Table of Errata in connection with First Report, Railway and Harbour Grievances Commission; Schedule of Pensions, South African Harbours, as at 30th September, 1911.

spoke on behalf of the whole of South Africa when he expressed his regret at Sir Thomas Scanlen’s demise.

said; I should like to add my testimony to the sorrow I feel at the news of the death of one who served as Prime Minister, and whom I had the honour of serving under, many years ago—so many years ago that I do not think, with the exception of myself and the Minister of Railways, that there is another member now in the House who was here when Sir Thomas Scanlen was Prime Minister. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you were a member of the House at the time—perhaps you may have been, but there are but few others who were members then now in the House. If there had been they would have felt as I feel, and as the Premier has well expressed, that Sir Thos. Scalen was a true son of South Africa, and in every respect a worthy representative of his country Sir Thos. Scanlen was called to be Prime Minister at a very trying time—just after the conclusion of the Basuto war, and during the whole time he was Prime Minister there was trouble of one sort or another going on in South Africa. He came in also at a time when the finances were swollen by enormous expenditure on account of the war; and then came the depression afterwards, and he had to face that, too. He had to face very many difficult questions. Now, Sir Thomas Scanlen was not a great orator, but he was a thoroughly good, sound business man, and anybody who takes the trouble to look up our Cape Statute books will see how he has left his mark on them and upon the legislation in the days when he was Prime Minister. He was most assiduous in his attendance, and there was not a single Bill of which he did not scrutinise every clause to see that it was put in proper order. On larger questions he was one of the most broad and liberal minded men at a time when they were not quite so common as they are now in regard to what are known as race questions. He was a Frontiersman and a settler, and he had the broadest kind of mind in that respect. In regard to the natives there was no man who had a clearer grasp of our great problem in this country —which is native management. We were all sorry that he was obliged to quit public life in the Cape Colony, because we felt we had lost a valuable guide in matters of native and public policy. He has now gone, and we can only contemplate his loss. I regret that he did not die in the Cape of Good Hope—in his own country—but at any rate he died in South Africa, where he had always lived, and he was in every respect a good public servant, a good son of South Africa, and a worthy citizen, and I thank the Prime Minister for having alluded to him in the way he did.

said on behalf of the Opposition he most cordially supported the remarks of the Prime Minister. He also had had the pleasure of knowing Sir Thomas Scanlen in his (Sir T. W. Smartt’s) early political days. In the first session he (Sir T. W. Smartt) sat in the Cape Parliament he had the pleasure, on a most important occasion, of voting on the same side with him, and he thought the Minister of Railways would remember that they were in a minority of ten, but the position deceased then took up was subsequently adopted by a vast majority. Years after he had the pleasure of knowing him, and remembered when he left to go to Rhodesia, where he believed deceased had rendered to that new country most admirable services. He did not think it was necessary for him to say more than to add that he most cordially supported the remarks of the Prime Minister.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to apply a further sum, not exceeding one million pounds, on account of the service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1913.

I would like to ask my hon. friend—

The hon. member cannot.

Not on the first reading?

No.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Monday next

said that there was an amendment in regard to the definition of “riparian owner.” An addition had been made to this stating that it should not only mean “owner of riparian land,” but should “include all predecessors in title-right of such an owner.” It seemed to him that that was going to lead to confusion. If riparian owner were to include predecessor in title, they were going to give him rights which he could not possibly use. He did not see the necessity for that at all. He would, therefore, move that this amendment be not adopted.

The proper course would be simply to vote against it.

said that this was an amendment which did not originate with him, and he shared the views of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, in connection with it; but the feeling in the Senate was that where a right had been acquired for thirty years, it should be protected.

said that this amendment could not help section 8, and he thought it was going to lead to confusion. They were going to give rights to people who were not legal owners of land.

said he did not see why a person who bought a farm which had a watercourse running on it, with regard to which there had been acquired a right of user after thirty years, should have to begin the period over again. A man buying a farm had a right to that, and now it was suggested that he should begin over again, in order to acquire the right.

said he did not really see that this clause did any harm. He failed to find, as the Minister had said, any reason for putting it in, but the members in another place must have had some reason.

again rose, but was ruled out of order.

also rose, but he also was ruled out of order, Mr. SPEAKER remarking that they were not in committee.

said he thought hon. members ought to think well before they passed this amendment.

said he did not agree with the amendment, which he considered superfluous. This Bill was intended to refer to present circumstances, and it was not desirable to give rights which hitherto had not existed, or which perhaps had existed years ago.

The amendment to the definition of “riparian owner” was negatived.

The remaining amendments made in this clause by the Senate were agreed to.

On clause 8, Private streams and water,

said that there was an amendment to subsection (2) in the addition of the words “which rises upon the land of an upper riparian proprietor,” and a proviso so that the sub-section now read: “All water which falls or naturally drains on to the surface of land shall be the sole and undisputed property of the owner thereof, as long as it remains upon such land and does not join a public stream which rises upon the land of an upper riparian owner, provided the taking of such water does not interfere with the normal flow of such public stream.” This was going to lead to some startling results. The object of this section was to allow every man to use the ordinary drainage water, the water that fell from heaven and did not run in any sloot or ditch—because the country was now so full of public streams—to allow him to use all the water which simply fell over the ground and did not run in any defined channel unless it joined a public stream, but now there was an amendment that that was to be the case only if this public stream rose on the land of an upper proprietor.

What was meant it was impossible to say. If surface water entered the public stream on the lower proprietor’s land why should it not become his property? It seemed to him that rather extraordinary results would follow, and it seemed to him that the old clause was clear and infinitely better. How they were going to separate the water which rose on the land of the upper proprietor and entered the public stream he did not know. Then there was the proviso. When the Bill was before that House they tried to define clearly the normal flow, but now a new horror had been introduced because if a man took in any of the water that came from heaven—water which did not go into the public stream—then the man was liable to an action if the lower man could show that it interfered with the normal flow. He had never heard of this in any jurisprudence. They were really getting into very serious difficulties.

said that here was an Act affecting the rights of landed proprietors. It had come back from the Senate with a number of amendments which affected the rights of landowners to the utmost extent and they could not discuss these amendments without making some sort of second reading speeches, and could not get a reply to questions which they might like to ask. Was it right, as stated by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, that when a man who had prescriptive rights to water—who had been using it for thirty years—sold his farm, that the prescriptive rights of the new owner only started from the time he bought the farm? If that were so, he thought the new provision would create an undreamt of revolution.

pointed out that it was really necessary for hon. members to know what they were voting upon. He suggested that the Bill might be taken in Committee of the Whole House.

said he was just going to make such a suggestion.

said he had two Bills before him. One was dated May 14 and the other May 15. One contained the amendments and the other did not. Which was the correct copy?

said the Bill on his file did not contain the amendments.

said that the copy dated May 15 was before the House.

asked if the whole Bill was to be re-committed?

said that only the amendments would be considered by the committee.

moved: That all the amendments, including those already considered by the House, be referred to Committee of the Whole House, and that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.

seconded.

Agreed to.

put the amendments in clause 2, in the interpretation of terms “owner” and “riparian land,” which were agreed to.

put the amendment in clause 2, in the interpretation of term “riparian owner,” after “land,” to insert “and shall include all predecessors in title of such an owner.”

said he wanted to appeal to those hon. members who voted on the last occasion to reconsider their votes in the light thrown upon it by section 8. He would point out as to the introduction of the word “such” that if a man sold a farm on which he had prescriptive rights to the water—for a period of thirty years—the prescriptive right of the man who followed him would only commence from the date of the sale of the farm. This meant a serious state of affairs. It would jeopardise and shake the position of land proprietors in the Union.

said that unfortunately the word “such” had been introduced, and there was a grave danger in leaving that word in the clause. He did not think that the amendment made in another place was going to get rid of the difficulty of the definition of the word “such,” and the only thing to do was to amend section 8.

asked the Minister whether there was any reason to suppose that the inclusion of the words would give a man who sold his property any further rights over that property?

said that he wanted to have the matter made quite clear. Say, for instance, A had a farm and on it ran a stream, and for 29 years he had the undisturbed use of the water for irrigation purposes. If he sold the farm to B he wanted to know whether B would take over the whole of the 30 years’ prescriptive rights.

replied in the affirmative.

thought that the Senate’s amendment was not dangerous, and in the case of divided farms it might even be useful.

said he could not see what they were going to gain by the addition of the words, or what they were going to lose by their omission.

moved, as an amendment to the Senate’s amendment, to insert after the word include” “all the legal rights to water and the user hereinafter in section 8 mentioned of”. That would cover the rights as regarded predecessors.

said they could not accept the amendment, for the simple reason that it was inartistic and was not sense. He was sure that no Court of Justice would entertain for a single moment the claim of a man because he had been a predecessor.

said he wished to withdraw his amendment, for the purpose of moving another.

