brought up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on customs duties, income tax and licence duties.

I move—

objected.

Report to be considered to-morrow.

as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on petition of Victoria West Municipality).

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 20th May.

I wish, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence of the House, to make a personal statement. I have been assured that an expression used by me yesterday afternoon at the time of the division on the motion to introduce the South African Nationality and Flag Bill has given offence to some hon. members of this House. I desire unreservedly to withdraw the phrase employed, and regret the use of it under the stress of deep feeling.

What was it?

This motion contains various provisions, inter alia, to validate the retirement of a certain officer of the Railways and Harbours Administration, and to exempt a certain officer of the Railways and Harbours Administration from the provision of Section 8 of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1925, and lastly to grant recognition for pension purposes of the interrupted service of certain servants of the Railways and Harbours Administration who went on strike in the month of January, 1914. I should not have risen if this Bill had been published, but I rise to protest against this reckless legislation. I think in this case the Government should have published the Bill. Yesterday we had a Bill read a first time which had never been published, but I admit the Bill we saw yesterday was much on the same lines as the one we saw previously. This Bill might easily have been published some week or two ahead, so that we could have seen what it deals with. It deals with some important matters, and I refer particularly to the last provision of the Bill referring to the strike of 1914. It is extraordinary, because we thought this matter was buried years ago. Who is it that has been knocking at the door of the Administration to re-open this subject? I must say I am against it. We had this matter in the House once before, when Mr. Burton occupied the treasury benches, and he did what he could. He was pressed frequently to reconsider the position of these people. Now we have a Pact Government, and the country has to pay for the sins of the Pact.

Is this Bill going to the Select Committee of Railways first? I disagree with the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), and I agree with the notice of motion. These are matters the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours have been continually faced with, and I welcome this notice of motion.

I sympathize with the question put by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). So far as the case of the strikers is concerned, it came up several times before the Pensions Committee, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of their case, I think there is good cause for complaint, unless the Minister can tell us why the Bill was not published. The hon. member for Von Brandis wants to know why the ordinary practice of publishing Bills has been given up by the Government. The hon. member referred to the failure to publish the Nationality and Flag Bill, and that complaint is well grounded, and the House wants to know why the Minister found it impossible to publish this Bill in the ordinary way. The protest is really against the constant practice of moving Bills without having published them previously in the “Gazette.”

We are in the position of having to suspend judgment on this Bill because we do not understand its provisions. Generally speaking, it is very desirable that we should extend a certain amount of clemency and mercy to those who were so misguided as to neglect their duty to the State in 1914. I presume this Bill will contain a schedule with the names of those to whom it is intended to extend this condonation, or is it a general act of clemency the Minister is introducing? There are some individuals whose conduct was such that it would not be in the best interests of the State to condone what they did. I ask the Minister, will it contain a schedule of the names of those who went on strike in 1914, and whose lapses it is intended to condone.

I urge on the Minister to refer this matter to the Railways Committee.

This is only the preliminary stage.

But it is better to enquire into this thing in a committee upstairs.

I quite agree with you.

I think most of us at this stage will welcome the Bill in so far as we are able to anticipate its contents. I should like to say that a very large class of men on the railways will welcome the effort of the Minister in this Bill, but I hope he will not confine his efforts to the comparatively small number of men whose petitions have been successful before the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities. There still remain a considerable number of men whose petitions have been unsuccessful from one cause or another, and I do think it is desirable that in the large number of cases in which a sense of grievance exists these men should be met fairly, and, where there has been a break in their service, whether it is in service under the Imperial Government or under the previous Colonial Government, that that service should be bridged over, and these men should start with a clean slate. I think the constant petitioning of Parliament in matters of grievance of this sort is very irritating to the men themselves. They are constantly told that nothing can be done for them unless they come to Parliament, and it seems to me that we should liquidate the whole of these outstanding matters, and put right those things that are wrong at the present time. I quite agree with the idea of validating the appointment which the Minister refers to here, as I understand that an appointment has been made in conflict with some provision existent in the Act, and it is now sought to put that appointment right. For my own part I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that if it will only set out to do what it is necessary to do in connection with broken service on the railways, the railwaymen will appreciate it very much.

I do not know that it is necessary at this stage to go into any of the questions which have been raised. When I deal with the second reading of the Bill I am prepared to give full information to the House on all these points. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I may say that I agree with him that the passage of this Bill, which is largely one covering certain matters which have come up in regard to administration—that is why there has been no publication before—will probably be much facilitated if I refer it to the select committee, and that is my intention, but I cannot do that now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 20th May.

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

seconded.

Before you put this, I would like the Government to give an undertaking to this House that no payment will be made under this motion until all the facts have been placed before the House and a report has been made. I do not know the gentleman in question, and he may have suffered financial loss by reason of his having joined the Republican forces during the Anglo-Boer war, probably a very noble thing to have done, but, at the same time, I would like an undertaking from the Government that no moneys will be paid under this motion until all the facts and the report of the Government have been placed before the House so as to give hon. members an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Is the hon. member opposing the motion?

No, sir, I am not. I am quite satisfied that the petition should go to the Government, and all I ask for is an undertaking from the Government that all the facts of the case shall be placed before the House before any moneys are paid by way of compensation, so that hon. members may have an opportunity of saying yes or no to the payment.

I will now put the question.

Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, cannot we get an undertaking from the Government?

The hon. member has already spoken.

Yes, I am rising to a point of order. I think we should have an undertaking from the Government on the lines I have indicated.

The hon. member must stick to his point of order.

The point of order is whether the Government is not obliged to give the information I am asking for?

No.

I do not think we want to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), but I think there is a feeling that there should be a little information in the subject, and I would like to know why this course is necessary, and whether the information which the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) asked for will be made available? I think we are rather afraid of again committing ourselves to something which may lead further than we anticipate.

One of my constituents, who thinks that he has a just grievance, asked me to present the petition. I did so, and all I now ask is that the petition shall be referred to the Government according to custom. I have consulted the Minister of Finance, and he is prepared to investigate the matter. It is an absolutely simple and formal motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister if he can tell us what his policy is in regard to the question of compulsory agricultural co-operation. I know that the Minister has expressed himself at various times against it, but in practice I find if we take, for instance the Agricultural Credit Bill introduced last year by a colleague of his and I take it the Cabinet all speak with one voice—compulsory co-operation was introduced in that Bill. Later on last session, with regard to the ostrich feather industry again, compulsory co-operation was introduced. This session in the Drought Distress Relief Bill, where the Minister makes provision that farmers obtaining relief under that Bill must become members of rural credit societies, again he is bringing in in practice the principle of compulsory co-operation, whereas when he makes speeches, he tells us that he is against compulsory co-operation. In my constituency it is felt that there is a very considerable grievance in reference especially to two cooperative societies there.

Do you represent a farming constituency?

No, I do not represent the farming constituency community, but I attempt to represent the interests of my constituents, and also the interests of the general taxpayer, and very much more so than the hon. gentleman there, who, as chairman of a company, gets an advance of £101,000 against ostrich feathers which are worth nothing like that amount, and a company that puts up the small amount of £700 in order to get an advance of over £100,000. I represent the interests of the general public in a very much better way than the hon. member does when he does things of that sort. After this little diversion I would like to come back to the question of the Minister and compulsory co-operation. There has been some correspondence between the chamber of commerce of Port Elizabeth and the Minister in regard to their grievance in this matter. In their first letter they say—

There is no objection whatever raised to that by the members of the chamber of commerce in Port Elizabeth. But the matter has gone further than that. There are at least two of these companies which not only sell for their own members, but they sell for other producers who are non-members. A certain amount of excuse is made for that, because it is thought that it may gradually induce non-members to become members, but they go further than that. They sell for the very speculators that the co-operation is supposed to eliminate, and they go round the country catering for the business of these speculators and dealers in competition with other people, and at the same time these companies are exempt from all licences. That is where the grievance comes in. A concern that is formed to be a co-operative society and to get the benefits and exemptions of a co-operative society should be limited to selling for its own members, and carrying on the business of co-operation. The chairman of one of these companies recently made a statement to the effect that by being registered under the Co-operative Societies Act that company escaped taxation to the amount of £4,500 that the ordinary trader would have to pay, and it is felt that it is a most unfair thing that these societies trading as co-operative societies should be free to compete in this way and still escape taxation.

Which societies are you alluding to?

I know there are two—the Boere-Saamwerk and the Farmers’ Co-operative Union. I think the Farmer’s Co-operative Union is the one that does most in this direction. The other, I know sells for other producers who are non-members.

Were these companies registered under this Government or under the previous Government?

These societies were registered under the Co-operative Societies Act introduced by the previous Government. I protested at the time in the same way as I protest now. I am giving him the credit of supposing that if there is an unfairness in it, wherever it comes from, he will want to do the right thing. If the thing is not fair, no matter what Government it was surely it is my place to bring it up. The Minister has expressed himself as against compulsory co-operation, but when it comes to practice we see what happens. I should like the Minister to let us know what the position is. With regard to the ostrich feather company, the Minister has now got to this point that this advance has been made; he has put a levy on all ostrich feathers shipped, whether by members of the co-operative society or not, with the express intention that the levy is to be applied in redemption of the advance to this particular company. Surely it is cooperation run mad; in fact, it is not co-operation at all. The Minister may remember a very powerful memorandum put up by his department to the committee considering the Agricultural Credit Bill as to the effect compulsion would have upon co-operation, that it would strike at the foundations of co-operation. There was trouble with the Minister of Finance, and it was quickly hushed up. There we get the genuine opinion of the Minister, but this is what we have in practice.

I am very glad of the advertisement which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has this afternoon given the Government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture the fact that he, as the representative of constituents who are not farmers, comes and argues against co-operation is a proof that in regard to co-operation the Government and the Minister are engaged in doing something which in the first place benefits the farmers, and is possibly to the detriment of the brokers and agents who live in the large towns. If the hon. member comes here and says that he is speaking on behalf of the taxpayers generally, I want to say that as the Minister of Agriculture is looking after matters in the interests of agriculture, he in the first place has the duty of considering the interests of the farmers, and not those of the brokers and agents in Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and other places. I am glad that the Minister and the Government are prepared to support any effort in the direction of co-operation. With regard to compulsory co-operation in certain cases, I think we have now adopted that policy for good, and that the results have been so excellent that it appears that the Government can go as much further as possible in that direction. Compulsory co-operation has in certain industries greatly benefited development, and I hope that the Government will support more compulsory co-operation when the farmers ask for it. With the approval of this House, legislation was passed effecting compulsory co-operation where a very large percentage of the farmers asked for it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) let the cat out of the bag this afternoon by acknowledging that there were two large companies in Port Elizabeth that were a rock of offence to him, viz., the Boere-Saamwerk and the Farmers’ Co-operative Union. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the hon. member, and I can well understand that the two companies are a tremendous offence to the brokers, but the farmers in the country are greatly indebted to those who established the companies, because instead of thousands of pounds disappearing by way of commission into the pockets of a few wholesale merchants or brokers—whom the hon. member possibly represents—the profits will go into the pockets of the farmers who send the products forward. I hope the Minister will go on giving his support to those companies, as well as other co-operative societies, so that the farmers, more and more, can be got to sell everything through the co-operative societies. We do not need the services of the brokers and agents. The farmers can establish their own institutions, but I can well understand that if there are co-operative societies which are very successful, the brokers from time to time raise tremendous opposition against support for those societies. We, however, need co-operative societies. They are, in the first instance, in the interests of the farmers, and on account of the agricultural conditions, compulsory cooperation is decidedly necessary in South Africa. Conditions are different here to those in other countries. Distances are great, the farmers live far from each other, and the farmers are not generally all of the well-to-do class, so that it is often difficult to influence farmers to co-operate, but if an opportunity is given and a certain amount of compulsion is imposed with regard to co-operation, we find that the greatest part are willing to adopt it, and then the co-operative societies are a success. This applies to co-operative societies which would otherwise be difficult to establish, or to be a success, especially as people like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) are always working up the farmers against co-operation. They are for ever and always engaged in trying to do that. In this way they want to protect the interests of the farmers. But the farmers must co-operate in their own interests, and we still want the position reached in South Africa that all produce will be marketed by means of co-operative societies. I hope that the Government will support any efforts towards co-operation still more than they have done in the past.

It would be all right if these co-operative societies did not come begging to the Government for assistance. Take this ostrich feather society of the Oudtshoorn district. They came to the Government, and the Government told them if they could start a company with 50 per cent. of the ostrich farmers in it, they would assist them. Well, they assisted them by advancing them £112,000, and the farmers assisted themselves by finding £745. It is not their own credit; it is the Government’s credit. To show what the Land Bank thought of it—

That is the opinion of the Land Bank, and I have no doubt of Mr. Herold himself—

The ordinary common-sense man dealing with his own money would, no doubt, come to the same conclusion. It is all very tine and large to talk about corporations with other people’s money when other people are running the risk. In this case the taxpayers of this country are running the risk. It is the taxpayers’ money. I would like to have some information from the Minister in regard to this, because I really got up to ask him about it. Why has he advanced this very large sum of money on the security of ostrich feathers and against the advice of the directors of the Land Bank and, above all, the managing director, who has had a lot of experience of these advances? I think the House should have some explanation. Not only has £112,000 been advanced, but £84,000 is actually owing at the present moment. The farmers themselves have only paid up £745.

I have a few remarks to make about the delay in issuing these annual reports. I find I was mistaken; this report was issued in December last, but in a different form than usual. To show I acted in good faith, I made inquiries, and I was told this report would be issued with others on the 23rd of this month. I desire most definitely to congratulate the Minister and his department on being the very first to issue their annual report. This brings us up to the 30th of June, 1926, and I do not know of any other departmental report which was issued as at early a date as this. This is a matter of such moment, that I emphasize my congratulations to the department on being so prompt in bringing out the annual report. I cannot quite follow the Minister’s argument about these experimental farms. As I understand him, I gathered his main objection was to their expense. My whole argument is that these farms should be run in such a way and on such a scale that they would be little or no expense, and might even be a source of profit. We have here in this excellent report a paragraph headed “Bringing home the lessons of the department to the farmer,” and they describe what they are endeavouring to do by means of shows, meetings, pamphlets and demonstration trains, which are all excellent in their way, but do not go the whole way. What we want is to see the practical application of the lessons of the department and of their years of research, and running an experimental farm as an ordinary farmer would do this, and show whether this or that line or method of farming can be made profitable or not. It is almost as valuable to know why a thing is not profitable, even if the return should show a financial loss. This is a matter which should not entail any loss to the taxpayer; if it should, our experience would be different from that of other countries, where all these experimental farms have produced a substantial amount of profit. I would urge again the claims of the eastern portion of the Cape Province to have an experimental farm of this sort. Soil, climatic and other conditions vary so much in South Africa. It is, for instance, found the results you get from irrigation at sea-level, at 2,000 feet above sea-level, and again at 4,000 feet above sea-level, are altogether different, and so we have a condition of things in the border districts and neighbourhood which is not quite parallel to other portions of the Cape Province, and it is necessary and desirable that an experimental farm should be established there. Local farmers have even offered to stock the farm or to provide stock for experimental purposes. I am glad to notice in this report that apparently a beginning is being made in the application of fertilizers in connection with the growing of maize. I cannot put it better than in the words of the report—

We find out of 9,000,000 odd cattle in the Union, no fewer than about 4,000,000 are owned by natives, and are of an inferior type, and this also applies to a large number of the rest. It emphasizes the argument of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) that unnecessary restrictions should be removed to improve our stock.

I wish to support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) missed the point completely. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was not talking against co-operation, of which we are all in favour on this; side. We passed this law ourselves. But the hon. member is entitled to point out that this amendment of the law gives an unfair advantage. Co-operative societies were exempted from taxation because they were real cooperative societies, and not trading for profit. Here we have a co-operative society, or alleged co-operative society, who are selling for traders who are not producers, or even members of co-operative societies. It was never intended to give co-operative societies that unfair advantage over others. That is not co-operation. When the hon. member for Oudtshoorn talked so lightly of farmers being so much in favour of compulsory co-operation, I would like him to consult the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), and see whether his constituents are so enamoured of this. My information is that there is a great deal of discontent among farmers against this sort of co-operation. Compulsory co-operation is a paradox. I would point out to the Minister a recent case in court. In the Transvaal a firm of tobacco growers was sued by a co-operative society. The court said it was very loth to give judgment against this company, but the law was there, and had to be carried out. It is an absurd state of affairs. This firm had to sell its produce to the local co-operative company, which sold it back to this firm for it to manufacture cigarettes. I hope the Minister will consider recasting the whole of the compulsory section. Members are bludgeoned into co-operation. Very often the data on which compulsory co-operation are based are inaccurate. In one case in Vredefort, and there are many other cases, he never got 75 per cent. of the producers, nor 75 per cent. of the output. There is a lot of legitimate discontent among traders because certain co-operative societies are no longer legitimate co-operative societies, but trading concerns, which should not be granted an unfair advantage over anyone else or any other firm.

