(for the Minister of Finance) moved—as an unopposed motion,

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

I should like to ask the Minister when he is going to lay on the Table the Loan Estimates of the Railways and Harbours.

I hope to do so in a few days. The Estimates are at present being printed.

Agreed to.

stated that the Reports [Annexures 331 and 447—1924] were upon the Table.

House to go into Committee on the Report on 13th instant.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1)Statement, prepared in terms of section 49 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, No. 21 of 1911, as amended by the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Act, No. 31 of 1916, of all Special Warrants issued during the period 25th March, 1924, to 24th July, 1924, under section 48 of the Act.
2. (2)
   1. (a) Agreement of 24th January, 1920, as amended by the Agreement of the 18th June, 1920, between the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Pretoria Iron Mines, relating to the establishment of ironworks in the Transvaal and the purchase of certain iron and steel goods manufactured in the said works from South African materials; together with
      1. (i) Deed of Indemnity dated 24th January, 1920;
      2. (ii) Resolutions of the Company empowering the Directors to enter into the Agreements, dated the 14th January, 1920, and the 18th June, 1920; and
      3. (iii) Resolution adopted by Parliament approving of the Agreements. (Printed.)
   2. (b) Extract from Minutes of the meeting of the Railways and Harbours Board held on the 24th July, 1923, regarding the modification of the Agreement.
3. (3) Principal Government Notices issued by the Department of Railways and Harbours during the period 10th April, 1924, to 24th July, 1924.

Mr. C. A. VAN NIEKERK seconded.

Agreed to.

was granted leave to introduce the Stock Theft Act, 1923, Amendment Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 8th August.

was granted leave to introduce the Intestates’ Estates Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 8th August.

was granted leave to introduce the Civil Imprisonment Abolition Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 8th August.

was granted leave to introduce the Transvaal and Orange Free State Franchise Law Amendment Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 6th August.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. C. A. VAN NIEKERK seconded.

Agreed to.

Petition referred to the Government for consideration.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Brig.-Gen. BYRON seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. PEARCE seconded.

Agreed to.

Petition referred to the Government for consideration.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. STRACHAN seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

