announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Native Administration Bill, viz.. The Minister of Justice, Messrs. Close, Gilson, Nel, Nieuwenhuize, J. J. Pienaar, Reyburn, Swart and Vermooten.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he cannot give me any reply to the question I put to him yesterday.

I replied, to the hon. member’s question last night. Unfortunately, the hon. member was not in his seat. I stated that the Treasury had had a return of the work performed by the rent boards during the last twelve months and as a result we laid down the number of sittings which, in future, should be allowed to each board in the various large centres. As the result of the work performed during the preceding twelve months the limitation was laid down, but it was all based on the amount of work performed by these boards.

I would like to know when we can raise the point as to the matter of the appointment of the commission to inquire into the liquor commission’s findings.

On the vote of the Minister of Justice.

Yesterday I endeavoured to make use of the Auditor-General’s report in connection with a case in which I considered the Government should not have interfered. It deals with the vote “miscellaneous services,” which I said covers a multitude of sins. The point I want to refer to appears on page 125 of the report, where the Auditor-General draws the attention of the country to this matter. I would like to read to the committee what he says. It is under the heading No. 5, amount guaranteed by the Government to J. J. Strauss in connection with a legal action. Item 13—

May I ask the hon. member if he will allow me to ask the Minister whether any expenses are included in connection with that matter.

No. I would like to deal with the case, but the hon. member knows that in terms of the ruling given we cannot debate this matter now. He should have done so yesterday.

I attempted to do so yesterday.

No, on vote No. 5.

Withdraw.

Would you allow me to ask for silence?

After the Minister’s statement I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 10, “High Commissioner in London,” £47,387,

I want to ask a question on this. I want to ask if it is correct that we pay the English income tax for the High Commissioner in. London. If that is the case, does he pay any income tax on this side to the Union Treasury?

I would like to explain the position. The position prior to the passing of our existing Income Tax Act was that the High Commissioner was not exempted from Union income tax. The present High Commissioner was appointed on these terms as was the previous High Commissioner. Then we laid down in our income tax legislation that the High Commissioner would be exempt, but, of, course, he was appointed on the terms that he would not be so, so what happens now is that he pays the tax but it is refunded to him. In the case of English income tax, by subsequent legislation the Commissioner was exempted from that tax.

I only want to point out that in that case he is in a very good position. He draws a salary of £3,000 a year and allowances of £1,000 which makes £4,000, besides which we have just given him a motor car and a chauffeur. I think that is going rather a long way I think the Minister of Finance, who justly has the reputation of taking care of the taxpayer’s money, has been rather liberal in this respect. I want to call attention to another point. In the Auditor-General’s report it is pointed out on page 129 that we have placed on pension the late secretary, Sir Reginald Blanckenberg, who is not 50 years of age. What cause is there? He has taken the directorship of certain companies. What was the reason of putting a gentleman not fifty years of age on pension? This is one of the methods by which the pensions vote is piled up. He was retired with a pension of £686 and a gratuity of £1,300. In addition it was agreed to compensate him for his loss on selling the lease of his flat in London and to transport him and his family and furniture to Johannesburg. The cost is estimated at £893. I think it is entirely uncalled for. What was the reason for his retirement. I think we ought to have some explanation from the Minister in regard to these two items.

I notice under Department (a) that there is an item of £8,713 for local allowances, while last year it was more than £10,000. In connection with this matter the Auditor-General comments on the great difference that exists between the various local allowances paid to officials in London and in South Africa. He says that much more is added to the salaries of public servants in London by way of allowances than in Pretoria, and he then gives a number of cases comparing London and Pretoria. Where an official in London with a salary of £500 gets an allowance of £196, an official of the same grade in Pretoria only gets £69. I should like to know from the Minister on what basis such a great difference is made between officers of the same rank.

Referring to item C, I would like to ask the Minister whether any of the Trafalgar Square properties are let to outsiders, and if so, what rent is being obtained.

I should like to refer to the matter brought forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and ask the Minister whether this payment in the case of the High Commissioner is going to form a precedent. If the Minister has read the Auditor-General’s report for the year ending 31st March, 1926, he will see that a similar precedent took place with regard to the subsistence allowance to the Board of Trade. When Professor Fremantle was appointed he was given a subsistence allowance in advance of the ordinary one to members of the public service When he ceased to function the other members of the Board of Trade took up the position, where one member had been paid more than the ordinary subsistence allowance to public servants, it should be allowed in their case and the Minister of Finance supported it. It seems to me that is the way the expenditure is always growing. One exception is made in the case of the High Commissioner, and his successor takes up the position—

I think that, with regard to the members of the Board of Trade mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report it was unjust to the members of the public service.

I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is wrong. The motor car to which he refers is a little one, and costs only £1,340 or £1,360, whereas the motor-car of the Prime Minister costs only £900 with freight and duty. Perhaps the Minister of Finance, in his desire to economize, will tell us why £900 is quite enough for the Prime Minister and why it is necessary to spend £1,340 or £1,360 for the car of the High Commissioner in London. Does the Minister consider that with an elaborate motor-car of that character the credit of this country will be raised—going about in state on the other side? The late High Commissioner did not have a motor-car, and I want to know why it was necessary to spend, without a vote of this House, that money on the High Commissioner. I also call the Minister’s attention to page 24— subsistence and transport. Last year it was £500, and this year it is £1,000. Is the extra £500 for the necessary upkeep of a chauffeur becoming to the dignity of a £1,340 motor?

A super-chauffeur.

As my hon. friend reminds me, a super-chauffeur.

I see that there are 107 clerks who are paid a salary and house allowance of £34,000. I should like to know from the Minister how many of these clerks are bilingual and how many not.

I wish to ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the press that the Royal Colonial Institute, which is an institute which has had a long and useful life in Great Britain, and has done a great deal to enable the British public and the world generally to know about the general development of what are now the dominions, asked the High Commissioner whether he could supply a lecturer to that body to lecture on the prospects of land settlement in South Africa. That was an opportunity of allowing our country and its possibilities to become well and authoritatively known to a large body of people, especially in the British Isles. The High Commissioner’s reply that he had no-one to send. If he meant that he had no-one competent, it discloses a disastrous state of things. If it meant he was indifferent to the question of land settlement, it was a very wrong attitude to take up. If it meant he was not proud of our country, and he did not want to let people know about it, those are questions he should answer. This was an occasion where the High Commissioner should have welcomed the opportunity, and should have sent somebody from his office—

interjected a remark about “colonial.”

The institute has not changed its name from “colonial” because it is an old and honoured name. There are members there from all the dominions, and there is a large and growing number of South Africans. It is a home from home to us South Africans. I think they are doing a most useful work there, in combining people from the dominions and colonies, and gathering them under one roof. It is the only place that provides such a rendezvous. Our High Commissioner should have taken the opportunity of making this country better known, by sending a competent man to address the meeting as requested.

With respect to what the hon. member has just said, I only want to say that I am convinced that the High Commissioner in London does everything he can to make South Africa popular. I know he went to Holland with Mr. Chittenden, and it was through his intervention that these four Hollanders came to South Africa to study agriculture. The organization to which the hon. member belongs—the 1820 Settlers’ Association—is a very powerful one in London. “It was up to” the Association to be represented at the meeting of the Colonial Institute. I rise only to prevent an injustice being done to the High Commissioner for I do not think it is fair to reflect on his action in connection with this matter.

Under the heading of incidental expenses appears the item insurance premia £100. If that is for fire insurance it is contrary to the policy of the Government, which prefers to take its own fire risk.

Why the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) has dragged in the 1820 Settlers’ Association I do not know. Our official representative in Great Britain is the High Commissioner. The 1820 Settlers’ Association was not asked to send a lecturer. I quite agree that the High Commissioner has given a great deal of attention to the question of publicity for South Africa, and got the four gentlemen from Holland to come out here. I may tell the hon. member that my Association met these men and rendered them every possible assistance whilst here. I am of opinion that the publicity campaign of the Union Government is directed too much to the attracting of tourists only, as against permanent settlers. We welcome them very much, but after all they are birds of passage, although no doubt some of them remain here as settlers or send their sons. I want to see a far more definite attempt made to get suitable people to settle in the country, for they and their descendants will become South Africans. It is very unfair of the hon. member without any reason to drag in the 1820 Association with which I am connected.

There are several items in this vote for the High Commissioner which are payable by the railway administration. I wish to raise the question of that official’s action in appointing men who pass stores for the railway administration. The High Commissioner is primarily responsible for appointing the officials who passed the split rails and the inferior engines.

The hon. member may discuss that on the Railway Minister’s salary.

We cannot discuss the High Commissioner on that vote. I wish to know what hold the Treasury has on the High Commissioner for these bad appointments.

The point raised by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) is a question which affects a matter of policy dealt with by the Minister of Lands. I do not control the policy of the High Commissioner with regard to his various activities, my department merely being responsible for the funds entrusted to him. I do not think the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will be out of order in discussing the point he raised on the Railway Vote. It will be very difficult and inconvenient to deal with it here.

So I can raise the question on the Minister’s Vote?

Yes.

During the year £27,000,000 passed through the High Commissioner’s hands, a great deal of this being for stores for the various Government departments. There is ample evidence that the inspection of these stores has been very badly carried out, in many cases involving the country in heavy loss and inconvenience. We would like some information as to the manner of the appointment of the inspecting engineers and what happens when they fail in their duties. Do any means exist for recovering damages from these firms of experts who purport to carry out certain duties but fail to do so?

From the press one learns that very sumptuous and palatial buildings are being erected in Trafalgar Square for the offices of the High Commissioner. What tenure has the Government got—is it leasehold or freehold? Will the offices continue to be there for some time?

It is very difficult for us to know which is the proper vote on which to bring up certain subjects. Surely we can discuss matters appertaining to the office of the High Commissioner on that official’s vote. I take it the High Commissioner is the representative in London of the Union Government, and the Cabinet collectively and not of any one particular Minister. That is why I did it now. I do not want to open the whole question over again. It is not a subject to be thrashed threadbare. I want to deal with land settlement more comprehensively and on very different lines when the Minister’s Vote comes on. This is the time which I thought was the correct one for dealing with this particular point.

It is quite correct that a matter of twenty-seven millions passed through the High Commissioner’s office, but the hon. member forgets that for years we have been agitating that all the tenders should be opened in South Africa, but not in London. We have at last achieved that. We agree that the officials in London passed these materials and that they have made certain faux pas as far as material is concerned but it is not fair of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) to complain against the present High Commissioner. The present system is a tremendous improvement on the position when we had the Opposition’s High Commissioner in London. I rise to protest against the hon. member for East London (North) wanting to insinuate that the present High Commissioner made these faux pas.

With regard to materials the hon. member must know that these rails only landed here a short while ago, and the members of the board which passed these rails were not appointed by the High Commissioner. I advise the hon. member to read the Auditor-General’s report again and go into the matter a little more closely. They were only appointed a few months ago and these rails have only just arrived in this country. If they have taken three years to come to this country there is something wrong in the High Commissioner’s office. Before the hon. member makes wild statements he should consider the matter closely.

The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) is unduly sensitive, particularly in matters like sleepers and rails. No charge is made against the High Commissioner, but I am anxious for information of the system adopted by the High Commissioner. I want to know if the losses incurred by this expert advice can be recovered by the Union. On page 130 the hon. member will see the accounts amount to twenty-seven millions, and it is important we should have more information with regard to the inspection of stores which form a big item. We find the South African Railways and Harbours Board ordered stores to the amount of 3½ millions, and the Electricity Commission to the amount of three-quarters of a million, and the losses incurred have been very great.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has dealt with the question of the salary and allowance payable to the High Commissioner. The hon. member knows that the figure of £3,000 and £1,000 allowance is the figure fixed by the previous Government years ago, when salaries were much lower than they are to-day.

I took that as a basis, and on top of that you give him a motor-car.

The High Commissioner has never paid income tax in the past.

I did not raise that question.

He pays tax, but it is refunded to him. He was appointed on the same basis as his predecessor, namely, that he did not pay income tax.

What about the other men just below him? Do they get their income tax refunded?

