I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 19th February.

seconded.

I hope the Minister will defer the second reading stage until a later date than that. There is a little Bill of my own dealing with liquor, the second reading of which I was hoping to move on the 20th; and if the Minister would set down the second reading of his Bill for some time after the 20th, I should be much obliged.

I do not think the two Bills have anything to do with each other, as far as I can judge from reading them. The Bill of the hon. member is our old Local Option friend to which we have got so well accustomed in this House, and, as far as my Bill is concerned, I think it covers entirely different ground.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 18th February.

seconded.

I appeal to the hon. Minister, in view of the fact that we have several second readings set down for this week, that it should be set down for the following week, so that hon. members may have more time to read and study the Bill.

I have no objection to that. It is merely a formal matter to put it down for Wednesday to get it on the Order Paper. In all probability it would not come before the House on the 18th.

The hon. Minister and the Government are in a stronger position than private members. They can set it down any time they like, but if it is set down for the 18th, members will not have much time for studying it.

I have no objection to meet hon. members’ wishes. I suggest it be put down for second reading on the 25th inst., and amend my motion accordingly.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 25th February.

seconded.

I suggest that the date be put forward a fortnight so that hon. members may have more time to study it.

I have no objection to meet the wishes of hon. members, but the Bill was published weeks ago in the “Gazette,” and I think every hon. member has had ample opportunity of studying it. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the second reading be put on the Order Paper on Wednesday, the 25th inst.

If it is merely going to be put down as a matter of form to get it on the Paper, then the objection of my hon. friend is absolutely met.

I am afraid the discussion is out of order. The Minister having replied, the discussion is closed.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 23rd February.

seconded.

I was just rising to ask the hon. Minister not to put this down so early. We have already had put down for second reading 11 Bills for this week and the early part of next week. Everybody in this House knows that it is quite impossible to get through the second reading of these Bills during this time. We are simply blocking the procedure of the House. Members will be asked, if they want to discharge their duties faithfully, to read and study these Bills correctly. We know that these Bills cannot come on the date mentioned, therefore from the point of view of procedure I would ask the hon. Minister not to put it down for this date. We are simply having members put to the great inconvenience of thoroughly studying these Bills knowing they cannot come up. I think the Government has adopted a very unusual procedure in throwing before the House at the commencement of the session this enormous-number of Bills. If they were judiciously distributed at the early part of the session I would have no objection. I think the House should start at once and not waste time at the early part of the session. It is quite a different matter to have a large number of Bills flung at the House when it is impossible for hon. members to digest and deal with them. Members are put to an impossible task to attempt to read them all. I would ask that the Bill be put down for a later date. But the hon. Minister must not look upon me as being hostile to this Bill. I do not wish him to draw that inference; it is simply on account of the convenience of hon. members and giving them a chance to digest what is brought before them that I would ask the hon. Minister to have a later date fixed for this important matter.

The Government have the fixing of the Order Paper and there is nothing to prevent them placing it down for next Monday if they see fit. If the Government want to push this Bill forward they could put it down first for next Monday because the Order Paper is in their hands. It is not fair or just to the House to put an important Bill like this down for such an early date.

There might be a very great deal in the remarks of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) if this Bill had not been published, and furthermore this and the next Bill I am introducing has, if I understood the report of the right hon. gentleman’s speech, attracted a great deal of attention from himself. He is entirely familiar with it. I do not suggest that his comments showed that he had given a close study to this Bill, but at any rate he is familiar with it. We have taken the course of enabling members to acquaint themselves with the legislation we are bringing forward at the earliest possible time.

It is simply a question of procedure.

Of course it is a question of procedure. It is our desire to get as many of these Bills as are likely to go to Select Committee read for the second time as early as possible. However, I am quite willing to postpone it until Thursday the 26th, and amend my motion accordingly.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 23rd February.

seconded.

I should like to point out that we do not even have this agreement before us. The plea with regard to the other flood of Bills poured on this House has been that they have been published. But in this case we have a most important document which has not been published. The Government has kept it very confidential and secret so far, and now we are asked to agree to the second reading of this Bill being set down for next Thursday. I would ask the Prime Minister to treat us fairly. I do not think either the House or the country is being treated fairly. Let the second reading come on at a reasonable date, say some time in March. I believe we have reached the 2nd of March in our forward march of legislation. The hon. Minister may consider that this Rhodesian agreement is a matter of importance.

I should like to see the agreement on the Table.

If the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would not be so impatient he would see that this agreement is a schedule to the Bill which I am now laying on the Table of the House. Hon. members will have four days in which to study it.

Four days?

Yes. You never gave us more. This Bill deals with slaughter stock coming into the Union. It is a matter of the greatest importance that this should become law as soon as possible. I am willing to make the date Monday, and amend my motion accordingly, but it is impossible to put it off two weeks as suggested by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), It is absolutely essential in the public interest that this Bill become law as soon as possible.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

For leave to introduce a Bill to amend section four of the Mines and Works Act, 1911 (Act No. 12 of 1911).

There are some occasions when a measure brought before the House is of such far-reaching importance that those who are opposed to it in principle should make their Voices heard at the earliest possible moment. This Bill which has been published is not a secret to us. It is of such far-reaching importance that I think it is my duty to make my voice heard in protest. I oppose leave to introduce this Bill now, and shall do as I did With the late Government’s Class Areas Bill— call for a division on the first reading. The Bill now before the House seeks to upset a decision of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. The Government is seeking for power, not merely on the Rand but right through the Union to make regulations restricting the issue of certificates of competency to persons other than natives or Asiatics. Although it does not apply to all coloured persons, this Bill lays down a, distinct colour principle in regard to industry in the Union. For these reasons I am opposed to the introduction of the Bill and shall call for a division on the first reading.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a first time.

seconded.

I call for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—84.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Miller, A. M.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Rider, W. W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J.

de V. Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—27.

Ballantine, R.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Moffat, L.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Richards, G. R.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Snow, W. J.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 18th February.

seconded.

I wish to say in reference to this first reading that the members on this side of the House who voted with the Government did not prejudice themselves in any way in regard to the principle of this Bill, but we considered it unfair to vote against a measure even before it has been read a first time and before you know what is the principle at stake. When we come to the second reading we shall fight it, and I would ask the Minister not to be so hasty in putting down this Bill for second reading. It is a most contentious measure; I don’t know whether hon. members know how contentious it is. It is going to raise a fight; the hon. Minister and the Government are going to raise a fight over this Bill, the dimensions of which they little foresee to-day. It does not merely concern this House; it concerns interests that transcend by far the importance of this House, as the Prime Minister knows. He knows what will be the repercussions of this Bill. I would ask the Minister to let us have some time to study this Bill. It is a short Bill, it is true, but it requires some consideration, and the Paper is already blocked with Bills.

I fully appreciate the importance of this Bill. I hope the right hon. gentleman does not think I do not appreciate it. The Bill consists of one article which certainly involves a very big principle, but I propose to put it down for Wednesday, the 18th. It has been published since January 22nd in the “Gazette,” and has been commented upon, and to a great extent Wednesday is a pure matter of form. I won’t rush the House to the Bill, but let it go down for Wednesday, as I want it on the Order Paper.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 18th February.

With such a terrible deluge of Bills as you have now, members will come to the House in the morning and won’t know what work is going to be taken that day. The Government has the regulation of the Order Paper, and it may take any Order, first, second, or just as it pleases. Members will thus come unprepared for the work of the day. They will come from Muizenberg or Sea Point without having seen their Order Paper. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether that is fair to hon. members. We should know what we are going to discuss on particular dates. As it is, with the number of Bills put down already we do not know where we are. That just shows the spirit of fairness in that corner of the House. They are always calling out for fair dealing. Is this fair dealing? I hope the Prime Minister will give us some assurance that members may know a couple of days beforehand which are the particular Bills that they are going to have to discuss.

I would also point out that as far as my knowledge goes, this Bill has never been published. Some time should certainly be given before this Bill is read a second time.

I am sure my old friend, the member for Worcester, is not the only member of this House who wants to know where he is. I should think there are members of the Government who do not know where they are with the jumble of legislation which has been placed on the Paper. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether this Bill has been published. Surely the hon. gentleman cannot expect a Bill of this kind to be read a second time without publishing it? I am taking upon myself the flattering unction that this is the Bill which I published. The public know nothing about this Bill. I do not think looking at the faces of members of the Cabinet that they know very much about it themselves, because, herculean as their labours and wonderful as their memories are, as we have been told through the Press, I should imagine there are members of the Government who have not read this Bill themselves and who do not know what they are committing the country to. Of course, they have their cast-iron majority and we cannot do anything if they mean to go on. The steam-roller which they say they are prepared to use leaves us helpless. All we can do is to protest. I say it is a most unfair thing to introduce a Bill of this character and take it to the second reading stage before hon. members and their constituents know its contents. I hope the Minister will put off this Bill for three or four weeks, because I do not think there is any possibility of getting it on before that time. Sufficient Bills have already been placed on the Order Paper to last this House until the end of December.

Seeing that this Bill has such a far-reaching effect and that it has not been published, I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to send it to a Select Committee.

I really do not understand why members on the other side of the House have so many objections to-day. At first they said, “Why don’t you come before the House with business?” In the Transvaal the Leader of the Opposition had said, “I look forward with interest to the Sitting, because we are going to have lots of fun.” We have come for work: not for “fun.” But if members have so many objections and perhaps have not so much come for work, I am prepared to accommodate them. I withdraw my motion, and I now move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 23rd February.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be read a second time on 26th February.

seconded.