With leave of the House, the amendment was withdrawn.

then moved to insert after the word “include” the following, “for the purposes of section 8.”

said that this was not the only clause affected by the amendment.

said that what they wanted to do in the section was to make riparian owner something different. There was nothing that distinguished the meaning of riparian owner in one part of the section from another.

said he did not quite understand that case; it was like the man who gave many reasons for not firing a salute. It simply meant that riparian owner shall include his predecessor.

Mr. P. DUNCAN said the line in section 8 could not mean “predecessors,” therefore “riparian owners” in line 21 did not include predecessors.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg how they were going to get over the difficulty. No amount of defining “riparian” was going to get rid of the difficulty in the word “such,” because that did not mean predecessors. The only way was to say in section 8 it shall include predecessors.

thought the amendment put by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, would meet the case.

moved, after the word “shall” in the Senate’s amendment, to insert the words, “for the purpose of defining such terms where it occurs a second time in section 8.”

The amendment was agreed to; that by Sir H. Juta was withdrawn.

The Senate’s amendment, as amended, was then agreed to.

put the amendment in clause 6, which was agreed to.

put the amendment m clause 8, in line 30, after “stream” to insert “which rises upon the land of an upper riparian owner: Provided the taking of such water does not interfere with the normal flow of such public stream.”

said it was pointed out in another place that in the George and other districts where public streams started on private land that if a man were allowed to have unrestricted use of such water, indeed that seriously would interfere with the rights of those below.

said supposing water from a big farm came into a public stream, how were they going to have a check and who was going to check how much of this surface water went into the stream? The alteration would give rise to endless trouble. It seemed strange that an upper proprietor should be allowed to take water out, but not a lower proprietor as well. If they gave an upper proprietor the right to take water out of the stream he would say that it was the natural drainage. As to the second part of the amendment, that was still more remarkable. Suppose they had a farm a square mile or two in extent with surface water all over it. If the rain were very great some of it would drain into a public stream: the owner took that and exposed himself to an action for interfering with the normal flow. When normal flow was dealt with they meant water that ran in a definite channel.

thought that the proviso would lead to endless confusion and litigation.

said the clause dealt with water in a public stream, not with water on a man’s property. If the amendment as it stood were passed it would be practically impossible for the upper owner to take any water at all, and he hoped the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, would be accepted. The amendment was most dangerous.

could not understand the proviso, which he feared would do considerable harm.

suggested that in the second part the words-“flowing from above” should be inserted, or else the proviso should be deleted altogether.

moved the deletion of the proviso which had been inserted by the Senate,

said a man might buy up twenty farms in one block, and on the last of them build a dam to hold the whole of the water of that catchment area. It did not say that on the upper riparian land he could do it, but on the land of the upper riparian owner, provided the water rose on his farm.

said he thought the committee should retain the first part of the amendment even if it deleted the second portion. But he certainly thought the first part should be retained.

said he hoped that the committee would delete the whole clause. They were trying to define far too much in the Bill. He could see numbers of legal cases sticking out as the result of the proviso.

said it seemed only fair to him that the upper riparian owner should have an opportunity to make a dam, as otherwise he would be greatly handicapped. The first part of the amendment might safely be accepted.

moved, as an amendment to the Senate’s amendment, in line 30, to omit “the land of an”, and in line 31 to omit “owner” and to substitute “land.”

said they were going to allow the upper riparian owner to take out the surplus water. On what principle was it that the higher man should be the only one to take this flood water?

considered the sub-section was quite clear.

said he must say that the more he looked at the clause the more it appeared to him that they must either take the whole of the amendment or leave it alone. The first part of the amendment was made in another place in order to give the man on the second farm greater rights, and it would be unsound to take part and not all of the amendment. If they took the first part, then they must control it by the second part, because the first without the second gave the lower proprietor too great scope altogether. His own feeling was that the-clause as it left the House was the best.

considered only the second part of the proviso-should be deleted, and it should be agreed to. Water rising on a person’s property was the property of such person, and that should be clearly stated.

agreed that the two parts of the amendment, as moved m another place, should be taken together or eliminated altogether.

The amendment of Mr. J. A. Neser was agreed to.

The amendment of Mr. P. G. Kuhn was agreed to.

then put the amendment as amended.

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

put the amendment in clause 9,

This was negatived.

put the amendment in clause 10, sub-section (1), in lines 44 and 45, to omit “without detriment to the interest of lower riparian owners on the stream.”

Agreed to.

put the amendment in lines 46 and 47, to omit “include,” and to substitute “be deemed to preclude.”

suggested that the words “without any detriment to the interests of lower riparian owners on the stream,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

said he thought there was a good deal to be said for the omission of these words. Speaking of the streams in the south-west, he did not know where they would have a normal flow which was of such a size that if they took water on any upper farms for irrigation they would not affect detrimentally the interests of the people below. There never was sufficient water, or, at any rate, very seldom, except in times of flood, to serve everybody. Therefore they could not take water out without detrimentally affecting the interests of those below. He did not see how they were going to arrive at the idea of what was a reasonable share to the lower proprietor. As the clause stood here it seemed to be quite illogical, and would lead to a great deal of confusion. There was therefore a great deal to be said for the Senate omitting these words, but they did not put anything in their place. He moved as an amendment to the Senate’s amendment to omit “preclude” and to substitute “exclude.”

said the idea was simply to give a definition of a normal flow.

could not see how it was possible to take water from a river or stream without impairing its flow.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Senate’s amendment as thus amended was agreed to.

The Senate’s amendments in clauses 10, 15, 14, 15, and 16 were agreed to.

The Senate’s amendment in clause 17 was agreed to.

In clause 18 the omission of “or flood” was agreed to.

put the amendments in clause 18, lines 71 and 72, to omit “could” and to substitute “would,” and to omit “expected” and to substitute “entitled,”

These were negatived.

put the remaining amendment in clause 18, which was agreed to.

put the amendment in clause 21.

This was negatived.

put the amendments in clauses 22 and 23, which were agreed to.

On clause 24,

pointed out an inconsistency, in that in sub-section “A” the words “or of any prior law” had been allowed to remain, while in sub-section “C” it was amended so as to delete the words, and he suggested unless there was some intention it would be as well to leave out the words.

thought the words in sub-section “A,” “prior to the commencement of this Act,” would cover any prior law, and the deletion was agreed to.

The Senate’s amendments in clause 24 were agreed to.

The Senate’s amendments in clauses 53 and 105 were agreed to.

thereupon reported the committee’s amendments to the amendment made by the Senate, which were agreed to by the House.

moved the second reading of the Appropriation Bill.

said that some of the figures laid before the House in his Budget speech by the hon. Minister of Finance had since been altered by events which had subsequently transpired, and he honed the Minister would have ready the amended figures and lodge a statement so that the House would really have before it what the amended position was. Surely the Supplementary Estimates were ready by this time. They also wanted from the Minister of Railways his schedule of new railways. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Railways would remember that two months ago, when he (Sir Edgar) was speaking on the Budget, he (Mr. Sauer) interrupted him when he was referring to this matter, and stated that the schedules would be placed on the table. They wanted to avoid having the railway schedules being put before hon. members on the last few days of the session.

You cannot deal with railway construction; I have given notice of that.

