from the widow of the late S. P. de Beer, in his lifetime landdrost, of Bloemfontein.

from inhabitants of the O.F.S., in support of the petition of W. F. de Clerk and J. C. Pretorius.

from John Webster, formerly of the Natal Civil Service.

brought up the report of the Committee of the Whole House on the second report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, reporting certain resolutions.

The resolutions were agreed to.

Correspondence between the Government and Admiralty authorities respecting refund of Customs duty paid on materials used in connection with the construction of the Simon’s Town Docks; agreement between the Government and the Union Industries, Limited, with reference to establishment of a factory for condensing and preserving milk.

reported that the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, having received representations that it would be impossible for the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) to attend the sittings of the Select Committee on the Bill, recommended that Mr. Duncan be discharged from service thereon, and that Sir David Harris be appointed in his stead; and further that as the House had ordered that the Select Committee in question should now meet as on an opposed Bill, the standing Rules and Orders Committee had appointed Mr. Vintcent to be a member of the Select Committee on the Bill.

It was ordered accordingly.

read a letter from, the Secretary to the Prime Minister, dated the 18th instant, intimating that Pieter Gerhardus Marais had been elected a member of the House of Assembly for the Electoral Division of Hope Town, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Hendrik Lodewyk Aucamp.

moved that the House go into committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from (1) Revenue Funds for the year ending March 31, 1912, and (2) Loan Funds for the period from May 31, 1910, to March 31, 1912. He said that he did not think it was necessary at that stage to say anything by way of explanation of these Additional Estimates, because he took it that the House would agree to go into committee, and there would then be an opportunity of examining the various heads.

seconded.

said that he was not going to oppose the motion, but he thought it a convenient opportunity for the Minister of Commerce and Industries to say whether he had made up his mind in regard to the action to be taken on the Commerce and Industries Commission’s report. When the matter was last mentioned the Minister had, he thought, treated it with a certain amount of levity. Until, the Government’s decision was announced as to whether the report was to be acted upon, this year great inconvenience would be caused to business men, who could not enter into contracts as they did not know what was going to happen.

regretted that the hon. member should have thought that he had treated this very important matter with levity. He had no intention of doing so. All that he could promise was that a statement would be made before the end of the week.

brought to the notice of the Minister of Finance the inadequacy of the school accommodation at Kimberley, where it was only on the promise of the School Board to put up new buildings as soon as possible that the Town Council had suspended action. At a recent meeting of the School Board the chairman said that failing financial assistance from the Government the Board would have to intimate that it could no longer continue to accept educational responsibility. Last year the Minister had promised that a sum of £200,000 would be available for school buildings, but six months after that statement was made the Kimberley School Board found it impossible to get £2,000 to pay their contractor for new school buildings. Then came a whole series of wires, and finally an advance of £2,500 was sanctioned on December 11. He felt that was a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Kimberley was a little village on the way to Johannesburg, and it might happen to be overlooked ; so some of them had got to keep up the end of this Province and see that education was not starved.

said he would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. He said the other day that one of the Secretaries of Justice, Mr. Lonsdale, was retiring from the service. He would like to know whether it was the intention of Government to appoint Mr. Hofmeyr, now of the Civil Service Commission, in his place.

said that with regard to that he could only say that Mr. Hofmeyr was going to Pretoria for a term, which might be three or six months, in order to take over from Mr. Lonsdale. No definite appointment was being made, because, as far as Mr. Hofmeyr was concerned, his health was not sufficiently satisfactory to allow him to take up the position permanently; and, of course, it was a very important position, which required a good man. He would no longer have two secretaries, but would have a secretary and an assistant secretary. Mr. Hofmeyr’s health broke down some time ago owing to stress of work.

asked the Minister of Finance whether in the additional expenditure was included an amount in regard to the Committee of Inquiry into the affairs of the East Rand Proprietary Mines, and whether it included the cost of defending the case when it was first thought of appointing that committee?

asked, in regard to the speech by the hon. member for Barkly West, why the Kimberley people did not do as many other people had done in the same division? They could, as long as the Education Department approved, raise a loan locally to build a school building, and the Department would give an undertaking to take up the loan at a later date. That was what they did at Somerset East. It did not cost the taxpayers any more, because the Government paid for it.

said he was rather surprised to hear the statement of the hon. member for Somerset, because the King William’s Town School Board was prepared to raise a loan last year and were told distinctly by the Department that they would not be allowed to do so. Perhaps the hon. member would tell them why his School Board received preferential treatment.

said he was astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Somerset, because his experience was not the experience of the Cape School Board. The School Boards in the Cape Province had raised loans to the extent of £250,000 borrowed from private individuals and banks, and upon that they were paying interest at the rate of 5 and 6 per cent. Yet the hon. member said it was not a burden upon the taxpayers. It came from the Government, and therefore it came from the taxpayers. This system in the Cape Province which was being adopted by the Government of allowing School Boards to borrow money, was costing the Government about £6,500 per annum, that is, the difference between what the School Boards are paying and the rate at which the Government could raise the money at 3½ per cent. But they had been told that they could get no further loans, and that they were told was on the authority of the Treasurer. And he thought that was quite right ; only unless they got money they could not carry on with education. He thought the Government should recognise their responsibility and see the necessity for providing money for it.

said that the Conference which had been sitting in Cape Town had been going into the whole question of the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces, and his hon. friend the Minister of Finance would make an announcement on the subject in due time, no doubt ; and one of the subjects they would report on would be the question of the borrowing powers of the Provincial Councils. The question raised by the hon. member for the South Peninsula (Mr. Runciman) was not only the question of building loans, but the whole system of School Boards working on deficits, for which system he and other hon. members of the House had been responsible some seven years ago—the system of financing the School Boards by deficits. They compelled the School Boards to borrow from banks, etc., and that was not a question which could be dealt with by Parliament at the present time.

said he thought his hon. friend had missed the point altogether. Last session £200,000 had been granted for the building of schools, and under the old system in the Cape they would have got that amount when they started building the schools, but now they were informed that they could not get the money until the school building was completed; and the consequence was that they had to go to private people and banks to borrow the money. What the Minister of Finance should have done was to place the £200,000 at the disposal of the Administrator, and then allow him to pay out the money ; then there would nave been no trouble at all. It was a matter of arrangement on the part of the Minister of Finance.

said that if they went to the Superintendent-General of Education, they were told to go to the Minister of Finance and when they went to the Minister, they were referred to the Superintendent-General of Education or the Administrator. What they wanted to know was, who was the responsible man? He hoped the Minister would take the matter into his most serious consideration, because it affected not only the School Beards of Simon’s Town and Kimberley, but practically the whole of the Cape Province.

