as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Report to be printed and considered in committee of the Whole House on 24th May.

as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements as follows—

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before Monday, the 24th May, the report would be considered as adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

I am very much surprised at the motion which is brought forward by the Prime Minister. Only just now the Government has come forward with some additional measures, one of which is of a very contentious character. The Bill of which the Minister of Finance has just given notice is, as the Government knows, one which is very contentious, and in regard to which there is a very strong feeling in the country. It is now proposed in the last days of the session to come forward with this Bill and to force it through the House. But the position is even worse than that. Yesterday the Minister of the Interior gave notice of a Bill—the Bill in regard to nationality and a new flag for the Union— which I look upon as the most important measure of the whole session. The Government must also be under the impression that it is an extremely important and urgent Bill. Why is it brought forward at this late hour ? We are now asked to sit morning, noon and night, not to finish off the work still left over from the session, but to start new work and new work of a most important and contentious character. How, under the circumstances, the Prime Minister can ask us to give our attention to these matters seems to me incredible. Is it the intention of the Government to force these measures through this House, is it their intention to force through a measure like the Nationality and Flag Bill during the few days that are still left to us in this House ? I would say this, that unless the Prime Minister gives us an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to go on with that Bill we must oppose the motion which he has now moved.

What is wrong with that Bill?

You will hear a lot about what is wrong with it. One thing at least is quite dear, that Bill would never have been brought forward in this House if the Government had not got the consent of the Labour party.

Well, what about it?

Yes, you will hear a lot about it yet.

Is that a contentious matter?

I would like to know what change has come over the attitude of the Prime Minister, since not so many days ago, on my question, he gave the House an assurance that no fresh measures would be brought forward, except matters of a minor administrative character. The Prime Minister wanted to abolish the 11 o’clock rule, and I put the question to him what additional work was to come forward this session, and his answer was that no additional Bills were to come forward except matters of a minor administrative character. What has happened during the last few days ? Why is that solemn undertaking which was given to the House, and on which the House agreed to suspend the eleven o’clock rule, done away with, and we are asked to consider, at the end of the session, work of the most contentious, the most difficult and the most important character to this country ? I say that we are not fairly dealt with. If we were merely here to be asked to finish the work of the session, to finish the last stages of the Bills before us, then I think hon. members on all sides of the House would be only too pleased to help the Government and give the Government complete control of our time so that we might end the session as soon as possible, but under the circumstances, when new measures are being brought up of a most far-reaching character and on which there is deep feeling in the country, I do not think we shall be doing our duty here if we agree to this motion and, unless we get the assurance of the Government that we shall not go on with this measure, we shall oppose the proposal of the Prime Minister.

I want to add a word to the protest which has been voiced by my leader in regard to this proposal. I say this deliberately, that the present Government is setting a pace in this House or attempting to set a pace, which no other Government has attempted since parliamentary government has been an institution in South Africa. This year they have had every help they could reasonably expect to have from the Opposition. Only once during this session has it been necessary to apply the closure, and the pace at which the estimates have been carried through has been unequalled since that session in which the then Opposition went on strike. Yesterday in a short time we put through the Public Works Vote, Lands, Deeds, Survey and Irrigation.

Wrong again.

Does that look as if the Opposition were not prepared to cooperate with the Government in the legitimate despatch of public business? The Minister of Finance this year has spent a lot of his time in introducing amending Bills to the legislation which he put through in the hurried last month of last session. It seems to be becoming the custom in this country to force a Bill through Parliament during the last month of the session only to find out during the recess that it is full of imperfections, full of defects in drafting, which could have been remedied if adequate attention had been given to the Bill at the time. Yesterday, in a House jaded by reason of the late sitting on the previous night, we were able to put through the Usury Bill—a most important piece of legislation—in the committee stage, in about five minutes ; because hon. members had not had a reasonable opportunity of devoting the time to that Bill which it demanded. We have only a limited capacity for work, and indecent haste is not good for the country or this House. I am quite sure that the legislation put through this year, which will be a record in that respect, will be found to be bristling with defects of all sorts. There are a large number of select committees still functioning. On the select committee on the Liquor Bill, of which I am a member, we have had to tell witnesses whose evidence was to be heard next week, that they cannot be heard at all because this House will be sitting every morning, if it obeys the Prime Minister’s mandate. I believe there are other committees which will not be able legitimately to finish their functions. If any disposition had been shown by the opposition to obstruct the work, I could have understood it, but I never have known of a Government which so early in the session suspended the 11 o’clock rule, which means that members never know when they will get home, and is now asking us to sit from 10.30 a.m. It means that the Government hope to bulldose the Opposition into such a state of stupification that they will allow the Government measures to go through without adequate discussion. It seems to me to be the deliberate idea of the Government to get through with its legislation regardless of proper discussion and regardless of the objections of private members. They seem to be satisfied with the quantity of legislation they put through, regardless of its quality. I have never known us start on morning sittings till the last week of Parliament. We are told that next week will be the beginning of the last fortnight. It is quite a departure and unfair to the work being done in select committee.

I only want to say a few words about this matter. The reason why I asked that we should start morning sittings on Monday is, in the first place, in order to enable the work now on the Order Paper, and still to be added, to be easily completed in my opinion Within the next fourteen days. The reason why there is usually no sitting in the morning is to give the various select committees the opportunity of doing their work. The select committees have practically all finished their work, that is to say with reference to legislation which is being proceeded with this session. The Liquor Hill has been mentioned. I think it is generally known that that Bill has no chance of being passed this session, and, therefore, the Government does not intend to proceed with it this session. That Select Committee, therefore, does not count. As regards the other select committees, they are all finished, except actually one, and that is the Select Committee on Crown Lands, which is on the point of finishing and will, in any case, do so before Monday.

What about Pensions?

That will never finish. We know that, we had a report only the other day, and petitions constantly stream in, and, therefore, at one point or another a line has to be drawn and it must be said: now, no further.

They could have another week.

They would in any case not finish, because but for the other Bills we should finish next week. For this reason I say again I see no reason why the House should not sit in the morning. One of the other principal reasons why the House does not usually sit in the morning is because Ministers cannot possibly attend the whole morning sitting if they are to do their work properly, but as to this, we feel that we can sacrifice the last fourteen days without our requiring the time for Government work itself. Therefore I see no reason against commencing with the morning sittings next Monday. The hon, member for Standerton said that we are now introducing important Bills, such as the Flag Bill and the Bill for increasing the salaries of members of Parliament. He asks whether it is our intention to force these Bills through. No, it is not the intention to force these measures through the House, but naturally we insist on their going through. It is in the long run the same whether the Bills are introduced at the beginning or at the end of the session. All that is necessary is that enough time shall be given for the measures to properly receive the attention of the House, and to be properly discussed. That is all. As regard this, I can safely say that we have not the slightest reason for not giving the House the fullest opportunity of properly discussing these measures, and deliberating and deciding upon them. Then I say that even if the necessary time for these measures is given there is still no reason why we should not finish within the following fourteen days. Now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that I said the other day that no other important Bills would be laid on the Table. I then mentioned the Bill about the Senate. I naturally did not mention the Flag Bill because in the first place it has been mentioned repeatedly since the beginning of the session, and the Minister of the Interior stated constantly that we were only waiting for the report of the Select Committee to introduce the Bill. Then notice has now been given about the Bill for increasing the salaries of members of Parliament. Well, a resolution was passed by the House, that the Government should introduce a Bill, and, of course, what everybody expected has been done. I therefore do not see how my hon. friend can accuse me of having said anything or of having said less as to what we were going to do.

Do you call them Bills of an administrative kind ?

In my opinion they are not such very important matters. Of course if for certain reasons we all want to lose our proper feelings about a matter then it is very easy, and then these matters are considered important, but I do not regard them as such. They are all matters each of which engages the attention of members of the House and practically of the whole people, so that it is nothing new or sensational. In the circumstances I do not see how the hon. member for Standerton can object to our commencing morning sittings from Monday. If we cannot finish in fourteen days, very well, then we shall sit half or a full week longer, but I remain convinced that if we make progress we shall finish in two weeks.

Motion put and Dr. de Jager called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

I rise at once, not to go into the merits of this Bill which the Minister proposes to introduce, but to express my regret that the Government has adopted this action, and has come forward with this very important measure in the last week or two of the session.

Why not ?

Well, the Government must be aware that this measure is of very great importance—important in itself, and important in its meaning for South Africa—important also for the feelings and the sentiment of South Africa. When I look at the circumstances of the introduction of this Bill in the last days of the session, then I ask myself whether the Government is serious, and whether they realize what they are doing. It seems to me an act of levity at this stage of the session to come forward with a measure of this far-reaching importance. To me it looks like contempt for public opinion. If the Government were serious about this matter, and really gauged the force of public feeling and appreciated the depth of sentiment behind the matter, I am sure they would have dealt very differently with it from the way they are doing. It is incredible to me with the short time at our disposal, with all-day and all-night sittings, that this Bill is going to be put through all its stages. The Government must know the strong feeling about this Bill, and if they do not, they will soon know it, and I say that long before this Bill is through both Houses of Parliament, this country will be in a state of turmoil and excitement as we have not known for a long day.

You will be responsible.

No, not I. No, my whole object is to try to induce the Government, even at this late hour, to adopt a procedure which will pacify the sentiments of this country ; and nothing could be more fatal for this Government, or any other government, than to force through a measure of this kind—nothing could be more fatal. If the flag for the Union were to be adopted by a majority of this House and by the use of the Parliamentary machine, that flag would not be accepted as the flag of this country, and people would say—

We are dealing with a very delicate and far-reaching subject. We, as patriotic South Africans, have for half a generation been living on the foundations of racial unity and co-operation, and the danger is that in the levity with which the Government seems to me to be acting —because that is what I accuse the Government, of—of levity, not malevolence—we may tear up this living body, which has been growing together, and we may find that the good work that has been achieved is undone. Do not let us force it through. If it can only be put through by force, do not let us have it at all. I have done my best. I personally, have done my best to keep the Government out of the course it is embarking upon now. Last year the Prime Minister sent for me and consulted me over this matter. We had a talk over the procedure that should be adopted in a matter like this. I told him my opinion frankly, and that the only procedure for getting a national flag for South Africa would be by agreement and joint action ; and the Prime Minister agreed with me. I advised that a committee should be appointed from both sides of the House to go into the matter, and to try to thrash it out between them, away from the heated sentiments that might be raised if some such preliminary procedure were not adopted. We on our side of the House have done our best. We cannot be accused that we have not been helpful. The joint committee has been constituted, and I nominated on our side of the House three gentlemen—my friend the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and Senator Sir Charles Smith— three men whom I consider amongst the sanest, most moderate and calmest men in South Africa. I notice that is taken with laughter on the other side of the House. These gentlemen are not racial extremists, but patriots who will give the calmest and quietest attention to a grave and delicate matter of far-reaching importance such as this. The committee met, and these gentlemen have not been able to agree to the proposals which the Government have accepted.

Why ?

I will not go into that question. I leave it to the hon. member if he wishes to go into it. I am dealing with the fact itself, that these gentlemen gave the matter their most impartial and favourable consideration, and have not been able to come to an agreement. The Minister of the Interior, in the report that has been published, has paid a tribute to the spirit of service, helpfulness and co-operation that prevailed on that committee. It was not given to factious debate, but every effort was made to probe into the matter, and come to a favourable conclusion. The result is that some of the wisest and best men that we have been able to nominate from this side of the House have been unable to agree to the proposals of the Government. If these hon. members could not agree to the proposals of the Government, what reason have we to expect that there will be agreement in the country at large ? The result will be that we are going forward with a step now which is bound inevitably to divide the country into two camps.

made an interjection.

You may pass the flag through the House, and the Government may use its majority to get the Bill through ; but the danger is that the flag may not be accepted by the people at large, and that it will not be looked upon by the people as a symbol of unity. I implore the Prime Minister—he has himself taken part in this work of the most important national character, and he knows that we have passed though the rapids, through the rocks and through the gravest dangers in the last 16 years of our history. All through we have kept the people of South Africa together, and we have learned to respect and honour each other’s traditions. But I am very much afraid that on the road we are embarking now we are going to tear up and undo the good work that has been done in the past. Canada has been quite recently confronted with an exactly similar position. The people of Canada are nationally in the same position as ourselves. They claim equal nationhood. A strong section among them has urged the claim for a national flag. The Government responded to that feeling, and appointed a commission to go into the question, but such has been the feeling and the differences of opinion that have been aroused on this delicate matter that the Government in the last resort was obliged to call a halt to the commission and I understand that the commission has been dissolved. This shows that not only in South Africa, but in Canada and in any other dominion where the question could be raised it would be one of extreme delicacy. It is not merely the question of the flag, but you raise far-reaching national issues. You touch historical feelings and traditions which go far beyond the politics of the day. I would ask the Government in all seriousness to pause before they proceed further. No doubt they can get the Bill through Parliament, but the result will be vain—the result will be a flag which will not be honoured and gladly accepted by the people as a whole. Instead of that the danger is that we shall have a flag which will divide the people, and you will see less willing and glad adoption of this flag than would otherwise be possible. I do not want to go into the merits of the question to-day. I simply want to enter my protest at this first stage, and to ask the Government to pause before they embark on a course which we shall all regret when it is too late and when bitter feeling has been caused in the country. We are bound as representatives of the people to see that such a question should be considered with wisdom and forbearance. Very big national interests have been entrusted to our charge. We are the custodians of very great interests as a whole, and we must deal with our trust in a spirit of gravity and the utmost seriousness, otherwise very great damage may be done to the national unity of the people. I would ask the Government not to go on with the Bill—let us have further time and consideration. If the people are not in a mood to be agreed about their flag let us wait for some years more. For if we have not reached that stage of national unity when we can be agreed on so important a matter let us rather delay action as they are doing in Canada. I appeal to the Government not to queer the pitch for the future, and not to undo the great work that has been done in our day. If the people cannot and will not agree let us leave the matter alone for a couple of years ; let us take it up in a calmer moment and see if it is not possible to come to a result which will be generally accepted by the people of this country. There are cases in which it would be an abuse of power to force the opinion of the majority on the minority. There are limits to the power of the majority, and those limits are far reached when deep national, historical and religious feelings are touched. This Bill would touch such issues. We should be making a great mistake if merely the view of the majority is to prevail, and if we do not make an attempt to put the matter through by way of general, agreement. I hope the Government will see that it is embarking on a dangerous course, and will bow to the strong feeling which has been evoked, and will let the matter stand over for calmer and more mature consideration.

