from G. F. Smith, late sanitary inspector, Native Location, Maitland.

from William Armitage Chippindall, Civil Service clerk.

re purchase of Poortje Township.

from Gladys F. Robertson, teacher.

from John Hilmer Lander, Customs Department.

from A. Jukes, late of Controller and Auditor-General’s Department.

from the Municipality of Somerset East, for amendment of the General Dealers and other Licences Amendment Act, 1906 (Cape).

from D. B. Traill, Engineering Branch, General Post Office.

from W. H. Jones, sen., who met with accident while working on the railway.

Correspondence in connection with dismissal of Mr. John Blake van Renen, late Civil Commissioner, Albert.

Report on petition from H. J. le Riche, former Assistant Inspector of Sheep.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether it is true that one F. T. Vermooten, of Belfast, Transvaal, was recently charged with an offence against the liquor law, and that after a personal interview between him and the Attorney-General for the Transvaal the charge was withdrawn ; (2) whether he thinks it right that an Attorney-General in exercising his discretion on the conduct of criminal prosecutions should allow the person accused to discuss the case with him at a private interview ; (3) whether the same man had previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a similar offence and was released before the expiration of the sentence?

(1) The answer is in the affirmative. The interview took place in the presence of the attorney of the accused ; (2) I not only consider it right, but I think it would be the duty of the Attorney-General to grant an interview if applied to for it by the accused ; (3) the answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) How many white employees of the South African Railways are in receipt of less than four shillings per day, less than five shillings per day, and less than six shillings per day respectively ; and (2) do they receive any other emoluments, and if so, what emoluments?

replied that it would take some considerable time to get the information, but he would have it prepared as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he was aware of the great delay in transit of fresh fruit and other perishable farm produce by rail to the different markets in the country, in consequence of which owners suffer heavy losses ; and if so, whether he will without delay give special instructions to those responsible to prevent such unnecessary delays in future?

replied to the first part of the question in the negative. Of course there were often delays on the railway. Although he always brought matters of this kind to the notice of those who were directly managing the railways, still, sometimes, delays were unavoidable, but, naturally, he would do all he could to see that there were as few delays as possible. Until we got to Heaven, he was afraid railways would sometimes go wrong in this wicked world. However, he would do all he could to see that there was as little delay as possible.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in view of the statement he made in this House during last session that separate railway carriages would be provided for the conveyance of European and native passengers, as also in view of the fact that complaints are repeatedly appearing in the Press, e.g., that some Europeans recently threw a native out of a railway carriage, he will inform the House when it can be reasonably expected that such separate provision, so eagerly desired by both races, will be made?

replied that as far as possible Europeans and natives were kept separate at present, but it was impossible to do so entirely, as that would necessitate a large addition to the rolling stock. Additional rolling stock had been ordered, and on its arrival he would try to meet all grievances as far as possible.

asked the Minister of Finance what the several amounts of losses by fire are which have occurred in Government property since July 1, 1911, and whether the Government intends continuing to carry its own fire insurance?

said that the fire losses since July 1 had been £170. The Government intended to continue to carry out its own fire insurance.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether, in view of the fact that a Blue-book (U.G. 32/11, Preliminary Census Returns) dated 20th July last, has been issued, the Governor-General-in-Council has appointed a Commission to carry out the necessary re-division of the different electoral divisions of each Province ; and if not, what is the cause of the delay ; and, if already appointed, why has the Commission not commenced its duties?

replied that the Blue-book to which the hon. member referred contained provisional figures only, and not final figures of the Census, as intended in the South Africa Act. The Government trusted that they would shortly be in possession of the statistics required under the Constitution, and would then proceed to nominate the Commission for the re-division of the different electoral districts.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether it is a fact that on the 14th June, 1911, a full bench of three judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division, found the Chief Immigration Officer, Cape Town, guilty of contempt of Court, and ordered him to pay the costs of those proceedings and the previous proceedings taken in connection therewith, de bonis propriis ; (2) whether he is aware that in a previous immigration case, heard before Chief Justice De Villiers and Judge Hopley in December, 1906, Lord De Villiers, in his judgment, referred to the fact of the applicants being deported before the case was heard in Court, and stated that the Chief Immigration Officer, Cape Town, “certainly sailed perilously close to the wind in the course he took” : (3) whether the terms of the judgment of June 14, 1911, were considered by the Government : (4) whether he is aware that the Chief Immigration Officer, on June 14. 1911, pleaded that he acted upon instructions ; (5) whether such instructions were given, and, if so, by whom ; (6) whether any inquiry was held into the Chief Immigration Officer’s conduct after the conviction on June 14, 1911 ; (7) whether, in spite of such conviction, he has been retained in the Government service ; and (8) whether the costs of the proceedings referred to in paragraph (1) hereof were paid by the Government, and, if so, how much they amounted to?

(1) In the affirmative. (2) In the affirmative. The Chief Justice used the words in reference to a certain incident in court, but the judgment supported the Immigration Officer. (3) No. (4) In the affirmative. (5) Yes. (6) Yes. (7) Yes. The judgment of the Court held that the officer acted in a bona fide manner. (6) Yes: the amount was £7 15s. 5d.

asked the Minister of Justice whether in the reference to be made to the Patents, Trade Marks and Designs Commission already appointed or shortly to be appointed, there is or will be included an inquiry into, and a report upon, the registration and protection of “original designs” ; and if not, whether the Government will enlarge the terms of reference so as to embrace this principle?

The terms of reference issued to the Commission by His Excellency the Governor-General on May 22, 1911, included designs.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What is the number of natives employed on the maintenance of permanent way on the South African Railways ; and (2) what is the number of natives at present employed on the construction of new lines?

