I move—

seconded.

I do not propose to discuss the principle incorporated in the proposed Bill, but I think we, as members of Parliament, have the right when important measures are sought to be introduced and when our time is to be further curtailed to draw the attention of the. Prime Minister to the Order Paper. In doing so I wish to point out two main features of the Order Paper. The first is the Government measures still on the Paper; and secondly, the essential financial Bills and other work which must still passed to legalize the Government Budget proposals. Now, the Government Bills still on the Order Paper, including the one now sought to be introduced, amount to 27, and of these the large majority have not yet been read a second time.

Why waste time, then?

Many of these measures are of extreme importance, and are very contentious. The second point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister is the essential work still to be done in order to legalize the Government Budget proposals. In the first place, we are still in Committee of Supply on the general Estimates; the Railway Estimates and the Loan Estimates have so far not been touched. The House has still to go into Committee of Ways and Means on the following proposals: Income tax, death duties, licences, native taxation and customs and excise. These proposals, as I understand the practice of the House to be, will require at least seven financial Bill in order to legalize them. Then there are two other financial Bills which would also have to be considered. Annually we have to pass, and do pass, what we call the Financial Adjustments Bill and the Annual Pensions Bill, I am certain the Minister of Railways would not let us go home without giving us the Railway Construction Bill; so that these ten Bills, with the 27 on the Order Paper, bring the total number up to 37 Bills. The Prime Minister will therefore see that we are nearing an impossible position as regards the Order Paper, and here the Minister gaily comes along and introduces another Bill, or seeks to do so; a Bill of very far-reaching importance. I may mention that this state of the Order Paper, and the continual adding to the Order Paper, do not enhance the prestige of Parliament, and I therefore appeal to the Prime Minister as leader of the House, to take this matter in hand seriously, in order to save Parliament from what I consider an almost impossible state of affairs.

A speech made just before the beginning of this session, by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, may throw some light on the state of the Order Paper. It shows very lucidly the principles on which the Government is “delivering the goods.” The Minister stated before the session at a big public meeting—

It seems the government of the country is to be by avoirdupois. He goes on—

He forgot to say he took it over from the South African party. He continues—

The proceedings terminated with the National Anthem. I think that throws a very vivid light on the way the parliamentary procedure of this country is being conducted. Apparently it is not the quality of the Bills that counts, but the quantity. In my opinion, the fewer the Bills the better the government, and the more Bills the worse government. We are reaching a stage of extraordinary over-government, Looking at these Bills, we find that the party that was always talking about liberty is interfering in numberless ways with the liberty of the subject.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I am sorry if I have transgressed the rule. In all my experience of parliamentary work, I have never known the work of a session to be so bungled as the work of the present session. We are making no progress not on account of any lack of assistance from this side. No. We have loyally assisted every Bill brought before this House which in our opinion should pass this House; but the obstruction has come from the Ministers themselves, in piling up this extraordinary amount of legislation. I hope the Minister will now withdraw this Bill. It seems to be a piece of bravado provoked by what I said the other night. I cannot think that the Minister is seriously intending to put a policeman in charge of every mining company in this country. I have no interest in mining or mining companies, but I object to this type of legislation. It seems to be another sword of Damocles held over the mining industry, and I cannot see on what principle the Minister of Mines and Industries is going to put a policeman on every mining company and not do the same with every other industry. If the mining companies have to be policed, why not the land companies, the trust companies, the boot manufacturing companies and so on.

Let us get a square deal.

It seems that this is another attempt to get the maximum number of jobs for the maximum number of pals. I do not know, but I doubt whether there is a similar law in any other country in the world.

What difference does that make?

It means that other countries with centuries of civilization behind them—

This is the only country in the world that had a Minister like you.

I am inclined to agree with the hon. member. I notice that all the Bills I had on the stocks have been accepted, without alteration, by the other side. However, I do not see that the mere fact that there is no similar legislation in the world must necessarily debar us; but we are at least entitled to look to other countries for precedents.

There is always something new in Africa.

Yes, looking at the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) I should say so. When one takes the wide powers the Minister is now proposing to take in this Bill, and all the other drastic powers being sought for by Ministers, it seems to me that people in other countries will think we are being governed by a set of Mexican bandits.

We were.

No, this is simply socialistic legislation, pure and simple, and I only wish the Minister would go back to Robertson and tell them this is sheer Bolshevism. The Government is practically taking charge of the mining industry and taking powers to take charge of practically everything, every industry, every syndicate is to be interfered with by Government. The only body of persons, apparently, who are allowed to do as they please, are the gentlemen in the trade unions. Government is interfering with private enterprise to an extent unknown in any other country. I do not think the Minister is serious with this Bill. Perhaps he intends it as a pawn in the negotiations now going on the Rand; but I do not think the Minister has any right to do so.

The Government, very naturally, in matters of parliamentary procedure, are alarmed when such an authority with such a long experience of Parliament as the hon. member who has just sat down (Col. D. Reitz) impugns the Government of this House. I think we used to have the same lectures when the previous Government was in power from Mr. Merriman, a member of life-long experience in this House. The hon. member who has just sat down aims—with possibly less qualifications—to aspire to the same position of lecturer. When hon. members opposite speak of wasting the time of the House we have just this moment had a very good example of the way in which they waste our time. In reply to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), whom we do recognize as having the right to speak regarding matters of procedure, this is not the first session he has attended when more Bills were introduced than were eventually passed. I think the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would have simply marvelled in past Parliaments to see a session at the end of which a considerable number of measures had not to fall under the guillotine. It was the right hon. gentleman’s usual custom to tell the House what measures were going to be proceeded with. What is the objection to the introduction of this Bill? It is unprecedented except under very special occasions—I have done so myself on one occasion—to resist the introduction of any Bill in this House by a private member or by any Government. The long speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down is a very good example of the way in which the time of the House is wasted by the Opposition. I would further say in answer to the accusations that have been made, that the Government is not prosecuting business fast enough. We can take that as a hint that the Opposition desirous to use every form of procedure to enable us to get through the business faster.

Blackmail.

An hon. member opposite has asked me whether I am serious in introducing this Bill. My reply is “Is he serious?” I am going to pass over with the silence it deserves the bulk of what he said. One of the greatest nations of the world has the reputation of bungling through its problems, and bungling with very considerable success. Whether the Order Paper is bungled or not, I think we shall prove our success before the end of the session. As to this being a bit of bravado on my part, it is nothing of the kind. There is the Bill, certified by the law adviser, as long ago as March 5 last. Hon. members are perfectly aware how these things are delayed from time to time, and it has been to a certain extent a pure accident that this Bill has not been introduced sooner. I am accustomed to dealing with everything entrusted to me with great seriousness—in fact the charge is that I am too serious, and I indulge in levity about responsible matters. I am not going to follow the example of the hon. member in discussing the merits of the Bill in anticipation, but hon. members opposite are so deliciously inconsistent. I understood, a few nights ago, that one of their main grievances was that this platinum boom and the resultant crop of bogus companies, was doing a lot of harm. Well, one of the objects of this Bill is to put a stop to things like that.

Why not bring in the Companies Bill?

I think this will be effective. I am very serious about the measure which the Government intends proceeding with and putting through, if not this session, at any rate in the coming session.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 17th June.

The Child Welfare vote is continuously growing, and it has increased this year by £13,475. I hope the Minister does not want to get all the children in the country under his charge, but the increase is certainly marvellous. The cost of some of the industrial schools seems to vary considerably, as the following figures which show the cost of maintaining the children per day will prove: Dewetsdorp, 89 boys, 5s. 8¾d.; Heidelberg, 297 boys, 3s. 6d.; George, 193 boys, 3s. 3d.; Standerton, 178 girls, 3s. 1½d.; Paarl. 84 girls, 2s. 4½d.

From the annual report of the child welfare department we get a few very important facts. The first is that we have to-day practically about 9,000 State children that are put under Government control. It is a very sad fact that there should be so many State children in our country owing to the existing circumstances. There is an amount of nearly £177,000 under this head for housing, etc., and I should like here to express my appreciation and that of others that the State does not shut its eyes to the need that exists on account of the expense. If the grants on the estimates were to stop or be reduced then it would mean a great step backwards for some of our big towns, and if that happened I do not see how we can maintain our civilization as the successors of our ancestors. I think the House is indebted to the department for the provision that is made for education and teaching of the class of child that would otherwise sink lower and lower to eventually increase the ranks of our criminals. It is a sad fact that in one year, 1923, no less than 2,461 orders were issued by the magistrates to place children in industrial and certified schools. I repeat that in view of the sad state of affairs we are obliged to make provision for the children and that we may not be so petty as to fall short of that on account of a few thousand pounds. Another point that has particularly struck me is the question of putting children in industrial and certified schools. In 1923 there were about 9,000 and I should like to know in what way and on whose authority the 9,000 children or part of them, out of those institutions, were given employment, because it seems to me to be a very important point regarding this matter to arrange that when the children attain the age limit they shall be properly placed and shall find suitable occupations. My question is what happens to the children after they have left the industrial schools? I want to make a few quotations from the annual report, but it seems necessary that there should be a certain amount of “after care” of the children. I should like to know whether provision has been or is being made to keep an eye on the children after they leave the institution. In this connection I think it is very necessary that provision should be made for such children for continuation schools. It is clear that the children do not all get sufficient education at the institution, especially as is shown by the report where, as is generally the case they are two years behind other children in development and that a large portion are not much gifted, so that special provision is necessary for their training. On page 733 of the report details are given about the placing of children. It appears that only 38 per cent. of lads get into a trade or occupation that they have learnt at the institution and that 30 per cent. go into other callings than those to which they have been trained, so that actually the placing of 68 per cent of the boys is assured. As regards the girls the figures are, fortunately, more favourable. About 50 per cent. of them get into employment for which they have been trained. Thirty-three per cent. go into other occupations. But these figures also are not completely satisfactory. We have, of course, the right, with a view to the importance and interest that we attach to this national question, to ask what the result of the school education of the children is. Then, as to the results of the work, I see that about 70 per cent. of the boys do good work and 10 per cent. fairly good work, while the work of 20 per cent. is unsatisfactory. For the girls the figures are Good work done, 84 per cent.; fairly good work, 8 per cent., and unsatisfactory work only 8 per cent. Coming to the causes of this position I should like to know in what direction we can bring about a possible alteration, not only to get better value for our money, but also to make useful members of society of the children. Among the causes it is said in the first place that about 7 per cent. of the children in State institutions, or protected schools, are weak-minded or mentally defective. It seems to me necessary, therefore, that the children that are put in the industrial schools should early be examined, and I should like to know what can be done in the direction of sorting out weak-minded children and sending them early to institutions for the feeble-minded where they also, perhaps, may be trained to become useful member’s of society. A second cause is given, viz., that the children often show defects of character, and experience shows that children with weaknesses of character in such institutions exercise a bad influence on other children in their surroundings, and I should like to know if steps cannot be taken to place those pupils (I hope their number is small) in separate institutions, but certainly not in gaol, in order to prevent contamination and to make them also, if possible, useful members of society. It is made clear in the report that one of the chief causes of failure of the children, especially those who are given occupation on the Rand, is the absence of proper housing. Will the Minister give this possibility his consideration?

I should like to answer the questions that have been put. The first is that by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), viz., by whom the children are placed in employment after they have left the various institutions. My answer is that it is done in conjunction with the department, and that there exists machinery in connection with certain certified institutions for placing children in employment when they have had adequate education. Then there are also a number of inspectors in the department who keep these children under their supervision until they are 21 years of age to see that they are well treated, and that they get on well. The hon. member has also asked what the results of the work are. The circumstances in which these children are dealth with must naturally be borne in mind when we consider the results. Up to the present, however, the results have been very satisfactory. I can say extraordinarily satisfactory.

What is done with the lads when they come out?

They are given means of employment. Here in Cape Town they are placed in various industries and they are supervised by the department until they are 21. I say that the results are extraordinarily satisfactory. About 90 per cent. of those that come out of the institutions have been a success in life. I think that if only ten per cent. are a failure, the money has been very well spent. The hon. member also asked why it is that so many of our children find work in other directions than what they have been trained up to in the institutions. One answer to that is that there are many people in the country that are trained in a certain direction and can find no work in that branch on account of the great amount of unemployment. Another answer is that the institutions under the department are not yet properly coordinated. We still get too many small children amongst the bigger ones in the same institution. This makes the cost very high, and it prevents us from giving industrial education to the bigger ones to enable them to take up and be taken up immediately in the industries of the country. It is better to have separate institutions for small and for bigger children. I am now considering the whole matter to see how the institutions under the department can be co-ordinated. As to the weak-minded element in the institutions, I may say that it is not alone the case in these schools, but it also occurs in the other schools. Unfortunately quite a lot of money is spent by the provincial authorities on the so-called backward children which is practically thrown away, because those children are never improved. They are not backward children, but weak-minded children. They must be specially treated in institutions for weak-minded children. We have already taken a fairly large number of weak-minded children out of our schools, and now that we have an expert in that department as inspector, more will be done in the future. As to the child that is morally weak, I may add that we must co-ordinate the various institutions more with each other. I hope to come to agreement with the department of justice so that a kind of house of correction may evolve which will not be a gaol, but which will at the same time be an educational institution where the children can be dealt with according to their intelligence and their temperament.

†Several questions have been asked by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). One is about what he considers to be the abnormal increase in the Vote for this year. In the first place, I must call the hon. gentleman’s attention to the fact that we are asking money now for a new institution, and that accounts for by far the greater part of the additional expenditure under this Vote. We are opening a new institution in Kingwilliamstown, and the capital expenditure for that was voted by Parliament last session, so that we are simply carrying out a principle which has been laid down on a former occasion. But, generally speaking, the hon. gentleman is aware that the country has passed through years of very great depression, and that we have had a period of unemployment that has been altogether unprecedented. We have never had such a period in South Africa before, and, very naturally, where such a condition affects the adults it would affect, and affect perhaps much more, the children, and the consequence of this is that more children are committed by magistrates to such institutions than before. Then the hon. gentleman asked another question in connection with the industrial schools, as to why there should be such a difference in the cost per child between, say, Dewetsdorp and Heidelberg. That is explained by the fact that these two institutions differ very much in their character. The Dewetsdorp institution is largely an agricultural school, and the overhead charges, which cost the department a great deal, of course account for the high cost per child; while Heidelberg is just an ordinary industrial school under the department. The other question he raised was as to the sale of commodities to members of the staff of the institutions. This matter has not been brought to my notice, but I will go into the matter and see that it is put right.

There is just one other question I should like to ask my hon. friend. What does he do with all these youngsters; you are getting some thousands of them. What policy are you pursuing? Do the farmers take any, for instance? It would be of great interest to the House to know.

They are placed in employment whenever it can be found for them.

But can you find it easily for them all?

