as Chairman brought up a Special Report of the Select Committee on the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture Bill, as follows—

Report considered and adopted.

as Chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, as follows—

Report to be considered on 17th May.

I move—

seconded.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he still thinks that we shall be able to finish our work by the end of this month, and what additional work we may expect to have before us. We have a fairly long list of Bills before us on the Order Paper, and a good number of finance Bills are still to come forward. I would like, from the Prime Minister, a statement as to any additional work that the Government may still have in contemplation for this session, and whether he thinks we shall be able to conclude the session this month, as he anticipated some time ago.

I do think we shall be able to finish the session, if not by the end of this month, then in the first week of the following month. I may say I have really nothing to add as far as Bills are concerned to what I stated on the last occasion. The Bills that still have to come are merely of an administrative character.

Are you not going to drop some of the Bills now on the Order Paper?

I dare say a few of them will go by. I think by the end of the first week in June we ought to be able to conclude the work of the session.

Motion put and agreed to.

I would like to make a remark or two on Clause 2.

I think I waited long enough before putting the clause.

My attention was distracted at the moment.

I am very sorry, but I cannot go back to Clause 2 now.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

When the Bill was before the House I asked the Minister of Finance whether an agreement had been come to with the Administrators and executive councils of the provinces, and stated that if they were agreeable there was nothing more to be said. I understand, however, that there has been no express consideration of this new clause by the provincial council of the Transvaal and it is a very far-reaching matter. It is not fair to provincial councils to treat them in this way of limitation of their powers of direct taxation. They have their liabilities and obligations to fulfil, and this serious interference with them is quite a mistake so far as the democratic principles of government are concerned. I know the Minister is conservative-minded and won’t be touched by any argument I can use, but it is totally unfair to put this limitation on. Let us suppose it is to be a poll tax up to £5. We have men in the Transvaal who can afford to pay £100 poll tax and people who, if they have to pay £1, will have to go to the magistrate to get time to pay it. Any limitation to this tax cannot be defended. Let me point out once again where the Minister is going in his interference with provincial councils. He has taken from the Transvaal province the right to impose £180,000 as employers’ tax, which he has given back to the companies ; but the result of that exemption is that he has now to provide £112,000 from ordinary revenue and still leave the provincial councils to raise another £70,000 to make up the abandoned tax shortfall. We are the stepchildren of the Union. We have to put up with all these injustices. It is not fair that we should have to raise such a large amount in proportion to our obligations in the Transvaal, the largest revenue producer. Natal has to raise practically nothing ; the Free State only a little ; but the Transvaal has to raise a huge sum for its necessary expenditure. This is a deplorable policy continued from the previous Government, and the result of it has been that Rhodesia to-day stands out of the Union. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Jagger) may shake his head, but I was in touch with Rhodesian men when they were going into the question of joining the Union or not and because we in the Transvaal were treated as we were they decided to stand clear of the Union. Rhodesia will ultimately join up with Nyassaland and British East Africa, and we are going to have an independent British territory right across the hinterland, with an outlet to the east. That is the direct result of the last Government’s treatment of the provincial councils. I know hon. gentlemen opposite think the councils can be extinguished, but they are part of the bargain of union and the day we do away with them we set on foot an agitation for the federal system of government. The mistakes of the past are being perpetuated, but it is a policy lacking in statesmanship.

Order, the hon. gentleman cannot now go into the question as to the advisability or otherwise of the abolition of provincial councils.

I am pointing out that the limitation of taxation up to £5 is totally un-statesmanlike and absolutely indefensible. On what principle can the Minister defend his action? His excuse, which is not a reasonable one, can only be that there was a limitation in regard to what could be imposed on incomes before, therefore he placed a limitation again ; but let the Minister put himself in the place of provincial councils who have to meet all the requirements of the province. The matter of taxation should be left to the people of the Transvaal, and if the provincial council imposes taxation which is unpopular members will have to answer for it to the electorate. The employers’ tax was fairness itself compared with the poll tax, which compels many persons to plead poverty to get exemption or an adjustment made. It hits the poor and sits lightly on the rich. I hope the Minister will expunge this limitation.

What the hon. member moves here is to remove any limitation as far as the poll tax on persons is concerned. When the whole provincial position was considered at Durban as the result of which we introduced the legislation last year, when we agreed to increase the subsidy which was formerly payable to the province, it was accompanied by the distinct condition that the general powers of direct taxation formerly enjoyed by the provincial councils should be curtailed to a certain extent. It was in accordance with that agreement that we inserted last year that as far as the tax from incomes was concerned, that had to be limited by fixing the percentage of the Union tax which was payable, namely, to 30 per cent, in the case of single persons, and 20 per cent, in the case of married persons. One of the powers left to the provincial councils was to impose a tax on persons —a poll tax—that meant that according to the legislation which we passed no differentiation in the amount should be allowed, in other words, it could not be graduated. Then, of course, when we decided to increase the abatement in terms of the proposals at present before the House with regard to income tax, it meant we were depriving certain provinces of the incomes they enjoy, because we, by our provision in regard to incomes, eliminated a number of the taxpayers who paid income tax to the Union and accordingly the income tax receivable by the provinces was affected thereby. We saw the position had to be amended in some respects and here we are extending the powers of provincial councils. We are telling them that instead of being allowed only to tax an individual at a sum of £1 they can graduate it up to £5, but in terms of the agreement and the principle of our existing legislation, it is obvious that you must have some limitation. We considered £5 fair and reasonable in the case of a poll tax. The hon. member has mentioned the Transvaal, but I do not want to go into the merits and demerits of the treatment of the various provinces. The Transvaal’s poll tax at present is £1 10s. for married and £2 5s. for single persons, maximum. There is accordingly a wide field to graduate this tax and get considerable extra revenue out of people who are better situated if this is accepted. It would be obviously unreasonable not to have any limitation whatever. Then you take away the principle of a poll tax altogether. The class of persons he wants to get at we do get at. The provincial council can levy up to 20 per cent, for married, and 30 per cent, for single persons. By that means they get at the richer class of the population, but here we have to deal with the poll tax, which, in the nature of the case, presupposes the same tax on all the people. But we are departing from that principle to the extent of allowing the province to graduate up to a limit of £5. Under these circumstances, where we have the principle of an income tax, I regret I am unable to accept the amendment that is to give an unlimited right in regard to the amount of poll tax which shall be payable.

Do I understand that the Minister’s intention is to keep the right which at present exists to impose 20 per cent, of the Union income tax and merely to extend the amount of the poll tax.

Yes.

Is the Minister sure that this is being done, because according to this the whole of section 8 and the schedule is being repealed.

It is really difficult to follow these clauses, which refer so much to other Acts, and require a tremendous amount of research to find out what on earth they mean. In (b) of new paragraph 8 it states—

“ This Act” will mean the Act of 1925, and if you turn up sub-section 4 of section 11 you find it had nothing to do with this at all, and is simply a repealing clause.

The hon. member will remember we had the same difficulty last year.

Here sub-section 9 of this Act, or section 11 of the Act of 1913, as amended, is not section 11 of the Act of 1925.

The law advisers tell me that this is the way to put it. We had the same difficulty last year. The law advisers say this is the way to achieve our object.

If this is the law advisers’ opinion I would only suggest that they take another night to think over it.

This thing has given us a lot of trouble, and they tell me this is the right way.

I beg to differ from them.

I should like to ask the Minister who the qualified person is who decides whether £1 10s. or £5 is to be paid.

The provincial councils decide that. They are now only getting the power to pass legislation.

I agree entirely with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). What is the meaning in Clause 7 of—

The point was raised by the Transvaal authorities. This is a schedule which gives powers of taxation.

Are the powers of restriction taken away ?

No, that is not affected. Rights of taxation are restricted.

No, my hon. friend is wrong there. Rights of taxation are made clearer.

As the Act stands now it is possible that the courts may hold that they cannot tax racing.

Why should the Minister at the same time take away from the provincial council the right to restrict racing ? Surely it is not beyond the power of the draughtsman to put both things in.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments ; to be considered on 17th May.

I move—

This Bill seeks to amend the Natives Taxation Act of last year in certain minor respects. I may inform the House that it does not entail any additional taxation on the native, rather it is the other way, and means a remission of taxation through adjustments we make. In many cases it will mean that a native will be asked to pay a smaller amount than if the strict letter of the Act of last year was being enforced It also seeks to repeal certain statutes which were omitted to be repealed by the legislation of last year, and to give effect to the Government’s policy in administration with regard to that Act Section 1 contains an amendment of section 2 of the Act of last year. In the original Bill of last year the idea was to have, as far as the local tax was concerned, a poll tax. That was, on the recommendation of the chief magistrate of the Transkei, altered in the House, and we adopted a hut tax for the local tax. When it came to administer the tax, we tried to apply the procedure adopted really of assessing the tax on the number of wives a native has, to get at the huts according to the number of wives. The Auditor-General queried it, and said you must confine it actually to the huts there are. It has now been decided to limit the huts to four, and the maximum amount payable shall be £2, irrespective of the number of wives or the number of huts there might be. There are a number of administrative amendments. It has been found that the man who owns a piece of quit rent land already pays the local tax in excess of the amount he would pay under the tax, so under (a) it is provided that such owner shall be exempted from paying local tax. The object of (b) is that if he has more than one hut, the exemption from local tax is not in force ; (c) is to limit the exemption by confining it to the owners of an arable allotment ; (d) is to exclude the single men from local tax liability unless they are holders of quit rent land in a native location ; (e) is designed to exclude widows from local tax liability unless they are the holders of an allotment in their own right, or that of their deceased husband. Where it is evident a native is exempt from payment of tax, the exemption is established once and for all. If a native is in default of payment he may be arrested without a warrant. The principal Act awarded to local bodies the quit rent which was in arrear when the 1925 Act was passed, but that was never the intention, and we put that right in the Bill. In the Cape Province hut tax is payable on December 1st for the calendar year. Should these taxes be in arrear they will not be collected, otherwise it would mean collecting two taxes for the same year. Section 7 repeals the tax imposed on natives residing on the Glen Grey commonage. The amendments in the Bill are really of an administrative nature, and where they alter the taxation imposed last year the alteration is in the interest of the natives. I hope the Bill, the object of which is to remove certain anomalies, will be passed without any difficulty.

I should like again to urge upon the Minister that natives working permanently on farms should be exempted from the tax. Last year I proposed a similar amendment which then only received moderate support. I can, however, assure the House that our farmers feel the matter very much. Since the tax has come into force, we find the farmers’ associations throughout the country have held meetings to protest against the tax. As I said the other day, workpeople are scarcer on farms than ever since I have been farming. We must do everything to help the farmers get labour. I should like the Minister to bear in mind that the tax for the most part is used for native education.

Four-fifths; it includes other development.

The natives in our parts are there for good, and make no use of the opportunities for development. They are natives who, I think, should be excluded, then we should greatly benefit the farmers’ interests. We hear every day that the farmers are the backbone of the country, and that the farming industry is the worst paying. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) even went so far as to say that the farmers should be completely exempted from income tax. I say that the repeal of this tax will do more to assist the farmers than anything else. We must try in one way or another to attract the natives to the farms. To-day they are streaming away from the country. In my district natives who have been for seven years on my farm have now left for the gold fields. Our experience is that if a native remains twelve years with a farmer, the farmer pays the tax, because otherwise the tax drives the natives away from the farms. In this way, it is a direct tax on the farmer instead of on the native. I hope, however, that an amendment to exclude natives permanently living on farms will be accepted in committee.

I should like to support what the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has said. The tax is actually directly on the farmers, and, as the hon. member has rightly said, if the tax is repealed as to natives living permanently on farms, it will have the result of natives going to the farms more. What do we find to-day? Especially in the Eastern Province there are large locations adjacent to the town, and we find many vagrants in the town who do not go to work, and I am certain that if the tax is not imposed on natives on farms, they will flock to the farms.

On whom am I then to lay the tax ?

That is not the point. The Minister is going to have difficulty in collecting the money. The natives are not actually rich in the Eastern Province. They are paid 10s. or £1 a month, and the Minister will experience great trouble in getting them to pay taxes. And how is he going to collect it from the vagrants in the towns ? They are very poor, they have no money, and yet they do not work. If the tax is taken off natives working on farms, then, in my opinion, they will go and work more for the farmers. Another difficulty is that in the end the tax has to be paid by the farmers. I have paid it myself.

We have been doing it for 20 years in the Free State.

We must try to help the farmers as much as possible. The great complaint of the farmers against the tax to-day is the way in which it is collected. The farmers must write out the names of the natives on their farms and send them into the magistrate upon receiving notice from that officer. What, however, especially causes trouble is that the natives at present go day after day to the magistrate to tell him that they ought not to pay this or that. This interferes with the work on the farms. I can assure the Minister that the natives in the Eastern Province are not at all as well off as those in the Transvaal. I know natives who have refused to pay. The Prime Minister said that they would be given further time until July. I do not wish to attack the Minister, but only to warn him as regards the collection. What is he going to do if they refuse to pay ? I hope, therefore, that the Minister, in the interests of our farmers, will agree to the removal of the tax for natives permanently on farms.

I hope the Minister will not accept the motion. We have had the tax in the Free State for many years, and I do not know of any trouble arising out of it. It may be a little inconvenient at the commencement in the Cape Province, but it will only be for the first few years. Subsequently there will be no further difficulty. If the Minister withdraws the tax, he will lose thousands of pounds, money which the natives enjoy the benefit of, because it is used for their development. Why, then, should it be repealed ?

The farmers will have to pay it.