When the Minister abolished the sheep division in his department a great shout on the part of hon. members opposite went up that the Minister wanted to put the clock back in the matter of sheep farming and the wool industry. Experience, however, has taught us that the Minister has advanced farming still more, and it is remarkable that scab has been practically eradicated. We can congratulate the Minister on that, but I should like information about the sources of danger from outside the Union. Has the danger from Basutoland become less? We should like to know what has been done to eradicate scab, and whether it will be safe for us in the future to keep in touch with the treks. Then the same select committee which dealt with the previous matter made a report in favour of fencing being done between the Union and the native territories. Like the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) I want to urge that the boundary should be fenced. I should like to know whether the Minister will tackle the matter in the future. The demonstration train came to my district. People made free use of its visit, and were much benefited thereby. The farmers appreciate the demonstration train very much, and I should like the Minister to say if he is going to continue sending the train about. I want to give the assurance that the farmers appreciate it, and make use of it. It is practically the only education the farmers receive, excluding chose who go to agricultural schools. The old people who cannot go to the short courses or to the agricultural schools, to study will appreciate the agricultural train and make use of it

I would suggest to the Minister that it would save time if he would reply in English when criticised in English, instead of waiting. I am sorry, but I could not understand all he said last night. I merely caught a word here and there. I am trying to learn Afrikaans, but my knowledge is limited. The Minister must not shelter himself behind the report of secretaries in parts where no disease exists. With regard to the administration of east coast fever, I would remind the Minister that the position is far from satisfactory, and that is borne out on page 309 of the report, where it says that the position was not as satisfactory as last year, and lower down, that four further outbreaks had occurred. If we take the Minister’s own figures, as far as Umvoti is concerned, since then there has been an outbreak in a new district. Whereas in 1923 there were 64 dipping inspectors, to-day there are 176. I am speaking of Natal alone. How can the Minister justify this increase in the vote—£9,000 for more inspectors? What justification has he? The disease is spreading. We want some reply whether the Minister is going to continue with his present policy. I am not complaining about these men not being bilingual. What we want is men being efficient. Why has he taken the responsibility of dipping from the farmer? I am not trying to make party capital out of this, and we want to assist the Minister by our criticisms. He must not have inefficient men in charge of the dipping as he has now, otherwise the disease will spread. Put the responsibility on the farmer and have efficient men to see that the farmer carries out the dipping. I think the Minister was quite right to give the inoculation test a trial. The farmers had an idea that inoculation offered a certain amount of immunity, and that can be proved only by experiment. Giving Redinger’s method was quite right. Will the Government endeavour to find a market for tens of thousands of cattle which are worth something in Europe? The farmers are looking to the Government to assist them in their terrible plight of relieving the overstocked farms of cattle which should be turned into cash. I want the Minister to say whether the Government intend to find a solution of this urgent question.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) have tried to drag the House into a general discussion on the merits and demerits of co-operative farming. My name has been associated with a co-operative association in my constituency, and the Minister’s right to establish compulsory co-operation amongst the Parys tobacco farmers has been questioned. We took no part in regard to compulsion; in fact, we openly said that we would not be parties to a compulsory measure of co-operation in that constituency. A vote was taken in the constituency, and 75 per cent. of the members had to belong to cooperative societies, and 81 per cent. registered as being growers in the district. Now the hon. member tells us that I have been instrumental in forcing co-operative farming on my constituents. It is grossly unfair of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) to attack the two institutions, which are doing considerable service as far as the farmers are concerned. Both the F.C.U. and Boere-Saamwerk handle the farmers’ produce at a commission of 2½ per cent., the former handling the English farmers’ produce and the latter the Dutch farmers’ produce. The individual wool-seller at Port Elizabeth claims that undue advantage is being given to the farmers’ co-operative societies. The manager of the Land and Agricultural Bank, in his report for 1926, says—

The Boere-Saamwerk has already received £27,000 from the Government.

I was speaking only about exemption from taxation.

The Boere-Saamwerk has applied for a further £35,000. The F.C.U. has never made an application for a penny from the Government and has never had sixpence, and is paying its own way. These are the two organizations which are running it contradistinction to the wool sellers. Whether a farmer markets his wool through the individual wool seller or through a co-operative society is a matter over which the Minister has no control. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) we have never fostered compulsory co-operation. I hate hon. members to make an attack on another hon. member, and then leave the debating chamber. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) repeatedly referred to me, and then left the House.

He did not attack you.

He distinctly attacked me, and said I started the co-operative association. I want to stigmatize that as an absolute falsehood as far as I am concerned, but I have met these people and assisted them.

The hon. member must not use the words “absolute falsehood.” The hon. member must withdraw that.

I will qualify that and say misrepresentation.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

What I want to state is that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has told a falsehood, so far as I am concerned.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I will withdraw that, and say the statement is incorrect. We have assisted the farmer in the Vredefort division to obtain assistance for co-operative marketing without forcing compulsion down his throat, and I believe that is the policy of this Government.

I want to refer the Minister to the item general expenses, Veterinary Department, £2,000. which is for the suppression of lung-sickness in the Transvaal. This is a very serious matter, because pleuro-pneumonia is a very dangerous disease, and is not easy to eradicate. I hope the Minister will be able to keep the disease out of the Transvaal and Bechuanaland, for if it breaks out then the cattle farmers in the Union will be placed in a very parlous position, for the export of livestock from the Union will be barred. [No quorum.] If this disease of lung sickness enters the Transvaal and the Union it puts the farmers in a serious position because we cannot export cattle to the British and European markets. Friesland breeders exported some cattle a few years ago to the credit of South Africa, and they are contemplating to-day a second shipment of cattle to Britain. Apart from that, we are contemplating the export of cattle from the Union for slaughter purposes, but if lung-sickness has broken out on the borders of the Union, that trade will be stopped, because it was a stipulation in allowing these cattle to enter Britain there should be no pleuro-pneumonia, and if it is known there is an outbreak, no cattle will be allowed to leave our shores for Britain or the European markets. I hope the Minister will prove to us that this expression is a mistake. In reference to the compensation for the loss of stock by the use of wrong vaccine by the department, I know these accidents will happen at times, and the official properly was exonerated from costs paid out, but it seems unfair that the compensation for the loss of cattle which were dipped while the inspector was away, and a native was left in charge, should be paid by the native who only gets £3 per month. He was in charge at the time, but the official escapes and the unfortunate native has to pay.

The way in which hon. members opposite talk about scab inspectors and locust officials makes me think that they do not appreciate that such officials are appointed for the benefit and best advantage of the farming population. The inspectors are not only dependent upon the support of the farmers in their district, but also on that of the member of this House. Because they are hostile towards the inspectors I am under the impression that they are also hostile to the farming population. If they are hostile towards the farming population, the backbone of the Union, then they are also hostile towards the Union. In my constituency, I am very partial to the inspectors, because I feel that they are people who have gone a particularly long way in attaining the object for which they were appointed. Good progress has been made in the eradication of scab, and I feel that the inspectors are now being unjustly treated. Formerly the scab inspectors always had the privilege once a year when they got leave to get a railway ticket at half fare. I now hear that it has been decided to stop this privilege. In this way they get the impression that after having practically cleaned the country of scab a certain punishment is being inflicted on them. I mention the matter because it particularly affects my constituency. It is far away and stretched out, and when a man has done two or three years’ hard service in the veld and he wants the privilege of coming down to the coast, then he is prevented from travelling at half the ordinary railway fare. I do not think that is right. Another matter I want to raise is that I notice that provision is being made for stock inspectors. Stock inspectors and sheep inspectors are two separate appointments, but in my division the two are combined. The scab inspectors are also stock inspectors, and each man’s area is very large. There is one who has to inoculate 117,000 stock per annum. His salary, however, has not been increased, but besides his work in connection with scab, he also had to act as stock inspector which work had in the past been done by a specially appointed and paid person. This inspector asked for an increase or for a little more travelling allowance, but it was refused. There is another serious case which I regard as an injustice, that recently took place in Kuruman. One of the Vryburg officials tells me that he was ordered to go there and could not use a cart. He went by motor and, unfortunately, the motor had an accident, and the department ref used to compensate him at all, after he had discovered and eradicated scab. I consider this a hard case, and I personally applied to the department, but up to the present assistance has been refused. I consider that the Minister ought to give attention to these hard cases. I should not like hon. members when they speak about Bechuanaland Protectorate to think that it is my constituency, Bechuanaland. They are two separate divisions, because the constituency that I represent is in the Cape Province, while the Bechuanaland Protectorate is outside the Union. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) mentioned lung sickness in the protectorate, and it is necessary for me to describe the state of affairs there. The boundary between the two divisions is the Malapolo River. It runs through my constituency for 500 miles and cattle come to both sides of the river to drink. This causes a mix-up every day in the river. There is no question of police supervision, because there are not even ten policemen in the 500 miles. There is a kind of prohibition against the importation of stock from the protectorate which are under a certain weight, but along the Malapolo such a thing as prohibition is not known, because stock are freely imported. It goes without saying that it is a danger which may cause lung sickness to spread into the Union. When once it breaks out here it will be too late to take action. I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to alter the partial prohibition on the importation of stock to a total prohibition. I think it is quite justifiable to do so seeing there is lung sickness in the protectorate. That will enable our farmers in the Bechuanaland constituency to have an opportunity of protecting themselves to some extent. That, in my opinion, is the only way by which we can make provision. Another point which I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice is the Government farm, Armoedsvlakte. It answered to its purpose once in connection with the enquiry into Galamsiekte. The State has 800 cattle on the farm. The Minister goes about warning the people that they should have a good breed of cattle, but the State is now keeping stock of a very low grade at Armoedsvlakte. I want to ask the Minister when that system of farming there will be altered. It could be made into a kind of experimental farm. I want to give the Minister the assurance that he will assist my constituency very much by having a good breed of cattle there. Bechuanaland is a part with a great future, and the Minister must assist it. Even if an experimental farm costs much, that will not be the result of the improving of the breed of cattle.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the parlous state of the cattle industry. There are well over 10 million head of cattle in the Union, and our annual consumption is only 450,000 head and about 100,000 head come from the surrounding protectorates, so that between 500,000 and 700,000 head of cattle die on the veld every year. The 10 per cent. increase of stock is very low, because, if a farmer with 200 head of cattle cannot get more than twenty calves, he would consider himself in a bad way. We have a division of economics and marketing which costs us £26,000 a year, and I have not seen any result in the way of markets or economics from this division. What are we paying this £500 a week for? I wish also to support the remarks of the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) on the question of the importing of stud bulls into the Union. There is a demand from Rhodesia and Kenya, but owing to the lack of importation for the last three years, owing to the outbreak of disease in Britain, we have not been getting a supply. We do not wish to import disease into this country. Personally, I do not fear foot-and-mouth disease, because I remember in this country 35 or 40 years ago we had it, but it did not seem to spread. Surely it is not beyond the ability of the Minister or the department to arrange a method whereby bulls can be obtained as required. If we cannot keep up the blood, we cannot keep up the quality that is necessary in order to supply bulls to other countries and, as the Minister is aware, out of 65,000 head exported last year, only 2,000 were purchased in the Union. The bulk of the rest came from Rhodesia, Bechuanaland and South-West Africa, but Rhodesia was the principal supplier and, owing to that, she is the principal buyer of well-bred bulls to-day. Large numbers are at present going to Rhodesia, but unless we can keep up the supply we are in danger of losing that trade. We have been recommended to go to Australia for our bulls, but we cannot get the necessary quality there. We can get very nice looking bulls from Australia; in fact, good decent animals for breeding oxen, but not the quality which is required in order to produce good breeding bulls. I would recommend very strongly to the Minister that he should try and evolve some scheme by which the stud breeders of this country can again resume importation. Great Britain supplies the whole world with stud bulls, and during the whole of the time when foot and mouth disease was supposed to be in existence in Great Britain the export was continued to South America. If South America can arrange it, surely this country can arrange it. South America was paying up to £2,000 for very young stock, I do not say that we can pay those high prices in this country, but we do want the assistance of the Government to facilitate matters, so that we can get bulls when we purchase them on the other side.

It is very pleasing to be able to say that the tone of the debate, notwithstanding the criticism, was very satisfactory, with the exception, probably, of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), who, I regret, is not in his seat now, but possibly will come in later, because I am anxious to reply to him. I am also very glad to hear that the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) praises my department. I accept it that he was under a misunderstanding yesterday when he attacked my department, because he thought the report was not yet on the Table. He says now that it appeared in a different form, and he congratulates the department on adopting that form. He then praises the officials of the department. I am very glad about it, because many people do not know the difficulties with which the officials have to fight to please everybody. We have 95,000 farmers in the country, and must try to satisfy all, which, of course, is not quite possible. I am indebted to the officials for the great assistance and support I have had from them. They work successfully and often far beyond the ordinary times. Here and there is a weak spot, but on the whole I am very proud that I have such officials to help me. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) asked a few important questions the other night which I should like to answer. In the first place he asked what became of the enquiry into the snout beetles. As hon. members know these beetles did much damage to our trees, and, accordingly, last year an official in the entomological division was sent to Australia, and, after he was there for six weeks, he found a parasite that destroys the eggs of the snout beetle. We imported some of the parasites, and I am delighted to say that up to the present the opinion is that very much and good destructive work has been done among the snout beetles and eggs by the parasites. Because we have the difficulty that the snout beetle goes underground in winter, and we do not know whether the parasites will continue to live, the official has been left in Australia for the present. I hope that we shall meet with success in this respect. His second question was in connection with the maize stalk-borers. Let me say that in this connection experiments have been going on for some time, but we had not got so far to make any definite recommendations to the farmers. What we know so far is not altogether satisfactory, and we want to try and find another remedy. The hon. member’s third question was in connection with milk tests which were very important. We have reduced the price for testing milk to a great extent this year. We decided to appoint more officials and to reduce the price for testing milk. It is now 10s. a visit for the first five cows, and 4s. for second grade cows. The prices for additional cows are also considerably reduced. I hope that the farmers will now make more use of this, will have their milk tested, and the object will be attained of breeding better milkers in the country. Then the hon. member asked something in connection with the increase in the production of wheat. We now have an experimental farm in the Cape Province, and we are doing all in our power in that direction. Then the hon. member asked what kind of grass is the best. We have made many experiments in this connection and the grass which answers very well in the Free State, and which has a large amount of feeding capacity is the “finger” grass. Hon. members will be able to read about that on page 67 of the magazine “Farming in South Africa.”

Where can we get the grass?

It can be got on application from Dr. Pole Evans in Pretoria. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked a few questions, but he is unfortunately not in his place. He asked me why the salaries, after we took over, were raised so much. The professors used to work nine months in the year, but now they have become officials and must work the whole time. It cannot be expected that they should draw the same salary under the circumstances, hence the increase. Then the hon. member asked why children from England had no chance of being trained at Elsenburg because they were not bilingual. May I ask the hon. member whether when our boys go to England it is not taken into consideration that they only understand Afrikaans. There are only three English children there of whom two can follow the classes very well. One cannot follow them so well, but is doing his best, and he has every opportunity of asking the lecturer questions, and will be given further information in English. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) brought six separate accusations against me, against my department and against the departmental officials. When I heard the hon. member speaking I could not help thinking of the words of a great politician of whom many people think a great deal. He said that if you visit Natal it is apparently British, but that it was in General Botha’s pocket. He said, further, that he had never yet seen a more miserable lot of people because they cannot even properly manage a town council, much less responsible Government.

Who said that?

The hon. member can read it for himself in the “Life of Dr. Jameson,” by Colvin, on page 90. I would recommend the hon. member to read it.

Is that your view about Natal?

It was the view of Dr. Jameson. The hon. member asks if it is also my view. If the hon. member exercises a little patience I will reply. I visited Natal personally—

Do you agree with that view?

If the hon. member will not give me a chance of replying, then I will not do so. I visited Natal personally, and I must honestly say that as regards the ordinary citizens of Natal they are for the most part capital people. If one listens to their leaders, however, such, e.g., as the hon. member for Illovo in his speech the other night, then it seems that Dr. Jameson was quite right about the leaders. The one accusation of the hon. member for Illovo against me was that my manager, while I was 200 miles from the place, was taken to court because the cattle on my farm had not been dipped. Why was not the hon. member honest enough to give the summing up of the magistrate? Why did he raise the matter in the House if not for the purpose of making the public think that the Minister is strict in issuing regulations, but wanted to evade them himself? For what other reason did the hon. member mention the matter if that was not the impression he wanted to create. The magistrate acquitted my manager because the water and material were there, because the dip inspector did not go so far as to make a test. If I had wanted to take action I ought to have discharged the dip inspector, but I did not do so, because I felt that that would be an act contrary to my custom. I was 200 miles from there, and I am reproached about the Minister’s cattle being excluded. Let me point out that I was in favour of the passing of the dipping Act, and even if there were no regulations, dipped my stock regularly once a week. The special circumstances about the dip being too shallow prevented my thoroughbred cattle from being dipped that day.

The magistrate found your manager guilty. What is the good of saying he was discharged?

Why am I blamed when I live 200 miles from there. The manager himself was not at home, and it was the second man on my farm who made the mistake. Why should the matter, however, be raised in the House if it were not done with the object of showing the public that I am opposed to dipping? Then the appointment of a certain Kemp is complained of because he is a nephew of mine. He is my nephew.

made a remark.

The hon. member will have his opportunity to speak.

The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) is so concerned now about the appointment. I hope he will take to heart the quotation I made from Dr. Jameson. Young Kemp was in Natal, and he was discharged by me there on an unfounded complaint of one of his enemies. I referred the matter to the magistrate of Vryheid (Mr. Peachy), and he reported to me that I was wrong in dismissing Kemp. On the recommendation of the magistrate, Kemp was re-employed as a scab inspector. The department now reports that he has passed through his period of probation, and given every satisfaction. Now I want to ask hon. members who object so strongly to the appointment of a Minister’s nephew whether they objected when the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was a Minister and appointed his daughter as an official in the Botany Division? Did they object when a son-in-law of Gen. Botha’s was appointed a judge, when his own son was appointed a captain in the Defence Force, when his brother-in-law was made chief scab inspector, and when the last named, after he had been a member of Parliament for some time, was reinstated in his office when he was defeated at an election? Did they object when two other brothers-in-law of General Botha were appointed members of the Land Bank? Did hon. members protest when a brother of Mr. Burton obtained an appointment in the Forestry Department? We were not so petty as to object to a relation of a Minister being appointed. When Colonel Mentz was Minister of Lands his own brother-in-law (Mr. Allen) was appointed as a member of the Land Bank. Did they make any objection then? Now I come to the case of Mr. Vermaak. The hon. member for Illovo called him an “outsider.” If there ever was a family in South Africa and Natal which is respected by all of us, then it is the Vermaak family. The hon. member for Illovo knows well that that is one of the most respected and esteemed families in Natal.