The right hon. gentleman has said that we should wait a couple of years. The Union of South Africa started in 1908, and we have waited 18 years for a flag. He also argued that this is the last week or two of the session. He knew very well that this Bill would be brought up before the session closed. If he and his party did not know that they could not have paid very much attention to what was happening, because it has been said by Ministers time after time. If the right hon. gentleman to-day had said that he accepted the flag on behalf of the South African party the whole country would have accepted it. All the shouting of South African party members will make no difference to what I am going to say. I am not going to say anything to hurt the feelings of anybody about their flag. If the right hon. gentleman had said that the time had come for a national flag and that still we have a connecting link with Great Britain, the whole of the people would have declared that Parliament had done the right thing. He talks about the depths of sentiment — the South African party have played on that sentiment. The Labour party before to-day has had to suffer because the right hon. gentleman and his friends had put their feet on the flag. We have always kept the flag outside party politics, but the right hon. gentleman and his friends have used the flag for party purposes. He says there is a strong feeling in the country; they are working up that feeling. Months ago the Rand “Sunday Times” had a competition for a national flag. 3,000 people, large numbers of whom were English speaking, entered that competition and there was not a word from the South African party about it. The Government also asked for designs for a national flag, and 2,000 people sent in designs, but not a word was said about it by the South African party. Now the South African party hope to raise the racial question which the Pact had killed by bringing about racial unity and co-operation. The Labour party is going to stand by the Government on this question. We are prepared to pay the price.

“ Shame” and “Dishonour.”

They are again going to drag the flag into the political arena ; they are going to use the flag—which every man, woman and child in South Africa respects—for petty, paltry, political party purposes. Let them use it! The people of South Africa know the South African party, and even with this racial cry they will never get into power again. They are fanning the flames, and so is a portion of the press, but I am glad to say another portion is not. The Bloemfontein “Friend,” which is a strong S.A.P. paper, and has a record of 75 years behind it, states that the S.A.P. has again gone wrong. We have lived through this before. I remember the time when we asked for responsible government from Great Britain, and these very men who are leading the attack on the national flag said that Great Britain must not give the Boers responsible Government. Great Britain gave ns responsible Government. I say to the English-speaking people here to-day that if they accept the flag it will be an English-speaking and Dutch-speaking people’s flag, and that our children will live in unity and accord. It will be the flag of union, whereas the Union Jack is the emblem of an empire to which we are all proud to belong. I say to the country “Beware.” These men are up to their old games again and endeavouring to fan the flames of racialism and to stir up strife, hoping thereby to get back into the ministerial benches. I do not care what the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) says ; there was a time when he tried to take away the constitution. I say that the people in Natal must not be humbugged again by this question of racialism. Natal is beating the big drum; she has beaten the big drum before. Natal not long ago, because she could not agree with Great Britain about a kafir being hanged, wanted to cut the painter. We are going to stand by the Government, whether we succeed, or whether we fail, and I believe we are going to succeed. I congratulate the Government on taking up this particular line that they have done.

I do not think that the hon. member who has just sat down will prove in the end to have been a very successful ally for the hon. members opposite I take it that the hon. members opposite are not imbued with any strong desire to make this subject, difficult as it is, a subject of acute controversy, but if the argument is to be pursued on the lines followed by the hon. member (Mr. Barlow), I do not think that bodes well for the amicable discussion of this matter. I am totally unable to see what reason there is for undue haste in this matter. Why should this matter be forced on now? We have got on very well since the Union was made. In 1911 there was correspondence with the Imperial Government on the question of the flag. There was no dispute between the then Government of the Union and the Imperial Government. I find that the present Prime Minister himself was the Minister who signed the minute that was forwarded to the Imperial Government on September 6, 1910—

There is nothing wrong with that.

I quite agree. Why could not that state of affairs continue ? The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was arguing just now as if we were opposed to the adoption of any separate national flag whatever. That is not so. I am quite sure that, while there are a great many people more particularly of English origin in this country who would have preferred that the Union Jack should remain the flag of South Africa, there are a vast majority of those people who would be perfectly prepared to agree to what might be called a neutral flag, perfectly prepared to see on that flag the emblems of the late Republics or any other device which appealed to hon. members opposite, so long, but so long only, as a proper place and a proper representation was given to the flag which they themselves honour and under which they have been brought up My right hon. friend just now referred to the case of Canada, and pointed out, quite rightly, that the Canadian Government, under Mr. McKenzie King, appointed a commission to go into this matter, and then it was found that there was so much opposition to any alteration of the present status, that finally the committee was dissolved, and it was decided to take no further action in the matter. But the case is even stronger than the right hon. gentleman put it, because there was never any question from the beginning of the adoption of any flag whatever in Canada which did not contain a proper representation of the Union Jack. Mr. McKenzie King, on that occasion, said—

But, even so, the agitation in Canada grew, and I find that three months later, on the 9th September, the Prime Minister, protesting against the criticism to which he had been subjected over the appointment of the flag committee, used the same argument as we have heard just now from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow)—it was the old device to take the minds of the people from the problems which needed solution. He said, however, that Canada had a distinctive emblem in the red ensign. What was wanted was a symbol to show that they were all part of the empire, and they had that in the Union Jack. Nothing would be done, even with the sanction of Parliament, without the sanction of the British Government. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) enquired just now why my right, hon. friend did not get up and say—

If the Prime Minister had said—

there would have been no difficulty whatever. But the Prime Minister has not done so. The Prime Minister has apparently surrendered to those extremists who would look upon the inclusion in any national flag of the Union Jack as something which offended their susceptibilities, and which reminded them of unpleasant matters. We must face the position. We have got to remember that the Prime Minister has spoken on this subject before. I recently came across a speech which the Prime Minister made in 1921 in connection with the Defence Bill. The hon. gentleman who is now the Minister of Agriculture moved the rejection of the Bill, and the Prime Minister, who seconded, then said—

If the Prime Minister had stood up just now and said—

we would have forgotten the past, and, though we might have preferred to keep the Union Jack as the flag of the country, nevertheless, I believe that 99 per cent, of the people would have acquiesced in the Prime Minister’s proposition and have said—

The Prime Minister had the matter in his own hands. By the action which he has sanctioned now, it seems to me he has taken the plunge, and he is going to plunge this country into a state of agitation and turmoil. Sentiment is a matter which has to be considered both in this country and in others. I can enter to a considerable extent into the feelings of the members of the Nationalist party, but I find the greatest difficulty in entering into the feelings of the Labour party in this matter. It does not surprise me that the Labour members have announced just now that there their intention is to back the Government through thick and thin. I wonder if the contents of the other Bill introduced to-day had anything to do with that decision. If so, it was an unholy bargain. There is one thing I do know, and that is that the vast body of the English section, at any rate, of their supporters, those people who put them into their present seats, will know how to appraise them. There are thousands and thousands of people of Dutch extraction who feel on this matter as the English people feel. It seems to be forgotten that there are thousands and thousands of people of Dutch extraction who have been born and bred and brought up under the Union Jack. After the policy which has been pursued by the S.A. party under the lead of my right hon. friend in carrying out the work which was so ably started by General Botha and Sir Starr Jameson, for anyone to say that we are turning this matter into a question purely of party politics, is one of the grossest libels that has ever been heard in this House. I regret enormously that the Prime Minister has not had the strength of mind to resist the demand for the introduction of this Bill. He is going to do the very thing which all of us hoped would not happen. He is going to raise great agitation and anxiety and trouble in the future. I hope that even now, after this debate is over, the Prime Minister will take counsel with his friends, and come to the conclusion that it would be a far truer sign of greatness to bow to the opinion of a very large section of the country, and to refrain from using his majority, a majority which for their own reasons and advantage will support him, to refrain from that, and withdraw this Bill, and leave this matter over for calmer consideration.

The hon. gentleman who has just sat down, being known in this country as a mine magnate, evidently judged the Labour party by his own attitude in this country, ever since he has been in Africa, which has been that of one who is prepared at all times to make everything subservient to the great interest he has at heart, and that Is how to obtain the most material wealth out of this country. The hon. gentleman, in suggesting that the Salary Bill was a bribe to the Labour party, is judging us by the ideas that have actuated his own life in this country. The hon. gentleman said he could not understand the feelings of the Labour party on this question. Let me give my own experience in connection with the great cause he has at heart—the dear old flag, the flag that stands for liberty. If one judges by the attitude of some hon. gentleman on that side, the Union Jack stands for nothing but intolerance.

Spit on it, your own flag!

The hon. member says spit on it. These people are prepared to spit on it and wipe their boots on it for their own purposes. The hon. gentleman is a good judge of that sort of thing. I came to South Africa at the age of 19, imbued with a love of the Union Jack. I understood that it stood for liberty and justice, and that wherever the Union Jack flew there we had freedom of expression, and what has been my experience in South Africa ? After coming here and doing something that many other friends have never done for the flag in their life, but who shout for the flag, and who during the war said they were too old to go to the war, and when they were young enough to go to the front on behalf of England never shouldered a gun—when we came to South Africa imbued with that noble sentiment and love of the dear old flag, what was our experience after being in South Africa after the war was over. The hon. gentlemen on that side who love the Union Jack so well that if they could get a few ounces of gold out of it they would put it through the mills on the Witwatersrand, and who flogged their fellow-countrymen and imported the Chinese into South Africa to work the gold mines whilst their own countrymen starved, when some of the overseas component parts of the commonwealth had to take their stranded ex-soldiers out of South Africa, the hon. gentlemen opposite were importing Chinese to do the work of this country. We go a little further than that. After continuous agitation, in which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at that time joined—he was then on the right path, but has been off the rails for many years since —when the Chinese went what happened ? The hon. gentlemen then turned their attention to the natives—to that reservoir of cheap labour of South Africa—and in the interests of greater profit, have continually endeavoured to bolster up the native and put him into industry to the detriment of their own flesh and blood.

The hon. gentleman is wandering a bit far afield now.

We are dealing now with the sentiments of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and that has a great deal to do with the subject under discussion. Then we come to another episode in the history of South Africa. When the custodians of the Union Jack and British liberty on that side of the House came to deal with the constitutional strike, what happened ? The lovers of British liberty and justice tore up the constitution ; tore up Magna Charta, in order to suppress a peaceful strike, and deported men without trial, am trying to explain the feelings of the Labour party on this question. Then we come to the question of the Asiatics in this country. What did we find then ? One of the—

stated that if the home Government dared to interfere with the South African Government, he was prepared to contract himself out of the British empire. As far as we are concerned, we have no quarrel with the Union Jack, but with those people who are exploiting the flag for their own party purposes. I hope the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) will now understand our feelings on that particular question. Our objection has been to those people who, during every election, are prepared to bring the flag in, and plaster their motor-cars and committee rooms with it, and who label every party except the old Unionist party or the present South African party—everybody opposing them—as being disloyal, and consider that they on that side are the only custodians of the flag and all it stands for.

You tried to pull the flag down!

The hon. member for Standerton said this was a question of great importance. The importance attached to the question is from this point of view, that hon. members on that side and their press are deliberately creating a feeling in South Africa that this is the first step towards secession from the British empire. That is why it becomes of importance.

So it is.

That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the position. That is why this question has assumed the importance it has with the outside public. As far as the Empire is concerned we have Ireland to-day with its own flag. What about that ? We have Scotland with its own national flag

Oh!

Oh, yes.

It is not recognized.

Yes, it is, by Scotsmen. Whatever country the hon. gentleman who has interjected comes from

He comes from South Africa.

As far as Scotsmen in Australia are concerned, I remember when I was a youngster, they always flew the Scottish standard and not the Union Jack. However, that is a minor point. If we are, as the hon. member for Standerton told us, co-partners in the great commonwealth of nations, why on earth can’t we ask Great Britain to have a flag embodying the whole of the commonwealth ? Have not we as much right as colonials—I am a colonial—have not we as much right to say that England shall fly a flag with something representing Australia, Canada, South Africa, as hon. gentlemen opposite to say we must have something representing England, Ireland and Scotland in our flag? The hon. member for Standerton says he does not think the Government realize what they are doing, and that if the Government appreciated the depth of feeling against the Bill, they would not go any further. Judging by what some hon. members opposite are saying, they would be only too delighted to see this Bill passed through this House. They won’t be in a position to make party capital out of it then. They are simply after exploiting the Union Jack for the party purposes, as they have done for years. This has been my experience.

Is that your contribution?

In 1911 it was used against me in a municipal election in Boksburg.

We try to forget these trifles at a time like this.

The hon. member for Standerton also stated that the country will be in a state of turmoil before the Bill passes. Of course it will. If hon. members opposite can stir the people it will. I mix among the public of South Africa as much as any hon. member and I never heard one word in connection with this Bill until the press started its agitation, and as far as the great mass of the people are concerned, if they really understood the position, the great mass of the people would not worry twopence-halfpenny about it. But it is by the stories they are being told that people are being stirred up, stories without any foundation whatever, and an attempt is now being made to frighten the Labour party, through the press, and by hon. members opposite, by taking up the attitude that this Bill could never pass through this House were it not for the Labour party, and therefore that party must bear the whole brunt of it. They are again exploiting the Union Jack to get at the party they are afraid of, which stands for decent wages and a decent standard of living Every man who feels for the Union Jack and the empire should keep them out of the elections, because they are not serving the best interests of the Union Jack and the Empire when they are continually dragging them into the political arena. Did the three members of the committee who were appointed from the South African party side not consult the leaders of their party before they took action ?

That is not true.

It is misleading to tell the public that these three “wisest and most moderate” men had a free hand. We know that, as far as that question is concerned, a consultation took place between the leaders of the South African party and these three members of that committee. Is the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) prepared to say that he was not consulted, and did not express an opinion to these members of that committee as to how they should act ? I am just reminded also that the Flag Bill was mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech when Parliament met. The right hon. the member for Standerton made comparisons with Canada, which is not on the same footing, or on all fours, with South Africa on this particular question. He also stated that the people are not in the mood. If he were in power he would not worry whether the people were in the mood—he has never worried about it—if the people kicked he would declare martial law. He is the last man in Africa who should talk about “steam rollering” these things through. He says—

Is this a repetition of the advice given to a Brakpan meeting by a member of the Women’s South African party, not unknown to the right hon. member, who told the meeting that the South African party were all in favour of a republic, but they should wait a few years and not be in a hurry for it. I will not mention the lady’s name. The whole position is that hon. members on that side will not realize that if they have their own home and their relatives come there and are continually telling their host that they can get better food in their own home, they cannot expect to be popular; and that is a thing that has grated on colonials for years. As a colonial, I can enter largely into the feelings of every section of the population of South Africa, and know how it grates to hear about—

this “at home” and that “at home.” What we have been trying to build up in Canada, Australia and this country is a national sentiment, and we should look forward to the day when South Africans, by adoption or by birth, look upon themselves as South Africans. I honestly believe that if we have a national emblem, I can see no obstacle whatever to any South African citizen, whether British, Scotch or Irish, not preparing to accept a purely South African emblem. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said, let us have the Union Jack representing the Empire, and the South African flag as representing the South African emblem. If hon. members on the Opposition side say—

let them take up the attitude that South Africa is first and is not an inferior partner of the commonwealth of nations.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with all that has been said by my colleagues on the Labour benches. But I do not wish my friends here (Opposition) to flatter themselves, because if the Pact Government actually intends proceeding with this Bill I am going to support it ; but in the meantime I am unable to enthuse on either the need of, or the urgency for, a national flag. I would like to refer my friends on the Government side to a paragraph in the Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament this year. Although members may have been familiar with the passage at the time, there will be no harm in refreshing their memories now. The paragraph reads—

I subscribe entirely to what is stated here. As far as I understand—although I was not consulted in the matter—a committee was selected, representing all parties in this House, to try, if possible, to give effect to the hope expressed in the Governor-General’s speech. There has been no report from that committee, to my knowledge, laid on the Table of the House. The report, however, found its way into the press of South Africa.

