asked when the accounts of the Miners’ Phthisis Board would be laid on the table?

replied that the Board would submit its final report on March 31. The preliminary report was laid on the table on the previous day.

Does it contain the accounts?

Not the audited accounts. The accounts of the Board have to go before the Auditor-General.

gave notice that on Friday, March 29, he would move that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider a graduated scale of estate duties in respect of deceased persons’ estates.

said he would like to ask the Speaker’s ruling on a point that would arise. The Minister of Mines was moving to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates, and if on Friday this stage was reached would the House be at liberty to discuss the proposals laid down in the motion?

stated that this was a notice of motion simply, and could not be discussed.

moved that on the consideration of the Land Settlement Bill in Committee of the whole House, Standing Order No. 403, having reference to the amendments made in Private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded.

said that before the motion was put he would like to say to the Minister in charge of the Bill that he had only just that moment had the report put into his hands. The report was not accompanied by the evidence, which was most essential in a case like that. They had only the minutes of the proceedings of the committee. He would ask, in a rather serious matter like that, whether it was wise to go on until they had an opportunity of reading the evidence.

asked the Speaker if it meant that they were to go on at once with the committee stage of the Bill?

stated that the motion meant to apply rule 403 on the first stage of the Land Settlement Bill. It was a preliminary notice.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that on the consideration of the Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works Additional Appropriation (1910-1912) Bill, in Committee of the whole House, Standing Order No. 403, having reference to the amendments made in Private Bills by Select Committees, shall apply.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

The Transvaal Occupation Farms Ordinance Amendment Bill, the second reading of which stands as the first order of the day, will, if passed, have the effect of interfering with the rights of the Crown inasmuch as it proposes to make compulsory the granting of freehold titles to registered holders of occupation farms in the Transvaal. Standing Rule and Order No. 149 provides that it will not be competent for the House to determine upon any matter interfering with the Crown, its lands or other prerogatives, unlees His Excellency the Governor-General has given his consent that as far as His Majesty’s interest is concerned the House may do therein as it shall think fit. No such consent has been announced, and I must therefore rule that the Order for the second reading be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. Should the consent be announced later on during the present session, the order can be restored on motion, after notice.

moved that the House go into committee on the Land Settlement Bill.

said that the Minister of the Interior in introducing the Public Health Amendment Bill, and in subsequent discussion thereon, announced as his chief reason for bringing forward a haphazard, incomplete, and un-comprehensive Bill the state of affairs in Natal—

It is Order No. 2 and not No. 3 that is before the House.

inquired whether the application of Standing Rule No. 403 would limit discussion on any clause?

No, the effect is this, that the amendments made in committee are taken as though they were part of the Bill originally, unless exception is taken to an amendment by an hon. member, when it is then forthwith put for discussion. It does not curtail the rights of any hon. member.

asked whether he would be in order in moving that Order No. 2 be not taken until No. 3 had been disposed of?

I must point out to the hon. member that this order was put in by the House some days ago and comes in its regular order on the paper today. It is also a Government day, and they can arrange the order paper as they wish.

The motion was agreed to.

asked the Minister what the scope of the operation of the Act was?

said that as far as possible they would try and work under this Act, but there might be cases in which the land could be better dealt with under existing laws.

maintained that the Dutch translation of the phrase in the English version “any such law” by “al die wetten” was ambiguous.

held that the translation was correct and precise. The word “such” was seldom translated as “zulk.”

asked the Minister whether the Free State Act in regard to grants of land to coloured people was ipso facto rescinded by the present measure?

said there was no danger, seeing that the laws relating to the alienation of land still existed.

asked the Minister whether the Bill did not theoretically give the Government the power to let land in the Free State.

replied in the negative. The Bill would not alter any existing law.

pointed out that the wording did not make this clear. The law in the Free State meant direct prohibition. He did not believe the Government would do anything in the way that had been suggested, but there was the theoretic possibility. If it became known that such a law was being passed he thought there would be an outcry in the Free State.

said his hon. friend took a great deal for granted. He had not only his own firm convictions on the subject, but also legal advice. If these people, in any part of the country, could get the land, then it would be granted.

said he was not sure that the Minister was right in looking at this as a general law and the other as a special law.

said the Minister had explained that the Bill was merely complementary to the existing laws. That did not, however, appear clearly in the last line of the clause, and the danger existed that ground might be allotted to coloured people.