That is not what we want. The Loan Estimates contained admirably prepared figures for all departments exceping the railways. Continuing, Sir Edgar said that in the Loan Estimates the Minister of Railways had put down two millions, but the House had been waiting for the details for two months. They wanted maps and reports of the engineers and the Railway Board. (Opposition cheers.) They specially wanted to avoid what happened last session when—very improperly—the House had to pass huge sums for railway construction, and when not one per cent. of the members even knew whether the places to which the railways were to be built were located. That was not allowing members to do their duty to the country. Members had no right to vote away millions without knowing the details. (Opposition cheers.) They might as well take a holiday, hand Ministers a blank cheque, and give them permission to-do as they pleased. He knew the Minister’s hands had been very full, but he should have brought pressure to bear on his department so that he could have given the House the details.

said it was quite true that: the hon. member had referred to the matter previously. But the preparation of a railway scheme was beset with many difficulties. He had given notice that he would ask leave on Monday to introduce the Bill for railway construction, and then he would present the report of the engineers and the Board. On Monday, the scheme would be known with full information. He wished that he could have done this before, but he could not very well, and even if he introduced it earlier he did not know that he could have made much progress, owing to the large amount of business that had intervened. However, the House would have the information on Monday which, he was sorry to say, would be some considerable time before the end of the session.

said he was sorry that the Treasurer had not given them more information with regard to one or two points that had been in abeyance. Since the Budget speech there had been a surplus of revenue over and above that estimated by the Minister of Finance of something like £303,000. They had had no explanation from the Minister in reference to that matter. In his Budget speech the Minister estimated the revenue at £17,013,000, whereas it really amounted to £17,336,000. It was exceedingly difficult to see where the increase had come from. The revenue for March was £1,320,000, being below the monthly average of £1,444,000. Of course, the Treasurer had had a very large accession through extra interest to the amount of half-a-million, but that seemed to have been taken into account at the time the Budget speech was delivered. The Treasurer seemed to have gone on the principle of under-estimating his revenue and over-estimating his expenditure. He estimated the revenue for 1911-12 at £16,052,000, but it came out at £17,336,000. The expenditure was originally estimated at £17,257,000, but it was actually £16,638,000. This showed clearly that there was a difference between the actual figures and those originally given by the Minister in regard to revenue and expenditure, of £1,903,000. The Minister of Finance little knew the difficulty the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) had to contend with when he was Treasurer of the Cape Colony. Between 1904 and 1908 the Cape revenue fell from nine millions to £6,981.000, such was the effect of the depression, notwithstanding that there was increased taxation. He (Mr. Jagger) did not think the Minister of Finance had much to boast about as compared with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central.

There was another point to be borne in mind. The Minister’s figures showed a surplus of £698,000, but they had to take the receipts from the bewaarplaatsen, which had gone into the general revenue. These amounted altogether to something like £172,000. According to the Transvaal Act, passed in 1908, it was very clearly laid down that these receipts must be put on one side to be dealt with ultimately by Parliament.

rising on the point of order with regard to the bewaarplaatsen, since the matter was last debated in the House, a firm of solicitors at Johannesburg had served upon him, as Minister of Finance, a letter of demand, claiming that the whole of these bewaarplaatsen belonged to certain gold mining companies on the Rand, and claiming also that half of the proceeds of these bewaarplaatsen should be paid over to their clients, and also saying that unless the money was paid they would institute proceedings. He, on behalf of the Government, had replied denying their claim to be the owners of the bewaarplaatsen, or that they were entitled to half the proceeds. That being so, the point he wished to raise was whether the question could be debated in the House, or should it be regarded as being sub judice.

said he did not take it that the hon. member was going to debate the question of bewaarplaatsen. He did not take it that what the hon. member said was with regard to the legality of the matter, but from the point of view of the figures.

proceeding, said these advances would have to be taken out of the revenue. Consequently, the surplus of £692,000 which the Minister intended to hand over to the Public Debt Commissioners would be reduced by that amount.

Continuing, the hon. member said that the Treasurer prided himself on under-estimating revenue. The Minister had always contended that by under-estimating revenue, expenditure was kept down. He (the speaker) considered that there were two sides to that question, because he thought that if such a Treasurer were in office for a considerable time, it would encourage people in the departments to spend more money than was really necessary. He did not think that it was such an effective method of keeping down expenditure as the Treasurer seemed to think. There was another point which he would like to bring to the notice of the House. The Treasurer took more money out of the pockets of the people than was really necessary. There was a surplus of something like half a million, and that money might have been used for the remission of taxation in the Provinces. The point was that more money was taken out of the pockets of the people than was actually required by the Treasurer. He thought that as a result the Treasurer had made very little progress. If one compared the estimates of revenue with the revenue that was actually obtained last year, one would find there had actually been decreases. There had been an increase of £7,000 odd in regard to stamp duties and fees. Taking the total, he found that the Treasurer had budgeted for a decrease of £1,218,000 less than he received during the last financial year. In his opinion, the view taken by the Treasurer was far too pessimistic, because there were no signs of trade falling away to such a large extent. With regard to expenditure, he thought that the Treasurer had erred on a liberal scale. If they took the Estimates for 1912-13 and the results of the last year, they would find that there was an increase of £727,000, against a decrease of £582,000, or a net increase on the expenditure of last year of £145,000, and this notwithstanding the fact that large savings had been effected under different heads, such as compensation for stock, Cape School Board loans, registration of voters and interest on public debt. Of course, it was only fair to say that there had also been some increases. One would have expected under such circumstances however, to have seen larger savings effected than appeared upon the Estimates. Another point upon which he wanted some information from the Treasurer was the floating debt. The floating debt amounted to £11,088,000 on March 30. This showed an increase of something like £1,387,000 on the amount at which the floating debt stood on May 30, 1910. There had of course, been various redemptions, but the fact remained that there had been a net increase during that period. Under the Act of last year it was proposed to consolidate floating debt to the extent of eight millions, but nothing had been done in that connection. What he could not understand was this: why should they be carrying this enormous floating debt, when, at the same time, they had in the banks deposits totalling £5,545,000? He did think it strange that some of these deposits should not have been used for the purpose of freeing part of the floating debt. Then there were exchequer balances amounting to nearly two and a half millions. All that money, amounting to more than two millions, was on fixed deposit. That amount was, of course, included in the five and a half millions. Then the Public Debt Commissioners held fixed deposits to the amount of £1,631,000, and Australian and Indian stock to the value of £287,000. It did seem strange to him that they should be borrowing money in London, and, as far as he could see, lending it to the banks in this part of the world. It would have been better to have redeemed the loans with the balances which the Treasurer had in hand at the time.

Continuing the speaker went on to refer to the remarks of the Treasurer, in the course of his Budget speech, with regard to the Cape 5 per cent. and 4½ per cent stock. There was outstanding £1,063,000, about half of which was held by the Public Debt Commissioners and public departments, and the other half by the general public. The Treasurer had then stated that, in view of the circumstances—the fact that it had been contended on behalf of the Government that the Government could redeem this stock at par —it was of the utmost importance that the matter should be discussed by the House. Two months had elapsed since the Treasurer made that statement, but nothing further had been done in the matter. He pointed out that this was very awkward for the holders of the stock. He knew of one estate that was held up in liquidation because the people concerned were unable to sell the stock. He thought it only proper and right that the Minister of Finance should bring this matter before the House without delay, and have the point settled as to whether the Government should redeem the stock at par or at its market price. Then there was the Financial (Relations Commission report. He asked the Treasurer whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill dealing with the Financial Relations Commission report during the present session. The report of the Commission had been before the House for about two months—he thought that the Government must have had the report long before that—and no one had expressed himself more strongly on the question of bringing forward legislation than the Treasurer himself. The Treasurer himself had pointed out how necessary it was such a measure should be brought before Parliament as early as possible, and yet as far as they knew nothing had been done in the matter.

You talk too much.