Well, so far we are succeeding. They are all placed in employment so far is I know. It is not an easy task, but anyway it is done, and we have our machinery for the purpose.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture,” £768,010.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture exactly what economy has been effected by him by the so-called re-organization of the department of the sheep division. I do not specially refer to the fact of the abolition of the sheep division under which the Minister had dismissed certain of the head officials, but I want to refer more especially to the scab inspectors. Last session we were told by the Minister that his intention was in abolishing the sheep division to bring scab under the semi-administration of the police. The Minister was advised on this side of the House, and I am glad to see the Minister has on one occasion been prevailed upon by good advice from this side not to carry on the policy he intended. The point I wish to emphasize is that many inspectors had been dismissed and they all received a curt letter from the Minister, saying that “on account of re-organization your services have been dispensed with”; and assigning no other reason and no matter what correspondence has been sent the Minister has given no other reason whatsoever. I would like to know exactly what economy is effected by this re-organization, because he has given us a list of the numbers of inspectors dismissed and the new appointments, and I must say that in practically all these dismissals the vacancies have been filled up again so that I cannot see what economy is effected. It seems to me the whole position is this, that when he first decided to use the police he afterwards found that he would not be able to create vacancies among the scab inspectors in order to create jobs for his friends. Hence his decision to abandon the idea of employing the police. It boils down to that. The Minister told us the other day, and other Ministers have told us, that the Free State was clean from scab, yet we find that nine inspectors have been dismissed and others re-appointed in their stead. I want to put this to the Minister, that if the Free State is clean then certainly it is the good work of these inspectors. Why should it be necessary for the Minister to dismiss these people and appoint others in their stead, and who did he appoint? I have some very interesting cases. One man was appointed as inspector for Bethulie in 1908 and he cleaned the district in a year. In 1909 he was transferred to Bethlehem which he also found fully infected with scab. This gentleman also just received a curt wire from the Minister, saying that his services had been dispensed with because of the re-organization of the department. This man must have done excellent work. The district is clean to this day, yet when the Minister comes into power that man is dismissed without an adequate reason being given. It is very interesting to see that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) assured this gentleman that he would do whatever possible to try and persuade the Minister, and that he had the Minister’s assurance that this man would not be dismissed; but we find him dismissed and someone else appointed, and I would like to know from the hon. member for Bethlehem whether the successor is any relative of his.

What are his politics?

He is a Nationalist. No, it is nothing else than a policy of smelling out. These people have been dismissed because they are supposed to have held views sympathetic to the S.A.P. I should like to know, from the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels), why he gave these men the assurance, and a relative of his own was appointed; I think his brother-in-law. Then there was a Mr. van Rooyen who was appointed to Fouriesburg in 1911, and he had managed to get the district clean by 1923. On the 20th October, last year, he received a wire from the Minister, stating that his services had been dispensed with. A gentleman who has cleaned his district, and kept it clean, especially a district bordering on Basutoland where infection came in, I think has rendered valuable service; but, because he had evidently taken part in suppressing the rebellion, and had gone to Flanders, he is penalized and dismissed from the service. The gentleman who was appointed in his place was again a relative of the hon. member for Bethlehem—his brother—and the qualification of his brother is that he went into rebellion, and that is apparently why this man Wessels was appointed. This gentleman had served the department loyally for 13 years, and must have given good service, because his district was clean at the time. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he dismissed these people. We are not satisfied by a mere reply that he dismissed them on account of re-organization. We want to know what they had actually done, and we want to know the qualifications of the men who succeeded them in their appointments. Of course, we heard that the Minister said at a social function in Pretoria, that he was going to attend to the Pact followers. (Time expired.)

I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the dairy division as it is at present, and also what success they have had in their milk testing. I can only speak for my own part of the country, but it appears that there has not been much success at present, due, I believe, mere to the farmers than to the department. I should like to know whether the Government cannot do something to improve the class of cow, in the aggregate, which we have in South Africa. I have been told that the average amount of milk given by the average cow in South Africa is about 170 gallons, which is certainly the lowest of any of the dominions, and I do not see how we are ever going to enter into competition with the great dairying countries unless we can increase the milk capacity of our cows. Going round the country, I have noticed that only one farmer out of about four or five knows how much milk his cows give. You ask the farmer to pick out his best cow, and he picks out the one which looks the best, but he has never weighed the milk. There are very few farmers in America who do not know which cow gives most milk, as the milk is weighed every one or two weeks. We have to compete in the London market with New Zealand and Australia, and the position to-day is that the Australian who works eight hours a day and has to pay from 10s. to 12s. a day for his white labour, can put butter on the South African market, and better butter than the South Africans can themselves. We have to put a duty on butter to keep the Australian butter being sold on the Cape Town market, and even with that they beat us, because in Cape Town and suburbs some of the butter used comes from Australia. This is a big thing for the country, and I hope the Government is going to be more alive than it has been in the past. I think the dairying division is too small. To-day four-fifths of our cattle are scrub. I understand in north and south Ireland they have a law for the registering of sires. I hope the Minister will look into that subject. I cannot discuss matters which involve legislation, hut I hope the Minister will see what can be done in that direction. I understand it is done also in the horse industry in Germany.

The hon. member who has just spoken has taken us up to a certain point, but has not gone far enough. He told us of the conditions prevailing in Australia, of the white man’s wage, and of the eight hours a day, and suggested that with a better class of cow we would be asking for white men to work at a white man’s wage, and be able to introduce an eight hours’ day. He forgot to say that in Australia and New Zealand the best dairying country carries up to one cow per acre. That is the crux of the whole matter. They have the land over there. Give us the same kind of country, and we can do the same. However, what I got up to speak about was the dismissal of sheep inspectors. The Minister decided to amalgamate the sheep and the veterinary departments, and he has to prove whether he is right or wrong. Unfortunately, a great deal of injustice was inflicted in the carrying out of the re-organization, which was done by the Director of the Veterinary Department. Naturally the Veterinary Department was not going to tell their own men to go, and consequently it dismissed men in the Sheep Department. There were 12 inspectors retrenched in East Griqualand, and they were all sheep inspectors. It may be said that they were unsatisfactory, but the following letter which was received by one of them does not bear out that contention—

That shows that the man was not retrenched on the score of inefficiency. Every one of the 12 men dismissed was a sheep inspector, and there was not a stock inspector amongst them. I think an injustice has been done to men in the sheep division, and they have been dismissed in large numbers and their places have been taken by officials from the Veterinary Department. I am not altogether blaming the Veterinary Department, for it had to stand by its men, and the natural thing was to allow the sheep men to go. I hope the Minister will rectify this injustice.

I am sorry to detain the House because so much time has already been wasted with the discussion about scab and inspectors. But I just want to give some serious advice to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). Then it will not be necessary for him any more to make a noise about scab in his district. Then he will no longer give wrong explanations because his district also will then be clean. I want to point out what we have done and attained to in the Free State. The hon. member for Cradock has spoken about the dismissal of inspectors, and tried to make political capital out of it. We had a district in the Free State that was not clean. It was a district bordering on the Transvaal, but we did not do what the hon. member for Cradock did. We had an inspector there who was a strong Nationalist, but we said that he was not the right man to clean the district and we asked for another man. The Minister of Agriculture sent us a very strong Sap, the strongest Sap that is now in the district, but we stood by him and did not try to make political capital about the matter. Our farmers co-operated and during the bad year when we had so many locusts and so much drought we succeeded in getting our district clean and there was not a single case before the court. When a member of the agricultural department came to Boshof we asked the person to thank the inspector on behalf of the farmers. We did not drag any politics into the matter and we are free of scab. There were individual instances of scab and they were smuggled in from the Transvaal. Even then we helped the inspector to find out the cases and who was the guilty party. There is no doubt that the Free State is clean, but we fully supported the inspector, although a zealous Sap, and when there was a talk of sending him to another district to eradicate scab there we urged the Minister to leave him in our district.

I think few people realize the immensity of the toll which jackals levy upon the farmer. Unfortunately, the responsibility for coping with this evil rests on several Ministers. We have the Administrator of the Cape Province, who is primarily responsible; then the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Lands, and the Minister of Native Affairs are all concerned with the extirpation of jackals. Unfortunately, we can get no concerted action amongst them or cohesion of policy. You go to one Minister on the subject and he promptly escapes by means of that fire-escape which the Ministers have in their offices, and sends you to some other department. In that way nothing is done seriously to grapple with this great subject. Last year in the Cape Province 61,371 jackals were destroyed at a cost to the provincial administration of £39,573. That is typical of what has been taking place in the last seven years. In 1918 21,637 jackals were destroyed in the Cape at a cost of £13,097. This, however, is only a fraction of what the jackal danger costs the country. In 1923 the number of sheep killed in the Cape Province by jackals was 273,952. Even that only represents a proportion of what the jackals exact from the farmers. Owing to the prevalence of jackals it is necessary to “kraal” our sheep and farmers know how adversely “kraaling” affects the wool. I had occasion some little time ago, whilst travelling through my district to draw attention to the difference in the yield of sheep running free as they do in most parts of the Free State. The death rate drops at once and they produce a better and a heavier clip of wool. I once compared sheep pastured in this kind of fence and those pastured outside, and the result was again of not less than 1 lb. of wool more than in the case of sheep herded together. It has been estimated that the amount is 1½ lbs. of wool. The average number of sheep in the Cape Province is 13,000,000 and, according to the last census, at a conservative estimate, the average amount of wool per sheep is 6 lbs. I have tried to find out what that leads to. I have deducted 2,000,000 or one-fifth for lambs, which are naturally not shorn at this early age, and I find the average mortality is per cent. That is a low estimate. My own experience is that it is nearer 10 per cent. Now, 7½ per cent. of 13,987,000 is 1,049,000, of which number 52,048 is due to the prevalence of the jackal. Where the sheep are run the death rate diminishes by one-half. If that is true the loss sustained is 524,500 and taking the sheep at a value of 10s. each—(Time expired.)

I must say that the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) has quite misunderstood me. He says that I have tried to make political capital out of this matter. He has also stated that they supported a good inspector. That is what I too want to do. I am one and for all opposed to good inspectors being punished on account of their political views.

He is twisting what I said. I said if he does not do good work he must be dismissed.

Precisely. These people did good work. Their divisions are clean, and why must they be discharged? The Minister in the past tried to make political capital out of it that Cradock was not clean. I would just like to tell him that I do not live at Cradock, and the district where I live is clean. It looks as if the Minister wishes to represent that it is my duty to eradicate scab in my constituency. That is not my business. But I feel strongly about the spread of scab in the country which will follow on the disorganisation of the fighting of it. I am concerned about it in the interests of the farmer. It is said that I am wasting the time of the House. I cannot understand why hon. members always say that we are wasting the time of the House when we discuss the interests of the farmers. The Minister also has spoken about scab which exists amongst goats. I am not a goat farmer, but we know that goats become scurvy when it is very dry, and the inspectors often take that for scab. We object to a division which has done so much good work for the farmers—which has practically exterminated scab—being abolished. Members boast that the Free State is clean. Was that not done before the present Minister came into office? The Minister said in Pretoria that he would re-establish the balance, viz., that he would appoint just as many Nationalists in the department as Saps. The S.A. party never took the political views of the officials into account. I should like to know from the Minister if circulars were not formerly issued in the department that all officials should abstain from polities. That was done formerly, and the present Minister is the first man to drag in party politics by appointments which are based on party considerations.

You appointed only Saps.

I do not know if that is so. But if it is so, then it is certain that the Saps were the best men. I think that the line of conduct of the present Minister is wrong. He controls a very great department, and I feel that he has made a great mistake in abolishing the sheep division, and in having lost the existing excellent organization. I fear that scab will increase, as is happening at the moment. I know that this department is actually a farming department, and not a department to meddle with politics. For this reason I protest against the action of the Minister.

I am glad that the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) was so sensible as not to follow the example of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson). They tried to raise a smoke screen, and it is not the first time they have done this. The questions of the hon. member for Aliwal are actually intended to get information, and I shall be very glad if the hon. member for Cradock, as a young member, will follow the good example of his colleague. I wish to assure him that he will not rise very high if he makes himself so cheap in the House. As one who has had a few years more experience of Parliament I want to read him a lecture. Ever since last year he has only made one kind of speech in the House. He has never departed from the attempt at raising suspicion of the hon. Minister. This decreases his prestige. If he does not take care he will be digging his own political grave. It is a known fact that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) also reorganized the Department of Agriculture. He also discharged officials and scab inspectors. But we, who were at that time in the Opposition, did not come with our tails down and in tears to say that he had discharged Nationalists and appointed Saps. It is a fact that he actually did it. We took it that he was out to eradicate scab in earnest and that he was responsible for the actions or omissions of his department and not we. The present Minister of Agriculture has also reorganized his department, and then the hon. member for Cradock comes with a complaint of “jobs for pals.” The hon. member must try to make a different kind of speech. The people are tired of it. We are convinced that the first object of the hon. member is to bring the hon. Minister of Agriculture into dis-favour with the people. He will not succeed in that. He is still too young therefor. He is concerned about scab in the Free State. Statistics show that there are only two cases in the Free State. He has said that he does not live in his own constituency.

I live in a part of it.

Then I advise the hon. member to go back to his constituency and to use his influence to induce every farmer to put his heart into the matter of eradicating scab. He will then be doing more for the farmers than by telling us here in the House what we do not require to be told.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised a very important matter and I would like to supplement some of his remarks. There is no doubt that dairying has gone back a good deal in this country. It promised very well. The hon. member whom I quoted will remember that in the late ’nineties a remarkable advance was made in dairying, especially in the Free State. Unfortunately, that advance has not been continued on the scale that we had hoped for. There is undoubtedly a very big opening for improvement in this department of agriculture. I find that, apart from a possible export trade, we imported last year no less than £304,000 worth of condensed milk. There are other dairy products, such as butter and bacon (because bacon is essentially an adjunct of dairying), meats, fat and dripping, which bring our imports under this head for the year to £752,000 The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has rightly said that we have got about the lowest average per cow, so far as yield of milk is concerned, of almost any country that has attempted dairying, and I might go further and say that we have the lowest average yield per acre in this country of almost any country. Curiously enough, these two low averages are intimately connected. One of the reasons why our average of milk production is so low is due to the fact that, on the whole, we have an inferior quality of milking animal here, taken on the average. At the same time there is no doubt we have some of the best milk strain in the world. The Frieslands that we sent overseas a few years ago attracted very great attention and secured big prices. But, on the whole, our average is low. About 40 years ago they had a similar state of things in Denmark, that is to say they were starting dairying and getting very poor results, and this led to the formation of what were known as cow testing associations, so that the production of each animal was accurately measured and recorded both as regards quantity and quality. Through the action of the cow testing associations the production per animal in about five years was rather more than doubled, and since then it has increased still further. It is not at all a difficult matter for farmers to carry out these tests by the device known as the Badcock tester. There is no insuperable reason whatever why the farmer should not know exactly what each of his animals produces. I wonder how many farmers in the milk business in this country can tell which of their cows are profitable and which are being kept at a loss—profit makers or robbers. If this dairying business were continued—and with dairying should go swine production—there would be available a large amount of animal manure to enrich the fertility of our soil, because it is well known that there is no fertilizer that can adequately take the place of animal manure for the production of crops and feed. If the farmers had a means of weeding out their indifferent animals there would certainly be a desire to replace them with better, and there would be more encouragement for them to get the proper sires that the hon. member has spoken of. By keeping dairy animals and pigs on a large scale undoubtedly there would be more farm-yard manure to put on the land, and that in turn would increase the production of the land. We have a department of animal husbandry which is directly in charge of one of the ablest men in the department. I should like to suggest to the Minister that on these lines an improvement might be made, and we might be spared the disgrace of not having enough bacon for our own use, and having to import it. This is a very useful vote, but I would suggest a little more attention in future to the development of the dairy and pig industry in the Union.