pointed out that the Minister of Lands would never draft a Bill which would abolish the Free State laws. Those laws were in fact not abolished. There was no reason for the hon. member’s anxiety, as the part of the clause referred to applied merely to the carrying of the Bill into effect. No court of law would have any doubt as to the meaning of the clause. The Bill and the existing law gave no power to the Governor-General to allocate ground to coloured people.

said he thought the Minister’s interpretation was correct, though he did not agree with the reasons of the Minister of Justice. He thought that hon. members had overlooked the last line of the clause. He did not see how they could repeal an Act that had nothing to do with land settlement.

proposed a proviso to the following effect: With the understanding that Chapters 53 and 34 of the Orange River Colony Ordinance of 1902 be not interfered with. He said that, notwithstanding what the hon. Minister had said, he thought there should be some additional safeguard.

hoped that the hon. member would be led, not by his fear, but by his common-sense. The one Act had no application as far as the other was concerned. The proviso was unnecessary.

pointed out that special provisions had been laid down in the Orange Free State with regard to that question.

said that Chapter 34 of the Orange Free State Act gave the children of a mixed marriage the right to hold fixed property. This Bill did not in any way interfere with that chapter, and to prove that, if the hon. member would look at the Land Settlement Acts of the Free State he would find it was never suggested that there should be a clause put in there, and that this was not in conflict with Chapters 33 and 34. The effect of the hon. member’s amendment would be very far reaching, because it would be argued naturally that under a principle of law if they mentioned one thing they excluded everything else, and, therefore, as they mentioned Chapters 33 and 34 the rest was excluded. There was no necessity to mention those chapters.

said he quite appreciated the difficulty of some hon. members, because this was a very puzzling clause to him. What it really meant and what its effect was it was very difficult to say. It began by saying that all Laws with regard to the disposal of Crown lands or land settlements which were now in existence shall remain in existence, and they shall be in addition for the provisions of this Act. But it went on to say that “the provisions of this Act shall prevail.” It said the Governor-General was bound by this Act, so the whole point was this: Is there anything in this Act with regard to the disposal of Crown lands for land settlement which is contrary to any previous legislation? If there was, then this Act repealed it. But if there was in this Act nothing which was contrary to any previous legislation there was no fear at all. The whole question, therefore, seemed to him to resolve itself into: Is there in this Bill any provision which might be in conflict with previous legislation? He would advise the hon. Minister to let it stand over for a time.

said there was no need to postpone it at all. It seemed to him that the point raised was perfectly clear. The principle of the matter was that the Bill dealt with a particular class of operations to be conducted by a particular class of machinery set up for the first time in this Bill, and it had nothing to do with the law affecting the ownership of land. The Bill did not exclude people who were excluded under the ordinary law. It could not empower any persons to acquire fixed property, who, by the existing law, could not hold it. Regarding the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, if there were such provisions as he mentioned it was clearly laid down in this Act that the provisions of this Act were to prevail. The Bill was not a repealing Act, but sought to extend land settlement on new lines. There was no repealing and substitution. Let him take the Cape. Everything remained as at present. They could still deal with Crown lands, deal with settlements, and have leases, and so forth, exactly as the existing law empowered them to do. But this Bill set out an entirely new and advanced idea. They were trying to go further and improve land settlement on new lines. A Land Board had certain powers given it, and could only act under those powers.

said the Bill in itself was difficult enough to understand, but became more difficult still when legal members differed in opinion. They had a law in the Free State which prohibited coloured people from holding land, and according to the clause that law was continued. Then why not say so clearly? He supported the amendment.

said that at the second reading he had drawn the attention of the House to clause 42. There they had a distinct alteration of the present law with regard to prescriptive rights. While the rights of those who had prescriptive rights prior to the passing of the Act were preserved, there was a change altogether in the proposed legislation. Here they had one instance, certainly, in which the laws were being changed, and he did not know if they were being changed for the better. He was against the amendment, because he thought it was entirely unnecessary. He was not at all in favour with the Free State law as it stood, but there was the law, and it was not proposed to abrogate it. He believed that the clause should stand over for further consideration.