I would like to ask my hon. friend if this Bill has been published by the Government, or does he propose to introduce a Bill which was recently suggested to be brought into this House? We really do not know what steps he intends to take in this matter of orchard cleansing. My hon. friend knows I am entirely with him in the matter of the cleansing of orchards, but I want to know what lines he intends to proceed on.

This is only a little Bill of nine articles; and I think and hope that it will not take my hon. friend many days to read it. Under the circumstances I hope that he will have no further objection to the second reading being set down for Thursday, 26th instant, and that this will allow members sufficient time to study the Bill.

There are thousands of people in the country who take an interest in this matter and who will want to know what are the proposals contained in this Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

That a Select Committee on Native Affairs be appointed, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That a Select Committee be appointed on the management and superintendence of the Library of Parliament, the Committee to have power to confer with a similar Committee of the Senate.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon all minutes recommending special pensions and all petitions for pensions, grants and gratuities not authorized by law which may from time to time be referred to it, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That a Select Committee on Public Accounts be appointed, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That a Select Committee on Railways and Harbours be appointed, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon all such recommendations for the disposal of Crown lands, or servitudes thereon, or conditions connected therewith, or the reduction of the purchase or allotment price thereof, as may be submitted by the Government under the provisions of any Act or law requiring Parliamentary approval, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. NICHOLLS seconded the motion.

read the Orders of the House of the 12th February, 1924, giving leave to introduce the Bill and the first reading; of the 19th and 21st February, appointing the Select Committee; of the 19th February, referring to the Committee petitions in opposition to the Bill; of the 28th February and 27th March, granting leave to amend the Preamble; of the 1st April, reporting the Bill with amendments; of the 8th April, giving leave for proceedings to be suspended and that the Bill may be proceeded with next session; of the 29th July, that the proceedings on the Bill be resumed; of the 1st August, that the Bill be read a second time; of the 8th August, that the House resolve itself into Committee, and of the 2nd September, giving leave for proceedings to be suspended and that the Bill may be proceeded with next session.

The motion was put and agreed to; House to resume in Committee on the Bill on 27th February.

I move—

I have been instructed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to move the motion which stands in his name. In moving the motion I wish to make plain that the hon. Minister must not think that this side of the House is against the eradication of scab, neither is it against simultaneous dipping. The motion of this side of the House is not directed against simultaneous dipping. On the contrary, we are for it; but we say this that where you give so much power, as in the Scab Act, to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister ought to carry out the law in a reasonable manner; and in cases where he finds that compulsory dipping is an unnecessarily heavy burden in many districts, he must show towards the inhabitants of the land as much reasonableness and patience as possible. We admit the argument that the tax-payers of the country must not be asked, year after year, to pay out large sums of money for the combating of scab; but at the same time we say that we must also consider the sheep farmers who keep their sheep clean and who are penalised on account of others. We complain that the Minister has taken fright; and that he has applied the powers of the law in an incorrect manner—I should almost say, has abused them. We are against compelling farmers to dip and eradicate scab in many districts which are not infected. But those farmers are compelled to dip. I, naturally, have not access to the information which the Minister has; but I am convinced that there is to-day no scab in Ermelo or Standerton. And yet all are compelled to dip. I know further, that in the Wakkerstroom and Piet Retief districts almost no scab exists.

Almost!

I come also to “almost.” Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a further complaint against the Minister. He has given the farmers no chance to lay their case before him. He has simply ignored the sheep farmers.

Who believes that?

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), who sits behind the Minister, will be able to say more about that. One would say that when a Minister takes such drastic measures, he ought to call together a conference of sheep farmers and tell them: “This is my plan. You must help to carry it out,” and the Minister would obtain important information. In this country we expect that when a deputation has gone to great trouble and expense to visit Pretoria, that the Minister will receive them with civility, and at least give them the opportunity of laying their grievances before him; and in any case so far to accommodate them as to arrange for them to be met by the Minister or a responsible person; and to give them the chance of bringing forward their complaints. Why did not the Minister do this? What is the reason? Was the Minister afraid? We are not accustomed to think him frightened; but it appears to me that he was unable to defend himself. I am very sorry about this, because I say emphatically that if the Minister of Agriculture had given the farmers of this country the chance to meet him, then there would perhaps have been less dissatisfaction. The farmers would have told him that a certain district should dip within such and such a time and another district within another time; and in what districts it was not necessary to dip. I say that the Minister has done wrong in not listening to the suggestions of the farmers. This is not the first time that we have had compulsory dipping. We have already previously had simultaneous dipping and what was the attitude which the former Minister of Agriculture then took up? He met the requirements of the farmers. We hear from the Minister and his party that the late Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) never had any sympathy with the farmers. But under the same circumstances his attitude was that when we went to him and told him that there were farmers who for twelve months at a time, or two or three years at a time, had never had scab amongst their sheep, he was immediately willing to absolve them.

That is why there is so much scab.

If the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) had farmed a little more with sheep he would talk otherwise.

He has farmed with more sheep than he has exchanged farms.

And listen to what the chief of the division says in his report on the measures of the former Minister—

Thus, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who was then Minister of Agriculture, had not then strictly carried out simultaneous dipping, notwithstanding that he had been reasonable and had absolved the man who for twelve months had not had scab amongst his flocks—he had a great success in the Eastern Transvaal. Now I come to the proclamation, from which I see that the Minister of Agriculture has proclaimed simultaneous dipping in respect of a group of districts in the Transvaal. I see that it includes the district of Wolmaransstad.

It is clean.

I should be very glad if it was clean. But why are a little group of Wolmaransstad farmers brought under Lichtenberg for the carrying out of the Scab Act? The Minister shakes his head. I see it in the proclamation. If Wolmaransstad is otherwise clean, why then is part of it proclaimed? I should very much like to know this of the Minister. I do not know if he can answer me on the point. I want to ask further: Why must the farmers in my district, where there are also sheep but no scab, also dip simultaneously? I do not want to say it, but it looks to me almost as if it is because Ermelo had had the bad taste not to choose the Minister as its member. I trust the Minister will put me right if I am wrong. The Minister uses another argument. He says: “We know you have no scab, but all the same you must dip for the sake of the sheep skins; and why are you not now satisfied, and why make objection to dipping in order to exterminate the sheep louse?” Our answer is: Right! This time make it compulsory to dip the sheep in the country. But we tell the Minister and his officials as a warning: Do not try and kill the sheep louse with the dip which is now used, because every sheep farmer knows that the dip, which consists of lime and sulphur, has little effect. We must dip with arsenic. But what is more, all the money is thrown away if you dip for the second time within at least fourteen days, and not as now recommended, from the 8th to the 10th. Why does the Minister come now with this argument? I look further at the proclamation. The proclamation in the Transvaal allows three months after the order for dipping, and how can this be called simultaneous dipping? Under what instructions can the inspectors go to work to effect simultaneous dipping? Further I would ask the Minister what will be the use if I, for example, dip in the middle of February, and my neighbour waits until the middle of April to dip? I do not know if it is only I that am a stranger in Jerusalem that I do not know this.

It looks like it.

I do not know what the Minister said, but perhaps he knows no more than I do. In any case, I know this: That the Minister of Agriculture is in the wrong; but seeing that he has now plunged the farmers into misfortune we can’t help it. I cannot see how success is to be attained. Where is he going to get men from—inspectors to dip the whole Transvaal and two districts of the Free State simultaneously between the 1st February and the 30th April? Now what I want is, that if he will carry out a simultaneous dipping, then he must say: That district shall be dipped in such and such a month, and this one in another month. But what now? It is quite impossible to carry out the plans. You expose people to quarantine—they are unable to remove their sheep during this time—and one man will dip and the other not. The Minister is unable to control it.

Why not?

I wonder what the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) would think about quarantine if he himself farmed with sheep. But what is more the Minister now asks for unpaid inspectors to hold super vision over the dipping. But he makes every sheep farmer angry: or at least many of them. He goes to one of the farmers and says: You must help with the dipping, I will now put so many farms under your supervision and so many again under that of another farmer. I warn the Minister. It is not only the S.A. Party who have scab amongst their flocks but also Nationalists. What will happen? Farmers will try to dodge the restrictions in order not to quarrel with their neighbour. They will rather live at peace with their neighbour and quarrel with the Minister. My argument is: Carry out the regulations properly. But we must not go to all the trouble and incur great expense and then be unsuccessful. And I will also just tell the Minister that one of the inspectors had said to farmers: You haven’t got scab. You can just dip with Coopers Dip, one in fifty, and the second time make it still weaker and we won’t quarrel with you about it.

Did the hon. member report him? Mention names.

The Minister has already discharged many inspectors without reasons. I can’t help him to discharge still more of our friends. He must just get the names himself. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to exterminate scab in the country, then we are now at a stage—and he knows it himself—when he should apply the regulations a little more stringently and see that they are carried out strictly. The chief of the sheep division further reports: “Unfortunately, where offenders have been brought to book, the penalty has seldom been appropriate to the offence.” I will not detain the House longer by quoting multitudinous figures to show how much it is going to cost the farmers. I will, however, emphasise the point, that in connection with simultaneous dipping, no distinction is made in the proclamation of the Minister between the careful and the neglectful farmer. Farmers use the arguments: What is the use of our having been five or ten years long without having had scab amongst our stock and that we have farmed scrupulously if we are now all going to be treated alike? We ask the Minister: Why has he taken this action—why instituted these drastic measures? My opinion is, and I speak openly so that the Minister may have a chance, if it is not the case, to refute it openly, that the reason is that the Minister has discharged officials who knew their business. We warned him at the time that scab would spread in the country. We warned him that he was getting rid of people who for years had been engaged with organisation for counteracting scab; and who had had many years’ experience of the work. He had put in their places people who for years had never had anything to do with scab. The Minister sees that he has gone too far. He has taken fright and bolted. I say it again: To cover himself he now goes to the other extreme and he wants the sheep farmers wound up seeing that he has been at fault. I do not so much mind farmers being punished who in the past were not strict and who have farmed with scab. But I object to the careful sheep farmer being punished. We feel that the Minister ought to listen to what the farmers have to say to him, and I feel that the least that I can ask the Minister is, that he will so far review his plans so that farmers who, during the twelve months or even two years previous to the fixed date, have not had scab shall be absolved from compulsion. I move the motion as above given.