As usual the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has fired his shot and run away. He is evidently an expert at doing that; 1914 proves it. His lecture to my hon. friend the member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) is quite amusing when he says that he should be in the House for two years before he opens his mouth. If my hon. friend had to listen to the oratorical refuse of the hon. member for two years, I think he would go mad. The farmers in South Africa are greatly concerned over what is a very important matter, and that is how this Government is going to handle the mealie export. The terrible experience the farmers have had at the hands of this Government shows that there is every reason for them to look with fear and trepidation upon the coming maize export. We know the Government in the last 11 months have caused a lot of loss among Cape farmers in regard to fruit export. They have lost £100,000 through lack of foresight on the part of this Government, and on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in particular. Through the bungling in regard to sheep dipping, through the Minister’s blundering order and his neglect to take advice, the Transvaal and Natal sheep farmers have also lost the sum of £100,000. Now the question is asked: How is he going to handle this maize export? Here we have the prospect of a bumper crop in South Africa; I am told by some it is expected to produce 15,000,000 bags, but I think 12,500,000 would, perhaps, be nearer the mark. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he was preparing for this with new rolling stock. His answer did not satisfy me, in this respect, that I did not think it is going to be here in time to deal with this huge output. The Minister must remember that there are only four months, September to December, in which South African maize can be disposed of with advantage in European markets. It is going to put a great strain on the rolling stock to transport the crop, and unless we have it well organized, then it means the farmers are going to have the same experience as the Cape fruit farmers and the Transvaal sheep farmers. One great work the late Government did in regard to maize export was the policy of erecting maize elevators. Those that are erected are going to play an important part in this industry. I am sorry the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is not in his seat; he is the oratorical star of the cross benches, and every time he orates he chips at the Durban elevator. That joke is becoming antiquated and stale. Let him try some other joke for a change, women’s franchise, for instance; because I am sure that when that elevator is completed, whatever the loss was, it will be made up in three seasons. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give us a full answer in regard to this maize export. The hope of South African farmers lies in a good and efficient service, and a quick sale; and we are in fear and trembling that we are going to have bungling in regard to this.

I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) that his district is clean. I had a strange experience in Cradock when I had to trek there in 1922 with my sheep that has been clean for 14 years, because my sheep were infected.

What district did you trek through?

The sheep were infected in Cradock. The hon. member for Cradock cannot forgive the hon. Minister of Agriculture for the abolition of the sheep division. I do not understand the hon. member. He and his party talk about economy and when the Minister goes and economizes to an amount of £20,000 he is attacked for it. The hon. member cannot have it with both hands. I just want to thank the Government for the help they have given to the farmers who have suffered so severely in connection with the purchase of sheep. £500,000 has been made available for it, and it has helped very much and been very welcome, especially after the rain that we have recently had. It is a great contrast to the behaviour of the former Government. The former Government only advised us to join up with co-operative societies with the result that more poor whites were created. The hon. member for Standerton asked the other day wherein the Minister of Agriculture had shown his sympathy for the farmers. Well here is an instance. I should like further to say a few words about simultaneous dipping. I understand that this year simultaneous dipping will take place in the Cape Province. I hope that the hon. Minister will always in such instances consult the farmers about the best time for dipping. As for me, I think the best time is October, November and December.

What about the farmers who have sheep with long wool?

We are shearing by that time. I think that the opportunity is very favourable to have a simultaneous dipping after the general rains, and I believe that scab can now successfully be tackled and eradicated. But still the hon. Minister must not go too fast. There are districts such as Victoria West, e.g., which are clean and have been clean for many years. If perchance one case or so of scab should occur then they are importations. I do hope that the hon. Minister will not proclaim simultaneous dipping for clean districts like that. The farmers’ associations of Carnarvon and Victoria West have also protested against it, and asked me to request the hon. Minister not to make it applicable there. I just want to mention the statistics for the past three months—February, March and April. There were only eight cases and they were imported from other outside districts. In April there were only two cases with us and they were imported and not local. I, therefore, hope that the hon. Minister for the sake of fairness will not prescribe simultaneous dipping for us. Our inspectors are not to blame for the few cases there are, but inspectors of other districts, who did not prohibit such infected sheep being exported to us. Then proper dip must be used. My experience is that many misfortunes are attributable to the use of bad dip. When I had to have my sheep dipped in Cradock the dip that I obtained and used only contained 48 per cent. of lime, while it should have been 80. I know of a case where a farmer twice dipped 5,000 with bad dip and then had to dip them again. Dip of the exact strength is necessary for success. Then so much depends on good inspectors. The eradication of scab can only be a success when the inspectors are good, and I hope that the hon. Minister will dismiss inspectors who neglect their duty whether they are Nationalists or South African party men, and appoint others. I hope that no simultaneous dipping will be ordered for Victoria West, but if it is, then I hope that after the second dipping the sheep will no longer be kept in quarantine, but that the farmer will then have the right to remove the sheep. The great danger is infection from other districts. What is the hon. Minister going to do with regard to South-West Africa? No infected sheep ought to be imported from there. With reference to fencing, I just want to point out to the hon. Minister the impossible position which is now being created by fencing in all the roads. It makes the trekking of sheep almost impossible. It is difficult as it is to convey sheep to the markets, but how am I going to trek with my sheep in time of drought? Assistance must be given in one way or another to be able to trek, because if the trekking becomes impossible through our having no proper trek paths, then I may just as well give up sheep farming.

I also am sorry the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) is not in his place. It seems to me that the only answer that hon. member has is the accusation that one is indulging in political discussions and propaganda. He mentioned my name in that connection, but politics did not enter the subject matter of my remarks. I was referring to the amalgamation of the sheep and veterinary divisions and the way in which the sheep division had suffered in contradistinction to the cattle men. Apparently, in a discussion of such tremendous importance to the agricultural community, this hon. member, representing as he does an agricultural constituency, prefers drinking tea to listening to the points brought forward. I hope the next time he makes charges and statements of that sort he will stay in the House and wait for the reply. I do not want to go back to the debate which took place in regard to dipping; but I want to back up my hon. friend opposite who has just spoken. The Minister should now come out into the open and tell us what his policy is—what his policy of compulsory dipping will be next season. Some districts have had a sad experience this year, and that was largely due to want of organization. Is he going to introduce compulsory dipping in the Transvaal where it was not enforced this season and in the Cape Province, and will he tell us how he intends to do it? He should take the farmers into his confidence. If he considers it necessary to dip, we will do our best to fall in with the order, but we want each district to have its opinion asked as to the best time for dipping, as we have to inoculate against blue-tongue. We also want to know the policy in regard to clean flocks—whether they have to be dipped once or twice. We want consideration in this matter. There is another matter. The Government have practically fathered the lime and sulphur dip as the best for sheep dipping, even although the sheep are clean. Would it not be advisable to use a dip that will kill keds? It is not going to be economical, if we have to dip twice this year with lime and sulphur, and then, next year, the Minister may come along and say, I am going to wage war on keds, to use an arsenical dip this year. After two dips of lime and sulphur the keds will be a bit more lively than before as this dip does not affect them. I think we should use an arsenical dip, which, besides killing the keds, will assist in cleaning up the scab. I do ask the Minister to listen to the representations of the farmers. It is sheer murder to dip sheep in February. That is the blue-tongue season, and even when slightly affected, it is necessary to keep the sheep quiet. There is another point in regard to lime and sulphur. The native territories have a large number of sheep, over a million, and they are being pretty regularly dipped for scab or as contacts. There is a good deal of East Coast fever in the territories, and the lime and sulphur have no effect on the ticks which are the carriers of the disease. Surely, it would be better to use a dip that will kill the ticks. If arsenical dips were used in the territories, it would have a good effect in the reduction of these pests.

It is not proper for hon. members to stand about in the passages.

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) seems to have particular knowledge about bungles. Well we heard of bungles in Natal in connection with steam ploughs and Argentine mules. The hon. Minister showed by figures the other day that 200,000 sheep die every year in Natal. I want to ask the hon. member then how they die because there is not a simultaneous dipping every year. He accuses the hon. Minister in connection with things about which he clearly knows nothing. He says inter alia that the hon. Minister is also making a mess of the fruit export. He surely knows well that the hon. Minister has nothing to do with that. If it is a fact then he must blame the fruit exchange for that. He further accuses the hon. Minister that a mess has been made of the mealie export. Does the hon. member not yet know then that the export of mealies falls under the department of railways? It is not so much the object of hon. members there to criticise the policy of the Government as to attack the person of the Minister (Gen. Kemp). Therefore they even attack the hon. Minister for things which come under other Ministers. But the public now know what to think of the smoke screens raised by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). The matter of the dairy industry which has been brought up by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) is a very important matter. I do not think that the country sufficiently appreciates what can still be done in that direction. We are only at the commencement and the matter must certainly have our constant attention but we must not go too fast over the stones. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that the time is ripe to register all bulls in our country. He pointed out that is the practice in Ireland, but Ireland has a dairy industry which is 500 years old and as Ireland is a small country it is perhaps possible to have it there, but in our country with its great distances and with its large native population such a thing would end in failure. We should try to get a better kind of milking cattle and in this matter the experimental farms of the Government can help the farmers a great deal. It must, however, be done in a different basis. The policy of the Government with regard to experimental farms in the past was to make as much money as possible out of the stock and to make the experimental farms pay in this way so that under that system only the richest farmers in the country actually got the benefit of the stock. I think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture must elaborate another scheme so that the smaller farmer can also get possession of better stock. It would be a good idea to have bulls in certain districts which the farmers can use. We are in a particularly difficult position in the northern Transvaal. We cannot buy stock from other parts because most of the stock from other parts die in those districts. We must breed our stock ourselves. Now I think that the northern Transvaal has in the past been treated very badly. There is no experimental farm to help the farmers but I hope that the Minister in the future will also think of us. There is on the estimates a vote for demonstration plots. We have nothing of that sort in the northern Transvaal. With reference to the dairy industry we passed a very stringent Act in 1917 or 1918 with reference to creameries and other places where milk is used and sold. There is only provision on the estimates for five inspectors. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is enough for the purpose. There is great dissatisfaction because the reports that the farmers receive from the creameries are not correct. The percentage drops and drops and only later on when he writes and complains do things improve a bit. Are the inspectors able to control this matter as well? The inspectors have the right under the Act to take samples of cream and to see if the standard coincides with that of the reports of the farmers.

I was glad to hear the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and I hope other hon. members opposite will take up the same line. It will be a pity if agriculture is made a party question, but I will not lecture hon. members as I know the House does not appreciate lectures. I have always tried to keep agriculture out of politics. When Mr. Thomas, the late Colonial Secretary, was out here, I met him and I got the Stockbreeders’ Association to show him a certain number of cattle. He promised that on his return to England he would at once endeavour to open the gates of Britain to our stud cattle, but almost immediately after the Labour Government went out of office in England. Has anything been heard of in regard to this matter? I notice that this year’s estimates contain only £10,000 for the destruction of locusts.

The Minister of Agriculture has killed them all.

My friend knows that you cannot kill all the locusts—that should be an Adderley Street joke. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, as I did his predecessor, on the way in which the Government has tackled this question, and I also wish to congratulate Col. Williams, who was in charge of the locust extermination operations. The locusts in Ngamiland are dying of empusa grylli.

Is he a member of your party?

I hope he is. I would like to ask the Minister if it is possible to tackle this fungus disease, and I want to know if anything is being done to investigate what diseases will kill locusts. Take the case of the flea. There are experts going round the Transvaal finding out what they can do with regard to the flea. Now locusts are dying of this disease empusa grylli. I found last year that flying locusts were the best food we can give to the cattle. We should get the farmers to keep the locusts they kill instead of destroying them, and if we give a good price for them they could catch plenty and we could make a good profit. I have fed my cows on locusts and I found I got 10 per cent. increase in value out of them. Let us utilize this plague to feed our cattle. Now take cotton.

Order, order!

I wish the hon. members would take an interest in this subject.

I was drawing attention to the fact that the Minister walks in front of you and the Chair.

What does it matter? In regard to cotton, I want to know what the Minister has done in this respect, because we keep getting letters from men overseas wanting to come out here and take up cotton, but I can’t find anybody who knows anything about it.

You always laughed when I talked about cotton.

I don’t laugh, but I laugh at anything you say because you are the joke of the House. On the question of creameries I would like to point out that the creameries are getting into the hands of a trust and a butter ring is being set up in the country. Cannot something be one to stop that? Cannot we have State creameries? We want the Government to run the creameries in conjunction with the farmers.

It has been tried.

Yes, it was a success in the Free State in Lord Milner’s days. [Time expired.]

The plea of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that agriculture should not be made a party question will be endorsed on this side of the House. But it is not this side of the House which has made it a party question, and I think the hon. member was speaking with his tongue in his cheek when he said that, and an entire lack of sincerity.

The hon. member is not allowed to make use of such expressions.