said that he had never touched the point just mentioned, but according to this law, if passed, nothing would prevent a Minister from buying land, hiring it to a person, and then selling it. If they gave a Minister power to buy land, and then to hire it to a person, and then sell it, he would like to know whether they did not touch property there or not. His hon. friend, the member for Cape Town Harbour, was absolutely correct. (Laughter.) (In reply to an interruption from Mr. Hull), he said we have opinions of our own; we are not going to follow you blindly—(laughter)—if this law were passed as it stood, it would be in conflict with Free State law, because it allowed a coloured person to hire land, and then after a number of years to buy it. If it did not affect the Free State law, then let them accept his amendment, and so make it clear to the people of the Free State that their law would stand. He did not want to take away the rights of coloured people, but he did not want to give them more.

said that if an amendment were unnecessary, it should not go into the Bill. He would like to point out to the hon. member that he ought to take his mind from Chapters 33 and 34, which seemed to be as a red rag to a bull, and direct his attention to certain Crown Lands Acts in the Free State, which did not say a word about coloured people, but which repealed certain Laws. Because the Ordinance of 1902 did not say specifically that it did not refer to Chapters 33 and 34, were these repealed? According to his idea, the Ordinance of 1902 went much further than the Minister’s Bill. Nobody ever contended that Chapters 33 and 34 were repealed because nobody ever said anything about them. Then, again, the Act dealing with the expropriation did not say anything about Chapters 33 and 34, and yet nobody ever contended that they were repealed. Then, again, with regard to Ordinance 35, which gave the Governor power to sell lands or buy them, nothing was said about Chapters 3 and 34. His reason for opposing the amendment was because if they put it in, it meant that everything that was not specifically mentioned in the Bill was repealed.

said that they sometimes heard about differences on the Bench; and there were brilliant legal luminaries in the House. It was well that that was the case, because he had thought that the rights and privileges of the people would be well looked after. They had only, he was afraid, succeeded in making the difficulty more difficult. (Laughter.) It was clear to him, however, that the clause did not interfere with any of the rights given under any of the existing laws, but was merely complementary to them. He would vote for the clause without any hesitation, as no existing rights would be interfered with.

further explained that the first clause of the present Bill stated that the provisions of the measure would be in addition to, and not in substitution for any prior Law or any regulation relating to the disposal of Crown land or to land settlement. The question arose: Could the Government, notwithstanding Chapters 33 and 34 of the Orange Free State Act of 1902, go to work and hire or sell lands to coloured people in the Orange Free State? The present Bill did not mention anything about that at all; and where the Bill was silent on any matter, it followed that existing legislation remained in force on that particular matter. There was a special Act in the Orange Free State dealing with the coloured people, and so it was clear that that measure had nothing to do with that particular question. The Free State law must remain as it was, and any Court would state that. No change would be brought about. As to what the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) had said, they were in favour of preserving existing rights, but if the hon. member’s proviso were agreed to, it would make nonsense of the clause. If that proviso were added, they must also specify all the other Ordinances which dealt with these matters, over a hundred of them.

said that after the explanation of the hon. Minister, and the fact that he had shown that he was willing to assist them, he would withdraw his amendment.

moved that the interpretations of terms be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

Interpretation of “lessee.”

moved that lessees should be persons of European descent.

opposed the amendment. If the mover simply wished to maintain the existing rights of the Free State he should move in that direction only and not seek to make the reservation apply to the whole of the Union.

sincerely hoped the amendment would not be adopted. It was not difficult to prove that a large number of so-called Indian races were of European descent. He would like to know, in deciding that question, how far they would have to go back and where they would have to begin. (Laughter.) The amendment would not exclude coloured persons. In Natal the natives of Mauritius and St. Helena were included in the list of Europeans. He hoped the committee would not do such a ridiculous thing as to adopt the amendment.

said he would withdraw the amendment.

Is there any objection to the amendment being withdrawn?

I object.

said that if they wished the Bill to go through they should drop the amendment at once. He objected to the endeavour to bring in the colour question in this matter. They were agreeable that the Free State should keep its law, but no demand should be made to extend it over the whole Union.

maintained that the Free State was amply protected.

withdrew his objection.

The amendment was withdrawn.

moved the insertion of the word “or” after “allotted” and the deletion of the words “sold or granted,” so that the definition would read, “lessee” should mean a person to whom a holding has been allotted or leased.

pointed out that it was not their present intention to reorganise the whole basis of society. That might be necessary some day and they could then tackle the subject fairly and squarely.

was sure that if they proposed to deal with the whole system of land tenure the Minister would say it was just like their unreasonableness in wanting to alter the whole system of land tenure, that they would try and make it operative in future by gradually introducing this principle of perpetual freehold.

considered that the Minister had been offering an objection to his own attitude. He was bringing forward a Bill to help to settle people on the land. In this connection the experience of all modern countries was that the easier the terms of settlement were made the more successful was settlement likely to be. Australia, New Zealand and Canada laid it down that as little as possible should be taken from the settler. It would be far better to give the land to the people so that they might go forward and make it valuable.

