from Annie Baigrie, teacher.

from Frances M. Sargeant, teacher.

brought up the report. The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

said he would like to draw the attention of the House to one or two matters. In the Transvaal at the present time a system was creeping in on the railways of employing Kafirs on work which had hitherto been done by skilled white men. He referred more particularly to one incident, although it was not a solitary one. The Standerton bridge was some time ago being altered, and white boiler makers and riveters were asked to work in gangs of two with Kafirs, one white riveter and one Kafir. These men objected to this system, saying, in the first place, that they were teaching these men part of their calling, and thus making a rod for their own backs, as it were, and, secondly, perhaps what would appeal more to this House, they saw a great danger to the public in a system such as this. It might not seem a very vital matter to some hon. members in that House as to whether an unskilled man, a Kafir, or a white skilled riveter, should knock down a rivet, but it did very materially affect the strength and durability of the structure under construction. On that ground the boiler-makers refused to work any longer on that particular job. Immediately on their leaving, two black men were put on to knock rivets down, instead of one white and one black. Gangs of natives were put on this most important work of knocking down rivets on the bridge. The explanation given by the head of the Department, the General Manager, was that these blacks were only put on temporarily until white men were obtained. The Manager, however, had not taken the trouble to send to the Secretary of the Boilermakers’ Association, who could have supplied him with plenty of men who could easily at that time have undertaken this particular business. It looked as if that policy of business principles was being carried too far in the Railway and Harbour Department. It was thought that the lower the wages of the men the cheaper it was to the Department and to the community. He would remind the Minister of Railways and Harbours that ill-paid labour was very seldom in practice cheap labour, and that the ultimate cost in regard to money, and as far as human life was concerned, might be much greater than the difference between the wages. He mentioned the case of two men who left their job and went to Durban railway shops, and obtained work at their trades. They had scarcely started at Durban when a notice arrived from Pretoria stating that they were undesirables and they were “sacked.” This showed up an iniquitous and pernicious system of hunting men from pillar to post because they had what he called the manliness to stand up for themselves and the public at large. Other instances had been brought to his notice. He had the case before him of a driver who was discharged as the result of a slight accident. He had a good record. He had paid more into the Pension Fund than he received back. He applied for a job in Rhodesia, but the Administration pursued him there on account of a small accident which in the case of many other men would have been overlooked. Such men were practically doomed to starvation as far as this country was concerned. He was not sure but that the policy pursued them to Australia and England, but he doubted whether the Australasian Governments would condescend to take notice of such documents. Another point arose out of the question asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours recently as to whether certain men in Salt River Works had worked on a holiday recently and had not been paid the usual double pay. The answer was that these men were nor paid. The pernicious system in vogue in the C.S.A.R. in 1904 was insidiously being introduced into the S.A.R. system. Ho felt sure that the Minister did not agree with this policy, and that he would restore to the Transvaal and Free State men what had been taken away from them in 1904. He asked the Minister to take a firmer grip of the things that were going on in the service, and to inquire personally into matters instead of getting second-hand information from the heads of the department. It might be said that there was a Commission inquiring into the grievances of the men, and that it was useless wasting the time of the House in bringing these questions forward, but he would like to draw the attention of the House to one case. Here was a case of a man who had asked for overtime and was not only not paid overtime rates, but not paid at all. His case was brought before the Grievances Commission, and the Commission ruled that he should receive the money that was due to him. When he made inquiries he was told by the department that he must wait until the report of the Re-grading Commission was issued. That was one of the cases that demanded inquiry. Why should he wait for the report of a commission of which he knew little or nothing? Why should not the finding of the Grievances Commission be final? He pointed out that these men represented a big part of the population of South Africa, and their grievances should be inquired into and redressed without delay.

hoped the Minister of Justice would say something that would allay the feelings of the Magistrates in Johannesburg.

said he wished to add his protests to the cheeseparing policy being followed by the Railway Administration. His right hon. friend the member for Victoria West said he disagreed with railways being run by voters. Well, that would apply to private lines as well as to the lines that belonged to the country. They were all run by voters. He could assure the right hon. gentleman that these men would always have recourse to the House in order to get their grievances remedied. He pointed out that the conditions which prevailed in the railway service at the present were worse than was the case before Union, and declared that this was a point that could not be disputed. The administration had pursued a policy of levelling down in nearly every case. Any practice that was detrimental to the men was pursued in every part of the Union. All the economy that had been effected would not exceed a few thousand pounds, and the result had been that discontent had increased. It seemed that if they were going to deal with grievances of the men at the present rate of speed the men concerned would be grey headed before there was any likelihood of their wrongs being righted. He thought that the Minister might urge upon the members of the Grievances Commission to report to the House on the work that had already been done, so that the Department could carry out their recommendations. That was the only means by which the Minister could prevent discontent spreading, and ensure the men rendering good service to the State. Now the Minister had said that he wanted a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. He would like to find out what the Minister meant by that. Did the Minister mean a twelve hour day? Surely he was prepared to tell the House the meaning of the phrase. Did he mean that 3s. was a fair day’s wage for the men? They would like to know these things. It seemed that piece-work was continued with the object of levelling down wages. If it were not so he was sure that such a system would not be continued. The Minister might be content to sit still in spite of all this discontent, but he would point out that he (the speaker) and other hon. members had to answer to their constituents for these things.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

brought up the report.

moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

seconded.

said that before the question was put, he would like to ask a question as to the Police Bill. Last year the Select Committee appointed to consider the Police Bill which had been introduced, and of which committee he had the honour of being a member, worked very hard and took a great deal of evidence and produced a report, which he believed was in most respects satisfactory. Well, a Bill had been published very much resembling the Bill made by the Select Committee, but they had seen no signs of its introduction into that House, and it was common knowledge that in the police force, in certain parts of the country at any rate, there was a considerable amount of unrest and discontent. He believed that that was due to a large extent to nervousness as to the provisions of the Bill and the men of the force not knowing exactly what was going to take place. So far as he knew, the regulations had practically been completed when the Select Committee concluded its work last session, and he thought that it was regrettable that, in spite of the fact that they had a large number of Bills introduced into the House—some of them quite unnecessary, in his opinion—they saw no signs of that important Bill being introduced. He had been informed that very considerable changes had been made in the administration of the police force in certain Provinces. For example, there was a rule in force in the Transvaal that: no man should be eligible for the police force unless he had been at least two years in South Africa. That had not been the practice in the Cape Colony, but he had been told that that had now been made a condition of employment in the Cape Province. If that were so—and he believed it was so—it did show that, in spite of the fact that the Bill had been published and was proposed to be introduced, considerable changes in the administration of the police force had been made, and they thought it was high time that that Bill should be introduced and that the uncertainties which existed with regard to the men’s rights and privileges should be settled, and that there should be no cause of anxiety. (Hear, hear.)

said that on the Rand at present there was serious misgiving emanating from a letter from the Law Department with regard to the salaries and allowances of Rand magistrates. He understood that a meeting had been convened of all the officials of Johannesburg, for the purpose of lodging a protest to the Minister. He would like if the Minister of Justice could state to the House what the contents of that letter were.

What letter?

If the Minister does not know it, I would draw his attention to the fact that a considerable amount of anxiety is rife in Johannesburg. Continuing, he said that if the Minister said that no such letter had been written, he (Mr. Nathan) had nothing further to say ; but he gathered from all the papers that such a letter had been written. Would the Minister lay that letter, and the correspondence which had followed thereon, on the table of the House?

said that with regard to the latter point raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), he might assure him that, as far as he was aware, no letter had been written, and that the cause, or the apparent cause, let him rather say—because the real cause he thought that any man who looked at what took place any day would fathom—was the fact that the Civil Service Commission had brought out recommendations whereby all the magistracies of the Union were graded according to various classes. The only information that could have been supplied to some of these magistrates at the present moment was that which was contained in those recommendations. As far as the Rand was concerned, it meant nothing more than that in future certain magistracies would not receive the pay which they were drawing to-day—that was, in regard to future appointments Other magistracies, or some of the magistracies of the Rand, would be placed in the position of A.R.M.-ships, instead of R.M.-ships; but in no case was the position of a single magistrate affected by the recommendations. All the existing rights and salaries were maintained according to those recommendations, and all the Department had done so far was to intimate to the magistrates what the recommendations of the Commission were, and to ask them for their advice as to the necessary consequences of such re-grading. He could assure the House that all the agitation and unrest of which they saw so much in the papers was nothing more than street-corner gossip. (Ministerial cheers.) And he was afraid that a great many people were rather pleased with that ; he knew that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was not, and that he was not responsible for it. That was all with regard to the magistrates. With regard to the police, he was sorry to say it was again the old question ; it seemed that there were a great many people in the Union who were only too glad if some agitation could be kept going and going.

He could assure hon. members, although he did not hold them responsible, that the day was not far off when they would regret it, if they did not do so that day, because this attitude was going to prove of the utmost detriment to the Civil Service. The police need not have the least reason for anxiety. Hon. members would know that when the committee sat, every endeavour was made to see that their Tights were secured. They would find that there was no change in the Bill that would be detrimental to the police. He (the Minister of Justice) intended to have introduced the Bill earlier, as it must go through during the present session, but his hon. friend the Minister of the Interior asked him to withhold it awhile, because the Bill stood in very close relationship to the Defence Bill. The two would have to run parallel. The moment that the Defence Bill was through the committee of the House, then he hoped to introduce this Police Bill. That Bill would go easily through the House, he believed, and if there was any alteration in it, that would not affect the status or the rights of the police.

asked the Minister of Industries and Commerce what was the policy of the Government in connection with future tariffs? He hoped that the Government would endeavour to give this information as early as possible.

said that the position was the same to-day as before. It was a very large and important question, and very great issues were involved. The report of the Commission also affected railway tariffs The Government had not had time to give their consideration to the report that was necessary.

said that they wanted to be clear upon this point. Was he to understand that there was to be no alteration in the Customs tariff during the current year?