I don’t think that anybody in the Cape Province can charge the Union Government with not having met the requirements of the Provincial Administration of the Cape in anything but a fair spirit. Last year, when the Provincial Executive and the Administrator of the Cape asked that £200,000 should be placed upon the Estimates to be voted for the purpose of building schools, I placed the whole of that sum upon the Estimates, so that no one can blame me for having been niggardly, or not having met the requirements of the Cape.

It has not been paid out.

This year the Provincial Administrator has asked for another £200,000, and I have again made provision for that. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) says that although I placed that upon the Estimates, the money was not made available to the Provincial Administrator. Well, sir, quite right; I am not going to pay out money to any of these Provinces unless I know they are going to spend that money, because otherwise it will only lead to waste, and I can use my balances to far better advantage. I have said whatever money you require, you shall have that money. As soon as my attention was called to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) as to the architects’ certificates, I gave instructions to countermand that ; and as the building progresses, the Administrator has full authority to pay out the money, and there is no trouble at all about it. We interfere as little as possible with the discretion of the Administrator.

They did not have that power in December.

I sympathise with the hon. member’s desire to have schools built in Kimberley and Barkly West, but I have no authority to say that, of the money given, so much must be spent in Kimberley or Barkly West; and the Provincial Administration must use its own discretion as to how the money is spent. (Hear, hear.) If it says that Kimberley or Barkly West is to have no school at all, my hon. friend must use some other influence. (Laughter.)

The motion was agreed to, and the committee stage set down for Thursday.

said that under the Bill all streams would become public streams, and the water in them, without any qualification at all, was called public water. At the present time the water in a private or an intermittent stream was not public water, but belonged to the person through whose land it passed. That had been laid down in the law courts. The Chief Justice had laid it down very clearly that there were certain rights over a private stream ; once those rights were established the public had no right in respect of those streams, and the lower proprietors could claim no other right except such as long usage had established in their favour. It should, proceeded Mr. Merriman, clearly be laid down that the clause referred only to those streams which were perennial, which had a normal flow, and the water in which was capable of being distributed for irrigation purposes. He moved, as an amendment, to insert, after “public stream,” the words “that has a normal flow.”

said the amendment would destroy a good deal of the object they had in view in the Bill, which was not to take away rights. The idea was to prevent waste. Under the Roman-Dutch law they had always had to deal with public and private streams. Then it was found convenient to draw distinctions between those public streams called perennial and other public streams which, in this country where the rains were intermittent and the supply was uncertain, were public, but were not perennial. The only way when all the changes gradually came upsetting the meanings attaching to words, was to get back to the original definition of a public stream and a private stream. What they aimed at in this clause was to get back to the original idea there, where they had a well-defined watercourse, either at certain seasons or at uncertain seasons, and they had a supply of water arising from storms or any other cause, they would call that a public stream, and if on that public stream they had an owner who had been accustomed to use the intermittent part for himself he would still retain that rights.

Where is that defined in the Bill?

said that they would come to that by and bye when they reached the later sections. It was distinctly stated that when they wanted to dam up their intermittent stream and when they wanted to use that water which they had been accustomed to use, they had got to give notice to others to see whether they were not interfering with the rights others had already exercised. By putting into this clause the idea of “normal,” they would be departing from the original definition of public stream. “Public stream would include a stream that had a normal flow, as well as one that had not a normal flow. There must not be too much refinement in regard to the definition. “Perennial flow” was, in all but name, retained. There were public streams which had not a normal flow. They did not want that water to run to waste, or to be stored by a man who could not use it. The idea was to conserve the water on public streams. He thought they must start with this proposition that they were going to deal with a public stream, and when once they had established that public stream, all the water in it was going to be dealt with as a public stream.

said that the Minister had accused him of having confused a public stream with a normal flow and a perennial stream. Why did he (the Minister) mislead him? That was what he wanted to know. His (the Minister’s) own definition of a public stream was almost a verbatim description of a perennial stream in the Act of 1906, which was put in by the Chief Justice. He took that definition and applied it to a public stream. The Minister had been talking for twenty minutes, and he never got near the point, for they were just as much in the dark as ever. Another point was that the Minister did not seem to him to have studied the legislation of this country. One of his great points was that under the existing law nobody had a right to store water from a perennial stream. Had the Minister ever read the Act of 1909? It gave exactly the point ; it gave the right of storing anything above the normal flow. He should like to see the Minister define the normal flow. Therefore, they were only now going to deal with a clause aimed, not at a public stream, but a private stream. They were taking away rights from the people which were now conferred upon them by law. It was altering the whole object of our law, the common law, as expounded by the Chief Justice, and as it had been embodied in our statute law here.

said he entirely agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West. Clause 9 was quite clear, and left no room for doubt. Water, which was private property, was made public property by that clause, so that a farmer would no longer have the right to use the water on his farm. He hoped the clause would be more fully explained.

maintained that even under the present law there was no property in a public stream. Riparian owners had only the right of use. Some time ago a case was heard in which a great difficulty arose in regard to water which fell on land and ran into a public stream. In the case of Southey v. Southey it was held that as soon as water that fell on one’s property ran into a public stream it became public water. In another case the same thing was held in regard to spring water. The principle seemed to be to put perennial and intermittent streams on the same footing. There had been some rather curious definitions of a perennial stream: one was that if a stream ran for five months in the year it was perennial, and another that it must run for the major part of the year. Then if water fell or rose on one’s land and one had used it for fifty years it became public water when it entered a public stream if it had been allowed to run down for thirty years. He did not think the present proposal constituted any great departure from the existing law, nor did he think it would create much difficulty.

said he had examined the definition of “private stream” in connection with that clause, and he came to the conclusion that the owner’s right was taken away He feared that the law would give protection to a well-known syndicate that had particular rights in connection with certain farms, which would prevent the owners higher up from making use of the water. He could not see why the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was not accepted.

could not comprehend why a man should not be entitled to all the water which fell on or sprang out of his ground. He desired that water should be regarded as public water when it fell outside private property, or when it ran into a public stream from a position higher up. He was bound to support the right hon. member for Victoria West.

suggested that the Minister should allow the clause to stand over until they had arrived at a definition of “public stream.” They were passing clauses which hinged on this definition. The result was that they were giving with one hand what they were taking away with the other. In clause 8 they said that all water that fell on a man’s land was his so long as it did not drain away into a public stream ; but in this clause they said all the water in a public stream was public water. He thought that chapter should stand over until they had defined a public stream, or they were going to do more damage to irrigation in this country than ever before. The Minister said a man might impound water, but he must not impound water he could not use. The end of it all was going to be that instead of a man erecting a small works that would suffice for himself he would have to go in for expensive works for the benefit of his lower neighbours; and they were going to put a stop to the conservation of water in this country.

said he thought there must be an entire misconception in the minds of many hon. members as regarded what was proposed in that clause. The hon. member for Middelburg seemed to think this Bill was taking away all his rights and the rights of his constituents. An hon. member opposite said that if they defined all streams as public streams they were going to do away with the rights that at present existed with regard to the flood water of what was known at the present time in Cape legislation as an intermittent stream.