The chairman handed it to the press.

Is that so? I was always under the impression that unless a report was laid on the table of the Assembly it was not officially available to members. For any information as to the decision arrived at by the committee I am indebted to the press. The concluding paragraph of the Flag Committee’s report reads—

and here I would like to tell the Government and the Minister that they would be well advised to leave the position where this committee has placed it.

Are you still going to vote for it ?

I feel very strongly on this question, and in view of the fact that the Pact Government has passed so many valuable measures and done so much in the interests of the people of South Africa—it would be a thousand pities to give our political enemies an opportunity of putting the Pact Government out of office. In so far as Natal is concerned, I believe, if the Government proceeds with this Bill, not a single member on the Labour benches will come back to this House in support of the Pact. Much that has been said this afternoon is entirely outside the scope of a leave to introduce motion. When I think of many of the things done under the shadow of the Union Jack, it makes me blush with shame—I say so in all sincerity—and the mariner in which the South African party has prostituted the grand old Union Jack for political purposes makes me really sad. Let me give one instance. At the last general election a meeting was held in the constituency of the gentleman who is now member for the Point (Maj. Miller). All the available pocket patriots of Durban were present on the platform. They had a Union Jack for a table cloth ; at the back of the hall half-a-dozen Union Jacks were displayed, and all that was spoken about was what the candidate had done for the upholding of the dear old flag. There is no one who has a greater admiration for the Point member than I have—he was the first man I saw arrive in Natal by aeroplane, and I thought he was a hero. When question time was reached one man said he would like every man on the platform, who had taken up arms and fought for the Union Tack, to stand up. The hon. member for the Point was the only one to get on his feet. The intention originally was to introduce a Union flag, provided unanimity could be reached in a select committee, but the committee appointed for the purpose has not, unfortunately, been able to agree. I would, therefore, appeal to the Government, in view of the consequences that may result from pursuing this particular line of action, to pause ; re-consider the position, and in the meantime leave the matter where it is.

I think this has been one of the most noteworthy debates which has ever taken place in the House. I gather the great objection of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other hon. members is, that, by this Bill, we are actually taking the country by surprise, and that insufficient notice has been given of what is proposed in the Bill. At the same time, hon. members opposite have proved, by what they have said on the matter, that they know all about the Bill, and that there is nothing new to them in the Bill. The hon. member for Standerton used a few arguments. His first was that we were wrong in introducing this Bill at this stage of the session. In reply to this argument. I repeat again: What is there in the Bill that is new to hon. members? Have not hon. members and the country generally had ample time for months on end to think over it and to form their opinion? If there is one principle about which the difference of opinion about the Bill occurred, then it is the question, and practically the only question: Is the Union Jack to be included in the South African National Flag? That is the question which comes before the House to-day. It was discussed last year in the papers, and this year one of the papers, a supporter of the party opposite, the “Sunday Times,” held a competition for a Union flag, after it was announced that the Government intended to introduce the Bill. What was the result? The “Sunday Times” received hundreds of designs from English and Dutch-speaking people containing or excluding the Union Jack, and the first prize was awarded to a flag which did not contain the Union Jack.

The “Sunday Times” is not a South African party paper.

I say that the essential point in the dispute is whether the Union Jack shall be included in the flag or not, and that is not a question on which the House has been surprised, but is one with which the newspapers, the public in general, and hon. members of the House have, I may almost say, been considering for the past two years. I can further point out that this Bill, which is to-day introduced into the House, is, on the whole, the same, with a small alteration as the Bill introduced last year, and which was on the table of the House the whole of last session. Mention was made in the speech from the throne, as mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), of the fact that the Bill would again be introduced.

If there were an agreement between the various sections.

An agreement if possible. That was clearly said, and the words “if possible” were intentionally included, because we know our hon. friends opposite. The Government clearly indicated its intention of introducing the Bill again, and it was only held up because a possibility existed according to the assurance of the hon. member for Standerton that we might come to an agreement with regard to the choice of a flag. The further question was mentioned by the hon. member whether it was too soon in the history of South Africa to introduce a Bill of this nature now. I want to remind the hon. member that the first Government of the Union, of which he was a member, took a decision to have a Union flag, and the Government took the first steps towards the choice of a Union flag. They even went so far as to say that the Union Coat of Arms should be on the Union flag. In 1910 a resolution was taken for which the hon. member for Standerton is jointly responsible that there should be a Union flag to give expression to our own status. I say that if there is one person who, at any rate in certain circles in South Africa, raised the expectation that we should have, and quickly have, a Union flag, then it is the hon. member for Standerton himself. I want to quote what he said at the congress of the South African party held in Pretoria in 1919. On 18th of December, 1919, he said (I am quoting from “Ons Land ”) at the closing of the South African party congress—

I go further, and want to refer to a decision passed by the congress of the South African party in 1919, which resolution is not only in agreement with what the hon. member for Standerton said in their name, but in agreement with the resolution taken by this Government as regards the introduction of this Bill.

We are not opposed to a flag, but to a one-sided Union flag.

The introduction which is taking place in accordance with the attitude of, and resolution passed by the representatives of the Nationalist party and the Labour party at the committee which deliberated about the matter. I quote again from “Ons Land” of October, 1919, with reference to the South African party congress at Paarl on 4th October, 1919—

What are the facts here? That the South African party congress, with the consent and knowledge of a Minister, adopted the proposal for having a Union flag, and that the Union flag would stand for the status and the nationhood of the South African people, and at the same time the Imperial flag should be flown on certain occasions when it was not a Union occasion. This proposal, or rather what Mr. F. S. Malan said, is constitutional in the sense that, unfortunately, all his statements on constitutional matters are, but it is precisely on the same lines as the proposal of the representatives of the Nationalists and Labour party on the committee, and as the principle incorporated in the Bill we are introducing to-day. I therefore ask in the circumstances: Is it too soon to come and introduce a proposal of this kind to have a Union flag for South Africa ? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) further objected, and said that if we were to have a Union flag now it would simply mean not a union of the sections of our people, but race division in South Africa. I ask him what the position is at present ? If functions take place anywhere in the two northern provinces which were formerly republics and had their own republican flag, and the functions are given by chiefly Dutch-speaking people, then they do not use the Union Jack, but the old Transvaal vierkleur, or the Free State flag.

Why not ?

The English-speaking part of the people are in that way ipso facto excluded there. If on the other hand, the English-speaking Afrikander holds a similar function where they are chiefly concerned, then they use the Union Jack.

Why not ?

Ipso facto the Dutch-speaking Afrikanders are excluded so far as their sentiment is concerned. That is the actual position to-day. What we therefore want in South Africa is a flag which breaks with the past, and which looks only to the future. That is what the new design will be. It is not connected with the past, so that the two sections of the people are united in a common nationhood, a common national feeling. That is what we want, and I think it is an absolutely reasonable proposal. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) says that he is not ashamed of the past. From his statements during the past two years, one would think that he is indeed ashamed of his past. He told us how he had been a race hater and had broken with the past. He is still a race hater, but not a race hater of the section which he formerly hated, but of his own section. Hon. members of the South African party say that I am breaking with the past, but if there is one thing they have been saying ad nauseam for years in South Africa, it is that the two sections in South Africa must forget the past, must shake hands and look to the future. To-day they come for party purposes and say we must not forget the past, but must have a flag which refers to the past. The question has been asked why an agreement has not been come to. Let me repeat again what I said in the report published in the newspapers in reference to the work of the commission. I want to repeat again that from the beginning to the end of the discussion, although there was frankness, the very best possible spirit prevailed, such a good spirit that after we had discussed the matter from all sides we were on the point of arriving at an agreement. I have no complaints against the members who were on the committee, or the spirit which inspired them ; but the spirit not to concede an inch, but to insist that the Union Jack should be in the flag in spite of the fact that it would be inacceptable, is a result of influence which has been exercised from outside. It is only after certain people outside had been consulted that that attitude was taken up. I have nothing against the members of the committee, but against those who were behind the curtain. The hon. member for Standerton now complains of our going on with the Bill in spite of the fact that no agreement has been come to about the matter. I fear that as long as we have a South African party here—I hope it will not be for many years more—whose only weapon is the raising of race hatred, we shall not come to an agreement. The only way to get to agreement is to do as we are now doing: Get the greatest possible agreement, and carry on with it. That is the only way to get a national flag for South Africa. I fear that the South African party is playing the role of a dead fly in the ointment. The party is in favour of the ointment, that we should have a Union flag, that we should come to an agreement as regards the Union flag, but when all these beautiful desires and ideals have been expressed, then the supporters of that party are the people who make it impossible by saying that they do not agree. The South African party plays the role of the dead fly in the ointment. I believe that by passing this Bill, and by the absolutely reasonable attitude we took up at the joint committee, we shall have the unanimous support of moderate people in South Africa. If we ever want the flag, then we must look to the moderate people of all the parties, and not to the extremist section which is to-day controlling the South African party. An hon. member said that if we should appeal to the country, then we on this side of the House would suffer as the result of this Bill. Let me tell the hon. member that I hold the completely opposite view. If there ever was anything that would make it clear to the country that the South African party is ruled not by the old members of the South African party, but by the Unionists, or shall I say, not by the last-named, but by the “Sons of England,” the extreme jingo section in the country, then it is this Bill. I think that jingoism is disappearing in South Africa, it is a dying quantity, and the fact that the South African party has identified itself with that section is going to make the possession of a flag for South Africa which will not give offence to some sections of the population impossible. If there is one thing that appears plainly, then it is their attitude in regard to jingoism. With jingoism dying out, the South African party will go into the same grave. If we are to have a general election about this matter—with all the unpleasantness connected therewith—it will be very interesting. I will compare it to a football match where in one team you will have the “Sons of England,” and in the other the “Sons of South Africa,” and the latter will show what they are made of, that they have the true interests of South Africa at heart. In the circumstances, I do not hesitate to introduce the Bill, and I hope the debate in connection with it will be marked by the same good spirit as animated the committee.

Motion put, and the House divided.

I move —

I have pleasure in accepting the amendment, and we all listened with great satisfaction to the manner in which the hon. member moved it. As I said yesterday, the amendment that the withdrawal of preference is not to be applied to goods already shipped is quite reasonable.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I have a further amendment.

Dutch!

No, I cannot manage it. The matter was brought up by the hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin). It was pointed out that we are charging duty on goods which may have been imported into Great Britain, which paid duty there, and were re-exported to South Africa. We charge a duty on the re-exported value, which I do not think is quite fair. I am perfectly well aware of the terms of sub-section (3) of Clause 14 of the Act of last year. My hon. friend carefully excludes excise duty paid in country of origin, which is quite fair, but he is not consistent and logical to impose the duty on the re-exported goods in the manner in which he proposes to do. It is a reasonable amendment I desire to move, and I hope the Minister will accept it. I move, as an amendment—

I regret I cannot accept the amendment. I pointed out to the House yesterday that this is a very important and complicated matter. I have had it thoroughly investigated, and there is a very able report from the Board of Trade and Industries on the question, which has engaged the attention of my own department, and the Commissioner of Customs entirely agrees with the view the Board of Trade has taken. It changes the whole basis of our customs legislation as far as domestic value is concerned. This principle creates endless difficulties when raw material has been imported into, and been exported from, England. I pointed out to the House that this would only apply to an article where Great Britain imposes a heavy customs duty, and these customs duties in many cases are imposed there with the object of fostering their own industries. If you adopt this principle it depends on whether Great Britain considers its entrepot trade of greater importance than her manufacturing trade. The whole difficulty has arisen owing to Great Britain’s own fiscal policy, and not because of what we have done, and it is unreasonable to ask us to alter the whole basis of our customs legislation because it might detrimentally affect Great Britain’s trade. There is no evidence on this whatever. I cannot accept the amendment in view of the consequences.

I am afraid I will have to rule out this amendment—it does not fit into this clause at all.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I want to suggest that the remaining clauses stand over until we have taken the schedules. We want to make an alteration in one of the schedules. I move—

Agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I move—

We are decreasing the duty on lactogen, which is dealt with by the Board of Trade, and has reported on it.

So long as you are decreasing it, it is all right.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

Is it right that the Minister said that boys"’ clothing is not at the moment being manufactured by our ready-made clothing factories in South Africa ?

Not to the same extent.

Is it being made at all ? I do not think it is, but I want to be clear on the point.

I understand on a small scale—not extensively.

Practically not at all. The Board of Trade reports—

What types? For men, and not for boys. They give the Minister an excellent reason why he should accept my amendment. The board proposed an immediate increase in the duty only on certain types of clothing, since it was the board’s considered opinion that the clothing industry should not be rushed unduly at the expense of the consumer. The manufacturer of ready-made clothing is almost entirely confined to that for men.

Is that any reason why they cannot start making boys’ clothing at once ?

The Board of Trade says to the Minister go slowly and see how the thing works out in regard to men’s clothing before boys’ clothing is further protected. Practically 100 per cent, of boys’ clothing is readymade, so every father of a family will be hit by this new duty. We know the difficulties of fathers of families, and it should be our aim to lighten the burden of the family man. The Minister is giving protection before it is needed, and before it is asked for, and certainly before the Board of Trade has recommended it. It is much more difficult to place a full range of boys’ clothing on the market than it is men’s, because there are more sizes needed in the case of the former. The board pins its hopes and even its recommendations on the increase in the duty of men’s clothing only.

I would like to support the appeal which the hon. member (Mr. Black-well) has just made. However, this is a financial measure and if the Government press it I cannot vote against it. The Minister has never yet imposed a duty with the idea that an industry should he started after the duty has been put on. A higher duty on boys’ clothing would be a tax on the poor man. Mothers can make dresses for their girls, but they cannot make clothing for their boys. Look at what this means to a country which wants to keep its cradles full. The ordinary working man is quite prepared to support the Government’s protection policy if they think they can thereby assist an existing industry, but I doubt very much whether the working man is in favour of imposing heavy duties for the benefit of an industry not yet in being. The Minister can obtain the money which this new duty would bring in in another way. This will be a most unpopular duty and every time a workingman’s wife buys a new suit of clothes for her boys the husband will say that the Government is not playing the game by the working classes. The protection is not needed today, and if it is given it will mean that the consumer will have to pay much more, as the wholesaler and retailer will put a bit on the price so the duty will be doubled.