The amendment was negatived.

Interpretation of “private land,”

The Dutch version was amended on the motion of Mr. Mentz.

On clause 3, Appointment of Land Boards for particular areas,

On the motion of Mr. Currey,

put the new subsection (1), as proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: 3. (1) The Governor-General may appoint as from a date to be fixed by him a land board for any area in the Union: Provided that the total number of such boards existing at any one time shall not exceed five.

proposed an amendment to insert after “Board” the words “no member of which shall be a member of either House of Parliament or a member of any Provincial Council.” It had been laid down that a member of Parliament could not take an office of profit under the Crown. Last session the question was raised whether a member of Parliament serving on a Commission should receive fees and the Minister of Finance gave it as his opinion that no member of Parliament should be paid while so serving. In this connection the hon. member for Fordsburg and the hon. member for Heidelberg deserved the thanks of the House for the great services they had rendered without remuneration. (Hear, hear.) But one or two exceptions might make it very difficult for others, who, while anxious to give their services in this way, could not afford to do so. Here it was proposed to pay members of these Boards a distinct fee. A Board might not meet once, but it might meet every day of the year, and the office would become an office of profit.

accepted the amendment.

Suppose a member of Parliament volunteered to serve on the Board, would he be debarred?

Yes.

opposed the amendment. There might be a presumption that members of Parliament were very incompetent persons, but he did not see why they should be debarred from sitting on a Land Board.

pointed out that there was a precedent for the proposal in the amendment in the Natal Act, which debarred members of Parliament from serving. The idea was to exclude any possibility of political influence. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment was agreed to.

On new clause 5, Circumstances in which members of Board vacate office,

On the motion of Mr. Stockenstrom,

put the new clause 5, proposed by the Select Committee, viz.: “5. A member of the Board shall vacate his office:(a) If he becomes insolvent or assigns his estate for the benefit of his creditors or makes an arrangement with his creditors; (b) if he dies or becomes of unsound mind or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine; (c) if he be absent from four consecutive ordinary meetings of the board without the leave of the board, which leave shall not be granted for a period covering more than six months in one year; (d) upon the presentation of an address to the Governor-General by both Houses of Parliament in one session praying for his removal.”

moved the deletion of the words “dies or.” The proviso was unnecessary. (A laugh.)

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

On old clause 5,

The Dutch version was amended.

moved to add the following sub-section, viz.:“(c) (i) The Minister may, after a resolution to that effect shall have been passed by both Houses of Parliament, expropriate any land which he deems suitable for settlement; provided that no land shall be so expropriated unless the value of the improvements made thereon is less than ten per cent of the value of the land, and unless the owner of such land shall have owned the same for a period exceeding five years; provided further that the owner of any land expropriated as aforesaid shall have the right to retain the homestead situate upon such land, together with so much of the ground immediately surrounding the same as the Board may recommend. (ii) There shall be paid to the owner of land expropriated as aforesaid, out of any moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, such amount as may be agreed upon between the Minister and the owner and, in the absence of any agreement, such amount as shall be determined by arbitration in the manner provided by law in the respective Provinces for the expropriation of land for public purposes.” The hon. mover pointed out that though it had been described as such, this was not a socialistic proposal. The principle he wanted to have admitted by the House was that where it was necessary in the interests of the State and in the interests of closer settlement compulsorily to expropriate, the State must have the right to interfere with private rights. When a man had a right and exercised that right in a dog-in-the-manger way, then he thought that the State should have the right to intervene. He pointed out that under the proposal which he was submitting to the House the man who had rights and developed those rights was adequately safeguarded. He also showed that a man had a period of five years to make improvements, and that he could not be touched by the proposal if those improvements amounted to 10 per cent, of the value of the land. He further pointed out that even if that condition were not complied with compulsory expropriation could not take place unless a resolution was passed by both Houses of Parliament. What he wanted to get at were those people, either individual owners or companies, who deliberately held up land in the face of a scheme of land settlement and prevented land coming into the market. He believed that his proposals would be supported by hon. members on his side of the House. So far as the cross-benches were concerned, he thought he would have the support of the leader of the Labour party, though he was not so sure that he would get any assistance from that hon. gentleman’s followers. The leader of the Labour party was not a Socialist. When it came to hon. members opposite he thought that he had a very hard nut to crack. (Laughter.) At the same time he had a little hope. (Laughter.) If his right hon. friend would carefully read the amendment he would find that he (the speaker) was getting at those people who held rights but used those rights, as the right hon. gentleman himself described, in a dog-in-the-manger way. He (the speaker) was not enamoured of the legislation that was passed in other colonies, but he would like to point out that this proposal appeared in the legislation of those colonies; in fact, his proposal was based upon a provision which appeared in the Victorian Act of 1904 Moreover he wished to point out that though the compulsory clause appeared in the Victorian Act, it had only been put into force on one occasion since it was passed in 1904. He thought that was reasonable compulsion. He remembered the Prime Minister on the second reading of the Bill pointed out that land companies in this country owned no less than three million acres of country. If they held out, he saw no reason why their land should not be compulsorily expropriated. (Hear, hear.)