On a point of order, I made it perfectly clear I was quoting from a letter. I did not say he was an outsider, and when the Minister questioned the use of the word I explained that it indicated merely that the person referred to was outside the department!

Was it right then of the hon. member to use such a letter when he knew that it was one of the most esteemed families in Natal? I challenge any member of the South African party to say that he would make any use of such a letter if he has any respect for South African families.

It is because his name is Vermaak.

The hon. member for Illovo also mentioned how one of the inspectors wrote a poor English letter. I then made a challenge to hon. members opposite. There are now two inspectors who cannot write English of the standard of the Natal B.A. They, however, were appointed on a 24-hours’ agreement, and I repeat the challenge now. I will send a telegram this afternoon dismissing them, provided hon. members opposite will agree that I can also dismiss all the English inspectors who do not know Afrikaans. Do hon. members accept it? No, they remain quite quiet because they want the knife only to cut with one edge. No, that cannot take place because the knife must cut both ways. Another matter was raised in connection with Mr. du Plooy, who has suddenly become such a terrible man. He cannot be a weak official in Natal, because he was appointed by the South African party Government. The late Government must have loved the Du Plooy family very much, because his two brothers, his father, and his father’s son-in-law were also appointed. Because Du Plooy now apparently has Afrikander leanings and possibly said that he was a Nationalist, he must be ruined in Natal. To punish the hon. member he will remain there, and I will send still more Nationalists to Natal. The hon. member was also terribly indignant about an anonymous letter I received, and in connection with which I had instructions given to Du Plooy to go into the matter. It often occurs that letters come in to the department, and that we then ask for information from one of the officials in the district whence they come, without going through the usual channels. It was not done exclusively in that case. In this case the anonymous letter was put before me. I thought that Du Plooy knew his district well, and told my secretary to send it to him to see if he could find out anything. Du Plooy possibly acted childishly in regarding himself as a commission of enquiry—which was not the case —but the fact is that the letter was sent to Du Plooy, and that he made a report. I did not take notice of it, but the complaint came in that Du Plooy had borrowed money. Now it is said that I reprimanded Du Plooy because he had been guilty of political propaganda. No, not at all. It was because he had borrowed money. I pointed out to him that it was against the public service regulations, and that if he did it again he would be discharged. I hope that next time the hon. member for Illovo will not just try to find fault with an Afrikaans official.

What ale you going to do in connection with the extortion of money by Du Plooy?

If the hon. member brings any complaints before me of an official extorting money from anyone I will take action at once.

What about the man who broke up public meetings?

I do not know whether the House ought to take too much notice of the hon. member. He made accusations the other day about the breaking up of meetings, and that a certain Malan took an active part of the polling booth. Malan wrote to me on the 12th April. 1927, in relation to the report in the “Natal Mercury,” that he took no part in the election, and that his statement can be verified by Sergt. Mitchell of the police, and by the polling officer, Mr. Van Reenen. Malan says that he only exercised his vote. How can we then take notice of complaints by hon. members opposite.

You made a mistake in mentioning the letter.

Why then did the hon. member raise it? Can he tell me that he settled the matter with Malan when he saw him. The hon. member did not get up here and say that he had accused an official falsely. No he remained silent about it, so that no one could know that the accusation was unfounded. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) spoke about compulsory tobacco co-operation in Vredefort. Let me point out to the hon. member that the Act lays down that if 75 per cent. want to sell their produce through the co-operative society the other 25 per cent. are compelled to also sell through the society. They need not join nor undertake any responsibility. It is, therefore, not compulsory co-operation. As for Vredefort, 79½ per cent. of the produce was represented in the co-operative society. The hon. member shakes his head. I promised him recently to have it enquired into again, and got a report from the inspector yesterday in which he says that that is the correct percentage with reference to tobacco producers. There will always be some dissatisfaction just as at Oudtshoorn. As a result of compulsory co-operation, the people there made a profit of £30,000, but yet there are still people who are dissatisfied about compulsory co-operation. I can, however, tell the hon. member that if the step had not been taken it would have meant the ruin of the farmers there, and I hope that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) will help to encourage co-operation, and not to increase dissatisfaction. I know that the hon. member has the best intentions.

Why do you not submit it to a referendum?

The law does not provide for such a thing. How then can I do it? I must simply act according to the law, and I have done so. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) uses every opportunity to make an attack on me, because we do not export enough maize to Australia. If the hon. member had read a little he would know that Australia refuses to admit our maize on the ground that it is produced by native labour. Is the hon. member prepared to recommend Natal to produce the maize with white labour? Will he be able to effect that in Natal? What use is it then making an attack on me? Various attacks have been made on the divisions of economy and marketing, and the question was asked, what they are doing? The division has already investigated hundreds of markets and issued reports recommending changes. They are now busy on various surveys, especially with regard to cattle farming. They advise the farmers how to farm in the best way, and send out regular reports in connection with agricultural matters. Then they see to the harvest reports. It is said that these are often late. We provide accurate reports, and, therefore, they require a little time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), in connection with compulsory co-operation, made an attack on the Boere-Saamwerk and the Farmers’ Co-operative Union. Let me tell the hon. member that the Act in connection therewith was passed through this House under the late Government, and that the societies were registered under that Government. Now the hon. member comes and wants to throw the blame on me. I do not think the hon. member is very serious. He also made an attack in connection with ostrich feathers. What is the position? On the motion of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) they were brought under the Agricultural Credits Act. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) voted for it, and, as far as I know, raised no objection.

He did object.

Did he ask for a division? No. Parliament approved it, and now I am attacked for it. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has mentioned the £112,000 lent to the Oudtshoorn Co-operative Society, and the complaint is made that persons who do not belong to the society also have to pay the levy. That is according to the law. But then hon. members say that the Land Bank was opposed to the loan of £112,000. The position is that this House voted on the matter, and is responsible for it, and not the Land Bank.

Where did we vote for it?

On the loan estimates. Did the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), who would surely spot a thing of that nature, mention it and protest against it? The hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) asked me a few questions about Basutoland, and in the first place about scab brought from there to the Union. The Government of Basutoland’ is engaged at the moment in building dipping tanks from at our boundaries right into the middle of Basutoland. Some years ago a simultaneous dipping took place, and I asked the Governor-General to assist continually in that respect as far as he could. If it is necessary, I will see that steps are taken to recommend another simultaneous dipping for Basutoland. With regard to the fencing of the boundary the Government of Basutoland has agreed to consider each case on its merits, and pay half the cost where a farmer wants to fence. Then why should our Government pay as well? The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) talked about the concession tickets for dipping inspectors, and their abolition. I protested just as strongly against that, but the Railway Department say that they must run the railways in a business-like way. I am still busy with the Minister of Railways, however, and I hope that some alteration may yet be made. Naturally, that is a matter for the Minister of Railways. Unfortunately, the officials are unable to make use of their leave in the general holiday time when cheap tickets are made available. Then the hon. member spoke of Armoedsvlakte, and said that I should change this into an experimental farm, because it no longer, in his opinion, answers its purpose. The Department of Veterinary Science is still engaged in further experiments there, and I am going to make no change as long as they have to proceed with their experiments there. Then he asked whether the importation of cattle from Bechuanaland could not be prohibited altogether? Allow me to inform the hon. member that the importation from those parts where lung sickness prevails has already been totally forbidden. The hon. member then said’ that cattle could easily enter at the boundary, notwithstanding the agreement. Then they ought to be caught. We cannot appoint a lot of police along the whole boundary, but the farmers can assist in reporting when cattle come through, and then we can take steps to prevent it. Then the hon. member mentioned a scab inspector whose motor broke down. If an inspector has to go outside his area he receives a suitable allowance, but the hon. member cannot expect us to pay for officials’ broken-down motors. Where would that lead us to? Then I want, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) just to give the figures in connection with the reduction of scab. In 1923 the number of outbreaks was as follows: Cape Province, 3,005; Transkei, 1,552; Bechuanaland, 412; Transvaal, 1,264; Free State, 357; Natal, 1,235. In 1926 the figures were as follows: Cape Province, 1,307; Transkei, 1,682. That higher figure is to be explained from the fact that this Government found, shortly after taking over, that the number in the Transkei was much larger than 1,552, and was at the least somewhere near 3,000. Then in Bechuanaland, 290; Transvaal, 250; Free State, 21; and Natal, 915. The Free State was quite clear, but from time to time cases are still brought in, especially in connection with trekking in consequence of drought. Up to Friday last, for example, the Free State was clean, but since then I have received a telegram to the effect that a case has been brought in from the Cape Province, and also that a case has been discovered at Bethlehem of which the origin is as yet not known. May I just add to that that I am convinced that if such a terrible drought had not broken out in the Midlands, we would have been entirely free of scab in a few years’ time. Unfortunately, the great drought came, and it was impossible to take as drastic action as otherwise, but in spite of that, the position is particularly favourable.

I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter of special importance in connection with wool. It is usually said that we ought to make our wool a little stronger. We know that Australia made the mistake of making the wool a little too coarse, and the result is that buyers in Britain and on the Continent have to come to South Africa for fine wool, and for that reason I think we ought to be particularly careful. When experts talk of stronger wool, I think it often gives farmers a wrong impression, and I prefer that coarse wool be spoken of instead of strong wool. Then farmers will not be confused. I consider that it cannot be too often brought to the notice of the farmers in South Africa that South Africa should devote itself to fine wool, and not follow the way Australia has gone. Then there are also difficulties in connection with the packing up of wool. We know that the department specially warned farmers to pack their wool very carefully. I mentioned a case last year, and I hoped that the Minister would do something by regulation, but so far nothing has been done. The case I mentioned at that time was this—that someone had properly packed and marked a clip of wool which reached the London market, but the mark was removed and a totally different mark placed on his clip. I think that is not right. The farmer is very careful about the mark on his clip, and is known for his wool, and it is not right that his mark be removed and another mark be placed on it. That discourages the farmers, because it damages their name considerably if their mark is placed on another bale. I hoped that the Minister would do something in the matter. One difficulty we have is that 12 lbs. is subtracted from the weight of the bag for every bale of wool a farmer sells, while the bag weights 2 lbs. or 4 lbs. less. If a farmer buys a bag of coffee, he pays for the weight of the bag just as for the coffee, but in the case of wool even more than the weight of the bag is subtracted. The origin of this is that local sales used to take place in former years on condition that the buyers gave back the bale, and that is why some weight was subtracted. Now that farmers mostly send their wool away, and do not get their bags back, the weight is still subtracted. The buyers, however, always subtracted 2 lbs. more than the weight of the bag. When the weight of a bag was 8 lbs., 10 lbs. was subtracted, when the weight reached 10 lbs., 12 lbs. was subtracted, and when later bags of 12 lbs. in weight came into use difficulty arose, and the buyers flew for protection to the Minister, and they ensnared him. I know that they tried to catch his predecessor also, but at that time they could not manage it. The buyers now subtract 13 lbs., because the Minister has proclaimed that a farmer may not use any other bag than one which weighs 11¼ lbs.; we also get bags which weigh 12 lbs., and I have often had them. As soon as we used bags of 12 lbs. the buyers agreed not to import bags of that kind anymore, but the co-operative societies did import them again, so that the difficulty arose again. The buyers approached the Minister, and he decided that wool should not be exported in bags which weigh less than 11¼ lbs. As soon as the Minister decided that, a circular came out—

The dealers wanted the former Minister to issue a regulation that each farmer should show the weight of the bag on the bale, because as soon as they had that they could deduct accordingly. Now they have caught the present Minister in another way. As a result of the proclamation the farmers do not only lose the weight of the bag, but 1¾ lbs. extra wool as well. This is a matter the farmers will have to tackle later so that we do not lose anymore wool as has happened in the past. There is another question in regard to fencing. The State refuses to-day to contribute its share, as in the case of native areas. I think that the Minister must come to our assistance there. There is no better way of keeping scab from infected areas out, than camps made in such a way that the cattle cannot get through at all. In the ordinary “stock proof” camps scabby sheep can force their way through so that there is danger of infection from native areas. The Department of Native Affairs does not yet want to agree to contribute half the expense when a farmer who has an adjacent farm wants to erect jackal-proof fencing along the boundary. I hope the Minister will make that possible. Then there are farms the boundaries of which run up to the railway line. The Railway Administration now contends that it is not responsible for a share of the fencing costs. The Administration takes transfer of the ground where a line runs through a farm, and to a question I asked as to whether the Administration takes transfer for the right of way or full transfer, the answer was that the Administration has the right to allow the cattle of railway workers to graze along the line. [Time limit.]

I want to answer the questions of the hon. member at once. The matter of fencing by the Railway Administration will have to be raised on the discussion of railway matters. With regard to fencing on the boundary of native locations, the hon. member will see in the native Bills that the Minister of Native Affairs makes thorough provision for a fund to provide for cases of this sort. If the hon. member will be patient it will come. Then he mentioned the fact that the shopkeepers deduct more for the weight of a wool bale than is fair. If the farmers co-operate and stand together and tell the wool buyers that they are not going to sell to them unless they deduct the correct weight, or return the bag, the matter will be righted. That is a matter for the farmers themselves, because they in their thousands ought not to allow themselves to be frightened by fifteen or twenty buyers. Where the hon. member spoke of the proclamation, I may say that the farmers themselves recommended it. It affords uniformity. Why is the hon. member against it? Surely it is something the farmers themselves want. The hon. member also talked about wool experts. Allow me to tell him that we have the best wool experts in the world. At the wool sales we obtained higher prices even than what were paid for Australian wool, and the embargo of two years ago has been removed. I will bring the remarks of the hon. member to the notice of the wool expert.

There are a few points I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. Can notice not be given to the farmers’ societies what remedy to use in fighting the commando worm? There are different districts —amongst others my district—where most of the grass has been eaten off. If farmers could be informed by means of the Agricultural Journal” as to the way in which to combat it, it would be of great value, because this winter in many districts there is no food’ for the stock. I want to congratulate the Minister on not reducing the number of dipping inspectors, and I see that this year there are even thirty more inspectors than last year. That is a wise thing, because East Coast fever is a thing of which it is difficult to say at a given moment that it has been wiped out. It may be thought that the position is safe, but it may break out again a few months later. The hon. Minister spoke last year of a reduction in the number of inspectors but I am glad that he was not too hasty, because outbreaks occurred at more than one place again, in spite of the careful work done in the past. In general the inspectors do their work thoroughly. I want to know whether the department cannot inquire into what really happens on the eastern boundary of the Transvaal. I am certain that a lot of mischief is bred out in Swaziland with regard to East Coast fever, and that we, who are in the adjacent territory, have to suffer If East Coast fever breaks out on a district where the roads are not good, then it is not only inconvenient for the farmers on whose farms the disease appears, but for the whole neighbourhood, because the farmers as a result of the quarantine are not in a position to get their produce to market. I suppose that effect will be given to the report of the East Coast Fever Commission, because the commission came into close touch with the farmers and got practical hints from them as to how to set to work with the least possible inconvenience to farmers. Last year I appealed to the Minister for better pay for dipping inspectors, and although the vote for dipping inspectors is a large one. I want to ask the Minister to consider the matter again. If it cannot be done in all cases, then the Minister can get reports from the veterinary surgeons in the districts, on particular places. There are parts where the inspectors live in the towns and are on the railway, and can, therefore, live on their allowances, but dipping inspectors do not necessarily live near the railway, but, perhaps, far up in the mountains where the costs of transport are high, and these cannot be placed on the same footing as the inspectors in the towns. Mealies are dearer, and it costs more also to have horses shoed. In the mountain areas an inspector cannot do with less than two horses if he is to do his work properly. I can name one example, viz., Kaapse Hoop. The department knows of the case. The cost of living is particularly high there. There is another matter I want to complain about, namely, that the Division of Tuinbou is now a subdivision. If the Minister will refer to the annual report of his own department he will see how many millions of fruit trees have been planted in the Union. There are about 13 million fruit trees, bearing, with those that cannot bear yet, soft and citrus fruit. Last year fruit to the value of £1,000,000 was exported, of which £225,800 was for dried fruit. The astonishing progress in the past year, and the large scale on which fruit trees have been planted, causes me to foster the opinion that the fruit growers are entitled to ask that the Division of Tuinbou should not only be a subdivision. It affects them in so far that if the head of the division is a highly placed official he will be able to do more for the sub-department for which he is specially responsible. I do not think that the position of the head official in the Division of Tuinbou is in keeping with the value of the fruit industry to South Africa. I see that there are four horticultural experts, and I would like to know from the Minister how many have been specially trained in citrus-growing. Then there is an amount of £180 for the experimental farm Thankerton, but I think that must be a mistake, and it must be Nelspruit.