How so?

How so? My right hon. friend knows just as well as I do that in 1906 we defined what an intermittent stream was. We laid down certain regulations with regard to the use of water of intermittent streams. We, in that clause, defined most carefully that a man upon an intermittent stream—he, previous to 1906, could do what he liked with water flowing from his property in an intermittent stream, whether he was using it or not —could only beneficially use the water, and if he was storing it he could only store the water, practically, from a perennial stream. Proceeding, he said that now hon. members said this Bill went much further, and that if it were passed they would have no rights whatever upon intermittent streams. If hon. members road the new clause 10 they would see that it defined what was the normal flow of a public stream, and in sub-section 2 it said that the normal flow was a perennial stream, and a man had practically the same rights as at the present moment. They were making a great advance on the Bill of 1906 in this matter, because they were making provision to deal with a course of events which were, from day to day, changing in this country. In the Midland districts, owing to large irrigation works taking place, like on the Fish and the Sunday Rivers, and lower down —

They are perennial streams.

They were not in 1906, but they are being made what is known as perennial streams owing to the Act of 1906. Proceeding, he said that the surplus waters of these streams were not capable of common use as they understood the term in connection with ordinary perennial streams, as defined by the Act of 1906, because while they were dealing with normal flow they were only dealing with it in the old way, as they did with water from a perennial stream. That was by leading it out by furrows. After all, who was to lay down by law as to what was a normal flow and what was surplus water in a public stream? What he wanted the committee to understand was that no practical right of any sort whatsoever was being taken away ; but that they were trying by definition and statute law to make provision for the most careful and beneficial storage of water in a country where the water was at present flowing away. He knew the necessity in Calvinia for storing water, and there was nothing in this Bill whatsoever that was going to interfere with the people storing that water and using it to the best possible advantage ; neither was there anything to prevent the hon. member for Wodehouse using water from a small intermittent stream. He was protected in this Bill, and he had a perfect right to store it for beneficial use, but he had not the right to store it to the detriment of his neighbours.

said he would like some better guarantee than that given by the previous speaker regarding a perennial stream. There were certain people who were wishful to protect their rights of property. His hon. friend was an enthusiast, and one of those enthusiasts like Mrs. Vorster some day would go and construct a dam on a stream and then would be hauled into the Supreme Court. Then the hon. gentleman talked about the great advance of irrigation in the Midland districts. The great advance there was due to the formation of irrigation associations. That was the real reason, and it was a very laudable thing; but that had nothing to do with water rights. In the case of Southey v. Southey—it was the Brak River he thought —that” was practically declared to be a perennial stream. That was the head waters of the Fish River, and then the hon. member stood up and said that neither the Fish nor the Sunday River was an intermittent stream. If he went into the Supreme Court they would very soon say that they were perennial streams, as they treated the Brak River, which was at the top and very much drier. The hon. member for Liesbeek was talking the other day about some man at the top of a dry river who made a dam which diverted the water to his own land. Well, that man was quite right; and he proposed that man’s right should be taken away from him in favour of some people with lucerne patches lower down. They had no business to take his rights away.

said that there were in the Free State many streams which were not perennial. Every landowner along such a course made his own dam, but if clause 9 prevented the making of those dams, dissatisfaction would ensue. The clause should be amended so that these rights were retained.

said he thought that it was rather inconvenient to debate this matter for the reason that there was no definition of a public stream.

Oh, is it standing over?

Yes. Continuing, he said there was a feeling that the term public stream should be defined. But he would point out that it was at the request of hon. members who said “Hear, hear,” that they had allowed that definition to stand over. If they went on postponing things at this rate the Minister would have no Bill at all. When they got to the definition then this discussion could properly be carried on. So far as the Transvaal was concerned this Act, instead of extending the scope of the irrigation law, was, as a matter of fact, curtailing it. Now, with regard to the Cape law. His hon. friend had said that he was going to lose his rights. If his hon. friend’s ideas were carried out there would be no public streams at all. That sort of thing was really nonsense. He pointed out that this Bill introduced no new principle. The fact was that they had not realised in the course of the discussion that in a country like South Africa their old common law definition, which had been maintained by the Courts, and defined public streams as perennial and non-perennial, was not a definition that could be successfully applied in this country. Some of the perennial streams were nothing of the sort. He well remembered his right hon. friend asking, in the course of a debate of the past, how the tenth part of a trickle was going to be gauged. (Laughter.) The true definition was ordinary flow and flood flow of any stream, whether an intermittent or an ordinary running stream. If they applied that to any stream they would get a workable definition which would enable irrigation work to be carried on to the best advantage of the people of South Africa. Then Mrs. Vorster’s case had been quoted. Her difficulty was the fact that her rights were decided by the old common law definition. It was really on account of her distressing case that the amendment of 1909 was introduced, which applied to the normal and the surplus flow of a stream. A Court would have to declare a river an intermittent or a perennial stream, because that was what the law was at the present time. They wanted irrigation work pushed ahead in this country. There was the case of the Sunday River, and he pointed out that in that instance the farmers took advantage of the surplus flow. His hon. friends seemed to be alarmed about their rights. Did his hon. friend the member for Wodehouse know that this law did not alter the existing law by a jot? Prior to 1906 a man could do just what he liked with flood water in an intermittent stream. Then they felt that that was an unwholesome state of affairs in the best interests of the country. In 1906 it was laid down that if a stream came down in flood a man could impound all the water that he would be able to put to beneficial use. That was not being changed in the least. He pointed the hon. member to clause 23, and said they were trying to arrive at a legal definition that would be applicable to all cases. Water in a public stream was public water.

If you pass the clause you say all water in a private stream is public water.

said the discussion so far had dealt only with the law in the Cape, Transvaal, and Free State. He maintained that so far as Natal was concerned the rights of the individual were being trenched upon very much indeed.