said, of course, they had had a discussion on that subject, and he thought the House had expressed itself on the proposition very clearly. He thought, without going into the whole question of what they might or might not come to when South Africa was more closely populated, thanks to this Bill, what they might then have to do to find more room was another question. But then they wanted to look at this from the practical point of view at present, and that was that there was no necessity for this clause at present. (Ministerial “Hear, hears.”) At present a discussion of this sort was purely academic. They had heard of those companies with their 3,000,000 acres, and they might be willing to sell some of those acres without being forced. The whole question just now was whether there was a practical need for this, and he did not think there was, or that they should interfere with the rights of ownership a day sooner than was necessary. With regard to the example set by Australia, amongst other things, it was brought to his notice that even there there was a good deal of difference, and after having given the matter a trial there were doubts whether resumption, which means expropriation, was necessary or economical. In this country he did not think any case could be made out for the necessity of it; but he did think that certainly a day might come when the necessity would arise, and then they would have to consider it practically.

said he did not think the Minister made out a very good case. He began by saying there was no necessity for an expropriation clause because, he supposed, his inference was that there was plenty of land available. Well, of course, he (the Minister) could not have it both ways; if there was no necessity for it because there was plenty of land available, it could do no harm, he might let the amendment pass. The main thing was that they knew from the report of the Select Committee that there was not enough Crown land available. That was admitted in the Bill, and it made provision for land being acquired in various ways. This was another way of acquiring land which they thought should be included in the Bill. Obviously, they did not think that the Minister or a Land Board could rest his case entirely on expropriation. They thought that should be the last resort to deal with people who were entirely recalcitrant. As a matter of fact, there was hardly a single Bill that came into that House that did not interfere with private rights; and, after all, when they looked at the legislation they had at present in the various Provinces, and especially in the Transvaal, they had instance after instance in the Gold Law, Irrigation Law, Railway Laws, and so forth, in which the principle was laid down that the State, for the benefit of the public, could interfere with private rights if necessary. The question, of course, arose whether this was one of the cases in which it was reasonable that the State should step in. He did not think the right hon. Minister was on very sound ground when he said that the drawback to a clause of this kind was that it was simply taking land away from one person in order to give it to another. That was not a correct statement of the case. What they said was that the Government should have the right to step in and take land which might be eminently suitable for the purposes of the Bill, and which they could not get in any other way. But they proposed to limit that power by means which the hon. member for Turffontein had described. Well, the whole question seemed to him to be whether any hardship would be inflicted by the insertion of this clause. He thought it could not be denied that the occasion was worthy of the Government having these special powers. The clause put forward did, most emphatically, safeguard the rights of the owner. It was not likely to hit any farmer or landowner who was worthy of his salt. A man was given plenty of time. He was given five years in which to improve his land to the extent of ten per cent. His homestead was protected, and it was provided that the value Should be decided by arbitration, and he thought it would be admitted that, in nine cases out of ten, compensation by arbitration was allowed on an exceedingly liberal scale. He thought the object of the clause was in the interests of the public, and that no bona fide farmer or landowner would be hurt by it. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the hon. member for Turffontein drew a most touching and interesting picture for them of the Tory party, which he described as having been for years past battling for the State against the encroachments of the individual, and that they were to-day battling for Parliament against the encroachments of the individual. He had heard of the gallant Tories of old, who were rather given to expropriating for themselves, and expropriated anything they could lay their hands on. He did not believe in them, because he did not believe in all this supreme support of the State against the individual.

