as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Apportionment of Quitrent (Further Amendment) Bill, reporting an amended Bill.

Report and evidence to be printed; Bill withdrawn.

as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 25th March.

I have to make a personal explanation in reference to my absence from the Select Committee on the Chartered Accountants Bill. Last Tuesday morning I attended the Committee and informed the members that I proposed to leave the following night for Johannesburg, and to return on the following Monday. I attended the meeting on Wednesday morning, said “Good-bye” to the Chairman, and said I would return on Monday. It seems to me that hon. members sitting on Select Committees have confused the rules with regard to opposed and unopposed Bills. I was under the impression that if more than one member was absent there would be no quorum. It was an entire misunderstanding, and I hope we may profit by it. I would remind hon. members of the saying of Charles Stuart Parnell that the best way to learn the rules of the House was to break them. I would suggest that possibly as a result of my unfortunate experience the vast majority of members have now learned a rule they were not quite sure of before.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice —

I have consulted the Minister and he has signified his readiness to the motion being taken unopposed. The hon. members also who are moving the previous motions have given their consent that mine should be dealt with first

seconded.

I do not intend to oppose the motion, but I want to say that in recent times various similar petitions have come in asking the Government to compensate monetary losses during the second war of independence. There is little chance of the petitions receiving favourable consideration. The Treasury has not the necessary funds at present to meet the claims, and I do not want the public to think that our readiness to consider the petition means that it will be favourably considered and that the money will eventually be paid.

I am glad to hear what the Minister said. A similar motion was before the House last week from the opposite side and I asked for, and waited to hear, an announcement of policy from the Government I am glad at last he has made the statement.

I move—

seconded.

stated that the petition (No. 585—’26) was upon the Table.

I move—

This is a very stale matter, and as hon. members will see from the notice of motion, it dates from the year 1911. Since that time the petitioner has always expected to receive compensation from the Government for services rendered to the State. The impression that he could reasonably expect compensation has become stronger since 1911. The matter has been before the Government before this. I myself have brought it to the notice of Ministers several times. The history of it is more or less as follows. The petitioner at that time lived at Ladybrand and was in the service of the church. At the same time he was chairman of the local Water Board, appraiser of farms for the Land Bank, and also a member of the Water Court for the Calvinia district. He further states that when he occupied those positions he was asked by the late Minister Fischer by letter, and by a telegram, to buy pieces of private ground in the magisterial district of Van Rhynsdorp. He was asked by telegram to obtain an option over certain farms. He executed the commission and obtained the option at much lower amounts than were expected, so that the State saved £8,000. The question now is whether, if the purchase had been carried out by another official, or by another private person, a fair reward would not have been given for the services rendered in saving the State £8,000. I do not want to go into further details, but I think it can reasonably be asked that payment should be made to that person for his services. He does not ask for a definite amount, and I just want to ask whether his request cannot be favourably considered. During tile thirty year I have known the petitioner I have always known him as a man of honour who certainly would not demand anything from the State under false pretences, but he comes to the Government because he thinks he is entitled to a grant for his services.

seconded.

The petitioner was formerly a missionary at Ebenezer where he was the chairman of the Irrigation Board. I know that he bought the ground for the church, because a number of ministers were sent there for that purpose. A mistake has been made in this respect. When I want to hire a clerk then I do not engage a minister or missionary, otherwise the effect is to get the better of people by sending ministers to get the ground cheap. The intention was for the ground to be bought for the Dutch Reformed Church to establish a colony there, as at Kakamas, but it was done in the name of the State to evade transfer duty. The State bought it in that way. It was, however, forgotten to bind the minister at that time to grant the ground for a labour colony, and subsequently when the last Minister but one (Col. Mentz) was approached he denied it, and said that the ground was never bought for the church, but for the State. The petitioner now requests payment for his services. Is it a service when people from whom land is bought are cheated? He says that he had instructions to purchase the ground at a higher figure, but that he bought it cheaper and that for that reason he should be paid. He does not need the payment, because I cannot see why anyone should be paid for bad work. When one receives instructions one must carry them out honestly. The Minister of Lands at the time gave the instructions without promise of reward or the petitioner offered that the station at which he was missionary, should be included in the ground, so that it could be a large scheme, and he could be the great man of the colony. He has now gone to another place and asks for payment. If a large labour colony was established there and he became the great man, he has had sufficient reward. Because that did not happen he feels a little hurt, and is now whining.

I am very glad to hear the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) opposing this application. This matter arises out of something that took place in 1911, and, as far as we know, this is the first time that we have heard of the claim. Really, is it not time that these things were closed down once and for all? I have listened very carefully, and I expected that the hon. gentleman who is in charge of the motion would have stated the grounds on which this claim is now made on the Government. If any compensation is due, the question should not be referred to the Government. The Government is not the body on which a responsibility of this kind should be placed. The matter should go to a select committee with power to take evidence and call for papers and sift it thoroughly and report to the House.

I should like to say a few words. As the Minister of Finance does not see his way to make good the damage suffered during the second war of independence, according to the motion just rejected, it is now proposed to compensate the missionary in Namaqualand for services he rendered in 1911. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), who introduced the motion, cannot even say whether the matter has formerly been before the House. Why does he not say in what year that took place? As I understand him, there was a petition presented in 1911 or 19Í2. It was, therefore, long before the Union came about.

How do you make that out?

I made a slip, but the hon. member wanted to shift the responsibility on to the old Cape Government. As the Minister cannot accept the motion in relation to the oudstryders, I do not see my way to vote for this motion.

This is a fairly stale matter, and is very confused. In 1911 it became necessary to buy certain ground adjoining the Oliphants River, and the then Minister of Lands (Mr. Fisher) gave instructions to the Rev. Mr. Marchand and Mr. P. A. van Zyl to buy the ground, which they did. It was found necessary to pay the people for the work they had done, and I find from the files that £400 was paid as commission to various parties, and that Mr. van Zyl got £50. Mr. Marchand then asked that the Rev. L. A. R. du Plessis should also be paid for the assistance he gave, inasmuch as he had taken much trouble in the matter and had succeeded in obtaining the ground in some instances at reduced prices. Minister Fisher, however, refused to comply with the request on the ground that the land purchased would be used for, and in accordance with, the same purpose as Kakamas, i.e., as a church colony. I will, therefore, only point out that the matter is not being dealt with for the first time to-day. One of my predecessors again used the services of the Rev. Mr. du Plessis, when a commission was sent in connection with an exchange of ground. He was paid for the services then rendered. He was paid his disbursements and 15s. a day and free transport. When that business was completed, the Rev. Mr. du Plessis again came and asked for remuneration for his work in 1911. The matter was then referred by my predecessor, Col. Mentz, as Minister of Lands, to the Treasury, and I find a note in the file that the Treasury rejected the application, and added that the idea must not be held that in matters where services are shown, the Government by a private person on the public interests, he can expect payment from the Treasury. The application was then refused, and since I have been the Minister, the Rev. Mr. du Plessis has again pressed for payment. I then saw that it was not a big affair, and that other people were being rewarded with regard to the purchase of ground, and I said that, under the circumstances, it would possibly be a good thing to give the gentleman something. But the Minister of Finance absolutely refused to comply with the request, and, therefore, it will be quite useless to accept the motion. There is no chance of its object being attained.

