introduced by Dr. de Jager and Sir William Macintosh, made, and subscribed to, the oath, and took his seat.

as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

Report to be considered in committee on 5th March.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Bill., viz., Messrs. Christie, Close, Deane, Dr. de Jager, Mr. J. J. Pienaar, Dr. Stals and Mr. Vosloo.

Last night when this matter was under discussion, I made certain criticisms of the Minister of Finance in regard to what I considered the disguised form in which this item appeared. Owing to the somewhat unusual fact of my absence from the House yesterday afternoon, I was not aware that the Minister had made a statement explaining that there had been this oversight on his part. The Minister thought I had not been fair in ignoring the explanation made. I would like to assure him I did not know of that explanation. Had I known of it, I would have accepted it as I told him personally last night after I heard of it. I just want to assure him in the House of my regret that I should unwittingly have appeared to be unfair to him.

I want first of all to answer hon. members opposite about the diamonds which can be picked up by hand. I did not mean that diamonds to the value of £10,000, or what not, could literally be picked up on the surface, although on my visit a diamond worth £80 was picked up on the surface.

Where is it?

They did not even have the decency to offer it to me. The same morning a similar diamond was found on the surface. I am assured by people able to judge that when there has been a strong wind many valuable diamonds of six or seven carats, worth £12 a carat, or more, can be picked up.

Is that on Government ground? Is it closed?

Of course the Crown land is closed, hut they can be picked up there as well. The hon. member possibly does not quite understand the position. The area which was prospected does not necessarily embrace the 100 claims. If we proclaim, they have the right of pegging off their 20 claims. There are five discoverers’ rights and each discoverer has the right to 20 claims if we decide on proclamation. The 20 claims is but a small portion of the area, and immediately adjoining them there will be very rich ground, as shown by the prospecting work done by the Merensky people. I can assure the House that we need not even go further than the part where the block of 20 claims will probably be pegged to be fully justified in working the ground, not even to speak of the rest of the area. What I mean by “handpicked” is as follows: It is well known in the Union now, and also outside of it, that the part along the sea there is astonishingly rich, if we did not decide on establishing a State diggings there then people would break the law, and they need not go deep to pick up diamonds. Sometimes it is necessary to go as deep as my desk, sometimes two and a half times that depth. But the ground that is very soft and by “handpicked” is meant that if the ground is turned over with a spade the diamonds can be seen with the naked eye, and no washing machine is necessary to expose them. Besides the 100 claims of the Merensky group there will be many more rich ones. The whole area will probably embrace 30,000 claims. I do not say that they will all be as rich as the ground which has already been prospected, but there will undoubtedly be just as many rich places. Therefore, if a spade is used for digging the diamonds immediately show themselves, and that is what we understood by “handpicked.” What are we to do if we do not establish State diggings? I mentioned last year that in my own hands I picked up £600 worth of diamonds within an hour and without being occupied at it constantly. They got a native to dig there and I could see the diamonds exposed.

They were underground.

Two of them on the surface were of about seven carats. I think the area is about three miles long, and about five miles broad from the coast eastwards. But another important point is that the Merensky syndicate in the course of prospecting alone took out of the ground stones to the value of £150,000 to £160,000, and I do not think they ever had a washing machine there, except in one case at a small block where there was a large one.

Did Merensky use coloured people?

I think that the people in Merensky’s employ were about half European and half coloured. They are now agreeable, if we come to an understanding, to employ whites only.

Are they working?

No, fortunately it was not possible under the old Cape Act, which in this respect differs from the old Transvaal Act. I have just received a note from Dr. Pirow, Government mining engineer, that the length of the gully along the coast is about 90 miles. Fortunately the old Cape Act applied there, so that after discovery, and after the issue of the discoverer’s certificate the holders were not entitled to dig or even to peg off claims until the ground was proclaimed. In the Transvaal the law on this point was just the opposite; there three months had to elapse and if within that time a proclamation was issued, then people were at once entitled to peg and work the ground, hut if after three months it was not proclaimed then they had the right ipso facto of working after the three months. That was one of the greatest difficulties there, and why the new Act for the Union was brought into conformity with the more sensible provisions of the old Cape Act. People cannot work now until the ground is proclaimed, including the claims to which they are entitled. Of course in respect of Namaqualand, we have now, before proclamation in each case, to make an agreement in advance with the discoverers to limit their production or to restrict them under the Act. I do not wish to anticipate matters now. Negotiations are proceeding, and the people seem prepared to put themselves absolutely in the hands of the Government, and to deposit every diamond found with the Government, and to leave it to our discretion as to the disposal of what is found on the 100 claims. An agreement will contain the definite stipulation that they will in all respects be subject to the restrictions of Section 115 of the new Act, notwithstanding the agreement we are negotiating.

What supervision is there in the area.?

There are police and the discoverers have guards and caretakers of the prospecting work already done by them. Moreover the area is fenced. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) criticized the Government yesterday in connection with the State diggings. I want to refer the hon. member to his immediate neighbour, the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col Sir David Harris), in connection with what he said about this affair. I also have a report from Dr. Rodgers, the chief geologist, who was sent there, and who reports as follows. [Extract quoted.] We now understand that the area where diamonds will be found will possibly extend 90 miles along the coast. The Government is actually afraid of all the consequences of this, and if we follow the advice of the people who say that we must throw open the area to prospecting where shall we be? I read further from the report. [Extract quoted.] And then further there are the statements of Dr. Pirow, the Government mining engineer. He says in his departmental report that a portion is so rich, and so easy to be mined, that in his opinion it ought not to go out of State control and he thinks the Minister should consider whether it is possible for the small area which is so very rich to be worked under Government supervision.

Is it private ground, or Crown land?

Crown land. Now it has been asked here what the position will be with regard to water, and whether it will be available. Within four miles of this place, close to the bank of the Orange River, we shall get so much water that according to calculation it will be quite sufficient for the number of people we propose employing, and the work we propose to do. Then the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) asked about the licence rights which were supposed to have been obtained before prospecting work was stopped by proclamation. It is an old point which was raised last year in debate. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) raised it repeatedly, and I then made it clear that during the last 30 to 40 years, hundreds of thousands of pounds were lost in the Transvaal on prospecting work, but never yet has it been acknowledged in any legislation that the mere fact of prospecting gold would give rise to vested rights. Such rights only arise when a discovery is made. I do not want to go further into the matter. There is a test case in the Transvaal court where an order is being asked against the Government in connection with similar prospecting losses in Namaqualand. I was also asked whether the State is itself subject to the provisions of Section 115 of the Act. It is quite clear, of course, that section 115 does not apply to the State. The State has the executive power and must enforce the restrictions. How can the State restrict itself? I have however already explained that the State has such a great interest in the diamond market, and in the industry generally, that it is unthinkable that it would throw enormous quantities of diamonds on the market. Then the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) suggested that we should make the wealth of Namaqualand, or a part of it, at any rate, available for the diggers of Lichtenburg, and of the whole country.

I asked what was to become of them.

I should think that we ought to be extremely thankful, and that member as well, that there are no diggers at all in Namaqualand. I have the deepest sympathy with the unfortunate people, and we are doing, and will do, what we can. But what will it avail if I build up a worse evil for the future? I have already explained during the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that we would prohibit members of the public who were not previously diggers from coming as diggers, because then the ultimate evil would be three, four, five times as great as it is to-day. If assistance is to be given to the people, then we must find another means and grant aid in another direction. We are now busy preparing for the proclamation of certain farms, but we shall restrict it to people who, within a year of the 1st March, were diggers and held licences. If we did not do so, we should have a rush from among the general public and would never reduce the evil. Now I want to call the hon. member’s attention to section 51 which he himself also agreed to. He will see there that we are making provision for a lottery as far as lessees are concerned. We are busy preparing the machinery for the lottery.

Perhaps we shall have to make special provision.

We have just passed the Act, and are we now to start amending it?

A new situation has arisen.

Then we shall never get to finality. The hon. member says that there are 30,000 diggers with certificates, although all have not got licences at present. I do not agree with the figures of the hon. member. My official information is that, in the whole Union, there are not more than 10,000 diggers to-day. In the report of the mining commissioner the statement is also made that there are possibly people who have diggers’ certificates without being licensed, but that will not account for the difference of 20,000 between the two amounts. The larger the number, however, the more impossible becomes the hon. member’s proposal to throw the land in Namaqualand open to them. The figure of 10,000 already represents double for the past two years.

What figure does the diggers’ union give?

They did not give a figure, although they promised to do so. If I am to assume that it is 30,000 how are we going to satisfy the 30,000 people in Namaqualand? If we take 500 of the 30,000, the large number remaining will be very much dissatisfied, and I cannot see the fairness of taking 500. Suppose we take the 1,000 then it will arouse the greatest dissatisfaction among the remaining 29,000. We already have the position at Lichtenburg that competent people say that the ground there is worked so unsystematically and unwisely, that at least a further third of the wealth remains in the ground. In the Transvaal we have numbers of farms that can be proclaimed without further prospecting being necessary. How can we take the people away from the Transvaal and other digging areas to Namaqualand? Let us rather give them the farms within the districts where digging already exists. We are busy doing that. I would regard it as absolutely criminal if the Government were to take away thousands from Lichtenburg, and let them go to Namaqualand. It would be the most shortsighted and senseless policy that any Government could ever follow. The hon. member talks as if we have already harshly restricted the poor diggers. Can he mention a single case of restriction? Will he be so good as to point out any restriction of the diggers? He speaks about the restriction of the alluvial yield. Have we issued a proclamation under section 115 yet? Has the figure on the maximum production of the entire alluvial diggings ever yet been announced? Of course, as I have already told hon. members, enough farms have been prospected for the next 18 months or two years. The Government is considering the fixing of the amount of production. Of course we shall restrict in the case of large producers who produce £100,000 a month, and we have already taken steps in that direction. I have already mentioned Klein Zee, where we have restricted the production to £6,000 a month, although they have found a hole there out of which they took as much as £10,000 in one month. The Government intends to restrict every digger in future if an enormously rich hole is found. We can do this in individual cases under section 115. Take the Carlis case. He ordered a machine costing £40,000. He discovered enormous riches on a kopje on the farm Welverdiend, and if we would allow him he could produce up to £200,000 a month. Is it not the clear duty of the Government to restrict a man in such a case, and to say that, instead of the people who have already made so much money, the ordinary small man shall get a chance, and the riches which the rich man takes out of it shall be restricted to a reasonable amount? In conclusion I would like to say that no one has referred to the evil more strongly than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), when we were considering the Bill. He impressed upon the Government on every occasion last year that we must look after the interests of the State. I find from Hansard that, in my second reading speech, I clearly said that I agreed with the hon. member, and that steps must be taken to protect the interests of the State, and the two sections which particularly protect those interests are 74 and 75. Section 74 refers to leases, and section 75 to State diggings. I find from Hansard that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked how we proposed to restrict large yields at Lichtenburg and such places, and to prevent their getting topheavy. I mentioned that it could be done by State diggings, by leasing the ground, or by lottery. I also remember—I have not had the time to read through “Hansard”—that there was no doubt or vagueness that in the particular case of Alexander Bay the Government intended to establish a State digging, and I suggest that no suitable alternative proposal, which was sound, and could be carried out, was made by members of the Opposition. They suggested nothing.

I could not quite follow my hon. friend at the close of his speech, but we had no idea he was going to start State mining at Alexander Bay. We have not urged the Government to transport diggers from Lichtenburg. That came from the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). I am afraid thousands will go without assistance from the Government. This thing has been advertised the world over. Alexander Bay has been called the treasure chest, another Minister calls it an El Dorado. That is all over South Africa to-day and no doubt in Europe also to-day I have not the slightest doubt that hundreds of men will turn their eyes to this treasure chest. But that is not what I got up for, I got up to warn my hon. friend. He said there were two policemen in charge—

I said “a few.”

Well, you want to put a strong guard up there and I strongly urge my friend to take steps to set a guard there. We must keep strangers away from the place where they can pick up diamonds by hand.

The Minister last night told the committee that he was of the opinion there was no distress and starvation on the diggings. An article has appeared in a paper which is a supporter of the Minister—in “Die Burger”—under the heading “Hongersnood heers op delwerye” and if what appears in this paper is true we have a condition on the diggings worse than anything than has ever happened in South Africa. I do not know whether “Die Burger” tells the truth. There are men in the House who say it does and men on the same side who say it does not. But this reads true, and no man could pen these words unless he had an extraordinarily vivid imagination or unless he was out to cause trouble in South Africa. He says [original Dutch quoted]. That is that 25 per cent. of the diggers to-day are starving. The children cannot go to school because they have got no clothes. Typhoid is rife, and one day 32 went down with dysentery. He goes on to say that people are selling their homes and they are living under sacks put on to twigs and unless something is done there will be a catastrophe there. He also said, and this I do not believe-—if the Minister will go to the diggings he will be torn to pieces. I do not believe that, but I do say this committee cannot pass over it as lightly as the Minister does. From what I know of the Minister he would never say anything in this House unless he believed it, and I think he must have got the wrong information. I therefore call attention to these items. It must be proved it is right or that it is wrong. We cannot sit with our hands folded. Of course there is a good deal of exaggeration about the number of people there. We were told last night that there were 30,000 people there. Let us say that there were 20,000. This means that 5,000 of these people are starving. Something should be done, and I do ask the Minister to go into this matter. I have always respected the Minister during the many years I have known him. I believe he is one of the strongest and best Ministers of Mines we have ever had. I want to ask the Minister if he will go into this question and send somebody up to see what is going on there. Parliament cannot stand by while a lot of people are starving. It is said that a lot of these people are willing to go away if some assistance is given them. In regard to the question of State mining, I want to congratulate the Minister and the Government on what they are doing. After all, this is not “socialism in our time.” It is no more “socialism in our time” than the selling of brandy under the South African Party Government at the railway buffet was “socialism in our time.” This is not “State socialism in our time” it is State capitalism, which is quite a different thing. The Government are to be congratulated because if they were to lease this ground, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) asked them to do, they would never be able to control it. I am told that these diamonds are to be found in clusters worth thousands of pounds. From the diggers’ point of view, I am glad that the Minister is controlling this digging. I find from the report of the Commissioner of Revenue that in 1924 the individual digger got £7 10s. per carat for his stones. To-day he is getting 40s. a carat for his diamonds and he cannot sell them. If this ground were thrown open, what is going to happen to the diamond industry of South Africa? The greatest disservice that has ever been done to the diamond industry of this country has been done by this debate. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who has done an enormous amount of good service for South Africa, does not know what an amount of dis-service he has done by this debate.

How so?

I will tell you why. I make bold to say that in the London papers to-day you will find double-column articles about diamonds being found all over South Africa. If hon. members had done the correct thing, they would have seen the Minister and discussed the matter with him. The greatest dis-service has been done by this debate to the diamond mines of South Africa. You have told everybody that diamonds can be picked up here like shells on the sea shore.

Who said that? The Minister said that.