I did not say that.

said that the reply of the Minister! was most unsatisfactory. They had now been in session about six weeks, and they expected that the Government would let the House know definitely what was the position with regard to this matter. He thought it was now time that the Government made up their minds.

said it was self-evident that the Government had not make up their minds. He had asked the Minister of Railways if he intended introducing his Budget next week, and also if he intended introducing a Bill for the construction of further railways, because they did not want a repetition of what took place last year, when a railway Bill was introduced with only the scrappiest of details.

stated that this matter had already been disposed of, and he was afraid that the Minister of Railways would be ruled out of order if he replied to the hon. member. (Laughter.)

said he wanted to assure the Minister of Commerce and Industries that the reply he gave just now was extremely unsatisfactory. (Opposition cheers.) He did not seem to recognise the fact that he was holding a responsible position, and there was a large number of people interested and concerned in commerce and the future fiscal policy in this country. They knew he had had the report for some months, and the whole country had expected to hear from him. For him to say that he had not told them, when asked, if he intended introducing a Bill this session or not —it was not the way to treat the House. He (Sir Edgar) asked him courteously what he was going to do. He could assure the Minister he would not facilitate the business of the House and the passing of his Bill if he treated them like that. (Opposition cheers.) He hoped he would give them a more courteous reply. (Opposition cheers.)

said he was sorry his reply had not satisfied his hon. friend. He said exactly what was correct. The Ministry had not yet made up their minds, and he would say they hoped to make up their minds In the near future. (Opposition laughter.) He had already explained to the House that it was a very large question, and one in which very large interests were involved ; and one which could not be decided without careful consideration. The Government were giving it that consideration.

said he would like to point out in connection with this matter that he asked when the Minister of Finance was going to bring in his Budget. He said that it would be some time next week. Well, the Customs tariff was the biggest consideration. If he was going, to lower the tariff, it would mean a big loss to his revenue ; so he presumed the Minister would have to make up his mind before the Minister could bring in the Budget. (Opposition cheers.)

asked if they were to understand that the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger) declined to pass the Budget until the tariff changes became law.

asked if they were to understand that the Minister of Commerce and Industries could not say at this time of the day if he was going to bring in his Bill this session or not. That was all they wanted to know. (Opposition cheers.) He thought the country and the House was entitled to have a definite answer on that question. (Opposition cheers.)

said that apparently the Opposition wanted to teach the Government how they were to act in the House. If hon. members would wait till the Minister of Finance had delivered his Budget speech, they would see what would happen. Hon. members seemed to have no patience. They would learn all they wanted to know towards the end of the following week.

said it was very interesting to find out what the Government was going to do when the Budget was going to be introduced next week. No doubt the Ministry had decided what they were going to do with regard to what the Hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries was not going to tell the House.

said he would like to make a request to the Government that they get some form of condensed report which the people could read, because they were getting loaded up with so many reports which were so voluminous that it was absolutely impossible to read them. It was a most shocking waste of printing that was going on, because these things were perfectly useless. (Opposition cheers.)

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

Report of Director, South African Museum, 1911 ; Report of Statistical Conference which sat at Cape Town, January, 1910; Regulations, Colesberg Public Cemetery.

Correspondence, other than confidential letters, in connection with appointment of a Field-cornet for Ward 4, Stockenstrom division (Cape).

Return showing travelling allowances to the officers and staff, Railway Department, year ended 31st December, 1911.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to form the Select Committees on Private Bills, as follows:

Incorporated Law Societies Consolidation Bill: Mr. Long, the Minister of Justice, Sir Thomas Watt, Messrs Maasdorp, Brown and Duncan ; Mr. Long to be chairman.

Natal Bank (Limited) Laws 1888 to 1912 Bill: Messrs. Stockenstrom, Nathan, Orr and Baxter; Mr. Stockenstrom to be chairman Gill College Corporation Bill: Messrs. Jagger, Mentz, Vintcent and Dr. Watkins; Mr. Jagger to be chairman.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to apply a further sum of money not exceeding £633,000 for the service of the financial year ending March 31, 1912.

seconded.

said he was sorry to have to repeat himself so soon in the House, but he presumed he would now be in order in extracting from the Minister some statement as to when he intended to introduce his Railway Budget, and some statement as to whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill dealing with the construction of railways this session; and, if so, when he introduced that Bill, whether he would give the House the opportunity of having plenty of time to discuss it, or whether he would adopt the policy adopted by the Government last year and introduce a Bill providing for the construction of railway lines involving a large expenditure of money a few days before the end of the session, and rushing it through by the force of its supporters, without the country being able to give any opinion on it?

said he would like to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to give the House the Railway Board’s report in time, as promised last year, in regard to the lines presented to the House, so that they would know exactly what the Railway Board thought about the projected lines.

said his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) seemed to have attended to performing the duties and the business of the House. Up to now he (Mr. Sauer) thought the business of the House was to make speeches, but he should be very glad when they did get to business, and he would do everything to facilitate it. He proposed to introduce the Railway Budget on the next day of sitting after the ordinary Budget had been delivered by the Minister of Finance. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the Bill for the construction of further railways, he had that under his most serious consideration—(hear, hear, and laughter)—and he would say a more difficult matter he had seldom had to deal with. He was naturally anxious to satisfy as many as he could, but one must cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth, and bear in mind the necessities of the Public Treasury or finance, and they must not go too rapidly in constructing railways, otherwise they might upset the labour market and various other matters. But he had it under most serious consideration, and he had made up his mind that he would submit it to the House as soon as possible. Now, as to the time, he was not going back to what happened last session. Then circumstances were peculiar, and he could not give all the information he wished to give, but he supplied the information after the House had kindly voted for his Bill. (Laughter.) He hoped this time to supply the information before they voted, and he was making every effort to get all the information available and necessary, and to lay it before the House, and give the House an opportunity to consider it before they finally decided the matter.

again mentioned the question of the Railway Board’s report.

I hope to lay the report on the table not later than next week. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to draw the notice of Mr. Speaker to the effect of a decision he had just given. His hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort brought up the question of railway matters on finance. He (Colonel Crewe) understood Mr. Speaker to rule that it was not proper to bring up a question of railways on general finance, and that he decided accordingly. He thought, if that decision were made definite, it would materially alter the manner in which they had done business in that House hitherto, because what he understood was that there were two separate accounts, that the Government was responsible for the whole of the expenditure, and, unless they were able to raise financial questions wherever necessary on a Finance Bill, it would, he thought, be necessary to alter the Standing Rules and Orders as they now were. He would point out that one series of Finance Bills were entirely dependent upon the other, because the Treasurer had a way of helping himself to railway balances.

said he only wanted to make a point as to the procedure which was to be followed in the House with regard to these Bills. This was a Bill asking the House to vote moneys for the expenditure for the year ending the 31st of this month. Now, he was not sure whether the House should not adopt the plan of going into committee before the Bill was introduced.

Why didn’t you raise that on the motion to go into committee?

said that if they were to follow this procedure, that they had to go into committee, they must go into committee before the Bill was introduced, and the Minister would then have to move that the House should go into Committee of Supply to deal with this additional appropriation, because it was not only expenditure that was past, it was not expenditure that was already finished, but it was expenditure for the current year, which would end on March 31. So that part of it might be expenditure which was still to be incurred, and in that case he was not sure whether the House should not go into committee first, and then consider the hon. member’s schedule of expenditure, and then, when the committee had dealt with that, the Bill was brought up, and it went through the usual course.

said that this was the course followed last year. He had not looked up the matter since, but if the hon. member looked at Act 25, 1911, he would find that that was the course adopted last year. Apparently a new course was adopted, seeing that the financial arrangements, the ordinary finances of the country and the finances of the railways, were dealt with separately. Of course, he did not for a moment suggest that the course suggested by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth would not have been an appropriate course as well, but this course was adopted, and, as at present advised, he did not feel that he could now say that the course adopted last year was not a proper course.

said that the Public Accounts Committee had under consideration the question of procedure that should be adopted in regard to these measures dealing with additional appropriations, and he thought a recommendation had been made and would come before the House in due course from that committee. The recommendation the committee had decided upon was upon the lines suggested by his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, Central, viz., that the same procedure should be followed as was adopted in the case of the main Estimates, i.e., when an additional vote was asked, Supplementary Estimates were first of all laid upon the table of the House. Thereupon a motion should be brought in asking the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole House, to consider the additional Estimates. When the House had considered the additional Estimates, Mr. Speaker would in the ordinary course appoint two members to bring up a Bill to give effect to the decisions of the House.

Is that a recommendation before the House?

Not at present.

Then it cannot now be debated.

