from B. Gogela, formerly turnkey, Middleburg Gaol, who entered the service of the cape Government in 1889 and was discharged in 1912, praying for a pension or gratuity or for other relief.

from G. Grelie, and others, inhabitants of Great Brak River, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

similar petitions from H. Jones and 44 others, inhabitants of Cape Town; from C. L. Crawford and 38 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs; from R. Kearney and 19 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs and from W. Buckland and 304 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs.

a similar petition from J. W. Putterill and 86 others, inhabitants of Harrismith.

from May Dillon, Principal of the Orange River Railway School, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from C. Bramley and J. R. Dyer, curators of the Randjeslaagte Syndicate and of Carl Jeppe and others, members of the said Syndicate, praying that the House may inquire into their claim against the Government for a moiety of the proceeds of sale of certain piece of reserved ground known as Von Brandis-square, in Johannesburg, or for other relief.

moved that order No. 2, adjourned debate on the motion for the introduction of General Pass and Squatters Bill, be discharged.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that order No. 1, adjourned debate on motion on technical education, be discharged and set down for 30th inst.

The motion was agreed to.

Papers relating to grant of erven at Brandvlei, Calvinia, for public school purposes.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

Copies of Government Notices Nos. 590 and 610 of 1913, promulgating regulations framed under the Mission Stations and Communal Reserves Act No. 29 of 1909 (Cape); copy of letter addressed: to the Governor-General by the Governor-General, ad interim, of the Province of Mozambique, on the subject of the agreement entered into between the Portuguese-Government and the Witwatersrand Native-Labour Association.

This latter paper was referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs, for consideration.

announced that his Excellency the Governor-General, in the name and on behalf of his Majesty the King, had been pleased to give his as sent to the following Bill, Customs Management Act, 1913.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that Order No. X. for the second reading of the Fiscal Divisions (Cape) Extension Bill be discharged and set down for Friday.

Agreed to.

put the omission of the clause, which was negatived.

moved to omit the words “cayenne pepper, tobacco, bluestone. ”

asked the Minister to retain these words. They were put in the old Cape law for some good reason and he thought they ought to be retained. He knew from his own personal experience that such articles as cayenne pepper, tobacco and bluestone were used as adulterants in liquor. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in his own personal experience when a claimholder on the Diamond Fields, one of his native men, a very fine man indeed and one that could have stood as a model for a Greek sculptor and who previous to a certain Saturday night was quite strong and healthy, having drunk four or five glasses of this adulterated liquor, was taken violently sick and died two days afterwards. This might be considered to some extent a reflection upon the trade, but they laid themselves open to it. He hoped that the Minister would leave out the last part of his motion and let the clause stand as in the old Cape Act.

said there was a concoction sold very extensively in South Africa called “O.T.” According to the published chemical analysis this concoction contained tincture of capsicum. He would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether such mixtures as these could he used in the adulteration of liquor.

said the question of the hon. member surpassed his understanding—(laughter)—although in such concoctions he referred to such mixtures might be necessary. The omissions were arrived at by the advice of their experts. He had no objection to bluestone, cayenne pepper or tobacco, but there were no people better informed of the state of the law than the people who sold liquor and whether these words were in or not they knew perfectly well that they could not use them as adulterants.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14, Meaning of different varieties of brandy and whisky,

moved, to omit paragraphs (a) and (b) of the interpretation “brandy.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 18,

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 39.

moved, as an amendment, to omit “ Thirty-first day of January” and to substitute “first day of April.”

Agreed to.

On clause 43,

in reply to Mr. Henderson, said that he had never intended to propose that Act should come into operation in 1914—and he must have been misunderstood, as sometimes happened—but on June 30, 1913. He found that was perhaps a little soon and so he would propose July 1, 1913.

asked whether the Minister had been able to ascertain (with regard to the provisions for not allowing sugar in beer) that the manufacturers in the Northern Provinces were able to comply with that Act.

replied that they must comply with it nine months afterwards and not on July 1. If the hon. member looked at section 13 he would see when it would come into operation. He had made inquiries and found that the time was ample.

asked whether that was so. That section only applied to beer held in stock. He understood that the point of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, was that the manufacturers were unable, within the time mentioned, to change their methods of manufacture so as to comply with the Act.

Hear, hear.

said that what was intended was that they must comply nine months afterwards. If that was not clear, he would make it perfectly clear that that was the case.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 2,

moved, as an amendment, in line 39, after the words “wine brandy,” to insert “cognac type.” The hon. Minister said that he moved that to meet the request of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 7,

moved, as an amendment, in line 40, to omit the word “wine” before the word “brandy” in both places; in line 52, to omit “wine” where it first appeared in the line and in line 55 to omit “wine.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 9,

moved, as an amendment, in line 67, to omit “wine” before “brandy” where it first appeared in the line.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 13,

moved, as an amendment, in line 29, to omit “wine.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved, as an amendment, in line 65 after “ solely of ” to insert “ wine ”; on page 8, in lines 1 and 2, to omit all the words from “wine brandy” to “wine”; and in line 64, after “thousand” to insert “parts.” Agreed to.

