from G. J. Bubb, of Benoni, a former servant of the Cape Government Railways.

Is this a money Bill?

No; it is a loan Bill entirely.

It contemplates expenditure, and there is a certain procedure laid down in the rules of the House regarding the introduction of money Bills, which does not seem to have been followed out.

put the amendment in interpretation of term “local authority,” in lines 50 and 51.

stated that the object of the amendment was to cover such local authorities which had more or less municipal control of land. He referred to such local bodies as the Rand Water Board and the Kimberley Water Works Company.

hoped that the Minister would not insist on the second amendment.

complained that the amendment was not very clear to him.

saw in the Bill a direct attempt to interfere with the powers of Health Boards.

wished that the right hon. member would read the Bill before he made his observations.

said that it appeared that there was some risk in the amendment of the Minister, because m Kimberley they had both a municipal body and a board of health.

moved, in line 49, after “body,” to insert “having municipal authority.”

seconded.

opposed the amendment.

said he was in favour of the amendment.

This amendment, and the amendment made by the committee in lines 50 and 51, were negatived.

moved, in the interpretation of term “riparian land,” in line 60, after “means,” to insert “Nothing in this definition contained shall be construed as having retrospective effect in the Orange Free State Province so as to render any existing sub-division of an original grant of land in that province riparian which at the commencement of this Act was non-riparian.”

seconded.

said that he did not know why the Minister wanted that introduced, because the same difficulty experienced in the Orange Free State would be experienced in the other Provinces. He was sure that by putting that clause in they were penalising Free State riparian owners.

said that it seemed to him that the amendment had been introduced with reference to the old wording of the clause; and now by the new clause it did not seem to him that the case was the same. There seemed to be no reason for the amendment, because there was no retrospective effect. It seemed to him to be not only unnecessary, but would lead to a wrong impression as to the meaning off the clause.

said that a large number of members did not know how far the amendment led. In the Free State, if these rights had been excluded, that Bill did not apply. He thought his right hon. friend could ask the House for a little more time in which to consider putting an important matter like that in the Bill.

May I point out that this clause must have a retrospective effect everywhere, or it should not have it at all? We must safeguard the rights, not only of the Orange Free State, but of all the Provinces. (Hear, hear.) Now the danger, from a lawyer’s point of view, is that if you make exceptions in an Act, and say it shall not have a retrospective effect in one Province, the interpretation may be made that that does not exclude a retrospective effect in the other Provinces, because the Courts say Parliament is a reasonable body, and if they make a retrospective effect in one place they must mean something by it, or they would not have done so.

said that he was prepared, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the amendment, so that the House would get more time to consider it.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

On clause 6.

moved, as an amendment, in the new sub-section (e), line 8, to omit “propositions,” and to substitute “schemes”; in line 10, before “Hydro,” to omit “the”; and in line 11 to omit “of” and to substitute “in.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On new clause 10,

moved, after “Union,” in line 40, to insert “at such time and at any time thereafter.” He said that he thought, by inserting these words, they would make the object of the clause clearer.

The amendment was not seconded, and fell to the ground.

On clause 98.

moved as an amendment to the amendment in line 12. to omit “a resolution,” and to substitute “resolutions.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 109,

moved as an amendment to the new paragraph (d), in sub-section (1), to omit “servient tenement” and to substitute “said land.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 132,

moved to negative the new sub-section (3), and to substitute: “Any Magistrate’s Court shall have special jurisdiction in respect of all offences committed against this Act, or the regulations, or against any bye-law made by a River Board or an Irrigation Board.”