The farmers may advance it, but the natives repay it later. We have never had any inconvenience, nor was there any trouble in the Transvaal as far as I know, although the tax there was £2. I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the hon. member for Albert will not be accepted.

The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) made a similar proposal last year but got little support. I hope that we shall not depart from the resolution previously taken by us with regard to it. We have no difficulty in the Transvaal. What about farms there where there are hundreds of natives on one farm ? The State will lose too much if the tax is taken off. I agree with the Minister. I do not think it is in the interests of the farmers to say that natives on the farms need not pay it any more. If it is laid down how many natives may live on a farm and that if there are more than a certain number the usual tax should be paid I may possibly agree to it.

I should like to ask the Minister whether in Clause 1 (a) where it is stated that natives are exempted, whether owners of a farm where ground rent is owing also come under the clause. I should like to know whether the natives in the Transvaal who have jointly bought ground and jointly pay the farm tax will also be exempted? I hope not because that would be unjust towards the traders and other people, because the money is used for the development fund. I want the Minister to devote his attention to-day to the last part of the clause, viz.: paragraph 1 (e). I had the privilege some time ago of attending the opening of the small Native Parliament in the Transvaal, and they were discussing a motion in connection with this tax, and especially the point dealt with in paragraph (e). It was curious to see how practically all the natives objected to the State saying that only two hut taxes should be paid. It is strange but they think there is something behind it, and that the Government’s intention is not to permit a third wife and that difficulties will arise through this. This is the first time I have found people complaining when taxation is reduced, but they take up that attitude. I do not want the tax to be raised but I think the Minister should make an official statement that the only intention is to give relief and that this should be made clear to the natives. I also want to emphasize what the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has said with reference to the tax. In the Transvaal it was always £1 and has now been raised to £2. This is a great benefit to natives there. Against the argument of the hon. members for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) exactly the opposite is quoted, viz.: that the more taxation the native has to pay the more labour the farmers will get. The supporters of that view say that if the natives are not taxed they will never work. I think that is right and if they have a good master they prefer working for a farmer than on the mines. It is also strange to notice that in that part of the Cape Province represented by the hon. members for Cradock and Albert the natives are the worst paid by the farmers in the whole Union. There they earn 10s. a month, and in the Transvaal we pay £2 and £2 10s. and then it is assumed that our land is worse than that of the hon. members. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albert.

I think I should be neglecting my duty knowing the feeling in my district if I did not support the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). That is possibly an attitude which only farmers in our neighbourhood can understand. I think the intention in the first place was to get uniformity as regards native taxation, but as we have to do with circumstances which differ as the poles from those in the Free State and Transvaal, it is impossible to get uniformity. I am sorry to hear what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has said about our farmers. The difference perhaps is that the farmers in the Free State work more with casual natives, a thing quite unknown with us. The natives with us are absolutely in our employ on the farms, and they work from the 1st of January to the 31st of December.

At what wages?

That does not matter. Possibly not so high as in the Transvaal, but they are permanently employed. We do not employ casual natives. The second point we must bear in mind is that the money is intended for development, or at least a large part of it, and I want to assure the Minister that our people have unfortunately no opportunity whatsoever to make use of it. I do not know how far the work of the Native Affairs Commission extends, but if the Minister is not able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albert, I hope he will have further enquiry made by the Native Affairs Commission. I should very much like to see the hon. member for Waterberg on my farm and will take him about and make him acquainted with the conditions, when he will possibly think a little differently about our troubles.

If I am to support the farming industry it is impossible for me to go with the hon. members for Albert and Cradock. It will be unfortunate if natives on farms had to pay no taxes. As the Minister has said they have for twenty years been paying taxes in the Free State, and in the Transvaal, ever since I was a boy. As for uniformity, how can hon. members come and talk here about a tax for a certain part of the population. Up to last year the natives paid £2 in the Transvaal, but now they only pay £1, and my experience is that owing to the reduction the natives do not go to work on the farms as much as before. It was a privilege to the native living on a farm when he had worked for three months to get a certificate to that effect from the farmer and then up to last year he had to pay only £1. Now they only pay £1 throughout. That is just what is spoiling labour in the Transvaal. The hon. members will say that the natives are rich in the Transvaal and are poor here. That is not so, but the natives have to go and work with people there in order to pay taxes. The tax obliges them more to go and work, and I hope the Minister will not accept the proposal of the hon. member for Albert, nor yet to have the matter investigated by the Native Affairs Commission. Hon. members come here and protest because for the sake of uniformity natives in certain parts have to pay something which they previously were exempted from. Is that fair? One thing is not quite clear to me and that is what they have to pay if they have more huts on the farms. Have they still to pay for each hut ? Last year they only paid £1.

It only has reference to farm tax. I think that if the natives have to pay more they will work more. If they have more than one wife and have to pay £1 for each hut it means that they will have to work more. We must bring that about.

I welcome the attempt of the Minister to clear up the farm tax. I just want to say a few words in connection with the general tax rather than with reference to the farm tax. The intention of the principal Act was as is laid down in the definition to provide a tax for natives as such, but it appears in practice that that term which refers to natives is being extended and goes further than the Act intended. It was Brought to the Minister’s and my notice that in the district I represent civilized coloured people have been brought under the Act, that they are being classified with the natives, a thing which was of course not the intention of the Act or of the Minister. That caused dissatisfaction and it was rightly pointed out that it was in conflict with the principles held by our party and with the intention of the Act. There are only two ways out, either to clearly provide in the principal Act who has to pay the general tax or for the Minister to give instructions to his representative to carry out the provisions of the Act literally. Now it will be said that if anyone acts wrongly in this respect the court can be resorted to, but it must be clear to the Minister and everyone in the House that it is not easy for a coloured person who possibly lives right out in the country, to bring his case as an individual before the court and to prove there that he should be excluded from the Act because he is not a native. That does not only mean costs, but also inconvenience, and it is often impossible for those people to do it. Then, secondly, I want to bring to the Minister’s notice the disposal of the moneys obtained from the tax. I am speaking more of the neighbourhood with which I am well acquainted. It does not apply so much to natives living in locations, but to small groups of natives on the alluvial diggings and the territories generally. I am thinking of about 4,000 natives there with families and they are liable to taxation under the law, but they get no benefit from the taxes they pay. It is a good thing for them to pay for the development of their race, but my complaint is that I cannot see what benefit they are getting from the tax. Health surely also falls under the objects for which the fund exists and much more can be done in this direction.

If I am right this Bill has nothing to do with natives working on farms. Before last year the tax in the Transvaal for natives working on a farm was £2, but if they could produce a certificate that they had worked for a master for ninety days, it was reduced to £1, and this £1 was nearly always paid by the farmers themselves, which as far as I know is still usually done to-day. This ninety days’ certificate has in this respect lost its value, seeing that the tax has now been generally reduced to £1 and in hundreds of cases the master again pays this £1. Thus as far as we are concerned there has been no change. But I am somewhat surprised that hon. members representing the Cape Province want to completely abolish the tax. I think that the Act of 1925 was quite just. Under that all the natives in the Union were treated in the same way and the tax was the same all over. I do not see why that should not be so. The white population surely pay the same Union tax throughout the whole country. What I see in this Bill is a certain relief which the Minister gives to natives living in locations. Under the 1925 Act every native living in a location had to pay an extra tax of 10s. for every hut he owned, while under this Bill he gets an exemption for one hut, i.e. the one in which he lives. If he has more huts he pays 10s. for each hut and then the maximum is actually £2, which formerly did not appear in the Act either. I see no objection to supporting the Bill as it stands, but I should like the Minister to explain what the words “ground rent” means. Is it a farm tax?

Quit rent.

Is that the same as we call farm tax in the Transvaal? There are two kinds of farm taxes. One for freehold farms (freehold tax) and the other for farms (quit rent tax).

It only refers to the Cape Province.

Otherwise I wanted to warn the Minister. I think that if the farmers in the Cape Province as the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) said, keep their workmen the whole year from 1st of January to 31st of December for a wage that is much less than that paid in the Transvaal then they can very well pay the tax out of their pocket, as is done in the Transvaal.

I feel that this tax is really goings to fall on the farmer or employer of native labour. There is a consensus of opinion, on both sides of the House, that something should be done to improve the position of the man upon the land, and this is one way in which this can be helped along. Our friends in the Transvaal and Free State take a different view from us down here. A man can be engaged here for a definite salary of approximately 15s. a month, but he has additional privileges which servants in the towns do not get. Last session Mr. Louw quoted the case of a man drawing a pound a month who took service in town at four times that amount, but who found that this four pounds was absorbed before the end of the month, whereas on the farm he had his sovereign intact, besides having his food and clothing. I had a case of a man in my own employ who never got more than 15s. a month, and when he left me he had a flock of 600 sheep and goats, besides some cattle and horses.

That is all very interesting, but has little to do with the Bill. I think the hon. member should confine himself to the Bill.

I was trying to show that the salary we pay our native servants is adequate. The man I am referring to came to see me again, and he was in possession of upwards of 2,000 sheep and goats. If there is a desire to relieve the farmer, this would be a very good opportunity of showing it.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a petition sent to him from St. Marks, dealing with the position of natives living there on a mission station. The mission station has title to this ground, and the natives have to pay about 12s. 6d. a year to the mission station, and this tax is going to be imposed in addition. These natives are very impoverished, owing to the frequent droughts, and find it impossible to meet all these taxes. I would like the Minister to advise what attitude he is taking up in connection with the petition.

I wish to say that I hope, in administering the whole law, the matter will be gone into in a sympathetic way. The Minister of Native Affairs, when his estimates were under consideration, said it was the intention of his department to go sympathetically into this native taxation, because in the whole of the Eastern Province, owing to the impoverished condition of the natives, this tax will fall on the farmers. That is owing to the two years of drought. Although willing to pay, the natives are not in a position financially to pay the tax.

The same subject that we discussed last year when the principal Act was on the Order is now again being raised by a few members, viz., that natives working with farmers should be exempted from the tax. It has clearly appeared from the discussion this afternoon that there is a great difference of opinion on the matter. As the Prime Minister said last year, we cannot deal with the matter here, because it is an ordinary taxation Bill, but it must be introduced in the form of a Bill in connection with general native affairs. I think the Prime Minister will deal with it. It is said again to-day that the £1 poll tax presses very hard and that the farmers have to pay it. The complaints only come from the farmers of the Eastern Province. I always said that we have paid the tax for the past 20 years, and in the Transvaal it was always £2. Now an hon. member has said that in the Free State we farm with casual natives. That is not so. It is possibly the case in a small portion of the Free State, but not in the greater portion. The position in the Western Free State, where I live, is no different from that where the hon. members for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) live. We do not employ casual natives. They are all permanently employed, and then we pay the £1 poll tax. But usually the farmer advances it for the native, who refunds the amount. Is there any reason, then, why the natives in Cradock should be exempted from the tax ? If the farmers pay such low wages as we have heard this afternoon, then they are very well off. We pay our natives much more. I have seen that a farmers’ association made a great fuss about this matter, and said that the tax should come out of the pockets of the farmers, and not out of the natives. They said, however, more particularly, that such great inconvenience was caused by this tax. The hon. member for Cradock said just now that the natives have to be constantly going to the town in connection with their tax. That is not so. The policeman comes and hands over a list, the farmer fills it in, and the policeman calls for it later. Is that so very much trouble? Cannot the farmer just state on the list how many natives he has on his farm ? That is surely not too much for us to expect from a citizen of the country with regard to the collection of taxes. There is no difficulty in the Free State, and when the tax has been in existence for a little while there will be no difficulties in other portions of the country. I think it was very sensible to put the matter on a settled basis. The hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) has mentioned a few complaints with regard to his constituency that have nothing to do with legislation. They are administrative troubles, such, e.g., as the question whether certain people are coloured or native, and how the moneys from the Development Fund are to be spent. The tax has not been in force long, and we must give it a little time. Of course, care will be taken that it is well distributed, and the natives about whom the hon. member has spoken will certainly enjoy some of the benefits. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) asked if Clause 1 (a) also applied to natives who jointly bought farms in the Transvaal. No, it is only applicable in the Cape Province. Where there are joint owners, they come under the provisions of the principal Act with regard to locations.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) raised the question of exemption from local tax of mission stations. I think, in terms of existing legislation, they are liable. I understand that the department is now interpreting it that where natives contribute for local government purposes they are exempt—if they contribute in that particular mission station for local purposes. That trouble arose originally, but the department has now found a way out.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

The Minister is exempting those who are not married—is that right? Are you exempting bachelors for certain purposes, might I ask ?

It is really a hut tax.

The point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is one of some importance, because in certain parts of the country the impression is being instilled into native minds that this tax is one on wives, and the native agitator is not slow to take advantage of this and to say—

I should favour the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that this tax should be imposed on single natives as well, and the exemption made in respect of all huts in excess of four.

The single man pays if he is the holder of an allotment.

There are many stretches of country where the system of allotments does not prevail. Land is held communally in Natal and Zululand, and the tax is being interpreted in those areas as a tax on wives.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has told us that in the Transkei natives prefer to pay for a number of wives exceeding four, and object to the limitation. But I think it was found by the department that it was wise to limit the amount. This thing has been considered very carefully by the Native Affairs Department, who are dealing with the difficulties as they experience them, and I think it would be very undesirable to interfere with the conclusions they ultimately arrived at.

The position is a little bit misunderstood. The single native does not pay the tax. The single native never ploughs—it is only when he is married that he ploughs. He then approaches the magistrate of the district and is allotted a land to cultivate for his wife. It is really a tax on the arable land which he occupies. It has been very carefully discussed in the Transkei, and it certainly meets all our requirements there.