I would like to ask the Minister something with regard to our wine export to Great Britain, our best customers, I suppose, at present, and likely to be in the future. Some years ago our export was as high as £116,000, whilst in 1925 it fell as low as £36,000, and I am glad to say that in 1926 there was an increase up to £44,000, and let us hope that from now onwards the increase will be considerably augmented. In this respect it would be very interesting if the Minister, or the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) would tell us what the result has been of their visit, and what the prospects are in connection with our wine export. Then the Minister, in replying this afternoon, laid down an axiom that because one did not object to a particular item, it must be taken as agreed to. That was an extraordinary axiom, and for that reason I propose, very briefly, to take him through his estimates. I will deal with a few items. I want to refer him to item (G) (3) on page 132, Education and extension experiment stations. £4,600. Then I want to take him to page 136. There is a new appointment of a part time director, £200. Perhaps he will also deign to explain that. Then I want to take him to page 143, one principal poultry officer starting at £621. I would like to draw the attention of the committee to this particular item. It will be seen that the scale is fixed at £270, rising by £20 to £350, yet, instead, we find the gentleman appointed was immediately in receipt of £621. On page 143 I find, under G1, that the number of the staff has increased rom 25 to 63. Will the Minister kindly explain the reason for this increase? On page 144 I see that the staff numbering 39 has been increased to 50. Perhaps the Minister will kindly explain the necessity for that increase. On the same page I see a new office has been created—“assistant chief and superintendent of co-operation.” The salary scale is £700, rising by increments of £30 to £850. The gentleman, however, does not begin at the bottom of the scale, but at £798. Perhaps the Minister will kindly explain that also.

We all know our Minister of Agriculture by now, and we all know that when hard pressed his only defence is to become aggressive and abusive. The hon. the Minister raises his voice to high gear, and adopts a hectoring and menacing manner to hon. members, as if they were a number of inferior servants, instead of the elected representatives of the people. I give him fair warning that he has gone far enough, and that it does not become him as a Minister. I hope we are going to have an end of behaviour of this kind, because, as far as I am concerned, I am not going to deviate from the attitude I have adopted. I have always criticised any appointment that savours of favouritism or nepotism. I have done so both when our party was in power in this House and in opposition. I adopted the same attitude when I was a public servant. I have always adopted an attitude of fairness to all men, irrespective of their race, and I was the first official in Pretoria in 1909 who reappointed Dutch officials of the South African Republic who had lost their appointments through no fault of their own. The Minister has seen fit, in order to hide what to the mind of the public savours of nepotism and favouritism, to make insinuations, and jeers against me as if I had one idea—to exclude Afrikanders from the public service. As far as I am concerned, I hurl that charge back in the teeth of any man who makes it. The charge is quite untrue. The man who says that I am here to object to certain appointments solely on the ground that the persons selected are Afrikanders is making a charge that is not true, and he knows it is not true. The Minister has succeeded in making a great deal of noise this afternoon, but he has entirely failed to dispose of what I have brought up against him—that his manager on a farm bordering on Swaziland, an area which is considered by the veterinary authorities to be one of the most prolific sources of East Coast infection did not dip the cattle on a prescribed dipping day, and the Minister justifies the action of his manager. That charge stands, whatever the Minister says. He has not disposed of the serious charge I brought against him that whilst he is carrying on war against stock diseases, he endeavours to justify the action of one of his paid employees who is found guilty by the magistrate. The Minister says the man was acquitted, and I defy him to prove that. From a certified copy of the proceedings I hold in my hand, I reassert that the Minister’s statement that this man was acquitted is devoid of truth. The judgment of the magistrate, Mr. Vos, was that the accused was guilty, and this judgment was arrived at after a full hearing of the evidence of the dipping inspector and of the accused and his witnesses. Under cover of a paltry suggestion that I dislike the dipping of my own cattle the Minister has said I bring these matters up because my object is to hurt the feelings of Afrikanders, which is absolutely wanting in truth. The Minister has told us he is not a relative of du Plooy. I congratulate him on that, because here I have established that du Plooy pressed a charge based on an anonymous letter against a dipping supervisor which he would not show to the person charged, but showed it to a third party, and extorted a loan from the person accused. His other conduct stamps Mr. du Plooy as a man who is absolutely undesirable to be employed in the in the very important work—

Why did your party appoint him?

At that stage these grave charges had not been brought against him. Does it hold good that everybody appointed by the S.A. party is there for life? The very converse appears to be the case in regard to the sheep inspectors appointed by the S.A. party who from Gen. Enslin downwards were put out of office at one full swoop when the Minister came into power. The Minister has endeavoured to justify the retention in office of one of his nephews against whom a charge was made. One would imagine that these charges were made through political animus. On the contrary, most of the persons who complained against him were Nationalists. They complained that this man’s action was exposing their cattle to infection from East Coast fever. [Time expired.]

I am sorry that I do not quite agree with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick.) The du Plooy family living in Natal, father, son and son-in-law are well known to me personally, and I am very sorry that I must differ in this way from the hon. member for Illovo, because one of them possibly has committed a fault, the matter is now being discussed here, but my experience is that the du Plooy’s who filled the positions of scab inspector and sheep inspectors were always honest and acted in a just manner, and I have the greatest respect in the world for the old du Plooy in particular. I believe he is also there in Natal. He has sacrificed a tremendous amount for his country and people, and I think that if a further appeal were to be made to him to-day he would be prepared to make further sacrifices. I do not want to go further into the matter, but I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Illovo. I, however, want to touch upon the question of the cattle market. The Minister will agree with me that cattle farming during the last year or two has been in a very bad state in our country. We heard that markets were being opened in Italy and Central Europe and that there would possibly be an outlet for our cattle, but if the cattle farmers are to wait till those markets are opened then they will have to wait quite a few years and I think that the Minister will have to use all his energies to see if he cannot create a better market for our cattle and cannot improve our home market. Cattle are still constantly arriving from Rhodesia and I want to ask the Minister if something cannot be done to protect our own market more. I know that this is a very difficult matter, but still I think that the time has come to stop the import from Rhodesia more and to protect our local market. We cannot in the present circumstances compete with Rhodesia. The farms there are very extensive and cheap and a farmer there often has a few hundred thousand cattle. That is impossible in our country and the importation of cattle from Rhodesia is detrimental to our farmers. I think, notwithstanding the difficult position, that the Minister should try to put further restrictions on importation. Then I want to say something else in connection with the importation of tobacco. Some time ago we discussed in this House the importation of tobacco from Rhodesia and an agreement was entered into that Rhodesia might only export good tobacco here. I have a letter here now from the Rustenburg Co-operative Society saying that they feel that a certain quality of tobacco is still being imported which is not exactly contrary to the law but almost so, tobacco which is pretty close to the law. The Act says that no sweepings or bad tobacco or crumbs may be imported, but tobacco is still imported to-day which almost comes within the law and causes much damage. I feel very strongly on the point. We are trying our best to get the tobacco industry on a better footing by means of compulsory co-operation and by giving the farmers who are still struggling today an opportunity of making their living out of tobacco culture, but if Rhodesia is to be allowed to send in so much tobacco then I am afraid of the future. I should like the Minister to see what kind of tobacco is still being imported. Much has been said about compulsory co-operation by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik.) We know very well that if the Act did not exist the tobacco farmers would not be able to carry on to-day. It is one of the best Acts we have. I am not in favour of compulsory co-operation in all produce, but for a few products, such, inter alia, as tobacco and ostrich feathers, it is a blessing. I will always support the Minister with respect to compulsory co-operation in regard to these products.

When I last spoke there was misapprehension for I sat down because I thought that the Chairman had said that my time had expired and I learned later that the Chairman had only said that I must not discuss railway matters.

The hon. member’s time had then expired.

Then I was wrongly informed. The Minister said that the matter of fencing came under the railway administration, but I mentioned the subject because I wanted his help. I made it clear to him that the railway administration itself regarded itself as the owner of the ground, including the water and grazing rights. Therefore, I think that the administration must come under the Fencing Act. I know that someone took counsel’s advice and that it was to the effect that the administration ought to assist. As for the bags of 11 lbs. I say myself that that is the right thing, and I admit that the stronger the bags are the better. My complaint is, however, that the Minister issued the proclamation that no one could export wool in bags lighter than 11¼ lbs. and that he thereby made it easier for the buyers to come to a decision. Here is the report I received—

I also have a second report her which amounts to the same. I do not regard this as so fair because on the (English market the actual weight of the bale only is deducted. It also seems to me that the Minister is still always engaged in refining his officials and that he thinks an official cannot do his work properly unless he holds the same political opinions as the Minister. The case of an inspector who served for a long time under the late Government was brought to my notice and I believe he always gave satisfaction. He received notice that his services would no longer be required at the end of the month. The Minister, however, did not give the man a reason why he was discharged. I asked a question about it and was told that the notice of discharge was in accordance with the conditions of employment, and that the official received previous notice that his work was unsatisfactory. I then asked the Minister if he would lay the papers on the Table and he did so. He also said that the official was 53 years old. If he had to retire one would have expected that he would get the leave be was entitled to but it was not granted him. Now the Minister shelters behind the fact that the official was warned beforehand that his services were unsatisfactory. The Minister, however, had a control inspection done in the area where he is. From the papers laid on the Table it appears that goats were placed in quarantine on the 4th May at Klipkuil; but on account of drought could not be immediately dipped; on the 10th September. 1926, they were again inspected by the official and declared quite clean after which he cancelled the order. On the 18th September, 1926, Senior Inspector Currie inspected the goats and could at first discover nothing, but afterwards found a goat with a scabby nose. He scratched off the scab into a bottle and said the next morning that he had found a louse, but the regulations say that he must show it to the person and that he must not only see it himself. Therefore I do not regard the matter so seriously. Another complaint against the inspector is that Senior Inspector Currie found scab that was six months old at Casefontein. If we accept that, was it not the duty of the Minister to prosecute the owner of the farm? That was not done.

I do not institute prosecutions, the inspectors do that.

If Mr. Currie found scab which was six months old why did he not institute a prosecution?

Make a complaint and I will take action.

A further complaint is that he declared the farm Brakpoort clean on the 17th July, 1926, although Mr. Currie on the 30th August, 1926, found two flocks out of three badly infected. The man, however, was not prosecuted. This is an accusation of so serious a kind that an inspector ought to be dismissed for it, but there no prosecution was instituted. Therefore I have the right of asking why it is that the man is not only discharged but that the Minister refuses to grant him the leave which is usually given to inspectors. [Time limit.]

I notice in the Estimates that a fairly large sum of £16,000 is set aside for entomologists, and I want to ask now whether that division is worth the money. What have the insect experts done. Repeated complaints have been made that if an investigation is asked for’ as to the damage done on the high veld to the mealies then it is not long before a pamphlet is sent in which the life of the insect is described, how it originates, how the germination takes place and how the mealies are destroyed. Not once has it been explained how to destroy the insect. I am very serious on this point. The snails in the high veld and in the Transvaal have done more damage than the locusts. When the locusts get into a part of the country the Minister goes there with a whole army in order to fight the plague. I would like the Minister to listen. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) can postpone his conversation. I do not condemn the locust fighting, but in the case of the mealie stalkborers the life history does not assist us. Every year the damage is terrible.

The farmers ought to plough during the winter.

That just shows you what knowledge the Minister has of the matter. You can plough in May, June, July and August, but when the plague comes all the mealies are eaten up. Farming becomes impossible for the farmers with the high cost of fertilizers, the high railway tariffs, the expensive bags, labour and tools, and with the plague on top of that it may well be asked how the maize farmer can exist. The Minister smiles, but I should be glad if he would listen to me. The hon. member for Middelburg can wait until his time comes. If there is one thing that has to be studied then it is that question. If the Minister gives so little attention to my words I would rather sit down.

I move—

This is the third day, and after we have dealt with this head we shall be able to adjourn.

Perhaps if my hon. friend the Minister would consult the Table he would find that we have been engaged on this vote for seven hours and if he would look up the records of the House he would find that the time generally taken by the “Agriculture” Vote is about 11 to 14 or 15 and sometimes 17 hours. Under those circumstances, then I think my hon. friend will recognize that this is perhaps the most important vote, because agriculture, even he would consider to be the premier industry of this country, to burke discussion on a question of this sort after seven hours is, to my mind, extremely churlish. There are certain things I desire to ask the Minister, not for the purpose of merely giving him questions to answer, but for the purpose of giving information to the farming population. The Minister has reorganized his department. He has put under the one head botany, entomology and horticulture. He knows that horticulture is becoming one of the most important industries in this country. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been invested, nay, we are getting into the neighbourhood of millions. Hon. members would like to have an opportunity of knowing how that reorganization is being carried out, and whether we are going to have the best and most mature experience in connection with the horticultural department. I have got a letter which raises the question that my hon. friend the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) raised the other day, and that is in connection with the ostrich feather industry. This letter my hon. friend can see—

I have replied.

It is written by one of the leading ostrich-feather farmers in the midland districts, and he and his brother farmers are anxious to have a definite statement as to what the position of the industry is, whether money is being used for propaganda, as it was used before, or whether we are putting a levy on the export of ostrich feathers for the purpose of holding those feathers and getting a large amount of them in hand, and if so, whether we are not going to be put in the position of New Zealand, which tried to hold their dairy produce, with very nearly a calamity to the interests of dairy farmers. There are many other questions that have not been discussed, and that I and others are earnestly anxious to discuss. If the Government with a majority say that after a seven hours’ discussion on the agricultural vote “we will not even allow you your one evening a week on Tuesday,” well, we can do nothing but protest, but it is not a right or a fair thing to do, and there is not a single precedent for it in this House.

I wish to say a few words now. It is strange that almost since the moment I came into the House the last time this afternoon—it was not yet quarter past five—I have listened to everything that has been said here, and I must say that I have never seen a greater waste of time, and let me say a deliberate waste of time, than during the three-quarters of an hour since a quarter past five. All the time the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) sits quite and allows the time to be wasted. There is not one of us who does not feel and see that a great waste of time is taking place. Of the three-quarters of an hour there was scarcely five minutes taken up by anything which was really intended to obtain something, to attain something. Why did the hon. member for Fort Beaufort not take advantage of the opportunity to get up and ask for the information he now wants so badly. Silently he has allowed the waste of time and sat perfectly quiet. I can only judge as to the time I have been sitting here, but in that time very little of importance has been raised.

Your own people have been talking.

No, not after I came in. Not a single Nationalist has spoken since that time. I listened to the speeches and noticed how one hon. member even rose and played the fool regarding the way in which the time of the House was being wasted by him. In the circumstances I cannot possibly agree to the debate being adjourned, and I think that we have a perfect right to say that this Vote must first be passed.

The hon. gentle man asks me why I did not intervene at an earlier stage of this debate. The Prime Minister might have known that a very sad ceremony took place this afternoon, and I considered it my duty to be present. He ought to have known that. In connection with my absence, I personally interested myself in learning how long the debate had continued, and I came to the conclusion that if you sat to six to-night you would not have sat for more than seven hours, and as the usual procedure is to give this debate a much longer period than seven hours, I came back as early as I could to find what was the procedure for to-morrow afternoon. The matter is in the hands of the Prime Minister. If he considers the committee is not to have an opportunity of discussing the agricultural vote he has a solid phalanx behind him, but I can tell him in an important vote of this sort he really should not try to curtail the liberties and privileges of hon. members who are representing agricultural constituencies and take a deep interest in this vote. We want to discuss the Minister of Agriculture’s re-organization of the department; putting three into one; and losing the services of Mr. Lounsbury, one of the best entomologists this, or any other country has ever seen. I was anxious to see whether we would not get the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister to realize that in losing the services of Sir Arnold Theiler one of the greatest blows has been struck at research in this country. Nobody realizes the ability of Dr. du Toit more than I do. But when Sir Arnold Theiler came to the age of retirement—

Order. I must point out to the right hon. member that the question now is whether we shall report progress and ask leave to sit again.

With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I shall devote myself to that; and despite my age my hearing is fairly good. I say again, and I am perfectly right in saying —I have not exhausted my ten minutes—that I make a fair and just appeal to the Prime Minister who is the controller of the House. If he is determined that these things are not to be discussed, there is no possibility of discussing them now, but I would like to point out that with only one night in the week when the House is not sitting hon. members have made their arrangements in advance, and the Minister is trying to take advantage of that to get through the vote without explaining to the committee, as he is bound to explain, any question which hon. members may put. I can only protest. If this is the way business is going to be carried on, it is not going to facilitate business in future.

I have never heard such nonsense as that just uttered by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). All these hours the debate has lasted and he has said nothing as yet, while the debate has run on dipping inspectors in Natal with Dutch names, something which has actually nothing to do with farming. And now the hon. member gets up and says that he has important points to raise. I am sorry that his members there have appointments and have made arrangements to go to bioscopes or the Tivoli and cannot sit until 11 o’clock. I think it is necessary for hon. members when the item “agriculture” is being dealt with to speak about agriculture, and about farming interests, but the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and others take up the time with small trivialities in Natal.

Might I point to another matter—I refer to the reorganization of one of the hon. gentleman’s departments which I think we ought to discuss and give the Minister an opportunity of explaining. Since the House met last year a very sad blow has been struck at the personnel of the Department of Agriculture in the death of the late secretary (Mr. P. J. du Toit), who practically sacrificed his health through his close attention to duty. I have nothing to say about the appointment of his successor, but in appointing the under-secretary the Minister passed over very capable men who have been in the Department of Agriculture for 20 years and have rendered great services. The Minister appointed as under-secretary a man who has been in the service for only two years. Is that not sufficient reason to ask leave to sit again to enable us to protest against a gross injustice being done to the permanent service?

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has not spoken repeatedly as stated, but has spoken only once to-day, and there are several important subjects which have not yet been touched upon. For instance, we want to refer to irrigation matters, and I want to ask what steps are being taken in regard to the eradication of joined cactus. It is a gross exaggeration to say that the whole of this afternoon’s sitting has been wasted, and mainly in “discussing men who have Dutch names.” Is it wasting time for us to treat the business of the country as men with responsibilities instead of behaving like a lot of spoilt boys, as the members opposite are doing? We desire time to enable us to discuss matters in a proper manner.