I want to say at once that the matter is rather a difficult one, otherwise I would have long ago tried to meet hon. members. When we dealt with these recommendations we dealt with the clothing industry as a whole and intended to protect it ; we did not find out whether boys’ clothing is made here, we realized that it would probably take some time before the industry could be sufficiently developed to make all the clothing required here at satisfactory prices. Therefore I frankly said that this would probably mean in the initial stage an additional duty of from £50,000 to £100,000, and to counterbalance that I would give a remission of duty on cotton piece goods to a similar or a larger amount. The adoption of the amendment would, to a very large extent, upset my budget. It would mean the sacrifice of £15,000, but it is just as well if we agree to the amendment.

I wonder if the Minister will also accept my amendment. On two previous occasions I have addressed the Minister on the question of the whisky duty. He did not deny the figures I gave and therefore they can be accepted as correct. The point I stressed was that by increasing the duty on whisky he would not secure more revenue. If the Minister can assure the House that he is going to obtain an increased revenue from the higher duty on whisky I will not press the matter any further.

I cannot accept any reduction.

Do you expect an increased revenue ?

It is very difficult to say. It may be that I am going to get less revenue.

Amendment put and agreed to.

An amendment was made in the Afrikaans version of item 139, on page 15, which did not occur in the English.

I move—

I move—

The effect of the Minister’s amendment is that boxwood coming in for the packing of eggs and condensed milk will be free. I propose to add jams and canned fruits. I do not think that will make a big difference in the Minister’s revenue and it will be a considerable help to the manufacturers of jams and canned fruits.

I regret I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). Hon. members, I think, will see that the request of the hon. member is unreasonable. We are adding these concessions for the dairy industry and the poultry industry, because we find that these industries are in a very depressed state at present and require this assistance, but as regards the industries referred to by the hon. member, if we give the concession to those industries, how can we withhold it from other industries that obviously do not require it at all. The industries mentioned by the hon. member enjoy a very valuable protection at present in their local market. There is a duty of about 35 per cent, on confectionery, and on jams and canned fruit from 25 to 30 per cent. As far as boxwood used for the packing of these products for export is concerned, a rebate is given on that. The effect of the hon. member’s amendment will be to extend this concession to boxes used for packing of these articles for our local markets. There is no evidence that this is required. Where we have already given this valuable protection as far as the local market is concerned, I do not think such a change is necessary.

It is not quite clear to me from the item that on boxes used for jams and canned fruits for export the rebate is given.

That is so.

I know there has been considerable difficulty in getting the rebate.

The rebate is given when these goods are exported. It is provided for in last year’s tariff.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

Second Schedule put and agreed to.

The committee reverted to Clauses 2 to 5, standing over.

On Clause 4,

I do not know whether the Minister explained the necessity for this clause on the second reading of the Bill or not. If he did, I did not hear him. This clause states that the master of the ship shall be liable for the—

Does the master include the agent of the ship ?

I take it that he represents the shipping company.

Does the master include the agent in a case of this kind ? It is very difficult for a master to attend to all these things, and, therefore, he generally appoints an agent to deal with them.

We have used the words—

as representing the shipping company. We want to get at the shipping company and I think it is sufficient if we hold the master of the ship liable.

What I would point out is that if you hold the master liable, it will be quite impossible for him to do the work and, if an agent can be put in instead of the master to do the work, it is all right. I would suggest to the Minister that he should put in the words—

That follows, I think.

In regard to this clause, just to make the matter quite clear, ought we not to insert the words—

You refer in the clause to goods short shipped, or lost, or jettisoned. There might be some reason why goods are retained on board. It seems to me that the master ought to be able to keep the goods on board and not be charged customs on them.

No, I think the principle that was decided in the Mitchell Cotts case was that, as soon as goods arrive in a harbour, they are liable to duty, even if they are on board the ship.

It seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding. Suppose, for some reason, certain goods have to be retained on board and removed from the Union, practically the harbour is in bond. You might get to this position. A boat might arrive at a port and for some reason have to proceed and over-carry certain goods. They have not been lost, jettisoned or short-shipped.

In the case you mention, as soon as the goods arrive in the harbour in the Union they would be liable to duty.

Even if they are not brought into the Union and never landed on the wharf ? It seems to me an extraordinary position.

In the Mitchell Cotts case the courts decided that as soon as they arrive in port they are liable for duty. Of course, they can be taken on further if the customs authorities give permission.

I do not understand the Minister’s position. A merchant can take these goods from a ship, land them on a wharf, bring them into the bonded store, without paying duty, and can ship them in bond without paying duty. Surely the man can bring them in without landing them and ship them again without paying duty. A ship can bring them alongside the wharf without landing them and remove them in bond.

That is with our permission ; they are shipped in bond.

Might I ask, before the Bill finally goes through, whether the Minister will go into the matter. I do not want to protract the proceedings, but it seems a most anomalous position.

I will go into the matter, but the hon. member will see the words we use and all we really provide for is that we do not change the existing customs legislation by laying down that they will or will not be liable. All we say is, we want evidence that the goods have not been landed in this country. Then we do not ask the shipping people to pay. But I will consider the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments ; to be considered to-morrow.

I notice that provision is made for the Irrigation Commission. Is it his intention to have this board appointed ? I would appeal to the Minister not to delay this matter too long. There is no doubt that this Bill has been delayed too long already, and any further delay means loss, not only to the State, but to the irrigators. Then, owing to the frequent droughts experienced in the midlands, there is a strong feeling among the farmers that a thorough test should be given of Mr. Hall’s theory of artificial rain making. The farmers’ associations there have passed resolutions urging the Government to give Mr. Hall support. A test was made, but was not successful, owing to certain difficulties, and I would urge that another test should be allowed. Mr. Hall’s idea is to precipitate rain when the clouds are there. Another point I would like to raise is in regard to our engineers. I conscientiously feel that they are very badly paid and, seeing we in South Africa have to depend to such a large extent on the storage of water, I feel that if we do not pay good salaries in order to keep the best men in the service, and draw the best men from other countries, we will lose these men. I believe they are leaving the service to be engaged by private individuals and other Governments.

I should just like to bring to the notice of the House the position with regard to the irrigation scheme Bon Accord, to extract, I hope in that way from the Minister, a decision which will, a little, set at rest the people below the dam. The condition of the people there is desperate, in, consequence of all sorts of wrong things done there when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was Minister of Irrigation. Through his fault the Bon Accord scheme became a failure and the farmers below the dam run a great danger of all going insolvent, unless the Government steps in and improves things. I want to call attention to a remark of the Director of Irrigation a short while ago in his report, in which he reflects upon the farmers below the dam, which, in my opinion, is quite unjustifiable. He says, inter alia, that at the commencement of the scheme the engineer sent by the department was not received by the board. The director has all sorts of complaints against the people, and he ends by saying that unanimity, which was expected at Bon Accord, and that was necessary for the sake of economy, was absent. I call attention to this, because I am convinced, in view of the impartial report of the Financial Irrigation Commission that the mistakes which were made are for the most part due to the department and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. I shall not mention the name of the present director. It is chiefly due to the department’s mistakes that the existence of the people there is at stake.

What are the mistakes ?

You will find the answer in the report of the Financial Irrigation Commission, page 12, where it is stated—

And I have also proofs in my hand that the people asked the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, asked him urgently, first to have an enquiry made and to have everything gone into carefully, so that they should not be reduced to bankruptcy. I am sorry that the necessary sympathy was not shown with the people below the dam by the Government and the Department of Irrigation. Fortunately, we have a recommendation from the Financial Irrigation Commission which reads—

What is the tax to-day? We find that also on page 12. The water tax is £11 per morgen, and then a further £11 is necessary to manure the ground, so that the farmers would have to pay £22 a morgen each year to be able to get a good harvest from the ground. Every farmer will admit that that is an impossible thing, and must finally lead to bankruptcy. All I want from the Minister is the reduction of the water rate so that the people are not ruined entirely. The matter can still be remedied, and I hope the Government will meet the people. The sooner this is done the better, because the people there are in a terribly bad way and an end should be made to it. Then, in connection with bores, the people of Pretoria (North) are thankful for the improvement which this Government has made in hiring out bores. I assume hon. members are acquainted with the conditions, viz.: That if in certain circumstances water is not found, the price after the tenth day is reduced by 50 per cent. But the question is whether it is not desirable that, inasmuch as every bore hole made in the country is beneficial to the country as a whole, the Government would not be prepared to show more generosity to the people who have boreholes. I know that as much as 40 per cent, of the expenditure is borne by the country, but I also know that, under the Minister of Lands, there is to-day a possibility to completely cancel the charge for bores on settlements. And if that can occur on settlements, why cannot it be done with ordinary farmers ? The answer will possibly be that the settlers live on Government ground, but ground which to-day belongs to the Government subsequently passes into the ownership of the settlers and, therefore, I think the Government should consider the matter seriously because, as has been said, the more bore holes are sunk, the quicker will be the progress of South Africa.

With regard to the question put by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), I have not really considered the question of the Irrigation Commission. The date they should be appointed is towards the end of June or the beginning of July. With regard to droughts in the midlands, artificial rainfall, and the experiments of Mr. Hall, he has been asked by the department to supply details of the experiments, but so far no clear details have been given to the department with regard to the cost of the experiments. Representations have been made to the department, and no doubt to my predecessor, with regard to Mr. Hatfield, a rain maker in America, but the department feel that they should not obtain Mr. Hatfield’s services, however valuable they may be in America. We are not impressed by his experiments there. We should confine ourselves to the experiments of Mr. Hall—it is suggested that we should have our own witch doctors, and not from other parts. So far, the department is not very much impressed by what we have got. As to the question of engineers and their salaries, the rates paid in the services as a rule are somewhat lower than what a successful-man can get outside the service but in the service he has continued tenure, and he gets a pension at a later stage. It is very difficult indeed to put your pay on such a basis in the service that your engineers are not attracted to other employments where they get higher pay. A young engineer at Hartebeestpoort was attracted to South America, where he got £3,000 a year. Unfortunately, we cannot place our salaries on a sufficiently high scale to take away temptation of that kind.

It is the same the world over.

£300 a year seems very small!

That is the starting salary. Young men nowadays are prone to think that they should start at a big salary. They should start at a small salary, and the salary should be increased later on. The bugbear of the Minister of Finance is always the insolvency court.

†*The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) mentioned a very wise affair when he spoke of the Bon Accord scheme. The Bon Accord scheme was enquired into by a committee of the Department of Irrigation, and again by the Financial Irrigation Commission which was recently appointed. I do not know whether it is mentioned in the report of the commission, but the chairman told me that when one looked at the Bon Accord scheme, then it was a great pity that we do not do more to bring water on the land. In that case there is good water. There is no doubt about that, but unfortunately the ground is bad. I do not know how one should talk to the people who evolved that scheme. Now I should like my hon. friend to tell me what I am to do to improve the ground there. Must I have better ground carted there? That is the only way to make anything of the Bon Accord scheme. There is a certain part of the ground under the Bon Accord scheme which it would not pay the Government to take over gratis. All I can tell my hon. friend is that I shall again have the matter carefully gone into by the Permanent Commission, and if the commission is a bit supernatural, they will possibly find out something to solve the difficulty. If it has no supernatural power, it will be very difficult to find a solution. Perhaps the position will improve somewhat if a large amount is written off. If that is recommended by the commission, it will receive the serious consideration of the Irrigation Department, and the writing off will doubtless be done. Even the greatest possible writing off will still leave the scheme an unhappy one, because the commission that was appointed reported that it was probably the worst ground in the whole of the Union. If my hon. friend would rather find a scheme which is a little better, I will not stand in his way. I know the hon. member wants to do something for his constituents, and therefore I do not object to his mentioning the matter. Then he also dealt with the matter of bore holes. It is one that is mentioned everywhere. The ordinary taxpayers pay a very large sum in connection with bore holes, and it is eventually for the convenience and benefit of the man who has the boring done. Farming is done much more cheaply, and a large part of the cost is thrown on the shoulders of the ordinary taxpayer. I am certain that there would not be a large percentage of hon. members of this House in favour of a larger share being thrown on the shoulders of the taxpayers. I think that hon. members hold the view that the farmer who has the boring done gets a good chance of throwing a part of the debt on to the shoulders of the State, and the majority of members of this House will be opposed to the State carrying any more. The difficulty we experience is that although boring is done very cheaply, it is very difficult to recover the cost when the boring has once been completed. A provision has now been made by the department which I am sure the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will welcome. When we get requests for boreholes, it is stipulated that the applicant must deposit £25 in cash. If a man cannot do that, then he ought not to be allowed to bore. It is not at all sufficient to cover the cost of boring, but at any rate it is a method of going to work in a more or less business way. The Irrigation Department is now engaged in recovering the old debts of the last six or eight years. I shall probably make myself unpopular, let I think I am becoming popular with the Minister of Finance, especially if I succeed in getting them in satisfactorily. A considerable amount of the arrear money has already been recovered. I think it is the view of the whole House that if a man is assisted in farming, and the taxpayers give the help, then he can at least be expected to meet his obligations. One thing which is conspicuous is that the ordinary man never thinks that the debt he owes the State is a lawful debt. He seems to think that it is a sort of bet, and that he need not pay if he loses. I think that it should be put on a proper basis, so that, the man will feel that it is a debt of honour, and that it is the first of his debts which he ought to pay, and not the last. Even if the people groan and grumble loudly, they still get the work done cheaper than by an ordinary contractor. That is not exactly what my hon, friend asked about in this connection. I think he should warn his constituents that they should properly fulfil their obligations, and be thankful that the State does so much for them. That seems to me to be A.B.C., but in many cases A.B.C. is not understood by the people of South Africa.

The Minister has referred to a certain carelessness which exists in connection with the repayment of money owed to the Government. On the other hand, I remember that two or three years ago a select committee went into the arrear debts on certain irrigation schemes, and then we saw that £100,000 was written off arrear interest, and £100,000 off capital.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that.

I should like then to say a few more words with regard to F.l on page 182, “hydrographic survey.” This is one of the most important works of the Irrigation Department, because in that way we are enabled to judge where and in what way water schemes can best be constructed and advanced. In that way information is got as to what water furrows can be taken out of certain rivers, how much ground can be brought under water, and how much can be irrigated by the available water in the river, all of which could not possibly be done without a hydrographic survey. If that is not done, everything is mere guess work. I do not know whether I may refer to a former debate, but an hon. member said that the reports about surveys of the department were practically untrustworthy, and that it could not be calculated how much water a certain piece of ground required, and how the water furrows, etc., could be made. That is not my experience. My experience is that the reports of the department on water schemes in my district are particularly trustworthy in detail, and, from the financial side of the matter, they are not only conspicuously accurate in the calculation of the amount of ground which can be put under water, but also as regards the cost of irrigation. We are tremendously pleased with the hydrographic work of the department.