Section 14 protects him.

The amendment moved by Mr. Merriman was negatived.

New clause 10,

moved the following new clause 10: (1) Whenever the expression “normal flow” is used in this or in any other chapter of this Act in relation to a public stream, it shall mean the quantity of water actually and visibly flowing which, under a system of direct irrigation from that stream whether by furrows or otherwise, but without the aid of storage, can be beneficially used for the irrigation of land riparian to the stream, without detriment to the interests of lower riparian owners on the stream ; but the expression “storage,” as used in this section, shall not include the impounding of such share of the normal flow of the public stream as a riparian owner is or may become entitled to by means of a lawful distribution of that normal flow. (2) No public stream shall be deemed to have a normal flow unless a portion of the actual flow be derived from springs, seepage, melting snow, the steady drainage from swamps or vleis, or other like source of supply. (3) The normal flow of any particular public stream or of any particular portion of a public stream and the surplus water thereof, shall be determined, in accordance with regulation, by the Water Court concerned. “Surplus water” shall mean the water in a public stream other than the normal flow, if any. (4) When, in the opinion of the Water Court concerned, the normal flow of any public stream is mainly derived from tributaries thereof, the Water Court shall, in determining what is surplus water in any such tributary, have regard to the normal flow of the public stream of which it is a tributary: Provided that, subject to existing rights, the riparian owners on the tributary shall not be called upon to permit water to flow down to the said public stream to which they would be entitled under section 12.

stated that as the definition “surplus water” incorporated in sub-section (5) of this proposed new clause, had been negatived by the committee when clause 2 of the Bill was under consideration, it would in the ordinary course have been irregular to allow it to be moved again at this stage, but in view of the fact that it was understood that the definition in question was negatived for the purpose of transposing it to a later part of the Bill, he would under the circumstances allow its inclusion in the proposed new clause 10.

presumed that under the new clause the Water Courts would define the normal flow, and everything above that would be taken as flood water.

said the Bill provided that the normal flow should be ascertained by the Water Courts—(Sir T. W. SMARTT: As in the 1899 Act)—and all that was above that would be surplus flow. The Bill in that respect made no change in the existing law.

said that the water which to-day must be required for irrigation on any public stream might be very much less than might be required five years hence. They ought to put something in the Bill to meet that. He moved to insert in sub-section 3, after “determined” the words “from time to time.”

said the Select Committee felt that some broad principle should be laid down to guide the Water Courts in determining the normal flow. It was thought best to leave the Water Courts to deal with local circumstances. The matters mentioned by the right hon. gentleman would be best dealt with by regulations. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester, he would like to meet the hon. member, but he must confess that this time, thinking of vested rights, he was a little bit afraid, and it might raise the question of fixity of rights.

said he felt even more satisfied now that his amendment was necessary.

said that the point was met by the word “can.”

The amendment was negatived.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 11, rights of riparian owners in respect of use of water in public streams,

moved to omit sub-section (2).

Agreed to.

On clause 13, rights of riparian owners in respect of surplus of flood water of public streams,

moved, in line 55, after “Act,” to insert “and more especially to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 10.”

said he would like to know what the object of this amendment was.

said it did not appear to him why they should give particular prominence to any part of the Act.

said he agreed to a certain extent, except that they had borne in mind already the provisions of section 10 for the guidance of Water Courts. Strictly speaking, he should say it was verbiage.

said that clause 13 dealt with streams that had no normal flow. There were a good many streams in this country with nothing but surplus flow. The clause was complicated by the reference to tributaries. This was likely to lead to a lot of confusion and endless litigation.

said the clause merely laid down that storm water could be used and stored by riparian owners in case of streams with a normal flow.

said that the hon. member had not kept up with the committee. They were at clause 13. He had been trying to explain to the Minister that under this provision there were a good many streams that would have nothing but surplus water.

You have every right to use that water.

What rights you have are prescribed by this clause. I am not quarrelling with the clause, because it seems to me to re-enact the provision in the Act of 1906. But into that clause is imported a lot of stuff about tributaries.

said that if it would make his right hon. friend less miserable, he would leave the words out. They were immaterial.

hoped that the Minister would not withdraw the amendment, because its omission would lead to endless litigation.

explained to the hon. member that the definition of “normal flow” made the matter quite clear.

asked the Minister whether he would not make provision in the clause for the storage of water on non-riparian lands?

thought that they should deal with the matter of the diversion of water on to the veld, to the detriment of owners with cultivated lands.

asked what provision was made in the Bill for a man who was a riparian owner, and wanted to construct a dam across the stream, when there was another riparian owner on the opposite bank who objected to the dam?

said that they would come to that later.

emphasised the point made by the hon. member for Jansenville. To a certain extent, the provision narrowed down the rights a man possessed for irrigation purposes as laid down in the Act of 1906.

said that the provisions asked for were to be found in clauses 14 and 22.

The amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 14,

said that the clause did not protect rights obtained by Act of Parliament.

The Bill says “subject to existing rights.”

said that protection was given by clause 136.

questioned whether this was the case. Proceeding, the hon. member said this Board might at any time come and say they were not using the water beneficially, and they would use it. He wanted to make it definite that this Act of Parliament could not be interfered with, and that the Water Board would not be placed over Parliament.

said that clause 137 covered that; but he would add a safeguard. He moved on page 12, line 7, after “(if any)” to insert “or surplus water.”

said he wished to draw the attention of the Minister of Native Affairs to sub-section (b) of section 2. He did so because he, being a lawyer, would know how his friends would deal with matters of that kind, in which, he thought, most of their irrigators would find themselves before long. It said that the Water Courts shall not grant permission to divert or store surplus water, and included the words “granted or held under this Act or any prior law.” Would all those things have to be read with the former Acts?

The amendment was agreed to.

asked if the clause would interfere with any right held under any previous law?

said that anyone who had the use, enjoyment, or exercise of any rights—they practically said that the Water Court could not interfere with it.

said he thought the right hon. gentleman would have welcomed it. He had spent a considerable amount of time and caused a, considerable amount of alarm by saying that vested rights would be taken away. Now he was alarmed because practical vested rights would be protected. He evidently did not think they should protect rights under the Act of 1906.

said that was very pretty ; but did not they say they had given those rights, and they had told the Water Court to do certain things. Well, if the Water Courts went and did it, unless it was made perfectly clear—more clear than it was now—they would only be dragging those people into endless litigation.

said that surely the right hon. gentleman saw that what was meant there was a case where a man had already got, under previous legislation, a permit. No arrangement could be made away with under this Bill.

said he would like to know how under sub-section 4 the cancellation was to be provided for.

said that if a man who had got special leave did not fulfil the conditions or keep the dam in proper repair, or acted injuriously to any others, that leave could be cancelled.