(1) 9,424 natives ; (2) 7,250 natives—1,642 by the Administration and 5,608 by contractors.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) (a) Whether the promise by the Van Ryn Gold Mining Company to make a contribution towards the cost of the BenoniWelgedacht railway deviation took the form of a written agreement between the said company and the Railway Administration, and if so, whether he will Jay the same on the table of the House ; (b) what was the amount promised ; (c) what reason does the Van Ryn Company give for not keeping its promise ; and (2) whether the Administration intends to complete the line, and when?

(a) There is no written agreement. (b) No specified amount was promised ; (c) Administration would not accept amount company prepared to offer. (d) The work will be undertaken when the survey is completed.

What was originally promised by the company?

replied that he was unable at the moment to state the exact figure.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) What was the date of the circular issued by the General Manager, South African Railways, announcing that the rate on fertilisers and manures would be lowered ; (2) from what date was the rate actually lowered ; and (3) when was the lower rate made applicable to the C.F.L.M.?

(i) September 23. (2) October 1. (3) C.F.L.M. did not agree to the rate until November 30.

asked the Minister of Justice whether an alteration in the present Magisterial Department of Woodstock is in contemplation ; and if so, whether he is prepared to make a statement to the House on the subject?

It is proposed to amalgamate the Wood-stock Magisterial establishment with that of Cape Town, to raise the status of Cape Town, and to establish an Assistant Magistrate for criminal cases at Woodstock.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether, in complying with the South Africa Act, which provides for the elimination of railway surpluses, he will consider the claims of the daily paid and salaried staffs as a first charge against any estimated surpluses, with a view of allocating a sufficient sum for the purpose of raising wages and salaries by such amounts as will enable the recipients to live in decency and comfort?

said it was a peculiar question at the moment, which he would answer when he brought in the railway budget.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) Whether it is the intention of the Government to enforce simultaneous dipping this summer, and if so, when ; and (2) whether it will be carried out throughout the Union during the same period?

It has been decided not to enforce the simultaneous dipping of sheep during this summer in view of the following facts, viz.: (1) The insufficient number of dipping tanks, appliances and dipping material m a large number of the districts in the Union ; (2) the delay which has, unfortunately, occurred in getting the views of the farmers and Divisional Councils in the different districts as to the period most suitable for such dipping, some districts not yet having replied to the Department’s circular letter on the subject: and (3) that it will be impossible to carry it out throughout the Union during one period on account of the different climatic conditions prevailing in the Union.

Have the scab inspectors been informed of this fact?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) Whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions passed at meeting of postal and telegraph clerks held throughout the Union to protest against the administrative methods of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs; and (2) whether he is prepared to make any statement to this House in connection with the charges made?

(1) My attention has been drawn to the matter ; (2) the answer, for the time being, is in the negative.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress the Government has made in regard to the erection and establishment of an agricultural school at Tweespruit, in the Orange Free State, and when it can be reasonably expected that the school will be opened?

The erection of an agricultural school in the Orange Free State is receiving the attention of the Government. I regret I cannot say when the school will be opened, but I hope in the near future.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he will inform the House as to the result of any negotiations with respect to the rates for cable messages?

Until recently, the rate for ordinary cablegrams between the Union and Europe was 2s. 6d. per word. As a result of negotiations carried out by the Imperial Government (as foreshadowed at the Imperial Conference last June), the cable companies agreed to accept cablegrams at halt-rates under certain conditions, the most important being that the messages must be in plain language, and that they might be withheld for transmission until messages prepaid at the ordinary rate had been disposed of. The Government agreed to this arrangement ; and the reduced charge came into force on the 1st January last. There are, therefore, now two classes of ordinary cablegrams: one at full (2s. 6d.) rates, which is given immediate despatch, and which may be in code ; and the other at half-rates, to be in plain language and liable to be delayed if the ordinary traffic warrants such action. I may add that these reduced rates also apply to the. British Empire generally, and to certain foreign countries. With regard to Press cablegrams, the Imperial Postmaster-General recently announced that a deferred press rate at half the existing rate had been arranged between Great Britain and Canada, America arid Australia ; but that he regretted he had been unable to arrange a similar reduction to South Africa and India. The Union Government thereupon made representations to the Eastern Cable Company, pointing out that South Africa would be at a great disadvantage if the current rate of 9d. a word were continued as against the new rate of 4½d. per word for Australia—although South Africa, is only half the distance from England that Australia is. The Union Government asked that a substantial reduction should be made in the existing rates, and that South Africa should be placed in no worse a position than Australia in this matter. I am happy to be able to say that the cable company met the Government’s representations in a fair spirit, and have agreed to reduce the rate of 9d. to 3½d. per word on condition that such messages are despatched when ordinary and deferred cablegrams have been disposed of. The Government is advised that press messages are not likely to suffer any greater delay under this arrangement than under existing conditions. The High Commissioner has been requested to express thanks to the cable company, and to intimate that the new rate is accepted. It will come into force from the 1st March, 1912.

asked the Minister of the Interior: (1) Whether the Chief Immigration Officer has presented any reports to the Government for the years 1910 and 1911, and, if not, why not: and (2) if the said officer has presented such reports, when will they be laid on the table of the House?

replied that a report had been presented, but for reasons of economy had not been printed. If the hon. member approached him (General Smuts), he could have all the information he wished.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs, in view of the provisions of sections 32 and 33 of Law No. 1 of 1909 (Natal): (1) Whether the Council for Native Affairs in Natal has reported upon all contemplated legislation affecting natives in Natal ; and, if so, (2) (a) whether the Council advised that the existing laws required amendment in such respects; and (b) whether the Council propose or recommend the said contemplated legislation ; and (3) if the Council did make a report or recommendation upon the said contemplated legislation, whether he will lay a copy thereof on the table of the House?