In rising to second the motion I may say that I think every hon. member in this House knows that South Africa for the past thirty years has been waging war against the sheep farmers greatest enemy, scab. It was not until 1912 that any steady progress was made. In 1912 of the 27¼ million sheep in South Africa our wool check was 5¼ millions. In 1923 with an increase of only 1¼ million sheep our wool check was 12¼ millions. If those figures say anything they speak very eloquently as a testimony to the work of the sheep division. It shows that the diminution of scab was very great throughout South Africa. In Natal and in the Orange Free State I am sure there are very many clean flocks, proving the efficiency of the sheep division. Further, it was the sheep division which sent young South Africans to qualify as sheep experts overseas. Those men returned and they showed our farmers how to cull unprofitable sheep to make South African wool second to none in the world. One of the first acts of the hon. Minister of Agriculture was to destroy this efficient sheep division. He did not do it on economic grounds. He did it out of political vindictiveness and I charge him with a deliberate attempt to undermine South Africa’s agricultural key industry. In Natal these sheep inspectors were not replaced. The work was relegated to the veterinary department—to men who were not used to sheep or scab inspection. What has been the result? We find by the figures given to-day that there are 964 flocks of sheep with infection since 1924. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the previous inspectors were dishonest and did not report. That will not go down. The Minister is asking these cattle inspectors to do what is impossible and consequently infection is spreading. The Minister knows that through the inability of these men to do the work set them that is so. What can a cattle inspector know about scab? It takes a highly qualified man to be an efficient sheep inspector. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is not in his seat and he is my informant. One of the veterinary inspectors— a time expired man—left the service and was replaced by one of the Minister’s electoral promisees. This district is a district composed entirely of English-speaking farmers. This electoral promisee turns up, is unable to speak the English language and moreover is illiterate. That goes to prove how little interest the Minister has in this great industry of ours. I have been waiting in vain to hear one of the members on the labour benches protest against the violation of one of their cardinal principles —that is the doubling of work while not increasing the pay. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs attempted, in Durban, to justify this destruction of the sheep division. He made the statement that in one place where 18 sheep inspectors had been discharged the Government looked all over the district and could not find a single sheep. It was not only a wild statement, it was a deliberate misstatement.

I must ask the hon. member to modify his language. This is the second occasion on which the hon. member has attributed motives which he is not entitled to attribute.

I bow to your ruling. Then the Minister conceived the idea of compulsory dipping. I am not an enemy of it, but is there any need for compulsory dipping in the Free State and in Natal? There are districts there that have been clean for years. These farmers annually dip their sheep after clipping. Why subject these men to further dipping? It means useless expense in labour and in dip. If the Minister had any commonsense it would tell him that the time he picked for Natal was a time when the sheep were undergoing inoculation for blue tongue. It is very dangerous to dip sheep while they are undergoing this inoculation. When this order was sent forth Natal got alarmed and sent up a strong deputation to the Minister to protest. The Minister was adamant. He would not listen to them. He thinks that nothing good comes from Natal and this deputation came away empty. But another deputation went from the Transvaal headed by a Mr. Spies. The Minister received this deputation and Mr. Spies came out, his face all wreathed in smiles. An extension had been granted to the end of March, I think. I ask the Minister what is the use of his compulsory dipping when it is not universal? We have land with native-owned plots on the borders of Natal. They are continually smuggling their sheep through on account of the inadequate inspection. Take the case of two farmers whose farms are adjoining one with infection under the ludicrous condition of time the Minister has made. One complies with the law and dips in January; the other later. The one can infect the other. Hon. members must not think we on this side of the House are carping critics. We are not. We are just as anxious to see that the sheep industry is fostered and carried forward to success as they are. I am not one of those who say that the wool output of South Africa has reached the high-water mark. I believe that our wool industry can be very much increased. I believe it can be trebled from what it is to-day. The late Government laid a very sound foundation in this respect when they made provision for farmers to obtain loans for silos. I am sure along those lines lies the salvation of the industry and particularly of the farmers who have to trek their sheep. We know that the Free State can grow mealies over 75 per cent. of its area and there is no cheaper silage in the world than mealie silage. I would offer some constructive criticism to the Minister and tell him to turn his thoughts to demonstrating as widely as possible the benefit of silage for winter feeding and so South Africa can carry more sheep and increase its export trade in wool.

I am very pleased to have the privilege of saying something in connection with this matter. I represent the biggest sheep division in the Union. My own district, Harrismith, has already the most sheep in the Union, and then besides there are parts of Vrede which fall in my constituency which have many sheep. The first that I heard of simultaneous dipping was from a newspaper announcement, and it appeared to me from this that the Minister intended to effect a simultaneous dipping over the whole Union. My constituents talked it over, and I told them that if it were possible we must just submit, and every one must dip. But the proclamation appeared later and from it appeared that only certain parts were proclaimed, and, amongst others, two districts of the Free State, namely, Harrismith and Vrede. I was at once dissatisfied. Before I met my constituents they had already held a meeting and had been very dissatisfied because they were of opinion that this was not the proper manner to eradicate scab, as they had had experience of it previously. Harrismith had immediately held a meeting, and in my absence they chose me as their representative. About the same time as the proclamation was issued there was an appeal in the Transvaal, emanating from a certain Mr. Taute, that representatives of the sheep farmers must meet in Pretoria to lodge a protest against the action of the Minister. It was to this meeting that my constituents in Harrismith delegated me; and although I knew well that Mr. Taute was a member of the South African party, I went there not as a member of any party, but solely to forward the interests of the sheep farmers. For I felt that the proclamation was wrong in respect of our district, and I am glad that I went there. I regret only that the men who to-day raise their voices so high were not present there. One reason why I went was because I knew when Parliament was going to sit and I knew that I could not wait for resolutions which were going to be taken by this Parliament; but that something must be done before then. I do not know how many Nationalists were present at the conference in Pretoria: I know there were many members of the South African party; but I am glad to be able to say that all politics were set aside. But to my surprise I find to-day that this motion is brought forward in the House. The conference had chosen delegates. They were six persons: two for the Transvaal, two for Natal and two for the Free State; and regarding what happened at Pretoria, I will say that my hon. friend the introducer of the motion (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is not altogether well enlightened. The first that I ascertained was that Mr. Taute had requested the Minister of Agriculture to be present. The Minister had answered that he would be present if possible. The question then was: should we wait until the Minister came? I said that this was impossible as the conference wanted to finish its business, and a Minister does not always know whether he will be free or not to come. I, however, suggested that someone from the sheep division ought to be sent to give information to the conference. This was carried; and I and Mr. Human, of the Free State, were delegated to see if we could get in contact with the Minister by telephone. We could not manage it; but we gave our message to a clerk at his office. Then we went to the conference and resolved to go to the Minister and ask him to absolve from compulsory dipping certain districts which had not had scab for twelve months. This is not because we in Harrismith encourage scab. I will not say that there is never scab in the district. We must take into consideration the special circumstances prevailing. Parts of the district border on Kaffirland, whence sheep come by way of Witzieshoek. Perhaps the hon. members are not aware of this. Nevertheless, although we have 800,000 sheep, and although the chief inspector declares that about 1,000,000 sheep will have to be dipped, he does not know of one case of scab. It was only that we could not understand why the law must be so applied. I say that a completely simultaneous dip is impossible, because circumstances are so varying. On one place the sheep are lambing and at other places the rams are being put amongst the ewes. My opinion was that the best thing would be to go ahead and to see that the scab regulations were carried out. I do not think that hon. members will consider that I say too much when I declare that on an average we can expect 10s. a year from a sheep. If this is so the sheep of the Union bring in £11,000,000 per annum, while the expenditure on the sheep division is only £215,000 per annum. I consider that it is nonsense to say that too much money is spent in the interests of sheep farming. This is the sort of thing which we sometimes hear from the town-dwellers, and we farmers must not take any notice of it. Another statement that is nonsensical is, that the Minister of Agriculture would not receive the deputation from the farmers. That meeting had chosen six persons, and two of them, namely: Mr. Human and Mr. Spies, went without having previously asked for an interview. We went along with these persons and on the way encountered the Minister of the Interior, who informed us that we should have to be quick to get hold of the Minister, seeing that he had to attend a Cabinet meeting. All the same, the interview which he accorded us was of such a nature that he never got to the Cabinet meeting. We laid all our grievances before him, but he would not yield. We submitted to him all the correspondence about the dipping, and the Minister had been prepared to take certain steps in Natal and the Transvaal. This is my information so far as I myself was present. Then he made for us, during the negotiations, a few concessions. This is as far as we came. I discovered later that it was of more importance than I had at the time thought—more than what the Minister himself had thought. The great grievance which is felt and which the farmers on their farms continually experience is that certain officials treat them as children, especially certain inspectors who are sent from other districts just to carry out work in connection with simultaneous dipping and then return and take no further notice of what they have done. I was one day in Harrismith at an hotel, sitting on the stoep. Presently there came two villagers, and I heard them say to each other “what a glorious time these farmers have. While they sleep their mealies grow, the wool grows on the sheeps’ backs and the ewes lamb.” I think to myself: What fools these are that belong to the class which so thinks. When a person has looked after his stock so that there is no scab among them, you get dissatisfied if you are treated in the same manner as the careless ones; in which case it can occasion one great loss. It rains very much in our district. We are thankful for it; but much rain is not good for sheep farming. Our chief sheep inspector thinks! if it is fine weather every day so that he can dip, he can get finished within reasonable time. We have also other work to do, and one’s work has to be put aside because the inspector wants to dip. We brought this to the notice of the Minister and the Minister said that where there are farmers’ associations, or where the farmers group themselves together in places where they are not so organised, they can dip under super-vision of a farmer. I regret that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) looks with suspicion on the farmer, and I am glad that the Minister has not taken the same attitude. There are bad people amongst all classes —also amongst the farmers. Our chief inspector has received instructions from the Minister to let it take place in our district as a concession, and I do not think that anyone will dip with weak dip. When I went to Pretoria the meetings in my constituency had been arranged for, and I went through the whole district. I had convened meetings, and in Pretoria I had already said I am going to dip under protest. After my meetings I am still able to say that the people are dissatisfied, but all have said that under the relaxations which have been granted they are going to dip. When I got in the train from home I met a Harrismith man and told me that while we were carrying out dipping, a train load of sheep, amongst which were scab-infected ones, had come in there. I desire to charge the Ministers of Justice, Agriculture and Railways if this is so. We return to the motion. I must say that I am surprised at the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) introducing this motion. I do not know what he intends by it. If the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) had done it then I could understand. Here are two notices. The first is on the 10th October, 1922, to the effect that by virtue of article (f) of the Scab Act, the Minister of Agriculture instructs that every goat or sheep of an owner who during the course of twelve months has had scab amongst his flocks must be dipped. On 1st December, 1922, a further notice was issued by virtue of the same Act to the effect that all sheep and goats in certain districts must be dipped in accordance with the prescribed regulations. We heard what the Minister’s intention was and we raised no objections. What had the former Minister of Agriculture done? On the 30th November another regulation by virtue of article 16 of the law of 1911 was issued. This regulation was that every owner of sheep and goats in the districts named in the schedule must dip. The dipping must be carried out in the manner prescribed in article 23. In this schedule the then Minister had only mentioned the districts Vrede and Harrismith of the Free State—the same as this Minister now does. This is the reason why we have been so against the dipping. We were dissatisfied, but we had all the same dipped. At that time my farm had been 20 years free from scab. It is now 22 years free. The same year there was scab in Bethlehem, just beyond the boundary, within three miles of my farm, and dipping was not compulsory there. This made one so dissatisfied. This was under the late Minister. I feel that we must now come to an agreement for good, and I sincerely regret that our farmers have to be dragged into politics. May one expect the Minister to withdraw on this point?