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

At the adjournment I was speaking about the value to the fawners of the irrigation engineers’ reports but what are the general complaints ? That the plans which they suggest are too expensive. That the costs of water furrows and the making of canals according to specification are too high. But that is not the fault of the engineers themselves, but simply that they suggest complete plans for furrows and irrigation works, which in most cases are too costly for the farmers. If the Government does not execute such work the farmers are usually not able to execute schemes which cost £5,000, £5,000 or £10,000. The result therefore, is, that the work is not done so perfectly. I could mention a number of points here where an improvement could be made in works previously constructed but it is sufficient to say that the specifications of the engineers were excellent, but too high in cost to be carried out by the farmers. Then another point which is a decided objection with regard to the carrying out of the engineers’ schemes is that when the question is asked: Can I depend upon it that I shall be able to irrigate all the lands for which it has been made ?—the answer always is—

Those calculations were possibly made on water measurements over a short period, usually only two weeks. That is entirely insufficient, and it is a great objection. The surveys should take place regularly in our country. In irrigation works of this kind one should know whether there is regularly a sufficient quantity of water in such a river. Therefore it is necessary to properly register what quantity of water there is in such a river over a long period. I see that as regards hydrographic enquiry the amount on the Estimates is just as large as two years ago. The chief inspector says in his report—

Thus there the director himself acknowledges that it is necessary to take more steps to become well acquainted with the quantity of water in the rivers. Now it is true that in some of the large rivers water gauges are erected, and in this connection I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what I find on page 5, paragraph 15 about—

I notice there the words “wilful damage [Time limit.]

Although I know that the fate of irrigation in the future will be entirely in the hands of the Permanent Irrigation Commission, there is still something I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. The Towerkop Irrigation Board a few years ago decided to build a dam in the Buffels River Poort, but after careful attempts to find rockbottom, he Director of Irrigation at that time thought that the bottom was not good enough and that mother site should be looked for. Enquiry was then made at Floriskraal in the district of Laingsburg, at great expense to the Irrigation Board, and there rockbottom was found, Immediately thereafter the town council and some of the farmers of Laingsburg approached us and asked if we could not build a dam higher up, above Laingsburg. That, however, was found impossible. In the first place because we found that that place would not give value for the money which would be spent on it, because the dam would be a third of the size of the dam at Floriskraal, and only cost £10,000 less. The member of this House for that constituency asked at the time for a select committee and evidence was taken from both sides, from the people of Laingsburg and of Ladismith. Thereafter there was a pause. Now it seems, however, that some of the engineers think that the dam can actually be built in Buffels River Poort. I now want to ask the Minister if he will not go into the matter and enquire how far that is possible.

Is the money for the dam on the Estimates ?

I do not think so.

Then the hon. member cannot discuss it.

I thought I was entitled to make use of the opportunity to discuss it. I will only speak generally and not mention the name of the dam. I think the Minister should have an enquiry made so that we can know where we stand.

I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. member to continue.

Then I want to talk about the dam over the Prins River because although it has already been built, we still owe money on it.

The hon. member cannot continue with that.

I want to ask the Minister for some little explanation. In the first place, I see that the amount of this vote has increased by £16,000 over last year and the personnel of the department has increased by 11, the total now being 647. I want more particularly to call the Minister’s attention to this charge for Hartebeestpoort, which is put down to cost £13,000 for an engineer, assistant engineer, draughtsman, labourers, etc. We have this sum of £13,000 on this vote and I see that on page 167 there is another large vote for the Hartebeestpoort Settlement which we have already passed, £23,000.

It will never get finished there.

I quite agree with my hon. friend. This has been a running sore for a good many years. I shall not be at all surprised if the Minister of Labour also spends some money there, although I must say that it does not appear on these Estimates at present.

I wish to ask the Minister with regard to the La Chasseur irrigation canal. When this canal was constructed the original Estimate was only £25,000.

What item is the hon. member on ?

I am speaking on maintenance and engineers. Your engineers are paid out of this Vote for inspection and all other works in connection therewith. These people find themselves in a very sorry plight.

I am sorry, the hon. member cannot continue with that discussion.

Most of the irrigation works are in the same sorry plight throughout the country. That is why we have appointed a permanent commission.

We pay your engineers for inspection work done there out of this Vote.

The hon. member can criticize the engineers but not the ratepayers.

I will only say that on account of underestimation of the work which cost £80,000, we have got to pay heavy rates.

That is not on the Estimates. The hon. gentleman should have discussed this matter when the Minister’s salary was being discussed. I am afraid I cannot allow it now.

We could not discuss irrigation under the salary of the Minister of Justice.

Yes, the hon. member could have done so.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when a Minister happens to preside over two departments and the salary is taken on one department that has nothing whatever to do with the Vote we are now discussing, surely it is curtailing the privileges of members of this committee not to allow a certain amount of latitude. We are being curtailed in a manner we have not been used to.

No.

Order. The hon. member is not allowed to make any reflection on the Chair.

I am making no reflection on the Chair, but pointing out with all respect the procedure that has formerly characterized our practice in this House. This is irrigation work for which a large amount of money has been advanced.

The hon. member cannot challenge my ruling.

I want to ask you if I, as a member of the committee, have not the right to ask you whether in connection with these irrigation works, seeing they have been carried out under the supervision of the Director of Irrigation and his staff, I have not a right to ask the Minister whether he does not consider the original cost of these works too heavy, and that some redress should be given to the ratepayers.

The committee is confined to the items before them and the Chairman is as much guided by the rules as hon. members. However much I might like to give hon. members more latitude, I am curbed By the rules.

Have I not the right in connection with the engineering vote to ask a question? If not, why am I asked to vote their salary ?

If the hon. member wishes to criticize the engineers he may do so.

We all know that the future of the interior depends on irrigation, and we are all agreed on it. I want to ask the Minister and the Government always to assist in getting legislation passed for the protection of the various irrigation boards, so that they can enter properties for irrigation purposes. But I want to call the Minister’s attention to a point which causes much irregularity, viz.: That farmers in the proximity of schemes get notice of the proposed schemes as, e.g., the upper Modder River scheme. We find people there that live on the banks of the river who will be affected by the damming up of the water. Then notice is given to them that the officers and people who will work there will enter on the farm and will be entitled to do work there according to the Act of 1912. Such notices have been given as far back as 1921. We find, e.g., an instance on the 10th of March, 1921, of a certain Mr. Maree who was given notice. The man could not continue developing his farm because he was notified that any further improvements would not be compensated. The development of the farm was prevented, and it is a question whether the scheme will ever go through. I say that is not right towards the people. That is not the only place. I can also mention the Kafir River scheme. This kind of thing stops development.

I hope the Minister will be able to meet the people in Bechuanaland and the Kalahari, which is actually a voortrekkers’ country, in connection with boring. Boring is now paid for by the day and I want to ask the Minister if he will not consider paying these people per foot, instead of per day. Then the people will know exactly where they are, because otherwise a large sum of money is wasted which the farmers have to pay, and my constituents think that this will give satisfaction, and that it will be a good thing if the Government can have boring done per foot, instead of per day. Then there is another matter, viz.: Whether the Minister will not see to it that the people do not have to pay for dry bore holes. I see that there is a large sum of money on the estimates, viz.: £11,500, which has been lost in boring. Now the Government may say that if they did that there would be more losses. I can, however, assure the Minister that the amounts which have been lost by farmers on bore holes makes them sink to the class of poor whites, and if they are not obliged to pay for dry bore holes it will keep various poor whites out of the towns. There are people who have boring done, but after they have tried three or four times and failed to find water, then, eventually, they can no longer last out, and have to go to the towns to earn a living. I want to ask whether the Minister will assist me in this matter. Then there is another thing in connection with the Irrigation Commission. I hope the chairman will not stop me. I want to ask the Minister to be so good as to bring the conditions in my constituency as soon as possible to the notice of the Permanent Irrigation Commission to be appointed, because those parts have great possibilities, but on account of a lack of water, things are not as they ought to be. There is a big scheme—I shall not give the name, because it does not appear on the vote—and I shall be glad if the members of the Irrigation Commission will go and make an inspection in the Barkly constituency, where there are thousands of morgen of ground.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that.

I shall not mention the name of the place, but I hope the Minister will give his attention to it in order that this area, where there is the best and most suitable ground

If the hon. member wants to evade my ruling in that way, he must sit down.

I should like to ask the Minister what provision is being made to combat the silt in these huge dams. I have seen the last dam that has been constructed, Lake Arthur, and I have never seen such heavy water as there is flowing into that dam. The Umlaas dam, about salf the size of Lake Arthur, which was constructed by the Durban Corporation, silted up to half its capacity in a few years’ time, and I fear in regard to this particular district that great difficulty will be experienced.

I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the privilege I did not allow the others.

I want to speak on the Item A.l, Irrigation Committee. Is the personnel of this commission to include an agricultural expert? I think the success of our irrigation depends on having such a man on the board, because the problem of the paying crop is going to be the principal problem in regard to our irrigation. We know that, with the decadence of the ostrich feather industry, lucerne is no longer the paying fodder crop it was. We know, as regards that industry, that animal traction has been replaced by mechanical traction. We must remember we have over 200,000 acres of land which is under water and which is not being cultivated, and therefore I think an agricultural expert on this board is essential. I think the future of irrigation lies in the production of dried fruit. I am speaking more particularly of the Fish River, and we have no conception of the enormous fertility of that soil. I saw one acre of apricots grown on that land, the trees were 4½ years old, there were 100 trees to the acre, and the average yield was 200 lbs. fruit per tree, and sold f.o.r. at 1d. per lb. If that fruit had been dehydrated, it would have been worth 50 per cent. more. South African apricots, dried under the dehydration process, are the best in the world. That industry flourishes in America, but the apricots there do not compare with the South African in size or colour. I have seen the comparisons. In growing fruit, one has to wait four or five years and if private companies can afford to wait, the Government can also do so. We cannot be over supplied with this fruit, because it is a food stuff which is in great demand throughout the world’s markets.

I listened with great disappointment to the Minister when he said that the taxpayer could take no more upon himself with regard to bore holes. The boring for water does not cost as much money as the millions which are spent on big irrigation works, and the boring helps to develop parts which would otherwise be uninhabitable. I urge the Minister to go into the matter and, so far as possible, to encourage boring for water. Let us look at the history before the Union. I think it was under the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) during the Jameson Government, that the old Cape Government dealt with the bore holes in the Cape on the £ for £ system. It encouraged boring for water very much, and to-day there are hundreds of bore holes which there otherwise never would have been. They saved thousands and thousands of stock in time of drought. Our farmers are now going in for camps on their farms, and that is the best way of fighting drought, but it is useless if there are not good bore holes, and continuous water which lasts through a drought. I think the taxpayer can take a little more on himself in this respect, and the whole House will surely agree with me.

How much ?

I shall be satisfied if the Minister returns to the £ for £ system. We cannot get away from the fact that if the farmer improves his farm it benefits the whole country. The whole country depends on irrigation, and we must assist and encourage irrigation particularly in this direction.

It is difficult to know what one may talk about.

If you don’t know— sit down.

I want to ask the Minister what the intention of the Government is in connection with the Kommissie Drift, in the district of Rustenburg, one of the best suited places for building a dam.

The hon, member heard my ruling.

If I may not discuss that, then I want to mention another point. I see on page 184 of the estimates, under the head of boring operations, that the Government has suffered a loss of £11,500 on boring for farmers and lessees. I cannot understand how it is possible for the Government to have suffered such a loss in this connection. I will give my experience of farming to the House. On a farm which I know well eight bore holes were sunk, and I think that they were boring for four months, and each one took fifteen days. The ground is not at all stony, but quite soft. Each bore hole, therefore, cost about £70 and the owner, therefore, in that period of about four months had to pay about £600 to the Government. The cost connected with boring for the wages for the foreman and for the two natives yon can reckon at about £50 per month, i.e., £200 for the eight bore holes. Yet we find that £11,500 was lost. In this case the Government should, however, have made a profit on the eight boreholes of about £400. The position is that, when one supervizes the boring, you find that, although the bores are large and efficient, that the bore for hours does not touch the bottom of the hole. It waggles up and down, but does not touch the ground. I understand the foreman has received orders from the department to not complete more than 100 feet within a certain time. Quicker work is not permitted. If the Minister will go into the matter, he will find that the orders given are unfair to the farmers, because they have to pay £5 per day and little boring is done. The work is not done to finish the holes, but 100 feet may not be completed under fifteen days. The farmer has to pay as long as the bore is working. The applicant must also supply all the necessaries. He must supply the water for the bore, even if he has to carry it ten miles, and he also has to supply the coal. Everything has to be delivered at the bore, and the foreman has only to stand and look on at the bore working. The result is that the farmer, besides £70 for the 100 feet, has still to pay £25 to £30 expenses when one includes his work and the things supplied for the bore. If the foreman were not governed by departmental regulations the eight holes referred to could be completed within a month. Then the Government will have made a greater profit. Because the boring is done so slowly the farmer and the Government have suffered loss and we see to-day that £11,500 is down on the estimates for losses. I think the Minister should go very carefully into the matter, because the country is suffering under the present system. The result is also that the bore remains longer than necessary on one farm, and that other farms are, therefore, unable to have it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will see whether the boring cannot be done more quickly and whether it is not possible that where the foreman is not boring through stone, the hole will be completed as soon as possible. The House can take it from me that more than 100 feet may not be bored within fifteen days.

Under the head, “Professional and General Services,” there appears on the Irrigation Vote a geologist and assistant geologist who, together, draw £1,500 salary. I just want to call the Minister’s attention to it. I cannot understand what services such a geologist renders which cannot be rendered by the geologist employed by the Department of Mines and Industries. That is a department well staffed with geologists, and I do not understand what the Minister requires a separate geological department for the Irrigation Department. I can understand that at these boreholes a petrologist is required, who has knowledge of rock and is well acquainted with sinking by boring, but why there should be a separate geologist I cannot understand.

I wish to say a few words on the Irrigation Commission, which is being entrusted with the inspection of existing works, and has to report thereon how far they are a success and how far they are not, and where they are not a success to report on how to make them a success. Will the Minister have the La Chasseurs Irrigation Works inspected?

That is why you have the permanent commission, they have to go and inspect all these places.

I wish to impress upon the Minister the necessity of the early inspection of these works.

I have promised that already when I was approached by a deputation. Why it is raised again, I do not know.

I wish to bring it to the Ministers’ notice again.

He is a bit forgetful at times.

I won’t say he is forgetful. These works have been constructed at very high cost.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

A work which will be inspected by the Irrigation Commission.

The Hon. member cannot circumvent my ruling in that way.