I am merely mentioning—

That is a matter that can be raised at another time.

urged that the principle was exactly the same.

said he must point out to the hon. member for Cape Town Central that the House would have an opportunity of discussing this matter when the report of the Public Accounts Committee came up.

said that the other day the Minister of Railways and Harbours, in answer to an observation he made, requesting to see the Railway Minutes, was good enough to say that he had no objection to his (Sir Lionel’s) seeing them. He thereupon addressed a letter to the Railway Board for permission to do so. He had now received a reply from the Railway Board in which they said that the matter had been left in the hands of the Chairman. (A laugh.) He would like to ask the Chairman if he would be good enough to tell the House whether the permission he gave the other day was still good.

said he could not allow the Minister to speak again on this motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time.

Perhaps the hon. member (Sir E. H. Walton) will consent to take the second reading now.

If you send it to the Select Committee on Public Accounts first.

The Bill was set down for second reading to-morrow.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to apply a further sum of money, not exceeding £351,515, for Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works for the service of the period from the 31st day of May, 1910, to the 31st day of March, 1912.

seconded.

said he was sure the Minister of Railways and Harbours was very anxious to answer the question he asked just now, but, unfortunately, the rules of the House would not allow him. He would like to know whether the permission he (Mr. Sauer) gave him to see the Railway Minutes was still good.

asked the Minister what he proposed to do in regard to lowering the railway between Johannesburg and the eastern suburbs. It was not wholly a local matter, and great inconvenience was caused through traffic being interrupted.

drew attention to the difference in procedure in regard to the present measure and similar Bills brought forward by the Treasury. The latter were examined by the Public Accounts Committee, but with regard to the former no examination took place. He hoped that a rule would be adopted to make the practice the same, and that the Railway Bill would go before the Public Accounts Committee.

maintained that this was a more important Bill than the last. A very important question was involved, and the Bill should be sent to the Public Accounts Committee.

asked the Minister whether the report of the Railway Board was already in his hands, and why he could not lay it on the table at once. He wished to know whether the Board had considered the question of depreciation of the value of rolling stock, and how that might affect the question of the surplus.

said that he did not think there was much difference between the points made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth and the hon. members for Cape Town and Newlands. The course he had pursued was exactly the course adopted last year.

You are wrong!

But the House adopted that course last session. Until that precedent is altered, we must follow it. Proceeding, he said that he had no objection to the Bill going before the Public Accounts Committee. The only thing he objected to was that this was proposed at the wrong stage. At the second reading he would move that it be referred to the Public Accounts Committee. He appreciated the point raised in regard to depreciation, and that instead of ringing the bells for a division as they had the other day, they might be wringing their hands. (Laughter.) In regard to the report of the Railway Board, he promised as soon as it was printed it would be laid on the table. In regard to the lowering of the railway going into Johannesburg, he had not been able to come to terms with the Municipality. As soon as they became reasonable they might seriously consider the project. In regard to the other point that had been raised, he thought that the hon. member should have addressed the Railway Board through the proper channel.

thought that the hon. member had not been discourteous in addressing his communication to the secretary of the Railway Board.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time and set down for second reading to-morrow.

moved to omit the words “or any other law,” and said he thought that these words should be deleted. Did the Minister mean that municipalities who wished to raise loans for ordinary municipal purposes would be interfered with? He could not quite understand the meaning of the clause as it stood.

said that the loans referred to in the clause were loans that were specially passed by Parliament. Under a certain sum, these could be granted by the Governor-General-in-Council, but if they were above a certain sum, then Parliamentary sanction would have to be obtained.

moved to omit the words “or any other law.”

pointed out that it was merely an advisory matter.

asked whether this affected municipalities raising loans under their own Acts?

said that it did not affect the municipalities in the way suggested.

said that the argument had been most unconvincing. If the words did not mean anything, why was it necessary that they should be inserted? He would not press the amendment, however, if hon. members were satisfied.

On clause 5, Appointment of Director of Irrigation and other officials,

moved to insert after the word “may” the words, “in accordance with provision made by Parliament in that behalf.”

said that if it were inserted in this clause it would have to be inserted in every other clause. It pre-supposed that this was only to be done in certain cases if it were not inserted throughout the Bill.

said there was no general law on the subject. This clause rather gave the idea that the Government could appoint officials without coming to Parliament for the money. He pointed out that the fact was recognised by the Minister himself in the very next clause. It was well to have these little safeguards. It was better than just recognising Parliament now and then.

said that he wanted Parliament recognised in every case.

said that, unfortunately, Parliament was not always recognised to that extent. A document that they would shortly have before them would show that the Ministry did not always recognise the fact that Parliament must be consulted before expenditure was embarked upon. He thought the words were necessary.

hoped that the words would be inserted in the clause.

said that surely there could be no objection to the insertion of these few words. It was a very necessary safeguard. If it were recognised that these words were necessary by so old a Parliamentary hand as the right hon. gentleman surely the Minister could insert the phrase.

said that the Government was always bound to get Parliamentary sanction for any officers that might be appointed. Very often during the recess the Government had to appoint officers for something or other, relying on the support of Parliament when the matter came before the House. He was not quite sure as to the reason for the insertion of these words. It it were not for the delegation of officers, well, he did not see that the clause was necessary.

said that that was a very remarkable doctrine. Did his hon. friend mean to say that the Government could go and build up a public service and then with a cast-iron majority come down to the House and dragoon its supporters to back up its illegal action? He did not move the words for the purpose of crippling the Government in any way. The Government was merely asked to go about this matter in the ordinary constitutional way. It was a most alarming doctrine to place before that House. His hon. friend seemed to have travelled far from the time when he used to cite the authority of Parliament They had to protect Parliament from the deeds of the Government. He thought the words were very necessary. If the House did not think so, well, he had only done his duty in drawing attention to the matter. He would not trust the Government—even his own Government—appointing officials without any money being provided by Parliament.

said that while he agreed with the right hon. member in standing up for the powers of Parliament, still the Government ought to have a free hand in certain respects, as otherwise the interests of the country might suffer.

said he believed there was some confusion of thought with regard to this matter.

Hear, hear.

(continuing) said the control of Parliament lay in the fact that the Government had to come to Parliament for the money to pay for those officers If Parliament were going to say that the Executive should not appoint one main without first obtaining the consent of Parliament, then the work of the country would come to a standstill (Ministerial cheers.)

Then what is the good of Estimates at all? If they gave power to the Government to do that, then they would always And a subservient majority willing to pal hate their actions.

said he could not see why they should have this in one clause and not in the other. When they said they must come to Parliament, he would put a case. A Minister might, out of irrigation, make a large profit, and he might use the money for the payment of officers appointed by the Government.

said that the effect was this, that no appointment was ever made without its being sanctioned by Parliament. The question was, could this appointment be made beforehand? The right hon. gentleman would know that they were allowed by special warrant to spend. £300,000. Was it necessary that they should come to Parliament in cases where they could not foresee for the Estimates, or take the risk of eventually having the sanction of Parliament for their action?

said it would not do to prevent the Government from appointing Civil Servants when they were required for irrigation work. Irrigation was necessary, but if they bound the Government hand and foot, they would be unable to do anything.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 6, general powers of the Minister,

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

moved that the following be a new subsection (e), to follow sub-section (d), viz.: (e) Obtain and record information as to the location, number and extent of waterpower propositions in any part of the Union, and generally obtain and record information and statistics as to the hydro electric possibilities of the Union.

Agreed to.

referring to sub-sections (f) and (g), said that the Minister was himself a member of a profession that did not usually give legal advice free. He failed to see why the Irrigation Department should give engineering assistance without any prescribed charge being made to local authorities. In the case of the railway, they actually provided practitioners themselves to advise them upon harbour matters. The fact was that there were numbers of men who would be severely injured by this. There were men in the employment of the Municipalities who made considerable amounts, in addition to their salaries, for engineering advice. Besides, it seemed to him that this would necessitate the employment of a large number of engineers by the Government, and he did not think this was at all desirable, when they came to consider the alarming proportions that the pension fund was assuming. He moved therefore the deletion of the words “or without the” in sub-section (f).

said the old Act gave power to the Government to appoint engineers.

said he failed to see why local and river boards should receive professional advice at the expense of the general taxpayer. In his opinion it was most unwise to give advice in this way.

said they, were using the taxpayers’ money for the benefit of the taxpayers. He did not think that the private engineers would be affected very much.

said it would not interfere with them much ; it would only take all their subsistence away. He never knew that the Government should survey lands for local bodies. Supposing they passed a law that the Surveyor-General should provide surveyors to lay out Municipal lands ; as if a local body wanted to lay out a township, then a Government surveyor would go down and do the work, and the body of men engaged in that profession would feel very aggrieved about it, and naturally so. They would say, why should the taxpayers’ money be used for this work? What the hon. member wished to do was to make a charge for the work which a small municipality could pay. The whole principle was wrong. They might well say that people did not value anything they did not pay for. The Government gave free veterinary advice, and the consequence was that the people did not value it as much as they should.

said he would like to support the amendment, but he had to agree with the Minister that this was no new principle. It was contained in the Transvaal Act and the Cape Act of 1906. However, he thought it was a wrong principle, and that was why he was going to support the amendment. He quite agreed that they should supply their technical advice to a particular municipality that wanted it ; but why should not that municipality pay for the service? If it did not, it would be most unfair to the profession.

said that in section 3, just passed, they had inflicted on the farmers that they must pay ; but now they were going to let the local authorities get the service free. He could not think that was really what was intended by the Bill. He had no objection to the Government helping the small local authorities with engineers, because it was very difficult for them to pay high prices for private engineers. They ought to get assistance, especially where they wanted to carry out irrigation work ; but he did not think they should get it for nothing. It should be provided that discretion should be left to the Government as to whether a municipality should pay higher than farmers or on the same basis ; but it certainly should not be less than the farmers had to pay.

