from Edith F. Maggs, of Zululand, who has been engaged in teaching in a Government-aided school in Natal for five years, but who has forfeited her pension rights through failing to register her name in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal), praying for consideration and relief.

from Elizabeth Maila, a teacher in the Queen’s Town Mission School, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

brought up the ninth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts as follows:

Unauthorised Expenditure, 1911—’12.— Your committee begs to report that sums amounting to £75,891 8s. 2d., in all are shown on page 274 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report as requiring to be covered by vote on Revenue Account, and that £4,135 5s. 3d., excess expenditure on Loan Vote B, as shown in paragraph 2 on page 278 of the same report, requires similar covering authority on Loan Account. Included in the former sum is an amount of £3,501 17s. 6d. on Vote No. 26, Public Debt, for which, for the reasons given in paragraph 19 of its tenth report, your committee does not consider that a vote is required, leaving a balance to be covered by vote of £72,389 10s. 8d. on Revenue Account and £4,135 5s. 3d. on Loan Account.

The report deals with unauthorised expenditure. The Minister of Finance will bring in a Bill, so there is no need to fix a date for the consideration of the report.

brought up the tenth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

The report was ordered to be printed, and was set down for consideration on Monday next.

Annual Report of Trades Commissioner, year ending 31st December, 1912.

moved in the definition “Forest Produce,” line 32, after “from a” to insert “Crown forest or private”: in line 35, after “timber,” to insert “wood, buchu, bush tea”; in the definition “private forest,” line 48, after “forest,” to omit “exists,” and to substitute “or forest produce exists, and regarding which due notice has been given in a newspaper circulating in the district in which such land is situated by the owner of such land that trespass on or the removal of forest produce from such land without a permit is prohibited.”

moved, in the definition of “undemarcated forest” after “protection” to insert “and utilisation”; in line 4 to omit “tree growth” and to substitute “forest produce,” and to insert a new paragraph (b), viz., “Crown land on which forest produce exists.”

asked whether the Crown lands which had been issued would fall under the Bill.

said that where Crown forests had been given out to private persons such forests did not fall under the law, except at the request of the owner.

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

said he wanted to move an amendment in line 40.

said they could not go backwards.

New clause 4,

moved: That the following be a new clause to follow clause 3, viz.: 4. (1) Whenever any area of land is required by the Governor-General (a) for the due conservation and the extension of Crown forests and plantations; or (b) by reason that a sand drift, which is or threatens to become a cause of public danger, exists thereon; or (c) for the prevention, by the planting of trees or otherwise, of erosion of the soil by rivers, wind, stream or rain; the Governor-General may, subject to the provisions of this section, acquire that land, and the owner thereof shall be entitled to compensation, which, if the amount be not agreed upon, shall be determined in acdance with the law in force in the Province wherein the land is situate, for the settlement by abitration of amounts of disputed compensation. (2) The Minister shall give such notice to the owner of the land to be acquired as is prescribed by regulation and the period of such notice, the manner of service thereof and the persons on whom the same shall be served shall be likewise prescribed. The Minister shall forthwith state in the said notice the amount of compensation he is prepared to pay to the person concerned. After the expiry of the period of the notice the Minister may take possession of and use for forest purposes any such land before proceedings have been taken to settle the amount of disputed compensation. (3) Save as is in this section provided, the provisions of the law in force in the said Province relating to acquisition or resumption of land or interests in land by the Governor-General for public purposes shall apply.

moved the deletion of the words “and the extension of Crown forests and plantations.” The hon. member explained that his object was to prevent the expropriation of land for the purpose of forest extension.

said that on the second reading of the Bill he raised this point with the Minister. He would suggest whether it would not be better to leave out the words “and the extension.”

said it might be necessary, in this country, as in France, sometimes to plant an area with trees in order to keep back the drift from the area preserved.

said he thought the words “and the extension” might mean that the Government might expropriate in quite a new place where no forests existed in the past for the purpose of planting trees. He did not think it was the intention to go so far as that. He would have no objection to an amendment on the lines indicated by the member for George, but he thought that the amendment moved by the member for Ermelo went a little too far.

said he would move to omit “and the extension.”

said he was sorry the Minister had accepted this amendment. He did not think that hon. members had paid sufficient attention to the great influence on rainfall exercised by an extensive system of tree-planting.

said he would withdraw his amendment in favour of the one moved by the hon. member for George.

said he hoped the House would not accept the amendment. This country was still in its infancy with regard to afforestation, and he trusted that the House would not identify itself with a dog in the manger policy.

spoke in support of the amendment.

said that the great point was that they had to plant trees in sufficient numbers all over the country.

How many will you plant?

Give me the land and I will plant. Continuing, he asked whether any hon. member would tell him that the planting of trees did not influence the rainfall.

Yes, I will.

said that in that case he did not bow to the superior wisdom of the hon. member, who evidently farmed by rule of thumb. Other countries were not so blind as they were.