On clause 16,

had an amendment on the paper On clause 16, but was not present at the time.

said that he desired to move the amendment in the hon. member’s authorised.

The hon. member cannot do so unless he is authorised. Is the hon. member authorised?

replied in the negative.

The hon. member for Newlands is not here, so the amendment drops later, Mr. Speaker was understood to say that the amendment could be moved.

in moving the amendment, which was as follows: In line 22 after “except” to insert " such substance as the Governor-General may on the recommendation of the administering officer from time to time by notice in the “ Gazette ” cause to be declared a lawful substance for the purposes of this section and any of the following substances, namely ”; reiterated the arguments used on a previous occasion in regard to the use of sugar in beer. In the course of his remarks, he said that the brewers could use South African barley for the manufacture of beer if they were allowed to put in sugar, and the use of sugar did not increase the alcoholic strength. In the strongest Kafir beer no sugar was used. There was nothing deleterious in the addition of sugar and its addition made for a light, wholesome and sparkling beer. The arguments used that sugar was cheap was no argument at all. By prohibiting the use of sugar they were dictating to the consumers and telling them that they had to use the heavy beer made from malt. Let it be indicated on the bottle from what the beer was made and then they advertised what the compound was. The hon. member also alluded to the injustice of having a law of that kind, which was simply a restraint of trade and interfered with the liberty of the subject.

apologised for his absence when the amendment should have been moved by him and said he would like to point out to the house that the amendment put beer on exactly the same footing as wine. If the wine farmers objected to that they were the most unreasonable people in the world. In regard to wine the Governor-General had the right to declare certain substances to be fit and proper ingredients for the making of wine, and all that he asked was that beer should be placed on the same footing in regard to sugar. He wished to ask the Minister a pointed question about an understanding some of them had with him when this matter was before the House previously. He wished to ask whether they understood from the Minister that the amount of sugar allowed in this paragraph was to be used in any way the brewer thought fit and that if he used no sugar for priming in one beer, he could use that sugar by adding it to the allowance for priming in another beer. He thought he understood that something like 10 per cent. of the material allowed to be added would be sugar used in priming. He had a definite statement that in 100 gallons of beer the sugar used represented 5.3 per cent. of the whole materials used, so that sugar would not represent 10 per cent, but a maximum of 5.3 per cent. If this clause did not allow a brewer to use the sugar not used in one beer, in another beer it amounted to very little indeed. He thought the brewer should be allowed to accumulate his sugar even for a year; but even if the Minister put on a limit of 20 per cent. It would satisfy the people who were asking for this concession. He thought in common justice, the amendment should be agreed to.

supported the amendment by the hon. member for Queen’s Town and appealed to the Minister and the wine farmers to concede this point. There was no doubt that the whole object of this provision in an Adulteration Bill was to kill the sale of beer in favour of the sale of wine. They should let both of those articles compete on equal terms. If wine could kill beer on its merits, by all means let it; and if beer could kill wine, let it do so also. He considered that all the evidence that had been produced had been produced solely in favour of wine against beer. There had been no evidence introduced in this House that sugar was an adulteration.

also hoped the Minister would accept the amendment. He felt very keenly that if sugar was disallowed, beer would be handicapped in order to benefit wine.

said he would like to say quite plainly that this matter, since the House last dealt with it, had been very freely discussed. There were a great many hon. members who were keen well-wishers of the wine industry of the Cape, but no secret at all had been made of the fact that this move originated with the wine farmers. (Cries of “No”) It was so. He knew what he was talking about. He had had it direct from the wine farmers themselves, that it was a good thing to make beer more expensive. He could only say that was the worst possible way of extending the wine industry. It was a most objectionable way of trying to foster the wine industry against another. There had not been a tittle of evidence to show that sugar was injurious to the health of drinkers of beer; but it had been proved that sugar was a means of cheapening beer. Why should not the making of beer be cheapened? The wine farmers wanted to cheapen the making of their product and very naturally; but why should they not allow the cheapening of beer also?

said he did not think there was any great objection to taking the first portion of the amendment, because the people administering the law would have to decide whether such other substances as were not deleterious should be added in the manufacture of beer. His hon. friend was not going wrong by accepting the amendment, for no one could object to leaving the matter in the hands of the Administration, which would be advised by its scientific officers.

said he did not think the mover was very happy in the way he had discharged his duties. (Cries of “We can’t hear you.”) He would rather deal with the matter from the point raised by other members. As to the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), he would not say that the hon. member had made a fresh start, but he had certainly made a new start. The hon. member had said that the wine farmers had told him that they wanted the use of sugar in beer to be prohibited, because it would improve the position of wine in the market. He knew something of wine farmers and they were a good deal more simple than he thought them to be if they entrusted that secret to the hon. member for Pretoria, East. (Laughter.)

