it went to the Legislative Council, and they wished to put it through more than one stage on the same day, one of the members objected, and the Bill dropped. The present Bill was the outcome of the wish of all the farmers who took an interest in the export of fruit. (Dissent.) Well, he would say a very large proportion of them. There was a gathering the other day attended by about 40 gentlemen in the trade, of whom 36 voted in favour of it and four against. At the present moment they had the voluntary system in operation in Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Last year 445,648 boxes or packages of fruit were exported. That was a record year. The reports that he had from the Trades Commissioner showed that he was strongly in favour of inspection. He (the Minister) had had an opportunity of seeing some of the fruit submitted for export, and he thought it was a disgrace that that fruit should be exported. In one box he had seen apples, pears and plums all packed together in straw. In view of the magnificent trade that they had got on the other side of the water, he thought it was nothing but the duty of the Union Government to come forward with a measure so as to protect the trade. The Bill was a very simple one. He would be prepared to consider in Committee any amendments. The time of the House was limited—(cheers)—and it could not devote a long time to the discussion of the Bill. However, if the measure could be improved, he would be very willing to accept amendments in Committee.

said a very reasonable objection could be raised against Government interference in this matter. (Hear, hear.) But one reason nor Government taking some action was because fruit exported in a bad condition damaged that sent in a good condition. (Cheers.) It was most discouraging to exporters shipping good fruit to have it injured by cheap rotten consignments. One of the most important matters in connection with the export of fruit was that there should be sufficient accommodation for it on the mail steamers. It had been stated that the Mail Company was supporting the rejection of unsound fruit so as to reduce the demand for cool storage accommodation on the steamers in order to save the companies the necessity of enlarging the cool chambers. He hoped the Bill would be adopted unanimously, but at the same time no restriction should be imposed on the sending of fruit to the other Provinces of the Union.

said the result of the Bill would be that all the bad fruit would be eaten in South Africa. (Cheers.) He would like to know why. (Laughter.) Surely good fruit was just as necessary for South Africa as for people on the other side of the water. South Africa had put up with half-price for its wool for twenty years until the good sense of the people came to the rescue, and they saw that it was advisable to export the wool in good condition. Exactly the same principle applied to the fruit trade. It would have been a bold Government to have attacked the shipments of wool or ostrich feathers. It would be an evil day for South Africa when such a measure as the one now before the House found no opposition at all. The Fruit Exporters’ Association might very well take the matter in hand instead of the Government. What was to become of the bad and the second-rate fruit? He was a grower of second-rate fruit himself. (Laughter.) What was he to do with it? All portions of South Africa had not the delightful climate for fruit growing that the Western Province had It seemed to him that this was another piece of legislation for the benefit of the Cape. There was a market for second-grade fruit in England, and it was from that market the money came. He supposed the stamp would have to be a bilingual one. But what would the ordinary fruit buyer at Covent Garden market think of the stamp if it were printed in Dutch? He would think that the package to which the Dutch stamp was affixed contained second quality fruit. (Laughter.) The Bill provided for the most tremendous penalties. (Hear, hear.) Actually a fine of £25 or hard labour for three months. Why not add lashes?

Deportation. (Laughter.)

said as the Bill applied only to fresh fruit he supposed stale fruit could be exported without being examined. (Laughter.) Was there any commercial necessity to have a Government guarantee? So long as the fruit was good it required no mark by a Government inspector. We did not find that Cadbury’s chocolate or Huntley and Palmer’s biscuits required a Government stamp. Surely we could take our courage in our hands and try to do something for ourselves. (Hear, hear.) We were calling out for economy, and yet Government proposed to establish another branch for the inspection of fruit. The Bill was unnecessary and there was a principle at stake. How long were we going to go on under Government tutelage? It was time that the fruit exporters did not go to Government for every little thing.

said South African fruit, like South African wool, had got somewhat of a bad name, and it was practically impossible—at all events immediately—for any one individual to live down a bad name, and to that extent he agreed it was advisable that the fruit should be guaranteed by the Union, but he did not agree that all fruit should be rejected which could not pass the inspector. We were bolstering up the export of our best fruit by cheap rates on the railway and, he presumed, by cheap freights on Union-Castle steamers. This had the direct result of making the fruit that was left in South Africa the worst and the dearest. One could not get such good fruit now as was obtainable three or four years ago, nor was it so cheap. Whilst agreeing that the export fruit should be guaranteed, he did not think the rejected fruit should be thrown back on South Africa. When the people on the other side found that the packages that bore the Government stamp were of good quality, the fruit which was not stamped would not fetch the same high price. While agreeing with the State inspection of exports, he did not agree with the punishment or rejection clause in the Bill.