I move—

This motion arises out of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions in 1924. Since then part of the recommendations have been carried out, viz., old and needy people above the age of 70 years have received a grant, and another section of the oudstryders are assisted by receiving help through the land boards by way of a certain preference. This motion is, however, specially intended for the intermediate class, viz., for the people who are not so old, nor so well off as to be able to be assisted by the land boards. It is specially on their account that the request is made, because they need further help.

I second. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has not gone very fully into the matter. I thought that he would give the House more information, because, as he undertook to introduce the motion, he was given all the details. When the matter was before the House at the time, the recommendations of the select committee, to whom the petition with regard to 5s. a day was referred, were considered. The select committee made certain recommendations, one of which was that persons over 70 years should get a grant, and the other that a home should be established, and, as the Minister of Finance has made clear that these persons should be given special help in connection with land settlement, by the creation of a colony by the Government.

A preference was to be given.

No, I think more than that, viz., that there should be certain special settlements on Crown lands. A home should be established, as also a settlement on Crown lands for the poor burghers who fought in the second war of independence.

Read the resolution.

I am not one of those people who always say “pay, pay.” This is, unfortunately, one of the results of the hasty legislation last year. It is known that the matter of the 5s. a day died a natural death, but when the payments to republican ex-officials, who were not in needy circumstances, took place then there was a great sensation in the country, and the question was asked why the promise made during the war was not fulfilled. The request now before the House is a consequence of that matter. The oudstryders say that the select committee at that time recommended that some such thing should be done. I understand that the Oudstryders Bond subsequently met the Ministers of Land and Agriculture, and I understand certain promises were made. Perhaps one of the Ministers will clear the matter up. I think, however, that it can reasonably be expected, as the House passed the recommendation, and referred it to the Government which was, at that time, prepared to favourably consider the matter, that it should now be stated what has become of the matter. It is for this reason that I second the motion.

I am very grateful to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), who is pleading so much now for the ex-republican soldiers, but I am surprised. I remember quite well how, in this House, a tremendous attack was made on the Minister of Lands about a certain circular which he sent out stating that the oudstryders would be given a preference on Crown lands. The hon. member for Ermelo did not then get up to attack his own party on the attitude taken up.

What circular?

A circular by the Minister of Lands, in which he stated that the burghers who were in the war would be given preference if they made application. I am, however, thankful to the hon. member for speaking in this way now, because I think that we ought not to treat this matter frivolously. We cannot argue away that the burghers who took part in the second war of independence feel to a certain extent aggrieved, and I hope the Minister and the House will take steps where necessary to assist those who are poor and in needy circumstances.

I was a member of the select committee when this matter was dealt with. Everything turns on the proclamation issued by the late President Kruger in 1900, but the proclamation only referred to Transvaal fighting burghers who were still on active service. It did not refer to people who, on the day the proclamation was issued, were no longer in the field. It, therefore, does not refer to Free Staters and rebels in the Cape Colony. That is where the trouble arose.

To those on commando?

No, only to those who were fighting when the proclamation was issued. And how can the hon. member now expect this motion to be passed? The Free Staters in this House will not saddle the taxpayers with the money to pay out that group of Transvaalers, and the Cape Province members will not do it either. The select committee felt that something ought to be done, and proposed the grant of a Home to oudstryders who were very old and needy. Certain hon. members, including myself, then argued that it would be better to give those people an allowance rather than to take them from their surroundings into a home. The second point is that Crown land would be given to the people who had lost their ground in the war and were in need. Last year the Government commenced to give the old people £2 10s. The matter of the giving of ground to people who lost it in the three years’ war is in abeyance. It is left to the Government, and is a matter which it should carry out I feel very much for the people who lost their ground in the war, and are practically poor whites to-day. My chief point, however, is that the proclamation only referred to Transvaal burghers who were in the field when it was issued, and does not refer to Free Staters and rebels.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) made such an unfair attack. At the time the matter was before the House it was not a question of preferring oudstryders. What we said was that we did not want any unfair treatment, because the Government should consider all portions of the population when ground was granted. We said that not only oudstryders should be selected, but also the man who had fought on the other side. That is the position. It is unfair to make that attack and to say that we took up a different attitude at the time. The matter which the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) has mentioned is as follows: The old executive council of the Transvaal had full power from the Volksraad to pass any law-after the commencement of the war. The Minister will agree with me that that is a fact. Act No. 5 was passed by the executive council, and there can be no question of its passing, because we have a copy of it here. When 5s. a day for fighting burghers is spoken of, it was also intended to those who were subsequently captured, although I will not say that it is applicable to people who “surrendered.” It can, however, not he denied that the Government can put it into force if the House of Assembly is in favour of it. This is one of the planks on which the election was fought.

That is not true.

I want to point out that two years before this Government came into office, there was a motion here by Commandant Claasens, in which he asked 5s. per day from the former Government, but the Government replied that it was impossible to accept the motion. The former Government was blamed on this account.

We unanimously voted against the proposal.

I well remember the bitter attack in the House.

That is absolutely incorrect.

The matter came up for discussion during the last election. The position is a difficult one. I pointed out last year that this class of man ought to be helped, and I want to say a good word for them. I have a list here of 230 oudstryders in my constituency who are really in needy circumstances, and I want them to be sympathetically treated, and to be met if there is an opportunity. I know that the Minister is sympathetic. This is the class of man who must be assisted, because many of them are old and worn out. We must look after them properly and be fair. The Government can still buy up ground to-day. I do not say that they are all hopelessly poor, but they should be assisted as much as possible. Many of them are in such a difficult position that they cannot live properly. I hope the Minister will speak sympathetically, and will see how far he can assist the people.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) wants to make out that the Nationalists made certain promises on the countryside during the last general election. That was not done on a single platform. I declared myself absolutely opposed to the payment of 5s. to all the oudstryders. I said that it was impossible in view of the large number there were, and the Prime Minister also said the same thing in the country and confirmed it in the House. But that is not the exact point. The point is that my S.A.P. friends to-day want to represent the Nationalists as not wanting to do anything for the oudstryders. What has the Saps done, and what has the present Government done? The Nationalist Government immediately tried to do something, while the S.A.P. Government never moved a finger to assist the people. The Nationalist Government at once decided to give the oudstryders preference on Crown lands, and the Minister of Finance, last year, put £30,000 on the estimates to assist the oudstryders who were most needy, and that amount was exceeded by £30,000. and £60,000 was spent. The Minister is now again putting more on the estimates for this purpose. Let us be honest and acknowledge that the Government is doing its best to help the people. What do hon. members of the Opposition want? Do they want to argue that the Government must provide £5,000,000 or £10,000.000 to pay 5s. per day to all these people? No, the Government is doing what is possible, but no one can go to that length. It is impracticable. I am also glad that the Minister of Lands is seeing to it that preference is given to oudstryders when they apply for ground, and I hope the Minister of Finance will continue his assistance as much as possible. But hon. members opposite must not try to make political capital out of this matter, and to create a wrong impression in the country. We never raised the matter at the last election. I challenge the hon. member for Witwatersberg to mention a case. This Government is doing what it possibly can for the oudstryders.