replied that the answer to the first part of the question was in the negative, and consequently that disposed of the other parts of the question.

moved that from and after Thursday, the 22nd inst., Thursday be an Order day, Government business to have precedence, such precedence, however, for the 22nd inst. to have effect only after notices of motion already placed on the Order paper for that day have been disposed of.

seconded.

uttered a word of protest against the curtailment of private members’ days, and said that they thought that Parliament was not only for the disposal of Government business but that it had equally important duties in discussing matters which were brought forward by private members. (Hear, hear.)

said that his right hon. friend might listen to the representations made by the hon. member for Jeppe. He did not generally agree with that hon. member, but he did on the present occasion, and he thought he was perfectly right. In the old Cape Parliament private members were always given an opportunity, in the interests of their constituents and the country, of bringing forward matters of interest. Hon. members had come, some of them, from considerable distances to attend Parliament, and naturally wished to finish the work of the session as soon as possible; and their duty was to fulfil the trust reposed in them by their constituents to the best of their ability and the best of their knowledge. It would be practically impossible to do so if the motion were carried, because it would make it impossible for a private member to bring forward any business. He knew that the Prime Minister, if he wished to do so, could carry that motion with his majority, but he hoped that he would not do so for some time, so that private members could have an opportunity of bringing matters forward.

said that he was sure that his hon. friend could not accuse him of wishing to prevent private members from bringing forward any matters they wished to, but he thought that it was desirable to bring to the notice of the House that the Government had only one Government day in the week. Well, what they were asking was surely not too much.

All the Bills before the House are Government Bills, and you have practically three days in the week instead of one.

My hon. friend does not seem to know that other matters besides Bills get precedence on Order day, and if a motion is being discussed when the adjournment is moved, it gets precedence on the day it is set down for.

said that at present it was true that nominally the Government had one day, but really they had three days. Proceeding, he said that time would not really be saved if the motion were agreed to, because hon. members were bound to bring matters up, and if they did not bring them up by motion they would find that it was done when they went into the Estimates, and so delayed other business. He thought it was better to let hon. members get rid of their motions.

said he was not one of those who desired to reduce the rights of members, but he felt bound to say that at the beginning of the session the Government was overwhelmed with questions and motions. Much of the time of the House was in that way lost, with the natural result that Government business got into arrear, and important matters had to be dealt with later on in too hasty a manner, in order to avoid having to extend the session.

said that if they could not get through their business in three or five months, let them extend the time of the session. Hon. members must not run away with the idea that three or four months was the portion of time allowed to do their work in. It did not follow that because the Government brought in particular measures or motions, these were the only matters of importance to the country. (Hear, hear.) Members on the cross-benches thought they could bring in measures of infinitely greater importance—(laughter)—and he supported the idea that the Government should not take precedence on that day.

said that the plain fact was that so-called private members’ day was the only day that was open, not only to Government supporters, but the whole of the rest of the country, and the only chance that parties which did not belong to the Government had of bringing up matters. The Government had naturally only introduced those measures which received the backing of their supporters.

Oh, no, no. (Laughter.)

I don’t know what the old Cape Parliament used to do, but I am talking of this Parliament.

I am referring to the Land Settlement Bill.

But you are going to vote for it.

suggested that Thursday should be private members’ day until the end of March.

On the motion being put, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result :

moved House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m., and resume at 8 o’clock p.m., on Mondays and Thursdays.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the Bill be now read a first time.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Wednesday, February 21.

moved that the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours consist of thirteen members, and that Sir Thomas Smartt, Sir David Hunter, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, Messrs. Whitaker, H. S. Theron, Stockenstrom, Vintcent, Neser, Andrews, and the mover be members of the committee. The Minister added that he would give notice of the additional names.

seconded.

Agreed to.

had previously given notice to move that the Select Committee on Public Accounts consist of ten members and that Mr. Creswell be a member of the committee.

I wish to point out that the question that the Select Committee on Public Accounts consist of ten members was negatived on the 31st January on the motion of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley). Notice of motion No. V., standing in the name of the Minister of Finance for to-day, is, therefore, in conflict with the provisions of Standing Order No. 66, and must be discharged.

had previously given notice to move that the reports and correspondence relating to the extension of the Dom Pedro Jetty, in Algoa Bay, be laid upon the table of the House.

The motion was dropped.

moved for a return showing: (1) What extent of Land was thrown open for prospecting for water under Act No. 42 of 1908 (Cape) in the division of Kenhardt ; (2) the number of applications received for prospecting licences ; (3) the number of applications granted ; (4) the number of applicants who have been successful in finding water and have applied for the land about their wells ; (5) how long the Government drill for boring for water upon that area has been upon the ground ; (6) the expenditure in connection with the drill up to date—(a) for transport from the nearest railway station to the first site, (b) the other working expenses up to date ; (7) the number of holes which have been bored up to the present time, the depth of each hole, and in how many holes has water been successfully found and at what depth. Mr. Watermeyer said that his object in moving for the return was to put the House in possession of the facts in regard to the working of Act 42, 1908. As hon. members knew, he was very keen on closer settlement, perhaps not so close as some desired to see, but he wanted to see some of the blank spaces in our country filled up. Two-thirds of the men who went into the Kalahari had found water and had got land. He was quite at one with the object of the Government in boring for water on Crown lands, but our country was full of men waiting to go upon the land—(hear, hear)—men who knew their business, but who had nowhere to turn. We had the huge Kalahari where the Act could be applied, but not in the way in which it had been applied at Kenhardt. When the returns were laid on the table the Minister would see that progress had been made. The drills would do a lot of work, but they would mean a delay of four or five years, which was a considerable time out of a man’s life. The good effect of the Act had been seen at Kenhardt, and it should be extended to Gordonia. To the stock farmer a borehole did not mean such a great benefit as some people thought, for sometimes things went wrong with the pump and then the farmer would be without water.