Hon. members on the Opposition benches are responsible. The Minister had to make that statement. My hon. friend, who interrupted me just now, was not here last night. He was probably somewhere up on the De Waal Drive near the Café de Flame. The hon. member did not even hear the debate. It was forced upon the Minister. He had to show why he was putting 60 men on to these diggings to do handpicking. He was forced to tell the House the story and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris), who is one of the oldest members of this House, got up and warned his own side that they were going too far. They went galloping over the cliffs, as they always do. [Time limit.]

I think that there is a slight misunderstanding. I said last night that the Government or the Minister was restricting the diggers, but I did not in the least suggest that they were restricting them under Section 115. What I wanted to bring out was quite another point, a much deeper point, namely, the restriction on the digger as to the work he may do. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has just quoted an article in “Die Burger” on the troubles of the people, the famine on the diggings, etc. One of the great reasons why the need is so great is because the diggers are so restricted in their work. Let me explain what the position is to-day. The digger may no longer, as a few years ago, avail himself of financial help in his work. These people often have no house, no food, no clothes, nothing. Then a shopkeeper or a diamond buyer comes and says: “Here is £10, work the claim and give me a percentage.” Or a fellow digger comes and says: “Here is £10 or £15, work my claim on a percentage.” The man is now so restricted that he has no way out. As hon. members know he may not work in partnership, nor in association, nor in a syndicate.

Can you give me a case where work in partnership is forbidden?

No, I can say that in many cases partnerships did actually exist and it is doubtful if they are permitted by law. There is however no doubt that the man according to the provisions of the law cannot get assistance. That is the great thing. The people are forced into distress, and cannot be assisted. They are pushed into misery and cannot get assistance.

We issued a warning against it last year.

What is the use of a warning, if they would have had nothing in any case? Until the clear statement yesterday, all had their eyes turned to Namaqualand. Warnings do no good. The digger remains there as long as a hope exists that he will eventually have a share in the Eldorado of which the Minister spoke. Take the people at Grasfontein. I distrusted the matter and said that in my opinion not 5 per cent. would get paying ground, and that within fourteen days they would have no money left to take their property away. That has literally come true. I see from “Die Burger” that within 24 hours 32 cases of enteric fever were discovered.

The people knew that beforehand, and themselves applied for the proclamation of Grasfontein.

But what way out have they got? Nothing has been suggested to them to get out of the difficulty. The Minister has now stated that certain areas would probably be thrown open, and only diggers in those areas will be permitted to work there and no diggers from outside may come in. This causes people to remain there. I want to warn the Minister. The people will hesitate to leave a certain place because, unless they have been registered as diggers within the area for six months, they cannot get any ground there. They cannot go to another area and get registered. We can therefore understand their not going away. I agree with the Minister that any digging on a particularly large scale in Namaqualand will be calamitous. My request is only to give the diggers there also a slight opportunity. Otherwise another way out will have to be found for the poor people. Undoubtedly the diggings were a solution of unemployment to a large extent. Thousands of people who were unemployed got work there.

The result eventually is their sinking still deeper.

What other solution does the Minister suggest? They are mostly uneducated people, who, throughout history, have been thrown into a state which they cannot remedy. What other opportunity is there for them to make a living?

There are people who have left a decent living to go to the diggings.

Not the majority. The large mass of diggers, certainly quite 50 per cent., have absolutely been forced there by fate. I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that the Government will be faced by the necessity of taking steps, and of providing more than £650 for relief. I cannot say whether Namaqualand is a way out. I do not know Namaqualand. The Minister will anyhow be alleviating the distress if he takes even only a few hundred people there. Can they not be put on a farm? I am certain that numbers of landowners are quite prepared to hand over their farms to diggers to work there, and it can be done under proper control by the Government. The people must leave there, and the Minister will have to proclaim a number of farms if they may not go to Namaqualand. The sooner the Minister does so the better, because they have to leave Lichtenburg; they will not go to Namaqualand if they can get a farm near Lichtenburg. There are enough farms that have been prospected and can be thrown open, and I urge the Minister to do so.

We have been busy the last three weeks surveying farms for the lottery. Does the hon. member wish rushes to take place again?

I do not know, but the other method will be very expensive. The people there are losing hope, and steps must be taken.

In November they said that if Grasfontein were proclaimed they would be quite satisfied.

I do not know who said that, on whose behalf it was said.

I just wish to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). He has a very sharp and venomous tongue, but it is a pity that he does not use it more in the interests of our people. When he uses it always reacts on himself. He said that the leader of the Opposition had called the attention of the world so much to the excess of diamonds in Namaqualand, but it was not the leader of the Opposition, but came from himself and his party and members on the Government benches, and the Minister of Mines. Therefore when they say something it is fathered on to us. No one knows the position as the Minister of Mines does. He told us that the diamonds were a surplus quantity there. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) said that he did not find diamonds there at a single place. Why then is it said that we published to the world that Namaqualand was full of diamonds? As if he wanted to state that we were out to slump the diamond market. The Minister of Mines also said that he took no notice of it, and still less of his own party. It is a hopeless position for the Minister to take no interest in motions which are introduced to suggest something. Nothing is acceptable to him. We can call attention to grievances but he takes no notice of members of the House.

I clearly added to my statement, “If it is clear to me that two and two make four.”

In many cases, the Minister will admit, although two and two make four the two and two must first be put together to make four. We want legislation which can be carried out, and will be beneficial to the population. The Act we passed is causing loss. Under old statutes we created a state of affairs, and now suddenly by a stroke of a pen it is all destroyed by the new Act. That is reckless. The Minister will not allow Namaqualand to be worked, because he says that conditions of Lichtenburg will be repeated there. No more diamonds must be produced in order not to spoil the market. But then the Government opens a State mine carte blanche, out of which just as much can be taken as it thinks fit. And will the general population benefit by it? The result of that mine will be that diamonds in other parts of the country will depreciate in value. How can the Government say that it is helping the poor man to make a living out of diamonds if it opens a State mine itself? As a result of a new mine our people at Lichtenburg, Grasfontein and Krugersdorp will be the only sufferers. I hope, however, the Minister will proclaim farms at Krugersdorp. He said that if he issued a proclamation in a neighbourhood then only a digger there who had certificates would be allowed to look for diamonds there. Such a person must have had a licence for at least six months and worked there as a digger. It will produce the greatest dissatisfaction in the world. The Minister will of course localize places. If diamonds are found at Krugersdorp they will be for the people in the district of Krugersdorp, and at Ventersdorp for the people there. Those districts contain many poor people to-day, but they will have no chance if they have not been licensed diggers in the prescribed area. It will create many difficulties. What the Government is doing in Namaqualand, it will possibly be able to do in other parts as well, and establish State mines. It will be a good thing for the Treasury, and the Minister of Finance will get a large revenue from it, but the population who live to-day on looking for diamonds will not benefit by it. The Minister cannot say he is putting no restriction on the diggers. We know that proclamations are issued. People who have put large sums into prospecting, etc., have suddenly had to abandon their schemes, and have lost much money. Under the Act we shall not really be assisting the man who needs it.

References have been made here to the poverty at Lichtenburg, and I want to say a few words about it. About thirty years ago I was on the Vaal River where diamonds were found at that time. What is taking place at Lichtenburg to-day occurred there thirty years ago. Hon. members talk of the sad conditions, but at that time I saw people living in holes, using sacks for blankets and tin for roofing. That is the usual state of affairs on diggings. About three years ago I saw the same thing at Bloemhof. Anyone who has experience of it will understand the present condition. The people go to the diggings in large numbers and of course they cannot all find diamonds. The result is that they have to suffer from hunger and poverty. As regards the reports about conditions at Lichtenburg, I may say that they are exaggerated. The people there are not so poor. I have seen people from Lichtenburg and they say it is not so bad. There is always poverty on diggings, but to represent it as if thousands of people were dying of hunger is not right. I know there are people who are in need, but, as stated, that always happens on diggings. I admit that conditions have become a little more difficult since the coming into force of the new Act. Syndicates and companies have been formed, the people have prospected and it has now all been stopped and the diggings have naturally retrogressed for that reason. The Minister, however, warned the people that it would happen. They knew it just as I knew it. But to come here to the House to-day and paint the conditions as terrible, is unjustifiable. As the Minister said, officials are surveying farms in the Transvaal and later on these will be proclaimed. Now hon. members say: Throw Namaqualand open. What would happen if we threw Namaqualand open to the diggers? The conditions would be worse than at Lichtenburg. We should have the worst part of the population there. It lies in a corner of the desert. A large section of the diggers would not find any diamonds there and the distress would be worse than on the existing diggings. Then hon. members would come to the House again and say that the people there must he assisted, and that women and children were starving. Hon. members must not exaggerate the reports about poverty. There is always want on the diggings. The matter is being painted too black. Shortly before I left home I spoke to people from the diggings and they confirmed my view. I should like the Minister to proclaim those farms that are being surveyed as quickly as possible. We must prevent persons prospecting and digging on their own farms with the result that they are worked out before proclamation. That state of things has now fortunately been stopped. People have from Europe formed syndicates and worked the ground which was proclaimed for the diggers. It will now not be permitted again. It is futile to plead to-day for the improvement of the position. All I want to see is that the Minister, as promised, throws open to the diggers as soon as possible the farms that are being surveyed.

The part of the Diamond Act which we passed last year was twofold in respect to its main purpose, namely in the first place to build up the diamond market for the Union, and in the second place to render the alluvial diggings available, more particularly for the poor man. Now I always said on the diggings that what they were saying about the Minister was severe and not quite fair. I said that as long as it was my conviction that the Minister adopted the standpoint that the alluvial diggings must be for the poor man, I would stand by him. Last night we heard from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the Minister was the cause of losing many votes for our party, because he was fighting the poor man. I am thankful for it, and very thankful that the hon. member said it. If one of our party had said it, one could say that he had done it to praise his own side, but the hon. member for Standerton said that the Minister was responsible for our losing many votes, because he (the Minister) was looking after the poor man. Those votes which we are losing are the sort of votes of Gawes and we cannot with a clean conscience lose them so long as we do right towards the poor digger and stand by him. In connection with the State diggings in Namaqualand, I told the people in Lichtenburg that we must pray that Namaqualand should not be thrown open to the general public. The small digger would have got into distress if that had been done, and thousands also if they had ever reached there, would have found that the market was already down and out. I consider that Namaqualand can never be thrown open to the ordinary digger. A handful of people will get work and the rest, in consequence of the yield in diamonds, will go under. I was astonished at what the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said: “Why should the State, and not the people, reap the benefit?” How the hon. member for Witwatersberg can divide the State and the people I cannot understand. I can indeed understand that his Government would possibly have used the proceeds to make war, but under the Nationalist party Government the proceeds are used for irrigation works, etc., from which the people reap the benefit. After the explanation of the Minister of Finance yesterday I am quite satisfied. I was always greatly in favour of a State digging because I felt that we would here possibly have a chance of turning the alluvial diggings, what we regard as an evil (although I do not say that it is so) by indirect means into a blessing to the poor whites in the country by means of State diggings. I of course want to protest against the statements made last night—I do not know whether they were intentional or not—by the hon. members for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in connection with their opposition to a State digging. They said that one of their reasons for opposing it was that they did not see how the Minister could prevent diamonds being carried away, stolen, from the diggings. They could not see how the Minister would control it. It is true that the Minister is only going to use people from Namaqualand provisionally, and possibly hon. members made their remarks for that reason, but I am astonished. They are persons who have been practically ruined through the drought, and I am astonished at the hon. members’ statement. I think it is only right to protest against them. I only want to add a few words in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) with reference to the limitation of the production or of the sale. I do not agree with the hon. member that we must allow the unlimited production of diamonds and only sell a small quantity. Who will benefit by that? The rich man who can invest his capital at 10 per cent. and wait. The poor man who will have no capital even if he is prepared to pay 50 per cent. interest. He must sell anything he finds at once to be able to go on. The rich man can wait and sell if it is possible and will reap the benefit of the system. I think that the restriction of the yield is right. The Minister knows that I am one of the people who, when we meet in private, stand up heart and soul for the diggers. I have never yet raised my voice so much against the Minister. I think he is perhaps a little too nervous in connection with the limitations of the production, a little too frightened of overproduction. The rich holes have been more or less worked out, and if the means provided in the Act are used for restricting people who find rich holes, then I do not think we need be much afraid of overproduction. I think the Minister must slacken the reins a bit. I am grateful that he is doing so, and I think he should continue on the present lines; it will eventually turn out to be for the benefit of the diggers and South Africa.

I did not intend to say anything in connection with this matter, but as all the authorities on diggings are going to speak, I feel that if I say nothing I shall get into hot water with my constituents. I just want to point out that we have here only to do with a matter of “State diggings.” We must only decide for or against that principle. Hon. members, some even on the front benches, are talking about diamonds generally. The Minister clearly stated that he has not yet fully worked out the scheme. As a representative of diggers, I say that in principle I am in favour of State diggings, but much of course depends on the question how such a digging will be controlled. The Minister will probably tell us that later. I want e.g. to know how the diggers will be paid. I should be opposed to their getting a poor white wage for work on the diggings. I hope the Minister will provide that they will get a percentage of the profits made. Then undoubtedly 90 per cent. of the diggers would approve of the scheme. If the Minister is not prepared to do that it will be better to give up the idea of State diggings. In any case I will not support it. The hon. members for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) and Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) differ. The hon. member for Klerksdorp stated that it was so impossible for the poor man to be restricted in his sales, because, according to the hon. member, he ought to sell immediately he found diamonds. The hon. member did not, however, give a single reason to prove his statement. My contention is that the production can be controlled by the market. If e.g. a quota of maximum sale is fixed it will mean something, but it is the sheerest nonsense to lay down that a person may not produce more than £100 value. What if he should find diamonds worth £200 at once? If the Minister lays down that the sale is restricted to e.g. £100 a month and the digger finds £500 worth, then he can cover his expenses by the £100 and put the balance in the bank on which he probably will get an advance. The poverty on a certain diggings 30 years ago was mentioned. I represent the diggers in the House, and represented a diggers’ constituency for ten years in the Provincial Council, but I have never yet seen such poverty on diggings as there is to-day. Five years ago I did not find a single case of poverty on the Bloemfontein digging except a few old people who were practically no longer digging. There is great poverty on the diggings and it is nonsense to deny it. The Minister said that he was going to give ground to the diggers and to that extent I am satisfied and think that the diggers are anxiously awaiting what will happen. I can, however, not see that people who have not been on diggings for 30 years or more can give the Minister advice how to act with regard to the diggings. I make bold to say that the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) and I are the only two members in the House who really represent diggers’ constituencies, and who know the conditions in the Transvaal. I think hon. members can well leave the diggers’ interests in our hands.

The Minister spoke of certain discoverers’ rights. I should like to know how many discoverers there are and what their rights will be and whether they will be permitted to remove diamonds. What makes me very restless is that one of the great discoverers went and wanted to sell his rights to another person. When the latter refused he said that he recommended him to sell because otherwise he would see to it that he was not allowed to work. He said that they had the ear of the Government and would see that he was prohibited. I should like to know what the facts are.