I should be glad if the Minister will reply fairly fully on the question of this 5s. a day. If my information is correct, then the Oudstryders’ Bond at the time sent a delegation to Cape Town, and after the matter had been gone into with the select committee, of which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was chairman, the deputation saw that it was impossible to carry out the matter. It is not the Oudstryders’ Bond which makes the request to-day. The petitions to which the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has referred come from the S.A.P. congress. After that party has sat here for 15 years and done nothing, it now comes, after it has been put out of office, with the motion that this Government should be invited to carry out what they themselves had neglected to do. The last Government did nothing in this connection, but now the S.A. party are misleading the people, and bringing them under the impression that it is possible to disburse the money. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and also the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) were present at the congress of the S.A. party that passed the resolution recently to ask again for payment of the 5s. per day, and it was their duty, as leaders of the party, to immediately get up and say that the matter had been investigated and was impracticable. The agitation is only intended to catch votes, as petitions are being sent to the district and the hope instilled into people in difficult circumstances, that their request will be complied with. I do not think that is honest, and shall therefore be glad if the Minister will in his reply state whether the Oudstryders’ Bond did not at that time appreciate that the request was impracticable. As for the Minister and the Government, I am certain that they are sympathetic, and are doing everything in their power. It is not fair of the Opposition to abuse the position by representing that the Government is not doing its duty.

What the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) said is quite right. In my constituency Senator Opperman is now going round instigating the people to apply for the 5s. to be paid to them. It seems a terrible thing to us, because however much sympathy we have for them, it is an impossible matter, and we cannot do it. I have a petition here which has been signed by 60 or 70 people who ask for it, and we have to present the petitions. We have now got £30,000 for the oudstryders, and the Government have exceeded that and disbursed £60,000, and we are thankful for it. I am certain that the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) is just as thankful, because he knows that many of the needy people are being assisted in this way. The £2 10s. the old people get is quite a relief to them, and if more sympathetically administered would be a solution. It is a great step on the part of the Government, and a second great step is that the Minister of Lands has given oudstryders preference in getting Crown land. The only thing is that the people outside do not quite understand the matter. At my meetings I said it was impossible to pay the 5s. But the petitions are the result of the agitation and irresponsible speeches of S.A.P. members, who pump an impossible thing into the people. The Minister of Lands, who is well acquainted with the matter and knows the history of the proclamation of the late President Kruger, will possibly clear up the matter, and then hon. members will see how things are and what the actual position is. President Steyn also intended to issue such a proclamation, but when he saw that the whole country was being burnt out, and that it was impracticable, he put it into the waste-paper basket. We must present these petitions, but we feel that they cannot possibly be given effect to, but if Ministers will only continue to act sympathetically towards oudstryders, and give them preference in matter of ground, then the greatest part of the dissatisfaction will disappear.

I thought the motion would be passed without further discussion, although I did not see a chance of doing anything beyond what the Government is doing at present. If the petition, however, is referred to the Government for consideration, then the matter will he gone into. After the speeches by hon. members opposite I am obliged to say a few words. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lieut.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) misrepresented the matter, because he wants to make out that we had made promises in this connection. That is absolutely untrue. Not one Nationalist member made such a promise. The hon. member can go to my constituency and ask what I said in 1924. I not only said that I would not do anything in favour of it, but that I would not vote for it, and that they could vote against me if they wished to on that account. We took up that attitude after the House had come to a decision, and the then Prime Minister had said that people who misled others in connection with this matter were political frauds. Everybody agreed with that, and it cannot in the least be maintained now that we made promises that the 5s. per day would be paid out. It is absolutely untrue, and I challenge the hon. member to name one member of the Nationalist party who said such a thing on a platform.

Not everybody is innocent.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg said that the Executive Council of the Transvaal had authority to pass the Act. It is quite true that the executive council had authority to make laws, but they were only to have the force of law until the Volksraad had confirmed or rejected them. When the Volksraad met for the last time it was decided that the executive council would in the meantime have the right to pass laws until such time—

The rights which people obtained under the laws must be preserved.

There is nothing about that. I do not wish to go into the question as to why the executive council passed that law, but if I did so hon. members would see that the intention with regard to the payment of 5s. a day was quite another matter. The resolution was drafted at Nelspruit in the form of a law, but the Volksraad never confirmed or disapproved of it.

The people who obtained rights under the law ought to retain them.

It is a pity that the hon. member did not think so when he sat on this side. What happened was that the people repeatedly pressed for this 5s. per day, and then eventually a committee of the Oudstryders Bond was elected at a congress to come and interview the Government in Cape Town. Thereafter recommendations were made which were unanimously passed by the House, and the hon. member for Standerton then used the words that it would be political fraud to go on with the matter any further and to hold hopeless expectations before the eyes of the people. I will quote the resolution—[Resolution read.]—I can remember that when the resolution was passed the leader of the Opposition said that he considered the matter was disposed of for good. That was in 1923, and the resolution was passed unanimously. The last Government, however, did nothing in the matter. That is how we found things when we came into office in 1924.

The then Minister of Agriculture was dealing with the matter.

He, however, did nothing.

He had only had six months’ time.

The resolution was passed on the 26th February, 1923, and the House was only dissolved in 1924. That is more than a year and in the interim nothing was done. After we came into power the matter of the home for the old people was one of the first things we tackled. We found, however, that they would not go to it, and that they would prefer to remain with their families, and that the expenditure on such a home should be paid out to them, so that they could remain with their families. The Minister of Finance put £30,000 on the Estimates last year, but the expenditure amounted to £60,000. At present provision up to £90,000 is being made for the old and needy people. I went further and brought the matter before the Cabinet, and sent a circular to all the land boards, drawing their attention to the resolution that the oudstryders should be placed on Crown lands. Crown land does not need to be purchased, but belongs to the State. When I spoke I was opposed to their being placed on closer settlements, but I wanted them to be placed on Crown land. I sent a circular to all the land hoards saying that in view of the resolution preference was to be given to oudstryders who applied for ground, and who came under the Act. Because I sent that circular it was proposed that my salary should be reduced by £100, and an attack was made on me. Now the hon. member for Witwatersberg says that the attack was made because they were opposed to any differentiation. To keep the peace we altered the circular, and said that the old combatants, Boers and English, should have the preference in the granting of Crown land. I am myself looking after this, and if the Land Board recommends a man who is not an oudstryder coming under the Act, then I refer the board to it. The result is that about 60 per cent. of the grants are made to oudstryders.

Is that only for oudstryders in the second war of independence, or also in the world war?

No, it only applies to oudstryders in the second war of independence, who were intended by the resolution. We do what we can in the matter and what we think is right. To come and say to-day that we should buy ground to divide amongst the oudstryders is quite impossible, because it will cost millions of pounds. We shall not only have to place the people there, but have to provide them with cattle and machinery. We are carrying out the resolution as passed, and the board of control of the Oudstryders Bond is quite satisfied with it. It is unjust to say to-day that we are not doing our duty, and what I particularly object to is that the hon. member for Witwatersberg said that we made promises. I absolutely deny that, because it is entirely untrue.

I will give the Minister credit that at his meetings he said that he was opposed to it.

Mention the name of one member who made the promise.

I do not know of one of our leaders who said that the 5s. per day ought to be paid. All took up the same attitude after the resolution passed here, and after the hon. member for Standerton had rightly said that the man trying to make political capital out of it would he guilty of political fraud. Now, however, it is stated that we made promises.

What happened before that time in 1922 and 1923?

As for myself, I took up the same attitude during the 1921 election that I would neither work nor vote for the payment. It is impracticable, because the resolution of the executive council only applies to the Transvaal. What about the Free State burghers, and the Cape and Natal rebels?

In 1923 you voted in favour of the 5s. a day.

There is no question about it. I said that I would vote for the resolution but that I was opposed to putting the people on closer setttlements. I advocated their being placed on Crown lands.