I think that the Minister should talk about members on his own side. Continuing, he said he thought his hon. friend must admit that if such an important measure was going through that session the House should have an opportunity of discussing the measure at as early a date as possible, in order that it might be given earnest consideration. He could only conclude that it was not the intention of the Treasurer to bring such a Bill before the House that session, and he thought that if that was the case then the Cape Province would fare in a most unfair manner. He hoped, in conclusion, that the Minister of Finance would give the House some information on the various points which he had raised.

said that his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, had referred shortly to the question of the bewaarplaatsen. He had not the slightest wish to go into the history of the matter, though it could hardly be considered as sub judice in view of the position that had arisen. He would like to know, however, what was the exact position of the money as shown in the Minister’s accounts at the present time. He would like to know, as had been assumed by his hon. friend, whether the money had gone into ordinary revenue. He pointed out that in the Transvaal Act that was passed in 1908 the Treasurer had to pay money from this source into a special account until such time as Parliament determined what should be done with the money. When the matter was last before the House it was found that the provisions of the Act had not been complied with, and if he understood the Minister aright in the somewhat cavalier reply which he gave to his hon. friend the member for Yeoville, he repudiated this, and said he was not going to move in the matter until he was directed to do so by Parliament. The Minister further said that according to the Act of Union he was instructed to pay all balances of money into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that unless he was specially instructed to take some other course by Parliament he was going to assume that this money had to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. He submitted that there was nothing in the Act of Union which would justify that contention. In the first place, it was by no means decided that this money did belong to the Province of the Transvaal. In any case, it seemed to him that there was no doubt whatever that this money could not be spent until it had been definitely allocated by Parliament. The point was that they were entitled to know whether the Minister of Finance still adhered to what, he understood, was his opinion that the money should be left in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and whether it was still in that Fund, or whether it had been put to a special fund and, secondly, whether the Minister was going to come down to that House and ask the House to allocate the money. It seemed to him that he (the Minister) was bound to come down and get directions what to do with it.

said that he was really astonished and, he might say, deeply pained on hearing the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) call the Minister of Finance to account for what he called his underestimates. If he had called the Minister to account for over-estimating and of being too sanguine, he thought he might have accused him of a very dangerous crime. He (Mr. Merriman) thought the Treasurer was to be praised for what he had done, for one result of underestimating was that any excess went to the reduction of the debt. He would have thought his hon. friend would have been glad to see that done. He thought the philosophy of all estimates, as far as he could see, was that a careful Treasurer under-estimated always, or at least took a conservative estimate. He would like to ask the Treasurer when he was going to give them an idea what his Supplementary Estimates would be. He (Mr. Hull) had said they would be moderate. But he was afraid that some of the Minister’s friends were going to make them a little heavier than he expected in one way or another. He thought perhaps the Minister might have given them a little supplementary Budget on this Special Appropriation Bill. He would also like some information in regard to the deposits. It struck him as being rather strange that, whilst they had such a tremendous amount of floating debt, they had very large deposits in the banks.

What surprised him still more was that they had a little nest-egg, to which he did not think the attention of that House had been drawn, of a sum of £600,000 invested in stocks of Australian colonies.

It has been reduced to £278,000.

At the end of the year there was a very considerable nest-egg in respect of these stocks. Proceeding, the light hon. gentleman said he did not think those of his friends who were pressing the Treasurer were doing the country any good service when they pressed him to bring forward some crude, ill-digested measure for financial relations this session. (Hear, hear.) He was as anxious as anybody to see this matter put on a proper footing, but to bring forward at the end of the session, when it could not be properly considered, when a Select Committee was out of the question, and when people were jaded, a measure of that importance would be, he thought, a grievous wrong on South Africa. He had recently read a most interesting article dealing with this subject of the piling up of measures in Parliament which there was no possibility of members giving attention to The result was that slipshod work was done, and the whole business of the country tended to get into confusion and not go forward, as it ought to do, for Parliament had a limited digestion and, if they overcrowded it, they would have to have an operation for Parliamentary appendicitis. (Laughter.)

said he was sorry that the Minister of the Interior was not in his place, because he wanted to take the first opportunity of trying to obtain some further information in regard to the so-called agreement entered into by the Transvaal Government in 1907. One looked and read and re-read this interesting document, and one failed to see in the actual text anything so binding as one would gather from the remarks of the Minister of Native Affairs. It was an interesting document; it might be styled the last phase of the great epic on the historic welfare between the princely house of Robinson and the Imperial house of Eckstein. (A laugh.) Proceeding, the hon. member went on to refer to various matters in a correspondence headed “Dear Mr. Reyersbach.” He quoted also the terms of an agreement, which stated that the Transvaal Government undertook to issue licences for recruiting labour, but they reserved the right to cancel these under certain circumstances, which meant that they would withdraw these licences under no other circumstances. He submitted that any such provision was ultra vires. He could not help thinking that any conversations alluded to in this document were much more precise and clear than was indicated. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior pledged themselves if elected they would deal with miners’ phthisis on the basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. They did not adhere to that, yet there was a, promise which they considered sacred and binding. What he also wanted to know was the quid pro quos obtained by this agreement. After the final conclusion of the agreement, there was a great boom in the market for the shares of the companies interested, and then followed, he would not say a rain, but a gentle drizzle, of knighthoods and baronetcies and other honours. (Labour laughter.) The public were entitled to know what that agreement was that was entered into. A Commission had been appointed to investigate these matters more closely, and they endeavoured laboriously to know how the agreement had been come to. The member for Pretoria East and others knew all about this, and were in that happy position of having the Government well tied up. One would have thought from their words at the hustings that they were independent politicians and not having their lips sealed as in that House. He thought that most members on that side of the House would agree with him in thinking that any single agreement entered into between a Government and any part of its citizens ought to be made public, and that no such agreement should have been made. Continuing, Mr. Creswell said that many in that House and many outside the House would agree with him that any sort of agreement of that kind which was entered into by the Government and any body of private citizens should be made public property and that the whole correspondence that had taken place between the Chamber of Mines and mining houses and the Government should be made public. Could the hon. members for Pretoria East, for Germiston, and for Yeoville say that they knew nothing of any such agreement; that no such agreement had ever been entered into, or that such agreement could be binding or is binding on the Government?

referred to the remarks of the hon. member as being laborious and contemptible, and that he had said first of all that there was no agreement, and secondly that there was an agreement, and that certain members on the Opposition side of the House, whom he named, derived financial advantage from that agreement, and in the interests of the purity of public life such things should be made public, and any declaration made now to show that they knew nothing of this agreement would lose a great deal of value, as it ought to have been made in 1907.

Two months ago.

1907, I think. Continuing, he said the hon. member had been characteristically vicious; he meant to disparage the character of honourable members, to insinuate that they took advantage of certain arrangements which were privately made with Government, and that whilst posturing before the country as representing their constituents, they were really bribed and tied up to other people; in fact, that they were unfit to represent anybody in Parliament. That was the indictment put forward. To show the recklessness of such statements, he would point out that the agreement was entered into more than a year after he left all connection with business on the Rand. There was not one tittle of truth in such perfectly ridiculous statements; but the move would serve its purpose, it would serve at the next election, when the hon. member would go to the country and tell them what a fine pure fellow he was, and what unspeakable blackguards some of their members were.

They won’t believe him.

They will get to know him by degrees. But the move would serve its purpose, and what was the basis of it? An agreement. If there was an agreement, why not read it? The first he heard of one was in the speech made the other day. Was there an agreement made?

The Minister said so.

said there was no agreement that could bind the Government. But it was going to glorify the pure-minded gentleman who spoke about it, but he (Sir Percy) would be content if the hon. member or any of his colleagues would put up an indictment if they had one to make.

I have done it.

was proceeding, when

rose to make a personal explanation.

The hon. member must not interrupt.

“The hon. member does not like it.” There were two charges: that there was an agreement, and that certain people had profited by it financially, and were unfit to sit in the House. Let that agreement be produced. Or the other charge against the Government, that there was no agreement, and that therefore they were free to act. Which was the charge, let it be one or the other? For his part he had never heard of it. No Government could tie itself or its successors; it was simply ridiculous.

Why did not you say so a month ago?

The only way to deal with a jack-in-the-box is to tie him down. (Laughter.) No undertaking could bind the Transvaal Government or Parliament, and nothing done by the Transvaal could bind the Union Parliament.

said that surely the hon. member was present some two or three months back during the course of a certain debate in the House when an agreement was referred to, and he should nave disclaimed the existence of any such agreement then. His hon. friend the member for Jeppe had accused the Government of the existence of the agreement, but found nothing in the agreement which bound the House and he surmised that there must have been something in the discussions spoken of in the correspondence which had ‘been laid on the table.

He surmised.