In moving the resolution standing in my name I wish to state at once that I am not doing so in order to persuade the public to take shares in any of the companies which are at present developing the various seams of torbanite and oil shales in the Ermelo and Wakkerstroom districts. I disclaim all responsibility as far as that goes. My intention is to give the House a few facts to prove that there is not only a possibility but almost a certainty that an industry can be established which will be of inestimable value to this country of ours. It is hardly necessary for me to labour the point as to the value of the oil industry. I think it will be accepted that as a key industry it stands second only to the steel and iron industry, if, indeed, it does not rank equally in importance. May I give the figures of importations? During the last four years we imported per annum, 11 million gallons of motor spirit, 9 million gallons paraffin, 2½ million gallons of lubricating oil, and 1½ million gallons of other mineral oil, making a total of 24 million gallons. Of this about 25 per cent, is consumed on the Witwatersrand. If I remind the House of the prices at which these oils are sold hon. members will have an idea of the sum of money which Leaves the Union annually to pay for this product. Petrol, per case of 8½ gallons, costs 26s. 9d. Johannesburg; 21s. Cape. Paraffin, per case of 8⅓ gallons, costs 16s. Johannesburg; 11s. Cape. Motor oil, per case, 46s.; 39s. Cape. Cylinder oil, 45s.; 38s. Cape. Engine oil, 37s.; 30s. Cape. Other oil, 31s.; 24s. Cape. It is claimed by the people interested that they will be able to sell the various oils at a considerably cheaper price than the imported article and make a fair profit. For instance, petrol at 2s. 6d. per gallon as against 3s. 8d., kerosene 1s. 6d. per gallon asagainst 2s. 3d., lubricating oil 4s. per gallon as against 7s. 6d., fuel oil 9d. per gallon. I need hardly point out that by supplying petrol at 25 per cent, below the ruling price, that by saving 1s. per gallon on railage to the interior, a tremendous impetus will be given to the motor industry and all smaller industries. And it is obvious that a supply of suitable fuel at 1s. per gallon for Diesel engines will be a tremendous boon to farmers and users of small power plants. Then, an oil industry must circulate large sums of money and must necessarily open up a considerable field of employment for European and native labour. The annual cash expenditure on a unit of 150 tons of torbanite daily will amount to about £200,000 for working costs, and to cope with South African requirements to-day 15 plants of that capacity will be required, so that it is clear that with the expansion of this industry the spending power must run into several millions. I am not going to weary the House with a statement of the possibilities of the by-products from this industry. I am informed they are enormous. I think I have said enough to convince the House as to the importance and benefit of this industry to the country, but the great question is: “Have we got the goods and are we able to deliver them?” I must confess that I was sceptical for a long time; I have heard of these oil shales for the last 22 years until I have got used to it; but I have been converted at last. There is no doubt about it that there is a large deposit of torbanite in the Ermelo district, and it is very rich in oil-producing matter, that it can be mined easily, that the oil can be successfully extracted, refined and placed on the market commercially. I will not deal at present with the large deposits of oil-shale which have been proved to exist in the south-eastern portion of the Ermelo district and the adjoining portion of Wakkerstroom, but will confine myself to the torbanite occurrence—and here let me say it was the discovery that what they thought was oil-shale really proved to be torbanite which really caused a revolution in the ideas of parties interested. I will not attempt an explanation of the difference between the two products but merely quote from Mr. E. Cunningham-Craig. “The special advantages of a torbanite over an oil shale are as follows: (1) It can be retorted at a lower temperature. (2) It yields a better quality of oil, containing a higher percentage of saturated hydrocarbons. The crude oil, therefore, is easier and cheaper to refine, does not show so high a loss of refining,’ and gives more valuable refined products. (3) It gives, as a rule, a much larger yield of oil than an oil shale. This, however, depends on the richness of the torbanite. (4) The residue after retorting a torbanite is not a waste product, as in the case of an oil shale, but can be used as fuel.” The following is what Mr. J. B. Garbe, a Belgian consulting engineer of note, reported: “As regards South Africa, I am well acquainted with the occurrences of the oil-bearing carbonaceous formation of the Ermelo-Wakkerstroom district, Eastern Transvaal and Natal, having investigated these vast deposits of oil shale and torbanite in association with the late Dr. Carrick. The torbanite occurs in conjunction with the highly bituminous coal in a composite seam varying in thickness from 36 to 44 inches, the thickness of the torbanite seam itself being from 10 to 24 inches. The lower seam, some 60 feet below that mentioned, is also a highly bituminous coal, bright and hard, and as a shipping and bunkering coal is unsurpassed in the Transvaal. This lower seam has a thickness of 4 feet 6 inches to 5 feet. The large amount of opening and development work, bore holes, shafts, tunnels, drives, etc., has proved a permanency and continuity of the lower seams and torbanite, not only in tonnage, but also in values. Large average samples of the torbanite have been tested not only in the laboratory but on a commercial scale; in testing the various methods of treatment which have recently been brought out; and the laboratory results have been confirmed by these commercial tests. A conservative valuation of the amount of coal and torbanite is 11,000,000 tons of torbanite, 25,000,000 tons of coal in conjunction of torbanite, and 75,000,000 tons of coal for the lower seam.” The various reports by Messrs. E. H. Cunningham Craig, C. A. Troye, H. von Dessauer, give all the geological and mining information required, and from my personal knowledge, I entirely agreed with them. The estimates of tonnage are on the safe side, but a few million tons more or less on such a large existing tonnage cannot materially affect the issue. The essential point is to bring this valuable asset to production. The mining part will be a simple and easy problem, and the success of Transvaal mining engineers as regards gold mines and coal mines is so well proved that the question of organising the mining work can be safely left in their hands. “It is obvious that with a material of such richness in oil elements, which are so easily liberated, a very careful treatment has to be applied.” Major Trevor describes a small torbanite mine on Mooifontein and states that his samples assayed 98 gallons of oil. His investigations are confirmed by results obtained from bulk samples analysed in England and on the Continent. Messrs. Sulman and Picard, of London, retorted and fractionated the material with the following results: Motor spirit, 8.2 gallons; burning oil, 48.4 gallons; middle oil, 15.4 gallons; lubricating oil, 24.4 gallons; making a total of 96 gallons. Dr. Krey, manager of the Riebeek Montan Works, at Halle, Germany, tested 50 lbs. of the same material and reported that his results largely coincides with the English analysis. He obtained 101 gallons of crude oil. One ton of torbanite was sent direct from Ermelo via Cape Town and Hamburg to him at Halle, and yielded 88 gallons. On fractionating, it returned: Benzol, 17 gallons; paraffin oil. 46 gallons; machine oil, 10 gallons; paraffin wax, 25 lbs. Dr. Neufeld, of Johannesburg, made careful analysis of torbanite and found it to contain 97 gallons of crude oil per ton. Thirty tons were shipped last year to the order of Major Arthur Struben, in London, and samples treated confirm previous assays. A test in a Tozer retort at Battersea returned 90 gallons. As to the machinery required, a Johannesburg engineering firm will guarantee the supply of a complete plant capable of dealing with 150 tons of torbanite daily, for £28,000—f.o.b. a Continental port. This plant will extract the maximum of motor spirit, kerosene oil and Diesel motor oil. It is thought that these fractions being in such great demand, will suffice for a first step. At a later stage, additions to plant will no doubt extend the scope of production and add paraffin, wax, candles, spindle and other oils, shoe blacking and kindred products, to the output. In the meantime the residual material could be utilized for the improvement of street paving and prove a boon to municipalities. A small model of Mr. Griffith’s invention is now demonstrating in Fox Street, opposite the Stock Exchange in Johannesburg, and yielding high returns of crude oil. The inventor claims, that larger plants will work equally well, and if this is confirmed, the cost of retorts will be covered by a much smaller outlay than is indicated in the offer of the Johannesburg engineering firm already referred to. I think I have quoted facts to prove that the article is abundant, that the quality is right, that it can easily be mined, and that it is possible to extract the oil and to sell it commercially. Hon. members might say: “If this is such a promising industry, why come to the Government at all?” Well, Sir, notwithstanding all these possibilities, we find that capital is shy—the public is always very chary of putting money into an industrial concern. Government should give assistance on the same lines as it did to the iron and steel industry in 1922, and if it gives a bounty of, say, 3d. a gallon on the first 15 million gallons of oil, although that would not be a large amount of money to the Union it would be just enough to assist the industry and to encourage people to put up the money. It is suggested that a bounty of 3d. per gallon should be given on the first 5 million gallons of petrol, 2d. per gallon for the first 5 million gallons of paraffin, and a 1d. for the first 5 millions of lubricating oil. The amount of subsidy, it is estimated, would be about £125,000, the payment of which would be spread over a certain number of years. It is essential that Government should give the assurance that it will protect the industry by means of customs or otherwise against the powerful oil groups operating here. Further, assistance might be given in the shape of cheaper railway rates on local products, oils and machinery. The latter is expensive and pretty bulky and should be allowed to enter the Union free of customs duty. I claim that if it is Correct that a very large and useful industry can be started here, it is not going too far to ask the assistance of the Government on the lines I have indicated. In conclusion, I wish to repeat that it is not my intention to boom the shares of the companies. I have brought the matter before the House in the interest of my constituency and because I think it is of first rate importance to the country. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

I second the motion. I hope the Government will show itself in earnest with its motto, “South Africa first.” Experiments and investigations have clearly established the presence of rich deposits. Up to the present we have had to import all our oil, but there is a great future for this industry. The eye of the world is on South Africa, and I therefore ask the Government to show its desire to give practical help.

Like the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) I am but a layman in this respect, and it cannot be expected of me to go into the details of the matter. I want to say at once that the Government is willing to accept the motion if it is amended. I suggest the deletion of the words, “by the granting of a premium and railway facilities,” and that for those words be substituted a request to the Government to refer the matter to the Board of Trade and Industries for investigation and report as soon as possible.

Parliament cannot refer anything to the Board of Trade, as the Board of Trade is not a body over which Parliament has any control. Only the Government can refer anything to this body.