Only after it was carried and they knew it was safe.

Surely they know a Bill is not safe so long as it is before Parliament. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said who was also struck by the argument that the prohibition of the use of sugar in beer was in the interests of the wine farmers. Whatever view one might take of tactics of that kind one might be sure that the case of those who adopted such tactics was not a very good one, or they would urge the question on its merits. He had not introduced the prohibition for the benefit of wine farmers—(cheers)—for in the Cape, where it might affect the wine farmers,, the law already prohibited the use of sugar in beer. So whether the Bill were passed or not the question at issue was already law in the Cape Province. Therefore he did not see how it could benefit the Cape wine farmers. The argument was an attempt to appeal to prejudice. He was told that it was only interested people who had spoken in favour of the prohibition of the use of sugar. But he would like to know on whose behalf a good many other people had been speaking if not in the interests of beer? There had been more brewers and their representatives in the lobby in connection with this Bill than there had been wine farmers. There had hardly been a day when he had not found brewers in the lobby. The corridors of the House had been full of interested people buttonholing members ever since the Bill had been before Parliament. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said he would not go into the question of whether sugar should be used or not, for he thought that matter had been settled. However, he would like the hon. member for Queen’s Town to understand that if sugar could be used to the extent required he would withdraw that part of the Bill. (Cheers.) The result of that would be that the people in the Cape would still make excellent beer, because they would not be allowed to use sugar. He saw that there was force in the argument of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), because that would put beer in that respect in exactly the same position as wine, and to that he could have no reasonable objection. He wished to treat beer and wine on the same footing—that was that foreign substances should be excluded. When they came to the other amendment he hoped the hon. member for Fort Beaufore would help him to adhere to the decision of the committee, but with regard to the first portion of the amendment he felt very much disposed to add “ provided that the substance shall not be sugar.” (Laughter.) With the understanding that he would probably move at a later stage that sugar be excluded he would accept the amendment.

said the Minister had stated that interested parties had been buttonholing members in the lobby. What necessity was there to buttonhole anyone else, for the wine farmers had all the forces of the Government behind them. (Hear, hear.) Whatever the Minister might think as to the conduct of the wine farmers in respect of the Bill, they could not get away from the fact that in the Cape Parliament a provision allowing the use of sugar in beer was moved out by the wine farmers, who, in that House, had been the strongest supporters of the Minister in regard to this Bill. The exclusion of sugar was the bolstering up of the wine industry at the expense of another industry. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Queen’s Town was carried.

On clause 21,

moved, in line 50, to omit all the words from “words” down to “imitation,” in line 54, and to substitute “word ‘vinegarine’ ”; in line 55, to omit “imitation vinegar” and to substitute “vinegarine”; and in line 64 to omit “an imitation vinegar” and to substitute “vinegarine.”

Agreed to.

On clause 22,

moved, on page 14, line 11, to omit “or”; and in the same line, after “wine brandy,” to insert “(cognac type) or grape brandy.”

Agreed to.

On clause 23,

moved, in line 46, to omit the word “ beer ”; and to insert at the end “Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as requiring wine or spirits sold and actually consumed on the licensed premises to be sold in a receptacle so labelled. Nothing in this section contained shall be construed as applying to wine, spirits or vinegar lawfully sold by such licensed person in a case which has not been unfastened since it was received by him from the person from whom he purchased it, if the bottles or receptacles in such case are so labelled with the name and address of the bottler.”

Agreed to.

On clause 25,

moved, in line 56, after “brandy” to insert “(cognac type).”

Agreed to.

On clause 35,

moved, in line 35, to omit “purchased” and to substitute “submitted.”

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments made in Committee were agreed to.

moved that the Bill be set down for third reading on Friday next.

The motion was agreed to.

Am I too late, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment? I wish to make one or two amendments, if I am not too late.

Where is the notice?

I left it on the desk of the Clerk.

That is not the notice paper.

May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to an amendment upon an amendment? At what stage can that be moved?

Amendments made in committee are put from the Chair and then any amendments can be moved upon those amendments at that stage—not at any other stages.

On the third reading, it would not be possible to move amendments?