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 136, saving of existing rights,

put the amendment, that the clause be omitted.

moved that the clause stand. He would like to hear from the Minister the assurance whether they accepted this?

said he would like to ask the Minister whether he did not promise to discuss in the House the wording of a new clause, whereby the water rights should be protected by law? That would.be understandable by everybody.

supported the amendment. The new clause affected private rights. They were under the impression that the old clause was intended to protect private rights, and now it was to be deleted.

said that that side of the House offered every opportunity of allowing another section to be provided. He then agreed to accept clause 138 for 136. There was nothing of the hurry that the hon. member for Worcester spoke about. It was carefully considered before it was put in. If there were any rights which could be reasonably admitted, and which were interfered with, he would deal with them in another place.

said there was no difference between old clause 136 and clause 138. The first laid it down that a person retained all his rights which he had under the existing laws. Clause 138 guaranteed the same rights, both those that he had and those which he might acquire under a later law. The last words of the clause, however, required consideration.

said the Minister had read nine-tenths of the clause, without taking notice of the last words. The right hon. gentleman was incorrect in his memory when he said there was no hurry about it at all. He could not see why he should not allow this original clause 136 to stand.

said that old clause 136 protected private rights, whilst clause 138 protected water companies. He suggested that clause 136 should be retained.

said that under the circumstances he withdrew his amendment.

thought the hon. member for Worcester was perfectly right, and that he should think twice before withdrawing his amendment.

said that if the substituted article was not clear, it must be made clear.

asked: Would it not meet with the objections that had been raised if they put both clauses in the Bill, with the object of combining them at the third reading? The clauses did not conflict.

The House decided that clause 136 should remain part of the Bill.

On clause 14, Permission from Water Court as relative to storage works of surplus water,

moved in sub-section 2, paragraph b, to insert “unreasonably” after “would.”

seconded.

in supporting the amendent, said that suppose a person did not want all the water, surely they ought to allow the Water Court the power to grant some of the surplus water to someone else who would make use of it. (Hear, hear.) He thought the amendment supplied what was certainly wanted in the Bill to bring about a proper system of irrigation.

hoped the House would be careful before it adopted the amendment. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, was now off on a different tack. First the hon. member wanted to protect private rights, and now he wanted to qualify them. So far the hon. member had made a great show of protecting existing rights, but now he wanted to leave them open to all sorts of squabbling.

said the Minister had been most unfair to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour. They had tried as far as they could to maintain existing private rights, but they had been taken away by that Bill altogether. All that the hon. member for Boshof was trying to do was to see that there should not be an undue waste of water. They might have a lower proprietor getting rights to take out water and establishing a right as against the upper proprietors who had rights at the existing time. The supporters of the amendment said that having taken away the upper proprietors’ rights and conferred them on the lower properietor the latter should not use his rights in a wasteful and extravagant manner to the detriment of the upper proprietor. He hoped the hon. member for Boshof would persist in the amendment and divide the House if necessary. That was but a crumb of private rights out of the whole loaf the Minister had put in his pocket.

said he could not understand why the hon. member for Victoria West kept on saying, that the Bill took away existing rights. He opposed the amendment.

thought that without the word “reasonable” any fractious person could revent permission being granted for the use of water without interfering in any shape with his rights, although it might not cause him the slightest bit of damage.

The amendment was negatived.

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

moved, in sub-section (1), after “each in,” to insert “a sum to be fixed by the Water Board not exceeding”; in sub-section (2), after “will” to insert “to an unreasonable extent”; and in sub-section (4), after “fail” to insert “without reasonable excuse.”

seconded.

said the amount which it was proposed to reduce was already sufficiently low. It would not do to put in a Bill an undefined amount.

said that cash surety must be put up of £200, making £500 in all. That was too much. The guarantees should be omitted.

The amendment in sub-section (1) was agreed to, and the remaining amendments negatived.

On clause 21,

referred to the position of Natal, and urged that the demands of industrial works should receive some consideration.

Clause 21 was the only clause which was of any consequence at all to people living on the east side of the Rand, and it seemed to him that these rights were taken away not because the Government needed them, but because of something which might happen in future. He thought it had been taken over from Norway and Switzerland, but in these countries they had no coal, and the only power available was water power, while in South Africa the case was entirely different. There was an abundance of good coal yet the Government wished to get at the land owners and say that these were their (the Government’s) rights, and not the land owners’. The neighbouring man who might have a coal seam on his farm was left alone, and yet the question was the same—getting hold of the power. It was not the water they wanted, but the power. Companies had actually been floated for using water power, and the rights were going to be cut away underneath their feet by clause 21. Why hon. members on the Ministerial side, who up to now had been upholders of property rights, now took an opposite view, he did not know. He moved that the whole of clause 21 be deleted.