He can.

He cannot. There are thousands of stock already dipped, and are those people going to be satisfied when they have been put to the expense and the others are now absolved? How is it possible that hon. members can expect it? If the hon. member had only gone to the congress ….

What did you do?

I was the only member there. If the former Government has started with such a thing I should have called it cowardly if it now withdrew on this point. The attention of the people is concentrated on the motion and the attitude in the House can possibly have as a consequence that they will not dip and they will then become penalised as a consequence of the motion. I don’t like it; but I shall be obedient and dip. I shall just say like one of the farmers said: “I have done my best and now I just say ‘swim, little sheep, swim, I can do no more.’” I myself have not for the last twenty years had a dipping tank and I also have to dip. It looks to me as if every Minister of Agriculture who gets a fad works it out on Harrismith, and there has so far not been a Minister of Agriculture to come and see how farming is getting along. I hope that this Minister will act otherwise. ;

I do not know what has been the effect of this compulsory dipping order so far as the Free State and adjoining territories are concerned, but I can say, in respect to Natal’s experience, it has been a process which has gravitated half-way between comedy and tragedy. Hon. members opposite have evidently noticed the comic side of it, but fail to realise the tragedy of those who have suffered and are still suffering very severely. I want to say, Sir, that I was a member of a deputation appointed by public meetings consisting of leading sheep farmers to interview the Minister when this order was first promulgated, and I may say at once that the Minister received the deputation with the utmost courtesy and gave them a very careful hearing. Now the points stressed on that occasion were the opinions of practical men who knew their job, up-to-date practical sheep farmers, some of them in the first rank as regards the production of high-class sheep. They prefaced their remarks by impressing upon the Minister that they were as anxious to eliminate scab as the Minister himself, and they took no exception whatever to his order with reference to this compulsory dipping. What they did take exception to, however, and very strongly, was that they had not been previously consulted, had had no opportunity of preparing for it in advance, nor had any warning been received that this order was likely to be shot suddenly upon them. They had no opportunity of making arrangements as they would have had if they had known what was coming a considerable number of months beforehand. Had they been warned in ample time they would have been able to protect themselves in many ways from risk of loss. The Minister in reply said: “I think you must have known that this was coming on because I took the precaution of discussing that matter with my Agricultural Advisory Board, and on that board are representatives of the Natal Agricultural Union.” The reply of the deputation to that point was that the Agricultural Union had never discussed the matter with them or endeavoured to seek their opinion in respect of this order. Now the second point which was brought to the notice of the Minister and already mentioned by my hon. friend the member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) was that at the time these sheep were ordered to be dipped a great many of the flocks were undergoing inoculation for blue-tongue, and as pointed out by the hon. member, sheep which are undergoing inoculation for blue-tongue are in a condition which makes them very susceptible to harm for at least one month after the inoculation. The reply of the Minister to this point was quite a reasonable one; he said: “If your sheep are undergoing this inoculation for blue-tongue I am willing to extend the time.” They pointed out to the Minister that there were also a great number of sheep; flocks which would require to be inoculated, which had not been inoculated, and in answer to that the Minister said “Well, get on with it.” The comment of the deputation to that was “It is impossible to get on with it because we cannot get the necessary inoculating virus from Onderstepoort; there is not sufficient available to cope with the demand.” The Minister in reply said “If this is so, I will arrange to get the virus prepared with the utmost expedition and I will still further extend the time before you will have to undertake this compulsory dipping.” I think he mentioned as far as the month of April. Their reply was that all the best flocks in the country would be lambing down in that month. They pointed out how undesirable it was to dip sheep while they were lambing and while changes in the weather were taking place; that to dip sheep at such times was an extraordinarily dangerous procedure. The Minister in his reply to that promised them fine weather. There is another point that they brought before the Minister and that was that those farmers who take a pride in their flocks and whose sheep have been free from scab for very many years had already dipped their sheep following their usual procedure and that to dip the sheep again under these conditions would materially affect the value of the wool. The Minister’s reply was that he had enquired from the Bradford manufacturers and found that it would not affect the value of the wool, but it is well-known that the buyers in Durban, Port Elizabeth and other centres invariably depreciate the value of wool which shows the dipping powder in the fleece. They therefore got nothing out of the Minister and the deputation withdrew having fulfilled one portion of their mission in warning him of the consequences certain to accrue. They subsequently, I think, discussed the matter on the Minister’s suggestion with the principal Veterinary Officer and the question of compensation was brought up, and I believe—I was not present at that meeting—that some undertaking was given that compensation would be paid for losses in connection with the dipping provided that the deaths took place within three days and that they exceeded something like two or three per cent., a really valueless undertaking. That deputation went back and they carried out their dipping and some of the disasters quickly commenced to occur. I could mention a number of cases, but one will be sufficient to illustrate that these men knew what they were talking about and that they were fully aware of the great risks the Minister was forcing on them. A farmer in my district, acting under the orders of the sheep inspector, dipped his sheep on the day appointed. The dip used was a proprietary dip and was used at half strength. On the eighth day he came round and said “I am going to dip your sheep a second time.” The owner of these sheep pointed out that the manufacturers of this dip specially indicated on each packet that the second dip should not take place under ten days and that 12 or 14 days was better. The inspector, however, insisted that as the dip used was only half strength the second dipping could be safely carried out and it was carried out. I have had that flock inspected. It was a flock of 900 sheep and I was told by the man who inspected them that if the owner of that flock of sheep escapes with a loss of not more than 200 of his ewes he will be extremely lucky. That is the tragedy.

Why?