Rot!

said that he erred with the Government, and quoted the terms of the Bill. They on those benches were working in the interests of the country, and especially the interests of the farmers.

said he was surprised at the Minister accepting the amendment. He could not understand the Minister deliberately throwing away the power granted him in this clause. He had yet to learn that the land-owners suffered when it came to expropriation, because the Government was always solicitious where vested interests were concerned.

said that the hon. member for Springs, who was a great authority on everything under the sun, had made a statement to the House that every known authority had conceded that the planting of trees increased the rainfall. He begged to tell him that he was absolutely wrong. (Ministerial cheers.) The planting of trees had no influence on the rainfall at all. He referred to what had happened in Kimberley, saying that the planting of trees, instead of increasing the rainfall, had led to a decrease. Trees grew where they got rainfall.

spoke, but was inaudible.

agreed that the Minister should have retained the power given him in the clause. The increase of forests was beneficial to the whole country.

said he hoped the amendment would be accepted, as he thought it was unnecessary to extend this expropriation. If, however, this expropriation was not extended, it did not mean that the Government did not propose continuing the policy of afforestation. At present some 852,858 morgen had been reserved for afforestation; then there were also large plantations of 48,000 acres, and a hundred million trees had already been planted. The deletion of this expropriation provision had nothing to do with the policy of the Government in regard to afforestation, and would in no wise retard it. There was plenty of ground available for the planting of trees, and it was unnecessary to take further powers of expropriation at present.

said he regretted that the Government had accepted the deletion of these words, because, in his opinion, they were most necessary. The first idea of the Minister was a correct one. He did not believe that the planting of trees would increase the rainfall, but what did happen was this: the planting of trees gave them leaf mould, and this leaf mould was the best conserver of moisture they could have. The cutting down of trees and the removal of the leaf mould had been responsible, to a large extent, for their rivers drying up. He hoped the Minister would re-consider his decision.

also thought that the Minister should re-consider the matter. The Prime Minister, he understood, had attempted to re-assure some of his supporters by saying that the Government had heaps of land, and that there would be no necessity to purchase any more. There might be an occasion in which they might want to extend a forest, and they might find themselves blocked because they had no land for extension in the direction they wanted, and then they might have to go a long way off, and be put to much greater expenditure to extend their forests, than they would have to do if they had the land available. He thought the Minister was making a mountain out of a molehill in taking these words out.

What an extraordinary Government we have got. (Loud laughter.) Have they a policy or not? (Hon. Members: No.) Continuing, the hon. member said the first policy of the Government was the extension of the Crown forests, and to do that they retained the right of expropriating property suitable for the purpose. It was the policy of the Government that wherever they desired to extend their forests they claimed the right of expropriation, but now, because of the right hon. member for Victoria West and other hon. members, they ran away from that policy. In France, M. Clemenceau said that the French people wanted a strong Government to enforce its will upon the people. He thought that was what they wanted here.

said, if they accepted the amendment, they would have to run the risk of having it sent back to the Senate, and there was a danger of the Bill being thrown out, owing to the lateness of the session.

said that millions of trees in Australia had been planted over very large areas, where they had now found a regular rainfall and a fine harvest of wheat. All the authorities contended that tree-planting indirectly induced rainfall.

said that what he rose to say was, that he hoped the Minister would accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Durban, Berea. He was not going to advocate that there should be ruthless expropriation of areas. He was one of those who believed that they had sufficient forest areas available to occupy themselves for some considerable time. He would suggest to his hon. friend the advisability of leaving the section in. The great trouble was that large areas of trees had been destroyed by fire, due to inadequate fencing of the forest area.

said there seemed to be a fear that, if some Government got into power, they would start upon a policy of spoliation. They could rely upon members on that side of the House being against such a policy. Of course, he knew that the idea of the members on the cross-benches amounted to spoliation, and nothing more. (Derisive Labour cheers.) So long as they had a Government, they ought to trust them. (Hear, hear.) This expropriation for the public good was one of the oldest institutions, not only in South Africa, but wherever the Roman-Dutch Law prevailed. It had been recognised before for centuries.

said this was not a question of the planting of trees only, but it was necessary for the public good that expropriation should take place. Expropriation would be provided for by the legislation. The time for that, however, had not yet arrived. He hoped that the Minister would allow the words to stand.

said he had only abandoned the principle of expropriation in so far as it affected new forest areas, but there was no intention to abandon the principle where expropriation was really necessary for the due conservation of existing forest areas, and that was made clear in the fourth clause.

hoped that his hon. friend would get the power to straighten up forest boundaries, so that the dangerous areas could be protected against fire.

said it seemed to him that it was just as necessary to obtain power for the expropriation of land for forests as it was necessary to expropriate land for railways. It should not be necessary, when they wanted land for forests, to have to go and buy it at a very much enhanced cost. Why should not the Government at the present time select the land that was suitable for forest purposes, and buy it?