Clause, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I should like to draw attention to the wording of this—

I believe there are various huts used for various purposes, and we want to exempt them. We do not want to put the tax on a hut occupied by an unmarried woman or a bachelor.

Clause, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title put and agreed to.

There is a net increase in this vote of £70,000, universities being responsible for £16,000 of this additional amount. What are commercial high schools ? There has been a large increase in the staff. Is there any special reason for taking over agricultural trades and housecraft schools, which have been transferred from the provincial councils and the grants to which amount to £4,000? I understand that Dr. Gie, of Stellenbosch, has been appointed assistant secretary to the department. I believe he is a very able fellow, but I don’t think it is quite fair to members of the department or the civil service that an outsider should be given the post when there are men in the service who are capable of filling it.

Are you quite sure of that?

I should say so. At the time of Union the Government brought in Mr. Hofmeyr, who was Registrar of the Stellenbosch University. Things like this discourage the members of the service.

We are following the example of the previous Government.

That is no excuse. £3,000 are to be given towards the compilation of an Afrikaans dictionary. Why should we make contributions to universities, colleges and learned societies and then have to do this work ourselves? I should think that the Stellenbosch University could compile the dictionary itself.

The scholarships for study abroad amount to £900. The Public Accounts Committee suggest that the money should be lent to the students and that they should repay the advances when they can afford to do so, the theory being that a scholarship enables the holder to qualify for filling a higher position in life, and it is not unfair that they should return the money. If they did that it would conduce to a feeling of independence amongst those gaining scholarships, and consequently if the money were returned more scholarships could be awarded. The expenses of Union technical and commercial examinations have increased from £2,400 to £3,200. Does the increase mean that we are going to have still more examinations ?

The Government grant to the Geological Society of South Africa is only £60, with the result that it has become almost impossible for the society to carry out its objects. The society performs useful work in investigating the Union’s mineral Resources. It has also done invaluable service by identifying minerals, encouraging prospecting, and but for the society a great many mineral discoveries would not have been made. It is amazing that liberal grants should be given to overseas and other societies and only £60 to the Geological Society. We have a Government so wanting in ordinary business ability that it does not see that an additional grant of £180 to the society will come back ten times over. One can only deplore the limitation of intelligence of those who say that there is no Government money for such practical purposes. However, I do not blame the Minister but the Treasury, which is cramping Ministerial Departments. The Minister of Finance is praised in the South African party press as a second Burton—Heaven forbid. The Minister should seriously consider whether other payments should not be struck off in favour of the Geological Society. The Royal Society of South Africa has a fine-sounding name, but why give it £300? Then the S.A. Association for the Advancement of Science is given £250. I take no exception to these grants, but what reason is there for the financial preference? I myself went to the Minister of Finance and he told me that if the Minister of Education would put this on his estimates he would find the money, but he was not going to find the money unless it were put on the estimates. Therefore, I ask the Minister not to keep it hanging over for another year, because we want provision, while these geologists have their hearts in voluntary service in the interests of the country. They are seeking nothing for themselves.

I should like the Minister to inform me about industrial schools in the Free State. I notice on the Estimates under the Vote occupational and industrial schools an increase of £16,000, and further that the total net increase for education is £70,000. I should just like to ask what is going to happen with regard to the Free State. There is a considerable amount of disquiet in my constituency in reference to the industrial school at Kopjes. I have referred to the footnotes and notice that there is no item on the Estimates for the industrial school at Kopjes. Is that going to disappear altogether? If that is the Minister’s intention, then I just want to point out that the school was established as a centre for three large settlements, and it is practically the only means to-day for the youth there to be trained for the future. If the school disappears there will be a great lack and it will mean a great loss to the settlements in my constituency. I should like the Minister to tell me what attitude he is going to take up with regard to industrial schools in the Free State more particularly with regard to Kopjes.

I would like to ask the Minister about item J, contribution towards compilation of an Afrikaans dictionary. I see a sum of £3,000 is down for that. I would like to know whether that is a contribution merely as an instalment, or what is the total cost of this publication going to be to the Government? I would also ask the Minister, who is supervising the compilation of this dictionary, whether there is a committee, and whether the Government has any control in connection with it. A very important point is whether this dictionary is going to be in Afrikaans only, or whether it is going to be in both languages. There is a great need in this country for a proper dictionary of English-Afrikaans and Afrikaans-English, particularly for all the people in the Service who will be required to qualify themselves in the way they have to do. From what I have heard, I rather gather that the cost of this dictionary is going to be a very large sum indeed, very much more than £3,000. I also gather that it was to be in Afrikaans only. It seems to me that that would be a very great mistake, because what is required here is a dictionary in both languages, Afrikaans-English and English-Afrikaans. At present phonetic spelling of Afrikaans is used, with the usual results. For instance, I have seen a legal document in which the word “morgen” was spelled in three different ways. I agree that there is a very great need for a standardization of the spelling.

I think a condition has arisen which gives every reason for disquiet about the lines along which our universities are developing. I think it is time to utter a warning word about the character, the life of our universities. I fear our universities are developing in the direction they took in America, where incalculably great damage was caused to the universities, especially in comparison with the continent of Europe and England. I ask what we understand in South Africa by university students and professors. I find that the number of students has tremendously increased in recent years, and one at all aware of the facts cannot get away from it that the universities are trying to open all possible doors and to admit every possible individual as a student, chiefly because the amount of the grant from the Government depends on the number of students. We find from the latest report of the secretary for education that in 1924 there were 4,717 university students in this country. In 1925 5,213, an increase of 496, or a little more than 10 per cent, in a year. If we go further into the figures, we find that 81 per cent, were full-time students, and 13 per cent, took courses of less than 200 hours. Further, no less than 29 per cent, had not matriculated. If we look at the report of the various universities, we find that the Cape Town University has 1,526 students, including no less than 515 music pupils. Then we find in Cape Town that commerce represents a considerable branch, and the number of students is increasing very greatly. We ask ourselves: Do we require all these university trained people for our commerce? We find, further, that young people go to Europe, e.g., to Rotterdam to the Commercial School. The Helpmakaar has also assisted students for that purpose, but does not do so any longer. The students come back to South Africa and walk the streets of towns and villages looking for work, and are at length pleased if they can get a lecturership at a university. They are, in the first place, nearly always asked what practical experience they have had. If they reply that they have had none, except at the Commercial School, the answer is: Sorry, but we are looking for people with practical experience. We find that there are a large number of students in business classes. Is that not the field of the technical colleges? I see that in the Transvaal University College there are no less than 187. In Stellenbosch there is also a large number. If we look at the class of students at the various universities, we find the strange spectacle that there are students at universities which are not supposed to have those faculties. In the report of the Transvaal University College, which, as far as I know, has no proper faculty in medicine, I find one medical student, and 33 law students. Everywhere I see an attempt to increase the number of students. I have also read of a scheme to introduce architecture as a faculty at the Cape Town University. It is also said in the report that negotiations are taking place for the incorporation of the School of Art. I have no objection to the teaching of art in connection with universities, but I fear things are being overdone to get more students, and the universities are simply becoming a kind of technical college more and more, by which their status is lowered. Persons competent to judge about universities have long since warned us against this. Professor Newton says, inter alia, about America, that a large number of the students who go to the universities there cannot be regarded as having had a good foundation, and that they are not at all welcome, and that some of them possess such elementary information that they should be at lesser institutions, where they will come in closer touch with their teachers. He says that there is a great difference in this respect between America and England, and he says, further, that the same applies to Canada and South Africa, where there is also a streaming in of badly grounded undergraduates. I think the Minister will clearly agree with the heads of the universities what actually should be the status for a student’s admission to the university. We find an indication of the direction we are developing along at Stellenbosch, to which Elsenburg is now being attached, which is an impossible thing. [Time limit.]

I think the speech of the last hon. member who has spoken should receive our earnest consideration, and I hope the Minister will see that this tremendous influx of young fellows to the universities who, when qualified will be unable to find any work, should receive the earnest consideration of parents in particular. But do the public really know what we are spending on this vote? This year it is £650,240 for Union education, an increase on last year of £70,050. The number of students, we have just been told, is between 5,000 and 6,000. I find on page 125 an item E, grants in aid, £4,900. It is a new item as far as I can see. That amount can be spent by the Minister just as he thinks fit, and we cannot quibble at it if we vote it. I think that is very unfair to this committee. I have always strongly objected to the way in which these Estimates are framed, but this surpasses anything. There is also an item, £4,000 for agriculture, trades and house crafts schools, making a total of £8,900. I think that is not fair to the country. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred to an appointment which Dr. Gie will now fill. I understand he is well qualified to fill that position, but Dr. Coleman has filled the position of adviser on technical education, and that post is to be abolished. If it is to be abolished, well and good, but why is there, on page 126 of the Estimates (the second item is “Adviser of Technical Education ”), £1,150 for that post, an increase of £50 on the previous year ; so that the post has really not been abolished ? I do not want to accuse the Minister of juggling. I do not know who Mr. Coleman is, and don’t now want to go into the whole question of these appointments. I cannot help thinking that with a small white population of something like 1,250,000, roughly speaking, everyone wants to become a professional man. The warning of the hon. member opposite is well worthy of consideration.

I should just like to ask the Minister how things are at Hartebeestpoort in connection with the establishment of trade schools, agricultural schools and other education in connection with the settlement there. We have about 400 or 500 children there who are now attending school and are in Standard VI., after which they have to go into the world, and they have nothing which they are able to take up. They are educated to a certain level and left there. Their parents are settlers at Hartebeestpoort, and the children do not know what work to get. There is certainly a need for industrial education. There was at one time a proposal by the Transvaal administration to establish a school there, but nothing came of it. Then the provincial administration said that they were awaiting the result of negotiations with the Union Government with reference to that kind of school. In any case, that state of affairs now prevails at Hartebeestpoort. The children are not provided for. The same thing applies with reference to the western Transvaal at the diamond diggings. There are elementary schools there. The children are taken to a certain level, and then they gradually sink down to the same level as the diggers, without any worldly prospects. Requests were made to the provincial administration for institutions in the western Transvaal where children could receive a thorough business education, but nothing has yet been done. There also it was said that the result of negotiations with the Union Government was being awaited. Now the Union Government has taken over this kind of education, but I see nothing on the Estimates for the work, and I should like to know from the Minister what the hindrance is, why at the two places mentioned, where there is a large number of children, no commencement can be made to help the children on. There has been great retrogression. Many of the children are getting out of hand and are going into the world badly equipped. I therefore appeal to the Government with reference to trade schools for our children there. I understand that intelligence tests have been started. Then the other question arises: What can be done, what course the children to-day at school must take, what can be done by the department to advise the parents, teachers and children with reference to the direction their studies could take ? We are very far behind other countries in this respect. There children do not enter life blindly. They are not educated there in blind alleys, but on lines suitable to the child and to its talents. I think this is a great defect in our system of education, and that it should be remedied. In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister whether we are to regard it as settled that the conscience clause will remain in the Education Act? The Minister has already replied to this, but in my constituency there is a university college, and we are much interested in the matter. The people feel that on the appointment of professors they are not entitled to go into the question of the religious views of an applicant. I think the people are right to a great extent. They want their children to be taught by the right person, and if they entrust their children to a professor then they expect them to be sensible people who will not commit themselves about their religious convictions to the students. We do not want people to instil religion, nor do we want people to turn up their noses about our religious convictions and those of our children. According to my information, religion is spoken of contemptuously at the universities. As stated, we do not want religion to be pushed down the throats of the children, nor do we want them to teach our children unbelief or agnosticism.

Are there professors doing that? Is it a fact?

Yes, I could go into details if it were necessary. I do not, however, wish to hold up the discussion unnecessarily, but only to ask the Minister if that is the final attitude of the Government, and if it is no use people interesting themselves any further in this matter. I know that although people have no right to officially enquire into the applicant's religion, they can do so privately in an underhand manner. That, however, they do not wish to do. They want to have the right of seeing the certificate as to the faith of the applicant and his conduct, and to be acquainted as far as possible with the religious convictions of the person.

What is the value of such a testimonial ?

Just as much as any testimonial. If a child applies for a post, he has to prove that he is of good character. It is just as true in this case. I think this is a fair request, and if it can be met there will be great satisfaction. The people do not wish to be narrow and to only appoint a man on account of his religion. They will insist upon capacity being a criterion, but they want the right to enquire into the religious views of the applicant.