said that he would like to associate himself with the hon. member for Umlazi in objecting to that clause. They had very large streams in their part of the country, with very large water rights, and it would be infringing those rights to pass that section of the Bill. He maintained that water power was as much within their rights as coal.

said that he would second his hon. friend’s amendment. He did not think that clause should form part of an irrigation Bill, which was more suited to districts like the Karoo; and there were parts of South Africa which were quite different, such as between the berg and the sea.’ That territory was not the territory they had in mind when they were devising an irrigation Bill. Those parts were not suitable for irrigation. In Natal, for example, the Tugela River dropped 8,000 feet in the course of 220 miles.

hoped that the hon. Minister would not drop the clause. It was a water Bill they were considering, although it was a bad water Bill, because it did not deal comprehensively with the subject; but if they did not realise the bearing of water power on irrigation and irrigation on water power, they might be doing more damage than they were thinking of. In Natal and other parts of the Union there were splendid opportunities for water-power schemes, and they should see that these were not spoilt. He quoted from the report of the Commission on Conservation in Canada on the importance of seeing that steps were taken at the outset by the Government, because if not, and various private schemes were started, the utmost was not got put of the water power. Suppose, he added, his hon. friend put up a hydro-electric scheme, and some years afterwards another person put up another and bigger scheme higher up, would that not be damaging the lower man? (Mr. FAWOUS: No.) The Government should have some say in the way in which water power was developed, and by allowing the indiscriminate use of water power, other people might not only be damaged, but also themselves.

said he thought this clause ought never to have appeared in the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought the quotation made by the hon. member for Newlands, in regard to water power in Canada, did not apply to the conditions in Natal. They were dealing with an Irrigation Bill, and this clause, it seemed to him, had only been put into this Bill under the impression that water which was used in connection with water power was exhausted in some form, so that nobody else could get advantage from it, but those who knew anything about water power must know that it was the power that was used and not the water, and that the water could be used again. He thought it was obvious to any reasonable man in the House that this clause should not be in the Bill.

said his objection to this clause was that it did not go far enough. He should like to see a clause inserted in the Bill that would deal comprehensively with the whole system of water power, which would enable the Government to make advances for the purpose of power schemes, and which, at any rate, would not tinker with the question, as they were doing in the present clause.

said he should heartily support the clause as it stood. He and his colleagues welcomed anything in the nature of this clause, recognising that these natural powers were national properties. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that, pending further legislation, this clause was quite soundly framed. In any case, if it did inflict a hardship, the Governor-General had power to grant an extension. He hoped that the Government would in no case where, under this clause, more than 25 h.p. was allowed to be used, give an absolute right to that.

said he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. Water used for power in this way was not wasted, it came back to the stream whence it was drawn undiminished practically in quantity, and still available for the riparian owners lower down.

said he hoped the Minister would leave out this clause. He should have thought that, after the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe, the Minister would have very great qualms. Was the House now coming to this doctrine, that they were going to take away men’s private rights? If he had been strongly in favour of the clause before, the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe would have converted him. They had told them frankly that they wanted to do away with people’s private rights. He did not blame them; they would take away your coat, if they could. (Laughter.) What the Minister wanted to put the clause into an Irrigation Bill for he could not imagine, unless it were to play into the hands of the hon. member for Jeppe and his friends.

said he hoped the Minister would retain the clause. When the Ministry attempted to do anything for the public good, a number of private owners always stood in the way. Why, he asked, should one man have a monopoly in regard to these natural resources? The right hon. gentleman always put private rights before public rights. He (Mr. Sampson) submitted that this clause was in the interests of the public, though it might be detrimental to the interests of a few private individuals.