The other officials are liable to income tax. The High Commissioner is liable under the terms of the statute, but it is refunded to him, otherwise it would be a breach of the conditions of his appointment. With regard to the motor-car, I pointed out some time ago and the Prime Minister has also pointed it out, that the High Commissioner will be in a diplomatic position in future, and strong representations were made to us that he was in a difficult position compared with his colleagues from other dominions. The previous High Commissioner did not get a car, but he was in a more fortunate position that the present High Commissioner. We do not lay a rule down that in future they shall not be wealthy men who are appointed, but if they are not it is up to the Government to help them to keep up the dignity of the office, and in connection with that it was necessary to provide him with a car. The hon. member has raised the question of the price of the car. Well, it was felt that we ought to have an English car, instead of importing a car from America. If we had imported a car from America we should have got it at the same price as the Prime Minister’s. If you want an English car they run into pretty big figures, and no doubt the hon. member for “Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) knows that. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) raised the question of the retrial of officials in the position of Sir Reginald Blanckenberg. Sir Reginald Blanckenberg made strong representations that he be allowed to come back to the Union, and the House has expressed the opinion that Union officials should not be kept there for too long a period. They get out of touch with the people, and the House approved of the policy that we send officials from time to time, especially in high positions, who are in touch with conditions to-day. Sir Reginald Blanckenberg has been there a long time, and had got out of touch with conditions here. If he had come back to the Union we could not find a position suitable for him to fill.

Didn’t you fill up the positions of heads of many departments?

Yes, I dare say.

It is going to be rather unfortunate if, every time you want to give a man a change, he has to go on pension.

That does not often happen. This is a peculiar case. As a matter of fact, I hesitated a very long time before I acceded to the request to retire Sir Reginald Blanckenberg. Then a question has been raised as to the letting of a portion of the premises which we occupy in London. Certain portions of these premises are let, No. 4 Trafalgar Square and 6 and 7 Duncannon Street, and the revenue we get is about £4,300. We occupy these premises on leasehold conditions. Our rights will expire in a few years’ time, and it will then be for the Government to consider what provision we are going to make for the housing of the High Commissioner’s office in London. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) asked what the amount of £100 is for in regard to insurance premium. I do not think it is in connection with the building. I think it is in connection with the insurance of various exhibits of people which are housed in the building and which are insured in the interests of the owners of those exhibits. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), I may say that I have no knowledge of the refusal of the High Commissioner to supply a lecturer there. I have no knowledge of the incident mentioned by the hon. member. I understand that the Minister of Lands has no official there who is able to give a proper lecture on land settlement conditions in this country We have, of course, the publicity agent of the Department of Railways and Harbours, but up to the present no arrangement has been made for the appointment of an official in the High Commissioner’s office specially to boost the Union in regard to land settlement. If the hon. member wants to pursue that matter, I would advise him to do so when the vote for the Minister of Lands is under discussion.

*As regards the question by the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) as to how many of the officials in the office of the High Commissioner in London are bilingual, I must say that I have not the exact figures at hand, but as a result of the view expressed by this, House on various occasions, we have, during recent years, done our best when vacancies occurred to send someone that was bilingual. A considerable change has already taken place, but, of course, the subordinate posts can usually not be filled by bilingual men, and the appointment of unilingual men to the junior appointments will continue for a long time yet. I just want to add that owing to the salaries paid it is often extremely difficult to get Union officials to go to the office of the High Commissioner and to live there. They find conditions very different there, the cost of living higher, and in general they are not so happy there, and it is not easy from time to time to fill up the junior appointments. With regard to the difference in allowances between London and Pretoria, I may tell the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) that they were altered last year, and that we now only pay three-fourths of the British allowance for cost of living, and that the difference, therefore, no longer exists.

My hon. friend the Minister has quite forgotten that I called his attention to the fact that the subsistence and transport vote is twice what it was before. I want to know whether that is due to the super chauffeur who is employed on this car?

I can only tell my hon. friend that the Government considered that in the interests of the proper representation of the Union of South Africa in London, it was not desirable to provide a Morris-Cowley car. We though it necessary to provide a better type of car.

What was it?

A Daimler. The increase of the subsistence vote is mainly in connection with the cost of maintaining the motor-car.

With regard to the Trafalgar Square buildings, the Minister knows that one section of these buildings is let to the Imperial Government for a post office at the corner of the Strand. I think that is still the position. I would like to ask the Minister if he and the Prime Minister went into the question when they were in London, because it struck me that, notwithstanding the extremely high rent which you are getting, this would be one of the most admirable sites in London for the exhibition of the products of the Union. I suppose there is no place in London where there is a greater traffic, not alone of London people, but of strangers from all parts of England and all parts of the world who visit London. I would like my hon. friend to go into the question and consider whether it would not be better to try and make an arrangement with the Imperial Government to allow us to take possession of the building, even though we drop £3,000 or £4,000 a year rent, and use that as a place for the display of the products of South Africa. It would put us on a par, so far as displaying our wares, and the possible products of the Union is concerned, with Australia or any other of the dominions represented in London.

I took a great deal of interest in this question when I was in London. I discussed it on several occasions with Mr. Smit with a view to our future arrangements. Unfortunately, I understand that the British Government have certain plans there in regard to the widening of the Strand and the construction of bridges, and up to the present we have not been able to get them to give us a definite reply as to what their intentions are. I believe that a Royal Commission is sitting in regard to the whole scheme. We have not yet been able to ascertain from them on what terms we may be able to even keep our present site. What I gathered when we were there was that we should endeavour, if possible, to remain where we are, but we cannot go on with the building as it is. In a few years’ time we shall have to decide to spend a good deal of money there to see that suitable and convenient accommodation is provided for the High Commissioner’s office and his staff. As to what the exact site will be, that is a matter on which the High Commissioner is still in communication with the British authorities. We have not yet got a definite reply from the Imperial Government.

You are anxious Í to get that corner if you can get it?

I cannot tell my hon. friend whether that will be available. I am afraid that will be a part which they would like to retain for the widening of the street. Only a part of our existing premises will be available for us if these plans go through.

I hope the Minister will use every bit of his influence to keep South Africa House on the site where it is. In my opinion it is the finest site in London for the purpose. Every foreigner coming to London goes to Trafalgar Square. There is no place in the world, I think, where you can get a better display for our products than this site of South Africa House if it were reconstructed. To-day it is a marvellous site not being utilized to full advantage.

In regard to supplying information to the English public as to land settlement, I may say that about three years ago, when I was in London, I attended a lecture on land settlement given by an official of the High Commissioner’s office This gentleman delivered a very interesting lecture to a very large audience, and I am quite sure that the work he did on that occasion has been of benefit to this country, and I would like to support what has been said about the necessity of having an official in London attached to the High Commissioner’s office who can give firsthand information in regard to land settlement and who can be available for lecturing either in London or elsewhere. One of the greatest needs we have in this country is a larger population on the land. If we can attract the right class of settlers from England or any other part of Europe to come and settle in this country, we would be doing very good work. The Minister has referred to Mr. Chittenden, who is the publicity agent. I am inclined to think that if Mr. Chittenden had been asked to deliver the lecture he would have been quite willing to do it and quite competent to do it, because he is an exceedingly well-informed man about everything in connection with South Africa, including land settlement, and I hope the Minister of Lands will bear this in mind, because a great deal of work can be done by a competent man in London attached to the High Commissioner’s office to further the interests of this country in connection with land settlement.

I am extremely pleased to hear what the Minister said about his desire to do all he possibly can in connection with our buildings in Trafalgar Square. I am pleased to see that he has been impressed with the great advantage, as pointed out by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), of that unique site. I only hope that the remarks of my hon. friend have impressed themselves upon his stalwart followers, because my memory goes back to a few years ago, when I sat on that side of the House and the Minister and his friends sat on this side, and we heard the tirades against the extravagance of the Government of those days in buying what was then known as Morley’s Hotel. We were told that greater extravagance had never been committed, and that it was not carried out in the interests of South Africa, but that my right hon. friend (Gen Smuts) had some nefarious plan by which he was trying to assist the Imperial Government with the funds of this Union. Well, times have changed, and with the times circumstances have changed also. My hon. friend and the Prime Minister now sit in the seats of the mighty and in seats of responsibility, and they have gone, and they have seen, and they have been conquered, and they have come back imbued with the idea that the advantages of Morley’s Hotel, which we in our humble way had tried to show to the House to justify us in entering into those arrangements, were nothing to what my hon. friends have found on inspection, and they have realized that what we did was the correct thing. I am glad to see that, although my hon. friend has not put on the white sheet, at least, he is sitting on the stool of repentance.

I just wish to say this that we did not so much see how correct the late Government was in doing all this, but because we saw that it was now all being done in accordance with the policy which was not always, in our opinion, the best for South Africa, and it would be foolish to undo what had been done—because it would cost still more than to continue following the policy— we are under the circumstances, simply following the course that they took.

I do not think the Prime Minister listened to his colleague’s speech. The Minister of Finance told another story, viz., that he would do his best when the lease of the old Morley’s Hotel, which we hired, runs out, to do all in his power to obtain a renewal of the lease. Even, therefore, if the present Government gets a free hand and is no longer bound by the acts of the late Government they are going to try to obtain Morley’s Hotel again. I hone the Minister will do his best. I understand it is absolutely the best site we can find for a place in London in the interests of our trade and representation there, and I think from the correspondence carried on at the time when the contract was made the Minister will find that we received the assurance of the Imperial Government that on the eventual renewal of the lease we should be given the best treatment. Of course, the British Government could —I think it was the “office of works”—give us no definite option, because at that time it was not known whether the building would not be required for alterations which had to be made. The intention, I think, was to erect another building on a plot which was so excellently situated, and we could get no assurance of a further option, but it will appear from the correspondence that we could reckon on the best treatment with reference to old Morley’s Hotel or a building which would take the place of it. We know, therefore, that we are not only certain of the building for the eight or ten years of the agreement, but also we can reckon on the best treatment. I hope that we shall do our best to retain that plot.

We are only sub-lessees of the plot, and our lease ends, a day before that of the direct lessee, but the British Government said that it would regard us as the “sitting tenant.” Apart from that, if it comes to obtaining a future site for our office, it can be depended upon that we shall receive the best treatment from the British Government.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Inland Revenue,” £149,857,

I see the Minister makes another official appointment here. He has appointed a gentleman as permanent president of this special court of appeal. I have never heard myself that there was dissatisfaction or difficulties with the previous board. The whole expenditure of the three boards was only £747. Now it costs over £2,000, and we pay this gentleman £1,800 a year, as a whole time officer, plus subsistence allowance at the rate of over £1 per diem. Perhaps my hon. friend can tell us why this appointment was made.

My hon. friend says the previous arrangements were quite satisfactory. That is not the view of my department. Shortly after I took office the Commissioner of Inland Revenue made representations pointing out the desirability, not only in the interests of the department, but also in the interests of appellants, that we should have a central court. In the first place, by these various courts before you were getting different judgments, and in the second place we were not able to provide for the expeditious hearing of appeals as we can do now. These cases are increasing very much. I think the hon. member will hear from all sides that it was a very excellent appointment, and this court is building up a system of income tax law which I think will be of the greatest benefit and advantage to the country. The extra expenditure is not really accounted for by the change, because this also includes the salary of the registrar. Formerly it was done by one of the clerks of the department, but now it is charged separately.

I should like to ask a question regarding the assessment of income tax. Assuming two or three people are assessed on the same basis, and one of them appeals and is successful in his appeal, does the Commissioner of Income Tax give the other taxpayers in similar circumstances the benefit which has been received by the appellant? If the decision of the Income Tax Appeal Board is only applied to the one individual who happens to appeal, and not to the others in a similar position, injustice is being done to the others. I should like to know what the practice is with regard to that.

Of course, that depends on the law. As far as I remember, we have laid down that if anybody pays voluntarily, he is not able to recover. I think that is the position, but I am not absolutely certain about the correct legal position.

In some cases I am told that taxpayers have not paid the income tax for which they have been assessed, and they have been asked to pay, although another taxpayer in the same circumstances has appealed and got relief. If they are in the same category, if the circumstances are the same, as in the case of an appellant who has been successful, will they get the benefit of that decision?

If they have paid voluntarily, they do not get the benefit. If they have not paid, they do.

Then in that case, I think a man who has paid under a mistake of law has a good claim for refund of the money.

I want to ask the Minister why revenue stamps are printed in London? Is there any special reason why it cannot be done in South Africa?