said that the Durban people, while agreeing with the grading of fruit, contended that fruit which was not graded should not be prevented from being shipped. An arrangement should be made by which fruit which was not of the highest grade could still be exported. (Hear, hear.) The exporters would be very much at the mercy of the Government officials with regard to the fees. The penalties in the Bill were enormous. It would be sufficient punishment to the grower to have his fruit rejected without having to run the risk of being declared a criminal.

thought some of the objections raised by the hon. member for Springs could easily be met, as they had been in other countries where fruit was graded as 1st, 2nd or 3rd class. But in those countries fruit which did not receive the Government stamp was not prevented from being sent abroad, but only the fruit passed by the Government inspector had the chance of obtaining a market. The Government inspection of fruit in Australia had built up a very remunerative trade. If we had a good article, let us take care that it should arrive in Europe with the Government stamp on it so that the people there should know what they were buying. In Natal the objection was not so much to the Second class fruit being kept back, for the jam factories could utilise that, as they rarely used anything but third-class fruit, that being quite good enough to make the very best preserve. Charges had been sent to those people, although their fruit had been spoilt. They wanted provision made so that fruit should get to London in the shortest time and in the best condition. He believed in the principle of the Bill and thought it was an important one, but he wanted to see the fruit of this country keep step with other countries.

said that that Bill was another case of interference in a trade which had been building up for some time past, and now the Government officials were to step in and say whether the fruit should be exported or should not be exported. He did not know whether hon. members had read the Bill, but the provisions were very drastic indeed. Why should it be necessary for fruit to be passed by an inspector? Why should notice have to be given of export? A lot of red tape would be connected with that. Then amongst other regulations the exporter had to be present at the inspection, and supposing his fruit was rejected, he had to bear the whole loss. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the jam factories here could not take all the fruit that was over, and unfortunately, owing to the duty on sugar, they could not do any exporting of jam at all. The Government took power to make the most drastic regulations possible. He had known cases in which the Agricultural Department issued certain regulations regarding the packing of oranges, and he knew an expert at Home in the business who differed entirely from the Department in the matter of packing oranges which they wanted to impose upon him, The Agricultural Department did not know everything, and the sooner they realised that the better. If they were going to apply the principle in the case of fruit, why did they not carry it further and apply it in regard to wool and skins. The real truth was that the wool growers were too strong for his hon. friend. If that Bill was carried through it would cripple the export trade in fruit, and it was going to play into the hands of the big men, whom that Bill was introduced to support. He had seen that it was introduced under pressure by the growers of high grade fruit, who desired that high grade fruit alone should be exported to the other side of the water. There was only a limited quantity of high grade fruit produced, and they wanted the export trade to be confined to that limited quantity; consequently if that was the case, the price of such fruit on the other side of the water would be kept up. The Bill would be highly satisfactory to those growers.

The hon. member went on to say that there were two classes of people whom the hon. gentleman forgot about entirely. There was the small grower who could not comply with the regulations, the man who did not produce fruit of sufficiently high grade for export. What was he going to do with his fruit? Under that Bill he was absolutely prohibited from sending it oversea, and would be compelled to sell it for what he could get in the limited local market. His rights were taken away for the simple reason that they must not spoil the European market for the high-grade fruit grower. The other class he referred to were represented by the many thousands of people in Europe and on the Continent who could not afford to buy high grade fruit, and yet those same people would be quite prepared to buy the cheaper fruit. That Bill would keep them from getting that fruit, and growers on this side would be compelled to practically throw their fruit away. The hon. member went on to speak of a gentleman oversea who bought thousands of pounds’ worth of fruit at the present time for export. He had tried in the first place to buy from the high grade growers, but was compelled to go to the smaller growers. He had bought thousands of tons from that class of men, men who had not been in the habit of shipping their fruit. He paid cash for that fruit and took all risks himself. Needless to say, he did not buy all high grade fruit and he did not pack it exactly according to the regulations laid down in that Bill. He knew the market he was catering for, and he knew the thousands on the other side who could not afford to pay for the packing required. This man had put his own money into it entirely. If that Bill was carried through his operations would be entirely stopped. He (Mr. Jagger) would not go quite so far as to say that that Bill had been introduced owing to the pressure of the high grade fruit growers to stop the operations of that gentleman, but the consequences would be that many small growers of fruit in this country who had been sending their fruit oversea would not be able to do so next year, and would have to sell in the local market for what it was worth here.