If he would say that they were battling for their own privileges as against the rights of the people, he could understand that, because they were a privileged class. What he would like to see was genuineness in these matters. He would like to see them submit to the expropriation of their delightful parks and reservations for the public welfare; then he could understand them.

Is that in South Africa?

There are no such people in South Africa, except certain gentlemen, who own millions of acres. (Laughter.) And these were anxious to off-load, because they had more land than they could manage. In fact, it did not matter to them whether they off-loaded on the State or the individual. The hon. member was perfectly right when he said that the Bill did interfere with private rights. It was impossible to avoid that. They could not have an irrigation or a railway Bill without expropriating a certain amount of land; but it was not necessary for the carrying out of this scheme in a country like South Africa that they should adopt that principle. People in South Africa were not very great landowners. They might own individually 5,000 acres here and there, but the bulk of the landowners in the country were not large landowners, and it was not necessary for the Government to expropriate any of their land. He agreed that the time might come when they would be unable to go in for a Land Settlement Bill without expropriation, but in his own experience, when land had to be expropriated, it generally got more than its actual market value. This had been the experience in Australia.

said he would like to support the amendment with certain alterations that he wished to propose. As far as he understood the arguments on both sides of the House, if the Government had power to expropriate land the land so expropriated would cost more. He was quite prepared to say that if they expropriated land they might have to pay more for it; but if people who owned land suitable for closer settlement were not prepared to sell, then the public right should be more than the private right, and the matter should be submitted to arbitration. Granting the principle that certain land was suitable for closer settlement, he did not think that because a man had made improvements—for which, of course, he would be compensated—that he should be exempted. The reasons adduced for the schemes comparative uselessness was because they were tackling the question at the wrong end. He would move to omit the first proviso in lines 3 to 6 of the proposed new sub-section, and in line 6, after “provided,” to omit “further.”

said he did not know why hon. members always took the worst instances they could get when quoting Australia. He was in strong accord with the principle advocated by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham), only instead of expropriation the hon. member should have used the word assumption. In the Union there were millions of acres of lend rented conditionally, and those conditions had never yet been fulfilled. (An HON. MEMBER:“Where?”) In Natal and the Transvaal, and probably in other parts of the Union, too. Hon. members had said a great deal about private rights, but he could not find a definition of the word rights except in the sense of exclusion. What were commonly called rights were concessions. With regard to the ten per cent., that was right enough as far as it went. What a man produced by his own energy or sacrifice should be guaranteed to him, but after that what about the unearned increment?

said the Minister should ‘consider that he was not making a law to work for a few years only, but one which should stand the test of time. The Minister would be able to buy plenty of land for some little nine to come, but if the scheme were a success the price of land would go up simply on account of the success of the settlement scheme. In Victoria after five years’ working of the Land Settlement Act it was said that land had doubled in value. The Minister should have some machinery for the expropriation of land should the necessity arise. The amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) showed how inconsistent the hon. member was. The Labour party said they wanted to see white settlers on the land, but yet, as usual when they could not get a whole loaf they refused the half.

said he had listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Native Affairs and recognised that when the Minister was in a difficulty there was no one cleverer in getting the House off the real track. In the course of another debate the Minister of Native Affairs had spoken in the strongest terms possible of the advantages of the Irrigation Act of 1906, which laid it down for the first time in South Africa that for public purposes the Government was authorised without a resolution of Parliament to expropriate not only land for the construction of irrigation works, but even the bed of a river for that purpose. That principle seemed to be so good and commend itself so strongly to the present Cabinet that there was before the House a Bill making provision for expropriation of that character. Owing to political exigencies, however, the Government departed slightly from the principle of the Act of 1906, and accepted an amendment which said that such expropriation should not take place except by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If hon. members accepted that principle in respect of the Irrigation Bill, how could they object to the same principle being introduced into a Bill dealing with land settlement, because the reasons for expropriation under the Irrigation Bill were for the purpose of improving the productive capacity of the land, and the reasons for the amendment to the Land Settlement Bill were exactly in the same direction—that was where people had land which they were not using in a beneficial manner, Government should be allowed to step in and expropriate it on the payment of fair compensation. Government must have a carefully worked-out scheme and settle with half-a-dozen people for the purchase of the land on reasonable terms and one individual—who might not be using his land—might make the scheme entirely unworkable unless he received an exorbitant price. In many cases a man might not be using the land which came into the Government closer settlement scheme and yet hold out for an exorbitant price, and make the scheme impossible. Under arbitration he would get a fair price, and before the Government could expropriate him both Houses must pass a resolution in favour of expropriation. His hon. friend added a proviso that his dwelling-house and the land attached to it could not be expropriated. There could be nothing fairer than that. If they were not prepared to face the position it would be impossible in many cases to carry through a land settlement scheme. (Cheers.)