In answer to the question of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) I want to tell him that a great many lies are told on hearsay. Will he state that he seriously believes that some of the people have the ear of the Government.

According to the person he says so. He did use that threat.

That is, if I may say so, absolute nonsense. Five discoverers’ rights were granted. Many of course applied for discoverers’ rights, but they are not granted to every applicant. The magistrate investigates the applications and uses his discretion. Eventually five were granted. The five discoverers will each get 20 claims when the area is proclaimed. Of course they can sell the discoverers’ certificates, but the number of claims are not being increased, and before the issue of a proclamation they can do nothing, not even peg off the 20 claims, and they are subject to the provision of Section 115 which restricts the production and sale. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) quoted something from “Die Burger.” I saw the headlines but have not yet read the article, except to notice that it was an “Own correspondent.” Of course it is quite probably an entirely one-sided statement and such reports periodically appear in the newspapers. I will however send “Die Burger” to the mining commissioner and ask him to report specially on the matter. As for the first two lines of the report, however, that there are rumours that the Minister has issued a prohibition against the sorting of bantam by widows and women on the diggings, I can at once say that it is absolutely untrue. I should perhaps explain what the word “bantam” means. When washing takes place the diamonds always appear in the middle of the sieve and the pyrites are thereafter thrown away. Sometimes there is still a little diamond amongst the pyrites and it is sorted again. Those pyrites are called bantams. It was and is illegal for anyone to sort the gravel unless he be licensed, otherwise it would naturally lead to bags of gravel being sold and subsequently sorted by unlicensed people. The Minister has never issued a prohibition that widows and women may not sort bantams on the diggings.

I have always hitherto had a very great respect for the figures and statistics which have been issued by the Government, because they are the only indication we get of the trade we are doing with foreign countries, and of our imports and our exports. I must say, however, that I have been very disturbed by reading the report of the Commissioner for Commerce on the Continent and finding that the statistics issued by the Government are described by him as utterly unreliable. Let us read his own words—

And, after giving a number of illustrations, particularly in respect of exports to Belgium, he ends up by saying—

Now one would like to hear from the Minister on what basis these statistics are prepared. If we are to understand that they are utterly unreliable and “falsus in uno,” and, therefore, “falsus in omnibus” what is the object of putting the country to the expense of publishing them and putting them before the world at large as a fair indication of the trade we are carrying on with foreign countries? If one analyses these figures it appears that they are prepared on the basis of showing that there is a maximum of trade done on the continent of Europe, and a minimum of trade done with Great Britain, and this is having an effect on the public mind in other countries apart from Great Britain, for I read that at a gathering of manufacturers which took place recently in Berlin the principal speaker pointed out that he would like his hearers to understand, and he drew their special attention to the fact, that there was now an independent Government in South Africa, and that under the stimulating influence of this Government British trade was falling off and trade with the continent of Europe and Germany was advancing by leaps and bounds. He also pointed out that under the policy of the Government of South Africa English people were leaving South Africa faster than they were coming in, but he also urged them not to fail to take notice of the fact that the Government was particularly sympathetic towards trade with Germany and German immigrants, and he would urge them to remember that they would be received with open arms in this country and there was a great opportunity for them to push their trade. Apparently that is one of the effects of these misleading statistics, and one would like to know from the Minister how they are prepared, and by whom. If they are unreliable, then why publish them? If they are true figures, what is the explanation of this commissioner’s charge? Nor must we forget that the Minister himself, in addressing a gathering some time ago of the Conferated Chambers of Commerce, pointed out that trade within the empire was not a matter of great concern to him, but international trade was the main objective so far as he was concerned. What I gathered from the Minister’s speech was that he regarded trade with foreign countries as being really more important than trade with the empire, and these statistics published by the department seem to reflect that. We have these remarks by the trade commissioner, and I think this is the right time to raise this point, as we understand that the late occupant of the office is being recalled. We would like to know the reason why he is being recalled. Is he being recalled because he has failed in his duties, has he been found unsuitable for the appointment he has held for the last two years, or is he resigning because he found his job there was an impossible one owing to the conditions under which he was working? He complains that there has been such an utter lack of co-ordination, as far as his office is concerned, with headquarters in South Africa that confusion reigned confounded. He gives the following illustration—

He complains very bitterly also about the ordinary instructions he received from time to time. He says—

What were those instructions? Surely the Minister must know to what he is referring. It is almost incredible that a commissioner representing this country on the continent of Europe, and carrying out most arduous and responsible duties, would write a considered report, and it is written for publication, and write a complaint of that sort without adequate cause. I think this is the time when the House should know what circumstances made it impossible for the late commissioner to carry out his duties. I should like the Minister to tell us why this officer has been recalled, and we should like to know something also about the official who has to take his place. Those of us with experience of diplomatic work know it is not every man who is suitable for a diplomatic appointment. This is not altogether the question of a trade agent looking for markets, but this is a man who, under our higher status position, is representing us in a diplomatic position on the continent of Europe. Are his emoluments to be higher than those of the late incumbent? Is the commissioner to be put on a higher status, and has he had any experience of carrying out the very responsible duties he is called upon to carry out?

I wonder where we are now with this question.

What question?

Namaqualand diamond production. I understood the Government started its new policy with the distinct object of limiting output, and that is what was given out as the reason for the very drastic legislation which has been put into operation with such sad results. Now, if the idea is limitation of output, I would ask the Minister very seriously what his intention is in regard to the powerful company apparently about to operate in Namaqualand. It is an Anglo-American company which has recently been registered at Pretoria, and I think calls itself the Cape Coast Exploration Company, but, at all events, it is definitely of the Anglo-American combination, and among the chief shareholding subscribers are the same people. Amongst other things, they propose to construct harbours, docks and railways, and provide roads and necessary means of transport. It is very comprehensive, but it depends for profit entirely upon whether this area is proclaimed by Government or not. I want to ask the Minister to frankly tell us if he is really going to proclaim that wonderful fabulously rich area for a new company to work? If he is, then what is the use of his talking so loudly about limitation of output? Once more it will simply mean the big producers can make fresh arrangements for continuing their more than usual output, but our own little people, the diggers, arc going to be circumscribed in their work. That is what the public will look at. As far as the Opposition are concerned, it has become a “fake fight.” We hear nothing from them in opposition to proclaiming further areas for this powerful company. The fight they are putting up is really against State control, State production, and a State mine. They are not the friends of the poor diggers. They have shown it.

As friendly as you are, anyway.

No, they are not. They are out for the big producers, who are represented by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), and that interest is their interest, and there is no getting out of it. Why don’t they get up now and oppose the possibility of this newly-registered company working this fabulous area? Why don’t they honestly say: “We are opposed to any present further development because there is already too great an output”. No, they simply freeze on to the possibility of a State diamond industry. It shows the utter hollowness of the Opposition’s attitude. If not let them put aside the big producers to look after themselves, and let the Opposition say they are for the poorer people of this country all the time. Why, if the Government is also sincere, is it about to bring into unwanted competition this Namaqualand area? If the Government is to limit output to meet the views of market operators, it would be far better to have an independent commission to go into the whole question. In any case the Minister would do well to have a really independent board of control. Is it worth while to open up this Namaqualand area at all? I would like the Minister, who is certainly not wanting in fearlessness, to say definitely if he is contemplating proclamation of this new area for companies, or is he going to stand up even against them and say: “No, we will limit you as well as the diggers and poorer men.” We thought we were to have a Government plucky enough to stand up to the big financiers. In this particular instance, who is being served? The overseas interests represented by Mr. Solly Joel, and represented in this House by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). Those are the interests that are being served. This limitation has simply been arranged entirely in their interests. When I reached the time limit at the previous hearing I was dealing with the question, how can you allocate fairly between the digger and the company producer? [Time limit]

Is the Minister going to reply to my remarks with regard to the trade commissioner?

Of course I was not in the chair at the time, but I heard what the hon. member said. He cannot discuss policy on this particular vote.

I am discussing new details about the commissioner on the continent, and I asked the Minister—

The hon. member can discuss only the reason for the increase.

The item down here is for the expenses of Mr. de Villiers, who is going to succeed Mr. Pienaar on the continent, who is leaving before the expiry of his term of office. It means practically that you have two commissioners.

It is only one man?

Yes.

It is simply a case of overlapping?

Yes.

Why use this long word?

We use this to show that it is just temporary. It is not going to be a permanent condition of affairs.

My colleague, the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has in the course of his remarks discussed the reason for the appointment of Mr. Pienaar, and surely he is entitled to know the reasons. He discussed the way in which Mr. Pienaar has performed his duties, and in that connection I want to draw attention to the official explanation—

The hon. member cannot discuss that. I will read the ruling given in the British House of Commons and in this House on (Additional Estimates).

I draw your attention to Vote B.

Let me first read the ruling.

Have I no right to discuss the vote of £300?

I will give the right hon. member the opportunity in a minute. The ruling was given in this House on 2nd of March, 1925. [Ruling read.]

That is what I want to know—the reason for the increase. The increase indicates that we are going to pay two commissioners full salary. Has it come about quite unexpectedly, and has the decision been suddenly come to release Mr. Pienaar? Let the country, now that it knows so much, hear all the facts.

Mr. Pienaar is relinquishing his duties there under the terms of his appointment, and is being succeeded by Mr. de Villiers, who is leaving in a few days’ time. The amounts are for travelling expenses and salary during six weeks or two months until such time as Mr. de Villiers takes up the appointment and Mr. Pienaar can return. The hon. member is quite entitled to discuss Mr. de Villiers’ going there and his appointment, but I do not think he is entitled to discuss this report about which we have heard and about which questions have been asked in this House. The hon. member can get an opportunity later on. He must conform to the rules if we want to conduct business properly.

The Minister did not answer what are the reasons for Mr. Pienaar’s withdrawal. They were carefully avoided.

Mr. Pienaar is suffering from nostalgia, and wants to come back to sunny South Africa.

What are the qualifications Mr. de Villiers has for this post? Milan is a trading place, and not for diplomatists. Mr. Pienaar rather favoured the idea that he was more on the diplomatic side of things rather than the business and trade side. That was not the object of these representatives. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) when he was Prime Minister, looked upon it entirely from the trade point of view.

Is this not a matter of policy you are discussing?

No. Is he going over there as a diplomat or as a trade commissioner? One has not the high tone of the other. I cannot see what good these trade commissioners are doing in England or America at present—but perhaps I had better not touch on that.

I do not know whether this is really in order, but I am quite prepared to answer it. I think it will come up on my estimates later on, because I am going to make a change in the position, and of course my hon. friend has already divined that; therefore he puts me this question. As far as these trade commissioners are concerned, I differ very much from my hon. friend, and wish to give him the assurance that I hold the very highest opinion as to their usefulness both in America and on the continent; and I am positive they have done work for South Africa which otherwise would have taken years and years. The Government is fully convinced of their necessity, both in America and on the continent of Europe. It so happens that from almost the first six months of their appointment—certainly from the first year—our attention has been drawn to the fact that through our representatives abroad being described as “Trade Commissioners,” they are handicapped in the carrying out of their duties. They are insisting that we shall give them a status which will give them an opening to come into direct contact with certain officials. The lack of these facilities very much militates against the success of their mission. We have been considering the question for some considerable time. While in Europe, I consulted as to the best way of meeting these difficulties, and it has appeared that the only way to meet the position was to give them a diplomatic status, thus opening both in America and on the continent of Europe the door to those departments with which they have constantly to deal, and which up to now they have not had direct access to, having had to make use of means which often, I am assured, especially from America, caused a loss of trade involving quite large sums.

Will they be ambassadors?

No, there are other diplomatic ranks besides that of ambassador. We are not at this time aiming as high as ambassadors and we have decided that they shall be charges d’affaires in America and on the continent of Europe. As such they will in future appear on the roll of my department of external affairs, but with these instructions, namely, that they are in the first place to look after the trade relationship and the trade interests of the country and that for the present, at any rate, the diplomatic status that is given them is in the first place in order to attain the end which they have been desiring, namely, of getting more directly into contact with those with whom they have to do business. This will be the position in the future. It is very clear that the place of Mr. Pienaar, whose term of office has expired and who has asked to return, will be filled by Mr. Dan de Villiers. This gentleman is an attorney of Ficksburg and one of the foremost farmers. He is recognized as a very capable business man and he is a member of the Free State Provincial Executive Committee and has a reputation in all respects as a very able man. He is recognized to have considerable business capacity. I wish hon. members not to forget that it is by no means a very easy thing to get men in South Africa, especially sons of South Africa—be they English or Dutch-speaking—to go to Europe and take up these positions. We have not yet reached that stage where we can get plenty of men with the necessary capacity and training to fill positions of this kind, because they don’t want to be away from South Africa for long periods. As far as Mr. de Villiers is concerned, I am convinced—and everybody who knows him feels convinced—that he is a man in every respect capable of taking that position and holding it with honour to us. I have been advised that we should take steps to train our young men for these positions. I hope the day will come when we shall do that. Of course it will necessitate sooner or later introducing legislation to this House regulating all these posts.

Rather expensive posts.

We must look to what the requirements are. To me the question has been, is it necessary for us today to resort to measures which may prove rather more expensive to us than is necessary under the circumstances.

I should say no.

Then I hope my hon. friend will agree with me that all we can do is to look about and find the men most competent and most capable and who at the same time have to be independent men because the calls upon them are very heavy. What our men receive now simply enables them to pull through.

I have always had a very high opinion of lawyers, and at the moment I see four of them on the front benches opposite, but I am not satisfied that lawyers always make the best Cabinet Ministers. The gentleman who is to be appointed to represent us on the continent of Europe is an attorney and a farmer, but for these posts I should have thought the last persons to be considered would be lawyers and farmers. Does he wish us to accept the assurance that he has combed the whole of the service to find a suitable man? Surely there are men who have been in the service long enough to be more suitable for this position. The Prime Minister is very subtle, and I think this afternoon his explanation cuts the ground from beneath his feet. Complaints have reached the House that this is not the only occasion that he has gone outside the service—

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Then I want to protest against the Government policy.

Arising out of the statement, has the Prime Minister given consideration to the appointment of a trade commissioner in the Belgian Congo?

I cannot allow that. It is a question of policy. I allowed the Prime Minister to give an explanation, but I cannot allow you to go into a question of policy.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 26, “Union Education”, £14,127,

I should like to ask about the £10,690 for the Witwatersrand University grant. Perhaps the Minister will give us an explanation. It is a large sum.

The explanation is that the whole of that money has been earned by the university under the existing regulations. The amount has been challenged by the department for some time, and only after a lapse of a period proofs were forthcoming from the university that they were entitled to the amount. That is the reason it was not originally included.

Might I ask for an explanation with regard to expenses of examinations, £450? Can the Minister tell us the reason for the delay in the issue of certificates to successful pupils at the examinations held at the Witwatersrand Technical Institute last November? The certificates are not issued yet, and when enquiry was made regarding the delay, the explanation was that the Education Department at Pretoria was holding up the certificates. At the beginning of the year a number of vacancies in the public service were advertised, and boys, who had been informed they had passed the examination, could not apply for these vacancies because they had not received their certificates. Will the Minister take steps to see the delay, a little over three months, does not take place again?