I am talking of 1922. On the motion of Commandant Claasens you voted against the adjournment.

I state that I was never in favour of the matter. I have made it clear why it cannot be done and why I cannot agree to it. Everybody was satisfied with the motion introduced into the House which had been passed by the Select Committee and approved of by the Oudstryders Bond, because it was a fair solution of the difficulty. I am trying to carry out the resolution and the Minister of Finance has put £90,000 on the Estimates for the oudstryders.

The Minister seems a little wound up.

It is not right to make accusations of that kind.

There are several of us who are under the impression that this business was being made use of for electioneering purposes in 1924. I remember very well the present Prime Minister saying that it was impossible to pay these people 5s. a day. I think the Minister is unfair in his attack on the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). Even this afternoon hon. members opposite have endeavoured to secure political gain out of this. They forget that what we are here for is to work for the good of the country. The time has arrived when we should close the door to these applications. If, of course, the people are poor, I would support the Government doing something for them, but for Heaven’s sake close the door on claims founded on the Anglo-Boer war.

We have heaps more.

Why fool these people by presenting these petitions, when hon. members know very well that the petitioners will receive nothing? It is not pleasant to oppose these petitions, but I will continue to do so no matter from which side of the House they emanate.

It almost looks as if my motion asked for the payment of the 5s. to the oudstryders, but the motion does not concern that at all. The point here is the petition of persons who think that they ought also to be assisted in connection with the recommendation of the Pensions Committee in 1924 with regard to a preference to oudstryders on Crown land, and they want to be placed on separate farms or on to Crown land settlements. The object, therefore, is to assist the people, who lost their ground in the second war of independence to get ground. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) wishes us to forget and obliterate everything that resulted from the war. It would be very nice if all the misery which arose from it could be obliterated, but that is not possible. There are many people who, as a result of that war directly, or indirectly, lost their ground, and we have introduced the motion to assist them once more to get ground. I am glad that the Minister of Lands issued the circular, and to learn, as a result thereof, that 60 per cent. of the ground which is available is given to oudstryders, but the class of people who apply to be put on the land under Sections 10 and 11 are, as a rule, still fairly strong. The petition refers to another class of people who could not make application thereunder. These people have lost their ground and have no means. They are practically bywoners, and have no security for the ground on which they are. The request is that the people should be put on a settlement in some way or other, so that they shall have an opportunity of again possessing ground and of remaining on the land. In conclusion, I further wish to object to the accusations of hon. members opposite who state that during the 1924 election we promised to pay the 5s. a day. I regard this statement as entirely without foundation. On the other hand, I want to refer to the “Volkstem” report of the South African party congress of the 8th and 9th December, last year, which report has never yet been contradicted. It gives the impression that if the South African party come into power again that the 5s. per day would be paid. That is the cause of most of the petitions which come in for the payment of the 5s. The “Volkstem” report is absolutely untrue. The report creates the erroneous impression on the countryside that the South African party has passed such a resolution. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, as long ago as 1923, and the present Prime Minister also said so, that it was impossible to do so. The “Star” report with regard to the resolution of the South African party was correct, and that of the “Volkstem” wrong. I do not ask for a payment of 5s. a day to oudstryders, but I plead for the people who do not come under Sections 10 and 11 in the granting of land. It is said that the Free Staters and rebels from the Cape Province will be excluded. Why? Of course they will not be excluded. I say, however, that the 5s. matter is quite distinct, and has nothing to do with this motion, and it is unfortunate that the poor people who cannot be assisted under Sections 10 and 11 cannot in some other way be given possession of a small piece of ground so that they can live on it and make their living.

I move—

I am afraid the subject we are now going to deal with will be a little less exciting than the one we have just dealt with. I think it may be as well to give a short history of this industry so that the House will see the necessity of acceding to the request of my motion. This chicory industry started in the early ’80’s when the first factory was put up. The industry has grown to very considerable dimensions to-day. During the war, when no chicory was coming from overseas, the farmers of South Africa, particularly in the Alexandria district, provided all the needs when a very large amount was required to mix with coffee for the troops. The industry, from its first primitive stages, has grown to one conducted on sound lines where farmers have put up their kilns instead of sun drying, and have adopted excellent methods of cultivation and fertilization, and the quality has improved from year to year. At that time the farmers had reason to think the industry was on a sound footing and went in for a very much increased scale and better methods of production. A modern factory has been established, which I have seen, and I think there is every reason to encourage the work being done there. They formed the first Chicory Growers’ Association in 1925. They have put about 600 morgen under this crop, and there are still about 5,000 or 6,000 morgen that can be put under this crop if sufficient encouragement is given to the industry and stability assured. It employs a large number of workmen, and practically every poor white in the area depends upon the chicory industry for his living. The quality of the chicory is equal to that imported from overseas, as the Board of Trade and Industries admitted, and I submit it is a legitimate industry warranting every encouragement possible. Things had not gone well with the association formed in 1925, and the present Alexandria Co-operative Chicory Growers’ Society was registered in 1926. More than 75 per cent. of producers of far more than 75 per cent. of this product are members of this co-operative society, and the society, in view of that, wrote to the registrar of co-operative societies on the 26th October and pointed out that they had complied with the requirements of the Act, and asked that the pertinent clause should be put into operation with regard to them. The reply was that if the society was desirous of having the above-mentioned section of the law applied the first step was to put forward an application. It was put forward on the 9th November, and on the 20th November the assistant-chief of the Division of Economics replied that he would suggest that the society approach their member of Parliament and have a motion introduced in the House. On the 15th January I had a letter from the association asking me to take steps in that direction, and I asked for fuller information, which I have received. I wished to have adequate proof that 75 per cent. of the growers of the product in that district were in the association. I have that information, and I would like to give it to the House. The figures have been audited by an officer of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The membership of the society in that area, and it is only the Alexandria district I refer to, is 89 with three more awaiting registration. During the twelve months the members sold 1,496,621 lbs., or 10,743 bags of 130 lbs. each. They had also 120,120 lbs. on hand. The total production by the members of the society was, therefore, 1,616,741 lbs. for the twelve months. The growers who are not members of the society number 18, so that the society more than complies with the 75 per cent. qualification as regards numbers, and these 18 non-members produce about 1,500 to 2,000 bags, or between 195,000 and 260.000 lbs. annually. Before registration of the society about 1,000 to 1,500 bags were sold during twelve months by members through non-members. It was one of the objects of the clause to see that this sort of thing did not happen These last figures, however, are not included in the total production by members. The directors asked me to bring this motion forward. The pertinent portions of Clause 17 of Act 38 are sub-sections 1, 3 and 5. Sub-section I declares that whenever the Minister is satisfied in any district, area or province that at least 75 per cent. of the producers of any kind of agricultural product, and such producers produce 75 per cent. of the produce in that district, are members of a co-operative society or company registered under the Principal Act, and has for one of its objects the disposal of that kind of agricultural product, the Minister may—it does not say shall, but may—at the request of such society or company, by notice in the “Gazette,” declare that from the date stated in the notice each producer of that kind of produce in such district, area or province, shall sell such product through the society. Sub-section 3 gives the Minister power, by notice in the “Gazette,” to withdraw any such notice issued under sub-section 1. If, therefore, he finds that it is unjustified, he can withdraw the notice and resume the status quo. Sub-section 5 says that if the Governor-General, under authority of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament—

so the step I ask the House to take is to authorize the Minister to declare chicory to be agricultural produce for the purpose of this Act. The subsequent steps are perfectly simple. After the resolution is passed the Minister will hold an inquiry, and then it is optional for him to declare the operation of these clauses in that district, and that district only. I am only asking for that, although there may be other areas in the country suitable for the production of chicory. I tell the House that it is a serious matter indeed for the farmers in that particular part of the Union. The industry is growing and has possibilities of far larger development if it is fostered in the way I ask for now. I objected myself to a drastic compulsory co-operative Act; I didn’t like it, but I realized that—

Why move this then?