said it was very difficult to meet the objections if they contradicted one another. The right hon. member for Victoria West started with the doctrine that if they had a Minister before then, they should trust him for villainy, if nothing else. (Laughter.) They drew up the distinction in the Bill, because a private man had no right to call upon the Government. But in this clause they dealt with public Boards. When they recognised they were Boards working in the interests of the public, surely they should deal with them in a different way, especially when they were carrying out functions which would otherwise have to be carried out by the Government. Where those Boards represented rich communities, and where there were private engineers, they might be sure that there was little doubt they would have to pay for the service. But where they had a small municipality, and to encourage irrigation, they said they would put down the bore, and would not charge them the full charge. After all, he was the last man to wish to take the bread out of the mouth of any professional man, and if he was satisfied that a professional man could be obtained in every part of the country, he would be the first to say: “Put as much as you can in their way.” But they had not sufficient to supply the needs of the whole country. And the greatest want was to have irrigation works carried out in the country as far as possible, and not keep the local bodies waiting for engineers, who were not on the spot. Rather, they should get irrigation on the way than have these little quibbles.

said that really the Minister’s reasons made one more inclined to support the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member spoke of the villainy of Ministers. After last Monday’s experience he thought they were entitled to look upon Ministers with the greatest suspicion. The Minister said they must allow municipalities to have advice gratis. He said they were public bodies. Were they public bodies? The hon. member for Clanwilliam said it was simply taking the public money for public purposes. But these Water Boards merely represented small communities. No ; those people should pay for the advice.

said that he would support the amendment of the hon. member, because he could not understand why a farmer should not receive free advice, while local authorities, which were better able to afford paying for professional advice, received it free.

supported the last speaker.

said that hon. members must not lose sight of the fact that these Boards had a number of public duties placed on their shoulders. These people were not there for their own private interest, but had to carry out public duties. The law demanded a good deal of them, and their duties were in the interests of the public, and that was why they received free advice. In cases of dispute before a Water Board, advice would be given gratis. If they took clause (f), for instance, they would see that in case of a dispute between two private persons in regard to water matters, advice could be given gratis.

Are they not going to give advice to both sides?

said he supposed they would give advice to the parties concerned in a friendly way to enable them to settle their disputes, and so keep them out of the Courts and out of the hands of the lawyers. He pointed out that this very principle was embodied in the Bill of 1906, clause 15, which contained a similar provision. He hoped the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi would not be accepted, as Otherwise a provision to which the hon. members from the Cape attached much value would be abolished.

said that the Minister had told them that private persons would have to pay for expert advice. He could see no essential difference between a River Board or an Irrigation Board and private persons. These Boards were entirely in the interests of people who owned property in a certain neighbourhood. There was no essential difference between supplying these people with expert engineering advice and supplying gold-mining companies or railway companies with expert engineering advice. He should support the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi.

said that they must take into consideration that they were a young country, and that more than one industry must be established. It was the duty of the Government to give all possible support to the establishment of other industries, and anything which tended to the development of the country needed encouragement. He thought that the principle now being discussed was not wrong ; and he favoured it. In connection with dry farming, he would like to point out, the Government, at the request of a certain number of people, gave the services free of men who could demonstrate the advantage of that system of farming. What was needed was supplied at cost price. He thought that the principle was a good one, and that it should be extended to irrigation matters. He thought it was the right thing for the Government to show what could be done by means of irrigation, and how it could develop the country and enrich it.

said he thought the main objection in the whole of the argument that was going on was to professional advice being given to a local authority in the discretion of the Minister without payment of any charge. He would like to say that he was glad to find that the Minister of Native Affairs and the right hon. member for Victoria West were so extremely charmed with the Bill of 1906. (A laugh.) He had waited six years for that. He recognised that River Boards and Water Courte were public bodies. The River Board had not alone to look after the water in the stream for irrigation purposes, but it also had to look after the water in the stream in the general interests of the public health of the district. The Water Court under this Bill was going to be an improvement upon the provisions of the Bill of 1906. They would have an engineer sitting on that body to give professional advice. They could not charge for that advice. Without desiring to interfere with private engineering, with regard to small municipalities in this country which would not appoint engineers for the carrying out of their works, it was necessary in the general interests of the whole country that the Department of Irrigation should have an opportunity of advising them. He thought that in those cases they should pay for that advice. He moved that the end of the clause should read “and to local authorities at the prescribed charges.” So far as local authorities were concerned, he thought that they should be obliged to pay reasonable charges.

said that the contention of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort did not hold water. The River Board was essentially a group of owners interested in the water supply and combined for their own interests. Why they should not pay a farthing for technical advice he did not know.

hoped that the Minister would not accept the amendment. The hon. member for Georgetown (Mr. Andrews) had said he could see no difference between a private owner and a Water Board, but if he knew more of the conditions of the country districts, he would have seen the difference well enough. The Minister must have power to give gratis advice, and he trusted that the committee would negative the amendment.

said that the committee seemed to be rather under a misapprehension. He thought that the River Board or Irrigation Board could well afford to pay the prescribed charges. He had been told by an hydraulic engineer in Cape Town that if the Bill passed as it stood, it was a case of good-bye to them. He moved in line 10, after “advice,” to insert “without charge.”

said that there seemed to be a great deal of misunderstanding, and he could not understand why so many hon. members moved amendments. (Laughter.) He thought that the sub-section was perfectly clear. He gave an explanation and an example of the words “with or without payment.” He hoped that none of the amendments would be agreed to.

contended that municipalities were not paupers, and that they could well afford to pay. The Minister had said that he wished to see engineers come into this country, but he (the speaker) thought this was the wrong way of going about the business. He would drive the engineers out of the country.

said that the only amendment he could agree to was that proposed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. If an engineer could be of public use to a public body, why should he not give his services?

Why not put it in the Bill?

It is in the Bill. You give the discretion to the Minister. Now you want to tie up the Minister so that he can’t move.

said he considered that the municipalities should pay.

put the question that the words “or without the,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the sub-section.

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

referring to sub-section (g), said the section seemed to give power to an engineer to interfere with local authorities in every direction, because if these alterations were not carried out, then the engineers had the power to go in and cause them to be done, and saddle the Municipalities with the cost. This was going to cause friction among the municipalities. This matter was undoubtedly taken into consideration when the Convention sat, because it was stated that all matters in connection with Municipalities should be dealt with by the Provincial Councils, because these were more closely in touch with them. This section seemed very unfair, and he hoped the Minister would see his way to cut out the words “local authority” in the 16th line of the section. If he did not feel inclined to do this, then he (Mr. Hen-wood) would have to divide the House upon the point. He moved to delete these words.

referred to the Public Health Amendment Act of 1897, which gave Municipalities powers to do certain things in the interests of public health. The Minister of the Interior would probably sanction the proposed arrangements, but according to this Bill the Minister of Lands might not, and he could foresee that there might be friction between the two Departments.

said he did not know what was meant by the words, “or the course of these public streams.” There were streams that flowed not only through the towns but through the municipal lands. Was he to understand that the Minister wished to have the power to construct works on the embankment of a public stream or to make such repairs on the embankment as he might consider necessary? He moved that these words, “or the course of any public stream” be deleted. The Minister had said that the local authorities were not involved, but in towns like King William’s Town and Queenstown they would clearly be involved.

said that if paragraph (g) remained in the Bill it would do more harm than good to irrigation; and would come hard upon private persons even. In case of a dispute between the man who constructed a waterworks and the engineer, irrigation would only be handicapped. He would move that subsection (g) be deleted. An engineer should not have the right to lay down the law to a private owner.

The hon. member can vote against it.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Prieska. The paragraph referred to infringed on the existing rights of private persons, and so conflicted with what had been laid down at the second reading, namely, that existing rights were to be guaranteed. As far as he was concerned, they could delete the whole sub-section.

said it was surely never the intention of the Government to give the Minister such power as was asked for. It was all very well to say “trust the Government.” He trusted nobody. (Laughter.) Were they going to give the Government power to alter a stream or take down any dam? If they were going to do this they were going to do a great deal of harm. (Hear, hear.)

said that in section (e) they allowed bona fide farmers the use of Government experts, and in section (f) they dealt with local authorities, laying down that they could obtain advice from the Government experts free. Now in this clause they proposed to give the Government the right to come on to their properties and put them to any amount of inconvenience and expense. He thought the best thing they could do was to withdraw that clause. It was not going to benefit them.

said he was not voting for that clause as it stood, because it made a tremendous inroad on private rights. The Minister might, under it, come upon private land and find something to do, and do it without the owner getting any benefit from it at all. He knew the Minister said the Government would use discretion, but even so a great many hardships could be put on the people.

said he felt this was a case where somebody started the idea of a house being haunted, and provided he shouted long enough people would go to the windows and see the ghosts night after night. (Laughter.) However, there was a misprint in the first line of the section, which read “inspect any irrigation work or the course.” This should read “on the course.”