Another result from the Bill was that they were going to put the trade in the hands of the officials. It would be for the officials to say whether the fruit could be exported or whether it could not. He knew of two fruit growers who sent fruit to be graded. This was rejected by the official concerned, but the fruit was sent on to London and realised satisfactory prices. Under this Bill this fruit could not be sent on to England, and the result was that it would be chucked back on the market here, and the man, would have to take the best prices that he could. He could say that this measure went further than any legislation in any of the other colonies. He had looked up the Canadian Act, and found that fruit was graded, but that they did not absolutely prohibit the export. He would take the nearest measure to this one, and that was the Act in Victoria, which said that products must be sent out sound and free from disease, but did not say anything about a standard. At the present they had a not unsatisfactory method. They had a fruit grader who was willing to inspect any fruit. If he passed that fruit the freight cost 10s. a ton less. Was that not sufficient encouragement for the good fruit grower? What he would suggest was that if the present system did not go far enough they should adopt something like the Canadian system. They could stamp the fruit in grades, and fruit which could not go under any of the specified grades could be marked “ungraded.” Then the man on the other side would know exactly what he was buying. He did hope that the Minister would not press the Bill in its present form. He objected to taking away the rights of a man to export fruit. He had no objection to grading, but he said that if a man wanted to send fruit he should be allowed to do so. That would allow the trade to develop and not interfere with the small man.

pointed out that under section 9 the Act was to include regulations so that when they passed the Act they would be bound by regulations they had never seen. He thought that before they were asked to pass the measure the draft regulations should be laid before the House. While it was right to protect fruit by inspection and grading there was a strong reason why they should not prevent second grade fruit from being exported provided it was so graded. He agreed with the hon. member for Durban, Berea, that it was a pity the Bill was not gazetted at an earlier date. He viewed this Bill with as much apprehension as he viewed the Adulteration of Wine Bill last year. If they were to go by the letters that had appeared in the newspapers that measure had led to disastrous results so far as wine brandy was concerned.

said he was sorry that he must disagree with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He knew and the House knew that in passing that Bill they ran great danger. There was a gentleman who had been referred to who had said that the foundations of the country would shake if Parliament dared to pass a measure of this character. (Laughter.) He thought they could survive those strictures. He seldom agreed with the hon. member for Springs, but he thought that that hon. member knew more about how long it took to live down a bad name than the growing of fruit. (Laughter.) He did not think there was any justification for the argument raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, because although his views carried great weight in that House and in the country on business matters, he thought that in this instance the hon. member had been misinformed. There was no intention on the part of the Minister or the Bill to prevent the small fruit grower from exporting, but there was a deliberate intention, with nine-tenths of the fruit growers, large and small, agreed in prohibiting decomposed or diseased fruit to be exported. If they allowed diseased fruit to be exported the time would come when different countries would absolutely prohibit its entry. He said that the careless man sent fruit of this character and the juice ran out of the boxes and damaged the consignments of the careful man. He thought that such being the case the careful man had a right to come to Parliament and say that he should be protected. With regard to the small man he would say that some of the smallest exporters of fruit in that country were entirely in favour of the Bill. If he thought for a moment that the Bill was going to hit the small fruit grower it would not have his support, but under this measure the small man, whether he sent one box or ten, would be granted the same facilities as if he were sending thousands of cases. Surely the Minister was not going to issue regulations that would put fruit growers all over the country up against them. They wanted to prohibit the export of diseased and damaged fruit.

Why don’t you say so?

(continuing) said he could give the hon. member the assurance that the Minister would make it clear in Committee that the Government did not want to stop the shipment of anything save damaged or diseased fruit. They wanted to give a certain amount of assurance to the buyer that the consignment would be found of the quality endorsed on the cases. He acknowledged that they wanted to send fruit that was not of the highest quality for the millions who were not able to pay high prices but that could be done under this Bill. There was a great future, he believed, before the fruit export trade of this country, and he said that they should do everything they could to encourage that trade. It had been said: Why should they decide upon the size of packages? The cold storage space available at present was very limited. The demands upon that accommodation were going to be far more than the majority of people recognised, and surely it was a self-evident fact that they could not use the cold storage to advantage unless they had a recognised size of packages. Under these circumstances, and with the assurance that he had no doubt the Minister would give that this Bill was not intended to interfere with the small grower, he trusted the opposition to the Bill would not be persisted in. The Bill, he was sure, would meet with the cordial support of almost the whole of the fruit farming industry in this country. (Hear, hear.)

said he hoped the House would not take the advice of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The idea of the Bill was to give the fruit grower every possible chance in the market. The object was not to help the large fruit grower, but to help the industry, an industry which was a growing one and which deserved every encouragement. It was clear that South Africa offered the greatest possible facilities for fruit growing for export, but not for local consumption, as the local markets were too restricted. Hon. members would see that there was a great fruit market in various parts of the world, and the Bill aimed at strengthening South Africa’s position. But what they found nowadays was that so often there was so much good fruit together with bad fruit in one consignment. The result was that purchasers were scared away. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to point to the excellent effect which the grading and sorting of mealies had had on the mealie trade, in which respect Natal in particular had given a good example. In regard to wool, he wished to point out that this was not a perishable article, and was not injured in transport. Besides, the farmer who properly packed and sorted his wool soon saw the benefits which he enjoyed everywhere. Fruit, the Prime Minister pointed out, was perishable. In addition, if fruit was exported in bad condition, the country’s reputation as a fruit-growing country must suffer. And that was what they desired to prevent. Originally the mealie growers had sent their product in all kinds of conditions oversea, so that the grading had to take place oversea. Consequently the prices realised were smaller. Now a different state of affairs prevailed, and good prices were paid. The hon. member for Umlazi said he was a grower of second rate fruit. Very well, there was a provision that fruit could be graded as such.