I think all stamps are printed here. It may be a previous case to which the hon. member is referring.

The case is mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report.

I think that stamps are to-day being printed in South Africa.

With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Dundee, I can understand the department not refunding where people have paid, but I think the other point is one of considerable importance. Supposing several men have been assessed, and one takes the case to the court of appeal. Judgment is given against the principle on which the Commissioner acts. Does the Commissioner then re-assess all cases in a similar category where the money has not been paid?

Oh, yes, he will be re-assessed if the money has not been paid.

It should be so but I do not think it is done.

That is a question of law. If the hon. member will raise it when we come to the Income Tax Bill, I will deal with it.

I would like to ask the Minister if he could make any further statement regarding the Transvaal poll tax. As he knows, a lot of people have paid under protest.

I hope to bring an amending Bill shortly to deal with the position.

May I ask the Minister why it is necessary to continue this cost of living allowance? They are getting it at Durban, and nowhere else in the Union. There are other places where the cost of living is every bit as high as at Durban. I would like the Minister to tell us what is the principle in regard to that.

This is a matter which is from time to time gone into by the Public Service Commission. Just now the Treasury has approved of a special cost of living allowance at Lichtenburg under’ the special conditions obtaining there. It is reviewed from time to time.

When is the Durban allowance reviewed? It has been going on to my knowledge for four years.

The cost of living is gone into every year by the Public Service Commission, and it is not renewed unless good cause is shown.

I think I am right when I say that the income tax courts sit in private; that being so, the public do not know what the proceedings are. I do not say the names should be published, but could not steps be taken whereby the decisions of this court on important points could be made public as a guide to the public?

The decisions are available.

They are published, in fact.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Customs and Excise,” £224,724.

I see under A, statistical assistants and girl clerks, there are 35 this year at a cost of £5,431, whereas last year there were only 14, costing £1,679. There has been no increase in the general customs officers; in fact, there are quite numerous complaints that there are not sufficient officers to deal with the complicated tariff the Minister introduced, which has increased the work immensely.

I see the Minister has made another appointment here—an investigating officer in London, transferred from New York. That makes two investigation officers now. Is it really necessary to have all these officers? I want, also, to raise another rather important point, with regard to the excise on sugar in South Africa, For sugar sent oversea a rebate of this year is given, and for the year ending 31st March, 1926, the rebate was £61,736. There is also the rebate on sugar for Rhodesia, South-West Africa and the various protectorates. We were told the other day that the sugar combine charged to the manufacturers of jam, and I presume the same will apply to the manufacturers of condensed milk, the same rate as they can import it without the duty, I understand. I have here the report of the Board of Trade on the condensed milk industry, in which they state, on page 6, that sugar is charged to them at 21s. compared with 13s. in England. What chance has the jam manufacturer in South Africa doing an export trade?

May I ask the hon. member on which item he is addressing the committee?

I am making a general complaint under customs and excise, and complaining that the excise is not fair.

Which excise are you complaining about?

The excise on sugar.

That does not fall under this vote.

I should say it does. We are dealing with customs and excise here.

No, the hon. member must confine himself to the items on the vote.

Raise it on the Minister’s salary.

How can you raise it on the Minister’s salary?

The hon. member will see that the excise is payable under the law. If he advocates that we have to alter the law—

I do not see how you can do otherwise.

I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed upon that point. When we come to Ways and Means, the hon. member can discuss it. He will then have his opportunity.

All right, so long as we have the opportunity.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an extraordinary item on page 27. In the previous year there were 208 clerical assistants, costing £74,232, and in the present year there are only 19, costing £70,342. They are lucky.

It is a clerical error, and should be 199.

Withdraw.

Then I see there is a new office, a “paper keeper,” £138. We want to know what a paper keeper is, and the necessity for such an officer.

This vote is pretty extensive and the department costs a great deal of money. Has his attention been called to the fact that more than half the work at the customs is concerned with free entries; in other words goods which are not suitable passing through entail more than half the expense of the whole department. I suggest that he should seriously consider whether there should not be higher registration fee for free imports, as much as would at least cover the full cost of the work. It would not be in the nature of a protective duty.

You have got to pay the staff.

It does not cover anything like what the proportionate charges should be in regard to free imports. I hope the Minister will make a close inquiry into it, and see whether this expenditure can be fairly kept up at the cost of the taxpayer, for whom I am pleading. Will the Minister also take into consideration the great amount of money lost to revenue in excise, possibly through over slight? A considerable sum is not collected on brandy used to fortify wines, and the result is that article is escaping its share of taxation. There are those who try to get an illicit liquor trade, pass the brandy in bond as being for the purpose of fortifying, and it is nothing of the kind. The result is, I am assured, that half a million of money is escaping by freedom of such brandy from taxation, togethet with the illicit trade. Possibly the desire of the Pact to induce S.A.P. wine farmers “to come over” may have some influence in this matter.

I do not think the hon. member who has just spoken wants to convey that we are not collecting everything that is due according to the law. What he is really after is altering the law that brandies which are not dutiable should be dutiable. If he has any information, the officers of my department would be glad to have the information, and try to capture the culprits. As to the other thing, I do not think Parliament will alter the law, and it has decided that that spirit should not be dutiable. As to free entry, it is the deliberate policy laid down in this House, and for the purpose of encouraging industries certain articles are allowed in free, but that is done only for factories under proper supervision under the Factories Act. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the question of the increase in the number in the statistical branch, which is a very important branch of the customs department. The commercial community have been making complaints about the late appearance of volumes of the statistical department. We have now made provision that works shall be published, not only in both languages, but more expeditiously. We have made provision for more tabulating machines, and if we did not have them we would have to have a very much bigger staff. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) raised the question of the appointment of a second investigating officer. I may say that the officer in America has been replaced by one from here, and the one in America has been transferred to London. He travels about the United Kingdom and the Continent. Last, week I had laid before me very strong representations from the High Commissioner’s office, backed up by my department, that I should appoint a second officer for Great Britain and the Continent. I was reluctant to do so, and wanted further information; but it was pointed out by the customs department that both in the interests of the revenue and of the merchants I should immediately consent to the appointment, as the work was fully justified, if we do not want the revenue to suffer very much; and it is necessary that the work should be done very expeditiously. This officer goes and investigates one firm, but unless we are able to investigate the affairs of his competitors at the same time, these merchants are suffering under a disability. Although I was very reluctant to sanction the appointment of an additional officer, I came to the conclusion that in the interests of the revenue and of expeditious work it was necessary to appoint a second officer for work in the United Kingdom and on the Continent.

The Minister’s answer regarding the publication of statistics is very satisfactory.

Returns will come out on the very first opportunity that can reasonably be expected.

The Minister asked that details of the weakening of Treasury control should be brought to his notice. Well, the officer of customs at Delagoa Bay, who is also the Union agent, is under the Minister. This officer is provided with a motor-car, and the Auditor-General, on page 184 of his report, points out that since late in 1919 three motor-cars had been supplied to this official. The first cost £680, and was disposed of in 1924 for £49 5s. 2d. nett; the second, purchased in December, 1924, for £400 12s. 2d., was taken over by the Government garage at a valuation of £175; and the third, purchased in April, 1926, cost £269 10s. This official is allowed £114 14s. 4d. for the maintenance of his official car. I entirely agree with the Auditor-General that this is a case of want of Treasury control. Out of deference to the Minister, I bring this instance forward.

There are a good many other instances besides that.

There is a sum of £13,000 on this vote for general expenses of the training ship “General Botha.” I should like to know why the amount comes under this head, and what the general expenses are?

With reference to merchant vessels, the Customs Duties Department is responsible. The Department of Railways and Harbours have a few ships of their own, but the general administration of oversea private merchantmen that come to our harbours falls under the administration of the Customs Department.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), I don’t think the Auditor-General says this is a case of lack of Treasury control. I have not the information with me, but I have no doubt that a reply can be given on the subject.

A reply of sorts.

Has the Minister gone into the question of the better form of publication of trade returns adopted by the United States? The American method would lend itself more conveniently to the bilingual returns we require, besides being more economical. Unfortunately, departments being conservative, they do not like changes. The figures being the same for both languages, it would only need an inner column in Afrikaans and the outer in English to suit everybody, the cost of production of the annual and monthly publications being thus very largely reduced.

The department is anxious to supply information in the best possible form required by the public If any suggestions can be made for improvements, the department will be very glad to give them consideration.

Representations have been made with regard to the shortage of customs examiners at Durban, as a result of which the business of importers and merchants is very seriously handicapped. Will the Minister kindly bear this in mind, and provide the necessary funds?

From time to time there are abnormal rushes of work, and complaints are received from the various ports. In some cases there has been a shortage of staffs, but in these matters we are in the hands of the Public Service Commission, which allows such staffs as are reasonably necessary. When representations are made that it is necessary to deal with rushes, the department tries to meet the situation as best it can.

I would again like to draw attention to the payment of watchmen at the docks. There is still some dissatisfaction, and some of the men are inadequately paid. However humble such a position may be, these men are exposed to a very great deal of temptation. They have only to pass someone carrying a handbag full of jewellery and the revenue would be defrauded of hundreds of pounds. These men are selected with care as men of character, but they are not receiving a fair wage for the responsibilities they carry. The mere fact that i we can obtain such men at a cheap rate is no reason why they should not be adequately remunerated. I do not blame the administration, which probably is kindly disposed, but there is always a tendency on the part of officials receiving satisfactory personal emoluments to consider that other people lower down are equally satisfied. All should, as far as possible, be placed in a position to resist temptation.

The hon. member raised the question last year. It is a question which is enquired into from time to time by the Public Service Commission, but it has never been brought to my notice that the men are not adequately paid. I will bring the hon. member’s representations before the Public Service Commission.

Before a new appointment is made, everybody is entitled to know what the duties of the post are, and why the appointment is made. It may seem jocular to ask what a paper keeper is but we have to keep our eyes on these things. The Minister is usually very affable, and I want him to be affable to me.

I apologize to the hon. member for forgetting to tell him what a paper keeper is. This humble individual, who receives only £138 a year, is in the statistical department, and I suppose it is his duty to look after the stationery required by that department.

That is a very weak explanation indeed.

I will get the information for the hon. member, as I do not know what the special duties of a paper keeper are.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 13, “Audit”, £71,626, put and agreed to.

On Vote 14, “Justice”, £77,491,

I beg to move that the salary of the Minister of Justice be reduced by £500 on a question of policy, namely, his intervention in a matter pertaining to the administration of justice in the district of Kuruman. A good deal of information on this question has become known to the public through the medium of the press in connection with the Minister’s visit to Kuruman on November 13th last. The position of the police under the Police Act is roughly that the Commissioner of Police is the administrative officer for the force and any members of the force tried for certain disciplinary offences have a right to appeal to the Minister. The Minister went on a political visit to Kuruman, and, while staying in the town, he put up at the Savoy Hotel, which is run by Mr. Kevi Levin, whom we shall have occasion to refer to in this case. At a public function the Minister addressed the people present on current questions of the day dealing with them in his usual effective manner, and, at the end of the address, he made use of the following words—according to a “Cape Times” report by Reuter—

I submit that the action of the Minister, who was the final court of appeal for the sergeant, was wrong and irregular, and, at that stage of the proceedings, he was pre-judging any case to be brought against the sergeant, and using, what everybody interpreted as, a threat. One of the standing orders of the South African Police provides an instruction enjoining the officer-in-charge to wait on the Prime Minister or other Minister visiting the district and to enquire if he can serve him in any way. For neglect of that duty the police official is punishable and, if punished, the final court of appeal would be the Minister himself. I maintain that the Minister, in making this declaration at a public meeting, was virtually declaring against this sergeant, or showing prejudice against him. I am aware that some question has been raised as to the authenticity of this report, but that has been placed beyond doubt by a further report on the matter in the “Cape Times” of December 20th, when, the matter having been referred to Reuter, verbatim statement of what was said is given—

On the Minister’s return to Pretoria, or soon afterwards, this sergeant received an intimation that he was to be transferred to Namaqualand or the Calvinia district. This was mentioned in a telegram to the press—

This matter was brought up in the House by a question from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but the Minister became strangely reticent and peremptorily refused to answer any supplementary questions, and this led to an appeal from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to Mr. Speaker as to whether the second question put on the order paper by him had been properly excluded in view of the fact that the Minister bad not fully answered his previous question. Finally, the Minister, on the second occasion referred to, said he had nothing to add to what he had said on the previous occasion. His first reply was in essence this: That the sergeant had committed no offence, and was transferred because he had remained at Kuruman longer than the time he (the Minister) considered desirable for any sergeant to remain in any one post. I maintain that the Minister was wrong in interfering with the administration of the department of the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner is the administrative officer charged with the duty of regulating how long or how short the stay of a sergeant should be in any particular place. That is not the Minister’s sphere as we were led to imagine from the Minister’s reply. The Minister declined to give any further information on the subject and if some of my criticisms on this matter may appear to the Minister and this House to be somewhat vigorous it is entirely due to the action of the Minister in declining to afford the information to which the House was entitled under its rules. Let us consider the immediate and outward effect of the Minister’s action on the administration of justice in the Kuruman area. From an account which was telegraphed by Reuter’s Agency at the time when the Electoral Law was in force, and when the correspondent was obliged to sign his name to ail news reported by him (and the sender of this gave his name in accordance with the rule, although the communication itself was not published) it is stated—

There were two distinct occasions on which Sergeant Perkin is alleged to have been threatened with removal by persons, one of whom claimed to be responsible for the removal of Sergeant Kerwan. The person who made the threat, when served with a process of the court and had the threat conveyed to Sergeant Perkin, was Mr. Kevi Levin, whom I have referred to. Now it is interesting to note that that gentleman at the time of the transfer of the sergeant, who boasts of having been instrumental in securing that transfer—this same Mr. Kevi Levin—was closely associated with the holder of a bottle store licence who was charged with an infringement of the liquor law, and the public will be interested to know what happened to that prosecution. I am in possession of the record of the magistrate’s court which gives some interesting information.