Because a great and irreparable loss has been sustained owing to the compulsory dipping of these sheep contrary to the conditions laid down by the manufacturers of the dip. I do not know how many sheep actually died, a considerable number did die, but the 200 that they say will possibly die is really a small portion of the losses which are going to be incurred by this man. It happens to be a high-class flock and the whole flock is knocked to pieces. The imported Australian rams will be useless for at least another six to eight months. In the opinion of those who are best able to express an opinion that flock will not recover the condition that it was in prior to the dipping for at least another two years. There is an illustration of the results following the forcing upon people orders under conditions which are unreasonable and impracticable. There is no question that these people were willing to have their sheep dipped but under reasonably fair conditions. I feel sure that the Minister when this particular loss has been brought to his notice will meet the people who have suffered loss in a generous way. These men have suffered unnecessarily in the interests of the country as a whole, and it is not an unreasonable thing that the country should be asked to compensate for the losses incurred in these circumstances. That, as I have said, is the tragedy. I now come to what may be described as the comedy. In another part of Natal where the principal flock owners are natives owning large numbers of sheep and goats, an order was promulgated that these sheep had to be dipped. The reply of the inspectors in those parts was that it would be a very lengthy process, that there was not a sufficient number of sheep dipping tanks available to deal with this vast quantity of stock in a short period and some other suggestion should be made. The Minister’s reply was that if they had not got the necessary number of sheep dipping tanks they must use cattle-dipping tanks. The first order was to dip at full strength and the second order was to reduce the strength to the 12 point standard. The third order arrived on January 17th, and that was to raise the strength to standard. The fourth order arrives five days later: “Stop dipping sheep and goats in cattle tanks, except such sheep and goats as have already been dipped the first time in the cattle tanks, in which case the second dipping can be proceeded with.” If that was an effective way of dealing with these sheep by dipping in cattle tanks, then it would be effective for those which had not been so dipped. But if, on the other hand, it was a waste of time to dip in these cattle-dipping tanks then the whole scheme was useless and the second dipping was superfluous. That is not all. A few days later a fifth order was issued to these unfortunate inspectors, who were instructed to stop dipping sheep or goats in any kind of tank. The dipping was completely stopped. But, while it was stopped, one of the most comical features of the whole business was that the inspectors were told that they were to carefully inspect the sheep and goats in these particular native areas and if they found any of them affected with scab these scabby sheep were not to be dipped, but to be isolated and reported on. Anybody who knows anything about the conditions in that part of the country must know that you might as well try to isolate the East Coast fever germ as try to isolate scabby Kaffir sheep in the native locations. The Minister no doubt felt that he had to put his foot down firmly somewhere and to put it down upon somebody quickly this order was issued: “The Minister has instructed me that in the event of any further outbreak of scab occurring and no reasonable or satisfactory explanation can be given for the spread of the disease, the inspector in charge is to be summarily dismissed.” Here we have the Department playing with this disease, refusing to allow sheep which were discovered to be affected to be dipped and properly handled, and the unfortunate human being in charge of those areas is told that he is liable to summary dismissal. What sort of treatment is that to mete out to our officials? What sort of service can be got from men who are going about in terror of their lives? What it really means is that all the honest men who own up to fresh outbreaks are going to be sacked and the dishonest men who have suppressed their reports will be kept in the Service. Although I am speaking at this late stage of the proceedings when the chief damage has practically been done in Natal, I will say as regards the Free State, or the Transvaal or the Cape, those districts which have not already had their compulsory dipping enforced upon them, that if the experience of Natal is of any avail to them and of any avail to the Minister to institute a different process and a more sympathetic way of treating those people, then Natal will not have suffered in vain.

This debate takes me back to some years ago when I was a reporter in Parliament and I used to hear men talk against scab. I never thought that the South African party with all its sins would emblazon on its banner as it has done to-day “More Scab.” The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) fired the shot and then ran away. He knows well enough as an old farmer that the progressive farmers of South Africa are not with him on this motion which he has brought forward. He leaves it in the hands of my legal friend (Col.-Cdt. Collins), who, I understand, wishes to sit under the shadow of Table Mountain as a director. He is not much of a sheep farmer. The criticism of the hon. member is not criticism because the Minister is bad, but that criticism is made because the Minister is too good. That is the fault. They have done so well that our friends on the other side don’t know what to say about it, and the attack is not on what the Minister has done, but is on the Minister because they don’t like him. They dislike him; they hate him. That is the reason and no other. Then we get my hon. friend, there, the wattle and banana grower (Mr. Deane), coming in and telling we people in the Free State about the sheep industry. He spoke about everything—“The flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la,” and everything else—but he did not get on to the question. He told us that we should have to grow sweet silage for our sheep. Let me tell the hon. member that the majority of farmers have silage. The progressive farmers of the country are behind the Government. Let me read from the “Farmer’s Weekly,” the greatest farming paper in South Africa. They say that the “big push” against scab instituted by Gen. Kemp, “is deserving of the fullest support of the entire farming community.” That is the position. In the Free State numbers of districts who have been clean for many years have actually petitioned the Minister to be allowed to dip.

Are not they allowed to dip?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows a good deal about it: he does not represent one sheep-grower. I say they have petitioned the Minister. It is really a terrible thing that a party like that opposite should come here and try to do our wool industry the greatest harm it has been done. I have always taken the line that the agricultural industry should stand above party. I supported the late Minister many and many a time. Now you people all come along because you are in Opposition and try to hurt our sheep industry. The sheep farmers of South Africa are not with my hon. friends on the other side on this question. Just as the sheep farmers agreed that the old sheep division should go, so, right throughout South Africa, they are with the Minister to-day. I say more power to his elbow. He will be supported through thick and thin in the Free State and Natal. It is the duty of hon. members opposite to assist the Government on this question. I feel certain that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) feels sorry and ashamed that his back-benchers should have made the kind of speeches they have made here to-day. Where are the days when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) used to say we would wipe out scab if it was not for the farmers of the Free State? To-day the Free State is absolutely clean. As I said before, the hon. members opposite could not govern and they cannot oppose. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) forgot all about sheep and made what was really a racial speech. Hon. members opposite instead of helping are hindering the Minister, not because they are against his Bill, but because his name is Gen. Kemp. They are going to do the country a lot of harm. We have to compete against Australia in the wool markets of the world, and hon. members opposite are doing all they can to hurt us in our competition. It is purely in party spite that they are trying to do harm to one of our greatest industries.

I should be deeply grieved if all the speeches about agriculture were carried on in the same tone as those of to-day. I wish at once to give the Minister of Agriculture the assurance that it is the general feeling amongst sheep farmers in my district, with regard to the command of the Minister, that it is done by him with the sincere intention of helping forward sheep farming. The thought is not harboured in my district that it is done with political aim, for the advantage of any party, or for the disadvantage of any other party. But I will point out that the Minister, similarly to the former Minister, makes a call in most cases on the farming population to support him and to co-operate and help. When speeches are made at congresses, conferences, and the opening of agricultural shows, the farmers are told that without their co-operation the law is useless. “Support and help me” is the motto of the Minister. In this instance, however, with the issue of the order for general dipping, great dissatisfaction is aroused amongst the sheep farmers. A large proportion of the farmers are of the opinion that farmers who for years and years have been “clean” must be absolved. But, none the less, great progress has been made in the extermination of scab. I remember how in 1908, when a beginning was made under the late Gen. Botha for the extermination of scab, and the best measures were discussed to attain this end, we were all inspired with the upright intention of doing our part. I myself was for years long sheep inspector and I cannot deny that a great measure of progress was made. Take for example 15 and 16 years ago when a person riding by nearly every sheep farm could detect scab from the distance. At present a person has to make a special investigation to ascertain whether the flocks are infected or not. To this extent we have progressed. Now comes the command of the Minister for a general dipping. A congress has been held of which mention has been made this afternoon. This congress was held on the initiative of a farmer of my district; and had the support of the majority of the sheep farmers in the Eastern Transvaal. This congress resolved to lay before the Minister certain proposals; and to send a deputation to the Minister for this purpose. The deputation was received by the Minister; but he was unable to comply with their request. Eight petitions signed by over 200 sheep farmers have now been handed to me for the purpose of handing over to the Prime Minister, and to ask if the proclamation issued for dipping cannot be withdrawn. I have pointed out to the petitioners that the petition was not properly directed; and that it should have been sent to the Minister of Agriculture. I was then answered that the Minister of Agriculture had already been approached but that the Minister of Agriculture refused to comply with the request; and that they therefore now address themselves to the Prime Minister, whom they look upon as a sort of court of appeal; and they hope that the Prime Minister will exert his influence with the Minister of Agriculture to obtain the withdrawal of the proclamation. Still another argument is brought forward by them: that this would not be the first time that a proclamation issued by a Minister was but shortly thereafter withdrawn through the influence of the Prime Minister, or at any rate, that certain relaxations were made. I do not take too much notice of this argument; but I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to take note of this petition, and to ask him to absolve from the provisions of the law farms which have been clean for two years. A good understanding between the farming population and the Minister of Agriculture is necessary for success and for the proper carrying out of the demands of the Minister. I want to ask the Minister if in respect of the extermination of locusts, East Coast fever and other plagues an equally great success would have been attained without the co-operation of the farmers. It is particularly on this ground that I plead for a revision of the Minister’s proclamation, especially in the Transvaal; and for provision that those who have been free of scab for two years shall not be compelled to dip; or that extension of time shall be allowed.