said that he could not possibly agree with the amendment of the hon. member. If a person purchased a farm near to a market with the intention, for example, of settling there with his children, it was not right that the Government should be able to step in and take that ground away, because it said that it considered it necessary for purposes of closer settlement. When a man had received transfer of his property he must be assured that it was permanently his. It was bad enough that ground could be expropriated for railway purposes, and they could not go beyond that.

accepted the dictum of the hon. member for Turffontein in regard to the right of the State being superior to the right of the individual. The conception of the State at present was, landlords on the one hand, and commercial, mining, and financial capitalists on the other. When he said that the interests of the State should be supreme he meant the whole of the people of the State, and that was why they agreed that the Minister should have power on behalf of the people to expropriate land when it was shown that this was in the interests of the people. The hon. member who last spoke contended that the possession of certain papers gave a man a perpetual right to the land. They on the cross-benches denied the existence of any such right. They believed that a man had the right to use the land provided that he used it to the utmost extent. It was there that they disagreed with the hon. member for Turffontein, who held that improvement to the extent of 10 percent was sufficient. One should certainly be compensated for improvements, but if the land could be better used by other people that particular owner had no right to retain it. It was suggested that land should be held for five years before it became liable to expropriation. That he feared would lead to considerable abuse. There was nothing to prevent transfer to a relative, or in the case of a company the formation of another company with practically the same directors, which could take the land over. That was why he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe.

said he was opposed to the amendment, because where a socialistic spirit reigned in a House of Parliament, the country became more and more unrestful—and there did seem to be such a socialistic spirit in the House now. To take land from one man in order to give it to another was a socialistic principle, and wrong. The hon. member for Fort (Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) had said that the principle of expropriation already appeared in the Irrigation Bill, but two blacks did not make a white. The right to expropriate was safe in the hands of the present Minister, but if they left matters in the hands of the hon. member (Sir T. W. Smartt), he would say, as far as the country was concerned, “Pas op!” (Laughter.) He could not agree with the amendment, and hoped it would be thrown out. The proposal to settle the amount of compensation by arbitration was not bad, but it compelled the owner to accept the price so fixed, although the ground might afterwards have a much higher value, as had happened in his (the speaker’s) district. The amendment might lead to great dissatisfaction.

remarked that he had been about to congratulate the mover on having made a convert, but he was now sorry to see that there was a serious rift in the lute. It was clear that the amendment would not be passed, and he was glad. (Hear, hear.) That plainly showed that at present there was no necessity for introducing such a principle. There would be no necessity until the resources of the Government had been exhausted in regard to land. It made the Bill a very contentious one, and it was apt to set people against it who otherwise might be in favour of it. Continuing, he said he thought that if the amendment were accepted, they would be admitting the thin edge of the wedge. If land were expropriated by the Government for the good of the public, that was all right; but it was quite a different matter when land was expropriated for the purpose of settling another person upon it. He sincerely trusted that in this matter they would not follow the example that had been set by New Zealand.

said it had been stated that the principle had been carried out a great deal in New Zealand. From the last return he had been able to get he found that in that colony 128 estates were offered to the Government and only three accepted. Now, if that principle was used so sparingly in a country like New Zealand, then he saw no need to introduce legislation of the same character in this country. He pointed out further, that the hon. member’s amendment was clogged by conditions, which rendered it ineffective. He thought they should have given the Minister a fair chance of carrying out his own proposals. If the Minister found afterwards that he found it impossible to get the necessary land, well, then, he could come to that House and special legislation could be passed.