Where did you get it from?

In a proper legitimate manner, by paying for it. An attorney is entitled to go to the court and obtain any public record. There are three cases: The King v. Kevi Levin, before the magistrate on the 4th of February, 1927, charged with an offence by a contravention of Section 20 of the law, in that he, at or near the Savoy Hotel at Kuruman, he being the holder of a wine and spirit licence, did unlawfully and wrongfully sell to a labourer a bottle of brandy not being properly labelled. That prosecution was withdrawn and the case was dismissed. This was on the 4th February, 1927. There is another case of “The King v. Dirk Roos,” in respect of an offence which took place while Sergeant Kerwan was in charge of the station at Kuruman, between the 1st November, 1926, and’ 31st December, 1926. This summons was for a contravention of 76 (1) of Act 78 of 1873, the Liquor Licensing Act, in that he, at or near Kuruman bottle store, Church Street, being the holder of a bottle store licence, did wrongfully and unlawfully allow another person to manage the business during his absence for a longer period than one month without the consent in writing of the magistrate, to wit one Philip Swart, to manage the store for a period of two months without the consent in writing of the resident magistrate being obtained. What was the result of that case? On the 5th of February, after Kerwan had been transferred, the prosecution was dismissed. Another charge against Dirk Roos of selling unlabelled liquor to a native was also withdrawn on the same date.

On whose authority?

I am unable to say. I only wish to say this, in reply to the hon. member’s interjection, that when the Minister introduced his Bill last year to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act, he said that the difficulty of the present system was that there was nobody who could be assailed in this House either in regard to the stopping of prosecutions, or the neglect to pursue a prosecution, and, therefore, it seems to me, I am carrying out my duty in bringing these matters before the Minister, who, on that occasion, gave us to understand that he was the proper person to assail in this House. My only complaint is that when we took the first step to assail him he remained, if I may use the term, almost contumaciously silent, and refused to answer the reasonable questions put to him in this House, making it a difficult and almost impossible matter for us to ventilate this matter, except on the Minister’s vote, as I am endeavouring to do now. It is desirable, in order that I shall have an opportunity of illustrating the true implications of this matter, to refer to the peculiar state of the liquor law in the area of British Bechuanaland where we have a relic of protectorate legislation. There is no licensing court, in the proper sense of the word, in Kuruman. The magistrate acts as a licensing court, but he has not any power or right to grant a licence. He may merely recommend a licence, which formerly was recommended to the resident commissioner of the district, and decided upon by him. Under the altered conditions of to-day that recommendation, I understand, goes to the Department of Justice, and it is for the Department of Justice to decide upon the recommendation of the magistrate. I have here the record of the proceedings in which an application was made by Mr. Dirk Roos for a licence, Mr. Dirk Roos is a practising land surveyor with quite a good and satisfactory practice, but, for reasons of his own, he applied for a bottle store licence in the town of Kuruman. I understand that the gentleman is a brother of the Minister, although I am not on that ground asserting that there is any irregularity, more than there would be if the gentleman in question were brother of the Auditor-General or any other prominent man in this country. It is immaterial to me whether he is the brother of the Minister or whether he is my brother. The fault of the Minister in this matter, which I suggest to this committee, or the fault of his department, was in granting a licence to a Government land surveyor who is in practice, and against whom that precise objection was made by those who opposed the licence. The evidence given by Mr. Dirk Roos is of some interest. In the course of it he says—

Truly a happy land where that sort of thing can take place. He goes on—

So that the wants of both man and beast will be catered for in this remarkable hostelry, or should we call it a “caravanserai.” He goes on in very moving terms—

I do not think I have noticed this “sincere objection” myself.

He stated on oath that he did not anticipate disposing of the licence to anyone else at present, and that is a very important matter for us to note, for the whole of the information and the subsequent conduct of this place shows that the person who owned the business from the outset was Mr. Kevi Levin, Mr. Roos acting merely as the licence holder. The prosecution of Mr. Roos for allowing an unauthorized person to conduct the business was what was likely to happen in the circumstances. If the Minister knowingly grants a licence to a practising land surveyor, what does he expect? It is quite impossible, we have it on high authority, to serve God and Mammon, yet Mr. D. Roos evidently preferred to have a try. But he found it impossible to wield the theodolite and to hand his cheap liquor over the counter at the same time. The law, in any case, was not slow in bringing him to book, and having him arraigned on this charge. I shall be told there was a very good reason for the withdrawal of this prosecution, because the magistrate had condoned the offence by agreeing to the employment of either Mr. Philip Swart or whoever else was employed in this place of business, but that is not a conclusive argument at all. It merely carries me one step further in this enquiry. What right had the magistrate to condone a continuing offence of this sort? Did the holder of this licence ever at any time serve at his bottle store or conduct the business personally, as required by law? I venture to say that inquiry into that point will show that such was not the case, and that the magistrate, in agreeing to anybody else carrying on the business, was himself wrongly condoning a breach of the Act. It is to me a matter of considerable importance that in cases of this sort the officers of the police should feel that they are free to do their duty without any threat being brought against them. I propose for a moment to deal with the threat made by Mr. Levin, or said to have been made by Mr. Levin, on the authority of Reuter’s agent, who is himself a justice of the peace, and not likely to give currency to any story that has not been thoroughly investigated. I want to point out that on his authority it is stated that Mr. Levin sent an insolent message of this sort to the present sergeant of police, threatening that he would have him removed, as he had had the previous sergeant removed. When my colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), put this question, it was my intention to ask the Minister to explain this phase of the subject, and to have cleared the public mind of Kuruman from any sort of doubt as to whether other figures stood behind the removal—the wrongful removal, in my opinion— of Sergeant Kerwan. When the fact of his removal became known to the district, a public meeting was held in Kuruman, and it was reported in the “Cape Times” of the 13th December. This is the report—

It is stated that the transfer was effected by order of the Minister himself. As one who, for a period of about 17 years, held a position in the Government service, I range myself on the side of those who maintain that the Acts of Parliament that have been passed by this House from time to time to protect the freedom and the safety of the public servant should be rigorously observed and adhered to. I intensely dislike the method of dealing with an officer in the manner in which this officer is alleged to have been dealt with by the Minister of Justice. The fact that the Minister declared at a public meeting that he would look into this matter on his return to Pretoria must have created in the minds of those who heard him the idea that the Minister had a rod in pickle for Sergeant Kerwan. The current opinion among a very large section of the public at Kuruman has been that Mr. Levin has been responsible for the transfer of Sergeant Kerwan. Mr. Levin had the Savoy Hotel licence transferred to him in June, 1925. He is a breezy sort of individual who has spent two and a half years on the breakwater for illicit diamond buying, and he is to-day in a district in which diamond traffic takes place.

You are wrong.

I am speaking on this point from the map, but in any case I consider that it should be the purpose of the licensing authorities to guard against people who have been engaged in business of this sort being licensed as keepers of hotels. We have the fact that Sergeant Kerwan, at the end of 1925, had’ pointed out certain defects in the hotel premises of Mr. Levin. For some considerable time these two persons have not been on good terms. Levin seems to have enjoyed, not only in this matter of his licence, but in one or two other matters, “most favoured nation” treatment. He was recently the subject of a question by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and a supplementary question by myself, when we wanted to know why Mr. Levin had been singled out for a motor mail contract without tenders being called for, and we were told it was because the Railway Department was expecting to extend their motor service to that area. But surely, that being so, there was nothing to prevent the calling for tenders locally. Mr. Levin is in this position. The licence held by Mr. Dirk Roos is about to be transferred to him, so that the position Mr. Roos has occupied in the past is about to be regularized and put on a more permanent footing. It is perfectly well known in the district that the bottle store itself is the property of Mr. Levin and that Mr. Roos’ name was simply being used as that of the licence holder in whose name the business appeared. The licence was objected to by the School Board and also by various people who brought forward, among other objections, the objection that he was a Government land surveyor, and there was also the police objection that the bottle store was unnecessary. On the first occasion, when Mr. Roos applied for the licence, he was unsuccessful, the application being rejected on the ground of the proximity of the premises to the school. On the second occasion, in spite of the objections I have mentioned, the, to my mind, conclusive objection that the applicant was a Government land surveyor, and could not give the necessary attention to the business required by the law, was over-ridden by the magistrate. The magistrate took it upon himself to recommend to the Minister of Justice the granting of this licence, but the Minister or his department did not discharge the onus resting upon them to decide whether a Government land surveyor was a proper person to carry on this business. There is no doubt that the antagonism between Mr. Levin and the police was at the back of whatever unfavourable report the Minister may have received about Sergeant Kerwan. I understood the Minister to say that the sergeant had committed no offence, but had been transferred because he had stayed at Kuruman longer than the time the Minister considered desirable. We requested that the papers might be laid on the Table. The Minister was unable to accede to that request. We can only act upon what has been credibly reported to us, and the well established opinion in the minds of the European people in that district is that justice has not been done here, and that the result has been to interfere with the proper administration of justice in that district. I move—

There are one or two points with which the Minister should also deal. I refer to the case of Strauss. It appears that two ex-temporary Treasury clerks started a business. Strauss was sued by these people and lost his case, the Government having guaranteed the costs plus £15. The total amount of the expenditure was £262 7s. 11d. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain why the country must be subjected to this expense. I want to ask him about another case, which appears on page 141—the case of Jeffares versus the Municipality of Aliwal North. It appears that he employed for the purpose of his action a gentleman who occupied the position of Government attorney at Aliwal North. The plaintiff lost his case, and the Government paid out no less than £545 4s. 4d. According to the report here, it was upon the authority of the Prime Minister. I do not wish to make any further remarks on this case until the Minister has had an opportunity of explaining. His reply may give satisfaction or it may not; but it is a very sorry day when, on the authority of the Prime Minister, these moneys are paid out. If these are sums which are paid out wrongly, we should be failing in our duty to the taxpayer in not drawing attention to it. Perhaps the Minister will also be good enough to tell us more fully why he ordered the release of one A. M. Lipschitz, who was brought before Judge-President de Waal at Johannesburg, and charged with the offence of illicit gold buying. It is well known to those who have the administration of that department, that it is very difficult to bring home that offence. Occasionally somebody is convicted, and the public expects at least that the sentences which are imposed are carried out to the fullest extent. According to the reports I have he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of £600. I presume the fine has been paid, but he served only four months and was then released. In sentencing the accused, his Lordship said—

I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to a point brought up by the Auditor-General —that the Minister’s department does the whole of the legal work for the Railway Administration without getting any return from that Administration. Formerly it paid a large sum to a firm for doing its legal business. The Auditor-General said it did not accord with the business principles laid down by the South Africa Act. It is only fair that the Department of Justice should be recouped for the large amount of work it does. I think that the retainer was £2,400.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the position of members of the service, who having exhausted their departmental remedies, bring grievances to the notice of members of Parliament. I find that the head of the department seems to take an attitude, which does not seem to me to be in accordance with the view taken by Parliament when we passed the Public Service Act of 1923. I have always understood that there was nothing whatever wrong in a member of the public service, who has exhausted his departmental remedies, to come to a member of Parliament to see his grievances redressed. The Minister has not taken that view as far as I know, because he has courteously listened to and answered representations which were made; but I find a very severe letter was written to a certain person who represented his case to me, and I made representations. In another case I noticed something with regard to the grading of certain work here as compared with Johannesburg, and I thought that the Cape Town work ought to be graded up. I wrote a letter to Pretoria with regard to that, and the secretary of the department wrote back—

I replied that I often visited the magistrates’ courts in my professional capacity, and reported on my own responsibility and as a result of my own personal observations, and not at the request of this gentleman. I would like the Minister to make some declaration on this, because the public servants have all along thought that they were entitled to go to a member of Parliament. In such cases my course has always been to ask—

I think there must be some misunderstanding on the point. A letter has been sent to the department by the National Council of Women urging the establishment of a central children’s court for the Peninsula, including Bellville, as it will greatly facilitate the work of the probation officers. The scheme only needs the sanction of the Minister to be carried out. Has the Public Service Commission gone into the matter of the grading of the Cape Town prosecutors? Will Cape Town be graded higher than it is at present? Although the same amount of work is not done in the criminal courts in Cape Town as at Johannesburg, the work here is much heavier than at some places which are on the same grade as Cape Town is.