The hon. member will realise that, as long as we have that Board all similar matters have to be referred to it. There are certain aspects of the question to which I would like to refer, aspects which have to be considered by the Board of Trade and Industries. There still exists considerable doubt with regard to the chemical composition of the torbanite and oil shales, and this requires a special technical investigation. There is a committee of experts to go into matters connected with oil fuel. A report is expected from this committee before the end of the year. I am also informed that the statistics and figures in connection with the presence of oil is of a very problematic character. It will be a difficult matter to compete with the oil which is now being put on the market. I am informed, however, that the available supply of the world’s liquid oil is becoming exhausted. These and other matters the Board will have to investigate. There are coal fields in the district of Ermelo and also in other parts of the Union, but Ermelo’s coal cannot compete with that of other parts. The Government realizes that liquid fuel is indispensable for the development of the country, but liquid fuel is only going to be of use when it is cheap. Proper machinery is required for extracting the oil. I do not want to give the impression that the Government wants to discourage the matter, but it is a rather technical question which has to be tackled by the Board of Trade and Industries. If it is referred to the Board, it will be properly investigated, and we will have a report on the matter. I hope that the mover will accept the amendment, namely—

Mr. C. A. VAN NIEKERK seconded.

I think on this subject of the development of the torbanite we are on a very deep matter in the industrial development of South Africa. I happen to know a great deal about this subject, and, as the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has put the case quite clearly, I do not wish to keep the House. That there will be a very important development there is no doubt in the future as regards the torbanite deposits, and I want the House to realize that torbanite is not the old shales which we have become frightened of. The capital required to institute the industry is large, and when the hon. member (Col.-Cdt. Collins) mentioned the fact that capital was shy, he was perfectly correct. It is shy, apart from any other reason, owing to the fact that we have against any development of the oil shales and torbanite in this country, the oil interests particularly. If we could get them with us it would most likely go ahead much faster, but we do feel that the Government ought to take it up, as the previous Government was sympathetic towards it and would have given whatever aid was allowable. I agree with the amendment for the deletion of all the words after “Union,” leaving it open to the Board of Industries to go into the matter, but let us be assured that you will take it in hand immediately, because, as the hon. member (Col.-Cdt. Collins) says, there is a big industry sticking out in the torbanite fields immediately. I feel that it is a really honest industry that the country can look on as big and not a mere flash in the pan as we have been accustomed to in the past

I am quite willing to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Mines. I only hope that the Minister will urge the Board to deal with the matter speedily and enthusiastically, because we know by experience that the investigations of the Board often take a long time, and we must not quench the existing enthusiasm, because the available capital might be diverted into other channels. There is right time of helping any industry and that time is the present. At first I was a pessimist regarding our oil-fields, but I have become an optimist. The day is fast approaching when the world’s liquid oil supplies are becoming exhausted, and the eyes of the world are on South Africa as a possible source to replenish its wants. The supply of liquid oil is being augmented by oil extracted from oil shales in various parts of the world. The maximum amount extracted in other parts of the world is 12 gallons of oil per ton, while the torbanite in South Africa yields 88 gallons per ton.

The amendment was agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz: That the Government take into consideration the question of encouraging and fostering the oil industry of one Union.

moved—

I understand the Minister has agreed to accept this motion. The circumstances under which this member of the public service comes to this House to ask for an enquiry are peculiar. He has exhausted what other remedies he has and his only way of obtaining an enquiry now is to ask the House to deal with the matter by a Select Committee. There is no permanent Select Committee set up to deal with such matters, but probably later in the session there will be other similar petitions, and the committee that is appointed can deal with them too. This petitioner is at present on leave in Cape Town and he makes a number of allegations in his petition. I do not think it advisable to go too deeply into them now. I wish to avoid anything that may seem to prejudice his case or the case of those against whom the allegations are made.

Mr. STRACHAN seconded.

The hon. member is right in saying the Government accepts this motion. Of course we always hope where motions of this kind are brought before the House that the member who brings them forward is satisfied that a case has been made out to him. One does not want to have too many of these Select Committees as obviously it would lead to difficulties. It is a difficult thing to refuse under the circumstances because we know that these motions have a way of repeating themselves until a Select Committee is appointed. We have had experience of that in the past. So far as this particular notice of motion is concerned we accept it.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

This, unfortunately, is a matter which has been brought up from time to time, but we have had no opportunity of getting it settled. I suppose this petitioner is one of the most persistent petitioners in the world. He has shown a great amount of patience. In the original proceedings before the courts in 1907 Mr. Corderoy was not represented and the real point at issue has never been properly gone into. The courts tell him he is barred from the courts and must go to Parliament. Parliament tells him he must go to the courts. So for years and years he has been turned from one place to the other. The point at issue is one which concerns the public services of the Union, and owing to the original judgment the court is prevented from going into the case. All we want to do is to get a special case stated. If the courts say, without any technical point preventing them from going into the matter, that the petitioner was legally retired, it will end the matter.

What about the consequences?;

Surely you are not going to worry about the consequences. If the courts find that an injustice has been done to Mr. Corderoy, surely the consequences must be faced. The question is: Was he or was he not legally retired? And that point at the present time the courts cannot decide. It is open for the Government to go fully into this matter in the recess. Recently the Minister of the Interior, in replying to a request from Mr. Corderoy, said they were willing to go into the matter but could not do so immediately. This motion gives them the opportunity of doing so during the recess. This motion has had rather bad luck, because in 1920 it was lost on a non-party vote by a very narrow majority of 8. In 1921 again I proposed a Select Committee to go into the case. The chairman was the ex-Minister of the Interior, and he was outvoted on the committee. As chairman, however, he had to sign the report to which he was opposed. That report, while it did not make any recommendation with regard to the main grievance of Mr. Corderoy, suggested a certain compromise, namely, a pension of about £100 a year. It turned out during the enquiry that Mr. Corderoy had been retired under section 35 of Act 32 of 1895 (Cape). Had he been retired under the interpretation of the law on which Government has acted since just before Union, his case could have been dealt with under section 34 of that Act as one of abolition of office, and he would have been entitled to a pension. What happend when the report of the Select Committee came to this House? Members know that in any expenditure of money recommended by any committee except the Pensions Committee you have got to obtain the Governor-General’s recommendation. The Minister took up the extraordinary position that because he was opposed to anything being done he was entitled to refuse to bring in the Governor-General’s recommendation. In this way he held up the report of the Select Committee. One course would have been to move a reference of the report to the Government for consideration. But that would have been futile in view of the Minister’s attitude. Another course open was that the matter be referred to the Pensions Committee—that is one committee having dealt with it exhaustively it should be sent to another committee. I did not adopt that method as it seemed unnecessary. I contended, and I still contend, it was the duty of the Government to bring in that recommendation and so bring the report for adoption or otherwise on the floor of the House. That is the reason why this motion comes before Parliament again this session. Personally, I would like to see an end to its appearance here year after year, and that is why I am so anxious to dispose of it, and I do hope the Minister will accept this motion and go into the matter carefully during the recess to see whether the suggested procedure, namely, that of stating a special case before the courts, may not be the best solution. If Corderoy had, at the beginning of this case, not acted as his own lawyer the issue would have been clearly defined and the matter settled. The real question was whether he was properly or improperly retired, and it is a question which has never been properly settled by a Court of Justice.