said it Would be well if the gentlemen on the cross-benches would take the trouble to read the Bill and, if they did that, they would not make such wild statements about public rights. (Hear, hear.) There was nothing in this clause which was going to take the right from A to give it to the public. This clause gave the power to the Water Court to take from A and give to B. (“No.”) If language meant anything, that was what this language did mean. This has got nothing to do with the taking away of rights from the individual for the purpose of giving it to a public body for public work. It was not a question of taking these rights away for the sake of the public; it was a question of giving it to the individual. Taking the two clauses with new clause 11, every person was entitled to a public stream for tertiary uses, but the Water Court had the power to take away that right and give it to any person. Why they should put this in the hands of the Water Court, to take it from the one and give it to the other, he could not understand.

said he hoped the House would not vote on the understanding that this Bill was to prevent another body using rights of a legitimate kind for the purpose of developing water power.

What are legitimate rights?

said that they were not going to discuss that now. He would point out that the clause they were discussing was part of the old Transvaal Law, that had been successful in its operation. All the clause proposed was that if anyone wanted to use the water above a certain horse-power, he would have to come to the Minister for sanction. He hoped hon. members would not accept the amendment.

said it was absolutely clear that the clause did not debar a man from a reasonable use of the water, but when he wanted more than that, then he had to come to the Government for sanction. The clause was designed to prevent waste.

said that the clause really meant the expropriation of private rights. The hon. Minister said he wanted to lay down a broad principle, but it seemed to him that the principle he wanted to lay down was the expropriation of private rights. What the Minister seemed to want was to take away private rights, and give them to the public. As far as his knowledge went, 10 horse-power was very little use to the owner of the water.

put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and declared the amendment negatived.

called for a division, but afterwards withdrew.

On new clause 23.

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 22, viz.: “23. (1) Whenever any such permission or authority as contemplated in sections 19. 20. 21, and 22 is granted, there may be included therein permission and authority to lay out and use such cable, pipe, or other ways, as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes contemplated. (2) Such permission, authority, and rights shall only be granted subject to compliance with such conditions as to notice to owners or other persons affected, appeal, compensation, and safeguarding the public interest, convenience, and safety, as may be laid down in this Act or any regulations made thereunder and in accordance with any other law or Provincial Ordinance not inconsistent herewith, now or hereafter in force in that behalf in the area concerned. (3) The provisions of Chapter VII. of this Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to the grant of any permission, authority, right, or rights contemplated by this section. The mover said the object of the amendment was to enable a man to transmit water or power over another person’s ground, subject to the approval of the Water Court.

seconded.

said he was in full sympathy with the idea, but he would urge the mover not to press the motion, because it was the fringe of a very much larger question, which ought to be dealt with for the whole Union, and it would be a pity to tinker with it. Let the hon. member exercise a little patience, in the hope that something would be done to deal with the matter as a whole.

said the Minister used the same argument with regard to clause 21. Goodness only knew when the Bill referred to by the Minister would be introduced, judging by the progress made with legislation in that House. Experiments had been carried out in America with regard to the influence of electricity on crops, but there was no legislation here to enable people to make use of water power running to waste with which to generate electricity. A man with a few acres of ground might obstruct a big scheme by refusing permission for a cable to be run over his land. It was quite impossible under the present law to take up a big water-power scheme at all. He appealed to the Minister to allow the amendment to go through.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 38,

moved: In lines 27 and 28 to omit “Court of Resident Magistrate,” and to substitute “Magistrate’s Court.”

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 130,

moved after “document” to insert “which,” and after “made” to insert “is.”

seconded. Agreed to.

On clause 117,

moved to omit all the words after “less than” in line 7 down to “less than” in line 11.

seconded.

hoped the hon. member would not press his amendment. They were so often told about the advantages of having a Divisional Council, and he certainly did not think such Divisional Council would put wrong valuations on property. At any rate, if valuations were too low, they could always be increased.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit “250” and substitute “500.”

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

In clause 119,

moved to omit “thirty” and substitute “forty,” on page 72; and on page 74 to omit “thirty” and substitute “forty.” He said that in the old law the amount laid down as security was £50,000.

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

In clause 130,

moved in line 25 after “abode” to omit “or,” and to substitute “and”.

seconded.

The amendment was negatived.