Those remarks should have been addressed to his friend, the Minister of Agriculture, who, above all others, has brought this subject into the political arena. A good deal of the trouble that has come to the Minister in such ample measure has been due to a large extent to the dismissal, for political reason, of those sheep division officials. In this connection I would like to ask the Minister to let me know when I shall be able to get those papers I called for yesterday in respect to the orders and counter orders, and the various instructions issued to the sheep inspectors of Natal during this indiscriminate dipping. If those documents are laid on the Table there would be no more conclusive evidence of the chaotic condition into which the sheep division has fallen. Perhaps the Minister will tell us also how many sheep inspectors have been dismissed during the period of this indiscriminate dipping, and the reasons for their dismissal. Amongst those orders he ended with a final one threatening an inspector with instant dismissal if an outbreak of scab occurred in his area. It would be interesting to know how many he got rid of under this excuse, because I don’t see how the sheep inspectors could avoid an outbreak of scab, much as they might be held responsible for not destroying it within a reasonable period of time. A certain queen said that when she died the word Calais would be found engraved on her heart. Well, I think if an autopsy was performed on the body of the Minister of Agriculture, we should find the word “compensation” engraved upon his heart. This question of “compensation” is agitating him more than anything else, as it has also troubled those who have suffered so tremendously as the result of his policy. I see only £200 down for compensation. How on earth is the compensation for all the damage done going to be provided out of a sum of £200. Then who are going to get it? Is it to be given to those people who lost sheep under the last indiscriminate dipping order, or is it meant for those who are going to lose sheep in the Cape Colony or the Free State under the next indiscriminate dipping order, or is it going to be divided among the lot at the end of the year; or has he made up his mind he has had enough of this compulsory and indiscriminate dipping, and there is going to be no more of it? I fancy we have seen the last of it. If so, those in the Free State and the Cape and the Transvaal have reason to congratulate themselves on having avoided the terrible experiences of their unfortunate friends in Natal. There is another matter which I have frequently drawn to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, and that is in connection with Ngana. The Minister knows that I have from time to time brought to his notice that there is something radically wrong somewhere, both inside and outside his department, so far as this Ngana problem is concerned. I speak without any first-hand knowledge of the subject, but entirely from information I have received from those who are more intimately concerned with the subject, and who live in this Ngana area in Zululand. There is a wide spread dissatisfaction amongst the settlers in Zululand, so far as I have been able to gather, at the want of progress towards the solution of this tsetse fly trouble, and they are much disheartened by the little sympathy they get from the provincial authorities where the question of game is concerned. Inside the department there appear to be two divisions working independently, as far as I can gather, of one another. As a matter of fact, the principal document bearing on this subject has been issued by a veterinary officer, and that seems rather strange in view of the fact that the Minister has in his department an entomologist of outstanding qualifications. I would like to hear from the Minister, when he replies, exactly what is the position, and if there is this difference between the senior and the junior officials, then I would like to suggest to him the advisability of appointing a committee of scientific officers to take charge of the investigation from all points of view, so as to secure the collaboration of the different units and the presentation of an authoritative statement.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to the question of the bounties on export of meat. The first provision was for £70,000. It then fell to £40,000, and it has dropped this year to £10,000. The figures show that the amount of bounty provided was absolutely unrequired, and that largely because, owing to the unfortunate restrictions under the Bounties Act, only the Imperial Cold Storage Company was allowed to export. I drew attention to this matter on a former occasion, and then said that a very large firm, who had arranged to export meat, were unable to do so. I think there is not much inducement in regard to exporting meat at the present time, because the market seems to be rather oversupplied, but, at all events, I would like to know whether an arrangement is now being made, and when it will come into force in regard to opening up a meat export trade, so that it will not be simply the monopoly of the Imperial Cold Storage Company. The figures which I had given to me in answer to a question show that particular company was the only recipient of the bounty, owing to the circumstance of being the only one which applied within the limitation month after the Act came into force—they were at the time the only people who could take advantage of it. That must have had an extremely restrictive action in so far as meat export is concerned. I now come to another matter which I have previously referred to. We have 9,000,000 head of cattle in this country, and the feeble attempt of breeders to get a few thoroughbred sires makes no impression upon that vast herd. Therefore, I again ask the Minister to take into consideration the question of providing an amount for the introduction of sires on a large scale. We have had the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) pleading for the improvement of dairy cattle, and we have also had a very eloquent appeal by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). I always listen with respectful attention to the hon. member, because in these days of some belief in the doctrine of reincarnation, I seem to detect the spirit of Demosthenes struggling to find expression through an entirely insufficient medium. His advocacy of dairying expansion is on right lines however. The whole dairying industry cannot rest on a few head of beasts of the various best strains that are brought in to improve the milking qualities of the cows; what we want is an uplift of the general stock, not the few hundred head that one sees at agricultural shows, but this vast herd. In New Zealand and in Australia I was struck by what has been done by the co-operative system, largely assisted by the State. It is on these lines that we must proceed if we are to have anything like successful dairying in this country. In Australia it was amazing to see how soon they recovered from their land boom troubles after they turned serious attention to the dairying and pastoral industry. It seems to me the we will not be able to secure any great results from this industry unless it is dealt with on a very comprehensive scale.

I want to speak about a few subjects. In the first place, I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to have a sub-department for gardening. At the moment it falls under the head of field husbandry. I think that the great fruit production which is doubling itself is a guarantee that there can be such a separate department of gardening so that we can see what is done in this connection. We have the fruit exchange and the board of control, but we have no separate division for gardening. My agricultural society assures me that his staff is so small that he has no opportunity to go about amongst the farmers and discuss matters with them. The vegetable gardening will also fall under such a department. At the various settlements the people apply themselves to vegetable growing and such a department can do much good to show the people what can be done on a small piece of ground in connection with the production of vegetables. I see that there is a further £6,000 down for the prevention of citrus cancer. I was under the impression that it was already eradicated, and we would like to know where it is still found, and what is being done. I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that such plagues can be spread as a result of carelessness. I have already mentioned that I have seen here in Cape Town that oranges full of scale were being sold, and I was astonished at the owners sending such oranges to the market. As long as we go on like that it will be impossible to eradicate such diseases. I know of cases, when citrus cancer was at its worst, that baskets that were used for oranges from the northern and western portions of the Transvaal where especially the disease existed, were sent by the market or commission agents to Barberton and other parts. It must be clearly understood that such things can spread a pest to our fruit trees from one end of the country to the other. There is another matter which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to. It is to see what can be done to fight the cotton plagues. I can assure the House that I have received letters that the boll-weevil and the fly are so serious this year that the cotton production in some cases will only be one-tenth of what it might have been. It therefore practically amounts to this, that, if the plague is permitted to continue in that way, after a few years we shall have no cotton production, and it might have become one of our greatest industries. I only wish to suggest one thing, namely, that ratooning (that is to allow cotton to stand for two seasons) shall be stopped. That will contribute very much to the reduction of the pest. Then there is another matter affecting the inhabitants of the low veld. Horse sickness prevails in those parts and the inoculated horses are only sold at Onderstepoort. That means that the horses are very dear in the low veld, because the purchaser must travel there and also hire a truck for the animal or animals seeing that four are required for a truck. In the low veld the people are in the unfortunate position that the disease rages there every year and not only every five or seven years. It is impossible to keep horses there which have not been inoculated. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the matter to see whether troops of horses cannot be sold in the low veld or to give the people the opportunity of having the veterinary surgeons doing the inoculation there. The farmers can have this done at their own risk, and they will see to it that the animals, after inoculation, are not wet by the rain.

I want to ask the Minister two questions. The first is whether he has received the report of the entomologist on the Kalahari expedition? This is long overdue, and if he has not yet received it, he should tell the entomologist that the time has arrived when this information should be in the possession of members. The second question is: What is the purpose of the vote of £750 on page 136? Is it to be purely for the purpose of another native reserve, because if so, it seems to me we are going to have several reserves, none of which can be properly supported. We should have, before we start on several, one Karoo reserve which is properly run and which can be of benefit to the country. I have no objection to starting several reserves if they can be properly run and not run to the detriment of the existing reserve. About two years ago there was a movement to start a second Kirstenbosch. Is this the outcome of that movement? Kirstenbosch is not receiving proper support from the Government, and if we are going to have several about the country they would do no good whatever. There was also a proposal to start a reserve at Jacobsdal, but these reserves must be get-at-able if they are to be of use to the country, and Jacobsdal is not get-at-able to the general public. I will make a suggestion to the Minister. We can have reserves throughout the country without any cost to the Government if every farmer encloses a small portion of his farm and leaves it enclosed. That is something of benefit to the country. We should get the farmers to take an interest in a matter of this kind and get them to enclose a little bit of their ground, free from all cattle and human beings, and we could then see what can be done and what can be naturally grown in the different parts of the country. But I do not see the good of merely spending £750—quite an inadequate sum in any case—on this Karoo reserve. Perhaps the Minister will explain what he means by this item.

In connection with the £2,500 down for advances to the commission in the matter of ostrich feathers in London, I should like to know from the hon. Minister what the report of the commission is with reference to the advertising of ostrich feathers there. Last year £8,000 was advanced, and now there is another £2,500. I think that the total amount which has been appropriated was £13,000. There is, therefore, £2,500 still outstanding. I should first of all like to know what the report is so as to be able to decide whether it is still advisable to spend this money. It seems to me that the advertisements have not been the great success that those who asked for them hoped for. At the moment there is apparently an unusual slump in the feather market, and I therefore want the Minister to find out if it will still be advisable to spend the money. If it is not advisable I should like the Minister to keep the £2,500 as a reserve until such time as the ostrich farmers are organized. Under the Levy Act there will be about £1,000, I think, for the organization of the ostrich farmers, according to the promise of the Minister. If the money cannot be profitably spent in London, then I should like to see it ear-marked for that purpose when the farmers are once organized. The industry is in a very bad condition, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he, as the result of the representations of the deputation of ostrich farmers, will ask the Board of Trade and Industries to hand in their report as soon as possible on the points referred to them. We feel that something should be done immediately to help ostrich farming. A congress of ostrich farmers was held and they made certain propositions to the Government. The Government referred these to the Board of Industries for enquiries, and I should like to see the Minister asking the board to hand in their report as soon as possible. It will, perhaps, be necessary to introduce fresh legislation, and therefore it is necessary to have the report as soon as possible before the end of the present session. We have heard that hon. members opposite object to further legislative measures for this session. I hope that with a view to the need of the ostrich farmers no one will object if it is introduced to come to the assistance of the ostrich farmer.

I want to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), that is the question of the export of beef, or rather, the abolition of the beef bounties. The hon. member referred to the fact that only one firm in South Africa took advantage of the terms of the Act of 1913, so far as the export of beef was concerned, and this was very largely due to the terms of the Act of Parliament, which provided for the payment of this bounty. Under that Act, only companies which registered within one month of the coming into operation of the Act were entitled to receive the bounty, and the late Government, realizing that a mistake had been made in that regard, proposed to introduce legislation to remedy that and to enable other companies, formed for the purpose of exporting meat from South Africa, to take advantage of the Act, and also to receive the amount of the bounty. At an early stage in the session, I asked the Minister whether he had any intention of introducing that measure, and he stated that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce it. I think this is a very great pity; because I am informed that at present there is a prospect of being able to export beef from South Africa. For some years past, even with the aid of this ½d. bounty, there has been a very limited export of meat from South Africa, that is to say, the demand overseas, even with the addition of the ½d., did not justify the exportation, but now that there is a demand from overseas, and an opportunity for exporting, the Government have not only decided not to introduce the measure to which I have referred, but have intimated that they are not going to give this bounty during the present session. I think that is very regrettable; because not only is there this further demand; but another company has recently been established at Durban for the purpose of carrying on this export of meat, and without any knowledge that this bounty was going to be withdrawn, I understand they have entered into extensive contracts, and they will suffer by reason of the abolition of the bounty. The amount of £10,000, which the Minister has on the estimates for the current year, is only to cover the commitments of the Government for last year. The amount is not intended to be applied in connection with any contracts that may have been entered into by companies or exporters for the current year. I hope the Minister will reconsider this policy. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has referred to the enormous number of cattle we have in this country the exportation of which it is desirable to encourage, and the Beef Bounties Act, introduced by the last Government, had that objective, and that it has not been more successful was due to the very limited demand for meat from overseas, notwithstanding the bounty. As I am instructed, there is now a demand and that the export of meat can only be carried on if the exporters are going to get some assistance in the form of this ½d. or some other form of bounty, to enable them to compete with the Argentine and other parts of the world. I understand that there is every prospect of other companies being formed, or that they are actually being formed now, to compete with the Imperial Cold Storage Company, who hitherto have been the only people who have drawn this bounty, and I hope it is not too late now to make an appeal to the Minister, not only to alter his policy of abolishing these bounties, but to introduce the measure to which I have referred, and which will enable new companies to be formed and to take advantage of the terms of the Bounty Act, which apparently excluded any new companies from registering or becoming entitled to this bounty when registered, because they were not in existence when the Act of Parliament was passed. If the Minister reconsiders his decision, there will be a considerable exportation of beef from South Africa in the next few months, which will justify a change of policy.

A number of questions have already been asked, and perhaps it is better that I should rise now to clear up a few things in order to shorten the discussion and to give a reply to those questions. As for scab, the position is very serious in some districts. Take, e.g., the Transkei. The eradication was carried on in a very weak manner in the past. I have already made a statement about the actions of the inspectors there and I will not go into the matter again. I shall just mention shortly what the position is in the Transkei to-day. For the last three months the number of flocks infected with scab was 850 in the Transkei, 684 of them local. In the Cape Province the position is better, but in the circumstances not very favourable either. Including goats, the number of scabby and “in contact” flocks for the last three months was 567

What about Cradock?

There were nine cases, six of which were local and two imported. We therefore see that the condition is fairly serious. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the other day that scab existed before his time and that it would still be there after his time. How can he make that statement seeing we are surely convinced of it that if we go to work systematically scab can be eradicated? But let me tell hon. members that without the hearty co-operation of the farmers we shall find it a very difficult thing to eradicate scab. Therefore I am glad that most hon. members have spoken on the matter in a sympathetic way and tried to help the Government. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has asked for a statement of the further policy of the Government in this respect and said that he would, if necessary, help and support the Government. I appreciate that. I am only sorry that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has again tried to drag politics into this matter. He has put questions to me regarding the discharge of certain inspectors and quoted what I said at a meeting in Pretoria, viz., that it is unfair that the inspectors are only supporters of one party and that we must now slowly come to the position that more or less just as many Nationalists should be inspectors as there are Saps. I did say so, and I repeat it here. He said that the former Government never took politics into account. No, they only appointed people from one party, viz., South African party. The hon. member said that in connection with the new organization of the sheep division I had dismissed many people without reason. Let me remind the hon. member of it that the former Minister of Agriculture also reorganized his department and also failed to reappoint 52 inspectors. Did the Nationalists make a fuss about that? They felt that the Minister must appoint the right officials. When I pointed that out to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort he said it was not he but the secretary of the department who made the appointments. Let me say that with reference to the dismissal of the officials I take full responsibility on myself, and I want to add this, that I have the support of all the officials of the department, and that in every respect, both of the Dutch-speaking and of the English-speaking. Hon. members have spoken about the most suitable times for dipping. It is a difficult point, and to satisfy all members and everybody that has sheep would be difficult. One shears in October, another in November, and then others shear right through from December to May. It is thus unavoidable to disappoint one or another. But the chief scab inspectors are already engaged in ascertaining what are the best times for dipping in the different districts and when I receive their reports the proclamations will come out in the districts where it is necessary to dip. But districts which have been clean for six months will not require to dip. If, however, a district, e.g., which is now clean again becomes infected, then of course a further dipping will have to take place. The hon. members from Natal have complained about the time when the dipping was fixed. I cannot understand their complaint. The people in Natal dip from January to May. What other time is available for dipping? I am not again going into the question of compensation. We have discussed that enough. I only repeat that the Government will not run away if there are cases where according to regulations a right to compensation exists. I just want to make an appeal to hon. members with regard to the classification of sheep. The department gets applications for classifications from January to January. That is just the difficulty. An official goes to a place whence an application has come in, and from there say to a place 50 miles apart from the first. The next day he gets a telegram to classify sheep 100 miles in the opposite direction to that whence he has come the previous day. That leads to disappointment. I therefore trust that hon. members will make it known in their districts that the applications must be sent in as early as possible before June. As to scab, I can only say that Natal is as good as clean, and if they see to it that the province remains clean we shall not have to impose any further simultaneous dippings. We discussed the other day the good position in the Free State. The Transvaal also is nearly clean. There are only a few bush-veld districts that have not dipped, but the remaining parts are clean. The condition in the Cape Colony, as will be seen from the following table, is not so satisfactory, and I give the figures in order that it may be seen what the position is.

Bechuanaland.

Infection for the three months February, March and April, 1925.

Transkei.

Infection for the three months February’ March and April, 1925.

The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) commented upon the fact that if after simultaneous dipping scab again appears in a district an inspector of such a district is discharged. Do the taxpayers then desire that we must pay money to those who neglect their duty? If scab reappears in a district where dipping has occurred then the inspector ought to be able to state how it happened, and if he cannot, then I am obliged to take action. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has reproached me about the dismissal of the sheep inspectors. I have laid the list of discharged sheep inspectors on the Table of the House. A large number were discharged because they did poor work, others because they took such a share in politics that they could not possibly give satisfaction especially as they did not have the cooperation of the farmers. I have stated that I would make an end to inspectors being political agents of the Government and that is why hon. members opposite are so angry because I have broken up the political machine of the South African party. I take full responsibility for what I have done. The hon. member for Cradock has further mentioned the discharge of Froneman. Well, according to the information in the department the places where he was inspector are not so clean as what the hon. member for Cradock represents. I was not satisfied with his work and that is why I let him go. The Government has agreements with the sheep inspectors in which it is provided that the services of inspectors can be terminated on 30 days notice. I did not give Mr. Froneman less than 30 days’ notice and therefore acted according to the agreement.