I notice, under head C7, Johannesburg Commercial High School, £11,000. Until the Union took over this Commercial High School it was on the same footing as other high schools—the only thing commercial about it being the word “commercial ”, Will the Minister tell me exactly what is involved in this change, and taking this school over from this province ? Has it become a technical school, or is it functioning as a high school ?—if so, why was it taken over at all ? Why are we, as a State, relieving the province of £11,000? I see the Vote, University of South Africa, is reduced from £8,400 to £2,500. What is the exact status of that university ? Is it a moribund institution ? In the past it has been an examining and a degree granting body, and it now no longer controls the matric and other examinations of that sort. Does any real reason exist for its continuance? Then I see a vote of £2,000, Schools of African Life and Languages. Are they in connection with any of the universities? If so, why are they shown separately? I want to support what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said with regard to this Afrikaans dictionary. I understand that the amount that will be finally voted will be very large and will be something like £20,000 before we have finished. Fortunately in this instance I am addressing myself to one who is an authority on Afrikaans. I always understood that up to recently Afrikaans was a spoken language only, with a comparatively limited vocabulary, and when you went beyond that you had to employ High Dutch, either as printed in High Dutch dictionaries or with such variations as are customarily made when transferring a High Dutch word to Afrikaans—and that the words were essentially the same. If that is so, what useful purpose would be served by a very large and expensive dictionary in Afrikaans? Who would read and consult it ? Would not a more useful purpose be served, as suggested by the hon, member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), by having a standardized Afrikaans-English dictionary ? This large expenditure would be very materially curtailed, if not avoided altogether.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the item £58,000, Witwatersrand Technical Institute. Last year a change was made in the control of the trade schools on the Witwatersrand. Prior to the change the control was vested in a board on which were representatives of employers and trade unions. These schools are now under a director, I had almost said a dictator, Professor John Orr, who is assisted by a council, few, if any of the members have any practical experience. The change in control is being followed by changes in the method of training which is not in the interest of the pupils. From information I have from trade unions, the tendency now is to give the boys so much theory that they are likely to make good consulting engineers, but they are getting away from the actual training that a boy requires to make him a good efficient workman. What Africa requires is practical training of a boy, so that on completion of his trade school course he can go to the bench, and after being taken in hand by a journeyman he would turn out to be a good workman. What South Africa wants is not consulting engineers but boys with a practical training. We have, in the past, had to import from overseas the best of our artizans and mechanics. With careful training of our boys it will be unnecessary to import mechanics. A deputation waited on the Minister with regard to this matter, and I would like to ask the Minister whether any steps have been taken in the matter. Another question to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention is in connection with what has been raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in connection with the Afrikaans dictionary, I would like to say that in many centres like Durban, East London, etc., there are no facilities for the men to learn Afrikaans. Now that the public service insists so much on it, will the Minister give some consideration to this ; I would like him to say whether he will encourage the establishment of classes that will make it easy for public servants, in those centres that did not previously require Afrikaans to acquire Afrikaans.

When my time expired I was just pointing out the direction in which our universities were developing, as reflected in our legislation, that attempts are being made in every possible way to multiply the number of students, leading in my opinion to the universities becoming inferior in status. I referred to the agricultural school at Elsenburg which has now been incorporated into the Stellenbosch University. I think we are now entitled to blame the Minister of Education in not standing his ground by permitting a Bill regarding higher education so deeply affecting our educational system to be brought in by the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think that is right, and I hope he will still try to save the position for the university. I now come to the second question: What are the professors ? What power has our Government to-day to stop the multiplication of faculties which are not actually justified? We see it going on in the country. I notice the number of professors is continually increasing. According to the report there are no less than 213 professors, 98 senior lecturers, 163 ordinary lecturers, and 95 other educationists. Total 569. I think it is high time to stop this multiplication. When one meets a professor in Europe then you know that you have to do with a man who has done something special, who is a master in his department and in one or other subject, while in South Africa a title is granted to young people who have just returned from the university and have done nothing as yet in any department. The Minister must permit me to say a few words about religion at our universities. I think the difficulties in this connection are partly due to the circumstance that such a large number of young inexperienced people are appointed as professors. They come with unscientific ideas and teach an anti-Christian worldly view which does not rest on scientific grounds. I agree that we do not want church universities. We want to leave science free and not to put it also under the control of the Government. It is also true that the Minister said that the Christian religion was a sufficient match for anyone and need not be put into hothouse. On the other hand we must also keep count of the strong feeling in our country among the best part of the population that our universities have to-day become incubators of anti-Christian worldly opinion. There are thousands of people who really believe that our universities have become places that propagate anti-Christian worldly opinions. The question with me is not whether it is true, but it is a question that exists among a great part of the population, the most serious part of the population. They admit that science must be left free, but they think that we must not at our universities undermine the Christian character of the people. We must take account of that. Our universities owe their existence to a great extent to private initiative and if the Christian character of the people suffers at the universities then people of strong Christian convictions will be prevented from giving their money to the universities. I believe the Minister has not stated the matter clearly when he said that people were trying to simply turn the universities into propaganda institutions of Christian truth. People inferred from the words he recently used here that a religious man could not be truly scientific and that the university which is founded on the basis of public religion cannot be scientific. In other words they infer from the speech that science and religion are opposed to each other. I am quite convinced that the Minister did not intend that. Some of the most famous scientific men have strongly and decidedly supported revealed religion. I hope the Minister will remove the misunderstanding and the difficulty which exists in this connection, because I prophesy—even though I am not a prophet—that we shall get a most serious and unedifying religious quarrel in this country if the feeling which exists among a large number of the people is not allayed, viz.: that the universities are engaged in propagating an anti-Christian worldly view. Of course the conviction exists that what the universities say to-day will be the opinion of the country in ten years. The universities give the future tone of the population and if at the universities an anti-Christian view is taught then it means we shall have it later in the country. The Minister must give his serious attention to this matter and try to find a formula which will satisfy the people. I should strongly oppose Church universities. That is not the intention, but the conscience clause offends people. Before the late Minister, Mr. F. S. Malan, created the conscience clause it never existed in the legislation on higher education in this country. The Minister must go into the matter.

I congratulate the Minister on increasing the amount for technical education, since this Government has been in office, by 20 per cent., but there is still a long way to go. We spend less per head on technical education, and more per head on scholastic education, than any other country in the world. That is wrong. The Government pays directly and indirectly 78 per cent, of the cost of scholastic education, but only 34 per cent, of the expense of technical education. It is a scandal that in a country like this, which is crying out for efficient workers, we spend so little on technical education. In this country, in the Government workshops, only 27 per cent, of the persons employed acquired their technical education in South Africa, as compared with Australia’s percentage of 84. I am not against scholastic education, but I object to the vast amount spent on it in comparison with the small sum disbursed for the teaching of technical subjects. We certainly need scholastic education ; no country has ever been built up on scholastic education, but on industries and agriculture. I would like to point out the disadvantage the Cape Province suffers, for here free primary education is limited to the sixth standard. I would suggest that, in order to lift us up to the level of the Transvaal, the Minister should increase the number of grants to promising students. If there is not money enough to devote additional amounts for technical education, the Minister should consider reducing the vote for scholastic education, and by that amount increase the vote for technical education.

I should like to add a few words to what the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has said with regard to our universities. There is an idea to-day that the desire of the various universities is to create as many B.A.’s and M.A.’s as possible, and the question arises what those titles are really worth, what the value of the degrees are. My experience and that of my friends who sometimes set examination papers is that the condition of the students is anything but satisfactory. The universities seem to have the idea that the more B.A.’s are turned out, the greater is the reputation of the university. It seems the tendency exists with the universities to no longer enquire so much what knowledge the man has, but how many B.A.’s we can create. Every thinking man asks himself what the B.A. degree is worth to-day. I feel the Minister should see to it that the conditions now prevailing at the universities should disappear. I feel that many of our scientific people to-day ask what the degree is worth, and hope that there will be a change in the artificial cramming to make as many B.A.’s as possible. It is just a kind of sausage machine, the one just as big, long and narrow as the other! What a position! Then the question was raised of the conscience clause in the Higher Education Act. I am one of those who have a great respect for science, but there seems to be an idea existing these last years that if a man talks irreligiously, he is scientific. There could not be greater stupidity. If the belief in God is taken away, then the foundation of science disappears. We know how uncertain science was, especially during the past 50 years. To-day a thing is regarded as correct and to-morrow not. People have no ground under their feet. The only fixed foundation is the Bible, the ground of all science. Let us not forget that. And the most learned men are those who accept the Bible as the guide for the future life. I just want to quote what the Minister of Education said last year in connection with the acknowledgment of God’s name in the constitution of our country. He said, inter alia, on that occasion—

Those were earnest words by the Minister of Education, which I know came from the depths of his heart, and in view thereof I feel that they should be borne in mind, especially in university affairs. Neutrality has been mentioned, but I do not believe in neutrality. Every person has to choose, either one thing or the other, and to talk of neutrality is the greatest possible nonsense. No professor or lecturer can be absolutely neutral and keep his opinion to himself. What are we going to do, then, in connection with the matter ? I think it is a very serious matter for anyone who has the interests of the people at heart. We know that our people wish that the professors should also be men who respect God’s word, and who do not wish to trifle with the traditions of our people. You possibly ask what we want. This, that the conscience clause shall be repealed. If the University of Cape Town, e.g., does not want to apply it, that is their business, but we must be free, and not bound. We are bound to-day. Our universities which to-day want to ask about the convictions of the professor have not got the right to do so. I have not got the right to enquire. The believer is not free here, but the unbeliever. This is wrong, and therefore I ask the Minister to reconsider it. I should further mention what the Minister of Mines and Industries said in another connection. It agrees precisely with what the Minister of Education expressed, viz., that as a people we acknowledge God’s guidance. With a view thereto, I hope that the conscience clause will be repealed. It never existed in the past, and I hope it will be removed.

I will first reply to the speeches made in English. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) pointed out that there is an increase of about £70,000 in the Vote on Union Education and has asked me to give an explanation of that increase. In the first place, I may say that in accordance with the agreement come to between the Union Government and the Provincial Administration, at the Durban conference some time ago, it was decided that the Union Government should in future take over vocational education generally, in which is, of course, included technical education, industrial education and also agricultural education to a certain extent. The increase is chiefly due to the taking over of that education. The hon. member points out that there are commercial high schools figuring in the Estimates this year which were not mentioned last year. The position is this, that there were a number of schools, especially in the Transvaal and more particularly on the Witwatersrand in regard to which there was some doubt as to whether they should be classed as vocational schools or not. That question was left undecided last year and for that reason these schools were not included in the Estimates last year, but the Union Government and the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal have gone further into the matter and it was decided, with some alteration in the curriculum of the schools, to take over these schools and to class them under the category of vocational institutions. I may reply at once to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on this point. It was impossible for us to at once change the complexion of these schools after they had been taken over, because quite a number of students were admitted who did not follow a strictly vocational course in the schools, but an arrangement was come to under which the students who had already been admitted to these schools could remain, but in future no new students would be admitted taking that particular course which could not be classed as vocational. In the course of two or three years, therefore, those schools will become purely vocational. Of course, the taking over of technical, industrial and vocational education generally, including agricultural education in special schools, was bound to result in an increase of expenditure. As far as technical education was concerned, as the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) has pointed out, we are in the beginnings and that is still more the case in connection with agricultural education. In this direction, apart from the schools under the Agricultural Department, practically nothing has been done in South Africa and it stands to reason that under the circumstances we must increase our Vote every year to make provision for education of this nature. There is no overlapping as far as money voted for this particular sort of education is concerned between the Union Government on the one hand and the Provincial Administrations on the other. If there has been no decrease on the Vote for Education under the Provincial Administrations, it is certainly not due to the fact that they are still doing the work or partially doing the work that we say we have taken over from them. I now come to the appointment of Dr. Gie as the Under Secretary for Education. Dr. Gie is one of the most outstanding educationalists of this country. He is professor of South African history at the University of Stellenbosch and, as far as his professorship is concerned, he is certainly one of the most capable men in the country. Dr. Gie has been doing the administrative work in connection with the university for a considerable time, as Acting Rector of the University. The appointment of Dr. Gie has been recommended by the Public Service Commission, and I think hon. members on the other side of the House, if they have in view their attitude last year when I put aside a recommendation of the Public Service Commission in connection with the appointment of a Secretary for the Interior, will not this year wish me to set aside a definite recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The commission have recommended Dr. Gie for this reason that knowing the service, they think there is no suitable man in the service for this particular post. Just a word about Mr. Coleman. He is leaving the service voluntarily. He has been offered the principalship of the technical college that we are starting at Port Elizabeth and has accepted it, and that is really the reason why he is leaving the service.

Not abolition of office?

When Mr. Coleman intimated that he was likely to leave the service to become the head of that institution, the whole question of re-organization of the department was considered, and with the consent and on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, it was agreed to abolish the post of technical adviser and to have instead of that an Under Secretary for Education. All that has been done with the full knowledge and on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. I now come to the question, also raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), about the Afrikaans dictionary. The standpoint of the hon. gentleman is, why should we devote any Government funds to the compilation of such a dictionary. It is something that the universities could undertake. Why not leave it to them ? The hon. gentleman has forgotten that the whole question of the official use of Afrikaans has been gone into by a combined select committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that one of the recommendations that has been accepted without a single vote against it, by both Houses of Parliament, was that money should be devoted from the consolidated revenue fund for this particular purpose, and the compilation of a dictionary in Afrikaans. We must not forget that Afrikaans is one of the official languages of the country ; that we require from public servants a knowledge of Afrikaans, and that is only right, under the circumstances, for the Government to give the necessary facilities for public servants and others to acquire that language. These facilities, as far as such a dictionary is concerned, we have not at present. If I have acted in this direction I have done so on the definite recommendation and resolution of Parliament. I will at the same time reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who asked what would be the total cost to the Government in connection with the compilation of this dictionary. The reply is that it will come to about £10,000. £1,000 was voted last year ; £3,000 will be on the Estimates this year, and also on two subsequent years, which will make a total of £10,000. Then an arrangement has been made under which the Government will take 2,000 copies at £2 5s. per copy.

Does that mean that you will give one to every member of the House ?