Mr. P. W. LE R. VAN NIEKERK seconded.

I would not have intervened in this debate but for the reference of the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) in moving the motion to the report of the Select Committee of 1921. That has nothing to do with the present motion. He repeated what he has said several times in this House a statement which would lead one to the conclusion that I, having signed the report as Chairman of the Select Committee, had then used my position as a Minister to block that report in coming before the House for discussion. That is unfair and unjust. Hon. members will remember quite clearly that when this report of the Select Committee appeared for consideration the point was raised that it could not be discussed without a recommendation of the Governor-General to pass the cost of involved expenditure. It was a report carried against myself and another member as a minority. In my opinion the recommendation involved expenditure, and it could not be granted without the signature of the Governor-General. If it had been granted it would have involved the Government in serious difficulties in regard to other public servants. The Speaker, at the time when the question was raised, said that in his opinion the Minister was not justified in bringing this recommendation before the House unless he was prepared to take the responsibility of the expenditure and, if the Minister brought in any recommendation of the Governor-General dealing with expenditure, it meant that he should take that responsibility. I was not prepared to take that responsibility, and I consider the recommendation was wrong and that it would lead to serious consequences. It was not due to any desire on my part to block discussion in this House, but simply because Mr. Speaker had said, and it was quite in accordance with my own views, that a Minister should not bring in recommendations of expenditure from the Governor-General unless he was prepared to take the responsibility. That was my only reason for not seeing my way clear to bringing that recommendation that the report of the Select Committee should be discussed in this House. It may be due to faulty procedure. That I do not say a word about, but there was no desire on my part to prevent discussion of the report in this House.

The Government is prepared to accept this motion in a literal sense, but we wish to make it quite clear that as a Cabinet we have not gone into this matter, and our attitude must not be taken as indicating the justness of Mr. Corderoy’s complaint or the possibility of carrying out what is contained in the motion of the hon. member. From a legal point of view there are a good many catches in these stated cases, and professionally I do not care for these stated cases, but when you bring an ordinary action the Bench frequently says you should have brought a stated case, and vice versa.

A polite way of saying no.

I did not say that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was actuated by any personal feeling. But I said that Mr. Corderoy was unlucky in that he could not get a recommendation in his favour discussed in the House. That position was admitted by the hon. member. He said he considered the committee’s recommendation wrong. I still think and say that when you have Select Committees for investigating grievances, and these grievances are gone into if the decision goes against the Government, it should be carried out, otherwise you find that the victory is a barren one, and the matter cannot be discussed by the House. I do not wish to impute any personal feeling to the hon. member, and I am not aware that I did in anything I said. I hope that the Government will go very carefully into this matter, and if the Minister finds that the procedure suggested is not the best he may suggest some other procedure, the whole point being that the petitioner should have a chance of allowing the Courts to decide whether or not he was illegally dealt with.

The motion was agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. VERMOOTEN seconded.

Agreed to.