seconded.

moved that the district of Gordonia be added after “Kenhardt.” He went on to say that when he last asked the Government to open up Gordonia, the Minister of Lands replied that the Government wished first to bore for water. He (the speaker) added that very few bores had been sent for Kenhardt and Gordonia. There was the law. Why did not the Government open the land? It seemed to him that the Government in this matter had been too sluggish. For many of them in the North it was a life question to get land, and that speedily. Why must the people wait year after year? Valuable time was being lost, and he called on the Government to carry out the law of 1908.

seconded.

said that the people in his district had dug wells, but were not ready in one year. Application for the licences to be extended had been refused, and the country remained uninhabitable. The Government wanted first to bore for water, but boring there would not help them at all. If the people could not find water, then neither could the Government. The Minister should go and visit the district, and then he would see there could be no question of boring. Many people had spent large sums in digging wells, but now everything had been stopped. The Government should open the Kalahari, and then the people would look for water. If it was the intention not to carry out the existing law, then the law should be cancelled.

The amendment was agreed to, and the motion as amended was adopted.

stated that if the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben) had to be fully complied with it would make executive administration practically impossible. Such papers as “instructions sheets” and “office endorsements” are of a confidential nature, and it would not be in the public interest to lay them on the table of the House. He accordingly asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point?

It is impossible to state what the nature is of all the papers contemplated by this motion, but as far as they are specified, it seems that a full compliance with the motion might create a precedent which would make executive administration, if not impossible, extremely difficult. The rule governing cases where Ministers quote in the House from documents was stated by me last session on the consideration of the Post Office Bill The same rule, I consider, would operate here, and it may again be summarised as follows: When a Minister quotes from a paper or document, he is obliged to lay it on the table, except where such papers happen to be communications which have passed between officers of public departments, or where papers are of a confidential or private nature involving matter of State such as in the opinion of the Minister for bids him to produce them. As the Minister has raised the objection, I must rule that the motion must be amended by omitting the words “including instructions sheets, office endorsements, and other papers.”

Of course, I bow to your ruling, sir. I intended simply to move the motion formally, because behind the motion is a very important matter to all concerned. I specifically called for certain papers which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled I have no right to ask for, because I have it on good authority that the Minister and his officers are using this authority in a manner which was never intended by any country ruled by Parliamentary institutions. I make that statement, and hope to be able to prove it. I have it on good authority that letters have been addressed to members of one side of this House asking them to make recommendations in a matter regretting your ruling in this matter, Mr. Speaker, because very important matters connected with the administration in this as well as in other things I know have taken place in the Minister of Justice’s Department which we in the Cape Province anyhow, and I think in the whole Union, treat as a subject which should not be made a matter of party politics—that is, the constitution of Licensing Courts. Recommendations have been asked for from certain members—not from this side of the House—and I say that it has put those members in a most invidious position, because it may come about that recommendations made by them may be called into question by the House, and they would then be pointed to as being responsible for the recommendations. It was in order to find out the facts that I called for these papers, but I must try to find out as much as possible from those we should be allowed to see. I again say I regret your ruling in this matter, Mr. Speaker, because very important matters connected with the administration in this, as well as in other things I know have taken place in connection with the Minister of Justice’s Department, and which may call for an inquiry at a later stage in another shape.

seconded the amended motion.

I am exceedingly sorry to hear some of the remarks made by the hon. members. I have seldom heard a stronger indictment against the lack of secrecy as maintained by some of the officers in the Service than what the hon. member has suggested this afternoon. Evidently there must be a good deal of leakage—(Ministerial cheers)—from the Service, or the hon. member must have exercised his imagination very much. I must say—and I have no hesitation in doing so—that it will be proved when the papers are laid on the table, that the hon. member’s remarks are very imaginary, as far as the Minister himself is concerned. If the hon. member would go through all the documents he certainly will not find one endorsement by the. Minister. (Hear, hear.) He certainly need not contemplate when I asked for your ruling, sir, that I did so because there was anything I should like to keep away from him. (Hear, hear.) He is perfectly welcome to all papers, but I asked for that ruling in the interests of the Service, believing that if I did not, It would be very detrimental to the Service.

Are we to understand that although all these papers cannot be formally moved for, that the Minister is ready to lay all the instruction sheets, office endorsements, and other papers on the table?

Are we to have them or not? We know perfectly well that these instruction sheets may not have endorsed on them instructions by the Minister—probably he has never seen them—but officers frequently endorse papers “Passed by the Minister," when the Minister has never seen them, and, perhaps, was hundreds of miles away. It is a trick on the part of the office of the Minister of Justice not to show these papers. The officers are afraid that these instruction papers will come out—(Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

I have pointed out to the House that when a Minister states that papers are confidential they cannot be moved for if he objects. It is one of the most ordinary rules of the House of Commons.

In the old Cape Colony we knew we should get all the facts of the case when we called for papers, but we know in this matter that unless we get the instruction papers we shall not get the whole of the facts. That is putting it perfectly plainly.

Do I understand that the instructions on the papers cannot be included in the papers laid on the table of the House? If those instructions are not included it might lead to most serious irregularities. Heads of departments and high officials might issue private instructions in connection with appointments, and when papers are laid on the table this House and the country would not have any idea of what is going on.

I cannot conceive anything more serious than that instructions should be issued from a department and not be open to this House, especially instructions dealing with official appointments. (Hear, hear.) Is the Minister prepared to submit all the papers demanded? Otherwise people will regard it as confirmation of the suspicious ideas that have been entertained.