The Bill did not prevent its exportation. (Hear, hear.)

in welcoming the Bill, said that farmers should be taught how to pick and pack the fruit. His district was an orange growing district—in fact, they grew oranges as good as one would find anywhere. He foresaw a great export from his part of the country this year, and he hoped the Government would send people to show the farmers how they should pack and sort the fruit, so that the industry would be a success and farmers would not lose money, because once a farmer lost he became scared, and the industry in which he was engaged must suffer. He trusted, however, no delay would be caused by this inspection, because delay would only have the effect of spoiling the fruit. The Bill as it stood spoke of the measurement of fruit, and that was a point he did not agree with. They should look at quality, not size. As he had not consulted his constituents on this Bill, and as he did not see the hurry for the measure, he hoped the Minister would leave it over till next year. In any case, it would have to be examined closely and modified in many of its details.

said be desired to support the Bill, which, he agreed, aimed at improving the quality of the exported article. He could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who in the past had so often got up to plead for the improvement of the South African product. The Bill did not say that the second and third rate article could not be exported; but it said that the second-rate article could not be placed in the market as the first-rate article. Referring to the remarks of the previous speaker, he wished to point out that the Bill spoke of “measurement and quality.” The intention was to prevent the unsound article coming on the market, but not to exclude the small but good and sound fruits. It should be remembered that London was a large distributing centre. If London bought a large quantity of Cape fruit, believing it to be classified, and distributed that to Manchester or other centres, and the fruit turned out to be bad, consumers would in future be scared of the so-called Cape article. There also was a danger of other countries sending their product to the London market as South African fruit, just as was done with Constantia wine. Therefore it was essential that South Africa’s trade-mark should be placed on the boxes. (Hear, hear.) It would only be necessary to open a certain proportion of the boxes.

speaking as a Transvaaler, also welcomed the Bill, stating that he saw a great prospect in the fruit industry of this country. In the Transvaal, with the exception of oranges, they only played at this industry so far, but they hoped to start soon. (Hear, hear.) They had still to learn there and would be glad if the Government would look after that part of the question. He was pleased to see the provisions made in this Bill, though he would like to see the regulations laid down in the measure. He was, after the explanation of the previous speaker, pleased that second and third-rate fruit could be exported. People were talking so much about settling men on the land. If there was one thing out of which one could make a good existence on a small plot of ground, it was fruit growing. The man who put his fruit on the market in good condition (Mr. Geldenhuys went on), always got twice as much as the man who was careless. He could assure the House that in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg the fruit industry would show its head soon enough, and he, for one, heartily supported a measure like this, which aimed at fostering a most promising industry.

said now he understood what it was to listen to men who were talking about something about which they knew nothing. If they thought they were going to get a market by sticking a Government brand on fruit they were mistaken. Those who did not want a Government brand on the fruit should be allowed to send it oversea without, and another thing, they certainly should not stop people sending what they liked. If a man sent oranges from the Transvaal down here the whole lot might be rejected, and that would not improve fruit growing. This industry had grown up without Government aid. It had worked its way up, and they had knocked Australia out on the London market. Whether they would knock Australia out by-and-by he did not know, because the Government was taking a perilous interest in it. Those people who talked about the grading stamps must think that the fruit buyers in England were very simple folk. What these buyers did was to look at the names on the boxes, and they paid the best prices for the fruit of those who sent sound fruit year after year. He did not want to oppose the Bill, but he thought that this was another instance of that perilous Government interest. They had had nothing to do with the fruit industry—oh, yes, they imposed a duty on their boxes. (Laughter.) That was kind of the Government. It showed that they had their eye on the industry, and now they were making a further step. There were other industries they might take an interest in. Who knew? Then they would have more officials and more inspections.

said there was another point which he would like to bring to the notice of the House. An inspector’s decision could be referred to a board. No provision had been made if the inspector’s decision was reversed for the expense. He thought it would be a hardship for the exporter to be saddled with the expense.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

Committee stage?

Friday, sir.

said he thought that was rather early. He thought it was absolutely necessary that the regulations should be laid on the Table.

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I am very anxious to get the Bill through.

suggested Monday. That would give them time to communicate with Natal.

said that though the Minister might not be aware of it there were fruit growers in Natal who were as interested as the Cape people in this Bill.

moved that the Committee stage be taken on Monday.

This was agreed to.