I don’t want to circumvent your ruling. I don’t think I have ever been guilty of trying to do that, but I take it I have a perfect right to discuss this matter under the Irrigation Commission vote. We are voting money for the Irrigation. Commission, and may I not draw attention to the necessity of their inspecting this place at an early date, and may I not then go into details of the scheme ?

No.

Well, then, I have another little matter to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. Recently boring was done on three farms in the Worcester division, and in each case without success. The man in charge of the Government bores was not supplied with proper equipment or lining tubes that he wanted. The lining gave way, and consequently caused a considerable amount of delay, expense, and disappointment. If there is thorough supervision, matters like this ought not to occur.

The report of the temporary commissioner (Mr. van Reenen), on the matter raised by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), will be laid on the Table in a few days. The Government wish to retain Mr. van Reenen’s services, so as to continue the work that is in hand. As soon as the permanent commission is appointed, it will visit the principal works. I do not see what assistance it is to have these debates, in view of the appointment of a permanent commission. Boring complaints should be sent to the head office, so that the department can investigate them. The difficulty at Worcester was that the ground was pebbly. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), we have put £13,000 on these Estimates for maintenance, and £23,000 will be provided on the loan estimates to finish off uncompleted works. We have been marking time on account of difficulties which have arisen in connection with a large number of schemes, and we are awaiting the appointment of the permanent commission before proceeding with important new work. The commission will not be able to function until the end of June. The question of silt is a very big problem. I understand that as far as Lake Arthur is concerned, there was no very great danger from silt, but it is a very serious danger with many schemes. One of the principal drawbacks to the Bon Accord scheme is that it is too big for the land available for irrigation. I quite agree with regard to the prospects of the apricot crop in certain parts of the country, and I am told that that crop is more valuable than the orange or lemon crop.

†*The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) spoke about the writings-off from the irrigation scheme. I agree that the writings-off are often necessary, because the burdens on the owners are too great under the scheme to permit of their meeting their obligations. My remark was intended more to apply to boreholes, for which the taxpayers have to pay a large amount. The hon. member also mentioned the matter of the cost of the water canal. It is possibly a well grounded complaint that the work is too costly, and that it should be done cheaper. The fact is that the experts are trying to do their work thoroughly, and it is a question whether it cannot be done in a cheaper way. Then the expert will, however, say that if it is not done in his way, then he cannot guarantee that it will be a success.

The work at Hartebeestpoort is about finished, and the £1,100 under that head is only for maintenance. The Irrigation Board will be appointed about the end of June, and will then begin their work.

†*Then the hon. members for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) mentioned a loss of £11,500 in boring. That loss is one in the sense that the work is done too cheaply because the Government want to encourage the people to go in for boring. It is therefore not the only loss, The other expenses in connection with the staff bring the loss up to £26,000 which falls on the shoulders of the ordinary taxpayer. One cannot place a greater loss than £26,000 in connection with boring for water on the Estimates. If the sum is larger the ordinary taxpayer will justly be able to say that he is not being fairly treated. I think that £26,000 is necessary. The hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) spoke of the special case of Mr. Maree, The position there is that it is a matter between Mr. Maree and the Irrigation Board. Provision is made in the Irrigation Act to pay compensation after arbitration. The Modder River scheme which was referred to in this connection will be investigated by the Permanent Irrigation Commission, but in the meantime it is a matter which must be regulated by Mr. Maree and the Board to do the work as they think fit. In connection with the general matter of boring I admit that the work in certain parts is not done too zealously, but those cases ought to be reported to the department and an inspector will then be sent there. The hon. member for Vredefort asked a question in connection with the geologist employed. It was found necesary to have a geologist because he does much useful work and I do not think it is an item that can be objected to.

I gather from the Minister that the Irrigation Commission is to be appointed under the Bill passed a few days ago. The functions of the Commission are to inquire into all irrigation schemes which have been financed by the Government. It was on that account that I thought that I was within my rights in asking the Minister to see whether there is any necessity for a redress of grievances. I was not asking that for frivolity’s sake. I had a perfect right to ask that question and I am always going to take up that position, but not out of any disrespect to the Chair. A member has a perfect right to ask any question in connection with any scheme the commission may be asked to inspect. The Minister says it is his intention at the end of next month to appoint that Commission. I notice from these Estimates that the Commission is now to consist of four members. We were always under the impression that it was to consist of three. The Minister might perhaps be good enough to tell the committee why this change has been made. He knows that we have sometimes considered that more people are appointed than are perhaps necessary. I maintain that it is the duty of the Minister to put the best qualified people that this country produces on that commission. The commission will enquire not only into old irrigation works, but also irrigation works that may be contemplated in future. Under the circumstances, I consider that it is advisable that, besides having an engineer of standing on the commission, you should have a financial man and a thoroughly trained scientinc agriculturist as members, so that the problems in connection with irrigation development in the future may be investigated from the engineering, financial and scientific agricultural points of view.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said that in his district no more than 100 feet of boring was done in fifteen days, if I understood him rightly. I want the Minister to clear this up because it is a serious matter for a farmer to pay £5 a day and for no more work than that to be done. I understand in our district the farmer pays £5 a day but that as much boring is done as possible. There is, however, one objection which the farmers in my district have and which they complain of and that is that when they are boring far away in the veld and the farmer on a summer morning comes to the bore at 8 o’clock, work has not yet been commenced. In the afternoon at 5 o’clock they stop work because time is up and they may not bore any more. It is a matter I want to call the Minister’s attention to. If the Minister thinks the man should be paid more, then pay him more. The farmers do not, however, observe hours, but work from morning to night. Work is now being done for eight hours a day but yet the farmer has to pay £5. If the bore is kept longer at work then more boring will be done for the £5 and the boring expenses will be cheaper. This is a matter about which the farmers complain very much to-day.

I think that the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) has mentioned an important matter. I also have had experience of boring. The farmers have to supply the necessaries and then you still have the eight hours system. The hon. member is quite right. How can one get past the difficulty because the Act regarding machinery has been passed on the pressure of hon. members on the cross benches. It has often happened in my experience that when the bore is working we let it continue right through the night. I agree with the hon. member for Riversdale that it is impossible for farmers if they have to supply the labour and the people working the bore have an eight hours day. They stop work at 3 or 4 p.m. when the eight hours have expired. The Minister must alter this even if he has to pay the workmen more. Then there is another thing I want to mention with reference to the Hartebeestpoort Dam, viz.: the anti-malaria measures. We heard that there was difficulty some time ago and I should like the Minister to tell me what the result of the enquiry was. A committee was sent there containing members of this House— I do not know whether they were paid—and I should like to know whether the people got satisfaction about the cleaning of these canals. I agree with the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) that if it is a fact that the farmers have to pay for boring by the day it will never do, because boring is a difficult matter as it is. I can remember a man who bored under private contract and he subsequently went to a mental hospital. He sent a message to another farmer who was boring that there was room for him in the hospital and that he would later come there if he continued boring. Boring is Usually very unsuccessful. There is a large sum of money on the Estimates for loss due to boring. The Minister speaks of £26,000 which the general taxpayer will have to pay. Will the general taxpayer continue to do this every year ? The Minister must put on the brake. We have heard about economy but we have not seen any of it as yet on the Estimates.

What about the flour ?

The hon. member for Riversdale must leave the flour bags alone. It is not necessary to rake up old stories. The Nationalist party came into power and said they would put things right. I know when the hon. member gets to Riversdale that he tell them that the old Government made a terrible mess. Will he, however, tell them how much is now being spent ? I do not wish to accuse the Minister because I know that mistakes were formerly made but he must see to it that the expenditure is reduced, because the taxpayers cannot stand it any longer.

As hon. members of the House know there are in the districts of Kenhardt and Gordonia no running streams except the Orange River. The water in that desert country is obtained by means of boreholes. In the past the boreholes sunk by the Government bores cost a tremendous amount. The bores had to be brought from 100 to 150 miles and wood had to be carted a terribly long way and then the boring was often a failure as water was not found. To-day there is a better class of bore and the people are making many applications for them, but it now costs £5 per day. I should like to know whether the Minister will not review the matter, because formerly it only cost £3 per day. £5 per day is too much, especially where the boring is done in difficult ground and the formation is rocky. Then the bore is usually put down crookedly. Where water is found it is often brak or salt. £5 per day for such an area I consider unfair. If the Minister says that the expenses are too high and that on that account £5 per day is charged then I want to ask why some of the private boring in the north-west is done on the condition that if no water is found the farmer will pay nothing. They make an existence out of it, why cannot the Government bore on that condition? I think the Government should make the farmers pay a certain amount for boring when water is found, and less if water is not found. The Minister must have a system worked out and he will find that the farmers will be greatly met because many of them are poor and if water is not found they become completely ruined. Last year I made enquiries from the Irrigation Department about bores and was told that they could be obtained. I received the necessary forms for the farmers that wanted boring done and in September of last year applications were made for the bores. It is now May and near the end of the month and I have been many times to the Irrigation Department, because I do not want to bother the Minister about little things, but I received a telegram to-day that the bores have not yet arrived. It is terribly dry there and the people need water badly, yet the bores do not arrive. The people can do nothing on the farm and have therefore to trek. I shall be glad if the Minister will expedite the department so that the people can be more quickly supplied when they make application. Shall I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in speaking about the irrigation scheme at Boegoeberg ?

The hon. member can do that on the Loan Estimates.

Shall I then be entitled to speak about the scheme if it does not appear on the Loan Vote?

No.

Then I am entirely prevented from speaking about it. I asked the question to get information.

I understand the Irrigation Commission is to be a permanent commission.

Yes, a whole-time commission. The right hon. gentleman spoke about the intention to have three members. According to the Bill we can have three to five, but four was placed on the estimates. The idea is to have three as a start and see what the volume of work is. It may be too large, especially at the start. If we can manage to get over the start with a commission of three I trust we can get on with that number. We are not going to appoint four unless it is necessary. We must try to get the best men we can for the salaries. Twelve hundred and a thousand pounds probably err on the small side, but you do not wish to have your salaries too inflated. If we get an exceptional man we may be able to pay something more, and perhaps put the chairman in a different position from the others, but that is always a difficult question in matters of this kind. These considerations will all be taken into account.

†*The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) has repeated the question which I did not answer because I thought it too stupid, viz.: whether the engineers had received instructions to only bore a certain number of feet per day. Of course we are only too pleased if they bore as much as possible. The members who have the eight hours day on the brain must be informed that the people work nine hours. I know well that hon. members opposite work much longer, but when I have worked nine hours I am quite satisfied with what I have done. Then of course reports are always coming in of the work which is done, and inspectors are sent if there are complaints. With regard to anti-malaria measures, I just want to say that they are prescribed by the Department of Public Health, and that is why the item of £1,000 appears. The disease at Hartebeestpoort has more or less completely disappeared and this good state of affairs has prevailed quite a long time. They are, however, only measures to prevent malaria recurring, and I think it is a cheap insurance.

I agree entirely with what the Minister says, and that it may not be possible to get the class of man we require with the money on the Estimates. These men are going to deal with eight or nine millions of pounds which the State has already advanced, and you will be advancing large amounts in the future. My point is that you should have on that commission a financial adviser that would have as high a position as the leading adviser of one of our big banking institutions. Even if it is found necessary to pay more, as the financial work is so important, the Minister should not hesitate. It will be found cheap in the long run to get the best man that can be secured.

I will consider that.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 37, “Public Service Commission,” £27,638,

I would like to ask the Minister about this change in the personnel of the commission, and when the Minister is going to appoint the new board ?

I would like to ask the Minister also if he will kindly explain to the committee what this change is going to cost us. In a reply given the other day to the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti). I find that the pension to Mr. Robinson is £1,200, Mr. Hofmeyr £1,337, and Mr. Fleischer £772, and they could still serve for 14, 10 and 12 years, respectively. These gentlemen have been associated with Public Service Commission work for a considerable period of time, and I understand they have given a great deal of attention to their work. The Minister in his responsible position cannot say that they have not carried out their duties faithfully. As we have to pay over £3,000 a year in pensions, which would become due in the earliest possible case within a period of ten years, and at the latest, 14 years, what are the reasons that my hon. friend has thought it necessary to dispense with the services of these gentlemen ? Is it on the basis that the hon. gentleman considers that he can get men to do the work better, or is it on the basis of the doctrine my hon. friend has enunciated in another place, that he desires to fill up these posts with people who hold particular opinions.

Not in “another place,” but in this place.

That makes it worse. My hon. friend acknowledges that he fills up positions on account of the political views they hold, and the country has to pay £3,000 in pensions to satisfy the idiosyncrasy of the hon. gentleman in making these appointments. It is good that the country knows these things. We have looked upon the hon. gentleman as a simple gentleman, but he is more shrewd than we gave him credit for. His ways are devious and past finding out. I am getting a bit suspicious about my hon. friend, and anyone who heard the wealth of language this afternoon would become a little suspicious of his ways.

I see from the report of the Auditor-General in connection with the travelling expenses of officers going overseas that they get 24s. 6d. per day, and 33s. 9d. for travelling on the continent.

That does not appear on the Vote.

Yes, it comes under Public Service Commission.

Which item?

Expenditure.

What expenditure?

That of last year.

We are now on Vote 39, the one you are referring to is already completed.

I just wanted to ask if it would be altered in future?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked for information with regard to the appointment of the new Public Service Commission. Now, the information I can give him is that we have intimated to the present members of the Public Service Commission that when their time expires they will not be reappointed, and I intend within a very short time, officially, to appoint the following three members: To be chairman of the new Public Service Commission, the present Secretary of the Interior, Mr. A. G. E. Pienaar; and the other two members to be Mr. Lloyd, chief magistrate of Cape Town, and Mr. P. J. H. Hofmeyr, who was secretary of the Public Service Commission from 1910 to about two years ago, when he became an inspector of the public service. The qualifications of these men are the following :— Mr. Pienaar has acted in a very capable manner as head of one of the chief departments of State, and is acquainted with the public service as very few others in the country are. He has been, as the hon. gentleman will know, an inspector of the public service for a considerable time. He is recognized as certainly one of the ablest public officials, and a tribute has been paid to him by the leader of the Opposition, last year in this House, when there was a difference of opinion as to the action of the Government in appointing him to the secretaryship of the Interior instead of Mr. Venn. Mr. Lloyd is one of the chief magistrates of the country ; besides, he has a very intimate knowledge of the public service, and has been for a number of years practically an inspector of the public service—an inspector of the magistrates’ courts and the duties of magistrates, and besides, Mr. Lloyd is one to whom the public service generally looks up with respect and confidence. As far as Mr. Hofmeyr is concerned, he has a very intimate knowledge of the public service, because for quite a number of years he has been secretary of the Public Service Commission, and after that an inspector of the public service ; so I think there can be no doubt as to the special qualification of these three gentlemen ; and in appointing them I am looking to their merits, and nothing else. As to the point raised by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in his usual very dramatic way, all I can say is that the Government in not re-appointing these three gentlemen is acting certainly within its rights. The members of the Public Service Commission, as the right hon, gentleman knows, if he refers to the Act, are appointed for five years only. It is free to any Government when their period of office expires to appoint others. If we are to pay £1,700 per annum as we are doing to make this change, we are getting it very cheaply. I have nothing to say against the Conscientious way in which the present commissioners do their duty, and to a very large extent the country is indebted to them for that. But it so happens that in certain very vital respects the policy followed by these gentlemen does not agree with the policy of the Government. If it is necessary for me to bring forward proof of that I can only refer to what happened last year, when we had a full dress debate on the action of the Public Service Commission in insisting on the appointment of a unilingual man as Secretary for the Interior. In spite of the fact that I as the responsible Minister, and the Government, intimated to them that it was absolutely necessary to appoint to such a post a man who was bilingual. They insisted on the appointment of a unilingual officer and said that it was not necessary to appoint a bilingual man in that position. If that is all I think that is quite sufficient for us, as a Government, to make a change.