What about the Dutch version? Is that a misprint also?

said the misprint was in the Transvaal law, which was copied. That clause had worked very well in the Transvaal, and that law was formed on the Cape law with such amendments as were thought necessary to improve it. First of all, with regard to the bogey of the municipalities. They had large municipalities in the Transvaal very much interested in water questions. No one had seen the ghost there. Secondly, in regard to the reference to the Public Health Act and this proposal. If hon. members would take the trouble to inquire they would find that the Health Act had been administered before now, and was even now being administered. A question arising out of that Act in connection with water would be sent to the Irrigation Department. There was no split in the Cabinet on the question of irrigation, and when the matter of water arose in connection with the administration of the Public Health Act the Minister of the Interior would refer it to the Minister of Lands for his advice. So far from there being any conflict, he was happy to say that was only a bogey. There was no conflict between the Health Department and the Irrigation Department. In regard to the actual facts of the case, of course, the work of irrigation, very few hon. members had troubled to go into it properly. When they dealt with the right hon. member for Victoria West, he admitted he had tried for forty years to deal with water legislation, and had miserably failed. (Laughter.) What they required here was that there should be some central recognised authority in matters affecting public interests. Another bogey. They were dealing with a public stream, which was not owned by individual farmers.

The definition of irrigation work?

The definition is on the course of any public stream.

But a public stream belongs to the land—the bed of a public stream belongs to the land.

No wonder the right hon. gentleman has made a mess of it for forty years if he thinks that. A public stream gives certain rights to the users, but it belongs to the public. Proceeding, he said the Government said there should be some authority to see that the rights of the public were safeguarded, and life, limb, and property safeguarded on that public stream. They said they could inspect any irrigation works oh a public stream and give certain orders when it was in the public interest. Now the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) had called in the Health Act. They were perpetually interfering with private rights, and, broadly speaking, when the central authorities found there was a danger to the public health on any private property they could walk in there in the public interest. There should be somebody able to say in the public interest, “You must do something.” Where they had little local bodies, every member of which sometimes thought he was an engineer, they might have them putting up little dams for bad irrigation schemes. Were they to be masters of the situation over the Government and the public, and was the Government to have the right to inspect that work, and if they found something rotten in it, to do something with it for the public welfare?. They could not leave, perhaps, ignorant people to their own devices, and therefore the clause said that the Government could remove a danger if there was one.

said his friend the Minister was apparently advancing as he kept on in these things. He had thought fit to put some words into his (Mr. Merriman’s) mouth that he never used. He never said that his irrigation legislation for forty years had been a failure. On the contrary, he said that every bit of irrigation that was doing any good in this country was due to the Act of 1877, which he passed. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, he was a little shy when he saw a gentleman coming in under an extraordinary confusion of mind, who talked about irrigation and water rights as if they were the same thing. Water rights were a man’s property. Irrigation was a matter of adaptation of the ordinary rights which a man possessed to putting water over the land. His hon. friend (Mr. Fischer) confused the two. He came down with what he called an Irrigation Bill. It was a Water Rights Bill really; the most important part of it. A public stream, when a man put a dam on his ground, was his own private property in so far as it was on his ground. In Australia they said that the bed of every public stream belonged to the Government. His hon. friend had not succeeded in bringing that about in this country yet. He might by and bye, but he had not got there yet. Under this clause—and he would remind them that all the irrigation in this colony had gone on without any legislation of this kind—they were going to cover a man’s grounds with Government officials. He wanted particularly to avoid having officials coming and rummaging about his farm or his property, and telling him what he had to do. He should vote with those who were in favour of stinking this clause out.

said the Minister had twitted members with not studying the Bill, but he would like to point out that when a Minister brought a Bill before the House with a misprint with such tremendous consequence behind it, and did not find it out until it was pointed out by a member of the House, it seemed that he had not studied the Bill sufficiently. It seemed to him that the Minister wished to obtain, under this clause, such powers as he (Mr. Blaine), and he believed the majority of members who sat on that side were not prepared to give him.

said he did not know whether hon. members had reflected on what would be the result if the paragraph were deleted. He gave an example, and said that a lower riparian owner would have the right according to law to construct a dam on the land of his neighbour higher up. What would happen then if the dam were so badly made that it got washed away? It was possible that the works below would be destroyed as a result of the negligence of a man constructing such a dam. Still greater dangers might arise on the railways which crossed the rivers at different points, when the lives of hundreds of persons might be imperilled if railway engineers put up their bridges or other works in a faulty manner. He could not understand the fear of some hon. members, for it was only in cases where the public interest demanded it that the Government would be able to interfere. The stipulation contained in the Bill was absolutely necessary in the general interest of the public.

pointed out that the same misprint occurred in the Bill as it came from the Select Committee last session. He went on to say that he wished to point out how extremely difficult it was for those of them who represented municipalities to take this clause as it stood. The hon. member for Border had explained the position of the farmers. In the Cape Province, municipalities erecting irrigation works for the use of a town had to go through a lengthy course. Their works had to be carried out to the satisfaction of the Government, and even then the Government could step in another capacity and say they did not approve of the works. The Minister under this clause might do what he liked and charge them with the bill. The Minister must find some other means of coming down upon municipalities which did not keep their irrigation works in order.

said that his previous objections had been as nothing compared to those he felt after the speech just made by the Minister of Justice. Under that Bill it would be impossible for a farmer to construct a dam. He hoped the paragraph would be deleted.

said that like the hon. member for Pretoria West, he did not trust the Government ; (but far too much fuss was being made over this clause. He thought his hon. friend was wrong in saying that once the plans of the works were completed the Minister could say that he did not approve of them. The clause only gave the State power to step in the public interest. That was the duty of the Government. The clause aimed at the elimination of litigation. It was drawing a red-herring across the trail to say that the clause interfered with the rights of private owners.

said the Government were getting too much power to order work to be done on private property. He admitted that the engineers were capable men, (but they sometimes advised expensive works for which the farmer was not able to pay. If the engineer’s orders could not be carried out by the farmer, the Government would have the power to do the work at the expense of the landowner. It went too far. So long as such a provision was insisted on, he was not able to vote for the paragraph.

suggested that during the dinner hour the Minister should ascertain whether there was not some means of having an appeal in this connection. He thought that the danger was not so much in regard to the inspection, but the possibility of the committee throwing out one of the most important principles of the Bill. It was all very well for the right hon. member for Victoria West to say that people could do what they liked on their own properties. The right hon. member represented a constituency in which a great many people had been drowned as the result of a flood bursting a dam. Through dams bursting the lives of people hundreds of miles away might be sacrificed. Surely it was advisable to consider the possibility of having some safeguard. Hon. members would know of farmers who had constructed dams on rivers in such a way that there was a danger of them bursting and doing incalculable damage to owners lower down.

could not understand exception being taken to the clause as it stood. Municipalities reserved the right of entry to private premises for the purpose, of inspection in connection with such matters as health, and surely the Government should have the right in regard to public streams.

said that he was not aware that such a law as that mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein was in existence. He believed that if a lower proprietor thought that he was being endangered by the action of an upper proprietor he had the right to go to the Court to restrain him. (Cheers.)

thought that the hon. member for Bloemfontein did not quite appreciate the clause. When the law stated that one could not inflict injury on another it did not allow it to suffice that such person should merely say that the other had injured him. He had to prove it in a proper way ; but this clause left it in the discretion of the Minister. It was futile to go to Court to restrain a Minister. That could only be done if one proved mala fides, which one could not do. The position, therefore, was that on the Minister saying that a certain work was injurious to the public interest it could be stopped. That was entirely different from the point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he had been pointing out that the discretion as to what constituted public interest lay with the Minister when the House adjourned. They knew what that meant. Neither the Minister nor the Director of Irrigation could be on the spot, and the result would be that some subordinate would exercise his discretion as to whether work was in the public interest or not. It was a dangerous thing. What could be more dangerous than a subordinate of the Department going to a farmer, saying that certain work was detrimental to the public interest, ordering him to take it down and build something else. Continuing, he proceeded to refer to the word “or” in the sub-section, and said the Minister had suggested that the word was a misprint and that the word “on” should have appeared instead of the word “or.” This clause, however, had been taken over word for word from the Transvaal Act of 1908, and that Province had been working under an Act which contained this misprint. It contained the word “or.” Might he point out to the right hon. gentlemen that the only way to extract a logical meaning from the sub-section was to keep the word "or,” because there were many other things besides irrigation works that might be done in a public stream which would be opposed to the public interest. Why should they not stop anything else in a public stream that might be detrimental to the public interest? Then the right hon. gentleman appeared to think that the bed of the river was a thing with which he could deal. The speaker pointed out that at present, though the water of a public stream might be public the bed of the river belonged to the person through whose land it passed. This was a new danger. (Laughter.) Government was to have the ownership of the bed of the stream. (Laughter.)

What land :

The bed of the river.

What land?