Don’t get excited.

I am not excited but indignant, and I have every reason to be indignant when important matters are treated now with such absolute indifference by Government members, some of whom criticized but now try to camouflage their own attack on their Minister. Our criticism is not always meant as “n aanval” as the Minister has said, and I may tell the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), in reply to his interjections, that agriculture is not solely concerned with the growing of pumpkins. I do not think anybody can be justified in saying that any obstructionist tactics or waste of time have taken place this afternoon. I have several matters to bring up in helpful criticism and in friendly spirit if I am met in the right way.

If this debate was not taking place now hon. members would already have had an answer to the points they wanted to raise. It is to be noticed that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has now been sitting here for three days—he was not here this afternoon —and that the important question of re-organization of the department referred to by him now has not been touched upon before by a single member opposite. If they are interested in agriculture then it should have been the one point for them to raise, but instead of that they have raised points of minor importance such as scab inspectors and other small matters. There were so few hon. members in the House that the Chairman had to ring for a quorum, and I think that there were just five hon. members opposite who were interested. Now they are aggrieved at our saying that the vote must be finished because they still have matters they wish to air, but now we find that the matter of sudden importance to them has been known since February. If the time of the House were wasted less in small matters I should ere now have given all the information, because I am prepared to extend all information. If we go on I will be able to give the necessary information before 11 o’clock. We are not so easy going as to run home and go to the bioscopes. If hon. members opposite are interested in agriculture they will be prepared to sacrifice the evening.

We have had the usual lecture from the Prime Minister directed at the Opposition in which he repeats his familiar accusation against us of wasting the time of the House. Perhaps the Prime Minister will not mind if I recall certain facts to his notice. This is the 17th May and we are now discussing Vote 28, and I defy any member to say that in any previous session in the last five years, except on the historic occasion when the Nationalists went on strike, that similar progress has been made. His colleague, the Minister of Finance, did something yesterday afternoon with the full consent of the Opposition, which no Minister of Finance has ever done before. He introduced his motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and it was discussed for two hours, and after that this Opposition which it is said is bent on obstruction and waste of time, allowed him to go into Committee and his financial proposals to go through Committee without a word of discussion and yet the day after the Prime Minister in his passionately unreasoning manner disguised under a cloak of coldness and reproof, accuses us of wasting time. [Interruption.] When this bickering has ceased I will make this challenge to the Prime Minister. Does he suggest that we as an Opposition were and have been seriously setting out to waste time? If so, it is an insult to us as an Opposition. I appeal to hon. members and to their sense of fairplay, and ask if we were setting out to waste time by what we did yesterday afternoon. We had a temperate and reasonable and short discussion, and took two stages in one afternoon. It is a shameful accusation to make and I am surprised that the Prime Minister should make it. I will also mention one other fact to the Prime Minister. This is what we may call one of the major votes of the Estimates. There are 11 major votes in the sense that those votes contain the salary of the Minister, and you have ruled that only under those votes where the salary of the Minister is included can one take advantage of the rule that permits a 40-minute speech and the practice has grown up in this House, rightly, I think, of concentrating on the votes which contain the Minister’s salary to discuss the whole policy of his various departments. Under this vote of agriculture four departments fall for discussion. Now what happened under the Justice Vote? We had a long and even what might have appeared to be a too long discussion on the Vote of the Minister of Justice, but everything germane to justice, police and the courts was raised and fully discussed on the Vote of the Minister of Justice, and, that having been done, there was not one member of the House who was prepared to raise any lengthy discussion on any of the other Justice Votes. In reckoning up the time taken up on this Vote, hon. members must bear in mind that we are discussing the whole Department of the Minister, and whatever other departments he may have, on the main Vote which contains his salary. No attempt at refutation has been made of the statement made by my right hon. friend (Sir Thomas Smartt), that normally the time given to this Vote is 10 or 11 hours. No fair-minded man on the benches opposite will get up for one moment and endorse the statement made by the Prime Minister that there has been a waste of time. [Interruption.] The hon. member who interrupted me will lose his dinner, and a good many more dinners if these tactics are continued. Now I want to say one word to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). I have sat in this House for 11 years with that hon. gentleman, and I have never yet heard him make a sensible or intelligent speech, but on the contrary I have heard a series of senseless and meaningless interjections. He has established a reputation for senseless flippancy in which he stands alone in this House. If he had ever made a sensible contribution to any subject under discussion, we could possibly forgive him, but, as I say, he only earns the justly merited contempt of members on this side when he continues those foolish interjections of his, and never makes a sensible speech.

I am glad to say that I am not so conceited as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). If I were to buy the hon. member at the valuation placed on him by most hon. members in the House, and sell him at his own valuation I would make a considerable profit. The hon. member has presumed to teach me a lesson, but I know that he is upset because the remarks I made hit home. I thank my stars that I do not take so much upon myself as the hon. member because then I should be going to meet the same fall as the hon. member will.

The Prime Minister said that he sat in the House for 45 minutes and that the discussion that then took place was intended to waste time. I take the strongest exception to that because I spoke during the last 45 minutes. If the Prime Minister means that I also wasted time then either he did not listen or he has no knowledge of the matter. Since the debate began I have sat here with my notes and the Chairman will know how many times I got up and failed to get an opportunity of speaking. When I spoke last my time had expired before I was finished. The Prime Minister knows that it is the policy of the Minister of Agriculture to get rid of all officials who have not the same political convictions as he has.

It is a pity we can’t get rid of you.

That won’t be so easy.

Wait until next election.

I mentioned a case of dismissal for which the Minister refuses to give the reason, and a case where the official reached the age limit and where the Minister will not recognize the leave which the official claims. Both persons asked me to raise their cases and I had not finished speaking on the second case when my time expired. I have also other notes which I have not dealt with. I am quite prepared to go on in order to finish. However, is it the intention of the Minister that we should remain here the whole night? I consider that the accusation with regard to the wasting of time is unfair. I hope that what is necessary and fair will be done.

I, too, take exception to the Prime Minister’s attitude over this question. The Prime Minister tells us himself he was here only three-quarters of an hour during the afternoon.

That is not so.

Well, then apparently he was not here even three-quarters of an hour. The more time he spent in this House the less justification he had for his remarks. He tells us we have been talking nonsense, and because we have been talking rubbish he proposes going on with the debate. What right has the Prime Minister to set himself up in judgment as to what we should criticise and what we should not criticise. It would be a sad pass if we had to come to him and ask him what we were allowed to speak about and what not. We take strong exception to this unctuous rectitude on the part of the Prime Minister. We have been discussing agriculture in the normal way. I do not think a single member on this side has got up this afternoon with the deliberate intention of wasting time. Every member has got up with some legitimate point of criticism. Some hon. members have not yet had a chance to speak, and they have important matters which they wish to bring forward. It is an important vote involving nearly £1,000,000, and we hear the Prime Minister telling us we are talking rubbish. It shows the amount of interest taken in agricultural matters on that side of the House. We are not tamely going to submit to the Prime Minister dictating what we shall or shall not say in this House. I hope he will see reason, and not come to the Committee in the present spirit in which he has come this afternoon.

I am surprised that hon. members opposite cannot give up one evening for farming matters. Are farming interests of such little value to them? Are the appointments they have made worth more than the farmers? If that is so then farming in South Africa is not worth much to them. Let us sit until 11 o’clock and discuss all the important points.

Now you are wasting time.

I am prepared to sit down if hon. members opposite will proceed with the discussion of this vote.

May I point out, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), that this year a third department, that of irrigation, comes under the hon. gentleman’s ministerial control. I am glad the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has come in, because I am going to appeal to him. Inside and outside this House he takes a great interest in irrigation, and he knows that matter was discussed very fully at the last irrigation congress. I would ask him to bring a certain amount of moral suasion on the Minister. The hon. member is anxious that that is discussed not in any party spirit but in the general interest of irrigators of the country. The Chairman will rightly call me to order if we pass the Minister’s salary and I discuss a question of policy if we get to this irrigation vote. The Chairman acknowledges this. Do not let us press this vote through now.

On a point of order. Has the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) the right to read a newspaper in this House?

I regret exceedingly that I have to speak in a language which is foreign to me on this occasion, but perhaps the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will not understand if I spoke in my own. If at any time the Minister was unfair during this entire debate upon the agricultural vote, I would have been the first man to protest. I cannot help expressing my disappointment at the small things that have been discussed, such as the appointment of inspectors and the eradication of scab. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) whom I respect and admire, is leading an Opposition which is out to villify in every respect the Minister of Agriculture in everything he attempts in the best interests of the country. We have had every opportunity to discuss irrigation and agriculture in their minutest details, but hon. members come along with little things which do not matter as far as agriculture is concerned. I deprecate action of this kind. It is with the object of carrying on unnecessary discussions that the Opposition is determined to keep us here. I would be very sorry if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture were to surrender to the overtures made from the other side to report progress. Let us see this vote through this evening.

The Minister of Agriculture has made a most absurd statement, for the agricultural vote has never been passed in such a short time as we are now asked to deal with it. Half the agricultural men on this side of the House have not said a word.

Why didn’t you?

Evidently the Minister thinks we can all talk at once. I have been waiting for an opportunity to bring up matters affecting my constituency. It is utterly impossible to get through all these multitudinous details in seven hours. The whole history of this Parliament shows that it has never been possible to get through the Vote in this time, and the Government by its majority is going to force agriculture into a position where it will not receive proper consideration. This is going on each year until we must regard it as a fact that the Minister of Agriculture is afraid of the discussion.

I got up four times this afternoon without an opportunity of speaking, and I have not yet spoken on this Vote. I would like to say that the Minister himself at 5.15 said that the tone of the debate had been very high. If that was so at 5.15 why should it alter immediately the Prime Minister comes in?

It was exhausted at that time.

It was not exhausted, because there were matters I wished to bring up, reasonable matters, and I have not had an opportunity. Take the debate we had with the Minister of Justice. He gave us every opportunity and never endeavoured to stop us. He was not afraid of criticism. He met us courteously and if we had the Minister of Justice sitting where the Minister of Agriculture is, we should have met with a totally digerent reception. Every year we get to this unfortunate position with the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture tries to bully us, and the more he does it, the more we will fight him. If he treats us with courtesy, we shall meet him in the same spirit. It is not fair. Many of us have made arrangements for to-night and we expect to be treated reasonably by the Minister.

Order. The hon. member is repeating the same thing over and over again.

Tell me, sir, in what respect I am repeating it over and over again. There are matters we are entitled to bring before the Minister.

You have said that before.

I submit the attitude taken by the Minister has been unreasonable, and I hope the country will make a note of the action.

If my hon. friend will not have pity on the members of the Committee, will he at least have pity on the officials and staff of the House, including the press gallery? They have not come with the idea of sitting beyond six o’clock, and to sit every night is a severe strain. Let me tell the Minister of Finance that he has to introduce an Appropriation Bill yet, which contains every single item in these Estimates: The Appropriation Bill contains a schedule of every single Vote that appears in these Estimates, and the Minister of Finance will see, if he adopts the same attitude, that when we get to that stage he is not going to save time, but he is going to lose time.

We will not be threatened by you.

The, Minister of Finance need not get so alarmed and so annoyed. We are beginning to realise that the Minister of Finance occasionally has a different side to his character from that which we have been giving him credit for. We had believed that the Minister of Finance was endued with the spirit of fair play.

You are not showing fair play at all.

We have been in the habit of seeing the Minister of. Finance possessing an unruffled temper and it is a grief to me to see that anything I should say should be the cause of ruffling the temper of the Minister of Finance, for whom I have a great affection and I really thought he would have assisted me.

As the hon. member knows, I have been present during most of the time while this debate has been going on. I have been sitting here on three occasions when the debate was absolutely exhausted, when the Minister replied. Take the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), I do not think it can be said that he takes a very great interest in agriculture. He wanted to hear replies to some of the silliest questions. Look again, for instance, at the little paltry things raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick.)

Do you say that the points raised by the hon. member for Illovo were paltry?

I do not think the way that opposition was brought forward showed that it was seriously meant the way the subject was being pursued all the time. I think last year we had exactly the same thing. He quoted statistics and we had the statistics last year. I think it was proved that compared with the time given to this vote on former occasions an equal amount of time has been given on this occasion. We have generally given not more than a day to the vote of each Minister.

What about the Interior Vote, which you passed without a word?

I do not think we can fix time for any vote. Some years, I dear say, hon. members would have important subjects to bring forward. The amount of discussion which has been going on this vote has shown that members were not very serious. We have been wasting time on trifling things.

The Minister who has just sat down rather crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s of the previous speaker, but I cannot reconcile that attitude with the eulogy which the Minister gave to the Opposition at a quarter past five. He then said the debate had been on a high plane, helpful and instructive. How can you reconcile that with the statement which has just been made by the Minister? I, myself, got up in my place four or five times and I was not seen. It cannot be said that the debate was exhausted. My point is that although many of us have tried time after time to get a hearing, and have risen in our seats in the ordinary way and have called upon you, Sir, to give us a chance to speak, but yet we have not yet been able to get a hearing, because you have to call upon members, as you do impartially in different parts of the House. None of us questioned that, but this fact proves that we have not been wasting time deliberately and there are matters of importance still to be raised.

I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that hon. members are casting pieces of paper across the floor of the House.

I have not noticed that.

I do not think the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) need draw attention to that. It is only symptomatic of the ribald way in which things are dealt with by members on the other side. You are not helping things forward by that kind of conduct. We know the suave way in which the Minister of Justice got his Vote through. I think if the Minister of Agriculture were a little more courteous in his replies he probably would not have had any reason to complain, but I cannot admit that the debate has been exhausted, that the subjects have all been touched upon and that there is no other matter of importance that ought to be brought forward still. I will make another appeal to the Prime Minister. We are supposed to be an agricultural country primarily. There is in this House a predominance of members who are interested in agriculture in one form or another. In view of the fact that this question affects a very large section of the population, I ask the Minister to give a reasonable time for discussion and not use their majority.

You have wasted an hour already.

Are we to be sat upon— I would not like to be sat upon by the hon. member!—for ventilating important points?

Oh, shut up.

Parliament is a debating chamber where we are supposed to have the opportunity to express the views of our constituents. I ask for a free and unfetterd opportunity of discussing things in a reasonable and proper manner.

I do not often take part in discussions of this sort, and I would not have done now had it not been for the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I think nothing could have been more unfortunate, except the refusal of the adjournment, than the reasons given by these two honourable gentlemen for that refusal. I have listened to the criticism of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and I formed the impression that the Minister of Agriculture had a very serious case to answer in regard to these inspectors he has appointed in Natal and those he has dismissed, and I ask the Minister of Finance, who is a reasonable man, whether he thinks that the Minister of Agriculture has answered the questions put to him in a fair way. I ask any reasonable man on that side whether he gave satisfactory answers to the hon. member on the points raised. I myself feel a serious resentment against the Minister of Agriculture: when he was pressed as to these appointments he said he had sent the people there to bring a little intelligence into Natal. That sort of cheap jibe does not do any good in this House and it does not advance the progress of the Minister’s Vote. Of all the Ministers of the Crown we have to deal with there is no Minister so discourteous, so difficult to get on with, as the Minister of Agriculture. Why does he assume that we have any feeling against him? Why should we slight him more than any other Minister? If there is any feeling on this side of the House so far as members from Natal are concerned it is because we feel the Minister is not administering his department as he should do. He is not administering it impartially, and he is making appointments for political reasons. We make this charge against the Minister, that he is not impartial. He does not answer questions courteously and he gratuitously goes out of his way, in order to avoid difficult questions, to slight the province from which I come. The Minister seems to make a point, even when he does answer questions, of doing so inaudibly that one cannot understand him. I ask the Minister of Finance whether I am exaggerating the position.

How do you know if you don’t understand a word he said?

I am referring to the reasons given by the Minister and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) who alleges that the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is wilfully wasting time, and secondly that he is making a personal and unjustified attack on the Minister. My criticism I think is justified. If the Minister of Agriculture has any complaint to make as to the conduct of this debate he has only himself to blame. Those answers one does get have not removed the grave suspicion that there has been favouritism. Surely if the hon. member feels that, he is entitled to ventilate it in this House, and in any case if he is wrong the Minister could courteously answer him. May I give an instance of the difference in manner. Take the Minister of Justice. Could anyone have been more seriously attacked than he was and by the same member, but he courteously and succinctly replied to every charge laid against him.

Do you remember his Latin quotation?

That was the only blemish in an admirable speech.

I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the Minister of Agriculture took up more of our time than any other member in this House. I should think of the seven hours of the debate he has certainly taken up two. I would like to stress what has been said as to the persistently and consistently discourteous attitude of the Minister of Agriculture. There is always a dog fight when he replies. We can stand truth, but we cannot stand discourtesy. He seems to think that blustering and bellowing like a bull of Bashan is giving a reply. I hope this discussion will once more be a warning and a deterrent to the Minister. This will teach him a lesson. He is taking his lesson, and we are going to ram it home to him.

He will never learn a lesson from you.

He would have had his vote through if he had treated us with common courtesy. He will certainly learn no manners from the hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. W. B. de Villiers). Let him remember that he is a Minister of the Crown. The hon. member for Barkly West seems indisposed. He does not seem quite well; he is barking, yes. He seems on the verge of a fit. We were talking about good manners, something with which the hon. member for Barkly is not acquainted. We will teach the Minister that he will not get his vote through if he treats us like this. I hope the Prime Minister also will learn that unnecessary intervention on his part will not do any good. Up to the time of his intervention all went merry as a marriage bell, and it was only when the Prime Minister intervened that things went wrong. This waste of time is due to the attempt of the Prime Minister to put in his oar.