I am sure we all fully appreciate the efforts that are being made to eradicate scab in this country. I think, however, that the step the hon. Minister proposes to take is a very courageous one. I am afraid he is up against the feeling of a vast number of progressive farmers as well as members on his own side of the House and on this side of the House. Some four or five years ago I was deputed by my association to interview the Government with a view to carry out what the Minister now proposes, that is simultaneous dipping of all sheep within the Union under proper supervision. I think if the farmers to-day were sure that the dipping would take place under proper supervision there would be no opposition to it. But that is where a difficulty may arise. A little while ago, in every province we had a certain amount of scab more or less and it was essential that a united effort should be made to try and eradicate it. Conditions have changed since then, we find that there are areas in the Union which are now free from scab. The disease is now confined more or less to certain farms and among certain flocks of sheep, these are disease spots, and it is these spots that we have to devote our attention to. It has been found that nearly all our recent outbreaks have been within these disease spots and, in spite of a certain measure of action and efforts to eradicate the disease, it has reappeared again, which shows quite clearly that the difficulty even now is that the supervision of inspectors has been neglected. It is wonderful how scab does sometimes escape our greatest vigilance. I know of cases where sheep have been dipped three or four times and a few months after the disease has broken out again among them and in each case the recurrence of the disease was traceable to the fact that the sheep had not been properly treated. That has been the experience of many of our farmers as well as experts In one case that came under my notice the sheep were dipped eight times before they were ultimately cured. There have been cases where the sheep have been dipped over and over again and did not get clear of the disease. I think we should concentrate all our efforts on these disease spots. If we do that we shall adopt the more likely method of striking at the heart of the disease. If again the areas which have not scab in them are not going to be dipped under supervision, in what way are they going to be dipped? Farmers who know that their sheep have been clean for a number of years feel that there is no necessity for so much dipping, and if it is not done under supervision the dipping may be done in a half-hearted way merely to comply with the regulation. I think that that is not going to be the most effective way of dealing with these cases. I hope the Minister will realize fully that we on this side of the House are quite as keen as hon. members on his side to try and help him in his honest endeavours to rid the country of scab. But we would like to do all we can to make it easier for him, and I think that by concentrating on these disease spots better results will be obtained than if we simply deal with the whole of the Union. Basutoland, as the Minister knows, has no regulation. I suggested last session that if it was the intention of the Government to stiffen up the Act and make it more stringent, it was the duty of the Government to protect the farmers especially along those native borders. Two years ago a Select Committee of this hon. House went into the question of scab coming from native states. I have here the report of the Special Committee. It states that 75 per cent. of the sheep in Basutoland are infected with scab and it suggests as the only efficacious means of meeting with this difficulty, the erecting of fences round these native borders in Basutoland, the Orange Free State and wherever the farmers need protection. That Select Committee, which was a fully representative and competent one, was unanimous in its decision in regard to these fences. I saw the hon. Minister about this and he promised me that he would give his attention to the matter. Last year representative farmers from our district and the heads of the police held a conference on the border of Basutoland in connection with stock. The Commissioner of the adjoining territory said that he was entirely in favour of our suggestion—that such fences should be erected, and that it should be done by their own Government, by our Government and by the farmers concerned there. I would ask the Minister what has been done with regard to this? If we are going to stiffen up the Scab Act with a view to cleansing the farmers’ sheep I submit that it is the duty of the Government to protect the farmers against the serious menace from adjoining native states. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory answer to this.

It has been said by various hon. members on the other side of the House that we on our side of the House want to try and make political capital out of the Minister’s measures about simultaneous dipping. I consider it unreasonable to say so. So far as I am concerned, if the late Minister of Agriculture had brought the proposals forward I should have been just as much against them. As regards scab, I have tried right from the beginning to do all in my power to leave politics out. In my opinion extermination is impossible, and this because we have to deal not with the Union alone. If we had to do simply with the Union, then we might possibly succeed. But our neighbours are our trouble—places which do not fall under the Union and from which scab is continually imported. Why, then, am I against the Minister’s proposals? Principally for two reasons. In the first place I think that it is not the best way to tackle the matter. It looks to me as if the Minister wants to do like someone who has a house of, say, six apartments: three are dirty, and three clean. Now he wants his whole house clean. Instead of giving all his attention to the three dirty rooms he says that all six rooms must be simultaneously cleaned. This means double the work and double the expense. If the Minister would direct his attention principally to districts where scab continually occurs he would accomplish far more. Secondly, there are parts of our land which are long ago free of scab, and it is unreasonable now to require that they must go and dip twice. Now and again scab becomes introduced from neighbouring places; but that is all. I have always been proud that when the sheep department introduced protected districts, that is, districts where no or very little scab, occurs, one of the first in the Union to be declared free is the district which I represent. If anyone were to ask me, however, whether since that time scab has never occurred, then I should say, no, only what now and again has been imported. I understand the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said that the Free State is entirely free from scab. But several times when scab has been introduced into my district it is just out of the Free State that it came. And if we succeed in exterminating scab in the Union it will be again imported from outside, just as has been the case in my district. Why must people be compelled to dip twice, and under supervision? The people to supervise will have to be found, and it will be very difficult to find enough. I know of farmers in protected areas who had no scab for the last 10, 12 or 15 years and who have never dipped. A man told me the other day, I have no longer any dipping tanks—they are in ruins and filled up. How have I to dip? For many years past it has not been necessary for me to dip. Why must such people suffer compulsion? They will incur expenditure to keep the dips in order; and not only this: no one will deny that dip damages sheep and wool. It is not pleasant for anyone who has done his best to be subjected to burdensome regulations on account of those who have not done their duty. I have already said it often, and say it still to-day; they talk of strict laws on scab and other things; but if our existing laws were well applied and carried out, also for what come in from outside the Union, then we should get on much better than with the measures now being taken. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said that the whole Free State supports the Government. I say that it is not all the farmers who support the Minister.

The hon. member has heard this from Scholtz.

No, I have not met Scholtz. But I know farmers in the Free State who do not support the Minister. The chief difficulty lies, as I have said, with our neighbours. I take it that sheep can be imported from South West if they have been dipped once. The Minister must correct me if I am wrong. Now what does “dip once” mean? I know of a man who trades in sheep from German West: He says, don’t talk! keep quiet; we dip once and then the sheep come in. And even if one dips twice it will not be altogether sufficient in a district where scab is still prevalent; and where it is not properly combated. I say, the difficulty is the neighbouring territories, such as Basutoland, Swaziland and South West; which do not come under the same laws; where no proper supervision exists; and from whence sheep can be imported which are not altogether clean. When the existing laws become more strictly carried out, then more will be accomplished at less expense. I say it is unreasonable to compel dipping in portions of the country which are altogether clean, and have been long free. If all these sheep inspectors and the hon. Minister bestow their attention on parts where scab continually occurs, better results will be attained at less expense.

It appears to me as if the motion of the Opposition is not going to be very serious. I cannot believe that the party which has made such a fuss in Marico, Losberg, Boksburg, and elsewhere, represent the farming interests if there are just six members making objection against this simultaneous dipping. It is apparent from the speeches that the motion is nothing else than an attempt to make political capital; but I am afraid that the members of the Opposition have not succeeded in doing so: at any rate not to the extent which they desired to. Before I answer the motion, allow me just to reply to what various members have brought in against me. In the first place the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has said that it is very unreasonable to dip clean sheep—that is, sheep which have been clean for years. Let me just tell him what sheep farmers who have been years without scab say regarding this. Mr. Southey, who has had no scab amongst his flocks for 20 years and who is known as one of the best sheep farmers, has declared that he heartily welcomes simultaneous dipping in the Union. Although he has been clean for 20 years he is of the opinion that this is one of the best measures to purify the land of scab. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has said that simultaneous dipping has been necessitated owing to the Minister having discharged officials and appointed other incompetent ones; also that the Minister wants to hide behind simultaneous dipping and the officials. Allow me to read the answer of the inspector at Ermelo, who was dismissed—not because he was chairman of the elections committee of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). I want to say that I am not going to use those people for political ends as the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has done. This scab inspector says in answer to a complaint against him—

Do hon. members now want me to retain people who have not done their duty in carrying out the agricultural policy of this Government? I will deal with them justly. I will show the hon. members of the Opposition who have talked so much how the former Government dealt with the money of the taxpayer. Here I have a letter of the chief inspector—that is, a “check” inspector, who has to report over the work of other inspectors in a portion of the district Kentani. I will read it—

so that you will at once see that there is absolutely nothing to guide an inspector as to names and numbers of flock owners in any one location.

On my return journey from Takazi area to Kentani. I found a number of flocks collected at Kenti Sheep Tank. Upon making enquiry I found that these flocks had been collected for the purpose of dipping under the owners’ supervision. All these flocks were more or less infected. Owing to the lateness of the hour a careful inspection of these sheep could not be made. Owners were all warned that the dipping of infected sheep by owners would not be recognized by Government, and that all the sheep would be dipped under supervision of an inspector. The bath for dipping these sheep had already been prepared containing approximately 350 gallons of water to which was added five packets of Cooper’s Dip, and in this solution these infected sheep were to be dipped.

I found the native flock owners more or less hostile to the new condition of things, and will need very careful and firm handling. I think every possible assistance should be given the Inspectors in these areas to patrol the location during dipping operations.

As I am afraid the natives will not bring all their stock to the tanks, the inspector has no check on their numbers.

When was this report handed in?