May I say a word in reply?

The hon. member has moved.

The motion, as amended by the deletion of the words “including instruction sheets, office endorsements, and other papers,” was then carried.

We shall see what we get.

moved that the Government be requested to take into consideration the desirability of establishing a stud farm in the division of Calvinia for the benefit of the pastoral industry of the North-western Districts of the Cape Province. The mover said that his constituents had asked him to bring the matter forward, as they considered that something must be done, and as it was not in the power of private persons to undertake such a thing. The importation of first-class cattle was handicapped by the difference which existed in carrying out the scab regulations. In Calvinia, they had a splendid place for the establishment of such a stud farm, which might be utilised for the investigation of scab ; and he hoped that the Government would come to their assistance.

seoonded.

said he thought it best to explain what were the difficulties connected with the establishing of a stud farm in that district. It would cost a good deal, and would be most difficult in a place where there were few railways. For a railway was necessary. There were already many stud farms not yet complete, and they could not take any more hay on their fork. There was too much of a tendency to retain a stud farm as a farm for the breeding of cattle for sale, and that was erroneous. The stud farms were established so that sons of farmers could learn how to handle cattle, and not for the purpose of selling the best cattle. Those animals could be borrowed, but beyond that they should not go. Stud farms were educative institutions, and there were now enough of them. He had no objection to the motion, but it should not be thought that the stud farm would be established.

The motion was carried.

moved for a return showing: (1) The number of sheep brought on to the Johannesburg market during 1911 ; (2) how many of that number infected with scab came from the respective Provinces ; and (3) how many were brought to the Cape Town market, and how many of that number were infected with scab?

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the following papers be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report, viz.: (1) (a) Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1915: Votes Nos. 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 (U.G. 1—’12). Presented to the House on the 29th January ; (b) Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours for the year ending 31st March, 1913 (U.G. 13—’12). Presented to the House on the 29th January ; (2) report by the Controller and Auditor-General on the balances brought into Union by the Colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Transvaal, Natal, and the Grange River (U.G. 4—’12). Laid on the table of the House on the 30th January ; (3) Natal finance accounts, appropriation accounts, loans funds, and miscellaneous funds for the period 1st July, 1909, to 30th May, 1910, with the report of the Controller and Auditor-General of the Union (Printed). Laid on the table of the House on the 1st instant ; (4) finance accounts, appropriation accounts, loans funds, and miscellaneous funds of the Union for the period 31st May, 1910, to 31st March, 1911, with the report of the Controller and Auditor-General (U.G. 12—’12). Laid on the table of the House on the 2nd instant.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that Orders 1 and 2 be discharged, and that the House proceed with Order 3—Land Settlement Bill.

while not formally objecting, protested against the change of orders on the paper on the ground that such a course proved inconvenient to members.

Agreed to.

said that when the debate was adjourned they had listened to a speech by the right hon. gentleman who represented Victoria West. That hon. member had told them that he was a humble follower in the ranks of the army led by the right hon. gentlemen who had brought that measure before the House. His right hon. friend approached the Bill from that point of view, and talked of carrying a musket. He (the speaker) thought that the speech showed that the musket was a dangerous one. His right hon. friend discharged two barrels. With the first barrel he naturally fired his ammunition into some of his opponents on his (the speaker’s) side of the House, and then turned round and fired the other barrel with much more effect into the flank of his respected leader. But the power of the right hon. gentleman who introduced the measure was such that he induced the right hon. member for Victoria West to vote for the second reading. The right hon. member for Victoria West told them that he was opposed to the whole object of the Bill. He told the House of his experiences of 40 years of legislation in the Cape Colony, but his argument amounted to this: For 40 years we have been trying to legislate on this subject in the Cape Colony. For most of the Bills and most of the Acts the right hon. gentleman himself was responsible. His argument came to this: For 40 years we have been attempting to do something. We have done nothing, so let us continue to do nothing. He (the speaker) did not think that that was a valid argument. No doubt the past showed that there had been wrecks, but if there had been wrecks there were also lighthouses, and the experience of the past would help them to avoid the rocks on which ships had foundered. He was disposed to think that some of the provisions of the Cape Acts would do for the Bill before the House. His right hon. friend went on to say that the experiment in land settlement which had been made in the Transvaal had proved a costly failure and resulted in an entire waste of money. He (the speaker) would point out that in dealing with that question the right hon. gentleman was not on firm ground, for the reason that as recently as last session Mr. Bridge, of the Transvaal Land Settlement Board, appeared before the Select Committee on Native Affairs, and was cross-examined by the right hon. gentleman himself. Mr. Bridge’s evidence had shown that the Government had originally devoted £1,300,000 to land settlement in the Transvaal. The fact was that £1,270,000 had been spent on the scheme, and the evidence snowed that the whole had not been spent on land settlement, because there were a lot of assets that brought the amount down to a considerable extent. The cost of the scheme in the Transvaal and the corresponding scheme in the Orange Free State had been, after deducting certain amounts which Mr. Bridge mentioned, about £2,000 per settler. There were 450 settlers in the Transvaal and 584 in the Orange Free State, and the cost of the whole worked out at about £2,000 per settler. Against this they had to place the price of the land, which was recoverable from the settler, and the advances that had been made in respect of stock. The effect of it all was that if liquidation took place at the present time, the result would be by no means unsatisfactory. The right hon. gentleman had said that he was surprised to see the attitude of that side of the House, that they did not welcome the Bill, and that they did not defend it He was quite willing to accept the right hon. gentleman’s statement that they were responsible for the Bill. (Opposition cheers.) While they thought that a great deal of the machinery provided by the Bill was inadequate, and that a wider scope should be given to the Bill, and while they thought that the Minister in introducing the Bill should have told them much more as to the intentions of the Government regarding the means to be adopted for acquiring Land, and also their attitude towards immigration, yet at the same time they did quite welcome the principle of the Bill, and they thought that the Minister who introduced it was deserving of a good deal of credit. It was not so long since his fides achates, the Minister of Justice, said in a speech that closer settlement would bring pauperism and misery into the country. It showed that the right hon. gentleman had converted his friend (General Hertzog). The Bill before them dealt in effect with two main subjects. The first subject was how to get the right people to settle on the land. The second was how to get suitable land, and to get that land at a reasonable price. The Bill proposed, as he understood the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fischer), to extend the system of labour colonies for the benefit of what were called poor whites. He had nothing to object to in that, but he certainly objected to the statement of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, whose only defence of the Bill was that it was a measure solely for the relief of what were recognised as poor whites. The Bill, of course, must go further. The Bill, secondly, proposed, as he understood it, to assist the small man. He had no objection to that. But he must say that he did not think there was any necessity for the Bill to deal with the assistance of farming on a large scale. The question was, in the first instance, how to get the right people. One of the complaints he had to make against the form of the Bill was that while the right hon. gentleman said it was applicable not merely to people in this country, but also to people oversea, there was no effective machinery at all events, for applications from people oversea. That was a thing that would have to be remedied. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister, in England, spoke of the opportunities in South Africa for the settlement of thousands of people. On his return he said it would be his duty to assist tens of thousands of people to get on to the land before he could assist anyone from outside. (Ministerial cheers.) He (Mr. Chaplin) was not for the moment discussing the policy of either of those statements, but he did say that they were entirely inconsistent.