I want to ask the Minister to explain the amount of £2,000, contributions and grants under pension and provident funds. What is actually meant by the allowances? In this connection I want to ask if it is not possible to introduce more co-ordination on the Pension Fund for teachers. It sometimes occurs that a teacher goes from the Provincial to the Union Administration. He comes first under the one scheme and then under the other, and there is always trouble about it.

The hon. member cannot now discuss it. He can only ask a question.

I merely want to ask if it is not possible to introduce co-ordination into the teachers’ pension funds.

That is a question of policy.

It is a matter for which a vote is here asked. It happens in the Free State, where we have two funds for teachers, that a teacher is transferred to the Union Administration. He then comes under another scheme. Thereafter he possibly returns as professor and then he comes under yet another scheme, and by the time he retires and goes on pension it is difficult to say exactly what pension he is entitled to. If it were possible to co-ordinate all the funds—

It requires legislation and the hon. member cannot discuss it now.

I think that I can answer one question of the hon. member. He asked what the grants meant. If a professor was appointed years ago at a small salary which only entitles him to a small pension, then, if the local authority under whom he served makes a certain contribution for increasing the pension the Government can also contribute something. In this way some of the people get a higher pension than what they are entitled to. The amount is applied to that.

Then as to the question asked by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) about the issue of certificates. All I can say with regard to that is that I think it is the general rule there is much delay. Not only on the part of the Union Education Department, but other departments, too, in the issue of these certificates. Very often it takes months before successful candidates are in possession of their certificates. In any case, I will look into it and make sure there is no unnecessary delay.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 27, “Child Welfare”, £4,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture”, £100.

With reference to this amount, I should like to ask the Minister something. It is a function of the agricultural unions to organize the farmers’ tours to Europe. I have nothing against the tours. I heartily agree with them because they advance our agriculture. An objection has, however, been mentioned to me with respect to the organization of the tours, namely, that the countryside is not sufficiently borne in mind, with the result that it is not sufficiently represented. I know it is the Minister’s attitude to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Agricultural Union. But, seeing the State makes a contribution, I want to ask the Minister if it cannot possibly be arranged for the whole of the countryside to be represented on the tours. Then the further objection was made that the tour is not so arranged in Europe as to be exclusively for the benefit of the farmers from Africa. If the arrangements in Europe can be altered then the tour will be much more effective for the Afrikaans farmer. I just want to ask the Minister if he cannot use his influence in that direction.

I want at once to say that the farmers’ tours are paid for from private funds. The agricultural unions organize the tours. All the unions throughout the country are represented. They choose the executive and they choose the representatives of the farmers who are to go. The small amount here mentioned is granted under certain regulations, and it is neither proper for me nor for the department to interfere with the organization or to give advice to the agricultural unions about the method of representation. I am not prepared to go so far as the hon. member wishes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 29, “Agriculture (Education)”, £250, put and agreed to.

On Vote 31, “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, £23,000,

I would like to ask whether part of this is to pay for the conveyance of the Minister from his office to his home at Boksburg (North). I see such payments were made last year. I am asking about the current year. I would like to ask him if the practice is still being continued, and he takes a motor-car from his home to his office and the reverse, or from his office to the station. Is part of this increase to pay for that?

Are you asking me?

I am asking somebody.

It has nothing whatever to do with motor-cars.

Give us an explanation of it.

I am going to give it to you. Do not be in too much of a hurry. The whole motor-car question, I would like to tell the hon. gentleman, I propose to deal with on the main estimates. I think that is only right. This question has been brought up before the public and if the hon. gentleman does not bring it up in this House, I will arrange to bring it up.

You need not worry about that.

I think this is a matter which, from all points of view, should be brought up. No doubt the Opposition would like to make capital, legitimate capital, out of it.

The motoring Minister!

I may have something to say to my hon. friend, too, when it does come on. The hon. gentleman is quite right, the matter should be ventilated and ventilated completely and thoroughly.

I regret that I cannot allow the Minister to discuss that. He says it does not come under this particular vote.

I do not propose to discuss it. I am only giving an assurance to hon. gentlemen opposite. I will take the earliest opportunity, if they don’t, of bringing the whole matter before the House on the main estimates, when the thing can be properly and thoroughly discussed. As regards this vote, I may say that the business of the post office generally, in all departments, has grown to a tremendous extent, far in excess of what we anticipated. The income is considerably more. I do not want to give the figures, because my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, will want to deal with them, I take it, when he makes his budget speech. I can assure hon. members that the business of the post office has grown to such an extent that we have had to employ extra staff to cope with it. I am sure it will please the economical mind of my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) that we did not get originally all we asked for. The Minister of Finance is keeping a watchful eye and a very tight hand.

He will need to do.

I do not know that that is so in regard to my own department. I am very careful in my requests. The Minister, however, comes down again and says: “You have got to do with so much less.” I admit that it is a very wise precaution indeed. It is better to come along later on with these additional estimates and ask for the money as you do definitely require it. We did not get the amount we ought to have had by £30,000, and in addition the business has grown to such an extent that we actually have to have it for salaries and allowances.

I must say that I have got a great deal of sympathy with the Minister of Finance in holding a check on the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. We are told that business is increasing very rapidly—and I hope it is—but the report that the Minister placed on the table, I think the day before yesterday, up to March 31st, 1927, shows that in that year the revenue decreased by £42,000, and the expenditure increased by £119,000. That was a difference of £160,000 on the wrong side, owing to the Minister’s handling of this business department. This vote deals with the question of staff, and I notice that in 1927 the Minister increased his staff by 434 hands. In 1928 he increased it by 689 hands, and in 1929 the estimate is that he wants another 376 on his staff. That is, in three years he will have increased his staff by 1,500 hands, and, on the basis of the previous number of hands to each £100 of business, it means that he ought to be doing an increased business of £450,000.

What is his increased business?

I have not got his figures. His figures for the year in which he employed an additional 434 hands show a decrease of £42,000. He required 434 hands more to do £42,000 less business. I will agree he has one excuse, a card which he will play for all it is worth, and that is the penny postage. But this current year he had 689 hands more than the previous year. He is not satisfied with that. In 1928-’29 he wants 376 hands more. I think it is due to the House to know something more about the business he is doing and the profit at which he is doing it before we give him another £23,000 to spend. I may say that on the estimates of last year he had an increase for salaries of £50,900, that is £1,000 a week we gave him last year. That is not enough; he wants another £23,000. That means in this current year he is asking for £74,000 more for salaries. We ought to know something about the business we are getting for that £74,000 worth of expenditure. It would be very interesting if the Minister of Finance would allow the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to disclose the enormous increase of business that he has been doing in 192?7-’28, because he ought to have done some hundreds of thousands of pounds more in business to have occupied all these new hands which he has put on during his period of office. In three years he has increased his staff by 1,500 employees. It is quite a satisfactory thing I imagine from his own point of view. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister of Finance in keeping the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs down to expenditure in reasonable proportion to the amount of business he is doing. I have suggested before that he could cut down his expenses by using more modern methods of handling the post office, by such methods as inaugurating automatic telephones. I notice, although he is so hard up, and although the Minister of Finance is holding him down as hard as he can, that the Minister spent several thousand pounds in altering the buildings that were intended for automatic telephones before he came into office, altering them so that they cannot be used for automatic telephones, but must be used for manual telephones so as to enable him to put more staff still on the paysheets of the post office. I think the Minister of Finance might look into the question as to whether it is not a very wasteful form of expenditure when you put up buildings for modern machinery and, instead of putting modern machinery into them, you alter the buildings in order to put old-fashioned machinery into them.

I hope the hon. gentleman does not expect we are going to go into a long dissertation on automatic telephones. You know where you stand with regard to that, don’t you?

You don’t.

I do, most emphatically. The hon. gentleman raised a point about that £74,000 extra up to date in salaries with a diminution in receipts.

No, I want to know what the increase in receipts was for this year.

At all events, the expansion was not as I evidently claimed it to be at the beginning! The hon. gentleman rightly anticipated the reply to it and his anticipation does not vitiate it at all. The fact is that he, and friends of his, in his particular line of business benefited by the reduction to penny postage by £360,000. The vast bulk of the people of South Africa did not benefit.

What nonsense!

I have the right to claim that what I am saying is correct. The average man in the street does not write two letters a week. Let us take that as read.

What about the average woman?

Or the average woman either. I am talking about the average person. The hon. gentleman is treating this with a levity, which I think the situation does not warrant. The average person does not write more than two letters a week.

The Minister is now going into a policy which we cannot discuss now.

I will content myself with saying that the whole of the effect the hon. gentleman has been pointing out was due to a surrender of revenue to the amount of £360,000 in one year.

Then why take on 1,500 more hands?

Because the increased business has come along as will be reflected in the estimates and in the statement which the Minister of Finance will make. There was no question of many thousands of pounds spent in altering automatic telephone housing to hold what was not modern and up-to-date machinery, so that it could not possibly be used for automatics later on. As a matter of fact, the alteration is so trivial that the building can be used for automatics if the hon. gentleman has sufficient influence with the incoming Government that may succeed ours. Of course, the incoming Government will not be influenced by the hon. gentleman and his friends.

Why not?

The incoming Minister might though.

Manual exchanges are just as up-to-date and just as modern as your automatics. That is all I have to say with regard to that.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 32, “Public Works”, £13,000.

Why was this not in the ordinary main estimates—£4,000 for workmen’s compensation for accidents and wages for statutory holidays, etc.? It has been on the main estimates for years past and now it appears as if it were a new vote.

The note I have here is this: 1927-’28 we voted under Vote 32, £1,900 for (a) workmen’s compensation, (b) contribution to national industrial council and (c) wages for statutory holidays, the analysis being £100 for (a), £200 for (b) and £1,600 for (c). After the estimate was framed in November, since then there has been a considerable expansion of departmental work, and we now require 300 artizans.

May I ask what classes of work are being done by these artizans? Does the department make buildings for itself instead of letting them out for contract, or is it confined to repair work?

The position we take up is this—first of all, we have had a rather largely increased vote for repair work. It was long overdue. I must even, against the point of view of the Minister of Finance, say that it is still insufficient. We have so many buildings, and they are so widely scattered; they got into such a state of disrepair under the ex-Government, that we have to spend considerable sums of money. For some considerable time past it has been the policy of the Government to do its own electric fittings—that was done by the ex-Government.

You are a chatterbox!

I propose to say no more; I am not going to be insulted.

The Public Works Department, I know, are going in for a certain amount of repairs and employing the highest paid people. I know a place in this city, which I am not going to mention, the repairs of which have cost considerably more than they used to. If it were done by workmen on the spot, it would have been done at considerably less. I know the policy of my hon. friend; he must employ the highest paid workmen for the smallest jobs. An ordinary individual would have the work done at half the price.

One point may be raised about this expenditure, and that is, whether a certain amount of money could not be saved if more up-to-date machinery were employed. In connection with the telephone system in the Cape Peninsula, I am told on good authority that the apparatus used in the Muizenberg area is out of date; to my knowledge it is continually getting out of order. It wants scrapping. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction there, not due to the deficiency of the people, but because the installation is defective.

That is not on this vote; it is the other vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 33, “Lands”, £8,500,

I see there has been an increase in the vote for contributions to the National Parks Board. I would like to ask the Minister the reason for this increase, and also if any revenue has been derived from subscriptions or donations from the public.

No; at the time that I made my second reading speech, I said there were wealthy people in this country and hoped that they would contribute something. As my hon. friend will know, this park is administered by an independent board, and, so far as I know, they have received one donation—1,000 dollars, I think, from America—but not from South Africa. Our public and moneyed men have not responded in this important matter as they should have; in future they may do so, and I hope they will. The hon. member wants to know the necessity for this vote. I consider the National Park a great national asset, although it may not contribute directly to the revenue. I do not expect it will. If it pays its way, I shall be satisfied. Hut as to the indirect benefits, the National Park and the Victoria Falls will be the two great attractions to tourists in South Africa; and more and more people are coming out. It was found necessary to improve and spend money in the maintenance of existing roads, because it is no use having the park if you cannot see it. If the tourists see the game and the other attractions, it would be an advertisement, and more and more people will make use of the park. The railways, shopkeepers and hotel-keepers will benefit. My hon. friend knows that there are countries in Europe, like Switzerland and others, which are practically living on tourists. More and more tourists are coming to South Africa, and we must show them something. This will be the most attractive feature we can show them. The board has rightly brought this to my notice; they must have money to improve the roads, and so forth. I think the policy of the board will be to have a few keepers—one or two—and these will conduct the tourists when the roads are in order, and charge a fee for that. That will be part of the revenue. Hotels may be built and there is the revenue from that which they would get, and also a little revenue, I think, from the skins. I am almost sorry I could not make this £25,000 instead of £8,500.

I am very glad that this matter has been raised, because, although the annual report is submitted to Parliament by the board of trustees, I take it that very few of the members will have read it. The board has a huge area to administer, and its duties are two-fold; primarily, to conserve and preserve the game and the valuable and varied fauna in the Kruger National Park. Their other duty is to make the park accessible to the public, for it is no use having this huge area of land if it is to remain a sealed book. The board of trustees say there is no money for the purpose, the grant that is given them being sufficient only to cover the costs of administration. This grant should be increased. Let us benefit by the experience of a country like the United States, whose national parks, more than 100 in number, are the finest in the world. Recently I had a letter from Mr. Hornaday, whose name is a household word in the United States. He it is, who above all others in that great country, devoted himself to the preservation of wild life. He is also so interested in our work that he has made a donation of 1,000 dollars to the park funds, an example which is worthy of emulation by the wealthy men of this country. Mr. Hornaday, in the course of his letter, says—

We are still waiting for donations, so I appeal to the wealthy men of South Africa to follow the example of this generous foreigner and liberally to support the work of the parks board. It is not merely a question of conserving game, but of having a unique place where one can see wild animals under natural conditions. This will afford healthy recreation to practically all the people of the Union, and to visitors to the Union. The annual expenditure of the park will be in the vicinity of £10,000 to £12,000. The money which the Minister is giving us is being used in a most economical manner. The board of trustees is having a road system built in order to make the park accessible to visitors. The board anticipates that a certain saving will be effected in the future in administration charges, because the construction of roads will simplify the control and policing of the park. I hope this small sum will now pass without any further opposition, and with an appeal even from my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) for more liberal treatment by the State. I know the hon. member has a soft place in his heart for the fauna of South Africa; he is a lover of nature and of wild animals, and is starting a collection of his own.

My hon. friend is very fond of comparing South Africa with the United States, but there is this essential difference, that ours is a poor country, whereas the United States have more money than they know what to do with. I rise to give a little advice to the Minister of Lands. Don’t let him worry about the shopkeepers and hotel-keepers, for they can always look after themselves.

We know that.

The Minister should pay his way, and the only way to do that is to levy a charge on the people who visit the park. If people come all the way from America to look at the park they can well afford to pay a small entrance fee.

That is the idea.