Only verbal amendments.

said that he wished to move an amendment to the provision to clause 15.

said that he had taken the amendments made in committee and then any amendments arising out of those amendments, of which notice had been given; and after that, having disposed of the amendments made in committee, any fresh amendments were taken.

in moving the second reading of the Forest Bill, pointed out that nothing had been done prior to 1883 to prevent the extermination of the forests. In that year the Government resolved to send for an expert from France named Count de Vasselot, in order to inquire into the question of the forests in the Cape. It was in accordance with his recommendations that a far-reaching Bill was introduced into the Cape Parliament in 1888, which was accepted by that Parliament and which now formed the basis of the forest legislation of South Africa. The Transvaal had also introduced a Bill to Parliament dealing with the same subject, which was based on the Cape Act. In 1892 the law of 1888 had been somewhat modified, but not withstanding that fact, the law still remained the foundation of all forest legislation. In the two provinces not so far named there appeared to be very little legislation in this direction. In Natal an Ordinance had existed since 1853 dealing with forests, owing to the fact that they had forests along the coast of the same character as at the Cape. Legislation on this subject had not been so much required in the interior. In the Transvaal however, in Zoutpansberg, there was a large natural forest which was protected. In the Orange Free State there was no law for the protection of forests, despite the fact that in recent times important plantations had been laid out. Those plantations were being more and more extended, and everywhere throughout the Union the inclination existed to increase the forests.

That the forests were not without importance appeared from the following figures: Some 640,000 morgen of ground had been set aside under proclamation, and beaconed off as woods. Those grounds were called demarcated territories. In addition to the demarcated land, there was the undemarcated territory consisting of 212,000 morgen, the two together making a total of 852,000 morgen of ground. That territory was covered with natural woods. Then there were 20,159 morgen of ground destined to become sleeper plantations, but not all the ground available for that purpose had been so far planted. Those plantations served specially the needs of the railways. Of the 20,159 morgen for railway plantations, 8,810 acres were planted. There were also other plantations, such as those along Table Mountain, near Kluitjes Kraal, George, and near Pan Station in the Transvaal, which were 39,334 acres in extent. A good deal of work had therefore been done in the matter of planting trees, whilst the value of what they produced amounted to a considerable sum. The forests yielded in 1912 a sum of £55,000. Timber plantations were not, of course, immediately productive. So long as the trees were young they could do nothing, but afterwards the wood became valuable.

The object of the present Bill was in the first place to create a general law for the Union, in order to co-ordinate the different Acts in the different Provinces so that the work of administration might become simpler. In the second place it was their object to protect the natural forests of the country, and also to protect the sources of the permanent springs as much as possible. They began to see more and more clearly that land which was not suitable for farming was of great value for the protection of the permanent water supplies of the country, and it was one of the intentions in the Bill that the management of those springs should be placed in the hands of the Forest Department, for the purpose of protecting them.

Mother object of the Bill was to confer on the Government power to deal with drift sand. The whole of the coasts suffered from drift sands. If the ground belonged to the Government they could take steps, by the planting of grass or trees, to prevent the encroachment of the sand. But in some places the ground was in the hands of private persons, and he referred specially to a piece of ground at Kalk Bay and a farm in the district of Steynsburg. At the last-mentioned farm the sand was encroaching further and further. If the Government restrained the sand in that place the only effect would be to increase the value of land belonging to a private owner, and they would be doing it at the cost of the public. It was the owner of the land who ought to pay the cost of holding back the sand, but the best thing of all would be to empower the Government to purchase the ground at a reasonable price. Then they could restrain the advance of the sand, to the advantage of all those in the neighbourhood.

The country was also suffering severely owing to washaways and erosion made possible by mountain fires. That was to say, the water on the mountains was no longer retained owing to the fires, and the Government should have the power to plant trees on ground where the ground was being washed away.

The Bill further dealt with Crown forests, which included land specially allocated for plantations, and also ground which did not belong to the Government, but on which the Government owned a servitude on the trees. The Government had sold ground in different parts of the country, but had retained a servitude on the trees. The term “Crown forests” included both kinds of forests. In addition to those there was the private forest, namely, where trees grow on private ground, and where the Government had nothing to say either over the ground or over the trees. The Bill had nothing to do with forests of that kind. It was laid down in clause 3, however, that if an owner of a forest went to the Government and said: “ The Department knows more about trees than I do, and I request you to take over the management of mine,” then that could be done. Every private owner or association who wanted to have the help of the Government could get it, but would first have to ask for it. A municipality could ask for it.

The term “ Crown forest ” was divided into demarcated and undemarcated forests, and the definitions of each were given in the Bill. The definition of undemarcated forests was sub-divided into two portions. Under that definition would fall the ground over which the Government possessed a servitude.

But if a public outspan were planted with trees, then the Forestry Department ought to have something to say about it. On the road from Cape Town to Malmesbury there was a Government outspan which was planted with trees. Those trees kept back the drift sand, and if it were permitted that those trees were exterminated, they would have the same condition there as formerly existed on the road to the Pearl. The Department obtained the control of the trees on an out span where it was a Government out span. There was an Act in the Cape which laid it down that all trees within the municipalities fell under the Department. That law was amended in 1908, and the amended Act was still in force. It was this. If three-fourths of the inhabitants of a municipality asked for the removal of the application of the Act, then that would be allowed. That was contained in Clause 26. Clause 4 required attention. The clause contained provisions for the purchase of ground by the Government. The Government could under certain circumstances buy the land from the owner. They would offer a reasonable price, and if an agreement were come to, the matter was finished. If they could not come to an agreement the matter was referred to arbitrators in accordance with the local laws dealing with arbitration. It would in such cases be impossible for the Government to go too far, as all purchases would be subject to the approval of Parliament, seeing that Parliament would have to vote the required money. They were bound to see the reasonableness of such a procedure.