On clause 15,

To add the following new sub-section (5): “(5) If, after permission to construct storage or diversion works has been granted by a Water Court to one or more riparian owners in a certain catchment area, any other riparian owner desires at a later date to construct similar works, he may make application to the Water Court for permission to construct certain specified works, and the Water Court may grant such permission subject to the payment of compensation by the applicant to any or all the riparian owners whose works have been protected under this section, and whose works would be adversely affected by the exercise of the permission, if granted. The Water Court shall determine the amount of water which such applicant may store or divert, and the proportionate share of compensation which shall be paid to protected owners. Every such determination shall be subject to the right of appeal hereinafter provided. The total compensation to be paid by the applicant shall be determined by arbitration.” He said that so far under the sub-section protection was given to the first man. This provided for one who should, later on, perceive the benefit of erecting works and wanted to come in. He was allowed by this section to come in and share in the benefits on the condition that he did not interfere with any other man.

said he would like to point out that the declaration made by the person was to be supported by undertakings by two sureties ; but the applicant himself was not made to give any undertaking. He thought that should be amended.

agreed to do so.

said he thought they required another amendment with regard to the compensation, otherwise they would have to go to arbitration.

did not think it necessary.

said it might be held afterwards that there was something illegal unless it was agreed by arbitration. He moved: in line 39, sub-section (1), after “by,” to insert “the declarant and” ; and as an amendment to the new sub-section (5), proposed by the Minister of Lands, in the penultimate line, after “shall,” to insert “failing agreement.”

Agreed to.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 21, restriction on grant of permission to develop water power,

said that this was an interference with the rights of land-owners, especially in the case of Natal. He did not see that the use of water for the production of power would harm anybody. He thought that a man should have a right to the whole of the power that he was able to develop. He very strongly protested against this clause, which did away with the right of a private landowner to develop power out of a stream. He thought that the whole of the clause should go.

said he did not think that the clause would interfere to such an extent as the hon. member suggested. There was a safeguard which would prevent the reckless waste of water.

said that the argument of the Minister would not hold water. This was not a matter of frittering away water from a waterfall. If a man built up waterworks at the head of a waterfall, he used all that power. He thought that a great principle was involved, and he would commend the matter to the earnest consideration of the members of that committee.

said the mistake was made that most people thought that the man who sat next to a stream owned all the water. But the water was public water. If, of course, there was a reasonable user, the Government would give him consideration

said that the principle was important.

referred to the powers of the Provincial Council in connection with matters of this sort. Personally, he was opposed to the view taken by the hon. member for Umlazi. In other countries, the power produced by water was a national business. He was in favour of the power being given the Government to control these matters. He would move an amendment at a later stage that he hoped would carry the principle a step further.

said his hon. friend seemed to look at the matter from a wrong point of view. The only hon. member who seemed to stand up for the rights of the individual in that House was his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West.

said he did not think it would be advisable to give away this power. What about the case of a river that was between two Provinces? They would have to go to the central body.

New clause 22,

moved the following new clause: 22. (1) The Minister may reserve from sale of any Crown lands any water power or privilege thereon and a sufficient area of land in connection therewith for the erection of buildings, dams and plant, together with the right to lay out and use such roads, pipe, cable and other ways as may be necessary for passage to and from such water-power or privilege and land, and may, under regulations made as hereinafter provided, make terms and conditions upon which such water-power and land so reserved may be sold, leased and developed ; (2) the Minister may, subject to the provisions of clauses nineteen, twenty and twenty-one, and in accordance with regulations grant to any person or corporation a water-power or privilege upon Crown land.

ruled the amendment out of order, as it would require the consent of the Governor-General.

On clause 22, grant by Water Court of permission to use of water of a public stream on non-riparian land,

referred to places which received their water from catchment areas in which they themselves were not located, such as Coerney, which obtained its water from the Sunday River. He moved in line 27, to omit all the words from “either or” down to “in which” in line 29, and to substitute “on riparian land on which”.

in reply to Mr. Oliver, said that whatever had been guaranteed to the Kimberley Corporation was protected under the Bill, but if that were not so, he would accept any amendment making it clearer. The hon. member for Three Rivers desired to deal with water that could not be utilised in the catchment area by riparian owners. That was just what the section intended.

said he wanted to go beyond the catchment area. He suggested that the clause should stand over until the evening sitting, and that in the meantime the Minister should consult the Director of Irrigation.

said that what the hon. member for Three Rivers wished to know was: “When is a catchment area not a catchment area?” (Laughter.) If the water could not be used in the catchment area in which is was obtained, it could be led away to some other catchment area. He was sure that the Minister, if it were not provided for, would be prepared to give an assurance that he would provide for it at a later stage.

If there is an assurance from the Minister, I shall be satisfied.

said he would certainly give the assurance, because he knew that the hon. member wished to assist the Bill and make it as workable as possible. He was sure, however, that if the hon. member read the Bill further, he would find that the point was provided for.

said that he would withdraw his amendment.

proposed a new sub-section (b) as follows: “The diversion shall not deprive any person of any water to the use of which he may be entitled by any law in force at the commencement of this Act.”

suggested that the hon. member should introduce the amendment later on the general saving clause.

said that, in deference to the Minister, he would withdraw his proposal.

said it was very difficult to say in respect of irrigation what would happen in the future. He wished to know whether people who had constructed works, after the water from a river or valley had been divided by a Water Board, would be protected in the event of still other persons wanting to construct works.

said there was no danger in that direction.

was not yet convinced, and thought the Water Board should lay down a period of say five years.

said that no one would invest money if that occurred, and they should not forget the practical side of the question.

On clause 52, qualification for voting at election of members of a River Board,

moved to insert the following new paragraph (c) to follow paragraph (b) of sub-section (3): “(c) If the land be subject to the jurisdiction of a local authority, the person duly authorised by resolution thereof shall be entitled to vote in respect of that land, and for the purposes of this section the local authority shall be deemed to be the owner of all the irrigated land within the area of jurisdiction, and no person other than the person nominated by the local authority shall be entitled to vote in respect of irrigated land within the area of jurisdiction of that local authority.”

Agreed to.