The third reading was set down for Thursday, the 11th instant.

said why should they tax themselves here in South Africa in order to get other people from elsewhere; and he did not think there was any hon. member in the House who would favour other people being assisted before they had looked to their own people first. If the clause were agreed to, the Government at once got power to call for settlers, and he trusted the clause would be rejected.

said that he had been shocked. (Laughter.) That was nothing but a wild immigration scheme. Why could not the Minister have said that he was going to introduce an immigration scheme? If he had done so at the outset they could have consulted their constituents. He felt sure it would have resulted in a big outcry. The people of South Africa were against such a scheme. There was a lot of talk about new taxation, and yet they wanted to spend a lot of money on buying land and in importing strangers. In the Orange Free State there were 14,000 children who did not receive any education, and were growing up like heathens. In the Cape Province he thought it was worse. He could not but think that the Opposition had influenced the hon. Minister of Lands to introduce such a provision in the Bill. From the minutes of the Select Committee it appeared that the Minister had introduced the clause, he feared under their influence. In the Transvaal they had under Crown Colony Government gone in for a loan of 35 millions, which was a sufficient example to them. He opposed the new clause.

said that the hon. member had alleged that the Minister had allowed himself to be influenced by the Opposition, who, when they came into power, would make use of that clause. Accordingly, the hon. member proposed to vote against it in fear of losing his seat.

said that the hon. member had misunderstood what he had said. His fear was that when he went back to his constituents and told them that an immigration scheme had been carried they would be greatly dissatisfied with him, and throw him out, maybe; and that would be the case with the hon. member opposite, too.

said that whoever was introduced and settled on the land would vote for members of the farmers’ party; perhaps they would not vote for the last speaker, but prefer men of wider principles. Poor whites would have to be helped, but immigrants could be imported and settled on the farms, which they would afterwards purchase. The argument that there should be no immigration, because there were still some children who received no education, would not bear examination. If further taxation was necessary for education, he would give his vote for it, but if ever this country was to be made into a white man’s country, then they must do something to get a bigger population. The crest of the old Free State had included immigration, because it was felt that the white population, as compared with the natives, should be increased, and yet the former speaker, who was a progressive Free Stater, was opposed to immigration. They must leave all questions of race out of this matter, and think only of the future of the white race. The proposed immigrants were not confined to those from England, but would also include immigrants from Germany, Holland, France and Italy.

said the previous speaker would have been better occupied if he had explained why certain lands should be set apart for oversea immigrants exclusively. That should be made clear, otherwise he (the speaker) could not vote for the clause. He was not opposed to immigration.

said he would have voted against the second reading of the Bill if the Prime Minister had not promised them that immigrants would only be imported after all the poor white people in the country had been helped, and then only if there were sufficient money. The new clause gave the immigrant two chances against one chance for the Africander. Unless the clause were amended in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s promise, he would not vote for it.

said he did not share the opinions of the last speaker, as there was nothing in the clause to prevent the Minister of Lands from giving preference to Africanders. That preference would certainly be given. The Prime Minister had clearly stated at Bloemfontein that he intended to help our own people first before introducing strangers, but he had also stated that it was necessary to increase the white population in proportion to the natives. Those natives were at present by far in the majority, and unless measures were taken to increase the white population, that disproportion would increase. There were very large districts in the Union, which were almost entirely without inhabitants, and immigration for those districts was necessary. He could not understand the objections to the Bill, seeing that the Opposition when they came into power could easily introduce a Bill which dealt solely with immigrants from abroad. The hon. member for Edenburg had referred to the large number of children in the Free State who were still without education, and the speaker thought that that difficulty was entirely due to the sparse population. Given a greater population they would have a larger number of schools. He did not share the fear that they were going to be drowned out with a sea of settlers from abroad.