Was he also a political agent?

Yes, if the hon. member wants to know. The hon. member for Cradock then said that I made a statement last year that I would use police for the eradication of scab and that I had now accepted their advice and had not done so. The hon. member listened very badly I think. I said that police were being used in South-West Africa for the eradication of scab, and the police are to-day doing the work there very well Eventually we will certainly also employ them in the Union. When there is no more scab and we are seeing to it that no more scab is imported from outside will the taxpayer then still be prepared to pay money for scab inspectors? Then the police will do the work just as well as the inspectors. It may take 10 or 20 years but eventually it will come to that. The police can then quickly enough acquire the necessary knowledge with reference to the eradication of scab. But scab must first be eradicated, then we can give our attention to that side of the matter. The member for Cradock has said that I have discharged nine inspectors in the Free State and appointed nine others, and asked where the saving came in. The estimates show that with reference to the prevention of cattle diseases £26,000 has been saved in comparison with the estimates of last year. If I find out subsequently that we were obliged to have nine inspectors in the Free State why should I not then keep them? Then he came to the discharge of Van Rooyen. I have not got the file here and cannot therefore at the moment give the reason for discharge in this case. Now the hon. member for Cradock who is a farmer has stated here that goat scab came from drought. How in the world can a member of this House make such a statement? He seems, otherwise, to be such an authority on the matter. But I doubt whether our farmers will acknowledge him as an authority. Drought can of course weaken stock and make them more liable to scab but to say that goat scab comes from drought is inexplicable to me. Then the hon. member asked if a circular was issued that officers in my department were not to meddle with politics. Well the hon. member surely knows that civil servants must not meddle with politics but must carry out the policy of the Government. If an official does not do that he must stand the consequences. I hope that the new inspectors will do their duty and carry out the policy of the Government. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has asked a few questions with reference to dairy farming. I have already said that we can make no success of our dairy farming if our farmers are not going to keep a better class of cattle. As we have been going on I fear the dairy farming will become poorer and poorer but we are busy as much as possible encouraging our farmers to keep a better class of cattle. I quite agree with the hon. member that we should encourage this and I will give very special attention to the matter. We have no chance of competing if we do not improve our class of cattle. As to the registration of bulls I am, in principle, in favour of it but I do not see how, under existing conditions, it is possible. We have not yet got enough bulls and if we were to do that then the fuss about simultaneous dipping will be nothing to the fuss that will be made about the registration of bulls. As regards the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) I will just say that the Government do actually keep bulls in the north-west and put farmers in the position of buying them. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has referred to the embargo in England and said that when last year the Colonial Secretary was in this country I promised to go into the matter. Well, our Government has again taken up the matter which unfortunately lapsed at the change of Government and every hope exists that by the end of this month importation into England will again be permitted. The question has been asked why the amount for the prevention of locusts is so small and it will probably be necessary to make this amount large in the supplementary estimates because flying locusts have made their appearance from the Kalahari. The department is taking steps in the matter and everything will be done as quickly as possible, further provision will be made on the supplementary estimates. With reference to the catching of locusts it will be difficult for the State to act as a trader in locusts. The officials tell me that it is not practicable. There are people who buy them and the railways transport them as cheaply as possible. If the Government buys locusts the people will presently want the Government to buy wool, etc. The hon. member also asks whether we could not make use of the disease among the locusts to eradicate them. The entomologist tells me that it is only in certain climatic conditions that the disease attacks the locusts. There must be much dampness. They are still busy making experiments to see whether they cannot inoculate or transfer it to locusts in other climatic conditions. I have deputed specific officers to make enquiry there anent. The hon. member has also asked what will be done in connection with cotton growing. I can tell him that we are doing everything in our power to develop cotton growing. The imperial association of cotton growers has sent some of its officials here and they are assisting with reference to the growing of cotton. My own department is also doing everything in its power by means of lectures and people to give advice. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has referred to the damage which the boll-weevil does. We are giving our attention to the matter and are making experiments with cotton which can better withstand the boll-weevil. This seed is distributed as far as possible to the people to assist them in fighting the plague. With reference to the butter ring which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), I may say that I have as yet no information about it but that I will give my attention to the matter. With reference to the difficulties of the hon. member for Griqualand (East) (Mr. Gilson) I must say that the hon. member does not stick to his guns. He complains previously of my treating the officials in an unfriendly manner and now he complains that I treat them too amicably. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) I may just say that I have already made it clear that the department cannot undertake to have all bulls registered. What the department is doing is to give as much information to people as possible. I have further been asked if the department will permit people to dip with different dips to those prescribed. I can understand that a man whose sheep are clean is anxious to dip for a sheep tick, and it is left optional to the owner to use an arsenic dip for the sheep tick. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has spoken about the eradication of jackals. I can do nothing else but refer the hon. member to the Cape Provincial Council. If the central Government has to take everything upon itself, then there will in time be nothing left to justify the existence of the provincial councils. I, however, agree with the hon. member that sheep which wander about have much better wool than those which are driven into a kraal at night, and it is also true that the jackals are the chief stumbling blocks to that. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has already been partly replied to in connection with our dairy factories. The hon. member for Umvoti has said things here in connection with the transport of maize and has represented that the Government is neglecting its duty to make arrangements for the transport. My colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, has already given his attention to the matter. He is doing everything in his power to make the necessary arrangements. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are not also going to lay an embargo on the export of mealies, but that we will do everything in our power to help the farmer to benefit from the harvest he reaps. The hon. member has again spoken about the bungle of the fruit exchange. He has said that the fruit farmers have lost £120,000 by the action of the Minister of Agriculture. They are, however, an organized body and if they have lost then it is their fault. It was a business transaction which they themselves entered into, and the exchange is responsible, seeing they lost £120,000. They did bad business by the fruit getting too old. If they had paid higher freights they could have got the ships. 22,000 tons were carried; so, if they had paid 100s. per ton, they would still have saved 75s. per ton for the farmer. Is that, therefore, not bad business? And now they want to put it on to the Minister of Agriculture.

Now you are far from the truth.

The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) certainly knows very little about the matter, the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) has spoken about the importation of scabby sheep from South-West Africa, I can tell him that we constantly keep our eye on that. I can also tell him that the position in South-West Africa has much improved, and that the hope exists to also eradicate scab there. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has referred me to a few points. I agree with him that we must go slowly with reference to the registration of bulls. With reference to dairy inspectors, I wish to tell him that we have a few of them at present. We have had difficulty in the past in getting persons with the necessary capacity, but we are now gradually getting them. With reference to the purchase of bulls, he said that only the rich man could buy the bulls. We have already had a loss on the experimental farm, and if we have to sell the bulls still cheaper, the taxpayer will lose much, and have to pay to furnish the bulls to the farmers. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) spoke about the payment of the bounty on the export of meat. He has pointed out that it is paid to the cold storage company. We found that it only went to one company and, therefore, we stopped it. It is not our fault, because it is the result of the Act that it could not be paid to other persons who wanted to export meat. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) asked me about the amount used for prevention of citrus cancer. A few cases of that occurred in Rustenberg. This money is chiefly for officials who go about giving lectures to spread information. With reference to the sale of horses inoculated against horse sickness, I may say that Dr. Theiler is engaged in inoculating horses at central places so that it will be possible for the people to have the horses inoculated there for use in the low veld. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) asked me a question about the station at Fauresmith. It was placed there for experimental purposes and we intend to keep a proper supervision there. The work cannot be done at Kirstenbosch. With reference to the garden at Matjesfontein, I may say that it is not the intention to support the various stations. With reference to the report about which he asks a question, I may say that it will be laid on the table. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) asked a question about the advertisements in connection with ostrich feathers. I may say that the committee of supervision in London thinks that the propaganda should go on. There was still £2,500 in hand. Now we do not know what sort of organization the ostrich farmers want. I thought that they were well organized, because it is an industry which has existed for a long time in the country. The proposals made by the deputation I referred to the Board of Trade and Industries. I do not know whether we shall get the report this year, because the Board of Trade and Industries is very busy. I think that I have now answered all the questions.

Under the item administration an amount of £500 appears for expenditure under the Adulteration Act. It is of great importance to the Western Province, and especially to the wine farmers. There is only one inspector, and he has not only to do with liquor, but with everything that comes under the Adulteration Act. Inasmuch as there is only one official for the Union, it must be clear that much of his time is occupied in travelling. Such an inspector is of the greatest importance to wine farmers and he is also of some importance to the State, because the State annually gets £600,000 from viticulture. It is impossible for one inspector to see that the Act is complied with, and it is important, too, in connection with the question of drunkenness inasmuch as in existing circumstances it is impossible to assure unadulterated liquor being sold. What I now want to ask of the hon. Minister is whether he will take this into consideration that seeing one inspector is insufficient, he will increase the staff. The second thought in this connection is that the public service commission has gone so far as to reduce the salary of this official from £500 to £350. This is something which the wine farmers feel very much.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When my speech was interrupted this afternoon I was busy discussing the inspector appointed under the Adulteration Act, and the importance of that appointment for our viticulture and our industries. I know that it is not the fault of the hon. Minister, but the Public Service Commission decided to reduce the salary of occupants of that important appointment to the minimum of £370, rising to £450. It is an insufficient salary for such an important appointment and, on behalf of viticulture and other industries, I want to ask the hon. Minister to use his personal influence and that of the Government to remedy the injustice. The reduction of the salary attached to this appointment will undoubtedly lead to the detriment of the industries concerned. With reference to sub-vote (g) entomologist, I was glad to hear from the hon. Minister that provision would probably be made on the additional estimates for further expenditure in connection with the eradication of locusts. Unfortunately, the north-west and other districts, which I represent, are the first exposed to the locusts that come from the Kalahari. We now learn that great danger exists through new swarms from that quarter. We are thankful for what the hon. Minister has done with regard to the extermination of locusts, but a new outbreak is at our doors and threatens to practically destroy all the work that has already been done. Therefore, I am glad to hear that further provision will be made. As regards field husbandry, I am glad to see that the hon. Minister has appointed a new official in connection with the dried fruit industry. We are before a great development in that direction, and many attempts are being made to extend our markets in England. Recently, two young Afrikanders went to London at their own expense and supported by a company for that purpose, and I am glad that the department is doing its best to advance the development of that industry. Under the same head, experimental farms, I see that the hon. Minister has created several new farms. It is of great importance that our people on the country side should be brought into direct touch with expert knowledge. The cotton expert from England recently stated that Griqualand West was the best place for cotton growing. I hope the Minister will be able to assist Griqualand West with an experimental station.

I move—

I do so because I wish to draw attention to the maladministration of the agricultural department which has taken place since he assumed office. In particular I wish to refer to his conduct in connection with the suppression of information which this House should have had when the recent Stock Diseases Amendment Bill was brought forward. The Minister there deliberately suppressed from this House information from the highest technical officer of the veterinary department on the whole subject of the losses of sheep and damage done to wool in consequence of the compulsory dipping in Natal, which members were entitled to have. The results of the compulsory dipping of sheep in Natal are now proved to have been so serious that the principal veterinary officer of the Union recommended the appointment of a commission of enquiry. The Minister withheld that information, and he has only within five minutes of the resumption of Committee in Supply this afternoon laid relative papers on the Table. These papers disclose a very serious state of affairs. They show that the Minister knew quite well that serious damage had been caused by his compulsory dipping in Natal, and although I gave him due notice on 25th May, 1925, of my wish that these papers should be laid upon the Table, and the documents show that the reports called for by me must have been in his possession two months before my request was made, he has not explained why he suppressed this information when he asked this House for indemnity. The correspondence shows that the principal veterinary officer wrote to him on the 30th April, 1925, enclosing further relative correspondence and recommending a commission of enquiry. I did not request that the papers should be laid on the Table until the 25th May, and I was promised that they should be produced as soon as possible. Up to the 3rd June I was pressing for these papers and I was severely rebuked by the Minister for demanding the production papers which he stated were in Pretoria. Now I shall go into the losses which were shown by his own experts to have occurred. These papers range from the 7th January, up till the 22nd May, and most of them were in the office in Cape Town by the 25th May, 1925, because some of them have been seen by my fellow legislators in the agricultural office, and one of the senators was invited by the Minister himself to have access to them. When I pressed for these papers on the 3rd June, 1925, I was told they were in Pretoria; the Minister said so during the debate on the Stock Diseases Act. As I pointed out, he would have had the country believe that the claim for losses was not well founded. The Bill prescribing farmers’ claims has passed this House, and we have not been able to have access to this information, which is only now produced in order to avoid further pressure during the course of the present debate. I should like to read the recommendation of the principal veterinary officer of the Union—

That was dated the 30th April, and the accompanying file of papers showed very considerable losses among farmers in one district alone through the compulsory dipping order. What must the loss have been throughout the province? The whole of the report shows that the mortality was not due to the abnormal rain; it was entirely due to the dipping, and further investigations which have taken place all tend in the same direction. The report of the senior veterinary officer of Natal is as follows—

In what way?

I will tell you; I am going to read from the report of an expert on that—

It enumerates the heavy mortality which corresponds with the information I myself laid before the Minister. An hon. member has asked in what way the wool was damaged. As he appears to be interested in that matter, I shall inform him very briefly of what the Government expert in sheep and wool (Mr. Roux) reports. He appears to be no relation of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux).

An honest man.

He reports upon—

(The dipping officer certifies that the sheep were in excellent condition when they were dipped.) The report continues—

Further reports made by the senior veterinary officer for the Province and the district veterinary officer all correspond with the report by the lecturer on sheep and wool of the Government School of Agriculture of Natal. Briefly they showed that after the second dipping 95 per cent. of the sheep were lame, and many died—also there was a good deal of blistering over the bodies of the sheep varying from small patches to large areas, and a pus-like substance exuded from the affected parts. Maggots were attacking the sheep in numbers and farmers had the greatest difficulty in checking and destroying them. The senior veterinary officer in Natal expresses the opinion that blue-tongue is not a serious factor as a cause of the losses, and reports that in post-mortem cases only a few with worm were found. The Minister suppressed the whole of this information although it was in the possession of his department; and I do not doubt from the covering minute from the principal veterinary surgeon that the Minister himself had perused this correspondence at the time he introduced the Stock Diseases Act and led us to believe there were very few losses indeed and that they were probably due to natural causes. And that he had only heard from about seven claimants. There are actually more than seven in the district of Richmond alone. I now wish to refer to the case of certain sheep inspectors who were dismissed from the district of Bethlehem; and this is of particular interest to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) and I should be glad if he in any case would endeavour to let us have some explanation. In the case of Mr. Froneman, this gentleman was served with a notice by the Minister of Agriculture informing him that it was necessary to terminate his appointment. There was nothing said about the reason—

The Minister has told us the real reason was because Mr. Froneman was a political agent. I only wish to point out that if that was so the proper and the honest course was to deal with him under the Public Service Act.