On clause 60, general powers of River Board,

moved as an amendment to delete paragraph (g) of sub-section (1), as he said that he feared that too much power was being placed in the hands of the River Board.

said that he was prepared to add to the sub-section the words added to a previous clause, “tor the protection of public life and public interest.”

withdrew his amendment.

said he thought that sub-section (g) should be amended to make it consistent with the previous change that they had agreed to. He therefore moved: In line 25, on page 40, after “works as,” to omit “it,” in line 26, to omit “deem,” and to substitute “be,” in the same line to omit “in the public interest,” and to substitute “for the protection of life or the public safety”; and in line 29, to omit “at the cost of the said person,” and to substitute “and recover the cost from such person in a competent court.”

Agreed to.

On clause 77,

moved the deletion of the clause. He said the general clause which protected all municipalities rendered it superfluous.

Am I to gather from that that all these clauses we have scampered through are from the Transvaal Act?

No, they are to a large extent from the Cape Act. There is no material alteration.

The deletion of the clause was agreed to.

On clause 78, Exemption of Rand Water Board from the jurisdiction of River Boards,

thought the definition of “local authority” was wide enough to cover the Rand Water Board.

said the other day the words “for health purposes” which qualified the definition were omitted, erroneously he thought. It would now be necessary specifically to mention the Rand Water Board.

On clause 83, Irrigation Board for every district,

In what does this differ from the existing law?

In the Transvaal Act there were larger powers. They did not work well, so I have adopted the Cape practice.

On clause 98, Expropriation of land for Government purposes or payment of compensation,

This gives the Governor-General power to expropriate land whenever he chooses.

said he had an amendment to propose earlier in the clause. He moved the insertion of the words “in the public interest,” in line 5, after “expedient.” In regard to the observation made by the right hon. member, he pointed out that the Government could not spend any money without the authority of Parliament. The clause was to prevent any third party questioning the authority of the Governor-General.

said that it was just the protection of third parties, as they were euphoniously termed, that was the protection of private individuals, that he was aiming at. The Minister had a habit of asking Parliament for lump sums, which would be at once voted by a subservient House. When he had a lump sum for this purpose the Minister would go about the country selecting pieces of land. He did not think that any sensible House would give the Minister that power. He ought to say what land he wanted for irrigation work, and get permission from Parliament. He moved that the words “with the consent of Parliament and” be added in line 10.

said that he agreed with the principles of the amendment, and if it were not carried too much power would be placed in the hands of the Government. He had placed a similar amendment on the paper. If a man’s property were expropriated it was only right that his case should come before the representatives of the people. He would move the following amendment: In sub-section (1), line 11, after “contained” to insert “and after a resolution to that effect has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.”

withdrew his amendment in favour of Mr. J. A. Venter’s.

said the principle was one he admitted. But the effect would be to hang up a big scheme because some little detail would need the powers of Parliament to expropriate.

said it was practically word for word with the clause in the 1906 Act. It was clause 82 in that Act.

said he totally disapproved of the principle ; but as they were now contemplating there was a wider spirit. A great deal of money was being flung about, and he thought it was a very dangerous principle. When his hon. friend brought his great scheme before Parliament he would want an Act of Parliament and not a lot of resolutions.

asked some questions with regard to arbitration, but was inaudible.

said that he could not see why these matters could not come before Parliament, which was in session for several months. He did not care what had or had not been done in 1906, but he wanted that done which was right.

who supported, said there was a big principle involved, and they must!be extremely careful, especially where the private rights of a man were involved. They seemed to be too prone nowadays to expropriate, and they could not be too careful.

also supported the amendment.

said he would like to point out to the Minister that if his contention were correct it was just as easy to come to Parliament for money as to come to Parliament for power to expropriate. He was glad to see that some members on the Government benches recognised the powers of Parliament to protect the public interest, on occasion. Also, he was surprised that none of the Opposition observed those powers.

said that the custom in the Free State had hitherto been that before they could expropriate ground for public objects they must first apply to Parliament. The Governor-General, without the consent of Parliament, could under that Bill expropriate land. Even so, the owner would get full value, as an Arbitration Board would be appointed. The Bill therefore practically followed the custom of the Orange Free State.

said he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Jeppe say he was surprised to hear nobody on his side of the House was ready to recognise Parliament’s protective authority. The hon. members on the other side wished people to come to the House for permission to expropriate, so that their applications would be resisted. (Hear, hear.)

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Wodehouse, he would accept it. (Hear, hear.)

The amendments moved by the Minister of Lands and Mr. Venter were agreed to.

On clause 102, rights of servitude,

moved in proviso (b), line 66, after “court,” to insert: “but if both such proceedings to acquire any servitude and to determine the said dispute are capable of decision by or are actually pending before the same court, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prevent both matters being decided at one and the same time.”

Agreed to.

On clause 103, servitude of aqueduct,

moved as an amendment to insert in line 13, after “exists,” the words “or any riparian owners having the proprietor’s written consent.”

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 106, servitude to include right to take materials of works,

said that under this right a good deal of damage might be done to property. He moved that the following be added at the end of the clause: “subject to compensation being given to the owner of the said property.” The MINISTER OF LANDS said the idea was a good one, but it would not work.

moved an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Brown.

asked what would happen in the case of material used for a damaged dam?

supported the amendment, and said that if material was taken away there should be compensation.

opposed the amendment.

said he could not agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn.

also objected to the amendment.

said that the Government, where they laid out works on a farm, paid for the material taken on that work. He thought the amendment was a fair one. A dam was of great value to the maker, and he must be prepared to pay for the material.

said that if clauses 109 and 110 did not include the material referred to, the Minister should give an assurance to the hon. member for Three Rivers that the omission would be remedied. Large works might necessitate the taking of valuable material from a farm, and there should be compensation.

said that the clause might do great mischief to small landowners. It was possible, for example, under that clause, to cut down trees and to remove good stone. The servitudes would press too heavily on small owners, who would be compelled ultimately to abandon their grounds.

said that if there was not sufficient security in the matter of servitudes, he would move an amendment later on to provide the owner with the necessary guarantees.

said that surely they could not provide at the start for anything but the cost of the original construction. The amendment made assurance doubly sure. The work should go on and the cost be settled afterwards.

said that in view of the Minister’s assurance he would withdraw his amendment.

objected.

said the Court could lay down what payment there should be for the material. The Court would provide the best protection. It would be much better than arbitration.

again pleaded for his amendment, and said that compensation must be paid.

supported the amendment. He had had some experience of giving material free, and had found that the ground was honeycombed with excavations.

said that the compensation was paid when the servitude was granted, but not afterwards.

said the clause appeared to him to be superfluous, and he was in favour of its deletion.

held that under the law at present a person had no right to take materials from a, property on which he had a servitude. Some amendment should be put in the clause to make it perfectly clear that there should be compensation in the case of material being taken. He did not understand why the clause should be held over for inquiry.

said that a great benefit might be conferred on an owner by passing an aqueduct over his property. They had had that in mind when they passed the law of 1906. No hard and fast rule should be laid down

said they wanted the wording so plain that it would adapt itself to circumstances. They could not deal with all the cases by the proposal that was made.

said he would withdraw, seeing that the Minister had given such an assurance.