He must surmise that. There must have been something more; the document laid on the table referred to some conversation and the hon. member must have known of certain conversations and discussions which were going on between Government and certain mining houses at that time. It was wrong for the hon. member to plead ignorance of matters of that kind. Parties in that House who had led the people in this country to believe that they were in favour of extending the field for white labour in this country were misleading the people when they knew of the existence of a treaty between the Government and the mining houses which prevented them giving effect to that policy. If a document was in existence which bound them to the mining houses to continue to supply labour from these territories they should have told the country the fact.

rose to say that he did not think hon. members opposite could complain that they had not had an opportunity afforded them of discussing financial matters in that. House. This was the third or fourth occasion that they had discussed the Budget proposals. The Minister at this point reserved his further remarks, and

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when the House suspended business he was commiserating with the leader of the Opposition on the unfortunate position he must find himself in on matters financial. His hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) possessed many talents, but one of the talents which he did not claim to possess was the one of finance, and they on the Government side of the House and he (Mr. Hull) thought the country generally recognised that the hon. member’s first lieutenant in the field of finance was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. Central (Sir E. H. Walton). Almost on each occasion whenever a financial question cropped up the hon. member for Port Elizabeth was supplanted by the hon. member for Cape Town. Central (Mr. Jagger). (Ministerial cheers.) But that, of course, was not new. In the old Cape House years ago when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth was the recognised financier of the party then in power, and when the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was supposed to be a supporter of that party—

A humble follower.

He took every occasion that presented itself not to support the party to which he belonged, not to support the financial policy of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, but to criticise it—sometimes more severely than the Opposition criticised it. Well, the leader of the Opposition would have to make up his mind very shortly which of these two hon. members would be his financial critic. These two financial lieutenants always seemed to take totally different lines of attack.

Now, this afternoon when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, started the financial attack he confined himself to two grounds—perfectly fair grounds of attack and the first was that hon. members opposite expected that he (Mr. Hull) should explain to them the revised figures of revenue for the year on which they had just entered. He called attention, very rightly, to the fact that since this House had met certain figures had been put forward which would materially alter the capital on which the railways would have to pay interest. He was followed by the other financial expert, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who usually, of course, gave the show away and who usually for purposes of his own only gave part of the case—(Mr. JAGGER: “What nonsense”)—and he took a totally different ground. He (Mr. Hull) recommended the leader of the Opposition to get some kind of agreement between these two financial pundits if he wanted the criticisms to be at all effective or substantial. The one line of attack adopted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, speaking on behalf of his chief, and which he (Mr. Hull) understood was the line taken by his leader, was with regard to the revised Estimates. But that was not the line taken by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who wanted an explanation of the revenue figures for the past financial period. (An HON. MEMBER: “Why not?”) Hon. members would recollect that when he (Mr. Hull) replied to the criticisms on the Budget he said that at the time he had made his Budget statement he had given certain figures which he estimated would be the revenue figures for the year ended March 31, 1912, but that they were merely estimates, and later on when the financial year closed he had certain other figures, namely, the figures giving approximately the receipts up to the end of the year, and these figures showed a difference between the figures which he placed before the House on an earlier occasion, of approximately some £300 000. The second point of attack by the hon. member. Who he supposed, would in time occupy the position he (Mr. Hull) was now occupying the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central—not the hon. member for Cape Town, Central—and who was a much safer and a much more reliable man who did not misquote figures and who did not mislead the country—wanted some in formation with regard to the Supplementary Estimates. Hon. members opposite would have to content themselves for a little while longer. The Supplementary Estimates would be laid before the House before the end of the session, and not until then would the supplementary Budget statement be made

Why keep it so secret?

There is no secret about it at all. I am following the practice of my hon. friend there.

I never took two months over it.

That is not the point.

Continuing, Mr. Hull said that dealing with the criticism of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, there were no revised figures of the revenue Estimates. His estimates of revenue, which he gave almost two months ago, for the current financial period, still held good, with this modification, that since he made that Budget statement a committee upstairs had had an opportunity of closely inquiring into the question of the amount of capital on which the railway should pay interest, and the committee had found that that amount was considerably in excess of the amount he put in his Budget statement. Unfortunately there had been no opportunity for the House to consider the recommendations of the committee on that point, and therefore he was not justified in altering his revenue estimates. But when the recommendations of that committee came before the House, and if the House agreed to the recommendations, the result would be that his revenue estimates in respect of interest would have to be amended to the extent of £175,000 a year approximately. To that extent only would his revenue estimates for the current financial period fail to be realised, but in respect of no other items He was rather struck that afternoon when he heard his financial pundit over there say that his (Mr. Hull’s) revenue estimates were altogether too pessimistic. He should fight that out with his leader—he meant the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips), who thought that he (Mr. Hull) was altogether too optimistic, for which he was called to task by the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe), who said that the Minister of Finance had understated his revenue by £400,000. Then the grave charge had been made against him by the hon. member for Cape Town Central, and by the press which hon. members opposite controlled and owned, that be Mr. Hull) had in ten or fourteen days been found to have made an under-estimate of £300,000 for the revenue of the year ended December 31 last. He had said that his revenue for the year ending March 31 last was about £300,000 more than he had budgeted for a few weeks earlier. On the face of it might look a tremendous discrepancy, but he had the details before him showing how that sum was made up. He would give the figures to the House, and he would challenge any hon. member of that House, even the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who was always too anxious to criticise, to tell him where there had been any mistake that could have been avoided in any of the estimates which he placed before the House on March 22, 1912. The whole amount concerned was £300,000. With regard to Customs, he found that he had underestimated the total by £9,000. Hon. members would recollect that Customs yielded four and a half millions a year of revenue, and yet when the amount was so small as £9,000, it was characterised as an extraordinary discrepancy.

It is only one month.

It is only one month. Continuing, he said that he was very glad that his hon. friend had made that remark. The revenue officers had the figures up to the end of February, and they advised him to estimate the rest at a certain sum. Now he found that they were wrong to the extent of £9.000 for the one month. Might he tell the experience of his hon. friend when he was Treasurer of the Cape? (Ministerial laughter.) He was Treasurer of the Cape in 1904, when the Customs revenue did not exceed two millions year. His (the speaker’s) Customs revenue came to something like four and a half millions a year. When his hon. friend was Treasurer in 1904, he made his estimate the 10th of March, so that he had to estimate for about three months on a total revenue of two million pounds. What happened to his hon. friend? (Laughter.) Within six or seven weeks after making the estimate he had to come to the House on May 3, and say that he had over-estimated the revenue from this source—over-estimated the revenue—by no less a sum than £165,000. (Ministerial laughter.) That war only one head of revenue, and though be made the estimate within six or seven weeks he found that he was only £166,000 wrong out of a total revenue of two millions. And here he was accused of something that was irregular and something that was immoral, when he under estimated his revenue under one head y merely £9.000. His hon. friend over-estimate mated his revenue, thereby increasing his expenditure, with the approval of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

What about decreases?

I will tell you all by-and-bye. I had the misfortune to read through all these things this afternoon. (Ministerial laughter.) Continuing, he said that his hon. friend also over-estimated his railway revenue—also within six or seven weeks—by no less a sum than £99,000. Then there was also a discrepancy with regard to transfer duties. He over-estimated under that head by £24,000, out of a total of £170,000. He had shown what had happened under three heads. Altogether his hon. friend, within six or seven weeks of making his estimates, found that he had over-estimated to the extent of £400,000.

Shows how bad trade was then.

It shows my hon. friend’s excellent ideas of estimating.

Give the figures under the other heads.

Excise under-estimated by £5,000; posts, telegraphs—a very difficult thing to estimate—£11,000; mining over-estimated by £8,000; licences on trades and vocations under-estimated by £4,000; stamp duties and fees over-estimated by £7,000; transfers on properties and succession duties under-estimated by £21,000; poll tax in Natal underestimated by £1,000; native taxes underestimated by £26,000; pass fees under-estimated by £10,000; quitrents under-estimated by £3,000; rents of Government property by £3,000: sales of Government property by £30,000; departmental services under-estimated by £76,000; fines and forfeitures by £5,000; miscellaneous by £41,000—a total of £300,000.

In ten days?