He is not a public servant. It is ridiculous.

Excuse me, he belongs to the general division of the service and comes under Section 20 (1) which says—

Among the offences referred to under sub-section (1) (f) is that of any man who—

And there was no reorganization here at all as the Minister himself has confessed this afternoon that he dismissed Froneman because he was a political agent, and there was no economy because he appointed the brother-in-law of the hon. member for Bethlehem in place of Froneman. He himself professes to have dispensed with Froneman’s services because he was a political agent and the gentleman who is appointed to succeed him is the brother-in-law of the member for the district. He goes further; it seems that another sheep inspector, Mr. Van Rooyen, was discharged, and the Minister improves on his former performance by appointing the brother of the hon. member for Bethlehem in his stead. Surely that is making two political agents grow where before there was supposedly only one? The Minister appointed these gentlemen; he got rid of Mr. Froneman and Mr. Van Rooyen on the grounds of reorganization, and with positively indecent haste he appoints in their places two near relatives of the hon. member for Bethlehem. This is the kind of administration we are to expect from the Minister of Agriculture—a suitable accompaniment to the kind of administration which has characterized his enforcement of the dipping regulations in Natal and parts of the Free State.

Is it a crime to be a relative of a member of Parliament?

Apparently not. The hon. member who has just interjected is evidently suffering from prickings of conscience. His brother-in-law, Mr. Turner, was also offered an appointment by the Minister. Mr. Turner’s transcendent qualification for preferment being the fact that he is the brother-in-law of the idol of Umbilo.

What about your brother-in-law, Clark, the magistrate?

My brother-in-law, Clark, the magistrate, was appointed on his own merits long before I entered political life. I welcome the renewed courage of the hon. member for Umbilo in trying to attack me in this House. Since his previous efforts in this direction he has preferred to take refuge in that funk-hole, the “Guardian,” and to pour out his vitriolic venom upon me from there. I come to another question which has been aired by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The hon. member has said that we should not introduce politics into the Agricultural Department. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is the chief offender against the principle laid down by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) At a meeting in Greyville he made this statement.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a letter I wrote to General Enslin asking whether he could inform me whether this is a correct statement or not. The statement was published in both the Durban daily papers, and has never been corrected by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, although I have drawn it prominently to his notice in this House—

Quite correct.

(reads)—

I consulted the records of the Agricultural Department, and I have not found a single district in the Union in which there are no sheep. I have invited the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to make good this statement. I have gone the length of comparing him in the Press to that well-known character Baron Münchhausen, with a view to getting him to speak on this matter, and I have failed to get a word out of him. But I should like the Minister of Agriculture to let us know whether there is any foundation for statements of that sort made by a Minister of the Crown at a public meeting. I referred that statement to Gen. Enslin, and I am glad to have his reply here this evening. He was very outspoken on this subject. He said—

The hon. member is not allowed to read a letter in which an hon. member of this House is accused of deliberate falsehood.

If you will allow me to read the letter you will see that the statement is qualified. I prefer to give the Minister of Posts the benefit of the doubt. And then he goes on to say—

I think we must all agree with that—

(A quorum having been obtained.)

I was quoting from a letter written by Gen. Enslin. He goes on to say—

He says that the inspectors in the Zoutpansberg and Waterberg districts had to contend against conditions much more difficult than those of the Free State.

I draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum.

House counted, and the Chairman declared that a quorum was present.

The letter proceeds—

When I made my statement.

Gen. Enslin sent this statement to the Minister in advance. It is only due to Gen. Enslin, who was accused of employing a number of people who were virtually South African party missionaries, that I should give his views on that subject too—

The Minister himself, when he dismissed Gen. Enslin, stated in this House that he was not aware that he was a supporter of the South African party.

of the South African party. Although a supporter of the late Government, I never took any part in politics, and whenever it came to my notice that any of the inspectors did, which unfortunately did happen in a few cases, by both South African party and Nationalist inspectors, I immediately reprimanded them. A circular instruction was issued on different occasions to all inspectors, that on no account were they allowed to take part in politics, and this instruction was observed with, perhaps, two or three exceptions in so far as I know.

The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has made an exceedingly offensive statement here, which he has not seen fit to correct, although invited to do so, and I think it is due to the whole of the officers in the department that he should substantiate or correct that statement. The Minister of Agriculture has seen fit to say that the dismissals of two of these men, Froneman and van Rooyen was due to their being political agents, and for the first time in the history of South Africa the Minister has publicly, without good and sufficient reason, tried to justify the dismissal of officials simply because they belong to an opposing political party. He must surely realize that if this sort of thing is going on it will lead to reprisals. If the Minister makes a statement of that sort he is asking for trouble in time to come. It is surely the essence of wrong-headedness to dispense with a man’s services on the ground that he is a political agent and yet not produce a bit of evidence to the satisfaction of that man, which he is entitled to have under the rules of the service, or to the satisfaction of this House, to prove that he is a political agent. We have had not a tittle of evidence, nor have these men been put upon their defence. That seems to me to be introducing a new era into the public service of this country.

It is not the public service.

I have been a public servant for the best part of 20 years, and I know something about the rules. Although sheep inspectorships are not prescribed posts, for discipline they come under the public service, and they are specified as belonging to the general division of the public service. If the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) would make sure of his facts he would be less troublesome as an interrupter. The Minister has set an example to-day in regard to the dismissal of men from the general division of the service which he and his friends probably will have occasion to regret in due time, because the fact that a man is alleged by some person unknown to be a political agent is held to be sufficient cause for his dismissal, no evidence being brought against him and the charge not even being brought to his notice, then we shall indeed be exposing the public service to the worst kind of espionage and intrigue ever known in this country. The letter of dismissal does not even state that there has been any dissatisfaction against either Froneman or Van Rooyen. Both of these gentlemen admittedly had their districts clear of scab.

The less you say about this the better.

I am speaking of the facts as they are disclosed in the letters of the Department of Agriculture. Since we have been dealing with “Jobs for pals” and “Jobs for swaers” will the Minister say whether the chief welfare officer of tenant farms is his own brother-in-law, as I am assured he is. The previous occupant of the position was presumably got out of the road to make room for a man who was a motor mechanic.

What about his brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law?

I am dealing with matters which are very germane to the public service. There is no reason in the world why other officers should have to suffer, to recede in promotion, because Ministers prefer to appoint brothers-in-law of their own or of other Ministers or of other members. This is a policy which has been developed under this Government.

And its origin?

I have no information as to its origin, except the information I have read to this House. These appointments have caused considerable dissatisfaction among other members of the service.

Now come to pin No. 3.

The hon. member, fresh from his peace mission, has evidently come here to preach a different doctrine. He had better return to his wallowing in the mire, the condition in which he used to preach, “My class—right or wrong”! The Minister has not vouchsafed any sufficient reason for his action in dismissing the sheep inspectors in the Free State and replacing them by other men. We were led to believe when the Minister took office that his whole object was to effect economies in the sheep division. We have a list of those economies and appointments, but beyond the fact that in some districts in the Transkei he has entrusted to the cattle stock inspectors the duties formerly performed by the sheep inspectors—and with very poor results, as announced by him this afternoon—there has been little or no economy effected. With the exception of that false economy in the Transkei little saving has been effected in connection with the sheep division, and as far as the administration of that division is concerned there has been a maximum of discontent.

I suppose you are not satisfied.

The Minister may derive some amusement from the murmurings heard only by himself, but he is not being heard on this side of the House at all. A most exhaustive report was made on the losses in Natal by the Government veterinary officer (Dr. Smith) himself a young South African, qualified in America, who is looked upon as one of the ablest men of his profession in Natal. He was very much alarmed at the course the dipping was taking, and communicated his fears to the senior veterinary officer in Natal, who, on March 14th, informed the Minister how alarming the outlook was, but right up to the end of March the Ministers refused to grant exemptions from dipping, although he must have been aware of these facts as the senior veterinary officer’s early report was forwarded for the information of the Minister on the 14th March. The veterinary authorities in Natal reported to Pretoria that they were under the impression that the use of tobacco extract in the low country in the summer months was very harmful. On January 7th, before a single sheep had been dipped, the Natal veterinary authorities telegraphed to Pretoria—

This was the dip mentioned in the Minister’s circular as one of the approved dips, and the Minister went on with his blind policy of forcing the sheep farmers of Natal to dip regardless of the consequences. The reply to the telegram was—

That is pretty obvious. The Natal authorities asked that the question be referred to the Delmore Company, which manufactured the dip. They were told that the question did not rest with the Delmore Company, and that the dip complied with the requirements of the Minister’s order. The telegram added—

In other words, the Minister knew that not only this dip but other dips were causing mortality if used at that period of the year, and he insisted on compulsory dipping regardless of consequences. [Time expired.]

You said he was dismissed because he was a political agent.

I do not intend to answer all the matters which have been brought up by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). The simultaneous dipping was very fully discussed when the Bill, with regard to cattle diseases, was under discussion. I then repeatedly stated that I would not evade compensation where people were entitled to it under the regulations. He has again made the insinuation that I waited until shortly before this debate to lay the papers, for which he had asked, on the table. I made it clear to him on a former occasion that they were spread all over the country. He will not understand that those papers cannot be sent by telegraph. If he cannot understand it, then I am sorry that I cannot give him more intelligence to understand it, and, therefore, I shall no longer discuss the matter. I want to say a few words about the sheep inspectors that he named. I do not want here to throw the names of people outside about the floor of the House. I must, however, in this connection say that there is a dishonourable sentence against that person, and that I, therefore, could not retain him in the service. I did not want to say this, but if hon. members keep on with that sort of thing I shall be obliged to do so. The hon. member has also mentioned that the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said on one occasion that there were districts with more sheep inspectors and no sheep. The fact is that there were over 100 inspectors in the district of Zoutpansberg, and the hon. Minister was referring to that, of course. There were 121 inspectors. They were, of course, not only sheep inspectors. There were 22,740 bastard sheep and 1 merino. The Minister was thus justified in saying that there were too many inspectors.

Is the district not a very big one?

If the hon. member does not know it, he can look at a map. The hon. member for Illovo has further said that I had stated that the former head of the sheep division did not belong to any party. I did not say that.

That appeared in “Hansard.”

I said that it did not matter to what party he belonged, but that his department was a political department. It was abolished because the Public Service Commission recommended it for reasons of economy, and I challenge the hon. member to prove that it was done for any other reason. Then I come to the case of a relation of mine, who has been appointed in another department. It would be very unfortunate if the relations of a Minister cannot be taken into consideration. Have they then to leave the country, and is there then no place for them in any department? The hon. member for Hopetown has said that it was unjust to reduce the salary of the inspector under the Adulteration Act. It is not so. A general reduction of salary has come into effect and this official has, of course, also come under it. He has further asked that a cotton farm should be established in Hope town. I would like to say to the hon. member that it was very difficult to start cotton farms all over the country. We will, however, strive to get as much information as possible. There is just one other little point that I would like to make clear with regard to the simultaneous dipping. I have read out a list of places where there is still scab. Let me say that in some of those districts there is only scab among the goats. In the district where it is only among the goats, only the goats will be dipped, and where it is only among the sheep the sheep will be dipped. We have been talking since three o’clock about this matter, and I shall be glad if we can now come to a vote.

The hon. Minister says we have been discussing his estimates from 3.30 until now. The Minister is not very long in this House, but if he looks through the records of previous sessions he will find the agricultural vote, dealing with over £1,000,000 of money an extremely important vote, generally takes a couple of days in its passage through this House. This afternoon the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) made a speech of which I had not intended to take any notice especially as the hon. member went away from the House. He has just now come back, and although I did not think it necessary to take any notice of it, the Minister this afternoon gave expression to the same views that he, in connection with terminating the services of scab inspectors, was following in the footsteps of the previous Minister, to which remarks there was a considerable amount of “hear, hear,” of the hon. members on the opposite side. That is not the first time this statement has been made.

And it is right, too.

I will throw out a challenge to the Minister. If the Minister would cease his interjections for a while, after speaking for 1½ hours, he would give others a chance of making a speech. I throw out a challenge to him, it is this. The hon. Minister has referred to the manner in which I dealt with scab inspectors. While I had the honour of being Minister, there was nothing done in the Agricultural Department which was not open to the senior officers of that department and there were no steps taken by me which I did not put into writing, and thus give an opportunity to responsible officers of that department to defend themselves as only public servants can defend themselves by putting it in writing and having it kept in the records of the department. At the end of 1922, when it was decided to terminate the services of scab inspectors as officers with pensionable emoluments, each officer was given notice of the termination of the appointment at a certain specific time. The pensions due were paid, and the older men were put on a salary of £400 a year, and they received a bonus. In every case the inspectors had an opportunity of re-applying, and I say, unhesitatingly, and I wish the Minister would look up the records, every man who re-applied, who had conducted his duties properly and had improved the position with regard to scab in his district, was re-appointed. I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to lay on the table the papers in connection with the termination of the services of large numbers of officers in the department of my hon. friend connected with the administration of the Scab Act, and I ask the Minister if he did as I did, did he consult his officials and have reports in connection with each one before their services were terminated, or, if, when there were complaints, he gave them the right of having the complaints investigated before terminating their services, and thus seeing whether the charges were just and fair. I challenge him to deny that he has not got rid of a certain number of inspectors on the ipsi dixit of the Minister without any investigation. The hon. gentleman can put those papers on the table. What other hon. members have said is correct, he has terminated the services of men who have a clean record in the department, and who have not got a single mark against them, and who had the approval of the senior scab officers, and I ask him the reason why he terminated those services. I had my own views as to why he terminated those services. I had my own views when a couple of months ago, in connection with the service, he came here to justify his case and gave the House a record of 400 officers, and he said so many of them were members of the South African party, and so many were members of the Nationalist party, and I said then he was introducing espionage into the service of the country, which was neither to the credit of the service nor the country. For three and a half years I was responsible for the administration of large numbers of these men, and everybody was considered, irrespective of his political views. Those who did not do their business properly had their services dispensed with. I challenge him to say in one single case in the Agricultural Department was any question asked, or any favouritism shown irrespective of the political opinions of the people who held these positions. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) referred very fairly this afternoon to the services in connection with the administration of locust destruction by Col. Wilkens. He said Col. Wilkens had done good service; I don’t deny it. Although Col. Wilkens was a leading Nationalist in the Western Transvaal, I had him appointed irrespective of his political views, because I said we wanted a man who had influence with the farmers, to try and deal with this scourge. This is not the manner in which the Minister has dealt with the department. I didn’t enquire how many of the officers happened to be members of the South African party or the Nationalist party. I was guided entirely by whether they did their work properly, and I think it is an unjust thing, no matter who the Minister may be, to get rid of a man by sending a telegram to him, especially if he had a clean record. If you have a charge to make against him, give him an opportunity of replying to the charge and have an investigation. The hon. Minister will remember cases brought to his notice last year, Inspector Uys and Inspector van Rensburg, whose services were dispensed with. When it was brought to my notice that he was not properly treated the matter was submitted to the magistrate for Swellendam, and there was a public enquiry, and on that enquiry his services were dispensed with. The Minister had a deputation from the farmers of Bredasdorp in connection with the inspector. He didn’t listen to the report. I believe van Rensburg was reappointed.