On 14th December, 1924, and it is your inspectors. Can I keep them on? I leave the matter to the hon. members of the Opposition. I will answer further on the debate. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) says that I refused to meet the sheep farmers. He had not the courage to say where I refused, because he knows that it is altogether without proof. I have never refused. And I was never yet afraid to meet my fellow farmers face to face. There was a congress at Pretoria; and I was asked if I would be present. I answered that I was busy with deputations and would come as soon as I was finished. I was still busy when a deputation came from the Congress itself and laid their grievances before me, and I answered them. They then returned, and you have here this afternoon had a statement of one of the members of this deputation. Yet the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has the shamelessness to say that I refused it. Is this honourable? If I made a mistake, let the Opposition critize me, and score off me in manly fashion, but not in a deceptive manner. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) says further: “Yes, the proclamation is issued in the Transvaal; but Wolmaransstad is left out because the Minister fears for his seat.” There was no clean district left out by me. There were, however, two districts in the Transvaal, that is: Krugersdorp and Wolmaransstad, left out because a former Minister of Agriculture held a simultaneous dip in Wolmaransstad and it was clean. Now comes the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and reads a notice that certain farms of Wolmaransstad, which for scab purposes have been placed under Lichtenburg, must dip. Let him quote. It is an earlier Minister of Agriculture who did it. He had then not provided that the compulsory dip must also take place there, and I had now to say so in my notice. This is not anything that I have done. Now comes the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and says that it won’t be any use our dipping for sheep louse; and that it is of no use to provide that the second dip must take place within ten days, because it takes fourteen days for the eggs to hatch. If you want to do it properly you must wait twenty-one days, as fourteen days after the first dip will be of no use. Natal farmers, however, assure me that arsenical dip at the proper strength causes the eggs of the parasite to disappear. My experts have not yet told me whether this is so, but I have the assurance from Natal. Now comes the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and says that it will be better if I now change it to three weeks. We battle here first against the scab; and we must take more effective measures against it. If, subsequently, the sheep louse does not disappear, we shall have to make other plans and act as needed. He has cast blame on the farmers in connection with the supervision of the dipping. We know what this supervision implies; and the appointment of persons to supervise takes place through the scab inspectors and the magistrates with my approval. I will not appoint any farmer who does not do his best. But I have every confidence that the farmers will help me. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has told the House about the scab inspector who said that the farmers could make the dip of l-50th strength. If he knew this he ought not to have remained silent. Am I to assume that the hon. member knows this and remains silent? If he notifies me of the person’s name I will dismiss him immediately. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has also spoken to the question and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has already answered him on certain points; but he has not spoken of the extermination of scab. His great grievance was that the sheep division is dispersed and that this will do us harm. We said last year that we do this on account of retrenchment; and then these hon. members said that we were going to encourage scab. What do they now say?

It has happened.

They see that the scab is going to be exterminated and that the Pact Government is going to get the credit for it. They spent millions; but they were too feeble. Now they see it; and that the present Government is improving matters.

You have propagated scab.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) says that we have propagated scab. We have received reports from the scab inspectors; and do the hon. members know why there were previously such glowing reports? It was because the Minister of Agriculture had promised bonuses for those who declared that they had had no scab in their districts during the previous two months. This happened every year to the amount of £4,000, and the reports are not worth the paper they are written on. In this way the former Government wasted the money of the country; as these people were their election agents. We will not do this. If there are inspectors who mix themselves up with elections, give me their names and I will dismiss them; whether they are Nationalists or members of the S.A.P. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) had subsequently come to East Coast fever. Does he know that in Natal there had been not less than 330 farms which were infected with East Coast fever? Does he know the condition to-day?

No.

If he will investigate the facts he will see that a reduction is recorded. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has made the accusation that there had not been enough vaccine in Natal. There has been a greater demand for vaccines than ever before, and the delay had been for seven days only. And for these seven days’ delay I gave the Natal sheep farmer one month’s extension for dipping sheep. I do not understand why the Natal members make such a fuss. I have here a telegram from Newcastle, which reads as follows—

Now what does all this to-do indicate? The thing does not come off. Their own supporters approve my measures; but there is one thing which I regret, and that is, that hon. members on the other side encourage the South African party inspectors, who still remain, in their passive resistance.

It is not true.

Yes, they do; and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) is also to blame; and therefore I say here this afternoon that I shall dismiss every scab inspector who does not carry out the policy of the Government. I shall now take action. It must be a very weak Government which keeps on officials who do not do their duty and carry out the policy of the Government. Allow me to say why you hon. members on the other side are so annoyed and why you always talk at every meeting about the spoils system. It is because you see that your political machinery is rent asunder and will never be made right again. But I tell hon. members that I will dismiss officials who are under contract at a month’s notice and who do not carry out the policy of the Government. I will endeavour to help the taxpayers by preventing unnecessary expenditure.

What about the concessions?

I believe we are now talking about scab. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has attacked me because I withdrew certain circulars for the combating of stock diseases. I will just inform the hon. member that a veterinary surgeon came to me and said that he had sent out circulars about the dip in Natal. I said to him: How dare you take such totally independent action; and I immediately repealed the circular. If you want to dip, then you must have proper dip. And for this reason I withdrew this circular, which was sent out by the veterinary surgeon of Natal. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwehuize) has said that in order to obtain success the Minister must have the support of the farmers. I do not want to detain the House, but will just refer to the telegrams and letters before me, which are all resolutions from the principal people and associations who approve of the measures for simultaneous dipping. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwehuize) says that he has a petition to the Prime Minister with 200 names, for the repeal of simultaneous dipping. I want to ask the hon. member how it is that in Lydenburg, which is one of the principal sheep districts, only 200 farmers appear on the list. None of the former officials in Lydenburg have been dismissed. And it is these inspectors who support the Opposition. These are the people who try to deal me a blow from behind. I am going to help the Government to carry out the Government policy in spite of all criticism and to take care that the taxpayer will not have to pay out £200,000 per annum for the eradication of scab. Do the hon. members on the other side know what has already been spent on eradication? It is more than £2,000,000. Hon. members on the other side of the House make it appear as if they are so frightfully sorry for the farmers. When they had the opportunity, they were not sorry: for when they sat here they had allowed the mealie farmer to suffer great loss to the tune of 1½ millions. When they sat here they laid a tobacco tax and forced still more poor whites to the cities. This is the manner in which they sympathize with the farmers. They allow cattle to be imported, and our farmers here were crushed out of existence.

What about the embargo on the import of stock and your promises with regard thereto?

What are the people of the Union saying today about the import restriction? Are not the people satisfied? We have had the courage to give it effect; but you could not do it: you were too weak. The public to-day support the Government and help the Government. You run away. The first who ran away this afternoon was the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt).

He will still come.

Yes, he will come when the debate is closed; but where is he now? He has run away. Now the Opposition asks: Did you consult the farmers when you appointed this or that inspector? Did you consult the agricultural union? I just refer them to the letters and telegrams which I have now read. I do not know whether it is necessary to detain the House further by reading all the documents which I have here. I have also here a letter from the magistrate of Carolina who was also in favour of simultaneous dipping. Certain objections have been raised by the Opposition. One of the hon. members has declared that the wool becomes spotted through dipping. It seems to me that he knows better than the experts of Bradford, who declare that the dip materials used in South Africa do not occasion spots on the wool. Then the objection is put forward that at the time for simultaneous dipping the sheep have to be inoculated for blue-tongue. I have taken this into account and therefore stipulated that three months must be allowed for simultaneous dipping. Three months after the inoculation for blue-tongue the sheep will be long ago recovered. It is just because it is not my intention to exterminate the sheep, but to cause scab to disappear, that I fixed the time at three months. The hon. members have all various arguments. The one considers three months too long. He wants to have a short period. Another considers three months not long enough. The members of the Opposition are not agreed amongst themselves. It is impossible to dip all the sheep simultaneously. Therefore I stipulated that it must be effected within three months. But the provision does not rob the inspector of the right to place sheep in quarantine if they appear to be infected. The hon. members must consider what it is going to mean for the wool farmers if we are able to declare that the land is free of scab. What is it not going to mean for the wool farmer and for the taxpayer? Although the Opposition will not support the Government in its attempt to make the country clean, the Government will not be discouraged in going forward with its attempts to free the country of scab. I trust that I am going to make a success of the extermination of this sickness. I will not say that I shall completely exterminate the sickness, but with the spirit which to-day prevails amongst the farmers I am very hopeful of making great progress with the work. I experience great encouragement when I hear of sheep farmers whose flocks have already been 10, 15, even 20 years clean, and who say that they are going to throw in their lot with the rest of South Africa and that they support the regulation for simultaneous dipping merely to free the land of this sickness. I value very much the support that I have received from the farmers. There is a lot of talk about the people who are against the new regulation. Who are against it? The National party congress approved the plan. At all the meetings which I addressed I heard no single word against simultaneous dipping. The agricultural union has approved it. And who is it that disapproves of it? It is just the people who want to make politics out of it and a few dismissed inspectors who are angry because they no longer batten at the Government’s expense—it is they who keep the agitation going. But the Government is not going to allow itself to be frightened. The Government has the support of the sheep farmers in its action. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) ought to know this: there are in the Free State districts which have asked to be placed under the proclamation. Where, then, is the agitation? Does it not come from disappointed politicians? Does it not come from the people whose machinery is now out of order; and who see that they will never again make good? Is it they? The Leader of the Opposition said in Losberg that the farmers must read what goes on in the Parliament. I hope that the people will follow this advice and that they will read everything —including the jokes. Only six farmers sit on the Opposition. The interest of the farmers are represented by the Government side of the House: the people must understand this. The Opposition’s arguments are so vague and so weak. There is not one which can stand on its own legs. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has moved a motion on behalf of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who has deserted the fort, and the proposer was already tired before he stood up. It has been asked that the Basutoland border be closed. This has already been attempted in the time of the former Government; but it is impossible to fence over mountains and through valleys. It has been said that scab is imported from neighbouring countries, amongst others from Swaziland. The Imperial Government is quite willing to help us. They will cause all sheep in Swaziland to be dipped and provide the dip material, if we will just supervise.

I must draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that his time has expired.

I regret that I am unable to accept the motion.

It appears to me that the speech of the hon. Minister of Agriculture is much cry and little wool. The Minister has raved and screamed; but has not furthered the matter. I regret the spirit in which he has spoken. Six speeches have come from this side of the House, and no political attack has been made on the Minister. The hon. Minister says that they were weak speeches; but this was purposely so done to avoid any appearance of a political attack on the Government. It is not a case of political attack; and I must say that when it is a question like this, which affects the whole country, then we can reason quietly and coolly with each other; and we have no need to make attacks aiming at the acquisition of political capital. The Minister has read certain documents, including one from an inspector who did not do his duty. If what contained in this report is true, we agree that the Minister has acted properly. But the Minister says that this was the conduct of hundreds of other of the officials whom he has lately discharged. The hon. Minister will agree with me that it is beneath his dignity to say so. The Minister was right when he declared that the dismissal of officials had a political object—that a political equilibrium must be restored. I can understand that. This is a palpable acknowledgment of the political attitude which he has here this afternoon again advocated; namely, the spoils system which has been introduced here. It is very wrong and beneath the dignity of the Minister in his high position to say that what happened in Kentani is characteristic of the conduct of all his officials.