Oh, no.

said that he was not surprised that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fischer) was a little bit anxious about putting anything definite in his Bill. The question would arise, were there in this country waiting for assistance tens of thousands of people? Time would show. Naturally, those who were in the country would get the preference because they would have much better opportunities of going to see the ground which was available and of becoming acquainted with the terms. The member for Victoria West had told them that they should not follow the example of the other Dominions. He was not going into the details about the Australian or the Canadian system, but he would say that immigrants were pouring into Canada at the rate of 350,000 a year. He did not say that the conditions were the same, but in South Africa, owing largely to the fact that the railways were Government railways and were not public companies dependent for their income on getting new business, there was not the same amount of development done and there was not the same direct encouragement given to people to come to South Africa that there should be. He welcomed the provision made in the Estimates for £3,000 or £4,000 for the advertising of South Africa in Europe. But he thought that the Minister ought to have embodied in his Bill a much more definite and concrete scheme for attracting a good class of people from England to this country. The whole question, to some extent, depended upon whether they believed that there was development possible, whether there were undeveloped resources in the country. The next question was how to get suitable land. With a great deal of the right hon. gentleman’s criticism of the means foreshadowed by the Bill, he must candidly say that he agreed. He did not think at all that they ought to limit themselves to seeing the Government go and buy land by private treaty, or auction, or by the process of exchange, and that the matter should be subjected to the jurisdiction of local Boards appointed for particular areas. So far as he could see, there was no limitation of the areas. In any case it seemed to him that if the matter were to be dealt with by local Boards there would be endless openings tor jobbery, and that the Government would have to pay through the nose, if he might say so, for every bit of land they bought. The hon. member for Rustenburg had suggested that there should be four Boards, one for each Province. He (Mr. Chaplin) was inclined to think that it would be better to have one permanent central Board, but that might well be discussed in the Select Committee when they reached that stage. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had referred to the question of expropriation, and considered that it consisted of an aggravated form of Socialism. He (Mr. Chaplin) thought he would not be suspected of being enamoured of Socialism —(hear, hear)—but it did not seem to him that a provision for expropriation was necessarily to be confounded with Socialism. We had got the principle of expropriation already in this country. The Railways expropriated when they wanted land. The power of expropriation which Government had in Australia was seldom or ever used. There would be no injustice at all in giving the Board powers of this kind. As to the tax on unimproved land, there was no cause for complaint that that would be embarking on Socialism, for there was no question of taxing the hard-worked farmer. He was very sorry that during the General Election the Prime Minister stated that the Opposition wanted to tax the farmer. (Hear, hear.) The Opposition had not the slightest wish to tax the farmer, and he would have nothing whatever to fear. (Hear, hear.) The form the tax would take would simply be on the unimproved value of land. It would be no use taxing a small amount of land. In Natal there was a limitation of some £2,000, which appeared to be a very reasonable limit. He would be glad to have a limit to the valuation of land to which the tax would be applicable, and it would be no use taxing land which was unimprovable. He congratulated the Minister on getting a Bill which would satisfy the conflicting opinions of the Ministerialists, and that showed a great amount of astuteness. The Opposition did not agree with the dictum of the Minister of Justice, who had said that there were no undeveloped resources in this country which would attract people here. The Opposition had far more confidence in the future of South Africa than that. They believed there were large undeveloped resources which could be developed, and for that reason they advocated that the scope of the Bill should be enlarged, and he appealed to the House to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein. (Hear, hear.)