To expect the taxpayer to contribute for the benefit of people from America is a little too much.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 36, “Irrigation”, £5,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 38, “Labour”, £9,186,

We are asked for an increased vote of £9,186 for unemployment. We have been looking forward to the present Government getting rid of unemployment, but now it is about as bad as it has ever been.

It is worse.

The fact that there is unemployment in South Africa shows that something is wrong somewhere. I have my own ideas on the subject, which I will expound in the budget debate. There is a lot of unemployment on the Rand and in Cape Town. Recently over 200 men went to see the Minister to obtain work, and the Minister referred them to the Board of aid for food. Quite naturally the board refused to give any assistance, the object of the Board of Aid being to give relief to very poor people, particularly women and children, but not to give doles to able-bodied men. I understand that since then work has been found for about 160 men. Why could that not have been done before? Recently 100 men were sent by the Department of Labour to the Board of Aid. They were sent back in the same way. My complaint is that this out of work business seems to last, and we do not seem to get rid of it. After all the money my hon. friend has spent and the promises he made to the country, I am sorry to have to use my hon. friend’s words when he was in opposition, “He has not delivered the goods.”

I think this vote might have been explained a little more definitely, that is, that every penny the House is being asked to vote is money which has been used in the country districts in the Cape in direct consequence of the distress caused by the drought. It does not touch the general unemployment question at all. I am prepared to deal with that at the proper time. This vote was necessary and the money was necessary because of the way the Cape was suffering from the drought. We had the most pitiable representations made by the magistrates that relief of some kind should be given. Magistrates were writing nearly every week that the distress was simply terrible in three-quarters of the Cape districts. The Administrator said he would start a fund to relieve distress, and ho asked the Government if they would contribute towards that fund. The Cabinet decided that if the provincial administration would put £2,500 a month to the fund, which they offered to do, the Government would put an equal amount. This started last September, and we have been contributing £2,500 a month to the Cape Administrators Distress Fund, with this condition attached to the money we subscribe, that it shall not be used for rations, but for direct employment. I told the Cabinet if I had to subscribe £2,500 a month, I had not enough money, and they decided that the extra money required to meet this state of emergency would be provided for in Additional Estimates, and, so far as I was concerned, I had not to take into consideration that aspect of it at all.

What aspect was that?

Whether I had sufficient money or not. The necessity and the need was there, and whether I could cover the expenditure from my vote or not, the money had to be provided to relieve distress in the drought-stricken areas, and every penny of this has been used for that purpose and no other purpose whatever. Could the Government, in view of the representations made by magistrates and other authorities and after investigation by my own department, could the Government have done otherwise? I said I would not even be prepared to agree to this excess until I was satisfied it was justified. An official of my department was sent round and made a comprehensive report on each area, and if hon. members had seen those reports revealing this terrible distress they would have seen there was no option but to do the same as the Government is now doing. The total amount spent to date by my department on this particular work is over £17,000. I would have had a small surplus had it not been for the additional expenditure imposed on the department, after Cabinet consideration. Because of that we now ask for the extra amount to be voted by the House. I stipulated it should be for employment only, and the divisional councils and other local authorities are using this money on road-making, dam-making and local improvements. The money the Administrator subscribes is used for employment, rations and food. The money you are asked to vote is not applied to anything else. I will deal with the general question of unemployment, when we come to it in the ordinary way.

The Minister’s explanation does not get away from the fact that employment is worse than ever in the large centres. The Minister the other day denied this.

The Minister has made it clear this extra money is spent only for relief for drought distress. The hon. member must confine himself to that.

The Minister must not take upon himself the sole credit of relieving distress amongst the farmers. The whole of. South Africa is doing it. The farmers of Umvoti have been filling truckloads with maize to send to the farmers’ relief in drought areas. Unemployment is bad, and I am prepared to give figures of Cape Town and Johannesburg.

If the hon. member does not listen to the chair we shall have to take other steps. I pointed out unemployment generally must not be discussed now.

We have the Works Colonies Bill passed last session. What is that doing? Why should that not help to meet the situation? The cure for unemployment is work. The Minister does not seem to know his job, otherwise the situation would not be so acute in South Africa as it is to-day. I am prepared to give the Minister figures which he cannot refute at a future date. The Minister when sitting on this side of the House was always talking of delivering the goods. He recently had an opportunity of “Delivering the goods” when a large deputation of unemployed met him and pleaded for employment, but the Minister failed hopelessly, and told these unfortunates to go to the Board of Aid and to the provincial authorities.

I am very glad that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) have expressed their sympathy for the poor people in the drought-stricken districts. I am very glad the Leader of the Opposition differs from the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). If my hon. friend had the slightest idea of the position he would not have made the attack.

The hon. member himself sent bags of mealies for the sufferers.

Why then is he so excited? He attacks the Minister on the amount to be made available for the people. I can assure hon. members that the position is disturbing, and that very much larger amounts will be required. The position is getting worse day by day and I hope the Minister will listen to the appeals for help. I am very glad that that wrong standpoint of the hon. member for Umvoti is not shared by other hon. members.

What did you do for the poor people?

I hope hon. members have given a quarter of what I have. I am not talking about my people, but about the poor unhappy people. The question of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) shows his hostile attitude. I regret that attitude. The people for whom I am pleading do not want charity. They only ask for work. They are prepared to do any work such as relief work by which they will be assisted in their misfortune. It would bring tears to the eyes of hon. members, even in those of the hon. member for Klip River, if they could see the circumstances of the poor people who a few years ago were paying income tax and to-day are sleeping under a prickly pear tree in order to earn half-a-crown. I hope the Minister will assist the people more. It is not an unnecessary assistance, it is only to keep them alive.

I rise, not because I oppose this item—I am totally in accord with what is being done on behalf of these drought-stricken people—but I take it that, although we cannot discuss the question of unemployment on this vote, we are entitled to get some information as to what is actually being done at the present time in that matter.

No, not generally, only in respect of the drought distress areas.

Surely we are entitled to ask and I am sure the Minister would like to reply—

No. The hon. member can bring that up on the main estimates.

On a point of order, do I understand you to rule that we are now dealing with the unemployment vote and—

The committee can only discuss reasons for the increase. The Minister has made it very clear what this money is intended for. We cannot discuss anything outside the question of the drought-stricken areas.

I want to submit to you that we are dealing now with the unemployment vote. The Minister naturally said for what purpose this money is expended, but that does not debar the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) from asking a question from the Minister on the general question of unemployment.

It does debar him.

With all due deference to you, I submit that—

That is outside our discussion. The discussion at present is on the question as to whether this money should be spent on the relief of distress.

It is under the heading of unemployment.

That does not matter. If the committee does not know what the rule is, I may read it again. On the 2nd March, 1925, I said that it might be convenient, as there were many new members present, if I were to draw attention to the rule which governed discussion on additional or supplementary estimates, namely, that if the estimate was not for a new service, but for an increase in a service which had already been approved in the same financial year by the House, the discussion must be limited to the reason for the increase, and the discussion on the original policy would not be in order.

On that point may I ask the Minister to tell us when this particular expenditure was made?

In September.

Then that is a new service in terms of your rule, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, as far as that is concerned, the hon. member may discuss it in all its aspects.

In the event of our voting this £9,168 under the heading of unemployment expenditure, do I understand it would be illegal to spend it on unemployment expenditure if we now pass it?

That money has already been spent, as I understand from the Minister.

Suppose we vote this amount for unemployment expenditure, would it be legal for the Minister to spend it on the purpose for which he says he is going to spend it? I submit this vote is to legalize a certain expenditure, and we should legalize the right expenditure and not the wrong expenditure.

Hon. members will have ample opportunity of discussing the whole question very soon.

May I call attention to the fact that in connection with the item of £9,168, we are now asked to vote, the footnote says—

I take it this is for the Provincial Administration in connection with unemployment expenditure.

No, generally.

If you would kindly send for the estimates of last year, the committee could know what is this £14,382 excess on that item. We are asked now to vote £9,186 for the Provincial Administration to assist them, as the Minister says, specially in connection with drought distress relief, but if the Provincial Administration gets this money, it is to be added to a vote which was for general distress relief. We have only the assurance of the Minister. What I am asked to vote for now is unemployment expenditure and advances. The excess on that vote is marked for general distress. As you know, there are differences of opinion in the Minister’s party, and the Minister may disappear to-morrow and the other Minister taking his place might like this £9,168 to be used for general distress. I do not think a statement by the Minister of what his intention is can bind the committee to what they desire to do.

I may point out the money has actually been spent and at the rate of £2,500 per month for the Cape Administration Relief Fund, and it is earmarked for employment in drought-stricken areas. If I had not been called upon to provide this money there would have been a surplus on my vote.

It is not the 31st March yet.

It is this year, and we are paying the last instalment this month. If I had not been called upon to spend this money in this way I would not have asked for this vote.

What is the nature of the work?

Road-making and dam-making; it is left to the local authorities themselves to decide on what work they will employ these men. It is for wages, not for food.

I see that H.2. (a), on which the increase is about to be voted, is not under the head, relief works, but “contribution for promotion of civilized labour.”

They are civilized workers; farmers, bywoners, who are down and out, due to the drought. It is covered by this heading.

This was intended as a grant-in-aid and employing civilized instead of other labour. Now, apparently, it is being used as relief works for drought distress. It seems to me it ought to have come under a different heading altogether, if it is as the Minister says.

This does not really signify and state what this money is intended for. Why can’t my hon. friend put away that red tape and say exactly what it is for? It will avoid a lot of preliminary discussion. I have not the slightest objection to this money being spent here, but get these things altered to saying exactly what the money is for.

I cannot understand my hon. friend at all. Does he want me to create more headings to these votes? He knows it is an understanding with the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and we are more or less following their advice. I am giving very extensive information, and Parliament knows what the money is for. It is all you require. It would be very inconvenient if we had to swell the estimates and increase the cost of printing. It is a very bulky volume already. The House obtains the information, and if hon. members desire further details, the Ministers are in their place to tell them. If we had to give fuller details in the printed document, I don’t see the necessity for Ministers being in their place to reply to questions.

I am sorry the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) is not in his place, for if he were, I would tell him what I think about his speech. It was a deliberate attempt at vote-catching, and an endeavour to make a party question out of the matter. Not a single objection was raised from this side of the House to the vote. On the contrary, we are prepared to vote what is required. In fact, I would like to see three or four times the amount voted, for undoubtedly there is great distress amongst our people. Efforts are being made to raise subscriptions. Some people have given liberally, but more liberality should have been displayed by the Government. The hon. member’s remarks were quite uncalled for.

I want to make a few remarks in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden).

Hear, hear.

There is no need to say “hear, hear!” because I am talking Afrikaans. The hon. member made an unnecessary attack on the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). I want to point out to him that the hon. member sent mealies to the starving people. This hon. member, together with his friends, gave more than 1,000 bags. He went personally to people for contributions. That remark of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is absolutely uncalled for and unnecessary. Let me tell him that in Natal the people almost all sent the money collected for the Flag Committees to the Administrator’s Fund. There are many people in my district who sent coffee, sugar, etc. We feel that it is only right that we also should assist. I hope, therefore, that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will not always make rash speeches, but will first ascertain what the facts are. I can assure him that the statement that the hon. member for Umvoti does not sympathize with the people is not true.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B, “Public Works”, £9,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F, “Local Works and Loans”, £12,000, put and agreed to.

Estimates of additional expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds to be reported without amendment.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered and adopted and Bill brought up

I think all sections of the House will acknowledge the paramount importance of the Bill now before the House, and that in amending the Irrigation Act of 1912 the fullest consideration should be given to the changes, some of which are of far-reaching importance, and irrigators should have an opportunity of knowing full well the meaning of the changes proposed and how, if those changes are adopted, their vested interests will be affected. No doubt the Bill before the House is an improvement on the draft that the Minister was kind enough to lay before the Irrigation Congress, and some of the suggestions that were made at the Irrigation Congress, where the Minister, I think, will acknowledge that the Bill, so far as the time at their disposal allowed, received very careful consideration, have been embodied in the Bill, but still, the measure goes so far and is so far-reaching a departure, in some of its clauses, from the common law and statute law of the country that the congress felt that it would be inadvisable for the Minister to attempt to rush the whole of this Bill through the House in the present session, before irrigators had an opportunity of thoroughly studying those clauses of the Bill which make material changes in the common and statute laws of the country in regard to irrigation. Also to give irrigators an opportunity of an extended study of a measure which, I think, the Minister himself will acknowledge, is of an extremely complicated character. A draft of this important Bill, owing to difficulties which I believe were insurmountable, was only able to be laid before the irrigation congress shortly before it assembled, and though the irrigation congress, which met in Cape Town in January was, I venture to say, the most representative gathering of irrigation farmers that had ever taken place since the irrigation congress was first called together by the late Mr. Merriman at Robertson in 1909, and though we sat from Tuesday to Friday and gave three full days and night sittings, starting about 9 a.m. and generally adjourning a little before 11 p.m., there was no time really to go through the whole of the Bill and though, as I said, some of the amendments proposed by the congress in connection with those clauses of the Bill which they had an opportunity of discussing have been adopted in the Bill, congress—and my hon. friend, the member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will bear me out—passed a resolution that only clauses of the Bill on which an agreement or compromise had been arrived at and adopted by the Minister, should be dealt with this session, and that the other clauses of the Bill should stand over so that irrigators throughout the length and breadth of the country should have a full opportunity of dealing with them. I may say that the congress was indebted to the Minister for the amount of time that he gave in attending their deliberations. I have always held that a Bill of this nature should be drafted in the simplest and clearest language so that everybody vitally interested would be able to understand it and to instruct and place their representatives in possession of the views which they hold upon such an important measure. The Act of 1906, which was departed from in the Act of 1912, was drafted, as far as possible, in the simplest language, and during the whole of 1905 and 1906 the most careful attention was given by the best outside draftsmen that it was possible to get, so that the policy embodied in the Bill should be placed, as far as possible, in language that everybody could understand. I was then very deeply indebted to my hon. friend and member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), as I was previously indebted to the late Sir Malcolm Searle, then Mr. Advocate Searle, for the assistance that had been given in 1905 and 1906 in the drafting of that Bill. If hon. members will compare that Bill and its phraseology with the Bill now before the House, I think they will acknowledge that there is the greatest possible difference in the simplicity of the two measures and the ease with which farmers can understand one and the difficulty which, I am afraid, farmers will find it understanding the other. I am informed on the very best authority that not only the farmers who have given it a great deal of attention but many of the lawyers, who have also given it a great deal of attention, are not to-day in a position to tell exactly what certain clauses of the Bill actually mean. I know that my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, will not think I am dealing with this Bill in a party spirit. It would be an ill day for this country if a measure of this importance should be dealt with in a party spirit. I am dealing with it as a farmer, as an irrigator, and as the president of the Irrigation Association, who feels that there rests upon him the great responsibility of not agreeing, too hastily, to those clauses of the Bill which I and they do not thoroughly understand, and I must ask this House, in all seriousness, can it be said that this Bill is of a simple character? Is it drafted in the clearest possible language? I think hon. members on both sides who have studied the Bill, will say that such is not the case. Even if it necessitates delay on these clauses on which there is a great deal of difference of opinion, it is essential in the interest of irrigators, and in the interests of irrigation development, that this House should do nothing of a hasty character which it might have cause to repent it afterwards. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you whether you understand the Bill, because as a lawyer and having a certain amount of leisure when the House is in committee, you may have had an opportunity of looking carefully into it, but I would like to ask you how many of the farmers of this country understand this complicated measure to-day? Might I ask you how many members of this House, at the present moment, thoroughly understand the Bill which has been placed before us in what, I may say, was rather an instructive speech by the Minister of Agriculture? I certainly have given a good deal of attention to irrigation through a fairly long life, and I have studied the Bill, as I know the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has studied it, with a great deal of attention, and I am forced to confess that, at the present moment I have not been able to unravel many of the intricacies of the measure and thoroughly understand its application. In a Bill of this sort I do say it would be a good practice to lay down that you should have an index to the Bill, as we had in the Act of 1906, and that when the Bill was circulated a synopsis in clear language should have accompanied it, as an explanation of the intricacies of many of the clauses which it contains. I think that is really something which the farmers of this country have a right to demand, not alone in connection with an irrigation Bill, but in connection with any Bill of an intricate character which is dealing with their vested interests, so that they may, without legal phraseology, or without the necessity of getting legal assistance, be able to follow and study the measure and see where it is leading to. I dare say some of my hon. friend’s colleagues—I won’t say many of them, and I would not class the Minister of Lands with them—may consider those clauses of the Bill dealing with vested rights, which have departed very strongly from the common law and the statutory law of this country, do not require very much consideration. I refer to those authorized undertaker’s clauses of the Bill, which I have always been afraid, if not thoroughly understood, may mean, literally interpreted, the real undertaking and burying of a great many of the irrigators of this country who have invested their all in the development of its irrigable resources. As I said before, I hardly imagine even the lawyers will be able to explain some of its clauses. I, from bitter experience, have realized that irrigation litigation has been very detrimental to the interests of the farmers of this country, and though the Minister told the House, in all good faith, that he thought this Bill would have a tendency to diminish irrigation litigation, and that it would keep us out of the water courts, having read it very carefully, I do not think we will ever be out of the courts if the Bill goes through in the manner in which it is drafted at the present time, because it will give occupation for my lawyer friends—which they have had enough of already, God knows—in connection with the irrigation laws. If Clause 2 and some of these clauses go through, I think it is likely that it will be the richest harvest that has ever been showered upon them by a grateful country. If there ever was a necessity for adopting the scriptural precept “Write the vision and make it plain upon the tables, that he may run that readeth it,” it is in connection with an irrigation Bill. I ask anybody who has read this Bill, no matter if he has been previously associated with irrigation, to read it running. I find it very difficult to read it when I am crawling.