said he thought that the arguments of the landowners had been very weak. He thought that land expropriation should go in company with taxation on land values. He thought that if the proposal was accepted and embodied in the Bill the result would be that land would go up in price, and when sales were effected the money would go into the pockets of the landowners on both sides of the House. They on the cross-benches wanted to see the policy of land settlement facilitated. They wanted to see all lands, bar, perhaps, portions that were being worked, available for the carrying out of the scheme. He did not even see why land which was being worked should not be available.

said he thought that the hon. member for Potchefstroom had derived his information from a year book that was some years old. He pointed out to the hon. member that the system of land values was in operation in New Zealand, and that that made all the difference.

said he had come to the conclusion that hon. members on the other side of the House looked suspiciously at anything that came from his (the speaker’s) side of the House, and that was the reason that they were opposed to the proposal. This was not aimed against the genuine farmer, who was the backbone of the country. The provision seemed to him to be most necessary, for it would be the only means the Minister would have of breaking up those large holdings in the country which could not be used as a whole by the genuine farmer. This was the weapon the Minister would be able to use were he, in the interests of closer settlement, desirous of breaking up those large holdings that were held for speculative purposes. He thought that it was a proposal that should be adopted without question and without hesitation by hon. members on the opposite side of the House. It could not possibly endanger the rights of the farmer. Proceeding, the hon. member said it was, and quite naturally could be, used as a weapon against this, and to induce that closer settlement which they wanted to see in South Africa. He thought there was a genuine wish to see the people farming their own ground in this country and making a respectable living; and it was not their desire to see the land locked up in the hands of capitalists. Here they had the weapon to obtain that. The Minister took up the position that this clause was not necessary. He could not agree with him. It was much wiser in passing a law of this kind to look ahead. It seemed to him that it would not immediately break up the huge land companies which had been formed, and he thought with great disadvantage to this country; it would not interfere with them so long as there was plenty of ground suitable for the purposes of the Bill. They wanted to prevent speculation in land, and wanted to encourage the farmer. By putting such a statute as this upon the Statute-book they would be helping in that, and would be showing their intention not to allow land to get into the hands of the few, and so they would safeguard the interests of their children by protecting the land. They would be establishing a principle which had been recognised already. Therefore he Would support the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein. With regard to the other amendment, he could not understand why they did not strike out everything after five years.

was understood to say that the Government might impose a tax on all unimproved land instead of an income tax.

said he thought they could congratulate themselves on the good progress made, because they had it on both sides that some such clause as he proposed was necessary. He did not expect the hon. members on the cross-benches to support him, and would not accept their amendment. They were not out to expropriate for the benefit of their health, but were out to try and get this country developed. He would like to have answered the Minister of Native Affairs’ disquisition on the Tories, but would not as that gentleman was not in his place.

thought that every reasonable safeguard had been included. There was a limitation, and they should leave it at that.

said he was glad his hon. friend was not going to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jeppe, because there was a distinct difference of principle between them. What they wanted to do was to increase the number of freeholders in this country; while what that hon. member wanted to do was to prevent anyone becoming a freeholder.

The question was put that the proviso proposed by Mr. Creswell to be omitted stand part of the new sub-section (c).

The amendment to the proposed amendment was declared lost.

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

called for a division, which resulted as follows:—

moved in line 46 to omit “one-fifth” and to substitute “one-third.”

The amendment was afterwards withdrawn.

On clause 10,

moved in line 19 to omit “nature and.” He said there could be only one “nature” of water.

This was negatived.

On clause 11, acquisition of particular land, etc.,

referred to sub-section (c), and said he did not think that it was good for the buyer to advance four-fifths of the price. He moved “one-third” in place of “one-fifth.”

said he hoped that the amendment would not be accepted, as the clause was framed to meet the needs of the poor man.

said there was nothing to show it was to assist the small man. As there was a recklessness with public money, and no one seemed to care, he would withdraw his amendment.

said he would like to move in at the end of the clause, “a report, similar to that required in the last session, shall be made to Parliament.”

said he would accept it when dealing with that matter.

New clause 14,

moved a new clause 14, as follows:“14. Nothing in this Act contained shall in any way be construed as conferring on any person who under any existing law or laws in any Province is not entitled to be the owner, occupier, lessee, or holder of land within such Province, the power to own, occupy or lease, or otherwise acquire or hold any land.” The hon. member hoped that that new clause would be accepted, and that it would be recognised that that was the proper stage at which to move that.

At this stage progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again tomorrow.