Both amendments were thereupon with drawn.

expressed the fear that the clause would create big difficulties.

said that hon. members need not be alarmed, as the Government would later on move an amendment which would remove all objections.

asked why the amendment could not be made now? The clause gave the power to take ground and material, and it should also make provision for compensation.

suggested that clause 106 be deleted, and that the other connecting clause should be amended.

said he saw no provision for the case of a servitude that ceased to be used.

Clause 113 provides for that.

Does it? I have not seen it. Well, perhaps that is the proper place to bring it forward. Continuing, he said he had been looking for the clause, but had not found it.

said that clause 113 did not cover the point. He would call the Minister’s attention to this fact.

pointed out that there were two servitudes provided for under the Bill. At the same time, he thought the right hon. gentleman’s suggestion was a good one.

On clause 109,

moved that the following be a new paragraph (d) to sub-section (1), viz.: “(d) The quantity and nature of the material required from the servient tenement for the purpose of constructing irrigation works.”

feared the amendment would not answer its object.

moved that the words, “submit a diagram of measurements showing” be inserted at the beginning of paragraph (a), sub-section (1).

pointed out that they wanted to make the process simple, and not expensive.

withdrew his amendment.

opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Heidelberg.

did not agree to this, and said people were not so anxious to become the owners of servitudes in this manner.

The amendment moved by Mr. Stockenstrom was agreed to.

On clause 110, jurisdiction of Water Courts as to claims and servitudes,

could not see how compensation could be refused by a Court.

said that no compensation was paid for a servitude if the landowner profited by the waterworks constructed under such servitude.

moved that the words “or refuse to award” in sub-section (b) be omitted.

said that under certain circumstances an aqueduct might injure a property.

said that when they bore in mind that the law was going to be worked by men who were not all lawyers it would be useful to give them a hint or two, and therefore it would be better to leave the sub-section as it was.

did not see the necessity of the amendment.

asked what was the intention with regard to power furrows under this clause?

spoke, but was inaudible.

said that compensation was paid when a furrow gave no advantage to the owner, or when it was dangerous to life and property. It was a question of evidence.

said the Minister had lost sight of an important point, and that was the right of entry. No more valuable right than this existed.

said nothing was laid down in the Bill concerning compensation for damage caused several years after the granting of a servitude.

said that any injury could be claimed for according to the Roman-Dutch law.

said the committee could hardly be aware of the extent to which private rights were being undermined. It seemed utterly wrong that a man should be compelled to allow a man to come to one’s farm. The Minister of Native Affairs had been pointing out various things in the Bill as if they were something dreadful, when, as a matter of fact, they had been the law of the land for years past. There was nothing new whatever, and they were carrying the thing no further.

The amendment moved by Mr. Alexander was negatived.

On clause 113, lapse of servitude,

moved to add at the end, “and any such servitude if it shall cease to be used for a term to be fixed in the grant thereof shall lapse and determine and all rights thereunder shall revert to the owner of the servient property.”

held that the amendment was unnecessary. If the term was fixed the servitude would lapse of itself.

My right hon. friend has not read the clause. (A laugh.)

suggested that it would meet the case if the word “or” were substituted for “and.” The clause would then read “if the work be not completed or the water not utilised.”

regretted that his meaning was not clear. One might have a furrow and not utilise the water in it, or the furrow might be in a state of disrepair. It might become a nuisance, and the owner of the farm could do nothing. It was clear that if one did not use the servitude nothing was fairer than that the whole thing should revert to the servient property. “We are going on now,” he added, “as if there is no such thing as property in this country. That does not do.”

said the new proposal amounted to this, that after a man had obtained a perpetual servitude and had probably paid through the nose for it, it was to be taken from him. He thought that the clause as it stood was perfectly fair reasonable.

said that the Courts were not going to be run by practical people, but by Lawyers and engineers—(laughter)—who would be enthusiasts, and they might say that the servitude would do an immense amount of good to the servient property.

said that it was not a case of paying for a perpetual servitude. If it was worth while to apply for a servitude it was worth while to pay for it. If after, say, six years, it was not used, it was right that it should lapse. The whole object of giving these rights was to foster irrigation. Even in the common law a servitude would lapse after a certain period.

hoped that the Minister would be careful over the amendment. He had had to acquire 3,500 morgen of land simply for the purpose of storage. A permanent servitude would have meant that he would practically have had to buy out the 3,500 morgen. If the amendment were accepted one would have to pay for the whole of the land and for the works into the bargain.

did not understand the attitude of the Minister for Native Affairs. He thought the intention of the right hon. member for Victoria West was to make the section clear.

said that it was contemplated to take into account the value that was paid and for what it was paid.

said that in many cases irrigation work had become a nuisance. For this nuisance people were not compensated, and it continued for ever.

held that this was a case of the State coming in and taking away a servitude and allowing another man to get it. Why did the State step in? In order that the man who asked for the servitude might be able to use a particular quality of the land that was not being used. Therefore he took it that if this man did not use the servitude the State ought not to allow it to continue. A similar case existed under the mining law. One could peg out a claim, but if one did not work it the Minister of Mines could turn one out of it. The same thing should apply here.

said that the contention appeared to be that a man having paid 20 times the annual value of the land was going to be a sufferer not alone in regard to his work, but in respect of the cash he had paid.

said that what the hon. member had just said showed what a quagmire of troubles they got into when one took a man’s property away from him like that—wrongly, as he contended. The best thing was to respect the rights of property.

said that it was only right that if the servitude were not made use of, the property should revert to the riparian owner

said that the principle was not a new one at all.

The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was declared to be lost.

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

asked why the word “aqueduct” was introduced, and what did the Minister mean by it.

said that what was meant was a channel by means of which water was carried overhead.

moved, in line 69, that the words “in a competent Court” be added after “aforesaid.”

Agreed to.

New clause 116,

moved the following new clause 116: “Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed as affecting servitudes or other rights acquired, by expropriation or otherwise, either before or after the commencement of this Act, by the Railway Administration of the Union or by the Railway Administration of any Colony included within the Union.” He said they had endeavoured to preserve the existing rights of individuals. It would not carry the legal rights of the railways a jot further.

moved that the words “or by the Administration of the Central South African Railways” be inserted after “Union.”