You must have a wet towel.

Does the hon. member think, with the business before the House since we assembled last January, with measures as important before us as the Liquor Bill, and sitting three nights a week, that members have had an opportunity of studying the intricate clauses of the Bill as they should if they have to legislate upon them? While there are certain clauses which are admirable, and irrigators are indebted to the Minister for introducing these clauses, we should deal with them and leave others of an intricate and very contentious character for the country to have an opportunity of thoroughly considering them for at least 12 months, and having got all the evidence, and irrigators knowing what they mean, my hon. friend should then come forward with these clauses before the House. The Minister referred to the fact that people seemed alarmed at the changes which were made, and that irrigators in congress seemed unnecessarily alarmed, but that changes had always taken place from time to time. I think he went back to the Bill of 1876 and referred to the Bill of 1882. These Bills made no changes in the water laws so far as water and land are indissolubly associated. They made no alterations in the fundamental principles on which the laws of the country are based. The court for a considerable period of time was not prepared to act on them, and it was only since 1906 that provision was made for the passage of water and any definite steps had legally been taken in that direction. The Minister said that it was essential in passing irrigation Bills to ascertain what were the needs and wishes of the community, so that both might be met with the least possible hardship and disorganization. There I entirely agree with him, but I would use that as an argument in saying I look to his support in regard to the proposal I am making—that certain clauses should stand over. Although the Minister says he consulted the very best authorities, I do not know who those authorities were, and I am perfectly certain a large number of practical irrigators, who have devoted their life to the development of irrigation resources, did not have an opportunity of being consulted until the congress met the other day and the Minister was good enough to put this Bill before them. The Bill has been materially altered for the better from the draft Bill placed before the congress. The Minister also said on the question of normal flow that it was an urgent necessity that everything possible should be done to avoid expensive litigation between riparian owners on this subject. When we come to deal with the clauses dealing with the normal flow, I think the Minister and the House will acknowledge, and I am perfectly certain irrigating farmers will acknowledge, that it is perhaps going to be not a less expensive, but a more expensive procedure than we have at the present time. The Minister proceeded to deal with authorized undertakings and was surprised that the congress had been so scared with this simple little clause. As the Minister proceeded I acknowledge he scared me, and I think a good many other members in this House, when he referred to the fact that, although irrigation was very important, industrial undertakings were also very important, and that it was necessary in the water law to make equal provision for industrial undertakings and things of that character which would make for the development of the country. That did scare me to a certain extent, because it is a departure from—I do not know what the expression is—a departure from almost primeval times in dissociating water from the land.

What about the railways?

The railways are a commercial undertaking and are run in the interest of the State; and the people who use them pay for them. If the railways want water they must depart from the principle they tried to impress on my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) in 1923 when they submitted to the then Minister of Railways—I hope my hon. friend has not been converted by the railways and the left wing of the Government—a Bill suggesting that whenever they desire water they were to take it, and not to pay for it. I sent my hon. friend a memorandum on the Bill which was of rather a stinging character. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), having embarked on farming operations of his own, with a perennial stream running through his property, looked with rather different eyes on the suggestion of the railway department than he would perhaps have done had he not adopted that other occupation, farming, which has proved so extremely lucrative and pleasant. My view is that the railways are taking water from perennial streams without due legal authority, and that the railways by entering into an agreement with farmers to take their riparian water without the authority of this House are committing an illegal act. Whilst I sympathize with the railways, I think that if they require water they must pay full and adequate compensation for whatever they require. When the Minister referred to industries such as iron and steel, I began to realize that the fear I entertained with regard to certain clauses was more than justified. Farmers, whilst desirous of developing industries, will not be prepared to see these industries established to the detriment of the farming industry without which no country can exist. Coming to the details of the Bill, I notice that the first section has been considerably altered from the draft Bill laid before the Irrigation Congress. The first great alteration from existing law is with regard to “authorized undertakers.” The powers given to them are of a very serious character, and should be very carefully considered by the House, and I will deal later with them. The words “equitable distribution” have disappeared from the definition. Then we have a new definition “flow.” Owing to the fact that there are certain rivers in this country which at times have no visible flow, but an underground flow, it may be necessary to introduce the words “visible or invisible” so far as flow is concerned. “Portion” is a new definition, and it is very interesting. I understand that “cross section” is an engineering term equivalent to the old word “point”, Evidently a portion would refer to a flow of water which would be utilized. The late Lord de Villiers pointed out to me on one occasion that there are many streams which are perennial in their course, but eventually there is a point at which if the water were allowed to flow down a sandy channel it would be of no use to anyone. Cases of that sort demand a definition. We have a new term in “reach” which is part of a “portion”. Section 2 proposes to repeal Section 10 of the 1912 Act which defines and determines a normal flow. In this Bill we have defined “flow” instead of the normal flow. A better definition of “portion”. I think, would be: “The whole river with all its tributaries, during the whole length of which there is a normal flow, provided ‘portion’ shall not extend further than where the flow of water shall not result in excessive loss.” I will read a few of the sub-sections from the four pages of the section.

Have a heart.

Let us see if it is an improvement on what we have now. We will follow the suggestion up. On page 6 you deal with seepage water, and I ask how are you going practically to knee-halter seepage water, as provided for in this clause? If you have a fair amount of water in the river it will go over the weir and will mix with the seepage water. Seepage is dealt with again on page 14, sub-section (7)—

Does this mean every owner shall have a pro rata share? I suppose that is what it means, because the courts have always decided they shall have the right to a fair and reasonable share of the water. If you are going to have a pro rata share, take the case of Bon Accord. When I went into this question, I found there were difficulties in connection with this land. I found that some land would swallow all the water up. Some areas did not take much water at all. Is it the intention to divide the water according to the quota of the irrigable area of the land? I don’t understand. Let me read the definition in the Bill, which definition, in the old Bill, it is proposed to delete. Clause 10 of the Act of 1912, which clause I have read, proposes to define rights as follows. [Clause read.] The Irrigation Congress, when going fully into this question, suggested that they thought it would be advisable the clause should stand over, and it was suggested that the attention of the Director of Irrigation should be called to the discussion which has taken place with the intention of trying to find a definition more easily understood by the irrigators of this country. If we want a clear definition, much clearer than this I take the Act of 1906. [Clause read.] In the drafting of this Act there is a tendency to depart from this simple phraseology. My lawyer friends may support it.

No, they deprecate it very much.

The clause dealing with this was a sample of ambiguity. The clause … [Time limit extended.] I am indebted to the House for giving me an opportunity to go on, because it is an intricate subject and takes time. I give these criticisms because they are views which strike me and other irrigators, and I think it is fair to the House and to the country that these views should be given expression to. The only way to deal successfully with amendments to the Irrigation Act is to group together the views of all the people who have devoted their lives to the irrigation of the soil and whose views are fairest to the greatest number of people, having in view the usage of water to the greatest possible advantage. Further, in regard to Clause 10 of the old Act, its alteration has never been asked for by any meetings I attended of the Irrigation Association, and it was never previously discussed at any irrigation congress, except the last one in January. Then why alter it in such a complicated manner until the people have had an opportunity of discussing it? There are certain rivers in this country to which this mathematical distribution may apply. There are other rivers, especially in the south-western portion of the country to which it will not apply. For instance, the people on the Breede River—pioneers in irrigation in this country, and it is worth seeing what they have done by a practical application of water to the soil. The Breede River people are filled with alarm, and no wonder. Since the forethought of the Breede River people allowed them to go in for the dam the other side of Worcester, which, I hope, they are going to extend in size, and which has allowed in this period of drought the greater portion of the Robertson district to be a smiling garden, their valley is, to a large extent, full of water, but, though it is full of water, and though they have followed the precept of the prophet—“make this valley full of ditches for ye shall not see rain, neither shall ye see wind, but this valley shall be full of water.” The Breede River people and the Breede River Irrigation Board are practically the only people who have done that to such a large extent in this country, and I understand that they are very alarmed; not that they are not extremely anxious to have necessary amendments which experience has shown them are required in the Irrigation Act, but they are alarmed at adopting new terminology which may eventually have a meaning which people do not understand. If you proceed to divide flows of water mathematically you are beginning, so far as the farmer is concerned, to deal with matters which, in the majority of cases, he does not understand. We all know from practical experience, that the times to store water on streams—I refer to perennial streams—are times of the year when the irrigators are not using the water and generally, when the river is in flood, at which times you can store large volumes of water without being able mathematically to estimate it, when the people are not using the water and the river is in flood, and there is an opportunity of storing it without detriment to secondary users. If I am not wearying the House, let me get down to Section 11. [Section read.] I congratulate the Minister, and I congratulate the irrigators upon having come to a compromise on that question. The draft Bill that the Minister introduced made reference, so far as towns were concerned, to lands whether riparian or otherwise. I see this Bill now makes reference to riparian lands, because the congress said very strongly that, with all possible desire to assist a town, it would be very hard to take water from riparian owners for the purpose of being put upon the gardens of land in a town which was non-riparian to a stream. I congratulate the Minister upon having met, as I think, the suggestions of the congress in this direction. It makes provision for giving water to the inhabitants of a town. It has limited the amount of water. It was originally suggested in the draft Bill that there should be 100 gallons per day for Europeans, and 25 gallons per day for non-Europeans. That has now been cut down to 75 gallons per day for Europeans, and 25 gallons for non-Europeans. It allows for the flushing of streets and sanitary purposes, and everything of that sort, but it has removed what was, to be sure, the serious “struikelblok” that it would be possible for a town to take water which had been used for irrigation purposes for industrial undertakings. That, fortunately, has been eliminated from the original draft. It was one of the things that gave the congress the greatest possible alarm.

By the Bill of 1912 they can take as much water as they want.

They could not do so. What was done then was that you could take water from normal flow, or take surplus water from a river with the authority of the water court when it was proved beyond doubt that the secondary right had been met in its entirety. I would like to call the Minister’s attention to one thing. We had many discussions about the necessary development of towns, and though a compromise was arrived at in the congress, I should think that should only apply to existing towns. With the new developments in this country, new towns can spring up alongside other townships, and you might make, if not careful, some farms which have been made into beautiful homes, dry wastes. I am very glad my hon. friend has taken out mechanical and industrial undertakings in this section, because it would have meant they could take water not only for animal and domestic uses, but for industrial purposes as well to the detriment of secondary users. I am strongly in favour of mechanical and industrial development, but when you want water on a large scale you have to follow the laws of the country to enable you to get it. You come to this House and you ask for powers and pay suitable compensation. You have to make out a case in a private Bill and pay full compensation for the whole place before you can take water rights away. The older I get the stronger I become in favour of the maintenance of vested rights. Now it seems to me the Minister is not showing that old conservative instinct which I thought was strongly insistent in the party to which he belongs.

Why didn’t you (waarskuwing) when they passed the electricity Act?

There again I find the Minister wants a certain amount of education in this particular direction.

I am not too old to learn.