Because I was one who was responsible for the amendment of the Bill which provides that the 75 per cent. of the producers should produce not less than 75 per cent. of the product, and, although I am opposed generally to compulsory co-operation, I think there is a time, as I said when that Bill was under discussion, when we ought to apply the compulsory principle if we find that a promising industry—take tobacco, why was it applied there?

There was a trust.

How do we know that there is not a trust or the makings of a trust in this industry? The position is just as serious for the people concerned in chicory as it was for the growers of tobacco at Oudtshoorn. When there are such a predominant number of people producing the stuff who are in the society, then I think those few who are standing out, and doing the industry an injury by standing out, must be given every reason for coming in, and compulsion should be used.

Why won’t they come in?

There are all sorts of local considerations. Only 18 of the producers are standing out to-day. I am convinced that I am at least asking for a just and reasonable thing when I put this motion before the House.

seconded.

I only wish to say a few words on the motion. In the first place, I am much surprised that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) could introduce a motion of this kind from that side of the House, because we are constantly accused of our laws being socialistic. The hon. member admits that he is personally opposed to the principle of compulsory co-operation, but, nevertheless, he introduces this motion.

I said that circumstances alter cases.

The hon. member has not mentioned one point to convince me that it is necessary to impose compulsory co-operation on the people. He has mentioned that it was done in the case of the tobacco farmers, but the difference is that we were there concerned with a great combine, so that the co-operation could not be successful because the combine offered larger prices than the co-operative society, until the latter was killed. My information in this matter is different. The prices which were demanded by the members of the co-operative society are higher than what the non-members were prepared to accent. The latter sell their produce for practically less than the members, and there must, therefore, be a good reason why they remain outside. I cannot understand if the co-operative Society is properly run that people would, against their own interests, refuse to join up and prefer to remain outside. Moreover, I feel that, perhaps, we have gone too far in compelling people. It is said each time that it is a very small matter. If there were any reason for it in this case then one could understand it, but there is no great trust which is working for the destruction of the co-operative society. The hon. member says that the motion should be passed to protect the members, but I do not see the necessity for it, because chicory is sufficiently protected by the Customs duty. There is no great combination which threatens the industry, and according to my information, the non-members are selling more cheaply than the members of the co-operative society. This is a strange motion in view of the way in which the doctrine of socialism is spoken about from the benches opposite. If the House wishes to pass the motion then I will leave it to the discretion of hon. members, but as for me, I see no reason for its adoption, and I hope that we shall not again hear the accusation of socialism from hon. members opposite, because this motion comes from that side. There is not the least ground for the motion, and I hope the House will not pass it.

I move—

I should like, in connection with this motion, to bring a few facts to the notice of the House, and more particularly of the Minister of Finance. According to the Act which was passed last year, certain ex-republican officials are entitled to pensions, but the position is that to-day certain persons are excluded from the benefits of the Act, because they had not been in the service of the republic for an unbroken period of a year before the war broke out in 1899. There are some of these people who served in the old Transvaal Artillery. In the republican days those people entered upon a three years’ engagement, and at the end of three years they could go into the reserve at their own free option. From the nature of things, most of the young fellows, after three years’ service, went into the reserve to improve their financial position, and they joined up. e.g., with the police, with the Zasm, etc., if possible. They were, however, not entirely free until their 45th year, because they could again be called up to that age to do further service with the Artillery Reserve. They were therefore not free, but could be called up at any time.

Other burghers could also he called up at any time.

Yes, but those men could at any time be called up to do service in that particular corps. They were always regarded as the Reserve Artillery. There are cases I personally know of such—where men went into the reserve in July or August, 1899. They had hardly been out of the active artillery a month when they were again called up at the outbreak of the war to come under the discipline of the corps in which they had formerly served. But because these people had a broken period of one month, they are not considered for pension purposes. That is surely unfair. They had done three or six years’ service, had left the service for one month, and came hack for three years’ active service during the war. Because, however, there was an intervening month, they are excluded. If they had not left, but had remained on with the artillery and gone on one month’s temporary leave, and had then done three years’ active service in the war, they would be entitled to a pension. The artillery and the police were the admiration of everybody that heard of their performances. There were very few—perhaps not one— who were unfaithful to the cause of the republic, and to exclude them because they had a break in their service of one month is not fair. Then there are others who joined five, six, seven or even 10 months before the outbreak of the war, and served the full period of three years during the war who are excluded. They behaved themselves heroically in the war, and the petition asked that these people shall come under the provisions of the Act, and I think the House should meet those oudstryders as much as possible.

I second. There are none of the old military men who are excluded that I do not wish to see included. As the Government is meeting another section of the population, the House ought also to pass this motion, and to see that justice is done to those people. I know a policeman who entered the service and did duty for four or five years, and shortly before the war was transferred, but because there was a break in the service he is deprived of pension privileges. I hope the Minister will meet us in this matter.

After the experience of last session, when this House adopted a; resolution in regard to reopening the claims of ex-Transvaal officials for further pension rights, I hope the Minister will approach this matter with the greatest caution. The claim is put forward here on behalf of a few ex-Transvaal people for justice. If we are going to open up questions of this kind in respect of the Transvaal and the Free State, then they will also have to apply to other parts of the Union, to the Cape Province, where many people lost their all, whereas, if my memory serves me rightly, at the treaty of Vereeniging, the Imperial Government granted a sum of £3,000,000 sterling in order to rehabilitate these very people on whose behalf this plea is put forward. I think it would be futile to attempt to reopen such matters as this; you are not going to meet the ends of justice by any means. To encourage people to present petitions under these circumstances, and encourage false hopes in their minds, is wholly unreasonable, and I hope the House will oppose it.

The hon. member for Ahwal (Mr. Sephton) is not fair, and the line he has drawn is not just. The question is simply what we are to do with the officials who have drawn pay and were trained for a certain job. In this case it is military men, and as the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has explained, they have lost everything to which in our opinion they were entitled. To connect this with the £3,000,000 voted by the British Government is quite unfair. Of the £3,000,000, not a penny came into the pockets of these people, because they were excluded. If there is any force in what the hon. member said, then it is an argument in favour of the motion, just because the artillerymen and policemen did not get a penny. I do not even wish to say that the ordinary burghers drew much, because the £3,000,000 was disposed of, as somewhat like the compensation paid on the liberation of the slaves. We know that the £3,000,000 was practically no relief, but it left a feeling with many people that they had been wrongly treated and misled. I will not go into that and open up old wounds, because I do not wish to hurt anyone. If the hon. member, however, wants to adduce an argument in favour of the motion, then he must argue in the way he did. The assistance must be granted to the artillerymen and the police.