No.

Does the hon. member say he was not reappointed, he is no longer an inspector?

No, he is not.

I have not taken part in the discussion neither previously nor to-day with regard to the discharge and appointment of inspectors, but now that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has so worked himself up and issued challenges I should like to say a few words about the position of the few districts that I know about. How can he state that after his reorganization the sheep inspectors who were not reappointed were all only casually Nationalists? How can he state that Lydenburg, Ermelo, Barberton and Carolina all had sheep inspectors who were Saps and I declare here that the sheep inspectors in Ermelo were the election agents of the member for Ermelo at the recent and previous elections. I deprecate that the Minister of Agriculture did not dismiss more of the sheep inspectors who were nothing else but election agents. I am not judging by nationality or political view points; I agree that an official has just as much right to have a political opinion on the matter as myself or any other citizen because he is also a taxpayer. But an official of this country has not the right during the election to broadcast pamphlets from the head office of the South African party among the simple portion of the population and to say that they come from the official registration office. Even in such cases the Minister did not go so far as to dismiss those men. An inspector was discharged at Barberton and no one was appointed in his place. There was, therefore, an economy, because Barberton has chiefly sheep only in the winter, but under the former Government there were always two inspectors although during the summer months there was hardly one sheep. I ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) how it occurs that in the eastern Transvaal the inspectors were casually all Saps.

I daresay it is quite possible that in the district of Barberton it happened to be—

Not Barberton alone.

I am addressing the House now; the hon. member can have a chance later. It was thought that the scab inspector had a leaning to the South African party. We found the scab inspectors who did their duty properly were people with a considerable amount of intelligence. I should hardly imagine that my hon. friend would consider that superior intelligence, compared to the people who sent my hon. friend here to misrepresent them here, should be a bar against a man administering his duties as scab inspector. But I make the challenge again. The Minister has papers at his disposal and I would unhesitatingly say that he cannot show a single case where a man’s personal political views were for one moment taken in review in connection with his appointment, that the question was ever asked what the man’s political opinions were. I carried on my business as Minister of Agriculture quite differently from the present Minister. I did not say when I went into office that I was not going to consult my senior officers, as the Minister said in that notable interview. It is the duty of the Minister to listen to the views and experience of permanent officers of the State and, if the Minister disagrees with them, it is the duty of the Minister to put his views in writing, so that when his day of office passes the blame for what he may have done shall rest upon him and not upon the permanent officers who have not got an opportunity of protecting themselves.

They had to protect the mal-administration.

I am quite prepared to allow the country to judge of that. I have there, I think, got the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) with me. I am coming back again to the scab inspector. Does the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) know anything about that?

Very much.

I thought so. The Minister got rid of Inspector Uys and he reappointed Inspector Van Rensburg and now the Minister tells me that he has terminated the services of Inspector Van Rensburg. I do not know whether it is true or not. I will say another thing to the Minister. Would the Minister like me to refer to the changes in the personnel of locust officers in the Western Transvaal and does the hon. Minister deny that certain officers in the Western Transvaal were appointed at the recommendation of Nationalist committees in certain portions of the Western Transvaal? Does the hon. Minister deny that in the one case the man appointed had nothing whatever to do with matters of this character? If I went into these cases, I should be able to give the Minister more information than he thinks, perhaps, I possess. What about Inspector Nico Kamfer? Were any reports made to the Minister in connection with him by some people who hold high positions in Nationalist ranks in this country—a man who never had a single charge against him, a man who had a clean record in his office and yet whose services were peremptorily terminated. My hon. friend refers to locusts. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) speak this afternoon and say what a blessing it was that providence was stepping in by some fungus to destroy the locusts. I hope it is perfectly correct. In the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament we find these words—

Is that the experience of the farmers of this country? I acknowledge that the Minister did his best, but I consider that he was most unfair, not to me—

To the locusts.

No, because the locusts have come in again in myriads. At the present time I am a sufferer. Twice they have eaten up my crops. A gentleman who came in the other day said that he had ridden through 21 miles of locusts. The Minister was rather unfair to officers like Mr. Graham Cross, Mr. Wilkens, Mr. Hockly, Mr. Kolbe and people of that sort, who did admirable work. The Minister said, “I will do it much better,” and now his henchman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), comes and tells us that Providence is interfering with the worm at the back of their neck and the worm that is eating their eggs and also by this fungus. I remember some years ago some officer of the agricultural department tried to introduce the locust fungus. It is perfectly possible that what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) referred to this afternoon is correct, and it is well worth following up, that owing to the extremely wet season we have had and the dampness that exists all over South Africa this fungus is better able to grow and spread among the locusts than it was during the experiment that was carried out some years ago. The Minister has done his best, and many officers have done their best, although if the locusts are disappearing now it will be due to the assistance that Providence is giving to us in this plague. But the expenditure has been rather severe. I used to pay 7s. 6d. per day to the gentlemen who turned out to spray the locusts, but my hon. friend has increased that to half a sovereign. I see my hon. friend the Minister of Lands smiles. He knows that it is correct. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has issued several challenges with reference to the scab inspectors. I have repeatedly stated that if officials do not do their duty I would dismiss them. I also stated that they would have to go where they meddled in politics. I have done this, and now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort comes here with a challenge that I have discharged officials for personal political reasons and that he never did so. I will only remind him of this, that he indulged in political appointments. He was possibly not here when I referred to something on a former occasion, and I will now do so again. It is the case of the discharge of chief inspector J. S. Ferreira, of Uitenhage. In November, 1923, inspections were made of the area coming under inspector Ferreira by senior Currie; he found infected flock and he also found that Inspector Ferreira had neglected his duty as sheep inspector by not visiting some of the farms in his area for three years and in some cases he never visited some farms. Magistrate Jansen has also directed the attention of the Government to the unsatisfactory work of Inspector Ferreira and he asked that he should be transferred to another area, he explanation of Ferreira why he did not visit the farms was regarded as unsatisfactory. Ferreira was severely reprimanded by the head of the sheep division for his negligence and it was then decided to transfer him to another district, but on the 12th January, 1924, a certain Mr. J. A. Marais wrote as follows to Sir Thomas Smartt, the then Minister of Agriculture—

Consequently a telegram was sent on 8th February, 1924, from the agricultural department in Merino (sheep division), Pretoria, to the effect that if no steps had been taken to stop the transfer of Ferreira. If that is honest administration—

Was there an election at that time in January?

It was shortly before the election. The hon. member talks so much about honest administration, but if that is honest administration then I do not want to be head of the department. It is, however, typical of the South African party. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort says that he did not appoint any party comrades. It is remarkable that no Nationalist appears on the list. Now he wants to shield behind the back of the Secretary for Agriculture that he made all the appointments. He throws the responsibility on him.

I say that it is altogether incorrect.

And I say that it is so. I will therefore accept it. I discharged inspectors but not 1,952. If the hon. member refers to the list that I laid on the Table—he has not done so—then he would see that 82 inspectors were discharged. Seventeen of them on account of age, and the rest for reasons of reorganization and economy. He has spoken here of the case of a certain Kanfer. That was done for reasons of reorganization. What is wrong with that? I saved £26,000 on that division, and what is there wrong in it if I discharge inspectors according to an agreement? Must I keep on people like van Rooyen with a conviction against him? I will see to it that the officials who are appointed under me do their duty. The hon. member has also mentioned the cases of Uys and van Rensburg. The matter was referred to the magistrate and he made such a strong report in favour of van Rensburg that I had to reinstate van Rensburg. But on personal investigation I found that Uys was a good inspector, and he will possibly be reappointed but in another district, because there where he now is, difficulties have been caused. I think that I did my duty, and the position with regard to scab is favourable, and I hope that next year it will be still more favourable. The hon. member has also said that I made political appointments in connection with the prevention of locusts. If that is so, then I made very good selections. The farmer is this year reaping 20,000,000 bags of mealies, and under the regime of the former Minister that was not the case, because everything was eaten up. His organization was weak-kneed, but he did not even know it, because he sat in his office at Pretoria. There was always something wanting when the locusts had to be sprayed. I make no apologies. If more locusts come from the desert then we will fight them as we are doing at the moment. I hope, however, that next year we shall be quit of the plague.

I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Minister makes a statement that I throw all responsibility upon the senior and greatly respected officer in the service of this country. I say that is incorrect. Has the Minister the right to say that is not so? Does the Minister not take my word? I want your ruling, sir.

When an hon. member makes an explanation, his word ought to be accepted.

We have listened to a very spirited discussion on these questions, but I would like to refer to another question, the question of the jackal, which I think costs this country more than the other two questions put together. I think I can satisfy the Minister that the jackal costs this country a greater sum per annum than scab or locusts. I have made a very careful and conservative computation. I am not going into details; but the annual toll of the jackal in the Cape Province amounts to a total of £161,830. This is a very serious matter for the consideration of the farmers of this country, and I do not think that either the Minister or the farmers are fully alive to it. Even in the Free State, although the Minister indicated that they were more fortunate. I would like to tell the Minister that according to the last census 39,553 sheep were destroyed by the jackal. There is another big item which I think is beyond computation, and that is the damage which takes place owing to the driving of the sheep to and fro, the erosion. I believe that in 1911 a special commission was appointed to deal with this matter, which was then exhaustively dealt with. When one travels about this country, especially some of the steeper portions up-country, which, perhaps, are amongst some of our best sheep-grazing lands, one is distressed to find how the soil is being washed away, and every year it is becoming less and less capable of sustaining the stock that, is on it. That is a matter which any Minister who is interested in the country, and has thought for the farmer, must take seriously. We all admit that the great remedy towards most of the evils I have enumerated here, is jackal-proof fencing. I would like the Minister to tell us that as far as the Government is concerned, it is prepared to shoulder this responsibility in respect of Crown land that adjoins proclaimed areas throughout the Union. It is only fair that the farmer who adjoins Government reserves and Crown lands should recover half the costs of fencing, just as in the case of his neighbour at the back, and the same would apply to the railways. I think the Government should assume the responsibility in respect of lands which they administer. To come back to my own district, Lady Grey—Aliwal North, I would point out that, during the past Government, certain farmers along the border between Herschel and Barkly East, erected vermin-proof fences, and the accounts were sent to the magistrate and were honoured, the farmers being paid out half the cost of such fences. But since this Government has come in, one or two similar cases have arisen, and the Government demurs to paying. Legally, one cannot come upon the Government; but I think some provision should be made in this connection. I think where a European area adjoins a native area, as in Herschel, provision should be made so that the farmers can recover half the cost of such fences. We must bear in mind that the farmer right on the border acts as a sort of buffer. He is the frontier farmer, and if anyone needs to be assisted in this connection, it is the man on the border; but that is not done. The man in the interior can recover from his neighbours all round. Several select committees of this House, in regard to the spread of scab, and in regard to stock-thieving, have unanimously recommended that where a European area borders on such a native area as I have described, they should be met, and I would like to know from the Minister, whether it is too late for anything to be done this session, or whether he will consider the advisability of re-opening the question next session. [Time expired.]

I just want to ask the Minister for a little information about the new people that he had to have trained. The incompetent people that he had to send to Johannesburg to study there and to pass an examination and how many of the people that he sent to Johannesburg passed the examination. I am glad that the hon. Minister attaches so much value to the division of Johannesburg which has done so much good work but I should like to know from the hon. Minister (without wishing to bring in politics) whether the old officials that were discharged also got an opportunity of passing the examination.

They should have passed the examination under the former Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. Minister has discharged people while he had to have others trained first of all to do the work. He said that he wished to economise. He says that he wanted to economise yet it does not look much like it, first to send people to the schools to be taught there.

No one is appointed unless he has taken the course.

My point is that there were people who had taken all the courses and I cannot understand why new ones had to be taught to take the place of the old ones. Why were not the old ones kept on?

Ferreira’s kind?

No, not that sort but I understand that 60 went to Johannesburg at Government expense to pass the examination. How many of them passed? They came to Johannesburg at the expense of the country.

That is not true.

That is my information.

It is wrong then.

I accept that, but I do not understand how people who have done nothing wrong must be replaced by people who first have to be trained. Then with regard to the extermination of locusts I want to tell the hon. Minister that in my opinion he went a little too far as regards his deserts with regard to the extermination of locusts. Undoubtedly the department did good work but the Minister exaggerates. Does he mean to say that through the action of his department alone the farmers this year have had a good mealie crop? We must thank Providence for the insect that Killed the locusts. The Minister is to-day again going a little too far. Then I should very much like the hon. Minister to tell me how many officials, besides the head officials who are necessary, still continually draw salary in places where there are no locusts ….

Not one. Only where work is still being done is any payment made.

I would like to know why the sum of £10,000 appears on the estimates for the extermination of locusts. I suppose the hon. Minister will have to ask for an additional amount for that purpose.

That I have already said.

I would like him to be a little careful with regard to the extermination of locusts. There are many people who, to again get an appointment, will be only too pleased to see the locusts back again.

I feel that as a representative of a farmers’ district, I should not be doing my duty if I did not protest against the action of some of the members of the Opposition, because the policy of the Opposition, I think, will be disastrous for the farmers of our country, and the farmers wish us, as their representatives, to protest against that policy, to do nothing else but make political questions of the farmers’ interests for the purpose of catching votes. It is disastrous to the interests of the farmers if we get to such a point that the extermination of locusts and the prevention of scab must be used for making political capital. Therefore, I protest against it on behalf of the farmers. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in particular has now been engaged for the last few days in attacking the Minister at every opportunity in connection with simultaneous dipping. The danger of that is that the Minister will become afraid to do his duty, because if something turns out badly, although he has done his best, the Opposition are ready to make political capital out of it. That is wrong. Even if a mistake is made in such matters, then the House and the people must support the Minister. There are enough other points out of which political capital can be made. Let us leave the farmers’ interests out of it. Simultaneous dipping has repeatedly been spoken of here, and we cannot regard it otherwise than pure obstruction and an attempt to make political capital, because when the matter has once been sufficiently pressed, why must it be repeated ad nauseam? I represent a farmers’ district, and we had simultaneous dipping, and my people in the whole district are satisfied with the exception, perhaps, of a few political agents, who have been worked up by their leaders and were busy from the beginning when the sheep dipping had been completed to make the work of the Government difficult. In my district much damage was suffered. More sheep died than in any other year for the last ten years. I was recently round my district and I asked the people to what they attributed the large mortality. The answer was general, to the heavy rains. We know, of course, that sheep cannot stand rain, and that they die when there is much rain, at any rate, more than when it is dry. But the political agents have been busy all the time as soon as the sheep died to try and stuff the people that it was the result of the simultaneous dipping. I hope, however, that the hon. Minister will not take much notice of this agitation in the House. I know that I can meet the farmers on this point. I come back to the appointment of inspectors. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has referred to the position in the eastern portion of the Transvaal. Precisely the same applies to the western portion. The sheep inspectors in the Delarey division, for instance, were always election agents who even sat as the representatives of the South African party at the polling booths and who always asked questions at my meetings and tried to propose motions of no confidence. By chance also the inspectors at Barberton were all South African party men. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has objected to the instruction of fresh people while there are old ones who are qualified. I do not agree with him. If there is an old one who cannot do the work well must he then not be discharged, because he has passed an examination, and because another has first of all to be trained to take his place? We, in the Transvaal, feel that the scab inspectors division which was created by the former Government was for no other purpose than to make a place for political agents who had rendered services to the party. We can, therefore, well understand to-day that members on that side are very much dissatisfied and hurt at seeing one after the other of their political myrmidons dismissed. We feel that if this House wants to look after the interests of the farmers we must try to keep politics with a view to catching a few votes out of the matter.