In ten days. Continuing, he said he would explain why he was so far out in some of the heads. With regard to transfers of property and succession duties, he could form no idea of the bewaarplaatsen figures, for the reason that the negotiations which had been proceeding between the Transvaal Government, the Union Government, and the mining companies for several years had not been completed. In consequence of that, he did not anticipate what did actually happen. Native taxation he under-estimated by £26,000. That, he was informed, was due to the fact that the Native Affairs Department made its collections much earlier in the year than usual. He thought that that was a perfectly reasonable explanation, and one that should be accepted by the House. Pass fees showed an increase of £10.000 over his estimate, and was accounted for by the very large number of natives’ that were on the Witwatersrand during that period. It was notorious that during March the number of natives that were employed on the Witwatersrand was far in excess of any other year—that was for a similar period. He pointed out that even the idea of the mining houses was that the supply of native labour was decreasing. Sales of Government property showed an increase over his estimate of something like £30,000. Here, also, he found himself out, because it was almost impossible to determine the amount that would be received under this head. Interest which showed a very considerable excess over his estimate was due to this fact. The Land Bank, or, rather, all the Land Banks were asked to fall into line, and pay their interest to the Government at a stipulated time. Until this year all the banks used to pay their interest half-yearly at the end of each December and each June. Now the interest for the period ended June. 1912, was paid during March, 1912. Owing to that which he could not foresee, the sum of £66,000 was paid to the Treasury. That did not account for the whole sum. The High Commissioner in London, too, had collected interest far in excess of the sum which he had anticipated. Departmental receipts—the work done by one department for another, and credited to the revenue—were responsible for £76,000, and nearly all the departments contributed to this increase. The increases were: Printing and stationery, £11,000 over estimated; prisons. £3,000; forestry. £5,000; High Commissioner, £2,000; native affairs, £5,000; public works, £4,000; miscellaneous, £6,000. He did not think any reasonable man would say that any Treasurer or any staff of officers could have made a closer estimate of revenue than the estimate he made on March 22.

Some criticism had been directed against him with regard to the bewaarplaatsen. He did not intend, because he believed that this question was sub judice, to discuss the merits of the case that evening, but there seemed to be a great deal of misapprehension in the minds of some of the gentlemen opposite, who claimed to have legal knowledge as to what the position was. The South Africa Act laid down in explicit and clear terms that all revenues from whatever source arising over which the several colonies had at the time of Union power of appropriation, should be vested in the Governor-General, and it was further provided that there should be formed a Railway and Harbour Fund and a Consolidated Revenue Fund, into which should be paid all revenues received by the Governor-General-in-Council. The revenues derivable from the bewaarplaatsen were revenues within the meaning of section 117. All these revenues were directed by that section to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and in pursuance of that section those moneys had all been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and were resting in that fund until such time as Parliament should appropriate them. This Parliament was the only authority that had any power to remove those revenues from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But there was a provision made in the Transvaal Gold Law of 1908, under which the Treasurer was directed to keep the moneys derivable from these bewaarplaatsen in a separate account, not in a separate fund, and the Treasury had instructions, and had opened a separate account, to which these revenues were carried, but he wanted to make it perfectly clear that these moneys were, and properly were, placed in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and would remain in that fund, but kept in a separate account, until this Parliament dealt with them.

But were they placed in a separate account?

said it was perfectly true that the separate account was not opened until this question was raised—(Opposition “Hear, hears”)—but the point was this, that the money had always remained in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and could not be drawn by any authority except the authority of Parliament.

Another question was raised, and on it there seemed to be some conflict of opinion between the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the right hon. the member for Victoria West, the former of whom usually followed the right hon. gentleman in financial matters, as to what the Government should do in regard to the report of the Financial Relations Commission. The Governor-General, in his speech, stated that they hoped to deal with that question during the present session. Later on, when he (the Minister of Finance) delivered his Budget statement, by which time the Government had in their possession the report of the Financial Relations Commission, he said clearly and explicitly that it was the intention of the Government to bring in legislation during the present session to deal with the report of the Commission in accordance with the bulk of the recommendations of the Majority Commissioners. That was the intention of the Government. He might say that a Bill had been prepared and was just emerging now from the printers’ hands and would be introduced into that House, he hoped, before many days were over. He could not understand his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West, when he said that that measure ought not to be introduced this session, and he gathered from what he (Mr. Merriman) said that he desired that a Select Committee should be appointed, and that this Select Committee should take evidence as to what the financial relations should be. Surely the right hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten what the provisions of the South Africa Act were upon that point. (Hear hear.) They had already had a very important Commission upon this question, and that Commission had taken evidence at large, and his right hon. friend surely did not expect that House to appoint another committee or a Select Committee to go over the whole ground again? He thought the House had sufficient information before it in the shape of the recommendations of the Majority Commissioners and the Minority Commissioners to enable them to form an opinion as to what the financial relations should be between the Provinces and the Union. He hoped before the session came to an end that this House would have an opportunity of dealing with this question and would legislate so as to give effect to the Government’s proposals. There was only one other point that he might touch upon. Attention had been called to the very large amount of floating debt which was outstanding. He called attention to that himself during his Budget statement and attention was also called to the large balances which were at present on fixed deposit with various banks. The suggestion had been made that this money should be used for the purpose of redeeming the floating debt. Hon. members who took that line and made the suggestion were not aware that most of this money which was at present with the banks was money that belonged to the railways and that they might be called upon at any moment to pay the money over to the railways either for, betterment or renewals of rolling stock or any of the other purposes for which this money was provided. Therefore, the Public Debt Commissioners had resolved to keep this money in such a tangible form that, should the railways require it, they would be able to have it at a moment’s notice. There was also a sum of between £400,000 and £500,000 of Natal Treasury bills which fell due very shortly, and, of course, money must be kept available to meet those bills. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

then moved, in accordance with notice, that the House resolve itself into committee on the Bill, that the Speaker leave the chair, and that the Chairman have leave to bring up the report to-day.

said that he objected to the motion.

The Bill was, therefore, set down for committee stage on Monday next.

moved the deletion of sub-section (3), which reads as follows: “Title deeds of property hypothecated in favour of the bank shall be deposited with the bank, and shall be retained as long as the property to which they relate remains hypothecated in favour of the bank.” He said that he saw no need to have the title deeds deposited with the bank.

said he hoped the committee would not agree to the deletion of the clause. (Hear, hear.) It must be remembered that the bank was advancing money on more favourable terms than any other institution. It was important to see that the bank was not put to any unnecessary expense when the time came, if it did come, when they had to foreclose on the debtor. The provision in this clause was in force in the Transvaal and it did not cause any inconvenience at all. It did not prevent the debtor passing a second mortgage, but it prevented the debtor destroying his title deeds. He moved to add at the end of sub-section (3): “The mortgagor shall be allowed access to such title deeds for the purpose of registering a subsequent mortgage thereon.”

said he would like to support the Treasurer. The practice prevailed in the Transvaal and worked very well there for the very reason that the Treasurer had outlined. When they levied execution upon property there was enormous expense entailed upon the lender. He hoped the section would not be omitted.

said that all they could expect was a guarantee. They could not touch any person’s property. It was an unheard-of thing to effect the borrowing and handing title deeds over to the bank

opposed the amendment, and said its acceptance would lead to extra expense in connection with duplicate title deeds. The Land Bank, in the Transvaal and other finantial institutions, and even the Orphan Master required the deeds to be deposited when loans were granted.

supported the amendment, saying that if the Land Bank took possesion of the title deeds it might prevent the owner from obtaining a second mortgage. The Land Bank might refuse to give back the title deeds. If the Government were not going to refuse second mortgages, why did not they accept the amendment?

was surprised at the remarks of the last speaker, who was an attorney, and should know what costs arose out of duplicate title deeds. He opposed the amendment.

said that in the case of an irrigation loan in the Cape the Government did not require the deposit of the title deeds. No one was more provident with such documents than the farmer. The amendment should be accepted.

agreed with the hon. members for Somerset and Vryburg. There would be little use made of the Land Bank in the Cape Province if owners were required to deposit their titles with the Land Bank. In the past money had been obtained there at reasonable interest.

did not believe the discussion could be taken as serious. Every bank that lent money in this way did secure itself. Whether the clause was there or not it did not matter.

thought the amendment would give general satisfaction. The bank had nothing to do with the title deeds.

said it was wrong to suppose that costs were only incurred when the deeds were lost. He did not see why the work of the bank’ should be made unnecessarily expensive.

disagreed with the last speaker.