Well, we must not forget that included in these 2,000 will be the requirements of the provincial administrations and the schools and other institutions under the provincial administrations—quite a large number—and I think we will require for Government offices and other Government purposes and institutions another 2.O00. So that the Government would have had to buy 2,000 copies or more. The other question put by the hon. member was—

The chief editor will be Professor Smith, the most outstanding man in the country so far as knowledge of Afrikaans is concerned. He was professor of the Afrikaans language at the University of Stellenbosch, and his services have been procured for this purpose, and he has severed his connection, for at least three years, with the university to do this work and this work alone. The question has also been asked as to whether it would not have been better to have a dictionary compiled not in Afrikaans only, but an English-Afrikaans dictionary. A question was put, I think, by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) some time ago, to which I replied that the idea of the dictionary was not to have an ordinary commercial dictionary, because the need, as far as that is concerned, can be and is being supplied by publishers in the country. The Government is not going to compete, as far as that is concerned, with publishers. But the need for the country is to have a standard dictionary, the same as Webster’s for the English and Van Dale’s and other dictionaries for the Dutch language. We require a standard scientific dictionary, and the money is being voted for that purpose. All other commercial dictionaries will be based on this standard dictionary in future. In connection with scholarships abroad, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has asked whether these should not be repaid by the students. Let me just say, in general, that the sum of money which was voted in former years for this particular purpose was a comparatively large one. But this vote has been decreased very much, and the reason for that is that we are training at present, in our universities, students practically in every direction, and it is unnecessary for students to leave South Africa now and to study abroad except in some very special and particular line. The principle which is followed by the department in this connection at present is that to the average student who can be trained sufficiently and complete his studies in South Africa we do not give a scholarship under any circumstances. We give scholarships only to students for the completion of their studies who cannot get that training in South Africa, mostly these scholarships are given to students whom we will require afterwards in the Government service. We ask for applicants in certain directions, and the idea underlying the giving of these scholarships is that we train men for Government service afterwards. To mention a concrete case—at the conference which I had with the Administrators some time ago it was agreed that the inspection of the hospitals should be done by an official in connection with the Union department. So far as I can see, it is extremely difficult to find in South Africa to-day a man who is suitable for that post—he must not only be a medical practitioner but he should have studied the administrative side of the hospitals. Under the circumstances, I propose to select a suitable man in South Africa or a man who might become suitable for this post, offer him a scholarship overseas, and then, when he comes back, he gets this post under the department. The hon. gentleman has asked a further question, in regard to the holding of examinations, and pointed out there is an increase in the vote. Of course there is an increase in the vote, because the number of students entering for these various examinations has very much increased—mostly the technical examinations held by the department. We have instituted now a series of examinations especially in Afrikaans. While we spend money in holding the examinations there is also a very considerable income from these examinations, and the income is more than we have spent—it is £4,250. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) and I think also the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black-well) asked for information about the school of African life and languages. The reply is that we have a course of lectures which are given in the University of Cape Town on Bantu studies, which has been in existence for quite a number of years, and the money— £1,500—required for that is voted every year. Nobody will say that we do not require provision of this nature. We have a large native population, and we are responsible for them. It is very essential that those who are responsible for and have to do with native affairs shall know the native ways, life and languages. There are other institutions who have applied for provision of this nature—notably the University of the Witwatersrand, where the facilities, especially for a more practical knowledge of African life and languages are very good, and we have made provision for an extra £500 as a subsidy to that university for this purpose. I have appointed during the recess a committee to go into the whole question as to the provision in future for studies of this nature, and to prevent as far as possible reduplication which could be avoided ; and we have decided that we shall have a course and studies of this nature only at two centres— namely, at Cape Town and Johannesburg. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has asked for information with regard to the vote, grant in aid of certain institutions. These are institutions which received grants-in-aid before they were taken over from the provincial administration and we are just continuing the same grants they received before. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) has raised the question of the technical institute on the Witwatersrand. As I said before, a deputation saw me on that question, but I pointed out to them that it is more a question between them and the board of management of the technical college ; that it was their first duty to represent that to the technical institute, and only after that, if they find it necessary, they can refer the matter to me. As far as provision for the teaching of Afrikaans to public servants is concerned, I can just point out that in all our technical institutions—Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria—we are making the necessary provision in this respect, and all public servants can make use of the facilities.

*I first want to reply to the speeches made in Afrikaans. The hon, member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) asked for information about the Free State industrial school, and especially with regard to the possible closing of the one at Kopjes. Let me just tell him that three of these schools will be closed in the Free State, which the provincial administration would also have closed if the central Government had not taken them over, because there is a lack of support of those schools. The school at Kopjes has only about seven pupils, and the three to be closed have in all about 13 students. Therefore, it is not justifiable to maintain the schools and to spend the money for that purpose. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) spoke of the direction the universities were developing along, and said that in his opinion too many students were enrolled who in reality were not students properly so called. The matter has been engaging my attention for some time, because I also feel that the position is not a desirable one. It was never the intention to regard as university students young people who in many cases have only passed Standard VI or VII., and not the matriculation examination. My idea is to shortly meet the authorities on higher education at a conference, and to consider how to draw a definite boundary between what should be considered a student and what not. They will retain their autonomy as regards universities, but will not be allowed to go beyond certain bounds without the special consent of the Minister. Then the hon. member also referred to the increase in the number of faculties. I only wish to point out that I have already issued regulations which I have laid on the Table, and which are in force today, under which no new professors may be appointed or faculties created in our higher educational institutions without the approval of the Minister. The autonomy granted to the universities by my predecessor is in my opinion too absolute, and the result is that the university colleges to-day are practically all universities on a small scale, and that we have quite a number of universities, instead of just the three chief universities. The intention exists to take a closer grip of the matter as regards future extension of higher education. The hon, member for Potchefstroom asked for information about agricultural education at Hartbeestpoort Dam. The matter has received my attention. Hartebeestpoort Dam will certainly be one of the first to be considered as regard: the establishment of new schools of that kind I can say the same with reference to the diamond fields. We intend to establish an industrial and an agricultural school in the western Transvaal, and also on the diggings in the Cape Province. As regards intelligence tests, enquiries have meen made, and an almost unanimous view has been submitted to me which I am now considering. As to the conscience clause, I recently think that I dealt with the matter clearly, and I do not think that as regards my view it is necessary for me to add or take anything away in the circumstances from what I then said. Hon. members ask me if it is finally disposed of. I am always open to conviction, and if I can be convinced of a different point of view to that I have adopted, I shall be amenable to a change of policy. So far, however, I am not yet convinced that I can depart from the attitude taken up by me.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 27, “Child Welfare,” £202,480,

I should just like to ask the Minister why the Vote £612 allowance to “Ons Kinderhuis,” Bloemfontein, is no longer on the Estimates this year ? The institution does much charitable work, and deserves assistance for the work it does.

Provision is being made for seven industrial schools. What is it proposed to do with the boys when they finish their education ? Are they to be taught trades ?

Why are the—

increased from £96,000 to £110,000 ? What are “places of safety” to which contributions are to be made to the amount of £700? I make these enquiries quite sympathetically, of course.

As regards the question of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) regarding the allowances for the Kinderhuis at Bloemfontein, I just want to tell him that the sum of £612 was put on the Estimates last year to assist the Kinderhuis with reference to the writing off of an old corrugated iron building which was vacated and belonged to the barracks. On account of the good work which the institution was doing, we thought that we ought to pay the money for them. That is why it does not appear on this year’s Estimates. It was only down last year as a special grant.

With regard to the query raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Maj. Ballantine), boys who are taken away from their parents under the Children’s Protection Acts are placed in the industrial schools where they can learn trades, or else they are sent out for the same purpose, but in both cases they remain under the supervision of the department until they are 21 years of age. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close,) we have State institutions and certified institutions which are regarded as “places of safety” for children.

When the House adjourned, I was explaining to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that the money to be voted under this head of Certified Institutions and Maintenance is, in the first place, for the maintenance of children in institutions not directly under the control of the Government, but established by private initiative and controlled by private bodies. In these certified institutions we have got 2,800 children under the Children’s Protection Acts, for which the average rate paid is £21 per annum per child. A large number of the children dealt with under the Children’s Protection Act have left their mothers. There is nothing wrong with the mothers ; in many cases they are widows. Of such children there are in the institutions 2,200 at an average rate of £15 per child per annum. Then we have got 500 such children with other individuals at the rate of £15 per annum. There are 600 non-European at £10 10s. per annum.

I should not think that there is a Vote in the whole of the Estimates which is growing as rapidly as this one is. This year it is up by no less than £20,800. It is the same every year. The Auditor-General, in his report, gives a very useful table in this connection. He shows that in 1913-14 the amount of this vote was £800, in 1914-15 it was £2,978, and it has gone on increasing every year, and is to-day £110,000. The vote for grants to certified institutions and maintenance of children under the Children’s Protection Acts has gone up this year alone by £14,000.

It is money well spent.

We will see about that. We want to hear what other members have got to say on that point. It appears to me that this vote is brought in to encourage poor white people to have children. That is what it does, as a matter of fact. Children are taken off these people’s hands by my hon. friend the Minister. What have they got to care about after that? The establishment is growing in the same way. This is not the only place where we are spending money on objects of this kind. The Auditor-General points out that on several votes we are also spending money in this direction. This vote does nothing else but encourage people who are not in a position to take care of children when they have got them, to go along in this fashion.

I am very pleased indeed to see that this vote has been increased. I would like to see the Government take over the whole care of the children, and not leave it to private institutions. It is the duty of the State to fulfil any obligations due to children in all cases where the parents are not in a position to do so. I believe that a large number of these children are without parents. Hon. members opposite were very keen upon sending men to the front during the great war, but they neglect the obligations now that the glamour is over. Many of these children are the offspring of men who lost their lives during the war.

They get pensions in that, case.

I hope and trust that we shall find the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) standing alone on this question. We find in numerous instances that, where the State has taken over these children through institutions, they have made good and are proving a credit to South Africa. I believe that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has in his employ boys who have passed through these institutions:

I would like to know from the Minister what control the State has in regard to institutions to which grants are made. We have had reports lately of a shocking state of affairs revealed in connection with a certain orphanage.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is unable to regard this question from a humanitarian standpoint, I should like him to look upon this vote as a good business proposition. I want to challenge him to prove whether and where there is any waste of money in connection with this vote. I think that the only objection the hon. member has perhaps is that some of this money is being thrown away. No one could wish to see money spent in a better cause than this, and no one wishes to see money wasted, and I think the hon. member should endeavour to find out whether there is any extravagant expenditure, rather than attack the amount of the vote. I claim that it is good business that in South Africa we are at last coming into line with other civilized countries and looking after these children who have been so much neglected in the past.

While thanking the Minister for the reply he gave me, I do consider that the matter which I mentioned is entitled to a little more consideration. I would like to know what trades these boys in the industrial schools are to be taught, where they are to be taught, and what the cost will be of teaching them a trade ? I see that under this vote provision is made for 18 trade instructors. I presume that these instructors are to be employed to teach boys in the four schools mentioned here. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is so, or whether it is intended to have these boys indentured so that they may be thoroughly trained ?

I would like to ask the Minister’s attention to this matter of industrial schools. Some schools do not find a place on this list because they are under the provincial authorities. I wish we had some settled system controlling all such institutions, and that we might have a scheme which has been held in abeyance for 12 years at Graaff-Reinet in connection with certain districts which have a large poor white population. The Minister knows the ease of those lads. It seems to me that the only thing between those lads and absolute destitution, if not crime, is to take them in hand and mould their characters and teach them some useful trade. We had got so far in Graaff-Reinet as to obtain land, the promise of generous public support in equipment, and the pledge of the Administration that that industrial school should be started. I make all allowance for the war, but that is eight years over, and still the destitution continues there and in the adjacent districts. I hope the Minister will make the promise that next year’s Estimates will make provision for an industrial school at Graaff-Reinet.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) objects to the expenditure, as he usually objects to every vote on the Estimates. The real objection of the hon, member is not so much against the money to be voted here by Parliament for these purposes, but against the legislation passed by Parliament, because the money we ask from Parliament is the logical result of the legislation passed by Parliament itself. If you do away with the laws we have got with regard to the taking away of children from their parents under certain circumstances, we won’t go to Parliament and ask for this money, but so long as that legislation is on the statute book you have to come to Parliament for the money, or ignore the laws made by Parliament, and I am not going to do that. The hon. gentleman does not represent the position quite correctly when he says that this money is asked to be expended on behalf of poor whites. It has nothing to do with poor whites as such. These children, taken away under the Children’s Protection Act, arc in danger of growing up under such circumstances that they will become criminals after wards ; there is something morally wrong with their parents or the circumstances under which they live, and, looking at it from the purely business point of view, as the hon. gentleman does, it is economic for the State to care for these people in this way, and not allow them to grow up as criminals, and then take care of them in the prisons. The hon. gentleman uses the argument that caring for the children of the poor in this way is simply an encouragement to those people to have more children. That argument proves too much, because if it is true in this case, it is true also in other cases where the State takes upon itself responsibility for the education of children. Why educate children ? Because it relieves parents of the responsibility for their children, and they would have more children as the result of that? I can assure the hon. gentleman that we exercise a very rigid check on magistrates generally where they commit children under the Act to the care of the Department. We see, as far as possible, that no children are committed who should not be committed in accordance with the Act. In reply to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. Van Heerden), who asked what control the Department has over certain institutions, our inspectors inspect all these institutions annually and report to the Department, and if anything is wrong we make representations to the management, and if these institutions are not conducted properly we have the right to withhold the maintenance grants, and that is very effective direct control. But, generally, I agree that in certain cases, especially where practically all the children in such an institution are committed under the Act, the Government ought to be represented through nominees on the management. I am considering making proposals in that connection to certain institutions.

Does that mean an amendment of the law ?