(for the Minister of Railways and Harbours) moved—

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I was a little surprised when this Bill was under discussion that hon. members opposite seemed to take exception to its continuance and rather tried to make a case out in favour of its being purely temporary. I think that one has reason for surprise in regard to their attitude because they took some pride in the parentage of this measure, and now it would appear as if it was more in the nature of a foundling which was left on the doorstep, for which they took no responsibility, and want to strangle as early as possible. In the whole course of the late Government’s existence for fifteen years—I think that was the total period for which they had responsibility—I know of no other measure on the part of the Government that was in favour of the people as against the big interests. So I thought they had reason rather to be proud of this production of theirs; and that during the whole of that time there was at least one measure standing to their credit which was intended for the defence and good of the people. We know that the big interests and those who are most concerned with property, looked upon the last Government as perfection, and the Rents Act, welcomed by the people, was not welcomed by the interests most concerned with the property. The Rent Board exercised a useful restraint upon landlords. It was becoming popular, and I suppose it was because of this and the Board exercising some restraint on landlords there is opposition to its being continued, and to the extension of its valuable operations. Rent Boards were the sole redress from oppression which over-rented tenants had. Tenants were, indeed, generally in a very hopeless position. The Boards had been boards of equity and will be of greater use in the future than in the past. Our judicial system affords very little redress to the oppressed and is mostly of use to people of means who can put expensive legal machinery into operation. I believe it will become essential in the future to have similar boards dealing with other questions. These boards should be inexpensive, easily getatable and give speedy redress. The Rents Boards had assisted to a very great extent people in moderate circumstances, but unfortunately occupants of slums whose position appears almost hopeless seem to have been “abandoned by man and forgotten by God.” It is not only in the north that we have occasion to seek redress against the rack renters, but since arriving in the Cape Peninsula I find that it is quite a common occurrence for people to have to appeal to the Rents Boards. There is just as much resentment in Cape Town at the continued increase in rents as there is up north. At Johannesburg and Pretoria—and particularly at Johannesburg—there is a system under which the speculative purchaser of properties has paid very quickly for those properties by the high rents imposed on his luckless tenants. In many cases rents have been increased immediately properties have changed hands, and in the short space of six or seven years the unfortunate tenants have been made to pay for the properties they occupied. There seems very little chance for ordinary people protecting themselves against rack renting as they must have places in which to live and carry on their business. The speculator has simply to obtain possession of a property by paying a deposit, and the tenant pays off the purchase price in the shape of high rents. I was very much surprised at the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) thinking that an extension of the Rents Act would practically be an interference with that sacred thing “contract.” Surely these gentlemen have fifteenth century minds in twentieth century bodies. The idea that children and women should work in mines under the sacredness of contract has gone long ago. There is no sacredness of contract in matters oppressive to the people. Then there is the so-called “sacredness of property,” but that will be dealt with by the people in due time. Unless relief is given you have violent commotions and upheavals, which are the natural outcome of refusing justice to the people. We want not merely protection for tenants of dwelling houses, but the case for the extension of the Act to shops and business premises is even stronger. Obviously business must be carried on in congested areas, and the owners of property in these areas take full advantage of the appreciation in property values which has arisen not from any action of theirs but through the necessities of the people. Traders by hard work build up a prosperous business, and the landlord takes advantage of their industry and enterprise by doubling rentals. It •is high time that the legislature came to the protection of these tenants and prevented them from being crushed. Leases have been drawn at Johannesburg providing that if the property changes hands the lease can be terminated at short notice, and we have had instances in which the owner of business premises had turned himself into a limited liability company and transferred the properties from his own name into the name of the company and thus been able to obtain re-possession of the place. The instances that I could give are such that it will be at once realized that redress should be given by the extension of the provisions of this Act. I have here a case in which the lessees paid a rent of £150 a month and then, not content with that high rental, the landlord raised the rent to £250. The result of this action has been deplorable. The business people concerned were unable to continue the payment of this extortionate rent and have gone under. That is not to the advantage of the community. I have also another case in which the municipal valuation of a Johannesburg property in 1919 was £1,800. The landlord drew as rent £585, or 33½ per cent. on the valuation, the tenant paying £650 premium to the outgoing tenant for a six years’ lease. His trading account for the year only came to £144; therefore it will be seen that he was working absolutely for the landlord. I have numerous cases of that kind. I have another in which the rental showed a return on the property of 28 per cent. The tenants invested their own capital £2,000, and borrowed £2,750 to buy the lease and furniture, and, after trying to work this business up, they have come out with scarcely anything to live upon. In another case the landlord demanded £1,000 for consent to transfer of a business. I am instancing these cases to show that the landlord may reap the whole advantage of the trading by individuals, and that, from a legal point of view, the latter have no redress whatever. I claim that in equity these people have a claim upon the Legislature of this country and that they should have an appeal and the whole question be gone into and an award made in accordance with just principles. I may mention another case in which premises had been let for £45 a month and now the rentals have been put up by sub-division of the property to £196 per month, an increase of 500 per cent. for that building. We have numerous instances where men have established a business and that business has simply resulted, after all their labour, in merely enriching the owner of the property. It might be said that it does not much matter because what comes out of A’s pocket goes into B’s pocket, and that the community does not suffer, but in many of these cases the properties are owned by people overseas and the increased rentals go overseas and do not benefit anybody in this country. That is a growing practice with large buildings, to become investments for oversea interests, and then these exactions are put on to the detriment of the Union. In some cases where these properties have been leased for the liquor business as bars the scandal has been even greater. I hear of an instance where a tenant purchased a business from the lessee. The lease was about to expire. The lessee demanded from the sub-lessee a premium of £3,000 for a five years’ lease of the liquor licence which had been granted by the Licensing Court to the lessee. The exactions have grown so great that in the opinion of the authorities entrusted with the enforcement of the law in regard to the liquor business, it is very difficult, and becoming impossible in some cases, for the licensees to carry on a respectable business on account or the exactions made for goodwill and rentals. Surely, hon. members opposite, if they wish to take credit, as they have done for months past, for having brought this Act into existence, will now add the coping stone to their public spiritedness by agreeing to the extension or the provisions of this Act so as to make them applicable to a greater number. If it is a fair Act in regard to dwellings it is surely fair in regard to business premises, and if hon. members opposite still entertain a hope of ever being again in the seats of the mighty now is the time for them to prove to the people that they are studying their interests.

I am sorry the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has attempted to make this Rents Act a Party matter. Had it not been for Wakkerstroom this Rents Act would have been continued—

Would it

Undoubtedly it would have been continued and in good time so that there could have been no interregnum. Hon. members will recollect that some time ago a Select Committee sat. I happened to be a member of that Committee, and took a considerable amount of evidence and reported to the House that an Act of this nature was desirable. It was not a Party question at all, but it was an Act of justice to the people, to relieve them from exploitation by heartless landlords. Hon. members must not be under the impression that all landlords are bad, and that all tenants are good. There are good landlords and bad tenants. I am a landlord myself though I am not going to tell the House whether I am a good landlord or a bad landlord. Even some of the working people themselves—I know of a case in Kimberley—are landlords. I know one working man in Kimberley who built three or four houses. I think he is a member of the Labour Party. He is in favour of white labour, but he did not employ white labour in building those houses. He employed coloured labour. I suppose the Government is the biggest landlord in South Africa. The railway department owns houses and in this matter they have been sinners in raising the rent of railway men and I am anxious that this Rents Act shall be continued so that those railway men can bring their grievances against the Government before the Rent Boards.

It was the last Government raised it.

With regard to shops there certainly are landlords who have taken advantage of the enterprise and ability of their tenants to raise rents where tenants have built up good businesses. But there, again, it is not so easy as the gentleman who has just sat down imagines. Some men may pay £50 per month for a store and make it pay. Another man, given the same store at a rental of only £10 per month, would fail. So in a measure the rent which a man is able to pay depends on his business ability as far as shops are concerned; but with private houses it is quite a different thing. Working men who occupy small houses cannot afford to have their rents raised. Some owners of property have, perhaps, bought up a store for eight or nine or ten thousand pounds and they mortgage it. They have to pay rates and other charges, and they perhaps receive no more than six per cent, or seven per cent, return on their money. You must bear in mind that a man can always get 5 per cent, on Government stock. If a man cannot get a reasonable percentage from the store, he will not go in for it. I think if the Government is in favour of this matter, you should have a Select Committee to enquire into the rents of these shops. If any injustice is done to a tenant, whether he occupies a house or shop, that injustice should be gone into. I should suggest—perhaps now that I have been promoted from a back bench to a middle bench I have a right to offer some advice to the Government—that you should appoint a Select Committee to enquire into this question and find out precisely who are the victims of the grasping landlords.