Oh, there’s the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. (Laughter.) I thought by this time he would know something of the bed of the river in a public stream. Continuing, the speaker said there was another point. They knew that the beds of rivers in this country were constantly changing. What was going to happen if the bed of the river belonged to the Government?

said that, to avoid any needless discussion, he intended to move an amendment to meet the difficulties in so far as they required consideration and were reasonable. He would therefore move the following sub-section in substitution for sub-section (g) :

“Inspect any irrigation work on the course of any public stream and, with the approval of the Minister, order any local authority, River Board, or Irrigation Board, or any person, to do such acts and execute such repairs as may be necessary for the protection of life and the public safety, and in default of compliance within a time specified in the order, execute the same and recover the cost thereof from the defaulting local authority, board, or person, in a competent court.

asked if it were not rather extraordinary to say, “with the approval of the Minister”?

said that certainly the amendment met the case to a great extent, but the Minister started with the statement that he wanted the approval of the Governor-General, now he wanted the whole business in his own hands. He thought the substitution of Minister for Governor-General weakened the clause.

suggested that the new sub-section should be put upon the paper so that they would have time to consider it. He moved there fore to that effect. (Ministerial dissent.)

did not think it was necessary for the clause to be held over, as they had been practically talking about it all the afternoon, and the Minister had at last done his best to meet them. (Laughter.) He only hoped there would be no lawsuits over the matter.

said the Minister took power for making alterations, but he had no machinery for making them. He could not carry out irrigation work, because he had nothing at all to do it with. The Minister jumped up in his seat and read a new clause. Some people who had been haggling all the afternoon thought it was all right, and it was passed. But what was its effect? Of course, the proper thing for the Minister to do was to allow the clause to stand over on the paper, so that people could see its effect.

hoped the Minister would allow the clause to stand over on the paper so that they could consider it. It would take no time to go back to it later on and discuss it. It was always better when a new clause was introduced to take that course.

said the Minister had given them an opinion that this would save all offences to people, in case they had wrongly constructed the improvements. Well, he was not so sure he was right, because apparently the wording of the section would leave it entirely at his discretion, and if left to his discretion a court of law would naturally adopt his ruling. He would like to suggest this: “saving all just and equitable defences to the defendant.” The Minister caused repairs to be made, and then claimed them from the defendant, and he maintained they were just defences. He thought that question should be settled by Court.

said he hoped hon. members would not press to have the clause stand over. After all was said and done, they had been discussing it all the afternoon, and they knew what the clause was about, And the alterations made by the Minister of Lands were as easily intelligible as they could be. Instead of saying, in the first place, that the department would be able to do in certain cases what it deemed necessary, the Minister had moved to delete the word “deemed,” so that what shall be done was what was necessary. What other alterations had been made? This was one made in the direction of meeting the objections raised on that side of the House that afternoon to the clause, and he confessed he had a good deal of sympathy with the objectors—(hear, hear)—because the expression “public interest” was a very wide and vague expression. (Hear, hear.) But now that it was limited, so that action could only be taken for the protection of life and limb and the safety of the public, what objection could there be? He did not say that there could be no objection whatever to it, because there might be points raised. His hon. friend said they could let it stand over. There was no need to wait. The clause was in no different position now than it was that afternoon. The only alteration was that “deemed” was knocked out and instead of “public interests” they had “the protection of public life and limb.” The Court of Law could decide what was necessary.

said the point at issue seemed to be to decide what was necessary and what was not necessary. He considered that from the point of view of principle the clause was exactly as it was before. He also considered that the Minister had yet to lay the bogey of the rights of the individual in this case. Then again, there was a very great deal of difference about what might be sufficiently safe and what might be perfectly safe. What was considered sufficiently safe by an owner might not be considered perfectly safe by a civil engineer, and the owner would be made to alter it. He would support the hon. member for Prieska.

said that the Bill encroached on private rights, but it protected the public interest. Dams might be a danger to the public, and should therefore come under the supervision of the authorities. In a municipality they had even to get the plans approved before they could build one. For a small irrigation dam supervision was not necessary, but certainly it was required in the case of a large storage dam.

said he thought the committee might really accept the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, because afterwards if there were any objection to the wording there would be time to alter it when the whole House considered the amendments made in committee. There were some of them extremely anxious to protect the individual, but they were more anxious to protect the general interests of the country and the public safety.

said he was sorry he did not agree with the Minister of Native Affairs. Let them see what this amendment meant in practice, in regard to anybody, for instance, who had a dam. A subordinate official came along and said that dam was a danger to public safety. It had got to go. What was the remedy of the man on the land? He had to go to Court and prove that the Government did a wrongful act. He had had some experience of lawsuits against the Government. The Government was a rich corporation. They were giving no safeguard to the man on the land. As soon as the Government went and knocked down a man’s dam it was the Government that should go and show that what it had done was right. The right hon. gentleman had suggested that when he (Sir H. H. Juta) had an amendment he should put it on the paper so that they could study its effects. He would suggest that the right hon. gentleman should adopt a similar course, so that they could see what the legal effect of his amendment would be.

said he had heard the opinion of the Minister of Native Affairs, but he was not convinced. He still held the opinion that if the Government took action against a defendant he may be deprived of any just claim or defence he might have had but for the wording of this section. He thought the words at the end of the section, “in a competent court” were redundant, and he would move the omission of those words and the insertion of the following: “saving to the defendant all just and equitable claims and defences.”

put the question that the clause stand over, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

The amendments moved by Mr. Henwood and Sir Bisset Berry were withdrawn.

Sub-section (g) was negatived.

That the following be a new sub-section (g), viz.: (g) inspect any irrigation work on the course of any public stream, and order any local authority, river board, or irrigation board, or any person to do such acts and execute such repairs as may be necessary for the protection of life or the public safety, and in default of compliance within a time specified in the order, execute the same and recover the cost thereof from the defaulting local authority, board or person in a competent court.

said that the clause seemed to him to be perfectly clear, and it gave adequate protection to the public. The difficulty arose through two distinguished lawyers taking exactly opposite views. As it was largely a point of law he would like to be assured on the point. One legal luminary said that it was incumbent on the farmer to take the initiative and protect himself, and the other that if the farmer did not do the work voluntarily the Government could step in and do it, but the Government would have to go to a competent court and establish its case and get its costs. The hon. member for Cape Town Harbour took a different view. He would like to know upon what ground.

objected to the clause almost as much as he did the last, on the grounds raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour. It was the common thing when the Government wished to stop a man from a certain course for them to go to Court. The Minister wished to reverse that procedure. He said that the Government could knock down a dam and reconstruct it, and it was for the owner to sue the Government to prove that it had done wrong. He had had experience of this kind of thing. A railway ran through their property, and they often sustained damage through grass fires. When they claimed the Government sat still and said that they had to sue in the Supreme Court. Unless the Minister was prepared to let the clause stand down and to consider it carefully he would vote for its deletion.

said that surely the intention of the clause was perfectly clear.

But the effect of it?

I mean the legal intention. Continuing, he said that in the case of a dam being dangerous to life the Irrigation Department would send an engineer, who would point out the danger, and instruct the owner to put the dam right. If the owner did so, he must pay for it himself, because he had neglected his duty as a citizen.

Who is the judge?

said that the engineer might not point out all sorts of difficulties. He might not point out the danger of the dam destroying the whole of the neighbouring farm, but only where there was a danger to human life. If the owner did not carryout these instructions, the Irrigation Department would make his land safe, and then the Government would have to go to Court and prove that the alterations were necessary in the public safety.

said that a subordinate official might consider a dam a danger to public safety, and say, Away with it. The owner might reply, No. The Department would have it removed. But how about the injury that was being inflicted on the man if the Department were acting wrongly? They compelled the man to go to Court to prove that the Government was wrong. The clause made no provision for the case of a man’s crops being ruined.

You can recover under the common law for such damages.

There is no common law which allows the Government to destroy my land. Proceeding, he said that the ordinary course of the law was this, if the Government or any individual thought that another was inflicting an injury they could go to the Court and obtain an interdict. These irrigation works were not constructed in a few hours or in a day, but they took weeks and weeks. If the Irrigation Department saw a work being constructed which they thought would be a danger to the public, why could not they take the ordinary course and obtain an interdict?

I would like to introduce a little common sense into this argument. (Opposition laughter.) Proceeding, he said this might frighten some people, but not those who looked at it from a common-sense point of view. If. Government had to go to court, a delay might be caused of one or two days, while Government briefed gentlemen who knew a lot about irrigation law—(laughter)—and during that time the dam might burst. Government wanted to protect the public by some work, and not necessarily by legal interdict.

said he did not think a Government official would take the unreasonable course of ordering a defective dam to be destroyed; he would rather give instructions for it to be strengthened.

moved, an amendment to the proposed new subsection (g): To omit “in a competent court” at the end of the sub-section, and to substitute “saving to the defendant all just and equitable claims and defences.”

hoped the amendment would not be pressed, for if it were carried, it would give the Government immense powers, and might allow it to go into a man’s house and sell up his goods. The amendment would give the Government a great deal more power than it had at the present time. The Minister was to be commended on having met them to such a large extent, although one could see that he would rather not have done so. No time limit was specified in the clause, and he moved that “reasonable” be inserted before “time.”

said the Minister seemed to have discovered a great urgency for the protection of life and limb, but before making any alterations to a dam, Government should first prove in a court of law that the alterations were necessary.

said that he thought he would have been supported by his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Castle. He wished to avoid redundancy. He was sure that the Minister of Native Affairs would agree with him. He took it that the other part of his amendment appealed to hon. members.

said he was one of those hon. members who did not think that the Minister would walk about the country pushing dams. In drawing up the new clause, he thought that the Minister had been actuated by a desire to do the best he could for the people of the country, and to meet the wishes of hon. members who opposed the sub-section, as originally drafted. He thought that in the new sub-section the owners of dams were safeguarded. A subordinate of the Department would not order the destruction of any property in a hurry, for he would know that if the owner had a good case, he would go to Court.

moved to insert the words “upon obtaining an order of Court” after the word “order.”

said his point was that if the farmer did anything wrong, the Government should take out the interdict, instead of throwing the burden upon the farmer.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, was agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Newlands was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis was negatived.

put the new sub-section (g) as amended, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—71.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim.

Alexander, Morris.

Baxter, William Duncan.

Becker, Heinrich Christian.

Beyers, Christiaan Frederik.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes.

Botha, Louis.