said he had found the debate most instructive. He understood that the rights of property had always been guaranteed. Had a capitalist asked him whether it was safe to invest money in ground, he (the speaker) would certainly have replied in the affirmative. But now the members of the Opposition wanted to take away the rights of property, to expropriate unworked ground, and to tax it, in order to increase the value of land. But everybody could see that in that way the value of land would fall. He had always thought that Socialism meant individual freedom, subject to the interests of the public, free education, and that everybody should be owners of the land. Those were the theories of the Opposition which they announced everywhere, and now they opposed that Bill. Those hon. members were merely consistent in their inconsistencies. (Laughter.) The claims made by the Opposition showed that the Government could not satisfy them. They would not be satisfied until all the farms were cut into fragments and distributed to people imported from elsewhere. The speaker would never give a penny for State-aided immigration. The State revenue was paid by the taxpayers, white and coloured, all of whom had to work hard in order to get it, and was that money to be expended in introducing immigrants and feeding them with a spoon? The Bill had been applauded, but in his opinion the restrictions proposed in respect of immigration were insufficient. An immigrant might learn a little from an agricultural journal, and then apply for land to a Land Board, whilst in fact he knew really nothing about farming. The Bill was introduced for the purpose of encouraging immigration —but the subject demanded prudence. The first thing was to help the poor people in the country, and then after that they could concern themselves with immigrants. He would propose that no immigrant should be allowed to obtain land and property from the Land Board until he had been three years in the country. Many good farmers were going away to German South-West Africa, to East Africa, and America. They must first get those people back here again, and how then could they now speak of immigration?

complained that those who disagreed with the Bill had offered no alternative. The first question in connection with settlements was this: Where were they to be placed? If it was the intention to create colonies where there were railways, then it was wrong. Although the population along the railway lines was still sparse, they would within twenty years be too close together, and then some would have to trek. There was therefore no place for settlements, which should be placed in the undeveloped districts. Of course, railways were necessary, for settlements without railways would be a failure. There were large tracts of country which could be worked, and for which a population was necessary. The importation of immigrants was, however, not necessary. They should build railways, and let the population come of itself. The solution of the poor white question was very difficult. It was necessary to remove the poor whites from the towns and settle them on the land. It appeared to him, however, that settlements were not suitable for this purpose, and that those who were not suitable as settlers should be provided with work. The hon. member had stated that the settlements in the Transvaal had been established under very unfavourable circumstances. That was not correct. No settlement scheme had ever been brought about under more favourable circumstances, seeing that the then Government was an autocratic Government. They could borrow money and distribute it for settlements exactly as they wished, without any responsibility to a Parliament. The present Government was, however, responsible. They had to get the money from that Parliament, and could not act in an arbitrary manner. The hon. member for Germiston did not wish to tax the farmer, but who then would he tax? If he meant only to tax absentee landowners, then the speaker would support him. But the farmer could not be taxed. A tax on unworked ground was very difficult to define. Who would decide what ground was being advantageously used? And if land were to be expropriated, what was to become of the children of the owners? Ta tax unworked ground was absurd, and so long as the present Government was in power no such ridiculous tax would be levied.

said there was lacking in the Bill a definition of persons. In the Orange Free State coloured persons were not allowed to own land or to hire it, and that should be clearly laid down in the Bill. The hon. member for Victoria West had shown them what had been the history of many of these settlements. Only the debt remained, and that had to be paid by the taxpayers. The speaker said he was not in favour of spending a single penny for the purpose of introducing immigrants until all the whites in the country, belonging to the country, had been helped. He was opposed to immigration so long as there were in the Orange Free State 10,000 children who had not yet received any education. The money of the State should be used first of all to establish schools. (Hear, hear.) They spoke about developing the country and about settlements. Such development was very desirable, and so was closer settlement too, but the country was now being developed, and closer settlement was taking place. The speaker then referred to the extensive grain country between Senekal and Ficksburg, and said that a high authority in railway matters, a man of English origin, who had recently visited there, said that the land called out for railways. That was truly the case in the speaker’s district, and also in such districts as those of Hoopstad and Boshof. All those districts badly wanted railways to assist in their development, and if they obtained them there was a prospect of greater production and closer settlement. If the Government had five millions to spare, they could not spend the money better than by advancing the education of their children and opening the country by means of railways, so that their produce could be transported. They should support their own people first, and talk afterwards about immigration.

expressed consternation at the reckless criticism that had been directed against the measure before the House. He was against importation of methods from other countries, although the ideals of those countries might inspire them to success. In every play they must have a villain as well as a hero, and the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West played the villain on the previous day remarkably well. He went on to say that some hon. members were very sore about confiscation. The reason was that they had indulged in it so long that they were chary about the House taking back what belonged to the country. Socialists took up the stand that the fundamental principle of private property was the guaranteed possession and the enjoyment of the products of a man’s own labour. Was it possible to pass a law that would do everything? Law was not the power, it was merely the prescribed mode of action. His right hon. friend had said that all was subject to the law of economic development, and that the rest was silence. If that was so, why did he not go home, fold his arms, and let it rip. The hon. member for Barkly did not object to the Government buying the land and paying the whole price but he objected to the Government paying four-fifths of the amount. He considered that the hon. member for Fordsburg had not been as cogent or lucid in his arguments as was usually the case. He had said that Labour members always claimed the right of legislation of this character. He (the speaker) claimed that the Labour people were the first to set the subject going, and had preached for it and fought for it in and out of season. Then they were told that it was very dangerous for the Government to go about buying land. This was a marvellous point, and he had been careful to take it down: n writing—“There must be compulsory purchase.” The Government must not go about the country, but there must be compulsory purchase.

That’s absurd.