This Act was passed a few years ago as a war measure. Some time ago I expressed the opinion that the Act should be allowed to lapse, because there were quite a number of empty houses. However, after I studied the matter more fully, I have changed my opinion. There is too much speculation in house rents. Landlords often do not only want tenants to pay the municipal rates and taxes and the enormous interest on their capital, but also that they should pay the whole purchase price within six or seven years. If the provisions of the Act are repealed, there is a danger that the rents will be increased to such an extent, that the working people will not be able to pay for them. I can confirm the statement by the hon. member for Pretoria West, namely, that shop rents are increased by 500 per cent. In this way many business men are being ruined. For that reason I think that shops and offices should fall under the provisions of this Bill. A landlord who is satisfied with the payment of the municipal rates and taxes on his property by the tenant, as well as a reasonable interest on his capital, will not suffer under the Act, but the speculators who want to ruin the public must be stopped from doing so. I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill.

The Minister in introducing this measure assumed there was a general assent in this House about the Bill, but he now wishes to put it permanently on the Statute Book. The Rents Act was introduced purely as a war measure.

It was introduced after the war.

Yes, but as a result of the war. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has made his appeal to this side of the House. Why does he not make his appeal to the Government? The Rent Bill was no election cry. The hon. Minister asks that this should apply to shops as well as to houses, and he said to us if you do this it is possible you may occupy seats on the Government side of the House again. A large number of us originally favoured applying this Bill to shop rents as well as to house rents, and I am afraid the hon. member (Mr. Hay) has not made himself familiar with what has been going on in this House. When I saw that this Bill was not likely to be introduced on June 30th last I appealed to many estate agents in Johannesburg not to raise their rents, and said if they did so it would be a justification for the prolongation of this measure. These gentlemen told me they were not at all anxious to raise their rents. As it was they found difficulty in obtaining tenants for their houses. I am not prepared, on broad lines, to support any Bill which interferes with matters of contract. If an appeal is necessary to the Government to make this Bill apply to shops, knowing the facts, facts which induced me in the early stages of the Rents Control Bill to advocate the inclusion of shops, I would support it that this Bill should be applicable to shops. I know of cases, of one firm in Johannesburg in particular, which had been carrying on business for ten years at a rental of £100 a month. Suddenly the rent was put up to £150 per month, with the result that it was impossible to carry on.

I hope that there are not many members who think the same as the hon. member for Yon Brandis who has just spoken. I am quite prepared to support this measure as an emergency measure, but I cannot support it to make it a permanent measure; and I cannot support it if it is to be extended to shops. I would like the hon. Minister to have been in the House on former occasions when this Bill was introduced, and when members of the opposite side were loudest in objecting to anything of this kind being introduced. I remember the hon. member for Piquetberg, the member for Ficksburg, and Somerset East and a good many others, who were very loud in their protests against what they called the wicked Government introducing a measure of this kind, a socialistic measure. But to-day, instead of renewing the Bill for another year, he brings in a Bill to place the Rents Act as a permanent measure and as a matter of policy—passes a Bill which is going to limit profits. If you are going to do that in the matter of home rents, might I ask when are you going to extend it to other lines. I know the Minister of Justice is at a disadvantage. He was not always in the House and never had the opportunity to hear them.

Have you found your tongue at last? It looks very like it.

You are now beginning to squeal. What I am quite prepared to support, and what I think a good many other members are prepared to support, is that we will go with the Minister in re-enacting the Bill as an emergency measure such as we have had before, but not extend it to shops or anything else, because if’ you extend it to shops, we do not know where we may end.

I would like to point out to hon. members that the Bill now before the House does not propose to deal with shops. If there is any intention to extend the operation of the Bill to shops, an instruction to committee of the whole House will have to be moved later on. I shall ask hon. members therefore to confine themselves to the Bill as it stands.

I do not understand why this question should be made a shuttlecock for party purposes.

Ask the hon. member for Worcester. (Mr. Heatlie.)

My dear friend, I have only to look at the division lists to find where you were. Your tongue is much more effective than your vote has been on a previous occasion. When the Bill was first brought forward I was one of those who were in favour of extending it to 1925. I did not think it should be a permanent measure. What I would ask is this: Has the necessity for this Bill ceased? Certainly not. A good deal of capital has been made because hon. members opposite are taking up another view from the view they took up three years ago, hut what would life be worth if hon. members did not get wiser as they got older? It only shows that hon. members opposite have acquired more wisdom since the last election. The question has been brought up that nothing can be done in connection with extending the scope of the Bill unless it is recommitted if the Bill is not applicable to shops. I hope that some hon. member will take the liberty to move that it be made applicable to shops. Some hon. member says “Farms.” Well, if the rents of farms are too high, why should it not be “farms” as well? These people must be protected who cannot protect themselves. May I suggest that the Bill be made to apply not only for another year but until 1928—make it four years. Later on, I shall be at liberty to bring in a motion with regard to the date. There is only one duty before the House and that is to pass the Bill, and I hope that it will be done with as little discussion as possible.