I think the Minister has made the position a little worse than I was inclined to think it was, for he has acknowledged that the appointment of one or two members of the commission is solely and entirely for political purposes. I leave the country to put its interpretation upon that. Members of the Public Service Commission, especially those we take from permanent posts in the public service, if their appointments are not renewed, have no opportunity of going back into the service. True, Mr. Robinson, the chairman of the commission, had been placed on pension in Natal, but he was considered so capable that when a chairman of the Public Service Commission was required, he was brought back into the service. Mr. Fleischer was one of our most competent magistrates, and Mr. Hofmeyr was also a very competent member of the public service. The Minister has terminated the services of these gentlemen who could have done good work for ten or twelve years before reaching pension age, because in carrying out their duty they reported that they considered a certain individual was competent to fill a certain position. The Minister has power to override the commission’s recommendations, but the Minister now says that he has terminated their services because, when he objected to their recommendation, they were not subservient enough to be false to the trust imposed on them by an Act of Parliament, and to carry out the views of the Minister. If the Minister of Finance, who pleads so often for curtailing public expenditure, is prepared to allow the Minister of the Interior to play with the finance of the country, because his dignity has been rather interfered with by these gentlemen through their not being prepared to carry out his ipsi dixit, then I say the Minister of Finance is better off than we thought he was. I see the Minister of the Interior blushes. I thought that for motives of self respect a blush would refuse to sit on his cheek. He has done the wrong thing and he knows it, and it is my duty to let the country know how the finances of the Union are being sacrificed to make political appointments.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 38, “Labour,” £279,952.

There is a good deal of overlapping between this department and the Department of Industry. The Labour Department was started in July, 1924, and the first, vote for it on the estimates was about £37,000. There is a chief inspector of factories and the Department of Mines and Industries has inspectors of machinery. Where is the difference between the two? The Government is so anxious to fill the country with officials that the Labour Department actually proposes to overlap into the Department of Mines and Industries, and it has a Bill for the appointment of further inspectors. If the Factory Act Amendment Bill becomes law, it will be necessary for two inspectors to hold enquiries into accidents. The inspectors of factories will conduct enquiries into accidents due to machinery, but they are not competent to do this, as they are not qualified mechanical or electrical engineers This means another flood of officials overrunning the country. At the rate we are going on, the expenses of the country are bound to increase, and this inspection is entirely unnecessary.

The Bill does not add one inspector.

It provides for it under this Bill.

The hon. member cannot discuss legislation on this vote.

I would like some information. I see the Minister has an item of establishment and maintenance of training farms, relief camps and settlements, including the wages of the relief workers, and salaries, etc., £145,000. That is a good round sum, and I have not the slightest doubt that part of it has been spent at Hartebeestpoort. I would like to know how this money is being spent. Then we have an item of subsidies to tenant farmers; and salaries and allowances, etc, of officers, £20,000. I would like to know how these tenant farmers are doing, and how the experiment is progressing: Another item is subsidies to other Government departments, £1,000. What departments are these that receive subsidies from the Department of Labour ?

I would like to ask the Minister, in regard to this Labour Advisory Board, whether he thinks that the conditions in the Free State are so simple that there are no problems in which he needs any advice from, the Free State. This is a board of twelve members, and it does not contain a single representative of the Free State, as far as I can make, out. Is there any special reason for that ?

I want to ask the Minister why he has extended the resolutions of the National Building Council to work done by bricklayers and others on the mines, work not in the nature of building, but work in shafts and elsewhere quite unconnected with the ordinary building industry. I understood that the formation of these national councils was intended to enable a particular industry like the building or the printing industry to regulate its own affairs, and fix its rate of wages, etc. The Act of 1924 gave the Minister power, in a case where an agreement had been arrived at, covering a particular area, to make the award so agreed upon compulsory within that area, but I never contemplated, and, I do not think any other member ever contemplated, that an agreement arrived at in the case of a particular industry should be made binding right outside that industry. Now the principle adopted is, I understand, that these agreements can be made binding, not merely inside a particular industry, but upon all workmen, inside or outside that industry who use the same tools as the people inside the industry. I contend that that is extending the interpretation of the Act far beyond what was really contemplated. It happens on the mines that the different classes of workmen employed there are paid wages which have a relation to each other, and if you pay a wage to carpenters and bricklayers which is fixed by the decision of the Minister, it upsets the equilibrium, so to speak, between them and other classes of workers on the mines, and that again, I think, upsets the whole idea of industrial councils. In a letter addressed to the Transvaal Chamber of Mines on February 9th the Secretary for Labour says—

It is quite an innovation to find the secretary of a department, writing on behalf of the Minister, using the word “I” in this way. I think the Minister ought to consider whether some decision cannot be arrived at which will prevent resolutions taken in one particular industry from being allowed to cut into another and entirely different industry. Another thing I would like to draw attention to is the working of the Wages Board. One of the things we object to in regard to the Wage Act that was passed, was that it gave to the Minister, who holds his position as a political person, the last word in industrial questions, and that it let these questions be swayed by considerations not of an industrial nature, but of a political nature. I want to ask the Minister whether he is not allowing that side to be developed even already to the detriment of the proper working of the Wage Board. I would refer, in the first place, to what has happened in regard to the alluvial diggings. When this Bill was before the House there was a good deal of controversy as to whether the Act should apply to alluvial diggings, and at least one member had strongly opposed the Act being applied to the alluvial diggings, but when the matter was put to the vote he was absent. When asked why he had done that, he said it was because he had got an assurance from the Prime Minister that, no matter what the Act said, it would not, in practice, be applied to the alluvial diggings. I find that a letter was written from the department by the secretary to the secretary of the board of control for alluvial diamond interests, and he says—

This he said would only affect them when a representative body of diggers applied on their own initiative. What right has the Minister to say that ? As I read it this means that this political influence being exercised by the Minister under the Wage Act has already begun to show its fruits. [Time limit.]

In reply to a question which I put to the Minister recently, he informed me that it was the intention of his department to place 100 tenant farmers on the Doornkop Estates, a property in the Stanger district consisting of 7,000 acres. I understood him to say that the property was not bought or leased by the Government ; but was to be rendered available for occupation by the tenant farmers, and that the owners of the property would erect a sugar mill thereon. The Minister promised a statement some time ago, and I should be glad if he would take this opportunity of making this statement. Perhaps he could tell us who the people are who are interested in the building of the sugar mill, and what guarantee the Government is to have that the sugar mill will be built within the period of the maturing of the cane that is to be grown by those tenant farmers, and generally what the relative positions of the Government, the company, and the tenant farmers will be.

I notice a number of statements being made by prominent members of the South African party in regard to the Wages Act and the Wages Board. They appear to have more information than hon. members on this side of the House, and if their statements are correct, the Minister has not been playing the game by members on this side. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) made a number of statements at Victoria West on the 17th April, in connection with the Wages Board. As reported in the press, he said that the Wages Board was enforcing uneconomical wages in industries which used raw materials produced by the farmers, and that these industries had to pay these artificially high wages at the behest of the Labour Minister, and that they naturally paid the farmer less for his goods. I want to ask the Minister what wages the Wages Board has determined, and in what industries? So far as we on this side know, the Wages Board has made no determination whatever. A further statement he made, according to the report, was to the effect that the Wages Board had applied a determination to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) ; that the hon. member had a girl in his office who was not a qualified typist, and he paid her the magnificent sum of £5 per month until the Wages Board told him to pay her £10 10s.

Was not that the Act of 1918?

I have made enquiries, and find that no determination under that Act has been applied by this Government. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) was dealing with the sins of this Government, and was trying to point out to the people of Victoria West that the Wages Act as passed by this Government was doing harm to industry, and quoted this as a specific instance. I want to ask when the Wages Board interfered in the business of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). I am quoting from the “Argus” and from the “Volksblad.” Another statement was to the effect that in the building trade the Wages Act had already sent the cost of building up by 15 per cent. It is obvious that the hon. member was trying to delude the people of Victoria West. Is it not a fact that none of these things happened under the Wages Act, and that these statements are all fabrications ? I want to ask are these not all terminological inexactitudes, of the innaccuracy of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) was well aware? Another statement he made was that the South African party are, and even more so himself, still strong republicans. It will be interesting news, and strongly approved of by the hon. members for Illovo and Umvoti. That is what the hon. member said, speaking for his party. But that has nothing to do with the Wages Board. I merely wanted to bring those statements, made by responsible members of the S.A.P., to the attention of the Minister, and to ask him to let the country know that they are not true.

What is the use of this House passing legislation if the Minister, behind the back of Parliament, is going to give an assurance to members of this particular constituency—that, never mind what the Act says, this will never be applied to you ? That is what we criticized the Bill for—that it is liable to be used for political, and not for industrial, purposes. What is the Minister doing in regard to instructing the Wage Board to enquire into the conditions of the mines? I have read a letter from the secretary of the department, in which he urges the Chamber of Mines to do everything they can to form an industrial council for their employees. I wish him to look at how this squares with the undertaking I understand was given by the Minister, or his predecessor, that he would personally instruct the Wage Board into the conditions of the mining industry. It strikes me we are not going to have industrial councils if the Wage Board is to be kept on hand and turned on into any particular industry where it is desired to have conciliation machinery set up, or industrial councils formed. What we were trying for on this side was to prevent the work of the Wage Board from interfering with industries where conciliation machinery was actually in existence, or it was intended to call it into existence. If the Minister is going to put the Wage Board on to it, goodbye to the Industrial Council.

Why ?

Because there is a section which will be able to get something better out of the Wage Board. If the Wage Board recommends a wage higher than they get in the Industrial Council, that higher wage will apply, and that encourages a section of industry to go behind the Industrial Council and appeal to the Wage Board. That is going to be the death of conciliation arrangements in this country, as we prophesied that it would be.

I am very much indebted to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for the “sympathy” he has extended. He is generally well informed, I am glad to say, but in this connection he is not well informed. The matter was based on the same principle that other occupations were excluded, because they cannot afford any increase in wages.

That applies to every industry. They all say that.

If the hon. member had the information at first hand, he would agree with me. At the outset of the session, I put a question on the paper with regard to wages paid to girls and women in the clothing factories, and the Minister replied that conditions could not be altered owing to the existing laws, but certain remedies were still available, either an alteration of the law or reference to the Wage Board. Personally, I was very glad to see this matter was referred to the Wage Board. Has the Minister decided on any definite steps to be taken in this connection? Secondly, I find in this interesting publication the “Social Industrial Review” that this plan of settling tenant farmers has been applied to the Transvaal, which has been divided into six areas, and to the Eastern Province. This is the only place in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope where this has been attempted, and we must infer from the reports that the attempts to resettle these tenant farmers have been met with a certain measure of success, but this has not been achieved in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. To what extent has it been applied, and what is the reason for this failure in the Eastern Province? With regard to the relief works, I wish to congratulate the Department of Labour on the success they have apparently achieved in this matter. It is a matter of very great pleasure to see that the numbers have been so greatly reduced within the last year. At the end of February, 1926, the number was only 2,435, with 6,000 dependents, whereas on the same date in the previous year the number was 5,235, with 17,000 dependents. With regard to the coloured people, I find that in February last year the number on the list was 1,494, whereas in February of this year only 163 remained. Is any information being obtained as to the different ways in which men who have been engaged on relief works find other employment on leaving those works ?

I intend criticizing the policy of the Minister in his application of the Factories Act to farming operations. It will probably come as a surprise to farmers in the House and in the country at large to learn that they fall within the provisions of the Factory Act. Mr. Thomas MacKenzie, of the farm Crammond, Natal, has plantations of wattle trees. After the bark is stripped off the poles are cut up. He was informed by letter from the Inspector of Factories, Natal province, that his premises must be regarded as a factory as power was used to prepare wattle wood for sale. The department inspector by letter dated 2nd November last, stated that the following requirements must be given effect to forthwith: protection of the workmen against coming into contact with the mechanical saw ; that the normal hours must not exceed 9½ per day or 50 per week, any time in excess of that number being regarded as overtime, to be paid for at the rate of time and a quarter ; and finally that latrines and wash-houses must be provided for all employees in the factory. These demands disclose a very alarming position so far as farmers are concerned, for they will now have two classes of labourers ; the ordinary labourers, whose hours are from dawn to sunset, and those who work in the so-called factory. There are many farmers who have plantations of fruit trees and growing plantations of pine trees, utilizing the wood from the latter to make boxes for packing their fruit. The whole of their operations will be thrown out of gear, if they have under the Factory Act to pay extra wages to the men who make the boxes, and the other workers on the farm will be discontented. Progressive farmers will be penalized, for those who saw wood with manual power will not come under the operation of the Factories Act, but those farmers who wish to extend their operations and use mechanical saws will be put under all these disabilities. I saw the Minister about the matter and he said he would give Mr. MacKenzie a seasonal exemption. Heaven alone knows what that means. But that does not help the farmer, who is now roped in under the Factories Act. No wonder that I have received a letter from Mr. MacKenzie, in the course of which he says—

That is really an intolerable position. Here is a man who is carrying on purely farming operations and because he is progressive and makes use of mechanical means for sawing up wood, he is hampered. I saw the Minister of Agriculture in regard to this matter and he was very sympathetic. I think he sees the point and realizes that farmers should not be hampered in the carrying out of their business. The Minister of Agriculture said—

The fact is that the Minister of Labour has got the Minister of Agriculture by the throat to the detriment of the farming population. The farmers do not want to be harried and hampered by these unnecessary restrictions. The Minister of Labour is bringing a Bill before the House to amend the Factories Act. That is an opportunity to him to put this matter right. What is his policy ? We are entitled to know.