I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the adjournment. I happen to know there are many important subjects which are not yet touched upon. I am not one who can be accused of holding up the business of the House.

I would also like to make an appeal. What I want to discuss with the Minister is the question of Moths.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has attacked me and given out that the Minister of Agriculture cannot learn manners if he has to learn them from me. I just want to say that I have never got so far as to meet the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), and I hope that I never shall. Therefore, I would like to know what he knows about my manners. If we had more of that kind of Afrikander in South Africa then it would be a sad thing for South Africa, because I have never seen a bigger jingo. I hope he will never have the opportunity of meeting me, and if he wants to learn manners he can learn them in the Cape Province, he would not have learnt them at Madagascar, and neither when he as a boy ate snakes eggs.

Will the Prime Minister agree to the motion even at this hour? Might I point out, with all respect to the Prime Minister, that the leader of this House should at least look as if he was a live figure, and he might realise in his position, although he is annoyed, what is going on. We have a right to expect a certain amount of courtesy from him.

I do not think we ought to take this motion until the Prime Minister wakes up. The Prime Minister yesterday showed deliberate discourtesy in a very important debate, and of far-reaching importance. He is not really asleep, but it is deliberate discourtesy, and I protest against this behaviour. We are the representatives of the people, and although the hon. members across the way may not agree with this, we are entitled to courtesy. We know what to expect from the Minister of Agriculture, but generally we have had respectable treatment from the Prime Minister.

Might I call attention to the fact that perhaps we might have been criticising the Prime Minister unjustly he may have had a fit. Something may have gone wrong with his health. During the few weeks we know he has had rather a difficult time, and it may have affected his health. Perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, might give instructions to wake him up.

Seeing that the vote is to be discussed at some length, I suggest in fairness to the Minister and the members that we adjourn for half-an-hour.

I am quite prepared to go on.

The Zululand tsetse fly experimental station has been closed down. I believe that Mr. Harris, the official in charge of the station, has reported on the result of his five years’ investigation. The work that he has carried on is not only of importance to South Africa but to the whole of Africa, and there are many people who are very interested in the work which has been carried on. I hope the report will be published. A report in the official journal of the department referring to the work of Mr. Harris, states that the only way to deal with the evil on a large scale in Zululand is by gradually diminishing the number of the larger wild animals on which the flies live. If that is correct, all the arguments hitherto advanced for the preservation of game, on the ground that they do not endanger the existence of stock, falls to the ground. [No quorum.] Another matter I want to raise is in connection with cotton. The Minister will remember a deputation visited Pretoria and interviewed him in connection with a bounty on cotton growing. The world’s price is so low, and the conditions in this country make it unproductive that the industry will cease to exist unless stabilized. I would be glad if the Minister will give us information as to his mind on the matter. Another matter is that of experimental plots on the northern Zululand farms. I understand the Minister has departed from the policy that previously obtained and that the experiments will no longer be carried on in the manner outlined. The amount of money voted for this purpose to Mr. Meyer was utterly inadequate for the purpose. It was impossible for the farmers to carry on the experiments and pay for their own labour. I understand Mr. Thornton, director of field and animal husbandry, has been to northern Zululand, and the Minister proposes to send a student from the tropical and the sub-tropical school of agriculture at Trinidad to Hluhluwe. I should like to hear from the Minister exactly what is contemplated. Another matter is that of irrigation. Hitherto the policy has been to confine our attention to building works in the desert, in those regions where very little rain falls and where there are few chances for the dams to fill. I submit to the Minister of Agriculture there is a river practically every six miles along the coast in Natal, and millions of tons of water are running into, the sea wasted, and yet we spend, millions of money in these futile attempts to. Water the desert. To-day the irrigation commission, instead of going round the areas where water can be put on the land cheaper than anywhere in South Africa, are wandering round the Cape and the dry regions of the Union. If we concentrated on an irrigation policy of utilizing water by means of simple diversion that is running to the sea, we should be on a sounder economic footing and the resulting opportunities would enable a greater number of people to make a living out of the land. The Minister might discuss this matter with the irrigation commission and get them to adopt a policy that would be of value to the country instead of dealing with the trivial matters on which they are engaged at the present moment.

The hon. member has pointed out that they have large rivers in Natal suitable for irrigation. It is not long ago since I took over irrigation and I assure the hon. member the irrigation commission is not wandering over the Cape for nothing. They are investigating schemes which were built years ago and none of which were payable, and the Government’s intention is to put them in proper order before embarking on new schemes. I agree we should direct our minds to places where there are rivers and volume of water but we shall not embark on a new scheme until we get the information we require on the other schemes which have involved millions of Government money. I hope next session, eight or nine months from now, that the whole question will be sent to a select committee, and proposals will be put forward about new schemes suggested by the Irrigation Commission and the House can consider them. In Natal there is a series of schemes to be considered, but a proper survey, soil survey, has to be made first. Years ago the Government embarked on schemes before proper surveys had been made with the result money was put on a white elephant and is lost. I am not going to embark on that policy. I am going slow for a year before embarking on schemes that we should be sorry for in the future. With reference to the deputation of cotton-growers I pointed out to the deputation that it was impossible to go on granting bounties. [No quorum.] We know a few years ago they paid a bounty on the export of beef and the result was only certain companies got it. I explained the position and the deputation was satisfied on a promise that the Board of Trade will enquire. I pointed out they would have to grow cotton cheaper than they were doing at present and I showed them a letter from a Rustenburg planter which showed that cotton could be grown cheaper than was being done at the moment. The deputation then asked me whether I would not make a thorough enquiry so that I could tell the people there in what way they could grow cheaper cotton. I promised to do that and the case has been referred to the Board of Trade and Industries and I hope to have a report from those gentlemen soon. The hon. gentleman brought up the question of the experimental plot in Zululand. There has been no change of policy in reference to that experimental plot. The officials whom he was speaking about are now in Natal and they will start at once.

How are you starting? Are you going to have a Government experimental station?

No, we are having an experimental plot, but, if it is necessary to pay certain wages there, then, of course, the Government will pay wages. I visited those places and I know the difficult position that those people are in in Zululand. I will do my best to find out the best products to grow there so that I can advise these settlers, who are a good type of men. The hon. gentle man has brought up another question about the enquiry in regard to nagana. The hon. member will recollect that when I when down to Zululand with him some two years ago; I said the people of Natal have now to make their choice. If they want a game reserve there they will have to do away with farming. At that time the officers of my department said it was quite clear to them that as long as you have big game you will have the tsetse fly. The Natal authorities refused to do away with the game and no blame therefore can be laid on my department.

Does Mr. Harris confirm your views?

He recommended that the reserve should be closed. A report will be made to me by the officers of the department as to what further action we should take.

May I make my point clear to the Minister?. He will know from his visit to Natal and his interview with the Provincial Council of Natal that those people had to be convinced that it is necessary to do away with the game in order to get rid of the tsetse fly. The department’s officers, I understand, and the Minister held that the doing away with the game will kill the tsetse fly. I understand, too, that Mr. Harris leads him to the same conclusion. Therefore, what I am urging on the Minister is that Mr. Harris’ report should be published in order that public opinion can be informed on this very important subject.

I might point out to the hon. gentleman that the report is being sent to the Administrator of Natal, so that the executive of Natal may have it before them. The hon. member will recollect that last time they refused to agree. They said they were not satisfied with the information that Dr. du Toit and the experts of my department gave them.

Will the Minister kindly have the report printed? It is very hard indeed for a scientific man who has spent five years of his life in the wilderness making a study of this particular business, not for the money to be got out of it, that his services should not be recognized. He is being very inadequately paid. He has spent five years of his life in that area without any recognition whatever and I am told that he has now been sent to Port Elizabeth and is an inspector of seed, or something of that sort. I think it is due to the scientific branches of our services that we should recognize their work. Mr. Harris report should be published. It is necessary to inform the people of Natal, and not merely the Administrator. [No quorum.]

I just want to say to the hon. member (Mr. Nicholls) that we fully recognize the work of Mr. Harris and that we are not giving him an inferior appointment. He is getting his salary and he did not want to go back again to that part. With reference to the report as the hon. member knows, printing costs a lot of money. If I can do it, I will have it printed, otherwise I will have it published through the departmental journal.

One of the questions I wanted to raise was the question of jointed cactus. [No quorum.] I think the Minister should know something about this subject, but I would like to point out to him and the House that the jointed cactus has become really a very serious national menace.

Surely the hon. member knows that this is a question for the Provincial Council.

I thought that would be the answer.

But the hon. member knows it.

The point I am going to raise on this subject is not a matter for the provincial council. I am coming to the place of the Minister’s department in this question. I am quite well aware that the subject of noxious weeds generally is in the hands of the provincial councils. That’s the pity. I do wish that there was some central control. What I want to point out to the Minister is that the chief entomologist who has left the service now, Mr. Lounsbury, some years back introduced into the country from South America an insect called the cacto blastus, which feeds on prickly pear, thrives generally on it, and destroys it better than anything else that has been discovered. Some colonies of this insect were introduced into the country and I understand they were tried out on all sorts of foodstuffs and fruit to see whether they would be a danger to the country and were found to feed upon nothing but prickly pear. I want to know whether those insects have been destroyed or whether they are still in existence. I want to know whether the department have not already made a complete test as to whether the insects would be likely to be a menace to our succulent feed plants or not. I think these insects have been in the country three years and there ought to have been time by now to make the tests thoroughly. The jointed cactus is a grave danger and is ruining thousands of morgen of land in the Eastern Province along the Fish and other rivers, and in the Midlands and is spreading rapidly. The matter has been brought before the provincial councils often, but nothing definite is done. I think this is one of the things that should be taken in hand seriously and at once and if necessary taken out of the hands of the provincial councils. I do think that something ought to be done to discover whether or not these insects are likely to be harmful, and if not to use them for the eradication of jointed cactus. These maters are of vital importance to many farmers in the Eastern Province. Once the jointed cactus gets into the Transvaal, into the low veld, you can pack up and leave that country. In Australia they have used the insect for the purpose of eradicating cactus and it is doing excellent work there and I think we ought to take advantage of their finding and use the insect in this country. On the question of irrigation I would like to know whether we are to wait for information about its work until the Irrigation Commission has concluded its investigations, and when we are likely to get a report. The first duty as laid down in the clause of the Act, to be undertaken by the Commission was to investigate the existing irrigation schemes and make recommendations as to their future handling. I would like to know how far they have got in their enquiries, because there is grave anxiety hanging over nearly all these irrigation schemes as to their future. Another point is, what is going to be done with regard to the recommendations of the last Irrigation Congress. I believe at that congress we got as near to an agreement as we are ever likely to reach between the upper and lower riparian owners. It is a question which has been of the gravest difficulty for years past. I am afraid if you do not take advantage of the agreement which was arrived at, you may find the whole subject opened again. It was understood that a Bill would be brought in at the first opportunity, and I think this session was certainly one, to deal with the amendment of the Act, especially in this regard, and I would like to know why it has not been brought in, whether discussion is still going on, or whether there has been a break-up of that agreement. With regard to what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said, I very largely agree there. I do not go to the length of saying that we are “watering the desert,” because we are not. These irrigation schemes have been of the very greatest value to the country, and the fact that some of them have been through periods of distress does not mean they are a complete failure. What we are watering is a semi-arid area of remarkably fertile soil which produces crops second to none in the world. However, I do think there is a great deal in what he said in regard to using the perennial rivers of this country to better effect than has been done in the past. Unfortunately, most of them run through country which, in the past, has been uninhabitable by white men, but now we can combat these drawbacks of maleria fever and I think those rivers ought to be used to better effect. But do not let us be led off thereby to neglect the irrigation of our dry areas in this country. I think the Orange River is an asset to this country that ought to be used, and we ought to find some means of harnessing it to our needs. Apart from irrigation possibilities I think the possibilities of using it for hydroelectric power at Aughrabies Falls ought to be seriously considered. The river has been neglected by every Government. If you take the aggregate of land on the banks of the Orange River from Aliwal North downwards, you have a very large area there. The whole question of the use of our water in this country wants to be tackled in a very comprehensive way. I would like to see a survey undertaken for works whereby that river might be taken out of its present watershed and used on the rich plains of the Karoo, and I believe such a way could be found. In the meantime, there is a vast amount of water running away uselessly annually. Surely we could put up a scheme similar to that they have on the Murray River in Australia, though we may not have a similarly large block of irrigable land. We ought to use the Orange River waters to far better effect than they are being used to-day. There is comparatively exceedingly little being done at present. [Time limit.]

May I reply at once to the questions the hon. member has raised. It seems the Opposition is very interested in this vote if you look at the state of their benches. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has raised the question of irrigation. I have already replied to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that next year I hope to bring before Parliament all the schemes which are recommended by the Irrigation Commission, and also all the old schemes which they are investigating now. He has asked me how it is we have not yet introduced an Act with regard to Clause 15 of the Act. It is impossible for me to bring up a Bill this session, but they are drawing it up now. It hope to have it published very soon, and then I am going to ask the Chairman of the Irrigation Congress to have a congress early in summer so that we can discuss the Act and see what amendments are required, so that I can use it next year. I come to the other points with reference to the jointed cactus. It is a question for the provincial council, but my department is doing everything they can to find out whether they cannot find other means of destruction. The hon. gentleman, I suppose, knows that they are making experiments with pentoxide.

I want some natural means.

We are also enquiring whether it cannot be useful used as food for animals. The insects were imported into the country, and entomologists, not long ago, had a conference on this question. These insects also attack prickly pears without thorns, and they are afraid, if they destroy the prickly pear, they may settle down to other vegetation of the country, and therefore it was decided to make further enquiries and destroy these. Mr. Fuller is fully alive to the question, and I can assure the hon. member that whatever we can do in that direction we shall do.

I endorse every word of the hon. member for Albany in connection with the jointed cactus. I feel convinced that if the Minister knew all the facts he would take more stringent measures to get rid of it. It was introduced as a flower many years ago, and it has extended from King William’s Town to Humansdorp. Nothing is being done to check its spread or to eradicate it. The Minister said it was a matter for local councils to eradicate. At one time it was within their power to deal with it, but to-day it has got beyond their control and has to be dealt with by the provincial council. It is becoming a national question. Up to now nothing whatever has been done. Another matter I want to touch upon and want some information upon is the position with regard to East Coast fever in the Ciskei. I see the Minister has an additional 32 inspectors. It is an extraordinary thing that East Coast fever seems to be spreading more rapidly than ever. We have not had it in the Ciskei for many years, and it would be a serious matter if it spread. Then there is another matter I would like to touch upon which was dealt with this afternoon by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron). The Minister knows that the whole of the farmers’ associations in that part of the country have for years been pleading for the establishment of an experimental farm. I cannot do better than read a letter in connection therewith from the president of the farmers’ league. Recently the Minister has agreed to establish experimental plots, a matter which is appreciated. The letter states—

President, Border Farmers’ League.

Is the hon. member reading some speech?

No, I am reading a letter in connection with the establishment of an experimental farm.

I have to ask that question because a point of order was raised on it.

The letter says, and this is the point—

I think, under these conditions, the Minister should reconsider the question whether this part of the country should not get better consideration in this respect.

I want to, draw the Minister’s attention to one or two points in connection with the control of East Coast fever and dipping inspectors. I know that 382 dipping inspectors and East Coast fever officers are employed at a salary of £87,000, and I recognise that these officers are necessary to the department. I appreciate that the Minister could do more if he could get the money, but I do think that the Minister could, with every reason, turn his attention to the possibility of using aircraft with regard to the control of the areas. My principal interest is in aircraft, but there is a, great deal more in it than meets the eye at first. I really do believe a good deal could be done in this direction to assist in examinations with regard to outbreaks of East Coast fever.

How does the hon. member propose to use aircraft?

In patrolling the districts. I understand your dipping inspectors have certain areas to control; the distances are fairly great, and they have difficulty in getting to certain points where there is a possibility of East Coast fever breaking out and in superintending dipping. The Minister may look upon it as a joke at the present time, but in the French Cameroons and other places, where the distances are too great, the patrols are done by aircraft. In Canada the forest patrols are done by aircraft, because of the large distances to cover, and the difficulties of transport. I do not want the Minister to think that this is merely to prolong the debate. My intention was to bring this up earlier in the afternoon, and this is my first opportunity. If the Minister will see what is done in other countries, he will see that there is more in it than he might think at first.

I am delighted to be able to get in at last. I have endeavoured for three days to address the Committee, and failed. I do say, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said, we have not taken up the time of the Committee unduly and unnecessarily. I must once more refer to the question of fencing.

I have already replied to that—to the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo.)

I want to deal with another aspect of the matter. During the recess I interviewed the Minister of Agriculture at Pretoria and again urged him to induce the Basutoland Government to meet the Barkly East farmers in reference to payment of cost of vermin-proof fences erected along that boundary. The efforts of the Minister were successful in inducing that Government to contribute half the cost and we appreciate very much what he did. The Minister is rightly endeavouring to exterminate scab. Basutoland has but recently introduced scab legislation. It is bound to take years before they can extirpate it, and unless there is adequate fencing between the Cape and Basutoland the Union farmers will always be liable to the danger of infection. Another matter I brought before the notice of the Minister at the same time was the fencing of the New England Herschel boundary. For upwards of 25 years these fences, which fall under the Common Fencing Act have been jointly maintained by the farmers and the Government. Some years back several of the farmers began improving and converting their respective sections into vermin proof farms, this done with the approval of the Herschel magistrate. The farmers, recovering half the cost from the Government, and likewise in respect of maintenance. The last farmer to reconstruct his fence has not been so fortunate, notwithstanding that he was promised, in black and white by the late Minister of Native Affairs, similar treatment to the others before him. His claime are repudiated. [Time limit.]