The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) tried to frighten hon. members on the opposite side of the House with the idea of fixing rents and profits, but the whole idea running through his speech was that you must hold fixed opinions. You must on no account change your opinions for the better. That was the effect of the whole of his argument. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz) who started the discussion indicated very clearly that as far as his side of the House was concerned their attitude was a very peculiar one. He complained of the Government having to introduce this Bill because of the support of the Labour Party and intended to convey that the Labour Party is responsible for it. No member of the Labour Party need be ashamed of his attitude in regard to this Bill, or the influence of the Labour Party as far as this legislation is concerned, but if you compare the speech of the Minister of Justice in 1920 when this legislation was introduced with the speech of the Minister of Justice on this occasion, you will find that if ever legislation was forced on the Government it was on that occasion, and the Minister of Justice then introduced the Bill in a manner clearly indicating that they did not want to introduce it, but public opinion was too strong for them. “We must do something,” they said. “Let us introduce a measure to be enforced for twelve months, and public opinion will by that time have subsided.” After twelve months they found that they had to introduce the Bill again, and then year after year. Then the Prime Minister—the former Prime Minister—announced that it was public opinion which had forced them to go to the country and the matter of the Rents Act and its lapsing was brought to the notice of the Government by the hon. member for Cape Town, Hanover-street (Mr. Alexander), who pointed out that if the Bill was not re-enacted certain difficulties would arise; and these difficulties have arisen. Clause is essentially due to the neglect of those members of the House sitting on the opposite side—Opposition members. The position as far as the principal clause is concerned is very clear. The S.A.P. have dealt with this matter purely as one of expediency and have done things from time to time as public opinion forced them to do them. During the election the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) suddenly came out with the statement that if they were again returned to power they would extend the Rents Act; but unfortunately for them the public was against them and sail “we do not want this matter from the point of expediency but from the point of view of principle.” They say that the only reason they support the measure is that there is a shortage of houses. They say: “Let us still go on with the policy of expediency and extend the measure for a year only, and then popular opinion will have veered round or the necessity for a Rents Act will have disappeared.” The Housing Committee which reported on this subject in 1920 conclusively showed that any argument for dealing with the matter from such a point of view was practically dishonest. Taking the most limited view of the position the Housing Committee found that for white people alone there was in 1920 a shortage of 9,550 houses, but in reality we required many more houses. England has had the same experience of this matter as South Africa. English Governments kept tinkering with the question until the present Government recently introduced legislation to provide for the building of two and a half million houses. It is no good dealing with the matter from the point of view of expediency unless you are satisfied that the shortage is to be made good. But the Housing Committee reported that private enterprise alone cannot be relied upon to meet the shortage of houses, and that Committee was appointed by the South African Party Government; not a single Socialist was represented on it, and, so far as I am aware, not a single member of the Nationalist Party sat on it. You must make the Rents Act a permanent piece of legislation, and if the time should arise, which I doubt, when you have more houses than people, then there will be no difficulty in doing away with the Act. But at the present moment and in the light of the Committee’s report, it will be only playing with the question to extend the Bill for a year. I have a report recently issued by Dr. Shaddick Higgins, Medical Officer of Health to the City of Cape Town, who says that the question of outstanding importance is the shortage of houses for the working classes. In the light of that I fail to see how any members, unless they are definitely opposed to doing anything—as is obvious from the whole tenure of the discussion from the South African Party side of the House—can oppose the principle underlying the Bill. The objection has been made that by this Bill we interfere with contractal relations. But many years ago private contracts were interfered with in one way or another. If a person falls into a well and someone passing should offer to save him on condition that he would be his slave for life, would the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) say it would be wrong to interfere with such a contract? The law at any rate lays it down that when a contract is entered into under duress it cannot be enforced. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is a very great exponent of liquor prohibition which would interfere with private contracts and private rights, but when it comes to a question affecting tenants, a large class of the community, he says you must only extend the law for twelve months as it interferes with private contracts. The mass of the people however are beginning to accept the position that the interests of the vast majority must be placed above those of a small minority. We find that position accepted in connection with wages now throughout the world, the principle being laid down of a minimum wage. Until we, in this country, also lay down that principle we shall not be able to deal adequately with the housing problem. The Housing Committee, to which I previously referred, says it is practically impossible to divorce the question of the housing of the poorer classes from that of a minimum wage.

I am opposed to perpetuating a law which seems to me absolutely wrong in principle. The occasion for this measure arose about four years ago when there was a scarcity of houses and when no doubt a good many landlords took advantage of the position then existing, but I do contend that the remedy which is here suggested is the very opposite to what is calculated to improve the condition of affairs. Unless people are assured of a reasonable return on their outlay, they are not going to build houses. The Rents Act is one of the most unpopular measures that have been passed by this legislature. I may cite one or two cases to give an idea of the justification that there is for such unpopularity. In one of the towns I represent, Aliwal North, an individual bought a house which cost him £1,000. He promptly let it at £7 per month, which is 8.4 per cent. interest on his money. The Rent Board came along and reduced the rental from £7 to £4 a month, £48 per annum, and in addition the landlord had to pay all the rates and taxes. A similar case arose in Burghersdorp, where an individual bought a place and leased it for £7 10s. a month. The Rent Board similarly reduced the rental to £4 10s. a month.

Why?

Because, I suppose, £7 10s. was too much. But is not a return of less than 5 per cent. obviously unfair? I think that the whole of this Act is lopsided; it favours the tenant as against the owner of the property. The owner has no right to give notice to the tenant to vacate the place so long as he pays the rent. Even if it is the desire of the owner to improve the property, say by putting on another storey, he cannot do so. He can only get possession of his property if he desires to occupy it personally. I look upon this Act as a pernicious interference with the rights of private ownership of property. If this principle is sound, why confine it to the towns and not to country districts? I have a petition signed by a certain number of people asking for the extension of this Bill to the country districts. They would like the Rent Board to determine rents for farm tenants as well. It has been said that this Bill does not apply to houses erected since 1920. What guarantee have we that buildings which have been put up since this Bill was originally passed four years ago will not come within the scope of its operations? If we have such an assurance, is it fair to the owners of buildings erected prior to 1920 that they should continue under the operation of the Act while later erections are exempted? I think this is an ill-advised law and that it will interfere with any development that might take place in regard to the building of houses. I do think there is much to be said in favour of a public building scheme under Government control. But I think interference with private enterprise will defeat the purpose aimed at.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) knows, or should know, that no fair-dealing landlord has anything to fear from the operations of the Rents Boards, and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) knows that too. But the hon. member sitting in front of him was not a fairdealing landlord. I actually brought the S.A.P. Government before its own Rent Board in Natal and secured a reduction on certain property.

It was not the railways.