In the Cape Act the same provision had been of force since 1888, but very little use was made of it. Now that the Bill contained provisions dealing with drift sand and washaways that clause was very necessary.

He further wished to draw the attention of hon. members to the provisions regarding Kafir locations. In the Transvaal there were great districts which were covered with natural forests. The Department of Native Affairs thought, however, that it would be unfair to make this Bill immediately applicable to those locations. In dealing with natives it was sometimes necessary to act with severity, and sometimes in a sort of parental fashion. The application of the Bill would accordingly only take place, so far as the locations were concerned, in consultation with the Department of Native Affairs.

Further provisions of the Bill dealt with game and fish. It had been alleged that the Government were going to make regulations dealing with the protection of game and fish, whilst that protection came specially within the functions of the Provincial Councils. The Government would not do that. The Government merely wanted to have the right to draw up regulations in accordance with Provincial laws dealing with hunting in Government forests, and the fishing in rivers running through the forests. The Department would not be able to alter the times for hunting, but could give licences to hunters and fishermen. The Department would thus in that respect be in the same position as any private owner.

It was not necessary to enter into any further particulars. Chapter 2 contained provisions concerning bush fires and the making of fire zones around the plantations. In considering the Bill they should not merely regard the present interests of the country, but also those of the future. Before trees were suitable for “timber they would have to be 50 or 60 years old, and private owners would never begin planting trees of that sort. The State however ought to do it, as they saw very clearly from the experience gained in other countries. Statistics showed them that the world’s supply of timber, principally owing to the manufacture of paper for newspapers from the wood of trees, was rapidly diminishing. They should therefore take steps to encourage the planting of trees. It would also have a favourable influence on the country’s water supply. In the circumstances he hoped the Bill would have a speedy passage.

asked the Minister, in view of the importance of the subject, if he would repeat his remarks in English.

said that he would do so with pleasure, and he was glad that the leader of the Opposition thought the matter of such importance that he should be asked to repeat his remarks in English.

The hon. Minister then repeated his remarks in English.

said that in the district he represented there were a great many German settlements which would be very deeply affected by this Bill. Certain rights were granted to the settlers and large commonages were given to them which to a great extent were bounded by forests. The settlers considered that the Forest Department was constantly encroaching upon their rights, and they wanted those rights safeguarded. He hoped the Minister would deal with that matter in Committee. With regard to native locations, one section of the Bill said that no fire shall be lighted except at a certain distance from the forests. Well, in some locations the huts were built right up to the edge of the forest.

said the Bill was necessary to the administrative machinery of the Forests Department to enable them to work that valuable asset of the State, the forests, but he did not think there was any new principle in the Bill. However, there were two matters to which he would like to refer the attention of the Minister. In the first place, he referred to section 13, sub-section (g), which enables the Government to frame a tariff for the disposal of forest produce and the issuing of licences. It had often been urged in the House that the tendency of their legislation was all in the direction of government by regulations. He thought they should make it quite clear that they did not want to put the people who worked those forests in difficult positions by regulations with which Parliament had had nothing to do. To show the slap dash way in which regulations were altered and the effect, he Would mention that only the other day, without any notice whatever, the charge for Comassie wood was increased from 2d. to 4d. a foot. The result of this was evident when he said it cost a merchant, exclusive of insurance, cost of cutting, export merchant’s commission, etc., £5 19s. 7d. to send one ton of Comassie wood to Liverpool. In Liverpool the wood realised £6 per ton. By that slap dash alteration in the tariff the export trade in Comassie wood had been stopped. With regard to clause 4, the hon. gentleman said a similar provision was in the Cape Act of 1888, and that was perfectly true. But he did not know if this particular provision had ever been acted upon. It gave the Government power to expropriate land for the purpose of extending forests. He would ask the Minister if it would not be desirable in the circumstances of this country to exclude the words “and the extension of.” He did not think any hon. member would agree to the principle of expropriating farms for the extension of forests. (Cries of “Oh,” and “Why not.”) The conservation of forests was another thing.