I think It is necessary for me to say a few words about the motion now. Hon. members are very much inclined to come to the House and to ask that such motions should be referred to the Government for consideration. Where is it to end, and where is the line to be drawn? We saw the other day what the feeling of the House was on the question with regard to the class of persons who were officials and who had devoted at least ten years of their lives to the service of the State. There we had the principle that persons leaving the service had the right to certain compensation as Government officials did not have the right of going in for private business and in that way improving their position. The State says that its officials may not go in for private work, and in consideration thereof they are given a pension. Now hon. members come and want the principle to be applied to persons who did not have a year’s service. If that is done, what, then, about the ordinary burghers? We must surely draw the line somewhere. What happened in the case of the law referred to by hon. members and about which we have had a debate? All that Parliament said was that in the case of men who are regarded as officials under the 1908 Act, there must be a concession. The Act says that persons regarded as officials under that Act will not have their service calculated as ending in 1899, when the war commenced, but in 1902, when peace was declared; and secondly, it says that where the pension is calculated on the basis of three-fourths in comparison with the ordinary official, those persons also shall be paid the full pension. Now hon. members wish that to be extended to persons who were not officials under the 1908 Act, because they had not had a year’s service. The Act of 1908 provided that if anyone had not been a year in the service, he was not regarded as an official. What was the position in 1908? The Transvaal at that time had self-government, and it was not the Milner Government which was unsympathetic. The leaders in the second war of independence who fought with these people were in power, and they introduced the matter. They said that compensation could not be given to all the people who had suffered damage in the war, but the obligation towards certain officials who had been in the State service was admitted. They drew a line, which they had to do, and they did it at persons who had not had one year’s service and were not in service in 1908. Then a certain class of people was excluded, and it was not a small number. A few days ago I gave the figures, and it is larger than 1,000. It is almost 1,400 people who are now applying.

Old military men?

People who are excluded because they did not have a year’s service. I still have the figure here of the persons who were excluded for various reasons.

There are different classes.

There is a figure of 1,400 people who sent in claims, and whose claims were rejected for different reasons. They were people who had served for less than a year, who were not regarded as officials, and because their service was not accepted.

What are the figures in the various cases?

I have not got the figures, but there were possibly a thousand, because most of them were excluded because they had not had a year’s service. Where is the line to be drawn if these people are included? Why should not, then, all the ordinary burghers be included? We must not forget that in the case of the second war of independence it was not a certain class that went to fight, because the whole population was subject to military service. I think we are misleading the people to continue bringing them under the idea that the Government will consider the matter, and that there is at least a chance of getting compensation. As for me, I do not intend to extend the provisions of the law to any other class than those who come under the 1908 Act. I am sorry, therefore, but I think that we must honestly tell the people what the position is. I understand that there are many persons who come under the 1908 Act, but who, for some reason or other, because they were abroad, do not come under the Act. Let them present a petition to Parliament, and let it be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions for consideration. I certainly do not intend, however, to agree to persons who did not fall under the 1908 Act and were not regarded as officials now coming under it.

I fear the Minister has included a large number of persons who are not included in the motion. What I want to specially emphasize is that they did have more than a year’s service. In section 5 of the Act passed last year it is laid down on what conditions the pensions or gratuities will he paid. There I find—[Definition of “official” read.] The obstacle is that they did service on the reserve, and were not on the list in 1909. And why are they not on the list? Because shortly before the outbreak of the war, on the 11th October, 1899, they were not on the list of active officials. There is a noteworthy case in my constituency. The eldest of three brothers served in the State Artillery, and his three years expired in August, 1899. It was the intention of the old Republican Government to have just as many people fit for handling arms and guns as possible. Therefore the period was fixed at three years and on expiration of the three years they made room for a new draft, so that when some day when necessary a large number of people on commando in each district would be capable of serving with the guns. The eldest of the brothers is not entitled to a pension because in August, immediately before the outbreak of the war, he left the active service. The second brother went into the service later. He had been there for a year, before the war broke out, and served the full three years, with the rest. He is entitled to a pension. The third brother entered the service of the artillery in the beginning of 1889, thus on the 11th October, when the war broke out, he had not been a year in the service. He also gets no pension. There we have three classes in one family. The eldest brother, who had gone into the reserve just before the outbreak of the war and was shortly after called up again, and served for three years during the war, is not entitled to a pension, and is not on the list of those who come under the 1908 Act.

Do you want to go further than the 1908 Act?

In so far as it affects persons who resumed their old position when the war broke out.

Why then does the person not come under the 1908 Act?

Because shortly before the 11th October, 1899, he returned to the service.

Where is the line to be drawn then?

I should very much like those who actually came on duty on the 11th October, 1899, and who formerly— with only a very short break—had been three or four years in the service, and who served for the whole war should be met as far as possible. There are really some hard cases. If, e.g., such a man who had gone into the reserve had simply asked for a month’s leave, he would not have lost his pension, but because he had a one month’s break he gets nothing. Where it is a matter of small breaks of merely a number of weeks, I would suggest that it be regarded as leave without pay as in many cases has been recommended by the Pensions Committee, and that they should share in the benefits of the 1926 Act.

The Minister asks where the line is to be drawn. He must know, as Minister of Finance, where the money line should be drawn, but I want to say that it is difficult to draw the line in the case of the old republican soldiers, because in 1908 justice was not done to those people. As the hon. member for Lydenburg has just said, the people were practically on leave. They were not in the service, but in the reserve of the corps of which they were members. In some cases it was only for a few weeks. It can be taken that their service was not actually broken. Therefore we ask for a special concession to those people. Let the others remain as they are. The number will not be 1,400.

I move—

When the first clauses were dealt with the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) asked that everywhere in the Bill where the words “nurses and midwives” were used “nurses” should precede “midwives.” In accordance with that we must transpose the two sub-sections.

Order No. 2 has come as a surprise, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who is interested in this Bill, has an amendment to this clause.

That amendment is consequential.

I move—

The effect of the suspension or erasure from the register is that such a person may not practise, but there are certain persons who are, or may be, registered under the Bill, for instance, nurses or masseurs, or even if not on the register, may practise for gain, and, therefore, the section must be qualified by the insertion in line 54 after “shall” of these words. Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

I move—

Poison is often used for the destruction of vermin, and the clause is not sufficiently comprehensive. My amendment will make the matter clearer and obviate objections by a large number of people.

I move—

The intention is to make it quite clear that a retail dealer may sell ordinary preparations that are used for cleansing purposes, though they contain an infinitesimal proportion of some of these poisons. It is not quite clear in the Act that they will be covered by the word “bacteria.” in line 13. I may add that there are certain preparations made for house-cleansing purposes, for instance, which may contain some very infinitesimal proportion of some poison, either for polishing or other cleansing purposes, and it may not be quite possible to say that they are put there expressly for the destruction of bacteria, and it is suggested that these preparations should still be allowed to be sold by the ordinary retail dealer.

I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. It is not entirely a matter of giving extra facilities to dealers in handling articles of this kind, because the real position is that if more facilities are given for the sale of those articles by general dealers, there may be a great danger of their being used in cases of foul play. It lends itself very much to that sort of thing, whereas, if people get these articles through the chemist you have a proper record kept, you have a definite trace of the transaction and, in the event of anything going wrong, the police have available to their hands means whereby they can very readily trace the person who has bought the article. This is a very important matter. Many of the poisons contained in the articles that my friend refers to can very easily, by certain means, be used for purposes such as I have indicated. I do not think it would be in the interests of the public that this amendment should be agreed to. I think the extension, as far as the agricultural poisons are concerned, is dangerous, but in this country we have recognized the difficulties in that direction, but to extend these facilities to articles sold for ordinary cleansing purposes will, I fear, lead to very serious results. I do not refer to persons who may commit suicide, but to criminally inclined persons who might inflict mischief on others.