I know, and I am not casting my pearls before swine. I know the Minister is willing to sit at the feet of Gamaliel and learn from this House and from irrigators the experience which years have taught them. The Electricity Act is a totally different thing. It is a public service which is rendering assistance to the State and is not a money-making organization. It is an entirely different thing to tell me as an irrigator that a vested right must be taken away from me at the discretion of the water court to be given to an industrial undertaking. That is where my hon. friend and I entirely differ. Let hon. members turn to page 14—

The Minister will remember that at the congress I suggested we should have all these sections headed “subject to existing rights and servitudes” and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) supported that. I do not see it in the Bill. With regard to section (6) that, I think, embodies the compromise that was arrived at Port Elizabeth last year. Nothing has divided the irrigators of this country during the last 10 or 12 years more than the protection clauses of the Act of 1912 and the rights of upper and lower riparian proprietors, but the representative irrigators of this country came together at Port Elizabeth last year and after a great deal of discussion we put representatives of both sections into a room and to everybody’s surprise they came back not very long afterwards with a compromise which is accepted by everybody. I always thought that so long as these things have to be discussed a large proportion of the time at all meetings of irrigators will be taken up by them, That question again came before the conference last January. I would like to take the opportunity of paying my tribute of praise to irrigators like Mr. Southey and people of the same interests and views, who said. “We came to a compromise last year. We will abide by that compromise now and request the Minister to give it legislative enactment.” That is a part of the Bill that I think is extremely good and also a part of the Bill which I hope the Minister will see is brought into working and receives legislative sanction this year, because there is no doubt it will remove an enormous amount of friction which has been very detrimental to irrigation harmony in this country. Now I come to page 36—

Now I will answer the statement the Minister made to me that the Act of 1912 practically did what this Bill does by the deletion of sections (21) and (22). This is very important. Section (21) that is repealed, and section (22) that is repealed of the Act of 1912, I will read. [Section read.] You delete these two sections and introduce a new section [8 (20) read]. The normal and primary use of water is the water referred to in the section I have previously read—with regard to domestic purposes—drinking water for human being and animals. You now give the authorized undertaking, with the consent of the water court, irrespective of the secondary use of the water, which is irrigation water, authority to take that water. The congress also suggested that this clause should stand over. Let us look at sub-section 3 (read). What is “public interest?” Who is going to decide what it is? Who knows who is going to compose the water courts, and what view they may hold? Will they consider “public interest” industrial and mechanical interest rather than irrigation interest? This clause, as the Minister knows, led to an enormous amount of discussion at the congress, and was viewed with very grave alarm. I will not go further through all the clauses. It means, under existing conditions, both statutory and common law—common law, I think, from time immemorial in the Union—there is no right to water per se. Water of a stream is associated with the land. The primary use is for domestic purposes; the secondary use for irrigation, and if there is any water left, then there is the tertiary use. This Bill proposes to allow a riparian owner, with the consent of the water court, to transfer his water from the catchment area to a stream, and from his land to another catchment area. Secondly, it allows the riparian owner to sell the water which under the mathematical definition of the Bill he is entitled to, to an undertaker—a funeral undertaker in many cases so far as the farmer is concerned, and that undertaker can use that water in the valley, or take it away and use it for any other purpose. An undertaker can buy a farm and then he becomes a riparian proprietor; he can, for industrial purposes, and with the consent of the water court, use his water for whatever purpose he desires, and take it away from the catchment area. Under the Act of 1912 there is a most stringent provision for not taking irrigation water out of an irrigation area, unless secondary interests are not damaged. From my knowledge of practical irrigation, there are great dangers in this clause. Why had the law laid down, except in very exceptional circumstances, where you can prove no detriment to irrigation, the water was associated with the land and should not be taken out of the catchment area? You take a river 50 to 100 miles long. AB has five miles of reach on that river. His property has precipitous cliffs, and it is not economical to take that water out. C, D, E and F, lower down the stream, have the advantage of the volume of water which he cannot use. They are going to lose if he can sell that water and take it to another catchment area. Then CD is a riparian owner and he has also five to six miles of reach on that river, and has the right to a fair and reasonable use of the water for secondary purposes. He may have very good irrigation facilities, and has the right to lead water over a large area of land. The Almighty sends bounteous rain, and his land receives all the water which is required for irrigation purposes. The volume of water, under these circumstances, in the river he does not use, the riparian owners lower down get the benefit of. Then, again, a vast proportion of water seeps back, and is used again. When you tell me in the Bill you can compensate the man whose water you took, what compensation are you going to give to the people lower down the river who have lost water, which under the law they could use if the upper owner does not use it? This is a very serious thing and the courts have always thought so too. I implore the Minister not to embody the clause in the Bill this year. Let us leave alone clauses of this character, because they have been disturbing the minds of the irrigators. This clause is entirely foreign to our ordinary law, which is a very sensible one, for it provides that when an upper riparian owner cannot use the water, it goes down to the lower riparian owner. I think I am expressing the opinion of irrigators on both sides of the House when I say that the farmers, while desiring to assist legitimate industrial undertakings, feel that our first duty is to the people who, from time immemorial, have a just claim on water for secondary purposes. If there are cases in which you are going to have a compromise, that compromise must be reached only if by so doing you do not inflict an injustice on the secondary user. I hope that whatever else is enacted, the Minister will not insist on this clause. I am speaking the views of people associated with irrigation on both sides of the House and they are exceedingly nervous with regard to this clause. Does section 39 refer to “authorized undertakings?” Does it mean that by the decision of a water court you can take water in what it considers the public interests? Does it mean that there is to be no appeal to the superior courts? Are sacred rights to be taken away by a water court without the people concerned having the right to appeal to the higher tribunals? I cannot understand how the clause appears in the Bill. We have always found the greatest difficulty in regard to registration of servitudes. I speak feelingly, for the money I have spent on water court cases has run into four figures. If you go from a water court to the Supreme Court and obtain judgment it is exceedingly difficult to get the older farming population to give up their title deeds for endorsement. On one occasion, I got Sir Henry Juta to go to Oudtshoorn, where, with the assistance of Senator Langenhoven, who is a great authority on irrigation, he was able to arrive at a compromise with the Irrigation Board. He suggested that the registrar of Deeds should receive from the registrar of the water court the finding of the court, and that the deeds office should endorse the finding on their records. I am glad to see that this is embodied in the Bill. This Bill, although it has imperfections, is very good in many of its parts.

Like the curate’s egg.

It is better, for the good parts of the curate’s egg still retained a curious flavour, but the good parts of this Bill are really very very good. With regard to Section 40, I think the Minister is going to get himself into trouble over the regulations of the Irrigation Board, for he provides after he has decided on the regulations that should any person be aggrieved he can appeal to the Minister—the same authority—who may modify the regulations or the incidence of any rate against his previous decision. This does seem to be an extraordinary procedure. Sub-section (5) of Clause 40 states that after an irrigation district has been formed, no irrigation works may be constructed within the district without the permission of the Irrigation Board. In this case bureaucracy is going a little too far, for it would mean that anyone in an irrigation district would have to get the authority of the Irrigation Board before he could alter his furrow or construct on his land a leading dam to catch up the water to which he is legally entitled. I do not think this is necessary. Sub-section (4) says—

Nobody has greater admiration for the Director of Irrigation than I have. The country is extremely fortunate in the Director of Irrigation we have got, but notwithstanding my admiration for his ability and capacity, I do not want to make him the final court of authority. I do not say that his decision will not he just, fair and reasonable, but the people who will have to act upon the decision may not have the same opinion, and I say that it is not fair to the director either. It is not fair to throw the strain upon him. Then I notice, also, my hon. friend has hardened his heart. He is not going to introduce an amendment with regard to joint and several liabilities. I suggest there is nothing more detrimental to policy of the Minister of Lands than this refusal to deal with joint and several liabilities. When an individual borrows money he hypothecates his property. When an irrigation district borrows money the irrigators are jointly and severally liable. This crept into the Act of 1912 without its significance being fully understood. The Minister said it was a co-operative undertaking, but it works out, in practice, where people are in arrears with the water rates, that there are people willing to go in, but they hesitate because they know, on taking possession, they are jointly and severally responsible for the irrigation rates. I appeal to the minister, and to the Minister of Finance, to go carefully into this matter. In the end you will be better off financially if you only make, in an irrigation district, the individual holding the land liable for his rates. If you did that you would get a great many people taking up the land. If you go into a district where people are in arrear, you have difficulty in getting new settlers to take up transfer. This has been discussed at several irrigation congresses. The unanimous feeling has been it will be in favour of encouraging people to go on the land if the responsibility of the irrigator is only the same as that of the private irrigator. If a man has 20, 50 or 100 morgen, make him responsible for the rates, but don’t make him responsible for the rates of someone else holding land alongside of him. You will do better by doing away with the joint and several liabilities if the desire is to have the land settled.

What of the future, for loans on the irrigation schemes?

I thought my hon. friend was a supporter of mine on the question of joint and several responsibility. It has hampered irrigation development to a large extent. Let me now go to the end of the Bill, the clause dealing with the Orange River. Previous to our taking over South-West Africa the boundary of the Cape Province was the northern bank of the river. I maintained that when I was in office. I disputed it with the Germans at the time, and it was proved the northern bank was the boundary,—the highest flood level. Now that we are responsible for the mandated territory, which we are administering under the laws of this country, I have no objection to their getting rights in the river, but I have an objection, to the fact that the Minister may grant permission to extract water for the use of their land in such quantities as he may determine. It means you are going to place the practical control of the water in the river in his hands, and you have no right to give him the power that, on his ipsi dixit, he may give the power to take water as he desires. That would be a foolish thing to do. I have kept the House an intolerable length of time, and there are yet many points in the Bill I would like to deal with, but the House has been good enough to give me an enormous length of time on this measure. The Bill is extremely complicated, and I think every member of the House will agree with me on that. Parts of the Bill are very difficult for irrigation farmers to understand; even after the closest study they find it difficult to grasp its meaning. It alters materially existing rights and introduces new principles, and, a policy hitherto unknown in our common and statutory laws of the country. It is not a simple measure, as the Minister wishes us to imagine in his second reading speech. The Minister, owing to his not having a close practical experience of the problem, has been persuaded to introduce a new policy without grasping the suspicions some clauses have engendered in the minds of irrigationists, clauses which will keep them constantly in the courts, greatly to their disadvantage. No doubt there are many amendments which experience has found necessary in the working of the Act of 1912, and the settling of long drawn out differences of opinion in regard to the protection clauses of that Act and the embodying of the compromise arrived at by the good feeling between upper and lower owners in the Bill, by this alone being passed this session the Minister would be conferring a great benefit upon the irrigators of the country. I would suggest to the Minister that he would be well-advised to have a full investigation and be satisfied this session in putting through those clauses which will meet with general approval; which were discussed by the irrigation congress, received the sanction and consent of the congress, and not attempt to press through the House measures which we really have not the time, even after investigation by a select committee, to realize what their operations eventually may be, if brought into law, and that it would be far better to allow those contentious clauses to remain in abeyance. I can only assure my hon. friend, the Minister, that if he is prepared to adopt a policy of that sort, for what it is worth, I shall give him every possible co-operation I can. Now I am in a dilemma. I really have found great difficulty in making up my mind. This Bill, as I have said, deals with policy and very important principles which are foreign to our legislation, principles that I believe it would not be fair to force upon the irrigators of this country until at least they have the fullest opportunity, as was suggested by the irrigation congress, of discussing them in all their bearings, and of seeing how far they affect their vested interests. You, Mr. Speaker, in this House have given rulings from the Chair, and I understand your ruling has been that where-ever the House, on the second reading of a Bill, adopts a principle, it is impossible for a select committee to call evidence for the obliteration of that principle. They may modify the principle. I think that was your ruling on the Iron and Steel Bill, and upon other measures. Please, Mr. Speaker, do not think for one instant that I am casting any aspersion at all on your ruling.

I think the right hon. gentleman is slightly out. The ruling that I gave was that no evidence can be brought in support of any amendment which would be directly contrary to a principle that was approved of on the second reading.

That is what I meant to convey.

I want to say this, that a clause embodying a principle can be entirely deleted and evidence can be brought to show that it ought to be deleted, but no amendment can be moved which in effect reverses a principle that has been approved of at the second reading and, consequently, no evidence can be allowed which has that tendency. I do not think that my ruling went any further than that.

I have not, perhaps, put it so clearly. That is what was weighing with me, and what I have been thinking over during the last few days, that, as there are vital principles introduced into this Bill which are foreign to our legislation in the past, if the Bill is read a second time and referred to a select committee, it would be impossible for the members of that committee to call evidence for the purpose of showing how dangerous certain principles of the Bill are, the House having adopted them. I would appeal to my hon. friend the Minister, in the general interests of the country and in the general interests of the irrigators of this country, to agree to a motion that I shall propose that the order for the second reading be discharged and the subject-matter of the Bill be referred to a select committee. I am doing this, not because I want in any way to hinder the investigation of this Bill, but because I feel that, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me or other members of the select committee to call evidence, which I would desire to call, in the direction of showing how detrimentally opposed to the interests of irrigators in this country certain new principles embodied in this Bill are. I would say to my hon. friend that I hope he will agree to my amendment, and I can only assure him that, if he does agree, he will get every possible assistance, so far as I can give it, in bringing up a good Bill and in bringing up a Bill which will be of material advantage to the irrigators of this country, but which will not deal with vital principles which I do not think it is fair to this House, or to the vast majority of the irrigators of this country, should be brought into law before they are thoroughly discussed and thoroughly understood, and before the members who represent irrigation districts have had an opportunity of putting those matters before those who represent them in this House. Before sitting down, I would desire to tender to the House my sincerest thanks for the kindly manner in which they have listened to the rather disjointed remarks which I have made upon the measure, and my only excuse to the House is that it is a subject in which I take the deepest interest, and it is a subject which I have never approached, and I hope I never shall approach, in a party spirit. I move, as an amendment—

I second the amendment. I do not intend to deal with the principles of this Bill. I think the House is indebted to the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). Instead of the hon. gentleman expressing his thanks to us for listening to him, I think we owe him a deep debt of gratitude for the painstaking attention that he has bestowed upon this Bill and for the great experience which he has placed at the disposal of the House in coming to a conclusion upon the important principles of this Bill. I came to Parliament as a young man. The Acts passed in 1906 and 1912 I had the honour to take part in. I know the difficulties connected with them, the technicalities, the legal questions; I may also say the insuperable difficulties which confronted us when we endeavoured to legislate in the past in connection with this difficult question. That is one of the main reasons why I rise to second this amendment to refer this Bill to a select committee before the second reading, because, if we do that, there cannot be any question at all that we could be hampered in that committee in having full scope in the way of evidence and in the way of drawing up a new Bill, because if you refer a Bill to a select committee prior to the second reading, you only refer the subject-matter of that Bill. The committee has a perfect right to bring up an entirely new Bill leaving out clauses or bringing up clauses which are objected to in an amended form or reporting to the House that they find it impossible to bring up a Bill. With all due deference, I am inclined to agree with my right hon. friend that if we take the second reading first, people who have water rights to-day, irrigators, farmers and industrialists who have vested rights, may be prejudiced when they decide to give evidence before such a select committee if it is referred to the committee after the second reading. I, therefore, think, it being such a delicate and difficult question involving such vast interests, the Minister would act wisely if he were to accept this amendment, and I am certain it would meet with the approval of all the vested interests in the country. For these reasons I desire to second the amendment moved by the right hon. member.

I make no apology for speaking in a language which is foreign to me. I must congratulate the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) on his excellent speech, but I did not recognize the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort in this House and Sir Thomas Smartt of the irrigation congress as being one and the same man in discussing this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt, and it can be borne out not alone by myself or the Minister or many members, but by himself, that in the deliberations of the congress he admitted to the Minister, to me and several others: “We have now got a Bill which we can reasonably accept.”

I never said such a thing.

Then I apologize. The right hon. member at every irrigation conference I have attended has always deliberately avoided party politics. I must congratulate him upon that. Very rightly so; I admire him for it, because I think all irrigationists consider that irrigation is such a vital matter that we should keep it far above party politics. The right hon. member now admits it is an improvement upon the draft which was submitted to the congress.

In certain clauses, yes.

The right hon. member now urges upon the Minister not to rush this Bill through before irrigationists have had an opportunity of discussing it.