said he did not think they could congratulate themselves upon having don© anything very energetic in the matter of afforestation. If this Bill did anything in the direction of encouraging the department to plant trees, he know it would have the support of his side of the House. About clause 26, he did not know whether members from the other Provinces quite realised what it meant. It meant the extension to the other Provinces of the provisions in the Cape Act under which no one had the right to cut a tree on public ground, roads, or streets, without the consent of the Forest Department. The Peninsula Municipalities and the Cape Divisional Council were specifically ruled out of the Cape Forest Amendment Act, 1909, which gave municipalities power over its own trees, with the result that they still had to go to the Forest Department for permission to cut down a tree. The Cape Parliament regarded the trees in the Peninsula as a national asset. But the time had come when the people could be trusted to take care of these national assets themselves. (Hear, hear.) He did not think there would be the slightest danger if Government allowed municipalities to have absolute control of all trees within their areas. As a matter of fact there was very little protection for trees afforded by the forest Department, which was a broken reed so far as that was concerned. The trees in the Government Avenue, Cape Town, for instance, had been neglected since Union by the Forest Department, and the Town Council was debarred from spending a single penny In looking after these fine old oaks. If these trees had been under the control of the Town Council they would have been in a far better state than they were today. (Hear, hear.) The time had come when Parliament had better say that it would leave it to the pride of local possession to see that no damage was done to the trees in municipal areas. He desired to preserve trees, but the onus should be put on the local people, and that end would be better achieved if Parliament appealed to local sentiment than left the care of trees to what, after all, was grandmotherly control.

said that whenever it came to the expropriation of private property, he would be on the side opposing such a proposal. Only for the purposes of railway building would he ever consent to such expropriation, and would never agree to the adoption of that principle for the purpose of extending the forests. He had risen to say that he was informed that this Bill interfered with the rights and privileges of municipalities, who would not be allowed to cut down trees without the consent of the Governor-General, and he was surprised at the measure having been passed by another House in its present form.

said Durban had a forest of something like 2,000 acres, but as portions of the land were sold the trees were removed. It would be unfair to ask municipalities to go to Government for permission to cut down a tree.

You can get exemption.

It would be better if the exemption were in the Bill itself. (Hear, hear.) All the responsibility possible should be placed on the municipality, who are then more likely to take care of the trees than if the latter were under the control of the Forest Department.

said the hon. member for Victoria County was unnecessarily alarmed, for the exemptions sought could be obtained by municipalities on application. He agreed that municipalities should be given control over their own affairs. Having remarked that he was glad to see the Government was greatly daring in going on with a Bill of such a contentious character as that laughter) Mr. Creswell said he was struck by the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey), who seemed to mildly reproach the Minister for changing his opinions. But they were none of them exempt from that failing. He would remind the hon. member for George that two years ago, when the Bill was introduced affecting a large number of men, and the Labour members asked for a provision that the regulations to be framed under it should come under the review of that House, the hon. member for George voted with the majority to refuse to allow the House to review those regulations. The hon. member for George had found fault with the Minister for introducing the expropriation clause, but if the hon. member would look into the matter very closely he would see that the Minister abided by his guiding principle, which was to safeguard in every possible way the interests of the landowner. (Labour cheers.) The hon. Minister showed the House that the object of the Bill was to enable the Forestry Department to build forests to arrest the drifting of sand. The land thus protected from this danger would consequently rise in value. To take another view of the matter, the money that was to be spent did not come altogether out of the pockets of the landowners. Public money was to be spent which would increase the value of land by protecting it from drifting sand, and it was only fair that landowners should Be called upon to pay a reasonable sum towards the expenses. The hon. member for George had unwittingly done a service in pointing out the inconsistency of the Government in being prepared to expropriate land for the purpose of planting trees and strenuously opposing the expropriation of land for the purpose of making provision to enable people of the country to make a livelihood. The hon. member had pointed out the consistent way in which the Government had shown more regard for property than for making opportunities for the people to gain a livelihood.

said there could be no proper national development without proper development of forests. If these forests were properly looked after they would be able within a few years to provide their railways with good sleepers. It would not then be necessary to import them. But the timber of the forests could further be used for building purposes, and could be used for other purposes in connection with mining. The so-called “ hard wood ” was specially suited to be made into sleepers, and go far as iron sleepers were concerned, it did not appear that they were satisfactory owing to the fact that they became rusty so speedily. The Railway Department were now using them for fencing purposes. There was, therefore, a great future for their forests. If they looked at what had been done by their ancestors in regard to afforestation, it made them ashamed to think that they had not followed the policy originated by those people who had planted these plantations and avenues of oak trees in the Cape. He pointed to what had been done by the Government in his district, where they had planted 1,200 morgen of land, and where the trees were growing splendidly but held that private owners could do a good deal more in the way of growing trees. It should be remembered that there were certain trees which could grow well in dry parts, and he hoped the Government would see what could be done in this connection. He heartily welcomed the Bill, which he regarded as one of the most important consolidating measures the country could have. In regard to the expropriation principles of the Bill, however, he could not see his way to support these provisions. He could understand that the Government should have the right to expropriate land for the purpose of preventing the spread of drift sand or erosion, but he certainly could not agree that the Government should have that right for the extension of forests. It for example, the principle were applied in the speaker’s district to the fine plantation of 1,200 morgen, which adjoined very valuable farms, it would create very great dissatisfaction. There were parts which were exceedingly suitable for agriculture, but also for afforestation, and the Government would have the right to expropriate such land. Although he would support the Government in anything reasonable, he could not support them on this subject. He did not think that under the old Cape Act of 1888 the Government could have expropriated land as they now proposed doing, although the Minister said they could. The speaker read clause 3 of the Act of 1888, and contended that sub-section (a) of clause 4 should be deleted from the Bill. In regard to the penalty clauses of the Bill, he pointed to sub - section 2 of clause 14, which, he thought, was in conflict with sub-section 1. Clause 23 said a magistrate had the right in punishing a man for contravention of the law to fix damages. He thought that, seeing that the magistrates in the Cape could only fix damages at present to the extent of £50. they should be granted extended jurisdiction, because £50 would not always be sufficient for cases where much damage had been done. Sub-sections 1 and 2 of clauses 14 and 15 were in conflict, and should be amended in committee.