Hon. members opposite are much disposed to quote from the Auditor-General’s report anything they find in it which represents the acts of officials in an unfavourable light. The Minister is usually held responsible for them, and therefore hon. members are glad if they find an instance in the report which can form the basis of an attack. When anything, however, is worth while they remain silent about it. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has referred to the release of Mr. Lipschitz. That is a prerogative of the Government and I do not wish to meddle in it. The Minister must certainly have had a good reason for his action. I want, however, to make it clear that the release of prisoners effects economy. On page 156 of the Auditor-General’s report hon. members will see that the special release of prisoners on the occasion of the Prince of Wales’ visit effected an economy of £23,404. It is stated on page 163 that a minute of the Director of Prisons to the Auditor-General stated that it would be a reasonable assumption that the discharge of prisoners generally was responsible for a saving of about £41,000. I think it is always a pleasure to a Minister with human feelings and a kind heart to release prisoners.

Then they can go and do wrong.

I know that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) is one of the good people who is very hard on a man who has committed a crime, but we do not always know what harm good people sometimes do in their thoughts. It would be a good thing if the Minister could find a reason for releasing prisoners because there are many innocent people who are put into gaol. The trial of an accused person is but a human institution and it is human to err. The Minister is to be congratulated in having effected an economy of £41,000 through his magnanimity in releasing prisoners.

If the hon. member’s suggestion were carried out to its logical conclusion we should have nobody in prison at all. With regard to the Government attorneys division, when the Bill authorizing its formation was before the House some of us expressed very grave doubts as to the expense the country would be faced with through this new departure. The Minister of Justice then said that he was very anxious to prevent the creation of a big new department and that he would have only a skeleton organization of an attorney and a typist at Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town. As a matter of fact, I understand that there is no Government attorney in Cape Town, so the expenditure is incurred at two places only. In 1925-’26 the amount placed on the estimates for the Government attorney was £4,727; last year that amount was increased by nearly £400 and this year the expenditure has gone up by £1,000. How is it that the expenditure has swollen to this extent? There are already three extra clerical assistants. The creation of new departments is bound to result in additional expenditure. I should like to know where the officers are stationed.

I want first to deal with the information given by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) because a considerable amount of that is new to me. The only point which I noticed in connection with this sergeant at Kuruman was the fact that he did not call on me, which was necessary in order to enable me to find out whether there was anything wrong with the police force there. That is the only point why one requires to have any attendance by the officer in charge of the local police force. The result of that was that I did not inspect, as I generally do, the premises in which the local police were housed and I know nothing about police matters there. The hon. member is entirely in error in inferring that complaints were made by Mr. Levine or anybody else. If the hon. member had not mentioned the name of Levine as that of the keeper of the hotel I would not have remembered the name. My recollection of the name was that it was Levy. I have seen him only once and that was when I stayed at the hotel there, which I think is the principal hotel in Kuruman. I have never received any communications from him or on his behalf of any kind whatever. The only reason why I made the statement is this, that it is necessary for the administration of my department that I should know as exactly as possible what the circumstances are when I am in a position to visit certain places. You have your reports from the department, but it assists to know the position on the spot. It is not a question of increased dignity. I personally like to be worried as little as possible, wherever I go. When I returned to Pretoria, I found I was in error, and the hon. member is also in error in his own interpretation of this rule, in taking it that the rule means that non-commissioned officers must call on Ministers. Its only effect is on commissioned officers, and it does not apply to non-commissioned officers. The moment I found that my complaint fell away, the Commissioner of Police took up the matter with regard to the period where it is good to remove one person from one place to another. Tire period of time which is laid down is less than the period of 11 years, the term of this sergeant at Kuruman, and he said it would be better to transfer him to another place. I cannot understand why there is any discussion, unless there is harsh treatment. There is no harsh treatment in transferring an official from one place to another. It might be if the transfer is from a desirable post to an undesirable post, and it is usual in such a case that it is made attractive by promotion. Here the transfer took place from this post to a post generally regarded as more desirable, the post at Calvinia, so there is no question of harsh treatment, and this department has always set its face against the “village policeman” being always stationed at the same place. Our position is entirely different from other countries where a man remains in one place for a considerable portion of his life. I believe it is wrong to keep them over a certain length of time in one place, and I hold that view strongly.

Do you hold it in regard to magistrates?

I hold it very strongly in regard to magistrates. The hon. member asked what term I regarded as the term for which a policeman should be in one place. The reason why I did not answer that question is this. The moment you fix a certain term, the result is going to be that the people in the district, if they are dissatisfied with the policeman, would insist on his being removed or the policeman himself would insist on his right to be removed to another place, and there are certain circumstances where it is necessary to keep the police for a longer term. For instance, where a man gets accustomed to crime or potential criminals in an important urban district. Take Johannesburg. He knows the criminals there, and it would be dangerous to bring new and fresh men in a place like that at short intervals of time. The point I wish to emphasize is that I knew nothing of any charges or prosecutions whatever. No prosecutions have been placed before me officially by anybody, and if the hon. member had placed before me information with regard to prosecutions, I would have enquired into it, and would have placed the facts before him. The question asked me said nothing about prosecutions so far as I am aware and I gave a full reply to the question. I said the man was transferred and the only reason was his having been there in excess of the period laid down. The following questions assumed that the answer was false, and therefore I declined to answer further questions, and I believe still to-day I was right in declining, but I did not know of the atmosphere of suspicion engendered by the refusal to answer this question, and I do not know anything about these matters laid before the House to-day. In time it may be necessary for me to deal with prosecutions, or stays of prosecutions myself, but I am fortunate enough to say I have never given instruction with regard to stay of prosecution or with regard to any prosecution. They have been dealt with entirely by the Attorneys-General of the country. On one or two occasions an Attorney-General has come and discussed matters with me, but I have given no instruction with regard to any of these cases. I do not say this because I think it is the right position that the Minister of Justice should not interfere in these matters, but I am fortunate enough to have found it not to be necessary. The hon. member is quite right to bring these matters before this House with regard to stays of prosecution, because I have to give the answer. Well, I know nothing whatever about the circumstances of any of the prosecutions mentioned here. If any prosecution has been stopped by a public prosecutor on account of threats, and if that is brought to my notice by anybody aggrieved, I should see what could be done with regard to those persons who had made the threats. The accusation has been made against Levine, and it may be possible in the renewal of licences or something of that kind, to deal with it, and steps will be taken if it is proved to me that these threats were made by Levine or anybody else. The hon. member himself cannot say whether the prosecutions were wrongly withdrawn. In this country, thousands of prosecutions are withdrawn every year, after they have reached a certain stage, because the public prosecutor thinks he cannot obtain a conviction or he may think the matter is too trivial to proceed further. I do not know whether these prosecutions were rightly or wrongly withdrawn. A substantial point is made that Mr. Roos, the land surveyor, my brother, should not have obtained a liquor licence. I do not know anything of the surrounding circumstances. We have several systems under which liquor licences are granted; in some parts you have licensing courts, and in other parts you have a licensing magistrate, and in that case he makes a recommendation to the Department of Justice, and in other parts of the country the magistrate sits as chairman of the licensing court with other members, and they are dealt with in the same way. My practice has been this. It is impossible for me to decide what the local requirements are, or who the incumbent is, and in every case where recommendation has been made by a licensing court to me, either to refuse or to grant a licence, I have followed the recommendation. The hon. (member is right in saying that in the previous year the application for the liquor licence had been refused, or rather that the magistrate had refused to recommend it.

Why?

I spoke to the magistrate again about it in order to refresh my memory. The reason was that the premises were unsuitable at that time.

How came this licence to be granted when there is to be no personal supervision by the applicant?

Nobody knows anything about who is to supervise when a licence is granted. Licences are granted in Johannesburg and all over the country without anybody knowing who is going to be in supervision of the business. I do not know what the position is in Natal. Of course, it may be quite different there. I should think it is very different indeed for a man to appoint his manager when he does not know whether he is actually going to get his licence. There is no doubt whatever that you have in Johannesburg every year about 100 people or at least 40 people who apply for new bottle licences and I know of no case where they mention who are to be the supervisors. In most cases it is an attempt to get an asset which they can dispose of in a year or two. I have never heard it mentioned before that it is necessary in an application to state who the supervisor is going to be of the business. I wish again to emphasize that in this case I have followed the practice that I follow in every case, and I may say that my note on the papers is this, that, as I have followed this practice in every case, I suppose I have got to recommend this particular licence, though I know there will be a fuss about it later.

Why not disallow it in the case of a Government land surveyor?

Does the hon. member really think—

We do not have Government land surveyors with bottle store licences in Natal.

You have that every day. A Government land surveyor can obtain a bottle store licence in Natal.

My point is that no Government land surveyor would do it in Natal.

That is quite another point. It is a question of the taste of the man who makes the application. Surely, that has nothing whatever to do with the licensing officer or the licensing court.

Do you think it desirable?

I personally think that in practically every town in this country it is not desirable that there should be half the bottle licences that there are. I say this, that whoever the person is, Government land surveyor or whoever he is, who obtains a licence from a licensing court in the Transvaal or in the country where the licensing court has full power, nobody can interfere with that, whether it is desirable or undesirable. My practice has been in every case where a recommendation has been made by the licensing authority which I have mentioned to act on the assumption that these men who have inquired into the matter know what the local requirements are, know what the character of the applicant is and can deal with that matter. I would ask any hon. member what other practice can I follow? Am I to disregard and flout the opinions of the licensing courts? Because if you do that, the result will be this that you will be able to extend a large number of licences to people who are rejected by your licensing court. If you do not adopt that system, then I say the only system you can adopt is to be guided by the recommendation and opinion of the men who sit in judgment, who hear all the evidence and make their recommendations. In my position I have to deal with every case in the same way that I deal with other cases of a like nature. That brings me to one other point. If you have a country in which the men who were applying for licences had been trained for the liquor trade, then, naturally, you would only extend your licences to men drawn from that class. But that is not the position in South Africa. In very many cases men who hold liquor licences have had no training whatever in the liquor business. I think I could say that about four-fifths of the men who go into the liquor trade here go into it without any preliminary training whatever. Where you have a country like South Africa in which men who have had different kinds of occupations make application, then I say the only thing you can do is to rely upon your licensing court and make your licensing court as strong as possible.

Did the magistrate definitely refuse to recommend this licence?