I hope the Minister will not do anything to prevent the Wage Board from going into the question of wages in the mining industry, because, unfortunately, the workers are not very much in favour of the Conciliation Act in connection with the wages question, for when a conciliation board sat a little while ago and gave a decision which was not in their favour the mining industry refused to abide by that decision. There is a feeling amongst the men in connection with the question of wages and hours that the Wage Board would be a better body to deal with it, especially so far as the mining industry is concerned. I am sorry to hear the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) say that this is going to completely wipe out any idea of an industrial council in connection with the mining industry, because there are numerous questions cropping up between the employees and the Chamber of Mines which could be dealt with by an industrial council, if the right spirit existed on both sides. Unfortunately, there is an atmosphere to-day which is not tending towards good relationships between the managements and the men. The fault is not altogether on the side of the men. The mine workers’ officials do not want trouble, they do not want strikes. There are numerous questions in the mining industry which do not crop up in any other industry. We have to realize when we come to the question of the Typographical Union, for instance, that the men in that union are engaged on work predominantly of their brain. Even if the men on the mines were as well organized as the Typographical Union, they have not such a large body of men who are capable of sitting on an industrial council and dealing with the facts and figures and that sort of thing which are thrown on their shoulders by the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines have the best brains, practically, that can be obtained in the country working for them. When the workers have to take men from the ranks of the underground employees and they have to sit round a table and face the Chamber of Mines, they are in a absolutely hopeless position. I believe myself, knowing the position pretty well, that a body such as the Wage Board would give the men more satisfaction, it would at least give them a better chance. We must also face this fact. We find that the Chamber of Mines’ representatives come there practically with their minds made up on fundamental questions and they will not budge. You can get a conciliation board to agree on minor questions, but on questions of wages and hours and that kind of thing the Chamber of Mines go there with a heap of figures and practically with their minds made up. If the decision of the conciliation board is given against the Chamber of Mines, they refuse to carry out that decision. I hope an industrial council will be established. I know the Minister and his staff are working hard in that direction. The Chamber of Mines are to-day putting the screw on the men to a far greater extent than they should have done.

My attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Juvenile Affairs Board which the Minister of Labour addressed a little while ago, where he took up the matter of apprenticing a large number of white youths to farmers. That is a very excellent idea and everyone would be in favour of it. But the Minister went on to say—

I wish to advise the Minister that if he wants farmers to take these farm apprentices, he should not let it get into the mind of the farmer that he is going to send down inspectors of his department to go and nose about his farm-to find out what the farmer is getting his apprentice to do, under what conditions and how many hours he is working. Not only would that be fatal to the apprenticeship idea, but it would operate against the farmers now taking apprentices. I would hesitate to take an apprentice if I thought my neighbour was going to get one from the Department of Labour, and that the apprentice on the neighbouring farm would be visited by an inspector of labour to find out how he was being treated by his employer. The Minister does not understand the farming community, and if he wants to apprentice these boys he should get that out of his head altogether. There is another matter. Under what system is the work at Bains Kloof being done at present? Up to quite recently it was quite a by word in the district that a lot of money was being spent but little work was being done, and I thought the Minister would have changed the system to piece work.

Last year out of a grant made by Parliament some work was given to the unemployed, and, amongst others, certain gangs of men were sent to Pretoria and given to the provincial council to construct roads, but the provincial council stipulated that they would have the work assessed and pay at the ordinary prices paid for the construction of loads. The department spent something like £5,000 on the construction of the roads, and the amount they got from the provincial council was something between £2,000 and £3,000. I would like to ask for an explanation in regard to that.

I wish to ask the Minister something about the relief works. I know a great deal about these relief works, because I have been in contact with the men and some of them complain that they found difficulty in getting plots to work on. They are willing to leave the relief works. We all feel that these works were a temporary measure, and we feel that the congregating of parents and children living more or less in the open without proper sanitary arrangements is very undesirable, and we feel very thank fill that the Minister is trying to get these people away. Some of these people are splendid workers. I have been inside these huts and some of them are as clean and splendidly kept as any parlour of any of our homes. I wish I could take some of the members to these huts, and see how neat and clean they are kept. They have come to this terrible plight through no fault of their own. If only they get the chance they will make good. They complain that they tried to get away to the Hartebeestpoort scheme, but could not get the plots they asked for, although they tendered for them. It is possible for these men, as soon as they have proved themselves in these relief works, to get plots where they can start again a farm life ? The second point is whether they are going to continue the Pagter tenant farmer scheme. There is an idea, I have heard, of not continuing the scheme because it is not a success. Some of them have been a great success, and I should like to know whether the scheme is going to be continued. The third point is: the men on the relief works are in close connection with the men on the irrigation works, and there is usually a complaint between these two bodies. The relief workers say they get less pay than the irrigation workers, who get all things better than the men on the relief works. I know the Minister has a heart for the labourer and I trust he will see that the difference between these two sections of workers is done away with and that they are put on the same level. They work very hard and deserve all the wages they can get. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us whether they are going to put the relief workers on the soil wherever possible. The man who does not work, of course, must be forced to work in a labour colony, but the honest workers who have been proved should, as soon as possible, be put on the land, and have a future for themselves and their families.

What is the position in regard to Viljoen’s Pass works? The department started relief works there, and there was local opposition by the farmers, in fact, I think there was a law case in regard to water supply. Perhaps the Minister can give us some information in regard to this.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) asked me whether it was true that the Wage Board had made no award since it had been established. As most of us know, there has been a good deal of misrepresentation in connection with the Wage Board. I may tell my hon. friend that the Wage Board has not yet made an award. It was appointed only two months ago, and had to get its machinery in order. It has been conducting investigations into two industries ; one, the clothing industry, and the other, the sweet industry. The Wage Board took action in respect of these two industries on my instructions, because the evidence given before the Economic Commission went to show that there was a considerable amount of sweating in these industries, and we would be justified in asking the board to start investigating them. It has not yet made an award, and anybody who says it is responsible for increasing wages, is simply not speaking the truth. The increase in the wage of a typiste from £5 to £10 may have been done under the Minimum Wage Act of 1919, passed by the last Government, which affects only juveniles and women. Any award made under that Act continues until superseded by any award the present Wage Board may make. It is a good Act, and I am not saying anything against it. The unfair part is this— that something the late Government was responsible for, the present Government is being blamed for. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked me what we were doing with regard to the tenant farmers scheme in different parts of the country. When I first took office I was somewhat alarmed at what I thought was the large number of failures in connection with the tenant farmers who were being placed, and I sort of called a halt on the matter, and said: “This must be thoroughly investigated.” On the face of it, it seemed to me that there was too large a proportion of failures. I have been through the personal record of every tenant farmer, and I am satisfied that the scheme is good, up to a point—provided that three things are in harmony. If you can get these three things in harmony it is a success, but if any one fails you, failure will result. First, you have to get a farmer who is satisfactory, and will take an interest in the man who will come as his tenant. Then you have to get a tenant who is willing to work and who is acceptable to the farmer, and with whom he can get on. Then you have to get land which is suitable, so that the tenant, when he works it, can get something out of it. I find that we have a number of cases where the man is industrious and has done his part, but the owner is impossible. In some cases he will make the man plough, make fences and do the farmer’s own work. Then, again, you will find the farmer is excellent, and will do his best to make the man a success and to help him in every possible way ; but the man is lazy and is unsuitable, or not equal to the work, and does not meet requirements. We have other cases where the owner and the man work well and pull together, but the ground is absolutely hopeless, and nobody can make a success of it. I am now insisting that none shall be placed unless we have all the records—reports from magistrates, and all the supporting evidence so that when a man is placed you know that everything is all right, and that he has a chance of making good. We have about 360 of these tenant farmers placed with outside people.

And 50 per cent, of failures ?

I would not say that. I think the hon. member is referring to an answer I gave to a question, and I should have explained that it did not mean 200 odd have left, as a number we took away, and placed them in other places on Government land—on what we call our “extension scheme.” My hon. friend wants to know what openings there are from relief works. This is one of the openings, and one of the methods by which we have taken a man who is suitable, after we have tried and tested him. We also put them on railway construction or road work. It seems to me that this cry of—

is all very well, provided you put back people who are suitable. There has been a tremendous number of failures because of putting people back who would never make farmers, and who were unsuitable. Because people happen to come off a farm the cry is—

regardless of the fact that they may be utterly unsuitable for following an agricultural occupation. The training farms are the first really serious attempt that has been made to do something of a constructive character, and to sort out the unemployed and to place them into positions according to their fitness, judging by what we find from our handling of them. I expected that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would have remarked on the fact that, whereas last year we spent £300,000, this year we are going to try to do the work for only £200,000. Under the late Government the vote went up to about £400,000, and we had an unemployment vote of half a million. That proved that wasteful and uneconomic lines were followed, because most of the money was given to public bodies which would take the unemployed off our hands, and employ them to do work usually carried out by natives. We are trying to get away from that wasteful method, and with that object in view I am in negotiation with the various public bodies and provincial administrations. A deputation from the Cape Divisional Council met me this morning and, I am pleased to say that they are going to help carry out the policy I am initiating. The unemployed will be classified into three divisions— the fit, the semi-fit and the unfit. We suggest that roads might be constructed by white labour organized in a proper way so as to produce a maximum of efficiency. In the past supervisors of white labour, having been accustomed to deal only with native labour, have no idea how to handle white labour. A remarkable instance has been brought to my notice of certain roads costing £5,000, which have been constructed at Potchefstroom by white labour at a cost, not one penny in excess of what it is estimated the expense would have been if the work had been carried out by native labour. I am asking public bodies to tell us what they estimate road-making work would cost if done by native labour, and then ask them to employ picked white men, and if any additional cost is involved, that will be borne one-half by the Labour Department, and the other half by the public bodies concerned. We have a highly qualified engineer who has saved the department a good deal of money by discussing matters with municipalities and pointing out how economy may be effected by proper organization. The plan I have outlined will act as an incentive to both sides to get work done properly and economically. When I was in the Postal Department, we employed large numbers of white men on telephone construction, and Mr. Laxton, Divisional Engineer, Port Elizabeth, reported several cases where the work was carried out by white labour at no greater expense than would have been incurred if native labour had been utilized. This will get over the deplorable position mentioned by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus). I am not out to waste money by giving subsidies unless the work is done on a proper basis. We are going to arrange who shall carry the unfit, but the old age pensions will largely ease that position. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) asked why there is no Free State representative on the Advisory Council. Members of the council are not appointed to represent provinces, but we ask the Chambers of Mines, the chambers of commerce, and the trades unions, etc., to nominate representatives. I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). The position in regard to the building industry agreement applying to the mining industry has not been definitely settled. The matter is before the courts. The same principle is involved as the agreement applying to those engaged in building work in the municipalities. I will admit, and the hon. member himself must admit, that where you have got new legislation working, there are bound to be anomalies and difficulties, and there are bound to be border line cases. It takes some time for the new legislation to settle down really and find its level so that it shall give general satisfaction all round. I am prepared to let the people concerned discuss this matter fully. I am not wedded to this particular line or that particular line, but the courts are going to decide. The Act lays down a policy of home rule in industry, that is, that an industry shall control its own affairs. It was never intended that the agreement should be confined to the parties to the agreement, or it would lead to a chaotic state of affairs, but that it should be extended to all those engaged in the trade. The hon. member (Mr. Duncan) says—

As I said, that is a matter which will have to be decided by the courts. The hon. member for lllovo (Mr. Marwick) has asked me about Doornkop. I would like to explain the position to the House. Doornkop is a farm about 12 miles from Stanger, approximately 8,000 acres in extent. Seven thousand of these acres are being set aside by the company which owns the farm for tenant farmer settlement purposes. In other words, we are going to apply the tenant farmers’ scheme to that 7,000 acres owned by the Doornkop Estate, Limited. We are going to put these tenant farmers there exactly on the same principle as we would put 100 tenant farmers in the Transvaal, Natal, or anywhere else, with this exception: that, as sugar takes two years to grow the crops, we have to extend the subsidy period until such time as we can get a return from the crops. The company has made arrangements for a mill costing £100,000 to be put up, and to be ready for working by 1st March, 1928. It will interest the House to know that so sound is the scheme considered, that the British Government has put no less than £70,000 into it, for the payment of the mill.

Have you any guarantee on that point ?

Yes. This has been granted to this company through the Trade Facilities Board towards the cost of erecting the mill, and another £53,000 has been provided by Lord Invernairn, formerly Sir William Baird, in order that this proposition may be successful. There has never been anything like this tried in South Africa before. The Labour Department want 100 men on the land. We could place them individually under our tenant farmers’ scheme wherever we want them, but, instead of that, we are going to place them on that 7,000 acres, of which they are going to put 5,000 acres to sugar cane. Each settler is going to have 50 acres allotted to him for planting and developing. The first call on the profits from the sugar produced will be the repayment of that £70,000 to the British Government. After that, there will be the payments to the Labour Department for all the money advanced. We advance under our tenant farmers’ scheme up to £150, which we get back again.

The £70,000 is in respect of the mill ?

The mill is paid for by the company, and the company has got £70,000 from the British Treasury. There are already assets in the estate—cane planted, houses and cattle. The assets are valued at something over £40,000, which the company has already sunk in the venture.

Are they borrowing the £70,000 ?

Yes, through the Trade Facilities Fund, and are purchasing the mill with the money, and the first call on the profits through the sale of sugar in the first year is the redemption of the £70,000.

Is there no hitch about the £70,000?

No.

Is there no law suit arising out of it?

It is less than a month ago it was fixed up. There is no hitch about it.

What is the relationship between Maxwell and Co. and this firm ?

That is all finished. That was a proposition that was going on some time ago, but the company turned it back on Maxwells. The British Government have advanced the money, and the order has been placed, not with Maxwells, but with another firm.

On whose authority do you say that Maxwells have been paid out ?

As far as my information goes, if there is a law suit, that has to do with Maxwells and the company, and not with the Government or the present scheme. As soon as the £70,000 is paid off, a co-operative society is to be formed, and one-third of the shares in that society will be held by the company. The other two-thirds will be held by the 100 tenant farmers. These tenant farmers will become holders to the extent of two-thirds of the mill and the estate, with the company owing the other one-third.

At what price per acre?

Nothing. The price is paid for out of the sugar returns.

What security has been given towards the £70,000 ?

The security of the agreement between the British Government, a copy of which we have got.

An agreement is not a security.

As far as we are concerned in South Africa, we have undertaken to place 100 farmers on the company’s farm, and they have agreed to put up a mill and finance themselves. Has there ever been a scheme put forward on so favourable a basis as that ? It seems so good that hon. members can hardly credit it, and that it has been accomplished. In the meantime, until such time-as a co-operative society is formed, the Government have the control of the management of the settlement. If the co-operative society is formed, they will have their own board.

What fixity of tenure have you for your farmers ?

We have the agreement. We have undertaken to place them there, and they have undertaken to provide the mill, and it is a going concern already—you do not want any more security than that. In the event of not putting the mill there, we are guaranteed all the costs we have been put to in placing any tenant farmers there. We have good assets and good security in the farm itself. There is no mortgage of the land.

On the motion of the Minister of Labour, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed :

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