Brown, Daniel Maclaren Burton, Henry.

Clayton, Walter Frederick.

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page.

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt.

Currey, Henry Latham.

De Beer, Michiel Johannes.

De Jager, Andries Lourens.

De Waal, Hendrik.

Duncan, Patrick.

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm.

Fischer, Abraham.

Fitzpatrick, James Percy.

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen. Geldenhuys, Lourens.

Griffin, William Henry.

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas.

Haggar, Charles Henry.

Heatlie, Charles Beeton.

Henderson, James.

Henwood, Charlie.

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus. Joubert, Jozua Adriaan.

Keyter, Jan Gerhard.

King, John Gavin.

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert. Leuchars, George.

Louw, George Albertyn.

MacNeillie, James Campbell.

Madeley, Walter Bayley.

Malan, Francois Stephanus.

Marais, Johannes Henoch.

Merriman, John Xavier.

Meyer, Izaak Johannes.

Neethling, Andrew Murray.

Nicholson, Richard Granville.

Oliver, Henry Alfred.

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero.

Orr, Thomas.

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael.

Sampson, Henry William.

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik.

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus.

Smartt, Thomas William.

Smuts, Jan Christiaan.

Smuts, Tobias.

Steytler, George Louis.

Stockenstrom, Andries.

Theron, Hendrick Schalk.

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George.

Van der Merwe, J. Adolph Philippus.

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem.

Van Niekerk Christian Andries.

Venter, Jan Abraham.

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus.

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus.

Watt, Thomas.

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem.

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller.

Wiltshire, Henry.

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald.

J. Hewat and C. Joel Krige, tellers.

Noes—12.

Crewe, Charles Preston.

Fawcus, Alfred.

Jagger, John William.

Juta, Henry Hubert.

Macaulay, Donald.

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray.

Nathan, Emile.

Phillips, Lionel.

Struben, Charles Frederick William.

Watkins, Arnold Hirst.

B. K. Long and George Blaine, tellers.

The sub-section as amended was therefore agreed to.

On clause 7, construction o irrigation and drainage works,

asked if the hon. Minister would tell him what he meant by existing rights, because it was laid down that the Governor might come and take waters subject to existing rights. Did he mean rights under the common law or under the present Bill?

said it seemed he was being asked to say that two and two made four. Existing rights were rights that existed. Whether a right was secured by common law or by servitude, or by statute, it existed. Common sense would tell them if a right existed. If a man did not complain then they would take it for granted that no rights existed. The hon. member seemed to have a great desire to obstruct the course of the Bill. (Opposition cries of “No, no.”) Well, he would withdraw that and say a great desire to see that there should be no mistakes. (Laughter.) How could they go and make different ways by which that right could be established? And he thought the hon. gentleman would, on due reflection, himself see the impossibility of binding existing rights.

said it was just what he expected. The right hon. gentleman was the only person in his lifetime who had accused him of trying to obstruct business, and he could only put it down to the fact that he (the Minister) did not know him, and he (Sir Henry) did not know him (the Minister), so he would let that pass. He was not here to obstruct. If it suited him—it would suit him better, his health and his convenience, to let the Minister pass that Bill as it stood, but he was here to do what was the proper thing, and the right hon. gentleman did not know him if he thought he was going to drive him from his opposition by his discourteous remark. (Hear, hear.) After that remark, he could assure him he would oppose every word of the Bill.

Impractical.

Impractical. I am desirous of assisting him, but I can assure you that is not the way he is going to get my assistance. (Hear, hear.) His idea of making an Irrigation Bill is to make a dash for it, like making a dash for the Pole, without anybody to look after him or check him, so that he can say he got there. (Laughter and Opposition cheers.) Proceeding, the hon. gentleman said that when one put a serious question to him, would he try and answer it ; or if he could not, would he refer it to one of his hon. friends, who might not make a discourteous answer? There were two kinds of rights. He did not want to give the ABC of rights, but he had to with the Right Hon. the Minister of Lands. The ABC of rights were these: they either had rights under the Common Law, or they had rights under some contract or agreement. Very well. This Bill abolished the Common Law and Acts as they existed, and therefore he did not know what he meant by existing rights. If he said he meant the existing rights under Common Law and the Statute of 1906, he could understand him, because that was based upon perennial streams, but when he abolished all that, then the absolutely and honestly failed to understand what existing rights were. It was no use saying two and two made four when they abolished two. (Laughter.) It was an absurdity. Now, did not the hon. gentleman see that the point was this, that this clause gave the Government the right of taking water, constructing works, utilising water, and distributing. There was this difference between water that could be taken under that Bill and water that could be taken under Common Law and the Act of 1906. If the Minister would tell him what he meant by existing rights, the rights created under this Bill; he could understand him ; but if he said he meant Common Law rights, or rights under the Act of 1906, then it was entirely a different thing. But, of course, he had asked for it time after time, and the right hon. gentleman had laughed at him; but he, (the Minister) never would understand it was a very serious matter. He had tried to explain it until he was tired. He had tried to explain that as the law now stood a man had one right, and under this Bill he would get an entirely different one. Which was the one? Was it the one as it stood under the Bill when it became law, or was it as it stood Under the Common Law of 1906? He could not make it plainer, because under this clause the Government could step in and take water, subject to existing rights, and distribute it as they pleased. The whole point was what they meant by existing rights. Did they mean Common Law, because then they had a perennial stream, and that was a totally different thing from a normal flow. If they did not mean that, did they mean under contract? The Minister ought to say which he meant. (Opposition cheers.)

said he had a small amendment which he had no doubt would be accepted. (Laughter.) He did not approve of the Government going about from time to time constructing irrigation works. He did not think that that was right. They had never done it before. His amendment was: In line 38, to omit “and,” and in line 39, to omit “any existing rights,” and to substitute “the approval of Parliament and to such rights as may exist.” He was only looking up some of the previous experience they had had in that House. In 1896 a Bill was introduced for very large works to cost something like £250,000 ; £200,000 for the Thebus scheme, and £50,000 for Rooiberg Dam. Rooiberg Dam was constructed under the supervision of the Irrigation Department ; but in a free-handed, enthusiastic manner. (Laughter.) It was pointed out something was wrong and the expression was used (in evidence), “Oh! give the poor devils a chance,” meaning the contractors. Well, they had it, and the first storm that came along the dam was washed away. Thebus—he did not think all the old iron had yet been removed. They dispossessed the people there of their land they bought up a large number of farms, and then found the site was not suitable. But meanwhile they put £30,000 or £40,000 worth of good machinery on the spot. It was sold very cheap afterwards. That showed that works of this kind should not be undertaken without the approval of Parliament, and he hoped the House would agree to that in the interests of the public and the Irrigation Department itself. (Opposition cheers.)

said he thought that that was clearly the intention, and if there should be any doubt it would be better to have it in. He had no objection to including the words, although he was afraid they could not escape the Thebus business unless they had proper advisers.

moved to add, after the amendment moved by the right hon. the member for Victoria West, “and acquired under the common law and any previous Acts of Parliament,” so that the clause would then read “The Governor-General may, from time to time, subject to the approval of Parliament and to such rights as may exist, and acquired under the common law and any previous Act of Parliament,” etc.

moved as an amendment to the last amendment to insert “exercised” in place of “acquired.”

expressed a hope that the hon. member for Cape Town Castle would not press his amendment.

said they wanted a simple Act which could be understood by the people, and it should not be necessary to refer to old Acts.

said that, if a right were acquired under an Act of 1640 or 1756, surely the hon. member for Oudtshoorn did not mean to take it away.

said that one almost feared to criticise the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour. He must say he preferred the common-sense way in which the Minister of Lands had explained the question, (Hear, hear.) The amendment of the hon. member for Harbour would complicate matters. They had rather abide by the amendment of the right hon. member.

said that surely the hon. member did not mean that by a chance clause in the Act they should repeal rights. The rights of property had hitherto been held sacred, and it would be a most dangerous thing to depart from that.

thought that the hon. member for Caledon had not realised what he said.

thought that this point must fall under clause 136

agreed to this.

said that clause only protected rights in connection with the use of water from a public stream. That was a public stream under this Bill, not under the Act of 1906. The two things were different, and the rights of what were public streams before the Bill came into force would not be preserved.

said the owner of irrigated land ought to be protected, and, if need be, receive more water than he was strictly entitled to.

said that the matter had better be discussed under clause 136. The intention of the Bill was that any existing right that had been exercised OT could be exercised, must be protected, but if there should be any theoretical right which could not be practically used, and had not been practically used, then the law must step in and see that a dog-in-the-manger policy was not followed, nor the water allowed to run to waste.

said he sincerely hoped the House would not adopt the amendment, because if it did, the amendment would practically make a dead letter of the Bill. There was no doubt whatever that Government was introducing a new thing. (Sir H. H. JUTA: “Hear, hear.”) There was no concealment about the matter, and no trickery. In many important respects Government was introducing important changes. The right hon. member for Victoria West had said that he was rather alarmed. Prior to this Bill a man had the right to build a dam wherever he pleased. That right they took away from him. The only true line to take was this—that existing rights were protected, provided they were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. The Government did not want to throw dust in people’s eyes. In every chapter there was a specific clause dealing with existing rights. Beyond that it was impossible to say that all existing rights must continue, because then the Bill would be a farce. Under the old common law a man might have the right to the reasonable user of a stream. The Bill proposed to deal with water in a particular way. If that way were going to interfere with the right under the old common law to the reasonable user of the stream there was no doubt that right was going to be interfered with, but as far as possibly consistent with the scope of the Bill existing arrangements were recognised. A man who had built a dam or a furrow would be protected, but the potential right under the old common law must be judged now according to the provisions of this Bill. The only way to deal with this thing was to put in a description of existing rights, but he did not think it was necessary. He hoped the committee would accept the clause as it stood, subject to the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West.

said he did not think it was clear to members of the House—very few of whom had read the Bill through—and it was not clearly grasped by the country, that the measure made a very material difference to the common law rights of the people. He happened to know people who had bought farms on a river, under the idea that they might lead out the water and make dams. It was news to them to know that these rights were to be upset by this law.