said the bank, under clause 36 of the Bill had the right to sell up a defaulter without appealing to the Court, and this he objected to. An owner would never agree to that.

said if the bank handed over the transfer deeds for purposes of second mortgage, it would not act in accordance with clause 21. The Minister seemed to propose to break the law, which would be setting a bad example. The sub-section should be either omitted or amended.

objected to the excessive rights given to the bank under this clause, and said it was not the custom in the Cape to deposit the titles with the bondholder.

said he was afraid they would never get the Bill into law if such an enormous amount of discussion was allowed on every little clause, and he would like to make an appeal, especially to the hon. members on his side of the House, to curtail the discussion. That one was quite an ordinary clause, and he would point out that he or the Government could give instructions to the bank not to make any advance unless the mortgagor should agree that the title deeds should remain in the possession of the bank, but in deference to members on his side of the House, he would propose to add the words “but the mortgagor shall be allowed access to such title deeds for the purpose of registering a subsequent mortgage thereon.” Referring to a remark by an hon. member, the Minister said the bank was not hostile, but was there for the purpose of helping people; there was no occasion for the hon. member to think it would take up a hostile attitude.

objected to the documents leaving the possession of the owner at all, as he might find this a very serious handicap. He thought the amendment did not go far enough.

thought it was not enough, and moved to add “or other sufficient reason.” He honestly thought the Minister might withdraw the clause altogether. One knew that there was very strong feeling among a lot of farmers in favour of their having the title deeds of their farms with them.

said he also hoped the Minister would allow the clause to be withdrawn, because there was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins). It was not a matter of sentiment. He had never heard of a bond being raised where the title deeds were not handed back to the mortgagor. A man often wanted his deeds for some purpose, and under this Bill he would have to send to Pretoria for them. It was an unheard-of thing. The Government if it wished could easily secure copies of the deeds, which only cost a few shillings.

thought that hon. members forgot that this was a special Bill to give special facilities to the Government in regard to Government money. They could not compare it with an ordinary mortgage. While the possession of title deeds was a convenience it did not give a man any additional legal right. In the form in which the Bill now was, if they did not give the Government these rights under clause 3, the subsequent rights under clause 6 were not of very much use. He looked upon this clause as being very closely in touch with the subsequent clause, and it would be absurd to strain at this gnat in order to swallow the camel that was coming. He thought the Minister could go very much further in his amendment, because sometimes a man was in urgent need of his title deeds, such as when he was drawing up his will and wished to describe his property. At present he would have to send to Pretoria for his deeds in order to do so. Why did not the Minister add to his amendment “or for any other lawful purpose”? He moved that the words be added.

pointed out that no sufficient reasons had been given for the deposit of the title deeds.

said he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town. Castle (Mr. M. Alexander).

could not even yet agree to the clause. There were many cases where it was convenient and necessary for the owner to retain possession of his titles. The bank was intended to help people, and not to confiscate their property.

said he had to confess that he could not understand all the argument. His Ade of the House had frequently been accused of wasting the time of the House, but he thought it was the Government side that was guilty now. He had seen hundreds and hundreds of bonds passed in the Transvaal and he knew that they would not get a bond passed unless they delivered up their title deeds. One would imagine from the discussion that this principle was established to enable the Government to get a lot of money instead of for the purpose of enabling them to lend money.

described the provision of the clause as extraordinary, and asked how it would work in the case of an irrigation loan? It was an unheard-of thing for the mortgagee to require the mortgagor to deposit his titles.

said this provision was found nowhere else, except, perhaps, in the Transvaal. There was never any necessity for the bank to foreclose. He pointed out that the owner of the ground required the title deed practically every day, and therefore there was no necessity for the bank to hold the documents. If the bank held it he could not make use of it.

said that if people would borrow from a Government department, then they must be prepared to meet extraordinary methods.

said that this was not the custom to-day, as it had been years ago. It was a relic of the old days.

The amendment moved by Mr. Myburgh was negatived.

The amendments moved by Mr. Alexander and the Minister of Finance were agreed to.

On clause 22, Mode of amendments, etc.,

moved: In line 63, to omit all the words after “form” to “act,” in line 65.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved: In sub-section (3), line 5, after “case” to insert “solely for farming purposes”: and in line 12 to omit, “without the approval of the Minister.”

The amendment in line 5 was withdrawn.

moved to delete in sub-section (3), line 1, the words, “no advance shall be made for a sum of less than £50, except in special cases, and”. He said the effect of the amendment would be that while the maximum amount was limited that of the minimum would remain unfixed. He thought the usefulness of the Bill would be curtailed by keeping the little man outside the provisions of the Act.

The amendment was negatived.

moved that the following proviso be inserted in sub-section (3), following the words “Governor-General,” line 10: “Provided that the Board shall give preference to applications for advances under five hundred pounds and”.

wanted to know if the Board should discontinue at once the consideration of an application for a sum over £500 as soon as one or more was made for a lesser amount? It would be difficult in practice, he thought, to comply with the proviso.

said that other considerations existed beside that of providing funds for the greatest number. The hon. Minister would have to remember that it was possible for £6,000,000 to be used up in these advances. Against that time arriving provision should be made for the small man by giving him preference. A similar clause existed in the Free State Act, and it had been found to work well.

said he understood the amendment of the member for Cape Town, Central, to mean that when a batch of applications came in those for the lesser amounts would be taken in hand first. The object of the House was to help the small man, that being the case, he thought preference to the extent suggested ought to be given.

moved that the Land Bank should be allowed to lend amounts up to £2,500, instead of up to £2,000, as was the case at present. He pointed out that this had been the case in the Transvaal, and referred to what was done in Australia and New Zealand, and contended that if the amendment was accepted the Board would be able to do a considerable amount of good work.

thought that some little consideration should be given to the small men.

said that the Free State law contained a provision stating that in recommending advances the Board should give preference to applicants who showed that they were in urgent need of loans not exceeding £500. He would move that as an amendment, only he knew that the Minister would not accept it.

The amendments moved by Mr. P. G. W. Grobler and Mr. Jagger were negatived.

pointed out that the limit of advance could be exceeded to any extent with the approval of the Minister.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis, in line 12, was agreed to.

On clause 23, Securities which may be taken,

said advances could be made to the extent of 60 per cent. of the value of the property. He thought this should be limited to 50 per cent.

moved to insert in line 16 after “township,” the words “with the exception of water erven.”

on this clause, but perhaps later on he might be able to do so. They ought to stick to the main object of the Bill. Once they got to giving mortgages on town properties they would have the same experiences as the Transvaal had—plenty of losses.

asked if the Minister would accept the principle of adding the value of the improvements to the value of the land for the purpose of arriving at the 60 per cent. up to which advances might be made. He moved the insertion of the words “together with the value of the improvements to be effected.”

I would like to see the amendment on the paper.

said that the clause spoke of the “fair agricultural and pastoral value of the land.”

said that in the Cape Act it was provided that the advance should not exceed two-thirds of the value, and that “for the purpose of arriving at such value the Board may in its discretion add the value of any improvements specified in this clause?’ In the Cape Act they specially allowed the Board to take into account the value of the improvements to be effected.

said he thought it was rather dangerous to add these improvements to the value for the purpose of advances. If a man put a house on his farm, the value of that house might be added.