I am not going to take up the time of the committee any longer in connection with the appointment of scab inspectors, except to say again that I consider the attitude adopted by the hon. Minister in getting rid of public servants without having a full investigation into their service, and without hearing the report of those officers of his department who are competent to report upon them, senior scab inspectors in the case of junior inspectors, and without having regard to their service, is most unfortunate, and is going to have a bad effect on the service. I also desire to register a protest. I can do no more, because the injustice has been done, but I do register the strongest protest in the interests of the public service against the manner in which the Minister, against the advice of the Public Service Commission, against, I imagine, the advice of those in the Agricultural Department who are competent to give an opinion, on the matter in which he has damaged the public service and the promotion of other officers for political reasons, going outside the service to make an appointment to one of the most important positions in the Agricultural Department of an outsider to the detriment of the whole interests of the public service. I do this deliberately and designedly. In the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys, I have nothing to do with him, and have not yet had the privilege of meeting him, and I pass no opinion upon him, but to deliberately pass over an officer of the Agricultural Department who had been chosen by the department and by the Public Service Commission and who had been sent to the U.S.A. for six months to enquire into economic marketing and agriculture economics, and who had been sent to the continent to enquire into the markets there—

Was he chosen by the public service before he was sent there?

He was chosen by the department after the fullest investigation as the most suitable officer for that particular post. The Minister of Labour is more loquacious now than he was with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) when that hon. member asked him about his various speeches and statements on public platforms. Then the Minister of Labour was like the sheep before the shearers—he dumbly opened not his mouth. This vote has got nothing to do with my hon. friend, so he will, perhaps, let the Minister of Agriculture deal with it.

I was asking you a question.

As my hon. friend does not know anything about agriculture, perhaps he will allow me to continue this pleasant little intercourse with the Minister of Agriculture. I consider it an extremely serious thing in the interests of the public service, where you have got in the service a thoroughly qualified man, that you should go outside the service—because you debar promotions—and take in an outsider and give him a permanent appointment to one of the plums of the service, because that appointment commences with a salary of £900 a year. I say this to the Minister, that he has done a great disservice to the public service of this country, because he has given officers of the public service, who have served this country faithfully for many years, the idea that as Ministers come and Ministers go, the public interests of the service are not going to be considered, but the interests of finding billets for people outside are going to receive first consideration. I do not like to mention names in this discussion, but we all know the great interest which Sir Horace Plunkett took in agriculture. Without in any way knowing about this appointment, he had been over Elsenburg, and in the course of conversation with me he said he had met an extremely able agricultural officer in the person of Mr. Lamont. That, I believe, is the opinion of everybody who knows that gentleman. Mr. Lamont, on the recommendation of Mr. Spilhaus, was offered by the late Government the post of trade commissioner in Europe, now filled by Mr. Pienaar. Mr. Lamont, having given a great portion of his work to this particular study of agricultural economics and marketing, and having had an opportunity of going to America and also to the Continent, refused the position that was offered him by the Government. He said that if the Government did not insist upon his accepting the appointment, or desire that he must take it, he would sooner remain. His career has to a great extent been interfered with, I say, for political considerations, and I say again unhesitatingly that it is an action which should be branded by the disapproval of everybody in this country who takes an interest in the public service, irrespective of what political party he belongs to. If we allow members of the public service, who have given years of their lives to the service of the country, to think that when important appointments in new departures or in new divisions which are created, are not going to be given to a permanent member of the service, no matter how well he deserves it, and that somebody from outside is going to be taken in, then you are striking a blow at the esprit de corps of the service.

What about Barney Enslin and Jordaan?

I am dealing with Mr. Lamont, and I say that the Minister, if he has 20 years as Minister, will never live down the injustice that he has done in that particular case, and I say more, that it is the feeling of right-thinking farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country.

What nonsense.

If the Minister will take a plebiscite of the farmers to-morrow he will find that is their view. Without in any way detracting from the qualifications of Dr. Geldenhuys, I still maintain that a grave and gross injustice has been done to the public service of this country by the attitude which the Minister has adopted. Now I have finished with that. I do not think I would have done my duty if I had not entered a protest. Perhaps the Minister would now give us some information as to east coast fever. [Time expired.]

I do not know why the ex-Minister of Agriculture gets so excited.

I am not excited. I consider a grave injustice has been done and it is my duty to give expression to it.

I am glad my right hon. friend is not excited, because he says a grave injustice has been done. I know nothing about that point, but let me say that the former Government took men from outside and put them in appointments.

That does not make it better.

No, I know it does not.

I said that when you had an officer qualified to do the work you had no right to go outside.

The question is whether he was a competent officer, but I do not want to go into that point. The present man appointed is not a member of the National party.

That has nothing to do with it.

I am only trying to show that there was no political consideration. The late Government appointed Gen. Enslin as chief of the sheep division, a man who knew nothing about it. My right hon. friend used to get up and make the same attack as he has made tonight on officers whom he had to get rid of, not because they were political but because they were incompetent. The farmers in South Africa, he says, agree with him in this question. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Scab is getting less and less in South Africa; there is no doubt about it. I make so bold to say this, that the right hon. gentleman has never been attacked on the Agricultural Vote on political lines.

Not on the Levy Bill?

I say not by me.

Oh, that I acknowledge.

The right hon. member to-night has done something he should not have done, because he is looked upon by farmers as one of the leaders, and his speech is going to do a lot of harm because they will say: “There is no need for us to kill scab; there is no need for us to kill locusts.” What has the Minister done with regard to this question? He went into the field himself; he went in his motor car right into the desert and fought locusts.

What good has that done?

It has done this much good, that we in the Free State this year are going to reap our crops.

So you did last year.

My right hon. friend knows what happened. He got up himself and quoted the number of swarms I personally had killed. I give the right hon. member the credit for assisting us in killing locusts, but he sneers at the Minister and says he has appointed a townsman to help him. He probably refers to Mr. Philip Kock.

I did not do any such thing.

You cannot call Col. Wilkens a townsman.

I appointed him myself.

You are always sneering at somebody.

The only person that sneers is you.

Don’t let us get bitter.

Nothing that you can say would make me bitter.

No one has tried harder than the Minister of Agriculture to fight these locusts where they lay their eggs, but the farmers to-day are going to reap their crops. Last year they did not.

They did.

The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), of course, knows all about locusts. Raisins are his mark.

I know much more about both than you do.

I am sorry the Minister has been attacked by the hon. member.

Because he deserved it.

No, he has gone personally into the desert and no man has put up a better fight against the locusts.

Not only so, but he has done what he ought not to have done.

He has appointed Dr. Geldenhuys.

That gentleman has done wonderfully good work. He is now visiting the markets of South Africa and trying to build up a home market, not in England, but in South Africa. He has already presented reports to the department which I take it will be laid on the table. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) knows we want it. I was in his constituency recently and find that raisins that are sold there for 2½d. are sold in the market in Johannesburg for 1s. Farmers tell me in the Worcester district that they are pulling up their vines and trees as they cannot sell their stuff.

These raisins must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Dr. Geldenhuys is highly qualified and a good man, and it is not the first time a man has been taken from outside the service, and I hope it will not be the last. Dr. Bok and Mr. de Villiers Roos were taken from outside the service; also the late head of the sheep division, by the hon. member sitting on the other side, and now the Minister is being grumbled at for doing the same thing. Nothing can prevent Mr. Lamont getting on in the service, and he is not grumbling. It is not doing Mr. Lamont a good turn to mention his name in this House. He does not like these discussions.

I have listened attentively to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture on the debate, but I should like to tell him that I do not agree that the loss of sheep was only insignificant. It seems to me that the Minister wants to cover up all the blunders he has made. He wants to make out here that all the people who have been discharged were discharged for reasons of economy, or that they were incompetent. Were there not also other reasons such as the wreaking of vengeance? Is it not a fact that the Minister wanted to vent his spite on the inspectors who did their duty when he went wrong? That is at the bottom of the whole business. He has spoken here about simultaneous dipping and I think that there is another mistake. He has read out the whole series of districts where scab still prevails. He says that the Transvaal is nearly clean, and the Transvaal was always the place that was hammered at. It is now clean now that the Nationalist Government has come into power! But it has caused great damage to the farmer. The Minister does not appreciate the damage that has been caused. When we bring it to the notice of the Minister then young members like the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) says we are busy making propaganda for our party. Is there then an election pending? We do not want to make propaganda. We don’t need it, but we represent voters here, and we must look after their interests. What did he do in 1921? I can tell my hon. friend that he put his foot into a thing of which he was not aware. He may be a great farmer, but he knows nothing about sheep. When he accuses us of making propaganda. I want to accuse him that he has made propaganda which caused blood. I would just like to mention a few points, but before I do that I want to say that the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) well knew that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) was not present, otherwise he would not have made his attack on certain inspectors. I want to ask the Minister whether he is going to have the simultaneous dipping in a district where there are one or two cases of scab. If he does that, then he will make another blunder. It is quite unnecessary. It would be best to place such sheep under quarantine and to dip them. By dismissing inspectors it happened that sheep were in quarantine for two months because no inspectors had yet been appointed to carry out the dipping. He must take into consideration the non inclusion of whole districts in the proclamation. I represent mealie farmers, and I want to ask whether the Minister will assist the mealie farmers. He should know that there is going to be a critical position. It is wet on account of the rainy season and the elevators only accept maize if there is a certain amount of dryness. The Minister has had the temerity to say that 20,000,000 bags of mealies will be harvested, because he has prevented the locusts. I only want to tell the Minister that he will have to meet us to assist us with the railways. The railways do not come under him, but the two matters are so closely connected that I wish to request him to help us to get trucks for the transport of our mealies. The Minister himself knows what we spend on mealie farming. We imported 2,700 tons of fertilizer, and next year that will be doubled. We exported 58,000 tons of mealies, and if we are not assisted we shall not be ready in the summer. I hope that the Minister will not be so angry with me, and that he will exhibit more sympathy with the farmers in the eastern parts of the Transvaal. My grievance is that the Pact only gives its attention to labour legislation and that we will have a great struggle to get our mealies exported.

The hon. member has asked me what the losses were of the sheep that were dipped. The chief inspector of his district told me that he had dipped a million, and that not one had died from dipping.

That is incorrect, because more than one of mine died.

That is the report of the inspector. The hon. member says further that I am unsympathetic towards the mealie farmers. We will treat them more sympathetically. We will impose no embargo on importation, and do everything in our power to have the mealies exported. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) asked a question about the examinations the inspectors have to pass. Seventy sat and two failed. All inspectors have to go to this school. They study there at their own expense. Even if they are the best farmers they must go there to learn certain things. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge upon the imputations of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in connection with the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys. It was discussed by the House on a former occasion and approved. The officials are more faithful to me than they were to him, and he need not worry himself about it. Not even about Mr. Lamont, because I will have justice done to him.

I would just like to be clear on the point of the compensation which the Minister is prepared to pay for losses sustained through dipping. I hope the Minister will answer clearly, because I want to know definitely whether I can advise the farmers in my constituency whether they can send in claims to the Minister’s department for losses which they have sustained through dipping, and which they can prove they have sustained through dipping. Am I to understand that these claims for losses are confined under the regulations at present existing, or is he prepared to take into consideration losses which occurred after 48 hours? I would suggest to the Minister, if he is prepared to pay such compensation, which I hope he will, to these farmers, that he should grant facilities which they can prove their claims and I suggest to him to appoint the magistrate a farmer and the local veterinary officer in each magisterial district to sit as assessors and hear evidence from farmers and determine the damage which they have suffered. The next point I wish to raise is one in connection with the wattle industry. I would like the Minister to tell us what the result is of the investigations in connection with frog-hopper and bag-worm pests in wattle plantations, whether he has received any report from the investigators and whether there is any hope of dealing effectively with these two pests in the wattle industry. The wattle industry to-day is a very important one, in fact the export of wattle from South Africa is far greater than the fruit export. The industry is worth about £1,500,000 per annum to this country, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to take all the steps necessary to fully investigate these two pests which are undoubtedly a grave danger to the industry at present. I would also like to know from the Minister what the result is of the investigations of the commission which he promised to appoint last session, to enquire into the tick fever regulations in Natal, with a view to tightening up those regulations. Will he tell us what the result is of the investigations made by that commission, and whether any steps have been taken to improve the position in so far as the regulations at present existing in regard to tick fever are concerned? It is with deep regret that I notice the Minister is doing away with the beef bounty. This is a bounty which is very necessary if we are to encourage the export of beef from this country. I would like to know what the Minister’s policy, if he has any, is in regard to the surplus of cattle in this country; how does he intend to deal with that surplus; what is his policy to assist the farmers in getting rid of that surplus? At the present moment the farmers are suffering very heavily owing to the lack of markets for their cattle. We have 10,000,000 cattle in South Africa; and the Minister has been most unsympathetic towards cattle farmers. We asked him to enquire very thoroughly into the Watkins-Pitchford process, and we met with a rebuff. Now he has taken away the bounty.

If, that process was so good why did not you take it?

Well, we want to know what the Minister’s policy is to assist farmers to get rid of their surplus cattle. It is a very important matter. Cattle farmers are suffering under very grave disadvantages, and unless the Minister is prepared to devise some scheme to get rid of the surplus cattle, I am afraid cattle farmers of this country are going to be faced with a very serious state of affairs in the near future. Since 1918 the cattle have increased to the extent of three millions. We want something definite from the Minister; we want to be helped out of the difficulty. A grave mistake was made by the Minister in doing away with the beef bounty. It is the only help that the cattle farmers have been receiving hitherto to alleviate the unfortunate position in which they are placed in the matter of getting rid of their surplus cattle. I do say, and the country is with me, I am certain, that the Minister has not done anything to help cattle farmers to get rid of the surplus. The time has come when the Minister has to consider this burning question very seriously. I hope the Minister will answer these questions, because both the wattle industry and the cattle industry are very important

I move—

It has been moved that the question be now put. I put the question.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the application of this ruling. We understand a closure is moved if the debate becomes tedious—

I have accepted the motion. I do not intend giving any reasons to the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager).

I am asking this question—

Order.

Surely the hon. member is entitled to raise a point of order?

What is it?

Surely the members of this House are entitled to fair play?

I think it is your duty to hear what members of Parliament have got to say on a point of order.

I have heard the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) and have given him my reply.

I have not completed my statement, so how could you hear me? I wish to go on. A further point with regard to this matter is that the practice in the past has been to accept the closure when the debate becomes one-sided. This debate has been taken part in by both sides of the House, and no one has spoken more than the Minister.

I have already stated that, in the exercise of my discretion, I accepted the motion.

The Chairman put the question and declared that the “ayes” had it.

called for a division; upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—49.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

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.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; Wessels, J. H. Brand.

Noes—27.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick put; upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—28.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Coulter, C W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Payn. A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—53.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

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.

Kentridge, M.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley. W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Naudé, A. S.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; Wessels, J. H. Brand.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.