The previous year he definitely refused on the ground that the premises were unsuitable and the following year he definitely recommended it. To a certain extent this is irrelevant to the inquiry, because I have stated already the only reason for which Sergeant Kerwan was dealt with. I knew nothing of any pending prosecution. I knew nothing of any evidence which had to be given in any case. I imagine, therefore, that to a large extent this inquiry falls to the ground. I want to emphasize that I have had no communication of any kind from Levine or anybody else in regard to Sergeant Kerwan when it was decided to transfer him. I did not know about the 2½ years that Levine has served upon the breakwater.

It is common knowledge in Kuruman.

I did not know how long he has held a licence.

About a year. His father held it and it was transferred to him.

I again thank the hon. member for all that information, which will be of the greatest value to me when I am dealing with the matter again, because as far as the Transvaal is concerned, a man of bad character who has served a term of imprisonment cannot hold a liquor licence. That I am providing for in the new Liquor Bill. When there is any question of renewing the licence in Levin’s name I will regard that as an important factor to refuse a renewal. I would certainly, in that case, depart from the rule of following the recommendation of the magistrate. Nor did I know that the police had reported unfavourably on Levin’s premises, but I hope that also will be placed in evidence before the Court when Levin’s licence comes up for renewal. I am afraid the hon. member is a little bit unfair when he tries to saddle me with some blame for a matter in the posts and telegraph department.

The papers have been laid on the Table.

I must say I feel like a novice dealing with an expert on these questions. I am also certain the hon. member will accept my statement that the only things I knew about are the things I have stated I knew.

A further point is, does the Minister not know that the grant of a bottle store, in view of his Bill withdrawing bottle stores from hotels, will virtually constitute a monopoly for that bottle store in Kuruman?

No, that point was not brought to me either. As far as I remember, the point was made that there was no bottle store in Kuruman, and therefore it was a necessary thing to have a bottle store there.

There are two hotels there.

The Transvaal law is that bottle stores and bars should be separate and distinct. I have not been able to go to that extent in my Bill, because of vested interests in Natal and the Cape Province. I regard the Transvaal practice as the right practice, but it is impossible. I regard it as a right thing that there should be a bottle store in addition to a hotel. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) dealt with certain questions. He first dealt with the case of Strauss versus some people who formed an agency for collecting pensions, and who charged something like 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in connection with their recoveries. It happens that this is not one of the offences of my department, which is singularly free from offence, I believe. It does not concern my department primarily. We got instructions from the Treasury to defend this action, and to defend the action at the cost of the Government, because there were thousands and thousands of people concerned, and the amount involved was something like £40,000, and it was in the interests of these unfortunate people that this action was defended by the State. I still believe the State acted rightly in endeavouring to save these— in many cases ignorant—people.

You lost the case,

We lost the case, of course, but that does not affect the point. There were other points that any lawyer would have regarded as points that should be tested in a court of law. The other matter mentioned by the hon. member was the question of the water court case, in which a large amount of costs was owing, and this matter was brought before the Cabinet, and the Cabinet decided that we should waive a proportion of these costs. The previous Minister of Lands had given that decision, but that decision had not been accepted by the Treasury, and because there was a dispute the matter was decided by the Cabinet, which upheld the decision of the previous Minister of Lands and the present Minister of Lands, but here again the hon. member is attacking one of the other departments. Then we come to the release of Lipschitz. It was his first offence. He got nine months and a fine. The fine was paid. He was released when he had served four months, subject to the condition that for the next three months he did not return to Johannesburg. You know that if we keep them away from Johannesburg, we keep them from a certain amount of temptation. I am now being forced to say something which is really unfair in the sense it has never been proved. There were two grounds on which we vent. One ground, to which only a certain amount of weight is attached by the department, was the fact of the misery inflicted upon the wife and children of the man who was in prison. The second point is this—and I will moderate the information I placed in my report before the Governor-General—that my information from the C.I.D. is to the effect that a very large number of jewellers in both Johannesburg and Pretoria carry on business largely on the basis of illicit gold. I am forced to make this statement. I did not want to make it, but all my administrative acts are always being inquired into. It is, of course, obviously unfair that where that happens the full punishment should be inflicted on one person, and that he should bear the full burden of the sins and misdeeds of a large number.

Is that the only explanation?

I am not making an explanation, because I think the man has been sufficiently punished for his crime. I am giving you the other circumstances and facts to show you what the position is If you inquired into the circumstances of this case, you would come to the conclusion that he was sufficiently punished.

Was he born in this country?

No, but he has been here for a large number of years.

Why not deport him?

You will force me to give cases. I could give you cases under the old administration that would make your hair stand on end. I am dragging in another case if I refer to that case, and the Prime Minister asks me to leave it alone. It is with hesitation that I drop such a profitable subject of discussion. In any Government’s administration you will find that a man exercising the same amount of discretion might not have acted in the same way. In capital cases it is said I have been acting with too great tolerance. I think I could fairly be attacked, but you must allow a certain amount of discretion in a person who is in a very difficult position indeed, and he may grant a remission for certain reasons when he finds that the amount of punishment—the quantum —has fitted the crime. If you take the position of a man of some prominence in the community, a man who has been a jeweller in big business, if you imprison him for four months instead of months, you would agree it is a difficult thing to say what is the quantum. I personally think that a few days or months in gaol is a punishment which is a sufficient stigma on a man who has held a position in the community in which he is. I come to the question put by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), who referred, and is perfectly correct, to the cost of the railway administration. I am sorry that my friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours is not here; but the reason why we are paying this amount— and not the railways is this—it was very difficult indeed to get the old railway administration to acknowledge the error of its ways in paying a large retainer to a firm in Johannesburg—£2,400 a year. A certain amount of opinion work was done by this firm, which was valued by the Government attorney at £700. Why it is necessary to pay £1,700 for a man to do the railway work, I do not know, and if it was permissible under the laws, an attorney would pay the railway for the power and privilege to do the railway work. I found a large amount of difficulty in connection with putting that work under the department, and I suggested that the work should be done by the Government attorney’s office gratis, and only where disbursements were made by the department, that they would make the disbursements. I admit it would be only a temporary measure, but the time has not come to change that policy. I admit at once that the hon. member is perfectly correct that the railway administration is a business administration, and should bear the cost of the work done for them. A very large amount of work has been done in various parts of the country, and the value is very big indeed. My hon. friend (Mr. C. W. Malan might accuse me of a breach of faith if I did that too soon. We do not want to lacerate his feelings, as he has a small deficit this year. When he has a small surplus is the time to lacerate his feelings.

Have there been any complaints?

No, the railway administration is very well satisfied with the work that is being done. In connection with that work, I might deal at once with the point raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). It is perfectly true, as he has pointed out, that the amount in the vote of the Government attorney’s office has been increased, but he will be glad to hear that for the volume of the work done the staff is smaller than the staff of a private attorney would be doing the same amount of work. It is on a very small scale for the amount of work done. It deals with all the railway work, in addition to the Government work. There is Mr. Heal, who is the attorney-in-charge, and there are three qualified attorneys with him. Two were not qualified attorneys when they started, but they have fortunately worked themselves up, and one, I think, is a qualified attorney, and another man has passed his L.L.B. examination. They have two typists. Where there are rush periods at times, we can call in the assistance of the department of justice with its staff. Were it not for that we could not take that small staff. I am not talking of messengers. In Johannesburg there are two attorneys and two typists. There they are not able to call upon the department of justice. I believe we will not require any further expansion in that department for Johannesburg and Pretoria, which deals with practically the whole of the country. With regard to the extension of that system to Cape Town, I was advised by the Government attorney it was not well at the moment to do so, as at the moment the work is done in the Transvaal for the whole of the Union. I am keeping my eye on it, and as soon as I find the work justifies it, I want to have a small office in Cape Town. I do not want it to grow too rapidly—or to grow at all. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) dealt with the question of public servants bringing complaints before members of Parliament, and that that is deprecated by the heads of departments. It all depends on the type of complaint. If it is a matter of internal management—where this man or that man obtains promotion—we are acting on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, and in cases of that kind I think it would be a dangerous thing to place grievances of that kind in the hands of men outside the public service, because by that some man would obtain a benefit which he would not otherwise have obtained. That would be unfair. But I see no particular reason why other types of grievances should not be laid before the member of the constituency involved, and he could deal with the matter. As far as the disciplined force is concerned, such as the police, they should not do anything else but follow their remedies through the ordinary canals, and get them redressed through the ordinary canals, and not have recourse to political action. The question of juvenile courts has been engaging the attention of the department, and we will do our best to establish them as occasions offer. We shall be able to deal with the position in Cape Town, but I do not know whether we shall be able to do so now. Regarding public prosecutors, we do not propose to have any immediate general regarding. Every office is carefully inspected by the Public Service Commission, which does not err on the side of liberality in the recommendations it makes, and those recommendations are very carefully considered. The reason the Cape Town prosecutor is not graded in the same way as the Johannesburg prosecutor is because of the difference in the amount of work. The department is very averse to increasing the number of courts to a large extent, as the costs of prosecution are increasing everywhere. For the next 18 months we do not intend to create any new magisterial districts, even in cases where they may be necessary, because every new court involves additional expenditure, although in certain cases hardships will undoubtedly result from that attitude.

Does the Minister intend proceeding with the Liquor Bill next session?

I will introduce the Bill within the first few days of next session, but unless I get full assistance from both sides of the House I shall not be able to pass it.

The Liquor Bill will take up a considerable time, but there are some matters of an urgent nature which could be dealt with in other measures. For instance, sales by producers could easily be dealt with in a separate measure. There are a good many abuses through sales by producers which the producers are anxious to put a stop to. Then, with regard to methylated spirits, the Government is losing a large amount of revenue, and the public are being poisoned. An effort is being made to render methylated spirits undrinkable by adding more poison to it, but that does not prevent the stuff being drunk.

I do not think the hon. member should raise a discussion on the Liquor Bill.

At a meeting of the farmers’ association in my district, a resolution was passed asking that the South African Police should frame a list of all stock brands in the districts of East Griqualand. There is no universal brands Act, but every farmer brands his stock, and it would be of the greatest assistance in checking stock and tracing stray animals if the police, while on patrol, compiled such a list. This could be done easily, as the police have to call at each farm while on patrol. This is a most reasonable request by the farmers, and does not mean any extra work. When, however, the farmers received a reply from the department they were informed that the Act of 1890 had not been proclaimed in Griqualand East, and that the present system of branding stock would not assist them to any great extent. It was suggested that they should approach the Divisional Council with a view to having the Act proclaimed. As it happens, we have no Divisional Councils in East Griqualand, and the department should, at least, know what it is talking about. I ask the Minister to give his assistance, so that the farmers’ very reasonable request may be acceded to.

I would like to revert to the release of prisoners. When we bear in mind all the channels for the review of sentences, and the hearing of appeals, we must arrive at the conclusion that prisoners receive just punishment which has been awarded according to their merits. I want to know on what basis the Minister of Justice has gone on in making these large number of releases—not only prisoners convicted for minor offences, but persons convicted for serious offences also. I think I am right in saying the police authorities have reported that for some time past there has been a steady increase in crime. Apart from the effect the release of prisoners will have on the tendency to develop the growth of crime, I am concerned with another aspect, the administration of justice itself. It cannot be that the Minister was going on motives of economy. I have heard that stated very definitely, and I want the Minister’s assurance that that is not so. Look how the police must be disheartened in their work when they know, after a lot of trouble, people they have run in, and who have been punished, are released in a comparatively short time. Look at the effect on the magisterial bench and in higher quarters. It must tend largely, when this thing is done on a large scale, to hamper the administration of justice in every way, to say nothing of the encouragement to that body of people throughout the country which is only deterred from criminal action by fear of the punishment. I suggest it is not right that any further experiments of this kind should be made. I do not know how many of these people released have come up for trial again, but I feel their release has removed a great deal of the fear which the deterring effect of punishment has on criminals. I hope the Minister will deal fully with those points, because I feel very strongly that it is of considerable importance, and that is also felt by a large number of people in the country, people connected actively with the administration of justice. Then I come to the question of juvenile courts. In Cape Town there is very great scope for the creation for such courts, but I think the Minister will have to consider the promoting of legislation on the subject. If juvenile courts are established, it will probably mean that the jurisdiction of the magistrates of the juvenile courts would cut across the jurisdiction of the other magistrates.

I find the Minister of Justice has also got a “paper keeper” at the same salary as that of the previous Minister. Apparently there has been some co-operation here in the creation of a new office. Will he tell us what is his definition of a paper keeper?