The hon. member must have misunderstood me. What I said was I did not desire the Minister to rush the contentious clauses of the Bill through until irrigators had had an opportunity of discussing them. I thought I had pointed out clearly that the congress had passed a resolution to that effect to which I think my hon. friend subscribed that there were certain parts of the Bill which were thoroughly approved of, but there were other clauses which we considered it only fair the country should have a long time to consider.

I accept the explanation. His words were—he urged upon the Minister not to rush the Bill through before the irrigators had an opportunity to discuss it. He will admit the Minister at the congress on very many occasions said, and we all admitted it, and the right hon. member admitted it, “Here is the new Irrigation Bill before you; this Bill which has been urged not alone upon the present Government, but upon the Governments of the past for substantial changes which were imperative and necessary,” and the right hon. member admits his indebtedness to the Minister for having come to the congress and day after day listening to what the disabilities were under which we were suffering by this Bill of 1912. But what is amusing in the speech of the right hon. member is when he speaks of “heilige regte” (sacred rights) and the maintenance of vested rights. I am sure he must have been amused himself, when he knows he was in the House when the Bill of 1912 was passed and what an infringement, what a robbing, what a scandal it was in the robbing of the rights of irrigationists.

I did not introduce that Bill.

I don’t care. Were you not watching the interests of irrigationists generally when you sat in this House when this Bill was passed? The vested rights of irrigationists were taken away by Sections 15 and 16, rights that had existed for centuries, rights of the unfortunate farmers that have existed for many centuries, they were taken away from them by a stroke of the pen, by the Act of 1912, and the right hon. member must remember how there was one agitation upon another, and not by questions alone, but by speeches in this House, his attention was drawn to the unfairness and injustice of the robbery of vested rights by this Act of 1912. Does not the right hon. member remember the invitation sent to him on more than one occasion by us to attend congresses of irrigators, not only at Cradock, but Middelburg—not only to him, but to the Prime Minister? And does he not remember the reply of the Prime Minister—that the Act of 1912 was never intended to rob riparian owners of their legitimate rights? It was only by determined agitation that we saw this Irrigation Committee appointed by the Government, whose report I have in my hand. Before this Act of 1912, water of an intermittent stream was treated for all practical purposes as that of the owner over whose land it flowed. Every riparian owner was entitled to use the water of an intermittent stream passing over his land, the only restriction imposed being that he did not waste such water. Under the Act of 1912 application was made to the water court for protection by the big schemes. Mr. Kanthack’s principles were that big irrigation dams should be made irrespective of the rights of the upper owners. Thus with a stroke of the pen the rights of the upper riparian owners were taken away from them, and they gave the sole and entire use of public streams to the lower owners, or these big irrigation dams. I agree that the policy of the big dams, unfortunately, proved to be a disastrous failure.

What do you say about the “heilige regte”?

I say the “heilige regte” are restored by the present Bill. Thank Heaven, I am prepared to go to the country and say that these rights have been restored.

This undertaking clause?

I am referring to Clauses 15 and 16. When I quote from the report of the Irrigation Committee, hon. members will agree that from the irrigation point of view these gentlemen are above suspicion.

Nobody denied it.

[Report quoted.] When you speak about proportions as far as the distribution of flood water is concerned, it only means he knows nothing about it when he would suggest that flood water can be distributed proportionately. The great injustice of the Act of 1912 and this Clause 16 is that upper owners get a notice from these parties who want to build their big dam that they must declare their rights within six months. They cannot simply go to a water court and say: “Those are my rights, and that is what I want”. They must have properly got up diagrams—not got up by themselves; but in the regulations it is laid down you must lay them properly before the court, or you stand a chance of their being chucked out. That is the expense to which this unfortunate man is put. He must get an engineer’s survey of the ground to make his dam or diversion furrows. Unless you register those rights, Heaven have mercy upon you, because you are going to be debarred from making any works upon that part of the river. We were not concerned with normal flow and South Africa; we were concerned about these particular clauses. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort has frequently referred to a new principle. Was this not a new principle embodied in Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill of 1912? Was it not principles of a very far-reaching character and robbing these people of their legitimate rights? It created litigation costing thousands and thousands of pounds. Imagine these dams—the Sundays River settlement and Lake Mentz—the enormous expenditure of the water court where 468 voters constituted under that Act gave notice to 1,800 unfortunate farmers to declare their rights. They had to declare their rights, and unless they did so before the water courts their children’s children would be robbed of them. When we speak of the Sunday’s River settlement I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) must feel a little bit amused at the great bargain he made in purchasing it for £100,000

I saved about 100,000 souls.

Does the hon. member think it is only worth that amount of money?

It is worth very much less. It is not worth half the amount which was paid at that time.

Simply because there is a temporary drought. I was saving human beings, not buying land.

They are on the horns of a dilemma, and I fear unless rain comes very soon they will not want to stay at Sunday’s River.

It is the same in any other drought-stricken area.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. £560,000 was the cost of Lake Mentz, and there is a water rate of £2 10s. 6d. Perhaps the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) can tell us where the owners of Lake Mentz are living to-day. Some live in Mesopotamia, some in Egypt and some in London. What was the object of purchasing that ground?

To save them.

They bought this ground with the sole object of speculating in it.

They were trying to make provision for their old age. You should give them a little sympathy instead of scorn.

What has this to do with the Bill?

It is a red herring.

These people who live in Mesopotamia gave notice to these 1,800 men to rob them of their rights. We can congratulate the Government that Van Ryneveld’s Pass is in the hands of somebody who can pay and meet his obligations so far as water is concerned.

Who is that?

Do you think it fair to disclose any body’s name here? I must congratulate the Minister on the fact that “proportionately” is eliminated from the Bill. The substitution of Clause 6 is what we have been agitating for years. You have normal flow and major works which constitute 150,000,000 gallons of water, and they may be built within ten years. The only thing the upper owners desire are three small works which the Minister has embodied in sub-section (8). We only want the right of which we were robbed and the liberty to build a small dam. There is no necessity to find any security. I challenge any man to attempt to alter this vested right which has been restored to us. I fear—I hope my fear is groundless—that the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is afraid that the Bill may go through.

You know that is incorrect. You ought to be ashamed to say it.

The Bill may interfere very substantially with Houw Water and the Smartt Syndicate.

This is scandalous.

And the hon. member is vice-president of the Irrigation Association.

I can assure the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that I rather like his interjections, because I am so accustomed to getting them from him.

That is a queer taste.

Unless the Bill goes through in its present form—

Nobody objects to that going through.

You want to stave off the evil day as far as the bill is concerned. I fear—and the hon. member for Rondebosch can say “scandalous” if he likes—unless the present Government passes this Bill and another Government may come in, but this Bill will never be amended.

Are you going to oppose Section 11?

I am only concerned with Sections 15 and 16. You should take cognisance of these vested rights of which we were robbed.

This stage thunder will not assist.

The Minister has consented to send the Bill to a select committee, which can make any alteration it likes. I never anticipated at any time after accepting the new draft Bill at the congress—

That is an absolute incorrect statement.

After having an opportunity of making any alteration he liked they were acceptable to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and to every other member of the congress. If the criticism of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort were constructive we might have accepted it, but the criticism was destructive in every detail. If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is in a dilemma and if he contends these principles are foreign to legislation, then the Act of 1912 was equally foreign to vested rights at that time. I urge hon. members to accept the second reading and make any alteration they desire in the select committee.

I think the hon. member has wilfully misunderstood the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

And very wilfully too.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort is just as keen on passing the major portion of this Bill—

And perhaps a little more honest too.

What is the good of talking as if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was against it. He is just as keen, and surely the Minister understands that. He only urges that certain clauses which are new should be held over.

They can be altered in select committee.

They cannot. You know quite well if you agree to certain principles on the second reading you cannot call evidence against them. Mr. Speaker explained that. If you take the second reading there are certain clauses and certain principles embodied in the Bill which you cannot alter. Take the clause explained by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, that is, the taking of water from one catchment area to another catchment area. If that passes the second reading, the clause cannot be altered. Above all, it is not a blocking motion to delay, but only to give the select committee power to deal with it as they think fit.

To change the principle of the Bill.

The principle the hon. member wishes to retain will be retained.

He knows I was instrumental in getting the clause adopted last year—he knows it perfectly well.

It will go through just as quickly, I imagine, by adopting the amendment.

You are going to change the principle of the Bill.

What principle are you going to change? The particular principle my hon. friend refers to will not be changed.

How do you know? What evidence have you that it will not be changed?

Cannot you trust the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to honour the compromise. If he says he supports a certain clause or principle, he is going to support it. The principle concerning the use of water from one catchment area to another will be changed, because he has shown it is detrimental.

The Minister is prepared to accept this change.

It can be done in select committee. You said you did not want to make this a party question.

Neither do I.

Nor a personal question.

All the same, he thought about scoring a point against the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Having said these few words by way of preliminary, I want to say a few words about the Bill itself. The Government seem determined to push this industrial policy at all costs, and let me point out, certainly at the cost of agriculture in this country. We already suffer by the increased cost of production, the increased cost of living which has been forced on the country by the heavy customs duties, and that is the position to-day. Agriculture is hampered in a large degree by that fact. As far as I can see, these new proposals propose to interfere with the water rights of primary producers, riparian to a public stream, by diverting the water for the purpose of industrial use. That is the whole essence of these new clauses 20 and 21. As explained by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort there are three uses for which water can be drawn from a public stream, (1) primary use, that is, domestic use and water for animals; irrigation and (3) for use for industrial purposes and mechanical purposes. There is another point in this regard, namely, precedence of these uses over the primary use. Primary use is protected, but the use for irrigation is practically placed on the same level as tertiary use. As far as I can make out the object of this Bill is to help the tertiary use of water.

That is the policy of the Bill.

It is done at the expense of the secondary use of water, in other words, irrigation is deliberately sacrificed for the purpose of the use of water for industrial purposes in certain places. We have spent over five millions of State money in this country for the purpose of starting schemes and promoting schemes for irrigation, and here we are deliberately going to interfere with the rights of riparian owners upon a public stream and hamper them in their irrigation development.

How have you done it in the Act of 1912?

We are legislating now in the year of our Lord 1928. If we did it wrong in 1912, why should we do wrong in 1928?

We had no experience then, either. We have had a lot since.

I wish to allude to a couple of clauses mentioned by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). Take Clause 8 new Section 21. If the water court gives permission to any owner of land which they can use on a public stream, they may take the water from such stream and use it anywhere. They can use it on non-riparian land. That is against the present law entirely and against the common law of the Union of South Africa as laid down for years. They can use it apart from any riparian land for tertiary purposes. I think my hon. friend (Sir Thomas Smartt) pointed out very clearly the wrong that is done, the mistake that is made in allowing water to be taken from the catchment area in which it is flowing into another catchment area. Take sub-section 2 of new Clause 20. The water court may even reduce the rights to water on that stream to give sufficient water for tertiary uses. A man may have been using the water of that stream for irrigation purposes for years when somebody comes along and applies for tertiary use of water. If there is not sufficient actually for irrigation by the owners on that stream, their supply of water can be reduced in order to give a better supply for tertiary use. The section says that the water court may abate the use made of the water of that stream for the purpose of an adequate supply for tertiary use. Then look at new Clause 21. This is perhaps the most drastic of any of these clauses which interfere with the rights of irrigationists in this Bill. It gives the power to the water court to grant to any authorized undertaker, that is to say a municipality, the railway department, the electricity commission, and even a mine owner, to use any water of a public stream for any approved use. The undertakers may take out water at any point on the stream and they need not be riparian. And, further, he need only leave in the stream sufficient water for the domestic use of other proprietors. That is very drastic, that a man should come along and propose to use for industrial purposes water which at the present time may be used for irrigation purposes or agricultural purposes. Take the reasons given for this. I would like to ask where could you find a more indefinite designation than “public interest”? Two perfectly honest men may differ as to what is “public interest.” Take the Hartebeestpoort Dam. I understand that the supporters of the ironworks scheme at Pretoria have applied to get water from that particular dam for the use of the scheme.

They don’t exist yet.

As a matter of fact, we know they have applied, in fact we were told the Minister of Agriculture had put his foot on it. It may be that the Water Board may think it is in the public interest, and people equally sincere may think it is not in the public interest. It is so indefinite altogether. The water court are given very great powers and on the grounds of public interest alone, they can give this right. It shows how dangerous this is. Who is going to define “approved use”? It is left in this case to the Governor-General and Governor-General, we know, means the Minister. It is extremely indefinite. One Minister may agree to a certain requirement being for approved use and another Minister may refuse. I think the conditions on which the Water Board may grant this right are extremely indefinite and vague, in fact I think hon. members who consider this must admit that this is a very grave attack on the rights of land owners and on primary production in this country. You have water which can be used for irrigation purposes and you give power to the water board to take it away for industrial purposes. I am not against industrial development. My hon. friend the Minister said in his second reading speech that we talked about industrial development but we did not give them the water. I am not against industrial development, but I am very much against it at the expense of agricultural development, and that is the position here.

That is the policy in the Bill.

My hon. friend, the Minister, who is a farmer himself, must know that the first industry in the land is farming. If you allow the use of water for industrial purposes at the expense of irrigationists—

But have they not paid for it?

That does not matter. They take the water, and how can the others use it? Farming is the first industry—

It is a pity the hon. member did not know it before.

I did more for agricultural interests when I was in office than any other Minister—by a long way. I reduced rates to the extent of four millions, and no one has done so since. It was our policy on the railways to do our utmost to encourage the agricultural development of the country by low rates.

I must point out that this is not a discussion on railways, also, that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) is occupying a Minister’s seat.

Coming events!

My hon. friend says it is going to simplify the law. Perhaps I am not in a position to discuss that, but as far as I can see, it is just going to lead to further litigation. But apart from that, my hon. friends must know that water is so important for agricultural interests that it must always lead to disputes. I am afraid he is not going to be very successful at reducing litigation. The Minister also said that the Acts of 1876 and 1882 also interfered with rights, but they were dead letters. In a judgment given by the then Chief Justice de Villiers, in 1906, he states quite frankly that a man is not entitled to a right in the water until it reaches his farm. [Judgment quoted.] As a matter of fact, these rights were not interfered with. As a matter of fact these rights were not interfered with by these two Acts, which remained pretty well a dead letter. Where is the justice of this Bill in taking away water rights? When that is done the value of a property is depreciated, as a farmer—not having the full use of the water—cannot produce as much as he otherwise would. This is another name for confiscation. It is to the interests of the country that farming should be encouraged, and it has been admitted that farming is about the worst paying proposition we have. To hamper a farmer in the use of water is a very unsound policy indeed, but as far as I can understand it—I make no pretence at being an authority on irrigation, the Bill will have that effect in some degree. I am going to support the amendment which is not moved with any idea of causing delay, but in the hope of preventing misunderstandings. Every member of the select committee will start with the idea of hammering out the best possible Bill. We do not desire a defective measure which may lead to endless litigation. Why not take all the evidence available so as to obtain a workable measure which will prove of lasting benefit to the agricultural industry?

On the motion of Mr. le Roux, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th March.