also objected to the expropriation provisions of the Bill, and held there were already too many laws in which the State had the right to expropriate land. Only in cases of absolute necessity should the State have the right to expropriate private property; but he pointed out that the State already possessed millions of morgen of land which were suitable for nothing but afforestation. This expropriation provision, he held, was against the wishes of every landed proprietor in the country. In regard to native locations, he wished to point out that in his district the native was the greatest destroyer of forests and more drastic steps should be taken to alter this. To grant a portion of the fine to the person who gave the information was a dangerous principle. He applauded the general provisions of the Bill which provided for the protection of forests. Compensation was referred to in the event of expropriation, but in case no agreement was arrived at the land would be taken by force. There were some farms which could not be sold, as they had remained in the same family from generation to generation. The Government obtained the further power to expropriate portions of farms, and that was not right. Sub-section (2) of clause 4 laid down that the Government could remove the owner from the ground at the end of a month’s notice, despite the fact that no agreement had been come to as to the purchase price. The owner might then have to wait for a year for his money, whilst the Government would get immediate possession. That was a most dangerous provision, against which he was bound to record his vote. Clause 6 gave the Government the right to expropriate a portion of a farm which adjoined a forest. The Government might therefore take the best portion of the farm and leave the worst for the farmer to keep.

said that while he was in favour of a Forests Bill and of having some uniform regulation, he joined with his hon. friend in objecting most strongly to this expropriation clause. (Hear, hear.) It might have slipped through the Cape House of Assembly per incuriam. It had never been acted upon as far as he knew, but it had been a sort of dead letter, like the veto and other parts of the constitution. It must be understood that there was a great distinction between expropriation of drift sands, because those were things which we expropriated for the public safety. Whole countries had been covered with drift sands, which had obliterated cities and dwellings and everything else. Well, we had not got to that pitch yet, but let us take the thing in time, because by a very small expenditure at the time we could stop the drift sand. If they wanted an object lesson of what could be done by stopping drift sand let them go to Port Elizabeth. The whole harbour had been threatened by drift sands, which were now a complete forest. With expropriation for drift sands he was entirely at one, but he was against giving the Government power to expropriate land. Even if the House should go so far as to say they should have it, they should certainly come to this House first of all, and lay their plans upon the Table, and see what could be done. He did not think they had any right to take away any man’s property for the purpose, not of stopping a public danger, or conferring a public benefit, but simply for the purpose of giving it to the Forest Department. Let him tell them that once the Forest Department got hold of a piece of land it was one of the most difficult institutions in this country to deal with. Ministers were powerless. He and his revered friend sitting there had been struggling to do what would be a most useful thing. Who would give them the instance, without stating the locality. The land was most unpromising. A neighbouring settler, he supposed he would be called, had set to work and made a poultry farm there, and managed to make this thing pay. He wanted to extend his operations. He had got a bit of land which who wanted to exchange with the Forest Department. That could not be done under the law. The Minister was very reasonably inclined. He did his very best to carry the thing through, and proposed to put the land up for sale. The Forest Department then stepped in and said “No, they would not agree to this.” They were not doing anything themselves, but they wore going to stop another man doing anything with the land. Take the farm Olifants Bosch. This was a farm where the forest had been burned out. It was eminently suitable for settling those poor woodcutters that they were so anxious to provide for. The Forest Department said no. They wanted to use it for growing wattle, so the woodcutters had to be taken away.