I did not know I had one.

I wish the Minister would publish the new Liquor Bill, which he has amended, if possible before next session, to enable the country to consider it.

There are great complaints in the country that we cannot get enough police, and I believe the Minister is decreasing the force. Is it fair to put the duties of other departments on to the police force to perform? For weeks the police are taken off their duties to vaccinate Europeans and natives, and that is not fair to those in need of police protection. Then we have the police collecting taxes and dealing with census returns, and all those extraneous duties from other departments, taking them away from their rightful duty. If the police are to perform these duties then other departments should contribute a sufficient sum of money to enable the Minister to increase the police force in order to cope with the work. In the outside districts the police are very few in numbers, and it is fortunate the natives of the country are extraordinarily law-abiding. But is it necessary or reasonable that police should be in these places to act as doctors, tax collectors and census officers, instead of performing their proper duties’ I ask the Minister to look into the matter.

When the Minister gave his explanation of the Kuruman episode, he said he did not know certain facts. In connection with those facts recommendations were made to the Minister which, according to his rule, he acted upon. In one case a recommendation dealt with a granting of a licence to a person who was not likely to be in charge. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Cape Law of 1893 makes it penal for anyone to be absent from his place of business for more than a month without the written consent of the magistrate? Such absence should not be continuous; it obviously ought to be an occasional thing and, perhaps, the Minister will go into that because it is a serious feature so far as the licensing court is concerned. I hope the Minister, in making an investigation, will find out who was responsible for making recommendations in definance of adverse police reports and the undesirability of the licensee himself. It is incredible that the court should have had knowledge of these facts and yet have made the recommendation.

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

When this debate was adjourned last night I was saying it was very unfortunate that so soon after 1924 there should be need of a Bill of this sort, but that anyone who knew the conditions of a large part of the country would have no doubt whatever that the need had arisen for this remedial legislation. That being so, the Minister has taken the best course in re-enacting the Bill introduced by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in 1924. The scheme is to help the people to help themselves. I am glad that the administration is again to be placed in the hands of the managing director of the Land Bank, for no more capable person could be found. He has shown that he administers these schemes with every sympathy towards the recipients, but at the same time with a keen regard to the interest of the public funds. Some very interesting particulars are given in the report of the Land Bank regarding the operations of the Drought Distress Relief Act of 1924. There is bound to be some loss, and that is why the money is not provided out of Land Bank funds but from a special vote by Parliament. The Minister has not told us what amount he is going to ask for, but under the last Act the sum was £500,000, of which an unexpended balance of £75,000 was returned to the Treasury, so that £425,000 was expended. On December 31, 1926, £111,000 had been repaid, the capital amount outstanding being £306,000, the advances being made on a five years basis. On December 31,1927, the amount in arrears was £9,000, subsequently reduced to £8,000, but the actual loss up to that date was only just over £1,000. The Land Bank director in his report states that the recovery of advances has been satisfactory, but that so many factors enter into the question that it would be foolish to express any opinion as to the probable ultimate loss. It is, however, very satisfactory to have £111,000 repaid, and it is worth the country’s while embarking on this necessary measure or relief, although there must be a certain amount of loss. The director of the Land Bank gives some interesting instances of the results of these advances. In one case at Carnarvon the advance made enabled a farmer to purchase 250 merino ewes, which have since increased to 631, while £271 has been received for the wool. In another case at Middelburg 356 merino ewes were purchased for £300; sales of ewes and wool realized £410. Again Kenhardt 425 sheep were purchased for £280: the flock increased to 1,054, while 150 have been sold for £120. These instances make one think that there is nothing so profitable as sheep farming, but there is another side to the picture. At Steytlerville a farmer bought 40 ewes, 31 of which died through the drought and the remaining nine were sold at 1s each. I understand the Minister to say that he does not mean to enforce the provision that a man who joins a rural credit society must pay 5 per cent. to the society. I am glad of that, because that would mean that a man who lived in a rural credit society’s area would be 5 per cent worse off than a man who did not live in such an area. I take it that a man who receives an advance must join a rural credit society.

Yes, if one should be established.

I take it that this condition was inserted on the advice of the director of the Land Bank, who has compulsory co-operation on the brain. A man will be entitled to certain advances, and when he becomes a member of a rural credit society he is entitled to receive further advances on the strength of promissory notes. The point is, will he be entitled to double advances? Otherwise he becomes jointly liable for the debts of other people, but is not entitled to receive an advance from the society. That would be a rather anomalous position. Then we had a speech from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), and I remember the speech was a plea for the extension of terms on advances from the Land Bank, that he wanted provision to be made in this Bill or elsewhere for individual advances against the security of livestock. I hope the Minister will not be prepared to go further in that matter. He has gone as far as he can in making advances. The Land Bank is in a different position to this Bill. In this Bill it is money provided by Parliament with the full knowledge that there will be a certain amount of loss, but the basis of carrying on the Land Bank is that there must be absolute security. Make as easy terms as you like but otherwise the Land Bank will come to grief. When the hon. member spoke of the absolute security of advancing 60 per cent. on the value of livestock, I take it livestock would include ostriches. Supposing a year ago they had advanced 60 per cent. on the security of ostriches where would the security be now? Even with cattle if that had been done a few years ago the security would be very poor indeed to-day. I do not think individual advances against livestock should be looked upon as a Land Bank security. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn was the last man who ought to complain about the difficulty of getting money and giving security. In the same report we have a report on the Ostrich Feather Co-operative Company. It is a company with limited liability. The shares that have been subscribed are 7745 of which £754 16s. 0d. only has been paid up. The amount advanced through the Land Bank to these people with the Government guarantee, the Bank would not risk its money, has been over £100,000 on the security of ostrich feathers. If these feathers had to be sold to-day there would be a severe loss to the Government, and unless something happens to send up the value of ostrich feathers very much indeed, then there is bound to be a big loss accruing to the Government on that, so the hon. member for Oudtshoorn should be the last to complain. There is another peculiar thing about that advance. Under a certain Act a levy of 2 per cent. can be collected on ostrich feathers shipped and that levy has now been declared. The intention was to send that levy over to the committee sitting in London, but that has failed and has finished. Now it is proclaimed that it is to be applied to the reduction of the debt of this particular company, and, therefore, it is to provide further security for the payment of this loan paid to the company, and then the hon. member urges easier terms and further facilities be given for advances. I hope the Minister will keep to it that security must come first in regard to advances from the Land Bank. If money is advanced where there is no security there must be a direct vote of Parliament voting the money knowing the risk. I think, under all the circumstances, the risks under this Bill are worth taking in order to help those people who cannot help themselves, and therefore I shall give it my full support.

I think that we all have cause to congratulate the Minister that within three years he has for the second time introduced an emergency loan Bill to assist people in unfortunate circumstances in consequence of drought, because it is clear thereby that the Minister sees what the actual position is. When calamities of any kind take place one should not take notice of the amounts expended to remedy them, and in this case the Minister knows just as well as we that it is a calamity. The past proves most fully how the farmers fulfil their obligations and pay their debts. When the late Government made an amount of £50,000 available for emergency loans the loss of the Government was only 1 per cent. I think we can safely say that if the loss was 5 per cent. it would still be worth while spending the money to help thousands of people. I do not know whether hon. members know what the actual condition is in the districts affected by drought. The people there are inclined to hide things, but everyone who knows conditions there knows that they have suffered terrible losses. The 1924 Emergency Loan Act saved 6,000 farmers, and about £418,000 was lent, tut almost 200,000 sheep were bought for the people, and I am certain that when the time expires within which they have to meet their obligations they will fulfil them to the uttermost. I again come to the question of transport of sheep over the railways, about which the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) interrupted me the other day. I repeat that in such circumstances the Minister of Railways and Harbours must make the railways available for the carriage of the stock irrespective of the expense, and I go so far as to say that it will be good business to carry stock gratis. I do not wish to detain the House long, but I want to urge very strongly the dropping of Clause 8. I want to briefly analyse it. Where debtors live within an area where there is an agricultural loan circle they must within three months after the advance is made, become a member of the agricultural credit association, or otherwise within three months, after such an association is established, after the advance is made. This is abusing—I must honestly say—the wretched condition of the people. The Agricultural Credits Act is unsuitable to the countryside, especially to stock farmers. The farmers live far apart, and they cannot possibly keep control of the position, and assume the unlimited joint and several liability. The clause, however, states further that when all money has been paid off by the debtor in respect of advances he may resign his membership of an agricultural credit association, but the resignation does not help him at all because his responsibility remains the same whether he resigns or dies. The Minister wants the people to get on their feet again. Why then this unfair compulsion?

The hon. member can possibly discuss the clause better in committee.

Yes, but I hope that it will be withdrawn. The Minister has kindly agreed to withdraw sub-clause (2), but I think it is necessary to withdraw the whole clause. From the returns of the Land Bank on page 50 we find that agricultural credit circles in the Transvaal have made advances as follows: The Pretoria Agricultural Bank £4,900; and Vereeniging also £4,900, but the amounts which the public contributed were only £18; £30 and £10. It is clear that the agricultural credit associations cannot possibly succeed so long as the unlimited liability exists and the Minister has included the clause in the Bill compelling the people to become members of the societies. The Minister knows very well that if no pressure were exercised the farmers would not accept the principle of unlimited liability. The result will be that the people who need them and who will accept any assistance so long as they can only get the advance of £300 will compulsorily join the agricultural credit association. The farmers will agree to any conditions so long as they can buy stock, etc. The well-off farmer will however not join up because he will not undertake unlimited liability. I hope the Minister who wants to assist the people will see his way to drop Clause 8.

There is no doubt the Minister wants to help these people. We all do. This Bill is similar to the Bill of 1924 and it is for the same purpose. That Bill has been administered by the managing director of the Land Bank, Mr. Herold, so he has had some experience in these matters. I understand the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) wants these advances to be made on exactly the same lines. This is what Mr. Herold says—and I should think there is not a man who has had as much experience of advances to farmers in every way as he has had— Mr. Herold says, in his report—

That is the considered judgment of Mr. Herold, who has had experience of these schemes, that such schemes as this do upon the whole, more harm than good. He says, further—

If you refer further on to paragraph 250 he repeats it there—

I am not opposed to this Bill and I dare say the Minister of Agriculture will say we have not had time yet to get our agricultural credit system into working order, and that is quite a reasonable explanation. But Mr. Herold lays special stress on the fact that if farmers want assistance in the future the best method is by co-operation among themselves and borrowing on their own responsibility and their own security. It is better for the man; it is far better for the character; it makes them far more self-reliant. I just wanted to point out that it is not fair to the country to be always coming to Parliament for special relief especially when the Government took pains last year to provide means by which agricultural credit could be utilized. I do not know myself exactly the aim of Clause 8, but I can only imagine it is put in for the purpose of accustoming farmers to this agricultural credit.

It could not.

What else could it have been? I take it that Hr. Herold in drafting this Bill, or having a hand in it, put it in for that purpose. One of my men came back only a couple of days ago and told me that farmers in the Ladismith district have locked up their houses and gone to work on the roads. Mr. Herold wants the co-operative principle in this as in a good many other things. It is done in Germany. A few farmers who want to borrow money get together, and there is joint responsibility for the money borrowed.

Would you join?

What right has the hon. member to put a question like that to me? I agree with Mr. Herold, and I hope this will be the last Bill of this character we will have.

I shall only say a few words because we are all anxious to have the Bill passed as soon as possible, and as a representative of a district which has suffered very severely I am glad that the Minister has introduced the Bill to give advances to farmers who cannot help themselves. It is very praiseworthy, and I can assure him that the people have been and are still suffering very severely. Their losses and expenses were terrible and only the farmers themselves know what bitter times they have passed through. We must admire them for their powers of endurance, and I hope that the Minister will put sufficient money on the Loan Estimates. I think that at least £1,000,000 is necessary to assist the farmers because the drought was very bad and much more severe than in 1924 when £500,000 was voted for the farmers. If one farmer is assisted and another not it will lead to dissatisfaction, and when farmers have actually suffered severely and are in distress it would not be fair to assist one and not another. My whole constituency has had a bad time, and all the farmers there will require advances.

You yourself surely had to send away your sheep?