I think that the substances or the preparations to which the hon. member (Mr. Stuttaford) refers are preparations in which the amount of poison is really very small. For that reason he wants these preparations to be exempted. He specially names preparations for cleansing purposes. There may be other preparations, too, in the same category, but I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to a provision in section 60 (f) where provision is, I think, sufficiently made for the exemption of sub stances or preparations of this nature. [Clause read.] I think this makes ample provision to meet the case of the hon. gentleman.

I move—

The effect of this is to prohibit the issue of any licence for the sale of any kind of poison whatsoever to general dealers or to co-operative societies where they are situated within five miles of some chemist’s shop. I want to go in the opposite direction to my hon. friend (Mr. Stuttaford), the direction of restriction. The Bill proposes to control the sale of poisons. Sections 61 and 62 contain very strong provisions in regard to habit-forming drugs. In the Fourth Schedule the Minister has set out a number of poisons which he prohibits any but chemists from selling, and I expect to have the support of the Minister in my amendment after his remarks in introducing this Bill. He wants to tighten up the regulations. That is my object. If this clause is to remain as it is now, we are going to brush aside practically all control in regard to the sale of poisons, and we are going to permit unrestricted trade, while I take it the object of the Bill is to restrict trade in poisons. There is no provision in this Bill for effective inspection of any of the premises of general dealers who trade in poisons. They may trade and sell poisons without any investigation, whereas in other cases inspection is necessary. From the point of view of the public I cannot find that any hardship would be imposed if this amendment was accepted, because there can be no difficulty in obtaining the necessary drugs containing poisons as may be required. I would urge the Minister to consider whether it is not advisable in this respect to restrict the sale of poisons. Let every man who does sell them work under supervision, have his premises inspected. We cannot be too strict in regard to these matters. I trust the Minister will see that only persons qualified to deal in poisonous drugs are allowed to sell.

With regard to the remarks of the Minister and of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) particularly, it seems to me that we are putting in a great many unnecessary restrictions on general dealers in this Act. Immediately we mention that the general dealer shall have any rights to sell anything, those who are advocating the cause of the chemists put up the bogey of danger. We are not asking for any extra facilities for general dealers, but we say that we are liable, under this Act, to be so afraid of danger that we are restricting trade in all kinds of ways. I would point out to the Minister the difference between Clause 60, which he mentioned, and Clause 51, which we are discussing. Under Clause 60 the Minister can only act on the advice of the Medical and Pharmacy Board, but under 51 he has the unrestricted power of acting himself. He has the unrestricted power in line 9, by regulation, of controlling this matter, and I do suggest to him he should keep this matter in his own hands and permit these various small cleansing materials to be used and to be sold by general dealers. It is simply going to inconvenience the public enormously if all these small items are taken away from the general dealer and put in the hands of the chemist. I do think the Minister has ample powers, under Clause 51. to see that there is no abuse whatever by this suggested amendment of mine. If he finds there is any abuse of any given product, he can, under Clause 51, amend it by regulation, and eliminate such an article from the list of articles which can be sold by a general dealer. I do think that the Act should not be used as a method of taking an enormous quantity of small items away from the general dealer. The danger is a very slight one, if it is one at all. All these products have been used for years, and we do not find that people are always committing suicide by taking floor polish, or something of that kind. As a matter of fact, the chemists are simply trading on our cowardice to try and take away from the general dealer a lot of articles which are within his right to sell, and I do urge the Minister to reconsider his point. Under my suggested amendment, he has absolute control himself. He need not, under his regulation, admit any given preparation if he thinks it is dangerous. Under Clause 60 he has not the right of deciding at all; he only has power to act with the consent of the Medical Board.

He need not accept the advice given. He “may.”

No, the position is after consulting the council and the board. The only people who are represented on the board in this case would be the chemists’ side, who would be interested in the matter. He is going to the people who are against the general dealer, and he cannot act without their consent. He can act if they agree. If he reads Clause 60, he will see that the Minister has not anything like the power under that clause that he has under Clause 51. It is going to be a very difficult thing, if the chemists say “No, we want all these products sold in our stores,” for the Minister to say, “I do not agree with you, and I am going over the head of the board to make regulations diametrically opposite to your advice.” If he acts under Clause 51 he has no difficulty, he is an entirely free agent; but under Clause 60 he takes a very much graver responsibility if he does not accept their advice. I hope the Minister will accept the point of view of the general dealer, and let him have this right, which is subject to the control entirely of the Minister. I do urge the Minister to accept this small amendment.

I am very sorry I am not able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). The Bill, as it stands here is really a compromise between two different interests, the interests of the chemist and druggist on the one hand, and the farmer or the farming population generally on the other. The farmer wants facilities to buy poisons, or substances in which there is a poisonous element, for farming purposes, and he wants as great facilities as possible. On the other hand, the chemist and druggist is apt to restrict the trade as much as possible to himself. There is much to be said to give assistance as far as it is possible to the chemist and druggist, because he has practically a monopoly of the trade, and it helps him to establish chemists’ and druggists’ shops in different places, which is in the interests of the public. But, on the other hand, we have the interest, too, of the farming population. The hon. gentleman proposes that the Minister shall give permission to a general dealer who carries on a business outside the five-mile limit from a chemist’s and druggist’s shop to deal with poisons only after he has had a recommendation to that effect from the pharmacy board, or the magistrate will be able to give a licence if he has the recommendation of the pharmacy board. The pharmacy board, as the hon. gentleman will know, is one body for the whole of the Union, and it stands to reason that the board will know practically nothing of local circumstances. The magistrate, on the other hand, is a mail on the spot, and will know all the circumstances. I think it is a wrong principle under the circumstances that the magistrate could act only on the recommendation of the pharmacy board. I think, as the clause stands here, being a compromise between the different interests, it should be accepted by the committee.

In Clause 51 it is provided that a shopkeeper or a co-operative agricultural association and company can only sell certain poisons intended for agricultural purposes and in cattle farming when there is a certificate permitting such sale bearing a revenue stamp of the value of £1. In other words, the tax will be raised at the expense of the farmers. I fear the provision is unfair, and therefore I move—

I would like to point out to the Minister that my amendment will in no way restrict the privileges of the farmer. We are endeavouring to restrict the sale of poisons, and no farmer will grudge travelling five miles if he knows the public are safeguarded by restrictions such as these. The object is to protect the public generally. There is at present we know the sale of, for example, these Dutch medicines, which are to a large extent composed of poison, and people purchase them when they cannot get drugs such as suit them, in order to satisfy their craving, and not for the cure. I have been asked to move this.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). The £1 will only be another tax on the farmers, because the dealers will pass it on to the farmers. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who wants the farmer to travel five miles to buy dip. We are making it difficult for the farmers. How can we expect the traders to have a separate counter and to put up separate cupboards for poisons? And the shopkeepers will double the licence of £1 and get it back, and the tax will fall on the farmers. The shopkeeper will always tell us that he now has to pay a licence, and must therefore charge more. I hope the Minister will meet us and abandon the £1 licence.

Just a few words on the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). In this case a licence is issued for the sale of special articles, and it would be a departure from the general principle in our legislation if the amendment were passed. A business can pay £1 per annum for the privilege it has above other businesses, and which is, of course, to the benefit of such business. £1 a year is not too much, and therefore I think the House should not pass the amendment, and I hope the hon. member will not press it.