He thought they ought to be very slow in allowing the Forest Department to march through the country snapping up every bit of land that they said they wanted. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said he would like to have seen the same privilege that was extended to municipalities in the old Gape Colony Tree Planting Act, whereby if the municipalities planted trees they got one half from the Government. That was one of the first Acts that he passed, but he noticed now that it had been dropped, probably because he was not a persona grata. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman said that the effect of that Act on Graham’s Town had been to make it almost like an English town. They had no idea of the increased amenities to a place that resulted from the planting of trees. He was sorry to see that Act had been repealed. People seemed to believe that they could not do anything themselves. They must always come to the Government. (Hear, hear.) The Minister had spoken about the advisability of planting out trees. There was an object lesson at Elgin. They could see there what private enterprise had done. They would see what two or three people could do by planting trees, irrigating and sowing grasses. This was an object lesson set them by a few men. It was easy enough to jaw about land settlement, but it was a different thing to sweat over it. He noticed that hon. members on the opposite side of the House who were bursting with riches take a lot about the settlement of land but why didn’t they buy a piece of land themselves and settle people upon it? No, everybody must come to the Government. The Government could do precious little. (An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.) It would be hopeless to suppose that this country was going to be developed by the Government. He quite realised that in planting out forests the Government would do it better perhaps than private individuals, because they could afford to wait for the returns, whereas a private individual might fight shy of expenditure covering a long number of years.

said this was one of the little Government measures to which he could not give any hearty appreciation. If hon. members turned to the Estimates for this year they would see that a sum of £124,800 was put down for the Forest Department. What who would like to know was this: Had the Government made a success of the land under forest cultivation that they were already controlling. He noticed that there was a sum of £3,000 on the Estimates for the forest at Cedara. That was a Government forest planted in Natal. Hon. members must have short memories if they forgot that the whole plantation at Cedara was swept away by fire on account of the negligence of the Government. He was only bringing this forward as an illustration of what Government control meant. Another matter which he would like to refer to was the Government control of the forest at Knysna. The Government was charging the poor wood-cutters there £7 per annum for the privilege of cutting down trees. Another thing he found was that they were paying £2 per acre for breaking up the land, and goodness knew that 10s. an acre paid handsomely for that work. Surely when they had such illustrations before them of an expensive department like the Forestry Department, surely they ought not to extend those expenses, but ought to curtail them as much as possible. Then clause 14 referred to the regulations upon which the Government sold these trees to the unfortunate wood-cutters. Sub-section 2 also stated that nobody was allowed to light a fire within a quarter of a mile from the forest and if he did he might be subject to the fine of £100. Surely if a man was responsible for the damage, that was sufficient instead of adding another £100 to it. Clause 17 stated that no man was allowed to trespass with dog or gun upon these forest preserves. He would like to know whom these reserves were preserved for? Were they preserved for the friends of the Government? Surely a man might be allowed to walk through these forest preserves and not be liable to a £10 fine. Clause 20 again was also a most dangerous clause, in that a man who happened unfortunately to have his farm near a Government forest reserve or wattle farm, was bound to clear 30 feet on each side of the line. Surely it was not right for the Government who planted these forests and who expected to make money upon them, surely it was not right to expect a man to clear this space of 30 feet. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he seemed always to be falling foul of the hon. member for Jeppe, but the hon. member was always instilling the poison which he had to find the antidote for. Now, it was all very well to talk about site values and the opinions of the hon. members for Georgetown and Commissioner-street with regard to the taxation of these site values would probably be very much different from his. (Mr. BOYDELL: Pound for pound.) The hon. member, then was going to tax those values 100 per cent. He thought that when they had an Agricultural Department, which was run today at an expense of £722,000 per annum, they should be very chary indeed to increase that huge department by the expropriation of land, either for forestry or anything else. It was the principle of these huge Government departments that was at fault and they were getting beyond control. He hoped that the Bill would be considerably modified before it passed into law.

referred to the necessity of uniform legislation in regard to forests. The Department carried out its duties at present under difficult circumstances. The expropriation clause had been much discussed but it should not be forgotten that it only applied in certain circumstances. It was deplorable to think how they had hitherto neglected their duty in the matter of planting trees. Everybody should plant trees, so as to prevent a shortage in the supply of wood. He though if clause (3) was deleted the Bill could be passed. It was not to the credit of South Africa that in the past they had neglected their forests. It was their duty to do their utmost in the direction of planting trees. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) had criticised the £124,000 set down for this purpose. He (Mr. Wessels) would not mind if they spent 324,000. If they did their duty to South Africa they would take all their convicts and put them on to planting trees instead of putting them on to railway construction. He was really astonished, when he was at Elgin, to see how well the trees grew in bare sandy ground. Their plantations would become of the greatest value in the future, he held. As regarded grants to municipalities, he regretted that these subsidies would not be made in the future, as in the past they had done a great deal in encouraging municipalities to plant trees.</p>

The Department had issued a circular to municipalities requiring them to send in their accounts within a limited time, but in his district the municipality responded too late and they got nothing. That was not encouraging. Referring to veld fires, Mr. Wessels held that drastic measures should be taken to prevent such fires, as they were doing considerable damage. Year after year the mountains at Stellenbosch were impoverished in that manner. He urged that a Bill should be introduced next session to deal with this matter. Proceeding, Mr. Wessels urged that the Government should encourage private owners to plant trees. Lectures should be held by responsible officials, so as to show private owners where they could best plant trees and where they could get them from.