No, it is a matter of administration. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Maj. Ballantine), it seems to me as if he wants us to indenture the boys in the institutions while they are still in the institutions. My reply is that most of these boys, while in the institution, must get not only industrial education but ordinary cultural education, and under such circumstances it is impossible at that stage to indenture them. We must give them such cultural and industrial education as they require while in the institution, and only afterwards can we indenture them to people outside, and that is the policy we follow. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) has put in a word for the industrial school at Graaff-Reinet. I must repeat what I said last year, that I am afraid of multiplying industrial schools of the type he has in mind. For such institutions as we have started or are starting at Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban, Johannesburg and Pretoria, there is a future, and the boys and girls trained at these institutions find employment. In fact, when they make use of the facilities that these institutions give, they are already in employment to a large extent, but in the industrial schools of the type he has in mind, industrial training is given before employment, and very often these boys leave these institutions, go to the industrial centres, and have never seen machinery, or that machinery used in the factories, before, and employers do not want to employ them. There is a necessity for training boys in industrial schools, but the openings for such boys are limited, and I am very much afraid of multiplying industrial institutions of that nature, and for that reason I can give no undertaking to start new institutions of that kind. There are four, five or six industrial schools started by the church in the country, and I would rather improve these existing institutions and put them on a proper footing before I think of starting new ones.

I cannot allow the Minister to go into that question.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture ”, £779,927.

I move—

I think after the experience last week of the Minister of Finance I cannot agree to the items being taken seriatim.

Do I understand that the Minister refuses?

Yes.

You are discussing one of the most important votes upon the Estimates, and it has usually been the custom to take it seriatim.

Why were not the other votes taken seriatim.

Does the Minister wish to burk discussion of this important vote ? The hon. gentleman, in refusing; is not doing justice to this vote. What has he to conceal ? I know he has an absolute majority behind him and can prevent the committee taking this vote seriatim, but it is not going to expedite the passage of this vote and the business of the committee. I do not know of any case where the Minister has previously refused to take this vote seriatim.

I appeal to the Minister to take this vote seriatim. I do not know whether hon. members realize how many items are contained in this vote, all of a separate character, involving separate questions from the Minister, which it is almost impossible to deal with otherwise, without its leading to confusion. Members get up all over the House and put various questions and the Minister replies en bloc and the country cannot get the information it wants in regard to agriculture. There is (A) Administration and general; (B) the whole Veterinary Department, and so on. How can we possibly discuss all these items without going into them seriatim. It seems to me we are not asking too much from the Minister when we ask him to take this vote in this way. Are we a public body discussing the affairs of this country or merely here to have the vote put through ?

I also appeal to the Minister to meet us. The request is very fair. He has spoken about the experience of the Minister of Finance last week. I do not know what he means but I hope he will meet us.

I want to do a little pleading with the Minister. It may possibly assist. This is one of the Votes in which the farmers are greatly interested and I do not understand how members opposite who always say that they represent the farmers do not insist that the Votes should be taken seriatim. Is the Minister frightened or proud ? Of course the Minister has a majority behind him, but he ought not to take up this attitude: You have the minority, I am a big man and can do what I like. I think if the Minister uses his commonsense he will grant our reasonable request. It will certainly expedite matters. I know from long experience that any Minister, and certainly not a Minister of Agriculture, has never refused to grant such a request. I again appeal to the Minister not to be obstinate.

I should also like to appeal to the Minister, because we are all anxious to get on with the work. If we go dodging about from one head to another it will be an endless debate. Let us take each sub-head in turn.

I hope the Minister will agree to this very modest request. He must know by this time that there was never an Opposition which was more friendly to agriculture than this Opposition.

You showed it last year.

This country pays more per head for agriculture than any other in the world—no less than 13s. per head of white population towards agriculture.

Order! The hon. member must tell us why we must take the vote seriatim.

I am coming to it. The nearest approach I can find to any other country at all similarly situated is New Zealand where the cost is 3s. 6d. per head. The value of our agricultural production per annum is £60,000,000, whereas that of New Zealand is £71,250,000. If we produced on the same scale as New Zealand, our production would be £95,000,000. We can the better find out how we can apply this money if we examine the votes in detail. I think there is a very strong case for a close examination.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to page 144.

What is the question the hon. member is now discussing?

I would second the appeal of hon. members opposite if they had made the same appeal on the other votes. Take the vote Public Health, consisting of 14 pages. Hon. members opposite did not ask that that vote should be taken seriatim. Cannot we do the same with agriculture as we did with the other votes ? The Minister can take notes of any points which we may raise. There is always a danger of repeating what you have said.

I will tell my hon. friend. You are now talking a vote of £800,000 dealing with an enormous number of subjects, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) pointed out. It is impossible to deal with these subjects thoroughly and efficiently if you mix them all up together. My hon. friend, if he will read the history of Parliament since Union, will find that there is no vote that has lent itself to more discussion than the Agricultural Vote, because it is the Vote of the most important industry in the country. I am surprised that hon. members opposite, for party reasons, because the Minister is not prepared to take this vote seriatim, encourage him with their “hear, hears.” We have no intention of approaching this vote from the party point of view. I ask hon. members opposite to give me a single instance in which I have done so ; but we want to get all possible information from the Minister, or through the Minister, from his technical and scientific officers, and we cannot do that if you discuss the whole of the Vote together. Why the Minister should smile and take up this, position, I cannot understand. The Minister is the servant of the farmers of the country, and he does not realize it. He is depending upon a cast-iron majority to back him up in the decision he has taken, and I appeal to him in all fairness not to be obstinate. The farming population desire that this vote should be thoroughly and efficiently discussed, and there is no way to do it if you are not prepared to discuss the items seriatim.

We can very easily discuss the subject without taking the Votes separately. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort knows what a loss of time that might cause. I do not say that the Opposition want to obstruct, but if the questions of hon. members are put to the Minister then he can just as with other Votes make a note and answer them. We have other Votes which are just as inclusive and they have not been divided up.

Does my hon. friend think it possible thoroughly to discuss the veterinary department, veterinary research, botany, horticulture, entomology, and all these things, mixed up by member after member getting up and asking questions one after another ? Does he not realize that we want to get genuine information, and that if we do, you cannot mix up veterinary research, botany and entomology? For they are run by entirely different departments, and they ought to be dealt with separately, if you are going to have an educative and a consecutive discussion on any of these subjects. I cannot do anything more than protest, and I do protest in the strongest manner possible, in the interests of the farming population that so many of us represent, when my hon. friend refuses the right that we have always had to discuss these various items seriatim.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that this Vote was not taken seriatim last year either, but was disposed of en bloc. We do not want to prevent hon. members obtaining information, and if they want to speak about one or other part, they have the fullest opportunity to do so. We are just as anxious as hon. members opposite to finish, and any information which I have I am ready to give, but to say that the Vote cannot be properly discussed as a whole is nonsense. It would, in my opinion, only be waste of time to deal with the items seriatim. It did not happen last year, nor is it done in the case of other votes.

It appears to me that my hon. friend does not want a discussion on this vote, and this is not the first time he has taken up this attitude. Except for a couple of years during the war, there has never been an occasion when the Estimates occupied less time than they did last year, but notwithstanding that, the Minister of Agriculture closured the debate.

The closure is not in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, but of the House.

I agree to that, but it was done on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture. It showed that he was burking discussion, or that he was not able to answer the arguments that had been brought forward in connection with a good deal of his administration. We want to discuss the various votes in proper consecutive manner. Evidently the Minister does not intend to give way. Very well, he must take the responsibility.

I just want to tell the House that the great dissatisfaction last year arose because of the fact that these votes were not dealt with seriatim. Last year the complaints, rightly or wrongly, were that members did not have the opportunity to properly discuss the vote. Therefore, if we take the items one by one, we shall not be so long as otherwise, and members will have an opportunity to ask what they want to, and we shall avoid dissatisfaction.

Anyone can see that this is a pre-arranged attack, discussed in caucus, and led by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt).

Don’t talk nonsense.

The hon. members are annoyed.

Because what you say is not true,

This is not a grand attack, it is a most stupid one. Not a single reason has been given for taking the vote seriatim. The South African party has wished to make an attack on the Minister ever since he took office. He has been one of the most successful Ministers South Africa has seen. He has wiped out the locusts and has got rid of scab. The hon. members on the Opposition side are looking like a fowl with its head cut off—it is dead, but it does not know it is dead. They just wish to waste the time of the House. On a point of order, is it correct for the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) to refer to an hon. member as a meerkat ?

I did not hear the expression, but if the hon. member used it he will have to withdraw it.

I do not wish to insult a meerkat, therefore I withdraw it.

The hon. member does not appear to withdraw what he said. I ask him to apologize for what he said.

I withdraw it at your request.

I must ask that the hon. member expresses his regret.

I am afraid I shall have to ask the hon. member to apologize.

I shall accede to your request, and withdraw my remark.

Do you apologize?

I withdraw it unreservedly.

I hope the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) is satisfied with that.

I am quite satisfied. I hope this will teach the hon. member that this is not a circus.

You are a very fine teacher.

There are a number of us who are real farmers who want to get back to our farms, and not be kept in Cape Town during the rainy season.

We may expect that when the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) gets up he will say something which is far from the truth. He says that we are bent on attacking the Minister. That is not correct. I agree with those who say that there is satisfaction about much of the Minister’s work. He has done much good, but we want an opportunity of enquiring whether he has actually done so well everywhere, and to assist him where he has acted wrongly. I can assure the Minister that he will proceed quicker if the votes are taken one by one. If the praise given him by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is quite justified, we shall agree with him, but we would like to look into it, and we want a proper opportunity for the purpose.

The stock of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) is again in the ascendant. I wonder which way the wind is blowing now ; it is not a cold southeast wind that is blowing to-night, so far as he is concerned. I want to give an unqualified denial to his statement that this motion was introduced after discussion or for blocking consideration of the vote. Such a thing was never thought of, and nothing could be further from the truth. I would not consider the well of truth is down at that end of the House, anyhow. I proposed the motion so that we should have an opportunity to discuss the matter in a practical manner. The Minister has refused, so I cannot do more than register my protest.

Last year’s discussion of the vote was diffuse because the Minister would not take the items seriatim. The farmers take the greatest interest in the discussions on this vote, and those discussions are more helpful if concentrated upon each item in turn. The Minister should welcome such discussion. We know he is a friend of the farmers and he is doing his best, though he makes mistakes, but we all make mistakes. The best way to curtail discussion would be to take the items seriatim.

If there is one Minister who requires the sympathy and co-operation of the people, it is the Minister of Agriculture. This is a big vote, and embraces a large number of figures, and is complicated. We know that the Minister has done well, but we should like to have the opportunity, where he has done wrong, to point it out. We should like the matter to be reasonably treated, and it will be better and quicker if the matter is dealt with seriatim. I can assure the Minister that the farmers on this side will assist him to dispose of the vote, but it is more satisfactory to take it seriatim rather than the Minister should later have to deal with a long sequence of questions. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) laughs. They know they have the majority, but agriculture is the most important vote, and we ought to be able to discuss it properly.

I do not see the necessity for taking the items seriatim. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has attacked me. Why is not the Defence Vote, which deals with just as much money, dealt with seriatim ? There will only be waste of time and I hope the Minister will save the time after 11 o’clock. We can do with this as with other Votes.

The hon. member who has just spoken compares this Vote with the Vote of the Minister of Defence. The Defence Vote is more or less confined to absolutely cognate subjects, but the Agricultural Vote covers a great deal of ground in which one matter has nothing whatever to do with another. For example, you have got chemistry, you have got the guano islands, you have got botany, agricultural education and veterinary surgeons! You cannot get a concentrated, sensible, useful debate if it is spread over the whole vote in the way it is now proposed to do.

I regret very much that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) should have chosen to throw the apple of discord into this House in the way he did. There is no question of obstruction and no question of party politics in the request which has been brought forward from this side this evening. The Minister has introduced a number of Bills into this House. I put to him whether we on this side have obstructed any single Bill which he has introduced and whether we have not approached them all in an absolutely constructive spirit. It is in exactly the same spirit that we are asking him now to take this Vote seriatim and I hope the Minister will meet us on this question.

I would ask the Minister to stop this useless waste of time by agreeing to take the Vote seriatim. There is no party politics in agriculture, as the Minister knows, and I am sure the passage of the Vote will be accelerated if it is dealt with seriatim. The Minister is one who welcomes honest criticism more so than any other Minister and I can assure him that any enquiries and criticism addressed to him from this side will be honest.

The Minister of Agriculture has rattled the scabbard and drawn the sword. I am sure if a similar request had been made to the Minister of Finance he would have met us straightaway. Last year I asked a question on this Vote. I am still waiting for a reply. If we had gone through the Vote last year seriatim, I would have got a reply. I am sure that if such a course is adopted it will expedite the work and there will not be the confusion that we had last year.

I am inclined to think that this is a very reasonable request which has been made by hon. members, although in the urban centres of the Union it is always contended that farming matters take up far too much of the time of this House. I also agree with the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) that this method of taking the different votes seriatim should have been adopted in regard to the other departments, at the same time when one considers that agriculture is undoubtedly the primary industry of the country. I think the Minister would be well-advised if he were to give way.

I would like to assure the Minister that we are as anxious as he is, consistent with our duty to our constituents, to get this vote through in reasonable time. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Strachan) seemed to think that this vote does not cover very many heads. I presume he refers to heads of population. There are 113,000 white farmers in this country, so far as the statistics enable us to know, and surely their interests ought to be paramount. On looking at the other side of the House I can count the number of farmers present on the fingers of one hand or thereabouts.

You cannot.