Not of all.

Is this a “great speech” again?

Here we have officials dismissed who were punctilious and who had lessened scab in the country. The Minister states that the statistics are wrong; but still there has been great progress. In the Transvaal it has lessened to two per cent. If he had not spoken in such a bitter and biting manner he would have realized that he is unjust towards the officials. I will not detain the House long. I am not going to attack the Minister. Every speaker acknowledges that the object of the Minister is good, and I will not attack him about it. His object is to free the country of scab; and this has been the object of every Government in our country. We have no need to feel angry about this; but there is no doubt that the measures in connection with simultaneous dipping aroused very strong feeling. The Minister may think that it is a few discharged officials or a few neglectful farmers who raise objection to it. But he can take it from me that this is not the case. I was recently round about in the Transvaal, and it surprised me to observe what strong feeling has been aroused there; and the speech which he has delivered this afternoon will help neither him nor the Government. There exists in fact a very strong feeling. I will repeat that I can give the Minister the assurance from my observations that it is not disappointed officials, but it is everyone. There exists a strong feeling of disapproval of simultaneous dipping as the Minister prescribed it. Allow me to make plain the position in the Transvaal. The Minister has said that his constituency is clean. I am assured that my constituency, Standerton, is also clean. I do not believe that there is anything about which we need abuse each other. Let us rather go into the merits of the matter. The Transvaal was this year in the position that it has had rains from one end to the other such as for years has not been the case. On the high veld and in all the districts and divisions the country is soaked after the rain. This is good for mealies and for agriculture generally; but it is not good for sheep farming. The sheep have suffered extremely as a result of all the rain. Sicknesses have come, blue tongue and others, and the sheep were inoculated therefor. On top of all this, comes a proclamation of the Minister that these sheep must now be dipped, while there is no necessity for it. Flocks which for years have had no scab must now, under these unsatisfactory conditions, go to the dip and the farmers are going to suffer as a result. Many sheep will die, and trouble will result. It is in this spirit that the farmers have put the question, and have said: Meet us; we are not against simultaneous dipping. This is undoubtedly the position in the Transvaal, and what the people object to is simultaneous dipping this year—and this on good grounds. The sheep suffer now from blue tongue, and the farmers know that if they carry out the command of the Minister they will suffer loss— none the less they are going to do it. The Minister has had the assurance of the farming population. He rejoices that he has at last obtained it, and is glad. The position is that the reports of the magistrates are good. The more co-operation there is the quicker agricultural progress will be in the country. I am just afraid that the Minister is going to retard the matter. He has acted in a wrong and unsound manner; and it is going to be a shock to a good understanding with the farmers. It should have been his aim to retain the cooperation of the farmers. In all parts of the country the population has shown that where the Government do anything good they are going to co-operate; and that they will set aside any spirit of opposition and will not work on political lines. In this matter we see no opposition. The aim of everybody is to clean the country. The Minister must not think that it is a case of obstinacy. The Minister is determined to carry out the proclamation. But the consequences are that in more than one place the farmers will suffer loss; and I regret that he has not in his present actions obtained the co-operation of the farmers. There are other troubles. In other districts the objection is that dipping is fixed during lambing time. This is the case in the northern Transvaal, where the lambing season is in May; and I hope that the Minister, notwithstanding what he has here stated, and in view of the attitude which the farmers there have taken up and the losses which they will unquestionably suffer, will meet them and allow relaxations. Let him set out of his head all notion of an attack on him, and that he has to defend the Government. Let him just proceed from the standpoint that he must accommodate the people. And I feel called on to bring to his notice the necessity for revising certain of the dates, and I also turn to the Prime Minister and appeal to him. Conditions are not now what they formerly were; and the Minister has not all the information now that the sheep division has been dispersed. It was a division which was posted up and knew everything of such affairs. He has placed himself precipitately in the hands of the veterinary department. We are going to pay dear for it, very dear; for this retrenchment of the Minister. We are going to save a few thousand and suffer hundreds of thousands loss. We gave warning about it; and now within a few months it has occurred. The former Minister of Agriculture had also issued a proclamation for simultaneous dipping, and there was no objection. Why is there objection to-day? I say it is because the Minister is wrongly informed and because the people who are responsible are not posting him in the matter. We are going to pay dearly for it. I repeat we are going to pay dearly for this wrong step. I will not say anything further on this subject. I only utter the hope that the Minister has noticed the spirit in which we have tackled the matter; and I hope he is going to give consideration to the feeling in the interior, where all the rains have fallen, so that certain dates in the proclamation will be altered. It is no question of an attack on him or that he must defend the Government; and if he does this he will make right a great grievance.

I will not take up the time of the House. I am just going to say a few words. I do not know if I have the right to conclude from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that it is his wish that the motion shall be withdrawn. This is the logical conclusion which I was enabled to make from his speech ….

I only want to make plain to the Prime Minister that I am prepared to obtain the withdrawal of the motion if I can obtain the assurance from the Prime Minister that the points touched on by us will be taken into consideration and that for those points, where possible, allowance shall be made.

From the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I have gained the impression that he will gladly see the motion withdrawn. I have also come to this conclusion from the attitude taken up by him. I am therefore glad to see the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with him entirely that in matters of this nature we must consider the importance of the subject and that we must show by the character of our speeches that we have in view the interests, the practical interests, of the matter; and that we have not to do with personalities. He must, however, admit that in the speech of the introducer of the motion there was little to the point; and that the speech contained many attacks on the Minister of Agriculture. I can therefore not blame the Minister for having answered them; and for his having shown that this is not the way in which to treat serious matters. The Minister then refuted in effective manner the complaints made against him in his department. I agree, however, with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that we must deal with these matters so as to promote the interests of the country. The motion asks for revision of the resolution of the Minister of Agriculture concerning simultaneous dipping. It asks amongst other things that farms which have been clean of scab for the last twelve months shall not come within the order in respect of simultaneous dipping. It does not matter how long the farm has been free to become immediately aware how impossible such a measure is if we are going to meet these requests. Suppose a clean farm lies in between farms where scab exists: it is then extremely possible that the clean farm is already infected without it being noticeable; and if the sheep on this farm are then not dipped, the sickness can easily break out there. Then we come to the second portion of the motion; and it appears to me equally impossible. I will not repeat everything that has been said by the Minister of Agriculture and of which he knows more than we know about it. He has already obtained advice and now he knows more of the conditions than we. I wish to add that provision has already been made that in districts or territories where the conditions are otherwise than in other districts or territories, other treatment can be applied. We can, however, not absolve from dipping any clean district which is surrounded by infected districts. Where will we land if we do this? We land just where we were before, and make not the least progress. I will not say that the Minister may not render assistance where needed; but I will just make plain how difficult it is for the House to take a resolution in this matter to take the treatment of the case out of the hands of the Minister and to say what must be done. It appears to me, after what we have heard here to-day, that the best will be done in the interest of the country. The whole House is unanimously in favour of our adopting the best measures to eradicate this disease. For this reason I shall be glad if the motion is withdrawn. If this is not done, then we shall be obliged to take a resolution to-day, because whether the public will have to do what they have been requested to do will depend upon the result of this discussion. The public has been asked to dip, and the sooner the public know what the opinion of Parliament is, the better.

I regret to find that the Prime Minister is of the opinion that I have pleaded in a political cause. This is not the case. I shall not, however, follow the example of the Minister of Agriculture. We have already known each other for a good many years and therefore I shall not repeat what I have said: therefore I shall not follow his example and vilify each other. If I by withdrawing the motion shall contribute anything towards easing the matter I shall certainly do it. The Prime Minister has asked me to withdraw the motion; but he will not give me the least guarantee; and that, notwithstanding, is the least that I can expect. The Minister of Agriculture has given his word that he has not refused to receive deputations, and I accept his word; but then I hope that he will also accept my word: that the inspector in Ermelo of which the Minister spoke had not been sitting on my election committee; neither did he take part in the elections: still less that he had been chairman of the committee. I hope that he takes my word concerning this. The Minister read out here that the inspector acknowledges having made a mistake. It does honour to the man that he acknowledges his mistake. This is to his credit. It takes a man to acknowledge his faults. I must further give credit to the man that he has made his district clean of scab and that there exists no single reason to decry him. I can give the Minister the assurance that I will support him if he dismisses an official who does not do his duty, irrespective of what political party he belongs to. I will be the first to say, dismiss him.

This is in fact what the Minister said.

I agree with him there. The extermination of scab has nothing whatever to do with politics. There are officials who are S.A.P. who say that the Minister’s order is right. This is not a political matter. It is a question of conviction. I will only hope that the Minister will not exert pressure on the people and that he will not sow dissention amongst them. The dismissal of inspectors and other officials is another matter. We will still come back to this matter. There are already a few questions on the order paper about it; and the Minister will then be able to enlighten us further. But to come back to the motion: the Prime Minister can promise us nothing whatever, and I regret that under the circumstances I am unable to withdraw the motion.

The question was put and Col.-Cdt. Collins called for a division.

Whereupon the House divided.

Ayes—37.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—67.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fiek, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D. P. W. le R.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.