I have been waiting the whole day to get a word in on an important subject, and it is rather a monstrous thing to keep me here at my advanced age. There is a tremendous future for South African wine. We grow what is probably the best table grape in the world and I am not sure, given the necessary care, whether we could not grow the finest wine grape in the world. Unfortunately we are hundreds of years behind France so far as the wine grape is concerned. A gentleman at Stellenbosch has almost perfected a white wine which cannot be beaten. When in England last year I bought white wines from many of the leading London wine merchants and almost without exception the white wines of this country compared very favourable with them, although our wines have not the bouquet of the Rhine wines. However, for ordinary table purposes we can produce wines equal to any other in the world. We are tremendously handicapped as we have not any classification for our wines. Good and’ bad wines are put in the same sort of bottle and carry the same label. Our best wines should be matured. As it is our wines have not the slightest chance as they are put on the market when new, rough and raw, and without any classification. Many of our industries are going under and in ten years the gold mines will be a dwindling asset and we shall have to look to the products of the soil to keep the Union going. As to red wines, I have tasted South African wine of that type which can scarcely be beaten by any other country. [Time limit.]

The Minister will remember that I asked him a question in February in connection with the importation of flax plants, and his answer to the question was that there is a disease in the flax at St. Helena, and that flax plants could not be brought in from that place. I have now here two letters from the secretary of the Governor of St. Helena, and he writes that there is no disease at all in the flax, and that there are also no signs of disease. The letters are dated the 10th and 31st December, 1926. There are other letters in my possession from people engaged in the industry at St. Helena, and they take great exception to the answer the Minister has given to my question. They say that if is doing considerable harm to the industry at St. Helena, and I would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received any letter from St. Helena or England with regard to the position. When I asked him the question he answered that he had not yet received any written report from England or St. Helena. I ask the questions because the farmers of Newcastle are very much interested in this matter. They see a big thing in the establishment of an industry of this sort in our country, 5,000 flax plants have come in which have been planted in Newcastle and are growing very well. I suggested to the Minister to put the industry at Newcastle in quarantine, and then admit plants. It is easy to put the ground on which these plants grow into quarantine. Two months ago the Minister sent an expert to Newcastle to see if the plants there showed any disease, and I hear that he has sent in a report in which he says that there is no disease in the plants. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is so. This industry will be worth about £1,000,000 per annum in connection with the manufacture of rope, etc., if it is established. I can give the House the assurance that there are big prospects for the industry if it is started. I hope the Minister will enquire whether it is not possible to raise the embargo on the importation of plants. It takes three years to obtain plants from plants. The position in Newcastle is that the farmers will be able to make from £30 to £40 per acre or £60 to £80 per morgen. It is, therefore, a most important matter. The report I have from St. Helena is that there is no disease in the flax.

To which report do you attach more importance, the one from England or the one you have from St. Helena?

The Minister said that he had received no report.

That is not so.

Oh, I see, I misunderstood it. The Minister said that he received no report from St. Helena. I have never seen any report, not even the English one. I would like something to be done to assist the industry, and I would like to know whether there is disease in the plants at Newcastle.

No disease has been found.

I think it ought to be possible of place the one farm in Newcastle—because there is only one farm—in quarantine and then import plants.

I want to refer to the item concerning locust destruction and the point I want to raise is with regard to the effect of locust poisoning on farm stock. The question was brought up last year and I had a great deal of sympathy with it. A great deal of the destruction of bird life was also due to throwing locust poison about the veld. As an observer of bird life I am aware that a good many birds on our farms especially small birds have disappeared, and I will be glad if the Minister would investigate the question of the destruction of birds due to locust poison. The birds of the country are a friend of the farmer and it is vital and essential that steps should be taken to prevent them being destroyed by our campaign against the locust. The Minister has not replied to a question I raised early this afternoon in connection with lung sickness in the Transvaal. I see under the vote £2,000 is devoted to that object and I tried to impress the Minister as to what a calamity it would be to the Union if we had lung sickness and I ought to have an answer as to whether the effort to suppress it in the Transvaal has been successful or whether we still have it within our borders. The very fact that this disease is within our area means that the ports of England will be closed down to our livestock. There was also a question I raised in regard to compensation for loss of cattle through dipping. There was an item of £29 for the loss of stock through the issue of wrong vaccine which the Government undertook to pay. No one can object that an official should through an accident have to pay that amount? I also asked why a native who was in charge, at a time whilst the dipping inspector was away, should be called upon to pay compensation. I am more particularly concerned with the question of locust poisoning and lung sickness within our borders.

I think if the Prime Minister had been present throughout the whole of this discussion he would not have made that charge of obstruction against the members of the Opposition. I am sure if he has listened, as I am afraid he has not, to the debates since he came in, he will have learnt a good deal. It has been a great pleasure to me this afternoon to bear tribute to the punctual presentation of the report of the Department of Agriculture. If the Ministry think at all they will surely see that the stable foundation of South Africa is based on agriculture. If they study the figures in the last census report they will find that the European races are not holding their own in this country. The Director of Census has pointed out that but for the influenza epidemic of 1918, which took a far greater toll of the coloured and native races than it did of the Europeans in this country, the discrepancy between the Europeans and non-Europeans would have been much greater. Owing to western civilization coming into this country and saving the native and coloured population from the effects of war, pestilence and famine, owing to their particular social habits, it is obvious that their increase would be relatively much greater than ours, and, therefore, if we are to hold our own we must establish not an ephemeral, a fleeting population but a solid and definitely placed population on the land. If the Minister has followed me he will understand that in pleading for experimental farms on more practical lines I was pleading for the encouragement of the European to come on to the land and be able to maintain himself there on economic conditions. This is a very rich country in many ways, particularly in its mineral wealth, but we do not want people to write of South Africa years hence that it was a country where wealth accumulated and men decayed. Farming is not as prosperous as it ought to be. That brings me to the question of what is most calculated to increase the number of successful farmers on the land and make their stability greater than it is at present. I think the answer is to be found in the one word co-operation. Co-operation has proved the salvation of many farming communities. Forty or fifty years ago the people of Denmark were absolutely the poorest people in the whole of Europe, and to-day we have reliable information that the average wealth, not of a few, but of the whole community, is the greatest in Europe, and that is due entirely to cooperation. That was brought about not so much by reasoning, but by the force of circumstances. Denmark was, comparatively, very much in the same position as South Africa is now, dependent largely on the export of grain. Now we come to what is the function of the State in that regard. The function of the State is to apply the scientific knowledge gathered by their experts to the guidance of the operations on the farm. I submit that it is an incomplete way of doing this by public pamphlets, however interesting they are, or by demonstration trains, or by meetings and lectures. You must give the farmer an object lesson of a State farm conducted on economic lines, which any farmer can imitate for himself. Then the next important point is the voluntary organization of farmers on co-operative principles. This voluntary organization must be encouraged in every way. There may even, if I may contradict myself, be a little compulsion towards voluntary cooperation, but the essence of it is that it should be essentially voluntary in its nature. The farmer, to-day, to a large extent sells to the individual from whom he buys, the country storekeeper, and there is reliable authority for saying that 75 per cent. of our farmers at this moment are in debt to the local storekeepers. It is very unsatisfactory to have a condition of things where a farmer has invariably to accept what is offered to him for his stuff and to pay what is asked from him when he buys. I see very little hope for the future extension of agriculture in this country unless this co-operative principle is more widely availed of. The third great principle is the matter of the social condition of the farmer. We must by means of modern inventions and modern adaptations, wireless, telephones, etc., make the life of the farmer more conformable to the life of the people who live in the towns. The State can do much in regard to that. The best influence the State can have is by encouraging the farmer to self-help. I am no believer in spoon-feeding the farmer, in doing anything for him which he can reasonably be expected to do for himself. [Time limit.]

When I was stopped just now, I was dealing with the question of our red wines. Nearly every drop of port that is placed on any decent table in this Union of South Africa is imported. That should not be so. I am perfectly certain that if the Department of Agriculture were properly managed you would have somebody in that department who knew something about the wines of this country. Years ago in South Africa we used to produce a red wine called Sweet Constantia. There was not a book of travels that you could read ten or twenty years ago written by different people who came round the Cape of Good Hope which did not mention the Sweet Constantia wine which was produced in this country. To-day, as far as I know, Sweet Constantia wine has practically gone out. There is no doubt the possibility of a big trade in our wines. A gentleman from England, who recently visited the Stellenbosch district, bore testimony to the excellence of the wines which were brought under his notice. There is a tremendous market for our wines, both red and white, in England. Then, in this country, very few people have an opportunity of knowing what an excellent brandy is produced in South Africa, a brandy quite equal in its properties to French brandy. Unfortunately for the trade here, people will have a brandy coloured up very much, and also a brandy with what they call cognac flavouring. In my opinion it ought to be a punishable offence for any brandy maker to put any of that stuff in his brandy, I know it requires money. The ordinary farmer may produce good brandy, but unless he has a way to store his brandy he cannot sell it. Then I say the Board of Trade instead of protecting many things that do not need protection, might transfer some of their activities to the sphere of what we can produce in this country with a special preference for the wines and brandies. One of the first essentials in the wine trade is to bottle wine cheaply. We cannot make a bottle in South Africa; here in South Africa with a Board of Trade and Industries we have not got a bottle factory. We cannot bottle our fruit. We have the brandy here; it is not French brandy, we don’t want it to be French brandy, we ought to be able to get a good name for our brandy for its inherent merits. There are tremendous possibilities for our wipes and brandies. What we want is the scientific branch of the Department of Agriculture to go into viticulture in this country. We have got the fruit, we have the soil, and we have everything, but there is our apathy. We are striving for markets wherein we cannot succeed, and yet things in which we can succeed, lying at our doors, we do not attempt to touch. We have much greater advantages compared with the Australian wines, which, however, have a tremendous market in England, although they are 3,000 miles further away from the London market than we are. We have to make good while the goose that lays the golden eggs is still in existence in the Witwatersrand. When the gold industry fades away, we shall have to replace it by other industries, and I am perfectly certain that in the wine business of South Africa you have an industry which only needs care, a little common-sense and proper arrangements to sell the wine, and I am perfectly certain there is a great future for that industry.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Vote 28 dealing with guano islands. A sum of something like £13,000 is paid out for freight. I would like some information from the Minister as to the procedure he is adopting in respect of the freight question. The guano islands are not very far from here, and I do think some substantial reduction should be made in freight. I see there is the paltry sum of £150 for education expenses on children of people employed on the islands. A sum of something like £10,000 is paid out for labour. I do not see how £150 could go to any extent in educating the children. It appears this is the only department showing a substantial profit, approximately £23,000. I am one of those who think that the distribution of guano should be equalized throughout the whole of the Union. The farmers are finding now that guano is becoming a very good substance to mix with super-phosphates, particularly in the production of wheat. Unquestionably the farmers are having prolific crops from mixing guano with super-phosphates. I plead again that the Minister should lower the price of guano. I think the farmers would appreciate such a reduction. I maintain there is no necessity for any Government to claim a profit on articles such as this. I presume I am going to get the same reply as I got last year, and that is that there are big markets elsewhere. I maintain that is not a sufficient answer. I would again like to draw attention to the grading of barley. There is no doubt that grading is absolutely necessary now. The purchasing of guano is practically in the hands of a monopoly. I know that farmers are not getting their just due. Barley is graded third quality whereas, in many instances, it is of higher quality. If the Minister would establish a grading similar to that in the case of mealies he would be doing a great service to the producers of barley and also giving them an incentive to produce more. The Minister of Finance advisedly has put on a suspended duty of 1s. per 100 lbs. If there is one article that costs a lot to produce, it is barley, and therefore they are entitled to the grading I am asking for. I was much impressed with the remarks about wool. There is a vast improvement in our wool, and also in the make-up of our wool, and that is entirely due to the wool experts who are doing their work so efficiently. The only complaint I have is that we have not sufficient experts, and to my mind many of our South African younger men would be well advised to cultivate the profession of a wool expert. An hon. member of this House has stated that the grading of maize was done somewhat irregularly in Durban. I felt that very much, and I can only say from my experience in Cape Town that the work is being done most effectively. We have also had some difference of Opinion with respect to our export of mealies to Australia. The Minister of Mines and Industries said it was no use proceeding further; the Minister of Finance Stated there were still negotiations in progress and you, sir, Minister of Agriculture, said it was no use, because they were opposed to our native labour. I have here samples of mealies grown in Java entirely by native labour which have been taken up extensively by Australia. If, they take it from Java, I maintain that we can put up a strong argument to the Australian Government for our own mealies. I cannot conceive how any Government can despise any purchaser of our produce. We are going to have at least 19,000,000 bags of grain this year. Unless we can obtain markets, our farmers are going to get comparatively a very low price. Cargoes of maize have been sold in the Argentine at something like 28s. per quarter c.i.f. London for delivery June/July. That is equivalent to 11s. 8d. per bag. We have certain deductions to be made such as transport, freight and bags, and other incidental expenses, with the result that our farmers cannot look forward to a price which would be sufficient to cover the cost of production. [Time limit.]

The mealie question has been debated over and over again, and when the salary of the Minister of Mines was put I replied on the question, while the Minister of Finance answered the point three times. The hon. member will therefore surely not expect me to go into it again. Then the hon. member has spoken again about guano, a matter he raises every year. He wants guano to be supplied cheaper. I said last year that the analysts put the commercial value of guano at £15 per ton. We sell it at £7 10s. per ton, or 50 per cent. cheaper. I can tell the hon. member that representatives of agricultural unions urged the increase of the price in the hope that the demand would then become less and would suit them better. I paid no attention to that. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) said that an amount of £10,000 was put down for “labour” and only £150 for education of the children on the island. I want to point out that the most part of the labourers are coloured and there are no women and children there. Last year we put £150 on the Estimates for the purpose, but formerly there was no provision made for education at all. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover. Street) (Mr. Alexander), thanked the Government. Now it is not appreciated, and it is said that we should provide more for the purpose. If we were to do that, hon. members opposite would be the first to complain. In relation, to the grading of barley the Minister of Finance went so far as to give protection against the importation of barley, and I will see what more can be done. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) spoke about my penchant for discharging party men, and quoted the case of certain Du Plessis, a sheep inspector that I dismissed. I had representations from Nationalists who came to plead for him because he was such a very’ strong Nationalist, and had done so much for the party. I have letters from him here in which he writes that he has done so much for the building up of the Nationalist party. And now to my amazement I hear that I have discharged a strong S.A.P. man. I do not mind what party anyone belongs to, but if he fails to do his duty with reference to the eradication of scab then I do not think I have the right to keep him on and to make the taxpayers pay. I treated Du Plessis specially, and gave him a month’s notice and allowed him to draw a month’s salary which is now in the bank. The person himself admitted in black and white that he was guilty. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) spoke about the import of flax. I raid last time that disease prevailed in the flax at St. Helena. In view, however, that the plants we have at Newcastle are healthy I will consider whether more flax can be imported. The department has already been instructed to go into the matter. I can assure the hon. member that I am consulting with my department about the matter, but we must not be careless, because it is still a young industry which has to be built up.

Will the Minister lay the report on the Table?

If the hon. member comes to my office my secretary will give him the report to read. Then the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) tried to give us a severe lesson. I know the position, however, and the department is dealing with the matter. I shall appoint a commission to consider the wine question. The hon. member for Aliwal has again raised an old question. I told him last year with regard to the Basutoland boundary that I asked the Basutoland Government if it would treat each case on its merits where the farmers wanted to fence. Where native territories border on the land of Europeans I said this afternoon that the Minister of Native Affairs was providing in the Native Bills for the establishment of funds to provide for such cases. As for other State ground the Minister of Finance said last year that the Government just like a private individual, was bound to pay half according to law, therefore I need not further go into it The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Maj. Ballantine) asked about East Coast fever in Komgha and Stutterheim. The last outbreak that took place on the town lands of Stutterheim did not spread any further, and I hope that we shall now get the disease under control. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) advised us this evening how to fight East Coast fever in Natal, and he proposed the using of aeroplanes. Has the hon. member considered what that would cost? We should have to prepare landing places everywhere. Has the hon. member considered that?

I am convinced such a scheme I advocated is feasible, and if the Minister will allow me I will show how these districts can be patrolled.

I fear we cannot adopt the hon. member’s proposal. His suggestion is not practicable. That is very clear to me. Every inspector has a section and has to be present on certain days at the dipping places. If there is to be a landing place at every dipping tank I wonder what it would cost.

I am prepared to demonstrate.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked about the poisoning of little birds by locust poison. I have investigated the matter and there is not the slightest ground for the statement. I have consulted all the locust inspectors. Then I was asked why provision is made on the Estimates for the combating of lung sickness and whether there really were any cases of that disease in the Transvaal. There is no lung sickness in the Transvaal, but the amount has been put on the Estimates for guards to patrol the border of the Bechuanaland Protectorate so that the danger of spreading into the Union can be obviated as much as possible. We have entered into an agreement with the Administration in the Protectorate and certain parts where lung sickness prevails have now been put into quarantine. Then the hon. member raised the question of a white man who allowed stock to die in connection with the injection of inoculation powders. In this case it was done absolutely in good faith and an accident, and so the white man was not called upon to pay. In the case of the native there was proof of his carelessness, and, therefore, he was made to pay. No distinction was made, except that each case was treated on its merits. I hope that the committee will now be prepared to pass the vote because I have replied on all the necessary points. I explained about the importation of bulls, viz., that the High Commissioner was approaching the British Government to create a quarantine station, and if it was not established that we would then negotiate with the Rhodesian Government to jointly hire a station. We cannot permit stock to come into the country that will expose our stock to foot and mouth disease. Then I have been asked about the improvement of our own breed of stock. The Minister of Finance made it plain how our export of meat had increased. There is a considerable amount on the Estimates for an experimental station at Messina, and the Government intends to give farmers in certain parts of the country, if there are enough bulls, facilities to improve their breed under certain conditions. Hon. members who live on farms, and the farmers in general will have to take steps to control the increase of native cattle, because it is no good, merely controlling the breed of the cattle of the white men. There is a lot of stock which belongs to natives which is not being improved.