If it were in order, I would adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend behind me and ask those who are farmers to indicate. The number of members opposite who obtain their living directly from farming can be counted on the fingers of one hand or thereabouts, whereas the number of farmers on the other side who represent farming constituencies is very large. I am surprised that they are not anxious to assist in getting the various items discussed on this vote in the non-party spirit that we desire. I hope the Minister will agree to this very reasonable request, which has been temperately expressed.

It will only mean a waste of time if we deal with the Votes seriatim. Hon. members opposite say that there are few farmers on this side of the House. This side represents the farmers, the other side the free traders. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is such a great defender of the farmers! He was also a farmer I think. He made a good thing out of it at Sundays River.

What has the private business of the hon. member to do with this matter ?

The hon. member was farming with Government money.

The hon, member must not go into that now, but discuss the motion.

I just wanted to say that the Vote could be disposed of just as well as a whole.

There is absolutely no obstruction in this matter. If the Minister has got the same impression as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), I may say it is wrong, and now that he has received the assurance that this side is simply seeking to facilitate the discussion, I hope he will accede to the request of the Opposition.

Motion put, and Sir Thomas Smartt called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided.

I move—

I do so in order to bring to his notice a matter of first-class importance—I may almost say a matter of vital importance to the maize growers of South Africa, It is within the Minister’s recollection that the Government in its wisdom gave notice last year that they were abrogating the 3 per cent, imperial preference duty, and it was anticipated at that time that it would lead to some form of retaliation. The New Zealand press, as we know, informed this country that they sent nothing to South Africa, but they were our principal customers for wines. They pointed out that the adoption of such a narrow-minded policy was likely to lead to retaliation. Australia was unable to take action, as they were contemplating a general election, which subsequently took place, but they have now adopted a retaliative policy which is hitting us extremely hard.

On a point of order, the hon. member is not in order here. It has nothing to do with this vote. It concerns a tariff question which he might raise on my department. The hon. member has given a quite wrong representation of the facts, and should not be allowed to deal with a matter like this on this vote.

Perhaps I might be allowed to explain this in my own way.

No, no. It appears to me the hon. member is not confining himself to the vote, and appears to discuss a matter pertaining to the Treasury. Perhaps the hon. member might explain to me how a tariff question can be brought in under this vote.

In this way. This is a matter which concerns the farmers of South Africa, and a matter which concerns them is one which concerns the Minister of Agriculture. If that is not to be dealt with by the Minister, we are hopeless and helpless. What is the good, we may ask, of his Department of Eonomics and Markets ?

The tariff does not concern the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Finance is responsible for it.

I am not dealing with the tariff, if you will allow me to proceed. It is only to explain the position which has arisen. Agriculture, economics and marketing are essentially a matter with which we are dealing. The position, in a nutshell, is that the Minister of Finance may say that the explanation of the sequence of events, as I have given it, is not what he would put before the House.

It is quite wrong.

But the facts are incontrovertible. To-day we can send maize to Australia at a duty of 2s. per muid, but on the 30th of June we cannot send it into Australia at less than 7s. per muid. This is where the Department of Markets and Economics should come in. Our maize elevators are loaded up to the roof, and the Minister himself has given notice to the people whose maize is occupying these elevators that their crops most be taken out by a certain date.

Which Minister? Wrong again!

Nothing of the kind, the order has been given and we look to the Minister to protect us. I know of one firm alone in South Africa which has an order of 2,000 tons of maize, provided it can be delivered in Australia before the 30th of June, because then this 7s. tariff drops on to us. If the maize cannot get into Australia before then, the trade is gone for ever, and we farmers have lost one of the very best maize markets we had.

It is quite clear to me that the hon. member is now discussing the effect of the tariff.

I am discussing, sir, the question of the marketing of maize which is being held up in this country to-day, and I want the Minister to give us some assistance in getting this maize out of the country. This maize has got to be got out of the elevators within a certain date. Now one of the conditions imposed is that white labour is to be used, and that is helping to delay matters. If coloured labour could be used we could easily get it out. Another trouble is that there is a difficulty of getting railway truck accommodation, because the trucks are being used for coal. If the Minister could give us the assurance that every possible assistance will be given to get that maize out, sacked, and on to the ships, and sent away, it would be doing a very great service to the farmers of South Africa, because the Australian market is worth 10s. 6d. a muid to us, whilst the English market is only 7s. a muid to-day.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he has studied the report of the Drought Commission of 1923. It states that by allowing stock to run free this country would carry 54 per cent, more woolled sheep than it is doing to-day. In 1923-’24 our wool cheque was £16,000,000, and if the Drought Commissioners are correct in their deduction that could be augmented to 1324,000,000. I must say that we farmers in the Cape Province feel greatly disappointed in the attitude which the Minister adopts towards the sheep farmers of the Cape Province, and notwithstanding that he stated that he is in favour of vermin-proof fencing, his actions belied him, and instead of taking a lead, and promoting farming interests as far as the Cape is concerned, we feel that he is just doing the opposite. The Minister instead of following good advice prefers to associate himself with gentlemen like the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), who revealed the hopeless ignorance of some members over there who purport to represent farmers. The Minister takes up the attitude that if a farmer erects vermin-proof fencing he does not look after his sheep, and thereby incurs greater losses than if he did not have the vermin-proof fencing. That attitude adds insult to injury, because vermin-proof fencing is expensive, and no farmer will erect it unless he is compelled to do so, and once erected he will not permit it to fall into disrepair.

Talk sense.

I am giving facts, and if you were a farmer you would know that I am stating facts. We are not urging that vermin-proof fencing should be erected where it is not needed. I don’t think, if the Minister knew the conditions in the Cape, he would go on as he is doing, but unfortunately he does not know the conditions.

Do you want me to erect the fences ?

I want some interest shown in the farmers to enable them to run more sheep. A commission has shown you how that can be done. Does the Minister accept the decision of that commission ? He seems to think it would be unfair to assist some farmers and not others. The Somerset East district is in constant danger of being infested with jackals from an adjoining Government reserve. The farmers along the border, who are our first line of defence, are penalized. [Time limit.]

What is the Minister’s dairy division really doing ? One does not want to criticize members of the civil service, but I have come to the conclusion that the dairy division is not as alive as it might be. Very few farmers in the Free State weigh their milk, but how can a farmer produce cream at a profit without knowing what is the butter fat content of the milk given by his cows ? I have not found farmers in the Free State who know anything about milk records. There is not a farmer in South Africa to-day who can take four cows and tell you which is the best from a milk-producing point of view. You cannot tell which is your best cow unless you weigh the milk of that cow every morning and every night. What I want the Minister to do is, as they have done in America, to get his men to go round among the farmers and induce them to form milk-testing associations. I would like to know when the Government are going to introduce a law into this country that there shall be no scrub bulls. When are they going to say to the farmer—

The time has come for that to be done, because we are breeding in South Africa thousands and thousands of head of scrub stock. We shall have to do what they did many years ago in the Argentine, and shoot the stock for their hides and hoofs. The Minister should consider whether it is not time that a Bill was drafted and introduced into this House whereby he can force farmers to keep only a certain type of bull. The Government should take its courage in both hands on this particular point, and see that the scrub bull is eliminated. I hope the Minister will go into this question and assist farmers to buy good bulls, not only the white farmer, but the native farmer as well. The Minister has done particularly good work in the two years that he has been in office, but I hope he will shake up his dairy division a bit.

I should like to heartily thank the Minister of Agriculture for what he has again done for the farmers during the past year, especially for the way in which he has dealt with scab and practically eradicated it. We urge his continuing in this way, and then it will not be many years before scab will be unknown here. We have had many simultaneous dippings, but our sheep have become clean. In connection with what the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has said —he is a practical farmer, I admit—I should like to point out to him that the Minister is acting quite in accordance with the Act. The Act exists. When it was passed, the majority of us were in favour of there being no compulsory fencing, and accordingly the clause was inserted that no area could be proclaimed before the majority of the farmers in the district were in favour of it. I think the farmers of the Cape Province are thankful to the former Opposition for that provision. The hon. member says that the farmers are not being encouraged. According to the Act, there must be a majority of farmers in the district before it can be proclaimed by the Divisional Council or other body. Then the neighbour of a farmer who fences is obliged to pay half the cost. Any man can then obtain the money, if he does not possess it, from the Land Bank, and the Minister has actually increased the facilities in this respect. How, then, can the hon. member say that the Minister does not encourage the people? He cannot do more. I admit that the native border in his constituency causes particular trouble, and during the recent debate I also suggested that the Government should negotiate with the Basutoland Government, or, if need be, with the Imperial Government. We cannot expect that the Government will pay for fencing the whole border for them. As for the boundary between the land of a farmer and that of the State, I think the farmer is entitled to expect the Government to pay half.

The Government has to pay the half.

If that is so, why then was the proposal of the hon. member for Aliwal before the House recently?

The Government does not pay it.

Where is that the case?

There is apparently something wrong. I also think that the Government should pay half. I know that in the first instance the Railway Department was also not prepared to contribute its share, but I have just recently received a letter that in certain circumstances that department pays half. I agree that farming will only be a success with us if fencing is done. It will greatly increase the yield of the farmers.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to item K on page 144. Census returns show that we have 9,000,000 cattle, 31,000,000 sheep and 9,000,000 goats. That is nearly 50,000,000 head of stock, and this vote provides for “Improvement of stock £100." We on the cross-benches, being great consumers, take great interest in farming matters. £100 for improvement of stock! I picture the Minister of Agriculture going to the Minister of Finance and saying, I want £100,000 for the improvement of 50,000,000 head of stock, and slowly but remorselessly the Minister of Finance beats him down to £100. What can this country say to a Government that puts down £100 sterling for the improvement of 50,000,000 head of stock ? I can imagine the energetic Minister of Agriculture, with his heart nearly breaking, coming to meet this House and listening to the hon, member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) pointing out the disadvantage of all these thousands of scrub bulls, and it is no use shooting them unless you have enough better blood animals in the country. In the Argentine they shoot a scrub bull after giving the owner due notice. It is hardly fair to the natives and to the farmers to shoot the bulls they have until we bring in numbers of an improved breed in the country. Now is the opportunity for improving our 50,000,000 head of stock! Now is the chance of purchasing in the world’s best breeding markets the finest bulls! What has South Africa to say regarding its cattle? On Wednesday week a telegram was published from Johannesburg stating that in the ordinary way the number of horned cattle passing through the Johannesburg livestock market is in the neighbourhood of 16,000 per month, whereas in the month just passed there had been 23,000, but unfortunately the great majority were of a very poor type, mainly suited for the native compound trade, and when that was satisfied the remainder remained a drug in the market. It was impossible to dispose of some thousands which had to be returned to their owners. That is what we are up against. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) failed to take advantage of the opportunity which he had in his time as Minister of putting the matter right. If the present Minister of Agriculture could have persuaded the Minister of Finance, 18 months ago, to advance £100,000 to start bringing good bulls into this country, we would not have this pitiful state of affairs, and the sad story of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. Time passes. If the Minister started now to bring in bulls by the thousand, as he should do, and to sell them for what they would fetch on a credit of say three signatures to the purchase, in five year’s time we could be exporting meat overseas. An idea that we can send poor stock alive to be eaten in Italy is a mistake. It won’t pay for freightage and charges. Unless our Ministers deal in some more persuasive way with the Minister of Finance, so that they can get an adequate amount of money to spend on the development of this country, we are going to be in the back-water year in year out for ever so long. It is no use having highly paid scientific men, and expensive departments when, after a Government has been 18 months in power, they put down £100 for improvement of stock. We who have also been sent here to serve the country to the best of our ability are greatly disappointed with the Government—not with the Minister of Agriculture, who deserves all the praise that has been showered upon him, but we are ashamed that this Government is not providing money to develop the country at a faster rate. Time waits for no man, not even for a pact government.

I hope the Minister will sustain the reputation which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has given him. In some things the Minister is very slow, especially in a very essential matter. On the 2nd of February, 1925, the member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) asked the Minister whether he would favourably consider the recommendation made by the superintendent of dairying, to materially reduce the fees of the department for milk recording tests. The Minister’s reply was that the matter would receive further consideration. No one knows better than the Minister of Agriculture the terrible condition in which the dairy industry of South Africa is to-day. We are unable to export butter at a payable price. Our cows are the lowest producing cows of the British Empire. They produce, on the average, 60 lbs. of butter fat compared with 170 lbs. of Queensland cattle where the climatic conditions are similar to ours. Surely I should have thought that the Minister of Agriculture would be directing his attention to improving the production of our dairy cows. The Government of Iowa, U.S.A., made some experiments with pedigree bulls and scrub cows. The scrub cows produced 175 lbs. of butter fat and 3,688 lbs. of milk ; after the first cross they produced 277 lbs. of butter fat and 6,748 lbs. of milk ; on the second cross 399 lbs. of butter fat and 10,326 lbs. of milk or an increase of 100 per cent. We have 2,000,000 cows in the Union, and if something similar were done here we would, in five years’ time, increase our supply of butter fat 100 per cent, and our supply of milk 300 per cent. Scrub bulls should be taxed, and farmers compelled in their own interests to purchase pedigree stock. The Minister has a fine opportunity of making his name go down to posterity as improving the dairy industry of the country. I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks as to his East Coast fever policy? Last session in a friendly way I warned him that his regulations were such that he would have trouble in quarantining a whole district when there was an outbreak. Farmers would try to stamp it out themselves, if he perseveres in these regulations. I give place to no man in my knowledge of East Coast fever, and the last outbreak I had 15 years ago out of 350 head of cattle I lost one. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to comment on the congratulations the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) his given the Minister. The opinion is fairly general that the Minister and his Department have done good work and are inspired with an inward wish to advance our agriculture, yet I must say that I am not so optimistic with regard to the eradiction of scab. In 1908 a commencement was made with the eradiction of scab, and up to date those efforts have not quite succeeded. I gladly admit that good progress has been made and is still being made every year, but to say that scab will soon be quite a thing of the past is too optimistic. In my opinion as long as there is no strict fencing law and the trekking to winter grazing continues, the old fight against scab will continue. I wish, however, really to say a few words about Vote C.4 on page 136. “Compensation for animals dying as a result of inoculation against horse sickness and other diseases, £500.” On the previous Estimates the amount of £2,000 appears and now it is only £500, and I should like to know the reason of the reduction. Has the inoculation been reduced for some reason ? Do less cattle die in consequence of it or what is the explanation ? Then I want to ask with regard to guano on page 140. I see here how the Government expects to get £76,000 from the sale of guano, while the expenditure is only estimated at £53,000, thus the Government may expect to make a profit of £22,000 a year, and in the agricultural report, I notice that the profit last year was £31,000. Now I ask, with a view to the great need of guano for sowing purposes, why the Government should make such a large profit ? When the railways make a profit the first call is for a reduction of rates, and if the post office makes a profit the reduction of the postage is at once demanded. I therefore think that in this case the Government should reduce the price of guano for agriculture. With reference to this, I want to refer the Minister to the report of the Board of Trade and Industries who have made enquiry about the methods and cost of wheat growing. I find in the report for last month the board recommend to the Government to consider the principle of only selling guano annually to bona fide wheat farmers in the interests of a more economic production of wheat. Therefore I see that the Board of Trade recommends granting the people more facilities to get fertilizers. I cannot quite understand why the price of guano is so high. Last year it was £5 10s. a ton, but this year £7, and according to the report two years ago it was from £5 to £5 10s. I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to charge less for the guano.