Yes, the railways. After the Rent Board had reduced the rent on the railway property to which I am referring, the Railway Administration defeated the object of the Board by putting the amount that the Board reduced on to the electric light bills of their tenants. I knew perfectly well after the result of the last election that the Rents Act would be renewed. You can put it down as one of the beneficial results of the Pact, if you like. I knew the present Government would keep its promise to the people of this country. I wonder how many of you (addressing members of the Opposition) sitting on those benches there, pay rent. You live in your own houses and you have no idea what tenants have to put up with from landlords who attempt to extract unreasonable rents. Many such landlords belong to the same nationality as the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris). Many of them have rack-rented the poorer people of this country to such an extent that an Act of this nature is very necessary indeed. I trust the Minister of Justice will devise some method of appointing members of the Rent Boards different to that now in operation. I hope he will see that at least one member of each Board is a man who can be relied upon to see that the tenants get fair play. I do not want the Minister to apply the spoils method to this particular matter, although I would like to remind the S.A.P. that they did so. In the district I come from the chairman of the Rent Board was an ex-magistrate, and a good man; the second member of the Board was at one time the organising secretary of the South African Party in that district; the third member of that Board was a man who always stood at the door of the polling booth on election day and told the electors to vote “British.” The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) knows him particularly well. I do not want the spoils system brought into operation, but I do trust the Minister will see that at least one member of the Board is a man who can be relied upon to give tenants a fair deal. It is one thing to have a Bill on the Statute Book and another to see that it is properly administered.

I must say I am very disappointed with the representatives of the country districts. I am representing a country district and as such I am going to support this Bill because I feel the townspeople suffer to a great extent; but I do not see the necessity of making this measure a permanent one. It is merely a temporary measure occasioned through the war, and the House and country will be doing well in having it in operation for one year only. I wish to take exception to the remarks made by the hon. member of Maritzburg (North) who wishes to stigmatize a certain nationality when he refers to the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir D. Harris), and I do not think it is honourable for him to do so, and I take this opportunity of expressing my opinion.

He spoke of the nationality of his pocket.

No, sir, he did not. I did not expect to hear that in a House of this kind. I sincerely hope the Minister of Justice is going to alter the Bill so that it will operate for one year. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) is always opposed to these measures, and I am referring in particular to the country districts.

There are a few remarks which I would like to make in reply to the debate. With regard to the observations of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz), I must say that I am surprised to learn that I deceived the House by not telling them that this Act was intended to be a permanent Act and not for a period of one year. I did think its knowledge of either English or Dutch would have made the matter perfectly clear and that it would not be necessary for me to tell the House the exact period for which the Act was to operate. Sub-section 2 of section 1 says in definite terms that the Act will remain in operation until repealed. But I go further with regard to the remarks the hon. member made. They are the same futile remarks you can make with regard to any Act of Parliament. He said it interfered with the liberty of the subject, but I would like to hear of any Act of Parliament which does not the same way interfere with the liberty of the subject. You interfere with the liberty of the subject when you deal with the income tax and pass an Insolvency Act, and you do not allow a man to do what he likes with his property. No more futile and absurd argument can be brought into a debate than this interference with the liberty of the subject agreement. Then the hon. member said that there is discrimination; of course there is discrimination; take the income tax; this discriminates against the man who has more than £500 per annum, and he does not like to be discriminated against. But owing to his earning a large income, he is discriminated against. The hon. member says it restricts building. How can anyone say that an Act referring to buildings erected in 1920 can be regarded as restricting building in 1924 and 1925? It is an argument that should not be used by any person who understands what words mean. As far as the second sub-section of clause 1 is concerned, the Government will not depart from the position—that this Act shall be enforced until repealed by Parliament. We see no virtue in re-enacting it from year to year. We have here the re-enactment of a “temporary measure” in 1924 which was a temporary measure in 1920. The Opposition want it to remain a temporary Act for another four years. Apart from any other argument, we do not want to waste time or expense reenacting this Act from year to year. If we reenact it for a year we shall have to re-enact it again next year for another year, then after for three or four years at least. We see from the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) that he wants to make it of force till 1928. That makes it much worse. If we make it 1928 the position might change in the interval. I think that this Act will certainly remain in force for some years, and I therefore object to the futile course of limiting its operation to one year. With regard to section 2 the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite have made me certain that you must tighten up the Bill. Landlords and tenants knew that the law would be re-enacted, therefore, there would be no injustice by adding a provision that the man who took possession from the landlord when the first tenant was evicted should be ejected, leaving it to him to bring any action he likes against the landlord. The landlord and the second tenant have none of my sympathy, because they knew so far as the leaders of all Parties were concerned that they had given an undertaking that the Rents Act would be re-enacted, so I see not the faintest reason why the landlord or the second tenant should be considered. I have been convinced by the arguments of the Opposition that it is necessary to tighten up that clause as much as possible. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) says that is a law which penalises one section of the people and is of a spoliatory nature and despoils people. If it is all that is conveyed by these vituperative epithets then he must be very much offended with the late Government for introducing the Bill. If the late Government intended to do that then it has met with its just reward. I do not think I am allowed at this stage to deal with any question of shops because that would complicate the question to a very large extent; I had better leave my remarks on that point to any amendment which may be made to the Bill in Committee. To widen the scope of the Act it would be necessary to send the measure to a Select Committee. It would be necessary to enquire into this matter very carefully because, after all complaint with regard to the rents of shops has only come from the central portion of Johannesburg. I might refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). He says that the Act may be extended to farms, but I have never heard of the rental of any farm working out at more than 5 per cent. on the capital value, and I am certain that no Rent Board will reduce the rent below that figure. I should be exceedingly surprised to find that farm rentals are on a higher level in the Western Province. On the argument that by making the Bill permanent we make it a matter of policy, it seems to me it is just as much a matter of policy if you introduce it and renew it from year to year. My hon. friend also refers to my absence from this House. Well, my absences have not been entirely unfruitful if you consider the political position of the Transvaal to-day compared with what it was in 1915. That is all I wish to say in connection with that matter. As far as the principle of the Act is concerned, it is quite clear, I think, that the overwhelming opinion of the House is in favour of the continuance of this Act.

The motion was agreed to, Bill read a second time; Committee stage on 6th August.