said that from the report of the Settlement Commission of the Senate, it would be seen that their own poor whites were to be helped first. They must admit, however, that it would not do to exclude those elements which would help the country to advance. This country could be much assisted by the application of scientific methods to farming. It would be excellent to import capable farmers who could teach their people it was by no means their intention to introduce a great stream of people into this country, and if the Minister ever went too far, Parliament would stop him by refusing supplies. If it were found necessary to introduce dairy or horse-breeding farmers, the Minister should be empowered to introduce them, and to allocate farms to them. No Government would dare to import thousands of people when there were so many of their own people who required help. But if they placed hundreds of local people on the land, they could import a few and place them amongst the people as examples. They were importing also cattle and horses, and immigration was always under the control of Parliament. They must not be so presumptuous as to think that improvement was not possible. The people who were imported would have to refund all the expenses, and if this country could get the advantages of having those people here without cost to the country, they would be stupid not to take advantage of their opportunity.

said the clause did not appear in the Bill when it was first introduced, and he feared that the Select Committee had not the right to introduce the new clause. They must not forget that there were thousands of their own people who needed help, and to help them was, in his view, the moral duty of the Government. The hon. member for Bloemfontein had referred to the big native population, and said they should make South Africa a white man’s country. But ’that was all bogey, and ought not to alarm them in the least. There were quite sufficient whites in the country to maintain their position as against the natives, and it was unnecessary to introduce more from oversea. Then it had been said that they could learn a good deal from oversea immigrants, to which he would reply that they had already had experience of oversea immigrants. He (the speaker) had never learnt anything from them. He was not opposed to immigration, and would gladly welcome white people from abroad, but they should come on their own initiative, and not with the help of the State. He repeated that the clause made a radical change in the Bill, a change to which he could not agree.

could not agree with those hon. members who were opposed to the clause. In the Cape Province they had 10,000,000 morgen of land which were uninhabited, and in the Transvaal a further 10,000,000 morgen. He had the greatest respect for immigrants who were willing to come out under the prescribed conditions. They need not be afraid of the Opposition, for when they got into power they would bring in a very different Bill. He supported the clause.

said it seemed to him that there were two objections to the proposal—that we could not have oversea immigrants, and at the same time provide for the people already here. Why not?

No capital.

You are not going to give away anything; you are going to get it all back. (Hear, hear.) If you are afraid that you have not the land, why didn’t you vote for expropriation and a land tax? Continuing, Sir Percy said it was no use thinking that all the white population were going to be land owners. Many of them were not fitted for that, and there must be some workers in the country. The only people from oversea who would come here under this clause were those who would bring something with them, and who would have experience. The second idea was that these people were not really desirable. As a matter of fact, we were all exotics. The countries from which some of them came thought they were undesirable because they were too independent in their religious convictions. (Hear, hear.) Therefore he could not understand why anyone should feel that because a man was an immigrant, he should not be welcome. To the past 25 years there had been very great changes in the country, but the white population had only a little more than doubled itself, although everything else had been multiplied enormously. This was a very serious state of affairs. When they talked about bringing men out under contract, that was a different thing, for these men would be brought in to compete with other people. That had to be justified, but there was no need to justify this, as it would not tend to competition, but be for the good of all. (Hear, hear.) He disagreed with the hon. member who said he did not mind the clause being there, so long as the present Ministry was in power, because the Minister would not use it. The hon. member for Boshof had said they had nothing to learn, but others might have. However, he (Sir Percy) had something to learn—to learn to work with his hands. (Hear, hear.) The sooner they made a start and had a class of Europeans used to manual labour, the better it would be for the country. (Opposition cheers.)

said they ought not to have a ring-fence around South Africa. No doubt everyone who liked could come to South Africa, but not all of them had capital to do so. He had no fear of immigration in small numbers, but it was the policy of the Opposition to introduce them by the thousand. That was the policy of the hon. member for Pretoria East, who had never been able to see anything good in the old population of this country. It would never do for them to pass a law mow, under which the Opposition would afterwards be able to bring in immigrants on a large scale. If that clause had been in the original Bill he would not have voted for the second reading. According to the right hon. member for Victoria West, quite enough money had already been wasted on immigration. Of all the settlers who had been placed on the land in the Orange Free State, the large majority of those who were still there consisted of Africanders. That showed clearly enough that the Africander was the best settler.

moved an amendment that the amount of land to be granted should not be more than one-fifth.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again the following day.