I hope the Minister will give ear to the advice of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). We know that under the former, as well as under this Government, much has been done to improve the breed at the agricultural schools, but outside those schools the class of cattle is not what it should be. The hon. member has suggested that we should spend the trifle of £100,000, e.g., for the importation of bulls. That is quite unnecessary because we have just as good cattle here as in any part of the world. We have enough breeding stock to improve our blood. I was glad to learn from the Minister that where farms border on Government ground the Government will pay half the cost of fencing. I think even the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) was surprised at it. Why then did we recently have that long debate and why did the Minister refuse to accept the motion ? I just want to say a few words in connection with scab. I want to congratulate the Minister on altering his method. The criticism from this side last year was mainly that the Minister had gone to work wrongly. I am glad he has learnt his lesson. He is still not doing quite the right thing, but he is trying to do so. When last year the dipping orders were issued in the Transvaal and Natal, our complaints were that they were not executed under proper supervision. If that had been done the Minister would have had much better results. It is no good boasting. We must look matters straight in the face. I do not think that scab is, as a matter of fact, eradicated, although the position is better. When the Minister took office, there was only 3 per cent. scab. What is it to-day ? I should like to know what the Minister’s policy is with regard to simultaneous dipping to-day. We see that simultaneous dipping is ordered for certain parts of the country, and that only the scabby stock are dipped there, while all the stock who were clean for twelve months after the order are not dipped. In other parts, on the contrary, all sheep are dipped whether clean or not. I want to know why the Minister makes this distinction. I am specially thinking of the north-west, at Carnarvon, e.g., which had to dip stock, and also in Fraserburg which is half protected. Then there are Laingsburg, Prince Albert and Kuruman which are not at all protected, or only half, which are treated much more mildly and people have only dipped sheep there which, within twelve months after he had issued his order, had got scab. We want to emphasize this because I feel that the Minister is unnecessarily spending money there by having clean sheep dipped. Why does he not confine himself to scabby sheep ? Then we find that the Minister permitted in Carnarvon, which is a protected area, stock to come in from other districts without having been dipped. Is that fair to the people ? According to the regulations the stock ought to have been dipped.

Can the hon. member mention a case?

Yes, it happened in 1924. I admit the difficulty owing to the drought. I do not wish to be unfair, but what is the Minister’s policy now. In 1925 people bought stock under the Drought Emergency Act. The sheep came from all parts of the country. I admit the difficulty in this case also, but we find that in this respect the Minister should have been a little more strict. Dipping took place in Carnarvon, Fraserburg, etc., and I shall be glad to learn what the conditions are there now. Owing to the stricter supervision (compared with the dipping in the Transvaal and Natal last year) much good work has been done. On account of the supervision in the Transvaal and Natal riot being sufficient we felt that the Minister had made a mistake. The areas were too large where simultaneous dipping was ordered. The Minister then would not listen to us and if he will only confine his attention to scabby sheep there will be more satisfaction. The Minister stated that he had to take over such a number of useless inspectors from the former Government. Let his good men, then, ascertain where scab exists and dip in those parts.

I want to call the Minister’s attention to the large quantity of guano sent to the various agricultural schools. This is done with the object of teaching our boys how to use fertilizers in farming. But an astonishing amount is going to the experimental farms. Moreover, the amount of guano which is sent to the sugar planters in Natal is very great. By much guano one forces a quick and large harvest, but this method exhausts the ground. On the other hand the grain farmers needing guano can obtain little. Then a few words regarding A. I inspector under the Adulteration Acts £425. I think there is only one man for the work. How can he deal with all the contraventions? Under A.4 we find an amount of £150 for the administration of the Wines Spirits Excise Act of 1913, the Act of fertilizers, cattle removal, seed and plague remedies. It is impossible with the provision made to properly carry out the laws. If one goes anywhere to hold an inspection the information is telephoned from one place to the other and people know when the inspector is coming. The culprits cannot be discovered in that way.

It is very sad to see the empty benches on the other side of the House. How many farmers on his own side are supporting him ?

They are all satisfied.

The Minister has nothing to be proud of with his East Coast fever policy. He would not take friendly advice last session, and his chickens are coming home to roose. In my division there is one of the most serious outbreaks, and after sixteen years’ experience, which every Minister of Agriculture in South Africa has had of fighting that disease, we have an outbreak which paralyses a whole district. Surely a Government that claims to be a farmers’ Government and brags about its interest in agriculture, should make a better show than that. On one farm alone there were seven deaths. That means that the disease had been smouldering there for six or eight months. If the Minister would get the cooperation of the farmers he would relax the restrictions, because it is the simplest thing in the world to check East Coast fever. Why impose unnecessary quarantine restrictions ? The farmers regard the restrictions as worse than the disease. If the Minister would make it known that only the infected and contact farms should be quarantined, he would have a different state of affairs. The tanks should be up to strength, and he can impose a dipping regulation whereby they dip at least once a week, and if that is done there is no fear of East Coast fever. To-day the inspection of these tanks can be very materially assisted by the use of motor cars instead of the inspectors travelling on horseback. With this last outbreak the country is going to be put to considerable expense, and all this could be saved by regular dipping in tanks with the mixture up to strength.

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) is making an attack here on East Coast fever about the regulations being carried out too drastically. Let me tell the hon. member that cases of East Coast fever have been reduced by more than half in Natal since I assumed office. The regulations which he complains about now were framed in 1921, under the previous Government. The East Coast fever spreads rapidly in Natal because these regulations are not carried out, and now the hon. member always says—

Has the hon. member seen what the Agricultural Union said in Natal recently about carrying out the regulations? On whose behalf is he speaking ? On behalf of the farmers or on his own behalf ?

The farmers.

I am going to carry out these regulations, because the intention of the Department of Agriculture and the Government is to get rid of it. East Coast fever ; you cannot play with it. The hon. member appears to want us simply to quarantine the farm which the fever is on and the adjoining farms and let the ticks spread on the others, as he wanted last year in regard to scab. That is the way the hon. member is following.

You are talking nonsense.

And I am therefore not going to take his advice.

Why have you such a bad outbreak now ?

It is impossible for me to stop East Coast fever at once. I am not there to watch every movement and it is impossible for the inspectors to do so, especially if the movement is made at night. The hon. member always attacks me on account of scrub bulls in this country. I believe there was a time when the hon. member was Minister of Agriculture in Natal. I wonder how many bulls he imported, and how many scrub bulls he took away then.

Dozens.

He did nothing, and now he comes and says the Government must buy bulls. What if the sheep farmers had sat tight and said to the Government—

would that have been a right policy. It is not the cattle farmers’ business to see that their stock is being improved? We are prepared to advise the farmers. We have several inspectors who were appointed last year in order to improve our cattle. The hon. member has also accused me because dairy farming does not pay. If a farmer wants to start dairy farming, is it not for his own good to see that he gets the best cows to make his dairy farming pay ? It is not a thing that could be carried out by any Minister, to insist on farmers farming only with that kind of cattle. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has been speaking about import duties. I do not intend to reply on that question. He will get an opportunity at another time, when the Minister of Finance brings forward certain Bills.

Errata.

Col, 1953, line 19, Mr. Speaker.—To read: “The House can vote against the amendment.”

Col. 3073, 11 lines from bottom.—“ Assailable ”

to read: “unassailable ”.

Col. 3109, 5 lines from bottom, Mr. Snow.— To read: “There is no need to be alarmed. But there is an article in this paper, ‘The Postal and Telegraph Herald’ for May, which says:” etc.

The opportunity will be gone for ever.

The hon. member also attacked me in the matter of grain elevators, but he should know that they are administered by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and not by me. He ought to know that these elevators were built to help the farmers to export their mealies. Does he mean that you must keep your mealies for ever in the elevators ? These elevators have to be cleansed, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours has taken the precaution to say that by a certain dale these mealies have to be exported, and he has even extended the date. I do not think the hon. member is right in saying that these mealies should always be kept in the elevators. The present Government have done everything they could to facilitate the export of mealies before the prices in the European markets fell, and 11,000,000 bags were exported in four months’ time, which was a better record than that of the previous Government in this respect. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) asked me whether I have read the Drought Commission’s report, to which my reply is, “Yes, I have.” I do not think there is any other Government which has shown that they are more willing to help than the present Government. They have given the farmers every facility. We have the Land Bank, where farmers can get their money more cheaply than anywhere else and more cheaply than in any other country. Then the hon. member wants the Government to fence those farms with jackal-proof fencing. It is impossible for the Government to do so and to fence the border. With regard to Basutoland, the Imperial Government would not pay half the cost of fencing there, and the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows that. The Government is going to do their duty under the Act. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North) (Mr. Barlow) brought up the question of the dairy division. I feel that more can be done by farmers helping us in keeping records of milk production. They can improve their stock, but up to now we have not had the success we expected. It is a question I have in hand, however, and I will do my best to get the farmers to assist the department, because it is for their own good to see that their cows are properly tested and that they keep the best cows. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) has brought up the question of the £100 for improving stock. If he bad gone through these estimates he would have seen that that is not the only amount, but that there is much more. This £100 is for the experimental station at Pietersburg, at which we are keeping certain animals given by certain farmers to be tested there and to be acclimatized, and the bulls are being sold to farmers again. With the money the Government gets other bulls can be obtained and sold to the farmers.

†*The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwehuize) asked why the State made a profit of £2,000 on guano. The hon. member will see that the profit on guano is a small sum, and the greatest part of it is made on sealskins. Last year only a small profit was made on guano, and if we were to reduce the price it is possible that to-morrow or the day after the boundary line would be passed and a loss made. The price was once reduced by my predecessor, and I do not think I can go further. The demand is already too great for the available quantity, and if we reduce the price the demand will become still greater and the grain farmers get still less. Therefore it is not in their interests either. The hon. member for Stellen-bosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) said that so much guano went to experimental farms and sugar planters. He apparently wants to reserve guano for Stellenbosch. Other products, besides grain, however, are produced with the help of guano. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) spoke of our policy with regard to scab. The hon. member knows that I said last year that we were applying simultaneous dipping in districts where scab existed, and we are doing this in the Cape Province under proper supervision this year. He spoke about protected areas. What good is it to protect an area if it is not clean ?

My objection is that all sheep are dipped.

We dipped last year in the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State, and this year the Free State is clean, also the Transvaal, except for three districts, and Natal still has a little scab. Hon. members are so found of quoting other countries. I want to point out that in England, in September last, an Act came into force to compel the dipping of all cattle and sheep at! least once a year. They took a lessen from the simultaneous dipping which took place here. The hon. member for Cradock, however, disapproves of it. By simultaneous dipping we find the scab which would otherwise never be discovered. We have bad several of such cases in the Cape Province. I remember, e.g., a progressive farmer who had scab discovered in this way, though it was never expected there. As for the position in general I told the House what it was the other day. The admission of sheep from one district to the other was a consequence of the drought. Does the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) wish that I should allow the sheep to go through to the areas suffering from drought? The hon. member spoke about a particular case. The man trekked with his sheep without permission. Then the sheep were inspected and it appeared that after six months they were still clean, so that we then excused him.

What about Mr. Hugo?

He was treated very fairly. He want to court after he had, in the first instance, refused to carry out the order. He appealed. Then we agreed to allow him to only dip a portion of his sheep once. He was, therefore, more fairly treated than all the people in his district, but if he thereafter takes action against us he does not deserve any further special consideration.

He had no scab in his sheep.

There are people who for twenty years have had no scab in their stock, and they had to take part in the simultaneous dipping. If sheep within twelve months after my order come into contact with scabby sheep I order dipping. The position is very favourable. I much appreciate the help I have got from the farmers, and I hope we shall succeed in getting quite rid of scab.

Can the Minister give us information as to the position in regard to bovine tuberculosis ?

On the motion of Mr. Struben it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed :

Progress reported ; House to resume in Committee on 17th May.