I am sorry that a farmer like the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) should talk like that. I certainly expected that he would assist the farmers, but now he says that even if the farmers could get these things in the past they must anyhow be prohibited in future. What evil happened to the people in the past when they could buy the things without the separate counters and cupboards and licence? The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) says that the £1 is only a registration fee. Then it is a very very dear registration fee. But it Isn’t that, but amounts to a tax on the farmers, and causes great inconvenience to the countryside. In my district there are places 120 miles from the nearest station, and the scab inspectors are about every day to see that the farmers dip. What will happen if the shopkeepers say that they can no longer stop the requirements because it does not pay. Then our farmers who do not possess a motor or horses will have to travel with donkeys for 120 miles to the village to get dip. No, the thing will only cause inconvenience to our farmers.

There is a small point which I hope the Minister will consider, viz., the matter of convenience. Take the case where a small shop caters for the people in the neighbourhood. The shopkeeper has already to take the trouble to obtain the certificate, and the profit which he has hitherto made is little, perhaps merely a few pounds. He will possibly take the trouble to obtain the certificate, but the payment of £1 will make him abandon the sale of the article to the farmer’s detriment. As they can now obtain the articles two or three miles from their farm which they so urgently need, they will then have to go 20 miles or more. It is not a case of a few shillings or pounds, but it is really a matter here whether we want to protect the interests of the farmers or not. I am certain that the Minister wants to do that just as much as we do, and therefore I think that his objection to the amendment is not well founded.

I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment. I am also a farmer, but I do not look after the interests of the farmers merely, but the public interests generally. We, as members of the Assembly, must see to it that the safety of the public is guaranteed. If we permit every shop keeper and smouse to sell poisons without a licence, we shall see what will happen. If they had the right in the past it ought now to be taken away. I am convinced that the articles will not cost any more now.

I should like again to give hon. members the assurance that the matter concerning our countryside population can also be looked at from another viewpoint. We are all anxious to assist the countryside population. The hon. member will remember how three years ago a shopkeeper delivered 6,000 little bottles to a farmer.

33,000 little bottles.

Still worse. And after two years the whole farm was almost in the hands of the shopkeepers. That £1 was a registration fee. Everybody who wants to sell the poison must be registered and the £1 is for nothing else than registration, and the countryside population can therefore ask the Minister in consideration of the £1 to supervize the sale of such articles better.

The hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) spoke about 53,000 little bottles, but I ask whether the payment of the £1 will obviate that. The shopkeepers have in any case to go to the magistrate to get a licence, and if they have to pay a further £1, they will leave it alone or pass ten times as much on to the farmers.

It was said here that the magistrate has the tight of depriving a shop keeper of a certificate, and it is quite right that only a man with a good character should sell those articles. The Minister must, however, consider that if the shopkeepers have to pay a licence of £1. then it will be passed on to every farmer. The shopkeeper will say that if he is making enough profit he will continue with the sale, otherwise not. It is convenient for us if we can go to the nearest shop to buy these articles.

Will the Minister accept the position I put in regard to my amendment? I believe in the public interest these articles, which are not dangerous, should be easily obtainable. It will be very inconvenient for the public to have to find a chemist whenever they wish to buy cleansing substances which might contain poison. There is no evidence that any of these things have proved dangerous to the purchasers. Unless the amendment is accepted, the practice will be a very great hardship to the general dealer, and a very great inconvenience to the general public. The Minister will be able to control the trade in these articles. I hope he will accept my amendment.

I also want to plead with the Minister not to tax the farmer any more. The Minister knows that there is a fairly large amount of dissatisfaction about this Bill, and he must not tax the farming population as well, because that is what it amounts to. We require things containing poison to spray our trees and to dip our cattle, and the Government is much encouraging the use of them. Why then should so many difficulties be put in the way of our obtaining them, because the shop-keepers in those parts will say that it does not pay them to stock the article if they must have another counter, and other cupboards, and have to pay an additional licence of £1. And even if he does stock the articles he will recover it from the farmers. We have experience as to how these things go. We constantly hear that the licence has now to be paid, and the price is, consequently, greater. The shopkeeper recovers the £1 three or four times over from the farmer.

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I can only say that the amendment he has moved is really something that does not matter very much whether I accept it or not.

Then accept it.

I cannot accept it as it stands—

That is altogether too wide. I suggest the hon. member puts it like this—

As he has got it, it is too wide, and may be dangerous. If you accept this wording, I accept the amendment

I warn the Minister he is going into something which is a great deal more than he imagines. There are many poisons which are dangerous which are used for cleansing purposes. Take, for instance, oxalic acid, which is used for the cleansing of Panama hats, and which is also a poison favoured by suicides. I think it should be confined to chemists, because they know the nature of the article, and are in a position to give advice concerning it. They are further in a position to warn the customer with regard to its danger, and to give scientific advice on that, whereas the dealer just hands it over, and is not in a position to give information as to how to save life if it has been taken by human beings.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is trying to make our blood curdle. Under the clause the Minister has absolute control, and I am perfectly certain the general public would have greater confidence in the health advisers of the Minister, who decide on these matters, rather than the chemist. In the clause the Minister has control by regulation, which will be drafted by his technical advisers, and the House can be satisfied these advisers will protect the public. The hon. member for Langlaagte is great on protecting the public, but I think hon. members would rather have the Department of Public Health as advisers to the Minister on what would protect the public rather than the Pharmacy Board set up under this Bill. If the Minister prefers the words he has used for the amendment, I accede to his proposal. Perhaps the Minister will move that.

Yes, I move—

With leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.

It seems to me that Clauses 5 and 6 are extremely drastic. Clause 6 provides that a magistrate “shall” cancel any certificate. A general dealer is obliged to obtain a certificate to sell patent medicines, but he has to keep them in a separate receptacle or cupboard, and if a policeman happens to come along and finds that these are not locked up, and reports the trader, then the magistrate “shall” cancel his certificate. No provision is even made for a warning. Further, he may not sell over the same counter where he sells food. These dealers generally have only one little shop and a single counter, and cannot build a special structure in which to sell patent medicines. These clauses are drafted without any real knowledge of the conditions of the country areas. They are too drastic and impossible to carry out. When the Patent Medicine Act was promulgated the conditions were so drastic that many dealers would neither stock patent medicines nor sell them, and these clauses impose more hardships than that Act ever did. In the country many people may live a hundred miles away from a chemists’s shop and, under the now imposed conditions, traders will refuse to stock the medicines required, and so farmers will be left in the cold.” The Minister should reframe these clauses before asking the House to accept them.

Under the term “poison” many things are included, e.g., Cooper’s dip, caustic soda, lysol, Little’s, etc. If a shop keeper has to keep these articles in a separate room he will simply stop stocking them. All the shops inland are not built on the shopkeepers’ land, and they will not incur the expense when they have only hired the ground for a year or two. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) made a long speech, and said he was sorry for the public. He is not sorry, but wants them to travel 100 miles to go to the apothecary. The public must be inconvenienced so that the druggists can make money. The shopkeepers have been selling these articles for years and have never yet poisoned anybody. Caustic soda is in closed tins, and is sold to the buyers, but no one has yet been poisoned. If the shopkeeper is now to have to erect another building, then he will have to stop the sale of the articles if he hires the place for only a year or two. I should like the Minister to meet us in the matter.