Yes, my sheep have been in Vryburg for more than a year and other farmers in my district have also sent their sheep there, and I know what the expense has been. There are other portions of my district such as Van Wyk’s Vlei which must also be investigated. There the farmers have suffered severely, and I hope the Minister will also apply the Act there. Those people have also suffered much damage. I also want to advocate the dropping of Clause 8. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) said in this connection. The farmers will, if lent the £300, only be liable for £300, but if they have to join the agricultural credit association they will also have to bear the joint responsibility. There will possibly be a few farmers who will retrogress, then the others in the circle will have to pay for them. I am, however, pleased that the Minister has included the provision that the creditors shall not be able to pay the balance of the debt and then attach the stock. There was a case in my constituency of a man obtaining a loan of £300 where that took place. He had increased his flock to 700 sheep and had paid off £120 when the creditor came, and said he would pay the balance of £180 and attach the stock. The farmer agreed to that and all the sheep were taken. I think it is a good thing to prevent that kind of thing. I understand that this law is not only for a year but also for the future, so that when drought occurs we shall know where to get help. That is a good thing.

As this Bill is necessary I am glad that the Minister has introduced it. My district is not one of those where the Bill is at present required, but if we have more such droughts as that of last year my district will certainly also get into the unfortunate position of having to make use of the Act. I see some alterations in comparison with the 1924 Act, That Act provided that persons before they could make application must have been rendered unable through drought for two years to continue their farming. I see that that has lapsed, and if a farmer has suffered from drought for only twelve months or only during the past year he can make an application. I think this is a good amendment. Now I want to ask whether it is necessary to fix the amount at £300. There are but few applications for £300. It appears from the report of the Land Bank that in the Cape Province under the last Emergency Loan Act there were only 3,900 applications, and that £225,000 was lent. The average amount per person lent in the Cape Province was only £114. In the Free State the average amount was only £64, and in the Transvaal £60 per person. On the average the loan to each applicant in the Union was only £69, and I therefore do not see why it is necessary to place the figure so high, seeing that under the 1924 Act the average amount per applicant was only £69. It is known that the tendency exists among the farming population to get as much credit as they can. The Land Bank and all banks have to reckon with that. It is a failing in our farmers to where possible take more credit than they need.

They take the highest amount with all confidence in the future, although they do not necessarily require so much. I think it will be sufficient to fix the amount for this purpose as not exceeding about £200. There is a big difference between £69 and £300, and I think that the farmers do not require so much for this purpose. They will then be incurring less debt and the Land Bank will the more easily be able to get the money lent back again. Last time £500,000 was put on the Estimates, and there was a balance of £74,000 which was not lent, and if 6,053 persons who obtained loans had taken the full sum of £300 then the Government would have had to provide £1,800,000, and there was of course no question of that. A new point is the third sub-clause of Clause 3, viz.: that the managing director must take care that the cattle and materials and the seed are bought within three months after the advance has been made. I think that this also is a good provision because in practice we find that where loans are made there is a long delay in buying cattle, but now that cannot be for longer than three months after the granting of the loan. It is of course a duty which is laid upon the managing director. Then I want to ask whether the Minister cannot reduce the 6 per cent. interest and stipulate that the interest for these loans shall be the same as before for loans from the Land Bank on bonds over farms. That also is 6 per cent. now, but the Minister knows quite well that in former years the interest of the Land Bank was only 5 per cent.

The Land Bank itself pays more than 5 per cent. interest, and then the overhead charges must be remembered.

I thought the Minister was now able to get money cheaper than before. I think that it was recently said that he could now get money at 4½ per cent.

No.

Is there no possibility of reducing the interest to 5 per cent.

It is very improbable.

Well, I think in any case it would be a good thing to provide that in case the interest paid by the Land Bank is reduced the interest which the borrowers under this law will have to pay will also be proportionately reduced. I think the costs of administration of the 1924 Act were fairly high. According to the report of the Auditor-General the cost was £16,500, and that for an amount of less than £500,000. The administration costs have therefore almost amounted to 4 per cent. I also want to concur with what hon. members have said in favour of the dropping of Clause 8. Enough reasons have been given for that. Fortunately the Minister has already agreed to drop sub-clause (2), but I think it would be a good thing to drop the whole of clause 8 so that people are not forced to undertake unlimited liability.

I know that this Bill is approved by the whole House, and therefore I shall not now discuss the points in detail. I feel, however, that as a representative of a severely tried constituency, I should heartily thank the Minister for having thought fit to assist the people. My constituents could not make use of the Drought Emergency Act of 1924, because in 1923 we had no drought there. Since 1924 there has actually been constant drought in Laingsburg and Sutherland, and I am glad that the Minister has mentioned those two districts. In Laingsburg the loss of stock was nearly 40 per cent. and in some portions of Sutherland it was still more. I am also glad that the Minister has thought fit to advance money in this way for the purchase of seed under Clause 3 (c). In one part of Laingsburg the farmers go in for grain farming and there is a great need of seed. In regard to what the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has said, I hope the Minister will retain the amount of £300. A smaller amount is of hardly any use to the stock farmers in the Karoo. Grain farmers can manage with less, but the stock farmers require much more than the grain farmers.

I think that the only danger this Bill is in is that it might be killed by kindness, from the reception it is meeting with on both sides of the House. I have sufficient faith in this country to believe, in spite of all our industrial development, and in spite of the opinion of my hon. friend the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that agriculture has no future in this country, that the future of South Africa lies in its primary producers and, therefore, there is all the greater duty on our shoulders to assist the primary producer where we possibly can. In this case we are not asked to assist a scheme of settlement. We shall assist here a class of men who have made good on the land, who have proved their value to the country and who have been driven off the land by drought, by adverse conditions beyond their control and by sheer bad luck, and I do not think the taxpayer of this country is taking any great risk when he assists that class of man to get back on to the land. For that reason I think this is a Bill which will be supported from all quarters in this House. There are one or two points that I want to discuss. I am afraid I cannot quite agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he says that he thinks the solution of this question is by co-operation. We are faced with an extraordinary position. There can be no question of co-operation in many cases between these men who have been driven off the land. We have to deal with this extraordinary position in an extraordinary manner. That is the justification for the State to step in and help these men. I hope the Minister will see the advisability of including the purchase of fertilizers. I think it is a very wise provision, in the list of objects to which the assistance can be devoted, which should be made here. There is another principle in the schedule where you say if a debtor discontinue farming or does any other work, the amount of debt and interest shall become recoverable with interest within such period as the managing director shall determine. That is rather hard. If the man is only waiting for his crop to mature you should encourage him to go out and make a few pounds some other way. There is another clause, Clause 8, which I want to deal with. I do hope the Minister is not going to insist on that clause. Personally I am totally opposed to these agricultural credit societies. Could the House visualize the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) joining a business credit society to assist half-a-dozen impecunious traders? Of course they would not do it. Why ask the farmers to do it? This is a measure where the State is assisting the farmer; the taxpayer is bearing the burden and the State should take the responsibility. The security the State is getting is the stock itself; all the stock, implements and crops remain the security of the State until the advance is repaid. I think the Minister should be content with this security. The Minister is asking a credit society in the district to admit these men as its members; in effect he is saying that the men who formed the credit society and who obtain no relief under this Bill are to share the risk. I do not see that that is a fair position. It is the responsibility of the State. We are going to deal with whole districts which have been desolated by the drought, and if the Minister is wedded to this idea, let him take power to form credit societies in those districts composed entirely of the men assisted under this Bill. There you might possibly be on sound ground. Up to that point, if the Minister adopted that principle, I think the Bill might be one we could support. But, as the clause is now, it is absolutely out of place in the Bill, and it appears to me it is only put there owing to the extraordinary keenness —it is difficult to find the correct word—with which Mr. Herold is pushing these credit societies. We know that this scheme is his pet child. I think he is using this Bill to force these credit societies further on the farmers. It seems there is a unanimity on the Bill if Clause 8 were left out. I hope in this case the Minister will feel that those who are speaking to him are speaking as farmers, and have the success of those whom the Bill will benefit at heart. In dropping this clause he will, in my opinion, improve the Bill.

I think it is a great pity that it is necessary for the Minister to introduce such a Bill, but circumstances often make it necessary. It has already been necessary twice to pass a temporary Act like this Bill, but as circumstances so often demand such legislation it is necessary that we should have an Act. Therefore I welcome the Bill. The details have been sufficiently discussed, but there are a few points that I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. It is often said that the poor people must be assisted, but here people are being assisted before they actually drop to the grade of poor white. Provision is made that creditors cannot attach the stock or other property which the man has got by Government assistance until he has paid off his debt, with interest. I think the Minister ought to go a little further. As soon as the man has paid off the amount due and interest, the creditor can come and attach the cattle. Would it not be a good thing to say that the creditor cannot attach the cattle bought with Government money for two years? I do not want the farmer to be prevented from selling or exchanging the stock if he wishes. But when the farmers have paid off their debt to the Government they ought to have the chance of paying their other creditors. I cannot see the necessity for Clause 8, because if I understand the Bill rightly a farmer can obtain money, and if he cannot be admitted as a member of an agricultural credit association, then he can still retain the money. Whether Clause 8 is in or not, a man will be able to get assistance and remain in possession of the money if he can prove that he has not had the opportunity of joining a credit association. Therefore I do not see that this will give greater protection to the State. The two points which I press, therefore, are the granting of further protection and the scrapping of Clause 8.

I hope that hon. members will not think that the Bill is a charitable one, for it seems to me that the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) wants us to go further. He wants the Government after the period of five years is over to take power for two years more preventing creditors from attaching the stock of the people. I think that the credit of the country will receive a shock if we accept that because it is nothing else than a moratorium. That is a thing we cannot do. I think the period of five years is enough and I fear the hon. member goes too far. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has asked why the interest is so high as 6 per cent. Go to any business house in the country and see if one can get it cheaper. The State has to pay 5 per cent. and then there is in addition the cost of the loan and of its administration. It is not possible to advance the money at less than 6 per cent. The hon. member goes further and says that the costs of administration are too high. There are, however, the committees, and the members will not be prepared to work for nothing, which increases the first year’s expenses. In the first year the costs are always higher, but they become less in after years. That is the reason why the costs for the first year are so high. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Du Toit) says that the Government must render £1,000,000 available, but we cannot do so because the extent of the drought was not as great as in 1923 and 1924. It then cost nearly £500,000 to properly assist the people. The hon. member for Lydenburg has mentioned that we should make the amount to each farmer less than £300, and I agree that a smaller amount is necessary in the case of grain farming. If stock, however, has to be bought then that is not the case, then at least £300 will be required. Clause 8 has been objected to, but let me say that we hear daily how co-operation is being preached. Every member of this House does it when he goes around the country. The Government must bring about co-operation and use the taxpayers’ money to advance it, but if the latter had to do it among themselves then they would not undertake the responsibility. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) is farming with his two sons, and if he also takes in his brothers he can form a credit association.

Thank God we do not need it.

Why, then, do you raise the objection? The hon. member is in favour of making agricultural credit associations a success, but when one reads the speech he made at Murraysburg it does not look like it. He is reported as having warned a meeting of farmers against Clause 8 of the Bill, by which a farmer is forced, if he wants the assistance of the Government, to become a member of a credit association, and to pay 5 per cent. on any, property that he sells through the association. Now the hon. member says that he is in favour of co-operation and wants to make a success of it, but from a public platform he states the opposite. We must teach our people to co-operate. We know what a success it has been in Denmark. The hon. member has also said that the middleman will not want to join because he will be afraid of the people who receive the loans. I said last night that, the people who are now being assisted are much safer under the Bill because no one can attach their property, it remaining the property of the Land Bank until the amount due has been paid off, with interest. If the hon. member’s constituents do not want the benefits of the Bill it is another matter, but according to my information they are quite disposed to do so, and they themselves have no objection to Clause 8. I have myself received requests to include it. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) said that our credit system was not right, but so many improvements have been made recently that there is no reason for complaint. Under the Agricultural Credits Act, stock, implements, and seed can be bought on credit for two years, and the board of the Land Bank has the right of extending the period for two years more. Does the hon. member want further extension? I am glad that the Bill is supported by both sides of the House, and as I would like the second reading to be passed now, I shall deal with the other questions which I have not yet answered in committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on the Bill to-morrow.