The amendment was accepted by the Minister.

said that this gave the Railway Department more power than merely the preservation of existing rights. They should only claim to be safeguarded. He moved in line 3 the deletion of “either” and “or after.”

said if he accepted the amendment the clause would be useless. It was the saving clause.

said he gathered from the new clause that had been placed on the paper that there would be one procedure for the Province of the Cape and another procedure for the Province of the Transvaal. Well, he considered that that was a very inadvisable thing. He did not say that at the present time he was not prepared to do everything within reason which would allow the railway to acquire water, but in legislating for the consolidation of the Laws he did not think that it was a good policy to adopt one course of procedure for the Cape and another procedure for the Transvaal and the Free State. He did think it due to the House that his hon. friend should put hon. members in possession of the facts of the whole position. Were they not granting powers that exceeded anything that would have been granted in the Cape Colony? It meant, he thought, that the railway could tap streams without paying full and adequate compensation.

said that the Minister had thought it necessary to safeguard the interests of the railways, but he would draw attention to the cases of private companies such as the New Cape Central Line. What steps had he taken in regard to those lines? He thought that their rights were as much deserving of recognition as the rights of the public railways.

said that so far as the rights of private companies were concerned, he thought that their rights would come under the general rights which were safeguarded. He pointed out that these companies worked under their own special Acts, and their rights, he took it, would be protected by the saving clause. With regard to what his hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort had stated, he would say that in moving the new clause he pointed out that the law that existed in the Transvaal, the Free State, and Natal was different from that which existed in the Cape. In those three Provinces the Government had to pay compensation, but had also the right to expropriate without leave. Under the Cape law there was no right to expropriate water without the Courts had held that they had the right to bore for water and take water. That was the legal position. The railways held that in those three Provinces they had the right to expropriate water. They said that they could not consent to give up this right which they had held for many years past. The only movement that could be made by the Railway Department would be to extend that right to the Cape Province. At any rate, the Minister of Railways had stated that he did not favour extending a principle of that character, in a Bill of this kind, to the Province of the Cape. The idea was to leave the laws as they existed at the present time.

suggested the insertion of the words “of water” after “rights.”

said that it was a little difficult to answer off-hand on this amendment. He would not like to commit himself. There might be other rights involved, and he thought that it would be dangerous to accept the amendment.

That’s just it. We don’t know what we are letting ourselves in for.

said he did not think his hon. friend was correct as to the powers conferred by existing legislation. He had been looking up the Railways Expropriation Act of the Transvaal, and he found that when the railways took water from a natural source they did not pay compensation. They only paid compensation when they took water from a dam or any such work. Vested interests were so strong that they were afraid to face the position. He was sorry that Government had not put a clause in the Bill in regard to water for railways to apply to the whole of the Union.

replied that Government did not think that was the right time or place to take that action. In that Bill all they could do was to see that the railway was not deprived of its existing rights.

How?

Because we repeal the existing rights.

The railways have rights like ordinary persons, and surely they are protected like private individuals. I cannot understand what the object of the clause is.

These rights exist by reason of Acts of Parliament, which are being repealed under this Bill.

What sort of rights?

To take water without paying for it anywhere.

In the Cape?

In the Transvaal.

Oh!

The amendment moved by Mr. Alexander was negatived.

The amendment moved by Mr. Duncan was agreed to.

said that before the amendments were considered by the whole House the Government should consider whether this new clause did not go further than the Railways Expropriation of Lands Act of the Transvaal. He was not speaking in a hostile spirit, but he was afraid that the matter had not been looked into from a legal point of view. They might allow the railways to acquire servitudes other than those in the Act which might do considerable damage to people further down the stream, who would not get any compensation.

said he had not the slightest objection to giving that assurance. The matter had carefully been considered from a legal point of view by the Railway Department. He was sure it did not carry the position as far as rights were concerned further than the present position.

In the heading,

moved to amend the heading by inserting “works” after “irrigation.”

did not consider it was necessary.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 116,

moved:

In line 14, after “irrigation,” to insert “or water power” ; and in line 17, after “thereof,” to insert “or a water power scheme to be established.”

supported the amendment, maintaining that farmers should be helped to obtain money for power schemes.

pointed out that that already was provided for.

said that parts of the Free State were well adapted to the use of subterranean water. Would the provisions in regard to loans apply to pumping machinery?

wondered how many lending institutions there were in the country. Money was lent in connection with irrigation, land settlement, and the land bank. Besides that the Government had a general lending power. They lent money to confectioners—(laughter)—and to people who wished to make condensed milk. He thought it was time that this business of lending money was concentrated in one department, or the resources of the country would be frittered away. He did not see why these loans could not be made through the Land Bank. He would move an amendment to that effect.

supported the last speaker.

said that the honest farmer did not rush into borrowing so readily as the two hon. members who had spoken seemed to imagine. This provision had been on the Statute-book for years, and comparatively few farmers had availed themselves of the opportunity for getting money for irrigation purposes. They were not anxious to bond their farms. It would surprise hon. members to find how carefully applications for loans were scrutinised by the Irrigation Department.

referred to the enormous development in irrigation work in the Midland districts, entirely due to irrigation loans.

did not see why money should be given at 3f per cent. He could not get it at that rate. Even the Cape Colony had not been able to raise money at 3¾ per cent. The indiscriminate lending of money interfered with private business. The right hon. member said that farmers did not rush into borrowing. His experience was that they did when the money was from the Land Banks.

Ah, that’s in the Transvaal.

(Laughter.)

thought that all the public lending should be done by one department.

said that the Irrigation Department supervised the spending of the money. It was only advanced in instalments. When they lent the money they knew it went to the steady development of the country. The principle had been adopted in England in the Land Drainage Bill—in pre-Socialistic days. (Laughter.)

maintained that the Land Banks did supervise expenditure, especially in regard to fencing.

said that that chapter simply described the machinery, and where the money came from was a different matter. His hon. friend was now drawing on account of these loans, but they came from the Treasury. That simply was the machinery for saying what loans there should be, and that should be through the Irrigation Department.

said that where the money came from was an important matter. He had no objection to that machinery, but the money should come out of the Land Bank for land development, and not attempted to be got from the Treasury by means of the Irrigation Department.

said that as the Minister of Finance was not present, he thought it would be better that progress should be reported, and leave asked to sit again. He moved accordingly.

Agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.