The amendments of the hon. member for Barkly and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth were negatived.

moved to add the following new sub clauses (3), (4), (5), and (6): (3) No advance upon security of Crown land the purchase price whereof is partly paid, shall exceed fifty per cent of the amount already paid as part of the purchase price, but the Board may advance an additional amount up to fifty per cent. on the value of improvements made since the agreement of purchase, and such value shall be determined by the Board: Provided that, in the event of any such agreement being cancelled and the land resumed by the Crown, there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund so much of the advance and the interest due thereon as the bank is unable to recover from the mortgagor. (4) No advance shall be made upon the security of land held under lease from the Crown unless the lease be duly registered in a Deeds Office against the title deeds of the property, nor unless all covenants and conditions on the part of the lessee contained or implied in the lease have been, at the date of the application, complied with. No advance referred to in this sub-section shall exceed fifty per cent. of the value of the lessee’s interest in the lease, and such value shall be determined by the Board: Provided that in the event of the lease being cancelled and the land resumed by the Crown there shall be repaid to the bank out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund so much of any advance made upon the security of the lease and the interest due thereon as the bank is unable to recover from the mortgagor. (5) For the purposes of this section “improvements” shall include standing sugar crops, and in assessing the value of a lessee’s interest under a lease from the Crown the Board may, in its discretion, take into account the value of permanent improvements on the holding and of such standing sugar crops as will last during the period for which the advance was made. (6) An advance made under subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall be secured in such manner and in such form as the Board may prescribe. The hon. member said he was asking for nothing new in these sub-sections. The points he wished to introduce in the Bill were in the Natal Act of 1907, or the amending Act of 1908. Mr. Clayton went on to explain how the clause would work in reference to advances on the security of Crown land, part of the purchase price of which had been paid, and remarked that under this provision in Natal 87 loans had been made. He next dealt with the provisions as to advances on the security of land held under lease from the Crown. This provision worked so well in Natal that he could see no reason why it should not be put into the Bill. He would like to explain what had taken place in the working of the Board in the past when the Act first came into use. After a year it was found that the settlers whom the Government were desirous of assisting could not obtain loans on account of the conditions of the Act, so an amending Act was passed to remedy this. These planters were selected by the Land Board for their character and ability and after a very strict examination, and when it became necessary to assist these men with money, both the Parliament and Natal recognised the advisability of this measure and passed a law. Crops were inspected by the Board’s own value, who reported what amount should be lent upon them. The Board obtained from the owner of the crop a power of attorney to draw money from the mill to which the crop was sent to pay the annual instalments. He (Mr. Clayton) was informed that besides the first settlers there were now 200 others, and these men would also require loans, and they had gone upon the land expecting that they would be advanced this money. The money already advanced amounted to £13,000, and of that sum £4,010 had already been repaid, and some of the loans had already been repaid in full. Under these circumstances and seeing that there were so many settlers anticipating these loans, he hoped the House would agree to his motion and not take away this privilege. The point had been raised that the crops might be destroyed by fire, but sugar-cane was not destroyed as it was recurrent. It might be asked why didn’t the other banks advance the money, but these sugar planters have no land for security.

spoke in support of the hon. member for Zululand, and expressed the opinion that the Government of the Union was under an obligation to these settlers to do what they could for them in the matter.

said he wanted to give a little consolation to the hon. member for Zululand by telling him he was not quite prepared to accept the amendment as it stood, but he would go a long way towards it. He had been able to satisfy himself as to how the clause had worked in Natal and the information which he had gained was that which Mr. Clayton had given to the House, A very large number of small settlers had been induced to take up this sugar land from the Government and they had turned it into very fruitful land. He was advised by a gentleman in Natal, who had had the working of the advances, that the security was absolutely good. It was intended to make advances only upon Crown land—land which had been bought by the settlers from the Crown, and to limit the advances to fifty per cent of the money already paid to them. On the top of that they could make a further advance in respect of improvements to the extent of sixty per cent of the value of the improvements. He could not accept the sixty per cent., and he Suggested that the hon. member should reduce that to fifty per cent. So far as standing sugar cane was concerned, the bank may —but there was no compulsion—make an advance in respect to sugar cane. He was prepared to accept the clause, provided the hon. member for Zululand would alter sixty per cent to fifty per cent.

I am quite prepared to agree to that.

I suppose this principle applies to others besides sugar people?

I am talking of Natal. In reply to a further question he said it would also apply to Cape Colony, the Free State, and the Transvaal.

But there is no provision in the Act. Proceeding, he said he would not apply to anybody else, and he did not know why the Minister was doing what he was except for political reasons.

Do not impute that

That is the only way I can account for it. He had refused to apply the principle earlier in the afternoon. The security was therefore purely the standing crops, and standing crops was the very highest speculating security. He was not in the least anxious to prevent them from assisting the settlers, but he wanted the principle extended to other settlers; and he could not for the life of him understand why the Minister should jump up and accept the proposal of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Clayton), after having refused a similar one from another hon. member.

You think it is political corruption?

I did not say that; but it is political. The Minister gave no reason.

Is advances on vineyards in clause 19 also political?

He gets these as security on the land.

Here also.

No, he does not. These people do not own the land. They are tenants. He gets the security on the lease. That is the point. Proceeding, he said he had asked the Minister to take security on the improvements, but he said “No.” Then his hon. friend (Mr. Clayton), who, he thought, was sitting on the wrong side of the House, proposed his amendment, and the Minister said at once he would accept it, and would meet his hon. friend as much as possible. Well, it was not in the interests of this country, or in the interests of the Bill, or in the interests of the principle of the Bill.

that the two provisos he had moved increased expenditure.

moved to defer the consideration of these sub-clauses.

The motion was agreed to, and clause 23 deferred.

On clause 24, Interest on advances and times of repayment of principal and interest,

moved the deletion of clause 24, and said he would also move the deletion of clause 25 Under this clause it was proposed to make advances to applicants for five years in the first place, and then after five years for a further period of 25 years, making 30 years in all. There was nothing in this clause by which they could compel a borrower to repay the money before the end of ten years. There were cases where a man did not need the money for 30 years, and when a man wanted money for a purpose which would enable him to repay it in the course of a few years the bank should say he could only have the money for, say five years, and must pay it back in instalments within that period. To lend money for 30 years was not a business principle, and he did not think it was sound. Therefore he proposed to put in the following clause: “Advances may be made for such periods not exceeding 30 years as the Board may determine. After considering the period the Board shall be guided by the purpose for which such advances are to be used.” That, proceeded the hon. member, followed the principle laid down in the Cape Act, which left it entirely to the discretion of the Board to advance money for such time as they thought fit. The same principle was contained in the Free State Act. Why should a man who required a loan for a certain purpose, when it is well within the knowledge of the Board that he could repay it in a shorter time, have it for the longer period?

moved in paragraph (a), line 31, to omit “in advance”; in line 33 to omit all words after “per annum” to the end of the paragraph.

said he thought that the course proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was the most sensible. It left it to the bank to deal with each case as it saw fit. The still-born Act of the Cape contained the following on the subject: “Repayments shall be made to the Board on such half-yearly instalments as may be agreed upon.” That was common-sense. The Minister wanted to tie up the Board with five different sets of instructions as to the nature of repayments. That was simply a waste of time.

hoped that the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not be accepted. If people could not be jumped on from time to time, it would add to the popularity of the bank.

said he hoped the amendment would not be pressed, and said that the course suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was found impracticable. He thought the one system should be pursued. He saw no reason why they should depart from the principle of the Bill, which was that the loans should be for a fixed period. If the amendment were adopted, it would necessitate the Board fixing the term of a loan. As long as the stock was on the farm it did not much matter how long the payment was deferred, as the security was always there.

did not agree with the argument of the hon. member for Rustenburg. No one knew what was going to happen to stock in thirty years’ time. Such a period was not reasonable to ask for in connection with farm stock. He considered that every farmer ought in much less than that be able to pay for his flocks and herds. “Why, goodness!” exclaimed Sir Percy, “the man’s grandson will be deriving profit from the stock.” It was more than a generation for which they proposed to grant loans.

said the strongest argument that could be used against the amendment was that where the term of the loan was fixed, there could be no favouritism. If the Court were called upon to use its discretion, and in doing so fixed one loan for a period of three years and another for ten years, they would be subject to a charge of showing favour. Take the case of a man who got £500 with which to buy stock. The Board would satisfy itself that the money was used for that purpose. Surely the man and the Board were so much better off when they knew that the stock was on the farm.

said borrowers should know exactly what they had to repay each year, including interest. If the money were advanced for the purchase of stock he would suggest that for the first two years the borrower should pay interest only. His proposal was a perfectly sound one and he would press it.

said they were all very anxious to help the borrowers, but the latter should be induced to pay off their debts as quickly as possible. With regard to the question of an actuary, they could put that out of their minds. This was not done by an actuary. It was a sound principle to leave things in the hands of the Board.

pointed out that a man, by the purchase of profitable stock, might be able to pay off the loan in five years, and under these very easy terms they might not have sufficient money to go round. Surely the object was to get men started, but they did not want to maintain them.

said that certainly they would require more capital if the clause remained as it was. The time would come when the State might say that there was no more money.

The amendment was agreed to.

put clause 6, as amended, and declared the “Noes” had it.

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