It is absurd. If it means anything, it means that the Government must be compelled to buy. What I presume he meant was that there must be power to compel a man to sell. Continuing he said they were referred to New Zealand and Australia, but why not Queensland and South Australia, which were far better examples. It had been said that there was no provision made for improvements. What was said was only partially correct, for allowances were made in respect of improvements. In some cases a man could pay for his land by means of these allowances for improvements. The hon. member for Turffontein wanted South Africa governed on New Zealand lines. He (the speaker), for one, objected. He was sorry the hon. member had not learned his book better and so saved himself going astray. He pointed out that land was classified in three different ways in New Zealand. In New Zealand they had ten districts, and in each was a Land Board. But the Government had to be attacked, and (he admitted very frequently the Government had deserved attacking, and would deserve it again. He was astounded at the unfair comparison instituted by Mr. Jagger. There might be very excellent legislation in Australia, and having had experience of it for 25 years he thought he knew something about it. He took the Minister’s Bill and compared it with that to see what fault he could find with him. There were imperfections, but fancy any Minister bringing a perfect Bill into this House. (Laughter.) A perfect Bill in this House would be as much out of place as hon. members in heaven. (Laughter.) None of the critics put his finger on the great evils from which that land and this land suffered today. Years ago men were allowed to take up large areas of freehold in Australia, and when the Government wanted land a little while ago they had to pay enormous prices for it. That was the trouble. Regarding Mr. Jagger, he would like to say that Australia had its years of struggle and years of failure, and it was only after many years that they had got some legislation which even now was not satisfactory. In New Zealand they had to buy up large tracts of land, and it was only a few years ago a member of the Legislature brought in a Bill trying to stop freehold. It was this wobbling on the subject of freehold that upset Sir Joseph Ward the other day. He hoped the Minister would advance so much as to abolish freehold. Regarding the question of poor whites, the hon. member said they should give the people of the country the first chance, and he honoured the Minister for the suggestion. But farming did not pay. It paid, but it generally paid the wrong man. Years ago when poor whites were numerous in South Australia the Government gave them land and provided everything the people wanted. That was the beginning of the colony as it existed to-day. Were the people of South Africa not of the same blood, the same breed, and the same aspirations? They stood on the verge of mighty things and should grasp the opportunity. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Wessels) said no country in the world had such troubles as this. He was wrong. In Australia they had their droughts, but they planted trees and made their own climate. They had their cattle diseases, but they cleaned their cattle of them. On the point of immigration, who were the people asking for more immigrants? Not the Natal planters. They would tell them that they had no room for white people. That cry was the hollowest of all the hollow hypocrisies of the past fifteen months. Who were the people? It was the merchants ; the people who advertised for cheap labour, permanent work guaranteed, coloured men preferred ; the merchants who imported their clerks and allowed the boys of the country to walk the streets for work ; the people who imported nurses, and shop girls, and typists and governesses. Why did they import them? It was said because they were British, and the British vote was wanted. But they were brought out here, and in the end must either starve or sell their bodies on the streets. (Cries of “No.”) He was glad that the mining houses were getting converted. He welcomed the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin). He had got the right feeling, but he did not go quite far enough. By and by the hon. member would contest Germiston with a red tie on. (Laughter.) He recalled the time when in Johannesburg the cry was raised that they must not have a white proletariat, because they would organise and they would want votes. What we wanted in this country (Mr. Haggar proceeded to say) was large national training farms, where our boys could go and be trained. We wanted large national training shops, where our boys could learn trades. In regard to the Bill, he urged that the area should be limited, that the land should be leasehold, and that the unearned increment should go to those who had made it—the community. He did not mind the Minister having a million of money per annum for this scheme, but he did object very strongly to a loan for that purpose. That money ought, he contended, to be raised from the unearned increments. As to the poor whites, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) was of opinion that they were not hopeless. They were not hopeless (declared Mr. Haggar), if they took hold of them in the right way. They wanted not merely the opportunity, but they wanted the ability and the enterprise ; they wanted the strong hand upon them to guide them and keep them at it. The day for patience in these matters had gone by. In closing, Mr. Haggar said that they wanted the taxation of land values, and he promised the Government that, before their four years were over, they would have it. (Hear, hear.)

said that as one who took a great interest in that subject he had listened with a great deal of attention to the debate. He thought that the discussion of the Opposition had done more harm than good to the cause of land settlement. There was certainly a necessity for more white settlers on the land, especially in his part of the country. The Opposition wanted expensive schemes, machinery which would be difficult to work and autocratic control ; he did not think that would be of any use. Those who wanted to settle on the land wanted legislation of a nature which could be easily understood, and machinery not of too complicated a nature. The attitude which the Opposition adopted would, he thought, do harm to those already settled on the land. As to what the hon. member for Turffontein had said, had he spoken on behalf of anyone who desired to settle on the land? He did not think so. He thought that the speech of the right hon. member for Victoria West was a practical contribution to the debate ; and the right hon. gentleman had, in fact, brought the discussion down from an academic one to something of a practical nature. Proceeding, he said that they must not make so many rules and regulations that the intending settlers would be frightened away ; their legislation must be simple and not complicated. He agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that they should even pay settlers to open up certain parts of the country. As to what had been said about expropriation, why did not hon. Ministers opposite include the mines ; and why did they not place mines on the same footing as other property? They had not spoken of expropriating the mines, however. The hon. member dealt with certain restrictions which would be placed on land settlers, which he thought were unnecessary and would prove irksome, and hoped that they would not be included in the Bill when it came back from the Select Committee. He thought that the Transvaal Land Act was superior in these respects, there not being so many restrictions. In regard to the " cancellations” referred to in the Bill, he hoped that they would not be so strict, and that before dealing with a settler in the drastic way proposed by the Bill an opportunity should be given him of giving his explanation. He was a friend of the settler, and they must do everything they could to give him assistance. They must not be too severe on those who were behindhand with their payments, because if they were too hard it would only mean that these men would be driven off the land. They must give the settlers an opportunity of becoming the owners of the land they had settled on as soon as possible, because when there was a feeling of insecurity a man did not do as well as he would otherwise do. He thought that opening up the country by means of railways would mean a great deal as far as land settlement was concerned.

moved that the debate be adjourned till tomorrow.

seconded.

Agreed to.