Clause 156 protects them.

Then I do not see the force of the argument. Proceeding, the hon. member said that was a most unfortunate thing. He would be very sorry to vote for anything of that sort. The printer’s ink was hardly dry on the last Irrigation Act, wherein they set to work and tried to crystallise the judgments of the Supreme Court into the clauses of that Act. At the present time there were Oudtshoorn farmers going about the country buying farms with the idea that they would be able to develop those farms with the water from perennial streams. It was a dangerous doctrine concerning these rights. Were these rights protected or not?

They are.

The Minister says they are, but not unless they are exercised. Either they are protected or they are not. If they are, say so. If they are not, because they are not exercised, we should make it perfectly clear to hon. members of this House, or else we will be doing a grievous wrong to the people of this country.

Existing rights were not interfered with provided they were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. He pointed out that in each section of the Bill there was a clause protecting existing rights. Under the Act of 1906 a man had certain rights. This Bill might perhaps modify those rights to a certain extent.

Take away those rights?

It is impossible to say that these rights are being interfered with. They are protected to the extent that the Act protects them specifically.

said that certainly the time of the House had not been wasted when they got from his hon. and learned friend the admission that rights were affected. They were told from the beginning, and everybody understood it that way, that no existing rights would be interfered with. What did his hon. and learned friend say? He said that rights were protected. But it was so clear that rights were affected. No lawyer could come to any other conclusion. His hon. friend said that existing rights were protected provided they were not inconsistent with the provisions of the measure. What did that mean? Supposing he was entitled to five inches of water. This Bill took away two inches. The Bill then said that it was conserving the rights consistent with the Bill. But the Bill took away his two inches. It was very little use to say that his rights were being preserved, consistent with the Bill, because he was only left with three inches. He had been trying to point out that, existing rights were being interfered with. That was what he had been trying to force on the House, and now at the eleventh hour his hon. and learned friend admitted it. If they intended to alter existing rights, then the Minister should tell the House where. Don’t let them say that existing rights were going to be protected and then pass the Bill. The last man he spoke to on the subject said, “I am told that my rights are preserved.” The Bill did not preserve existing rights ; it only preserved a portion of those rights. What would be the position of those who were at the Irrigation Congress at which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was present? He would like to see his hon. friend go back to the conference and say that it was admitted by the Minister of Native Affairs that this Bill did take away private rights. He would like to see the reception that would get. These people said that, it was a good Bill if their rights were not taken away. That was the first thing with them. If it was necessary in the public interest then let the Government say so, but don’t let it go forth to the country that these rights were being protected by the measure that was before the committee. That was the point which he wished to make clear to hon. members in that House. It was now for the House to decide whether they wished to keep these rights or lose them. His opinion was that they must not take away rights that a man had acquired.

said he would not be afraid to go back to the Conference, bring forth the Bill, and tell those present at the Conference what had happened. At that Conference it was known that they were preserving vested practical rights and not theoretical rights. He was glad to see that the terms perennial and intermittent, which were part of the Act of 1906, were now considered to be admirable. In the definition intermittent stream in that Act they took away vested rights. Why did they take them away? They said that these rights were theoretical, and that in the best interests of irrigation in this country and to prevent the waste of flood water and the dog in the manger policy pursued by some people they took away certain rights. Before the Act of 1906 was passed a man had the right of damming the water, but it was stated that this was a theoretical right and that he would not be allowed to store more water than he could beneficially use upon his own farm. Now, he maintained that in this Bill if they were going to lay down fine legal definitions and if they were not going to take all the circumstances together—circumstances that were changing from day to day—they were not going to find provision for the preservation of water going to waste. He was not speaking from a legal point of view. Although it was all very well to bring forward legal technicalities, what they had to do was to deal with the utilisation of the water supply of the country. Since the passage of the Bill of 1906 enormous development in irrigation had taken place in the Midland districts, Cradock especially. Rivers that were considered intermittent streams were becoming perennial streams. The flow of these waters was of such a character that unless they were able to deal with them in the Bill, they would not be able to deal with them at all. There was no doubt that they must deal with conditions that were gradually arising in this country owing to the conservation of the flow of water. He hoped the committee would not try to define existing legal rights in the finest possible way, and that hon. members would not vote against the Bill because they thought certain vested rights were being destroyed. Those who attended that Irrigation Congress knew well what they were voting for. (Hear, hear, and Ministerial cheers.)

said his hon. friend (Sir T. Smartt) had referred to the 120 practical irrigators at the Congress, but it did not seem to him that these practical irrigators were so contented as he said. The great question was about the normal flow, and when they came to that he would have something to say. Besides, these people had no right to take away the rights of individuals. People who paid money for farms should have their rights protected. If they did not protect the rights of property, then he did not know what was going to happen. (Hear, hear.)

speaking as a farmer with practical experience of irrigation, said that if the hon. members for Victoria West and Cape Town, Harbour, had done their duty in Select Committee last year, he thought all that talk would not have been necessary. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, just wanted to frighten the House. Why did he not show what rights were to be taken away? The Bill abolished certain rights which ought, to be abolished, but it did not abolish any water. It simply assisted irrigation. No previous law ever gave the right to an owner to cut a furrow through a neighbour’s land, and that was one of its good points. This Bill did so.

said it seemed to him it would have been better if the Minister had been a little more frank with the House at the start. They were clearly told that this Bill took away no rights at all; but now they were told it did take away certain rights. It was only when he (the speaker) laid a trap for the Minister that, with the assistance of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir Henry Juta), they got that fact out. He was going to support the Bill, but he wanted to know what they were going to cover with the definitions. He was going to support it for the same reason that the 1906 Bill was supported and got through: that it enabled more water to be used in South Africa than was the case to-day. But he did not want it done in a sly manner, but honestly and for the benefit of riparian owners. The 1906 Act altered the law completely. Under that a man on an intermittent stream was restricted in his rights. Originally he could impound all the water he could stop, but after that Bill he was entitled to use an amount of water he could reasonably and beneficially use. The rest was not to be retained by him or allowed to go to the sea, but was to be used by every person able to do so. He hoped this Bill did the same. Clause 7 did not even bring in the rights that were supposed to be protected under clause 23. He wanted to ask the Minister if he would at least put in this clause 7 a definition in clear words which would protect a man supposed to be protected under clause 23. He wanted to appeal to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn for his support, for unless the words were put in clause 7 they were not protected. He moved to add at the end of the amendment proposed by Mr. Merriman in line 39, “and subject to the savings in section 23 contained.” He thought it really was time that it was clearly understood that this Bill proposed to give rights to certain persons who claimed water which, under the common law at present, they now had no right to, and to prevent people erecting works which would nullify the work of other people, to deal with perennial and intermittent streams on the same footing so that they were to be called public streams. Those were the purposes of the Bill, and he still thought that this was a Bill for the better use of water in South Africa, notwithstanding the obtuse manner in which the Minister had dealt with it.

said that if this Bill had not interfered with existing rights he would not have supported it. They had no Bill of that character in the Free State, and the reason why they had no irrigation works was because of existing rights. They all said that their future was in the land, and that they could not make a successful country unless they developed the land; but if they said they were going to allow existing rights to interfere with that, they would never establish the irrigation works which they wanted to establish for the purpose of developing the land.

said that what he was afraid of, and what he would like an assurance upon, was as to whether the rights of riparian owners, which up to the present had not been exercised in regard to the use of water, would be affected or curtailed in any way?

said it was very interesting to hear from the two Tory parties in that House that private interests should give way to public interests, and private rights should give way to public rights. He hoped that would be kept in mind on future occasions.

withdrew his amendment.

said it was now clear that the Bill took away private rights. He said the same thing during the second reading. The Bill went too far.

explained that every Bill affected private rights. Laws were concerned with the interests of the general public, and it was inevitable, therefore, that they came into contact with private rights. If the hon. member studied the Bill he would find that his rights as an irrigator were improved. So far as clause 126 was concerned, the right to the water was better protected under that Bill than heretofore.

said that he had previously stated that they should protect all existing rights that had been used, or could be used, but let them attack the man who acted the dog in the manger.

said that he would like to define his position clearly. A number of hon. members had been under the impression that this Bill took away no existing rights. The right hon. member did use the expression several times regarding owners adopting a dog-in-the-manger policy. He must recognise that no one could go to court to define his rights on such an expression as “dog-in-the-manger policy,” and if they meant by existing rights not all existing rights, but something else, let them define it and face the position. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort spoke of the Act of 1906. In those days they openly said that the water they were going to deal with was the Karoo streams running to waste, and they admitted that they were going to take away rights. The hon. member did not mislead anyone by saying he was not going to take away rights. Surely it was their duty as members of Parliament to say what they meant.

The amendments of the right hon. member for Victoria. West were agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, was put and declared lost.

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