I wish to refer to the retrenchment of Mr. Lounsbury, chief of the Division of Entomology. The fourteenth annual report of the Land Bank refers to the fact that Mr. Lunsbury had pinted out that the cyclical infestation of the country by locusts was coming to an end. The next report of the bank, the one recently issued, shows that Mr. Lounsbury was quite correct, as it quotes a further report by him, which states “the great locust cycle has passed.” I consider Mr. Lounsbury’s services much more valuable than those of the numerous locust chasers, who have been expending patrol at an alarming rate. The chief of the locust chasers received £1,388 per annum. I do not know how much per locust it worked out at, but in any case there was great extravagance. I have a complaint to make about this particular individual. Mr. Bezuidenhout, who drew this enormous sum of money, is standing by for the next locust visitation, and he is about the only man who differs from Mr. Lounsbury’s view. He went insolvent for £22,000, and has been rehabilitated without paying a single penny to his creditors, so it is alleged, and it is also stated that he recently bought a farm near Vryburg. The Minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), told us that the conduct of Mr. du Plooy had not been brought to his notice, yet that official actually received a reprimand.

I have explained that already.

It is said that a sheep inspector, a nephew of the Minister, and a stock inspector, Mr. Vermaak, have been appointed over the heads of officials with long service. When questioned on the matter, the Minister replied that no question of promotion was involved. How can such a reply.be correct when they were appointed at £25 per month, while the other inspectors, with longer service still, draw only £20 per month? I demur to replies of this sort, which are misleading, to say the least of it. There is in the Minister’s department a publication issued by the poultry experts. A reliable correspondent of mine asks, how is it possible for one of these experts, without encroaching upon Government hours, to edit, publish, and sell for his own benefit a work on poultry in which there appear advertisements charged for at the rate of five guineas a page. It may be that my correspondent is mistaken and that the whole of the money goes to Government. The correspondent, however, says that the proceeds go to the expert who publishes the work. The expert is said to-be the head of the poultry division. I raise the question because the Minister some time ago declined to allow agricultural experts to contribute articles to the public press. What are the Minister’s intentions in regard to the levy of 5s. per bale on cotton, the proceeds of which are intended to be used for propaganda purposes? In the present depressed state of the cotton industry it is rather like killing the goose that lays the golden egg still to impose that heavy levy. One of the cotton experts in the Barberton district succeeded in producing a jassid-proof cotton. Will the seed of this cotton—Cambodia, I believe it was—be available for public distribution? Will the Minister also tell us about the work of the experts sent out by the British Empire Cotton Corporation? [Time limit.]

I had not finished my argument when the Minister replied. It was only about three years ago that the contributions towards the construction of vermin-proof fences in the Herschel district ceased. I interviewed the magistrate of Herschel and pointed out the injustice of the attitude Government was adoping, and suggested that, if he or the Government were not prepared to recommend the full amount, we should at least ascertain the difference in cost of an ordinary and a vermin-proof fence, and the farmers should be paid on the basis of an ordinary fence. His astonishing reply was that farmers, by converting their ordinary fences into vermin-proof fences, had thereby forfeited their right to any claim at all. Nor have we been receiving any aid towards the maintenance and cost of the construction of these fences. Since the present Government took office. Farmers cannot afford to take legal action against the Government, and so they have to put up with injustices of this kind. For twenty years these contributions have been paid by the Government. When I pointed out to the Minister that the previous Government had, up to four years ago, paid half the cost of the vermin-proof fences along the Herschel border, he asked for and had a report sent to him by the Native Affairs Department. And where, as I had mentioned, a number of Border farmers who had been paid out half the cost—of whom I was one—the departmental reply the Minister got was that in one instance, and one instance only, had they contributed towards these vermin-proof fences. That is incorrect and is wholly at variance with the facts. I cannot blame the Minister for acting as he has done upon this report. I think he was willing to meet us; but in the face of a departmental report of such a misleading character I do not wonder that he was unable to meet us. Since being down here I have seen the Secretary of Native Affairs, and confronted him with his report. He has been in communication with the office in Herschel, which now finds that the information they gave was wrong., Indeed, they appear to have lost the records, and do not know what the position really is. The resolutions which we have been urging on the Minister were passed at a farmers’ congress at Port Elizabeth and likewise agreed to by the Agricultural Union, and was sent to the Minister of Native Affairs, regarding him as the right Minister, but nothing has been done. Notwithstanding the fact that we have the whole of the sheep-farmers in the Cape Province backed up by the Agricultural Union, this Government has shifted the responsibilities from one office to another. The Prime Minister said the other day that fencing did not come under his department. The Minister of Agriculture says it belongs to the Native Affairs Department. Where are we to go to? Once more I appeal to the Minister to recognise the reasonableness and the justice of the claims, not only of the few farmers directly concerned, but also in its larger aspect as one of the subjects submitted by both the Cape Farmers’ Congress and by the Agricultural Union [Time limit.]

I think the question of guano islands comes under this vote, and I think the Minister has control of the seal fisheries. I see from the year book a large number of skins are exported from the country. From 1921-’23 inclusive, 10,960 per annum were exported. Is it true there is a great amount of cruelty practised in the killing of these seals? I understand many of them are clubbed and then shot, and in addition that dynamiting is practised, and whilst a certain number are killed a large number of mangled and maimed seals get away in terrible agony. It calls for inquiry and contradiction by the Minister in charge if it is not true. It is not to the country’s credit if any Government controlling this matter permits these practices. I only give this information, which I got as good information, because I want to have it verified or contradicted. Then I want to ask the Minister about the export of wild birds. Under Act 6 of 1925 export is prohibited except under permits from the Minister. On March 26 I asked the Minister how many permits had been issued, and whether the Act was being evaded, and I found from the answer that a large number of birds were going from the country. The Minister gave me an answer that the total going out from June 25 to March 27, scarcely twelve months, was 20,781, and I was amazed. I had the honour to introduce the Bill, because I felt strongly that a large number of birds were going out of the country, which would be a loss to the country. I believe these birds are going out under circumstances of great cruelty. They are sent in large numbers in small cages, and it does not redound to the credit of the country if that is so. The information the Minister gave me was that the greater number of birds were species to which they had no objection. Why, then, should there be a permit in respect of birds to which there is objection? The Minister said at a recent meeting of representatives of zoological museums, that a number of birds exported for zoological institutions were not actually received by them, and that permits must be obtained direct by the zoological institutions from his department and not through agents. I ask the Minister if he has laid it down that all these applications from recognized zoological institutions should come direct to the Minister and not through agents here. There was a great deal of trouble in connection with an institution in the Transvaal, and he was good enough, last year, to make inquiries in connection with a ship going out, and he found that a number of birds were being shipped under false denominations, or that permits had been obtained, but the wrong birds were being shipped. I asked if there had been any prosecutions, and the Minister said no. I hope the Act is being properly carried out, and that there will be no more of this subterfuge business, no more hanky-panky going on in which zoological institutions are being used as a cloak to export birds which ought never to have been exported.

This is the first opportunity I have had to speak. I want to ask the Minister what security he has for the amount of £112,000 that was advanced for ostriches? The feathers, I understand, are not worth anything at all at present because there is no market, and I think the Minister will do better in just giving a subsidy for each ostrich and then chopping off the heads of the birds. They are now’ running in good lucerne fields where sheep and cattle could run, and the latter would pay much better. Then I want to ask him again if no change can be made with reference to the registration of water rights? According to law, all the transfer deeds have to be filed with the magistrate at the same time. That is an impossible thing, and I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to make a small amendment so that the Registrar can just provisionally note the water rights until the farm is sold. That will greatly assist. I am very glad that the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) said that we were now making a better class of wine, but I want to urge the Minister to get more people to inquire into the adulteration of wines. There is one person now who has to do all the work. He does excellent work, but there should be about five. The public are now adulterating the wine and the farmers get the blame for it. If ever we want to become a wine-producing country and to export wine in large quantities, then we must see to it that the Adulteration Acts are strictly enforced.

I would like your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether when we get on to the Irrigation Vote it will be possible to discuss policy in connection with what I consider a very important matter, which has been raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw), and that is in reference to servitudes on title deeds where the water courts have given judgments in regard to the distribution of water?

No, there is no separate portfolio. The hon. member will not be allowed to discuss it at that stage. It will have to be discussed now. Administration could then be discussed, but not policy on that Vote.

Then I would like to bring the matter very forcibly to the notice of the Minister. What the hon. member for Stellenbosch has said is perfectly correct. I do not know whether the Minister, having only just recently taken over the department, is familiar with the circumstances referred to by my hon. friend. That is one of the reasons why I have always thought that the Department of Irrigation and the Department of Lands should have been joined together. If you are looking to the interests of the country and to the interests of settlement and irrigation development, it is a very foolish thing to have the Department of Irrigation and the Department of Lands under different Ministers., I want to ask the Minister what can be done in connection with giving facilities where water courts have given judgments to have those judgments endorsed upon the title-deeds without the difficult legal paraphernalia which exists at the present time. Until you can by legal process compel a man to hand over his title-deed, it is impossible to endorse upon that title-deed the judgment of the water court. When the water court gives a judgment, and that judgment is not appealed against for three months, then it becomes of the force of law; but if that judgment is not endorsed on the title-deed, a man buying that property may find that it is subject to legal servitudes which he has no means whatever of knowing anything about. I remember some years ago, when I was in office, asking Sir Henry Juta to make certain inquiries, and he suggested that it would be an extremely good thing if a slight amendment took place in the Irrigation Act, whereby judgments of the water courts, when they have the force of law, were automatically endorsed by the registrar of deeds in each province upon the titles to which they referred.

I would remind the hon. member that he is now advocating an alteration of the law. Although the hon. member may discuss policy, alterations of the law cannot be discussed at this stage.

What I was discussing really, with all due submission, is the policy that ought to be adopted by the Irrigation Department in connection with a very important matter. It is not the first time that this has been raised. It would be a simple matter if the law were amended or the Minister would adopt a policy in that direction whereby registration could be—

I think the hon. member sees that he is advocating an alteration of the law.

I bow to your ruling, but my reason for pressing it really was because it was a matter of such extreme importance. I would like to ask the Minister what is being done in connection with trying to prevent the loss of money which I am afraid is going to be entailed on the farmers of the midland districts when they have got to go to law under existing conditions to protect the rights of the upper and lower proprietors. The Minister himself considered that that matter was so important that he sent the Director of Irrigation to the irrigation congress at Port Elizabeth for the purpose of laying before the congress certain resolutions which had—

The hon. member is really going on with the same point, arguing that the law should be amended.

I am not referring to the amendment of the law. I am only now saying that the Minister whose Vote is under discussion sent the director of irrigation to the irrigation congress at Port Elizabeth for the purpose of making certain recommendations. Those recommendations — I won’t say what they were—would have saved the farmers of the country the expenditure of a large amount of money. I want to know, before I vote the Minister’s salary, what has been done with those resolutions, and why the Minister spent the money of his department in sending the director of irrigation to Port Elizabeth with these resolutions to be laid before the meeting, and the Minister has done nothing, although the congress approved of them. Though an agreement had been come to at Port Elizabeth, endorsed unanimously by the representatives of the irrigation farmers throughout the country, where both upper and lower proprietors had come to an agreement which would have saved thousands and thousands of pounds—. [Time limit.]

I do riot quite understand the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). He says that the two irrigation congresses have already been held, but that they were not attended by any Minister. At the time of the first congress I was not yet the Minister of Irrigation. The hon. member further said that I might have saved the expense of sending the director of irrigation to attend the congresses.

I would only ask my hon. friend one question. I am going to listen to his appeal. Can he give the committee any information with regard to the new jute and wire wool packs. The Australian people are carrying out a good deal of experiment with them. I understand a fair number of both packs have been sent to Australia and I am simply asking the Minister if he knows whether any have been sent to South Africa, because he knows the old wool pack is causing a good deal of trouble owing to the jute fibres getting into the wool. The Minister has developed entirely different characteristics from triose he showed this afternoon. Under the circumstances, as he has realised that even the Opposition have rights and privileges in this House, and as he has now developed this contrite mood, I do not want to be unduly severe upon him or upon the poor Prime Minister who seems to be almost exhausted at the present moment.

I sent him because it is the custom to send high officials when such congresses are held. I have certain feelings with reference to sections 15 and 16, of which the hon. member spoke. He asks why I did not take action upon the congress resolutions. The hon. member knows how long it took them and that they could not act. Now he wants me to do so within a few months. We are drifting legislation, but the session is already so far advanced that we cannot introduce such a complicated measure as an irrigation Bill this year. I hope that I shall be able to publish the Bill within a few months, so that the congress will have the opportunity to discuss it thoroughly and to see whether we can come to an agreement. The hon. member also mentioned the matter of the judgments of the water courts. My department cannot, unfortunately, go further than the law permits. If the Act does not say that the judgments are to be recorded on the deeds of grant, then my department cannot apply it. The hon. member knows that the Minister has not an easy task with regard to transfers. The matter could not be dealt with this year, but it will be done in January, 1928. I must inform the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) that it is impossible at this stage to enter into the question he raised, but I hope it may be done next year. He also inquired about the adulteration of liquor, but many officials of the Excise Department are assisting me. It is not possible to appoint an official for every brewery. The expense makes that impossible. The hon. member further inquired what security there was for the advances to the ostrich feather cooperative society. The hon. member himself voted last year for the grant of the sum of £112,000. Why did he not then ask what the security was going to be? The loan estimates were before the House, and now the hon. member comes and asks the question.

Nothing was said about security.

The matter was before the House last year. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) is not now in the House, so that I cannot deal with his remarks now. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked a few questions about various matters, e.g., the retirement on pension of Mr. Lounsbury. I have already answered the question twice this afternoon, and said that he was not retired, but requested to be put on pension. His request was granted and a pension given him at the full age limit because the extra years were added.

He gave no reason?

I do not think we should dismiss the acts, of officials on the floor of the House, as they may subsequently be angry.

How many years were added in his case?

I think five years. As regards the expenditure for the eradication of locusts, I just, want to say that it is still necessary to eradicate swarms that appear here and there. There are still places in the Union where it has not rained, and we must take care to be on the sprit there when the locusts hatch out and eradicate the swarms. We must keep a watchful eye, then, I hope, we shall prevent another calamity in the form (Mr. Marwick) spoke again about Du Plooy I gave him no warning about taking part in politics, but about borrowing money from another official, and I thought that that was not the right and proper thing. He further referred to the promotion of Vermaak and Kemp. It is not a matter of permanent officials. Sheep inspectors are appointed at one month’s notice and cattle inspectors at 24 hours’ notice, and there were never yet any such regulations about promotion as the hon. member is apparently thinking of. The book which Mr. Jordaan wrote about chicken farming which is now selling at 5s., he wrote, I think, in his spare time, and I think he got the consent of the late Government to do so.

What is the objection?

I do not see anything wrong either. I should do the same thing. Then as to the levy on cotton, I just want to say that it was imposed at the request of the people themselves, and is subject to their control. Parnella seed will be distributed as soon as there is a sufficient supply available. I think I have now answered all the points and we have dealt fully with everything. I hope the vote will now be passed.

Probably my hon. friend would get the information. The pack I refer to is I understand very successful. There is no fibre inside, and the other new pack is a wire netting pack with paper inside which is supposed to be very efficient.

Yes, I can promise the hon. member I will get the information.

Will the Minister go into the question of the cruelty and the killing of seals.

They have been using dynamite. Outside three miles it can be used and always has been used in the past.

I want a final word with the Minister. We have been charged several times with having voted this money—rather recklessly, in my opinion—for this ostrich feather company, £84,000. I have the exact vote. It says nothing about any co-operative association or anything of that kind. It says the ostrich feather industry, including the London committee, £115,000. Nothing is said about the Oudtshoorn company. We trusted to the judgment of the Minister, and I see we were wrong, in doing so. He advances this money on the security of feathers which have fallen enormously in price, and the farmers have only put up £740 themselves, and this is against the advice of the managing director of the Land Bank. I hope my hon. friend will not try to lay on the House generally the responsibility of this when the money comes to be lost.

I might point out that eighteen months ago the co-operative association came to us and asked if we could assist the feather industry. We agreed and the money was put on the loan estimates last year. I replied last year to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth what the money was used for, so that Parliament knew last year what it was they were voting. The Government decided that the feather industry should be assisted if a corporation was formed, and on formation that money was advanced.

Perhaps the Minister will make a statement later. He will remember I referred to a letter from an important ostrich farmer in the midland province. What he wants to know `s: these feathers are exported and subject to export tax. Is that tax used in connection with the interest and charges on the money advanced or is it used as propaganda to encourage fashion in the direction of ostrich feathers? In my opinion the best way the money could be expended would be in propaganda, and the ostrich farmers would not object to a levy then.

I want to put right something that occurred this afternoon when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) was speaking about co-operation. The point he made was that he objected to co-operative societies competing for customers outside their own membership. I think that the Minister and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) both said he was arguing against the principle of co-operation. That was not the case at all. I quite agree with him; I belong to a co-operative society—and I say that they ought to stick to their own membership for custom, and not go to the open to trade.