said sub-section (d) of clause 6 did not give the Government the power of expropriation unless the owner were willing.

said he disagreed.

said the Minister of Education had told them that he did not want to expropriate land for the purpose of creating new forests. He (Sir Lionel) agreed with the Minister, but in the case of existing forests, which it was desirable to extend, the Minister should have power to acquire land for that purpose, should the owners of the land prove recalcitrant. There was considerable risk of plantations being crippled because of the Government not having power to enlarge them. If the word “existing” were added, it would cover the point.

suggested that Government should be given the power to expropriate land for the rectification of the boundaries of forests. Sometimes these boundaries were very irregular, and it was in places where private ground projected into forest areas that fires frequently started.

in supporting the amendment, said he feared that if the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition was accepted the Government would be able to expropriate practically everywhere.

said that before Government could make use of its powers of expropriation they would have to obtain the money for that purpose. Anyone would imagine that Government had power to expropriate all the farms of hon. members opposite.

Have you never heard of a Governor’s warrant?

Yes, and of Parliamentary control of a Governor’s warrant. Government should have the power of expropriation in order to extend existing forests.

could not understand the objections that had been made, and said that what they did not want was that the Government should take land for the extension of an existing forest. The principle of expropriation in the event of veld erosion was not objected to. They only wanted the right of ownership upheld. In his own district there were two forests surrounded by private farms, and the rights of the owners of those farms ought to be protected.

suggested the inclusion of a clause giving the Minister power, for the rectification of forest boundaries, to expropriate any land adjoining such forests on payment of compensation.

said that would be out of order

There is no expenditure; I say the Minister “may” not “shall.” (Laughter.)

said that as far as he knew, in his part of the country the Forest Department let ground for grazing, which showed that the department had more land than it knew what to do with. The Forest Department was in its infancy, and did not know the A, B, C of the subject yet. It was quite unnecessary to give the Government any extra power.

The amendment proposed by General T. Smuts was withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Currey was agreed to.

The new clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 6, Alienation of servitudes for Crown forests restricted,

moved: That the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (a), viz.: (b) the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister of Lands and without such resolution as aforesaid, effect by exchange of land or otherwise small alterations and ratifications of the boundaries of a demarcated forest; and in lines 48 and 49 to omit “forest reserves,” and to substitute “crown forests.”

This was agreed to.

moved in line 53, after “stones,” to insert “in accordance with the laws regulating the disposal of such land.” He said it seemed to him that under the clause as it stood they were going to give the Government power to dispose of any minerals in forests at their own sweet will.

said he had no objection to the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked whether paragraph (b) conferred the right to expropriate.

replied in the negative.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 8,

asked what was the position with regard to roads through the Crown forests which led to private farms.

said that everybody had right of access to his property.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 10, Rights of grazing and woodcuting, etc.,

moved to omit sub-section (b) and to substitute the following: “(b) for enclosing all young plantations, in order to protect them from destruction by stock.”

Fences were absolutely necessary, he argued, for the protection of such plantations. Without them there was always danger of the work done being made useless.

said he could not accept the amendment, as it would apply in many cases to large areas of ground, and it would cost too much to fence them.

rejoined that he had found from experience that money spent in fencing was by no means wasted money.

ruled that he could not accept the amendment, inasmuch as it involved expenditure.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 11, Powers of Governor-General in respect of restriction of exportation of wood.

said that he had received a letter from a correspondent complaining that sub-section (b) was a trap for private owners, and asking why the Government should prevent people from exporting wood from their own forests? He thought it was intended that these restrictions should apply to Crown forests, and he, therefore, moved in sub-section (a) to insert before “Union,” “Crown forests of the,” and in sub-section (b), after “wood,” in Crown forests of the Union.”

said he had no objection to the amendment.

moved in line 45, to omit “wood,” and to substitute “forest produce”; in line 46, after “wood,” to insert “or other forest produce”; in line 47, after “felled,” to insert “or collected”; in line 55, after “exceeding,” to omit all the words to the end of the clause, and to substitute “one hundred pounds sterling or in default of payment of such fine, imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding twelve months.” He said that the object of the amendment was that they had many products in this country, and in regard to the most valuable forest product, great attempts were being made to introduce it into this country, and it was desirable that protection should be afforded to those products of the country.

said he had always looked upon his hon. friend (Mr. Watermeyer) as one of the most intelligent members of the House, and he was pained that he should now proceed on the narrowest lines. (Hear, hear.) Did he think what a position we should be in in this country if every other country in the world were to adopt the same dog-in-the-manger policy of preventing articles being brought here that could be grown elsewhere? Turkey did not approve of the exportation of tobacco—but one could get it all the same. (Laughter.) Why should we not export their products? We did not use these ourselves, but were going to take jolly good care that nobody else did. His hon. friend must really drop his Turkish notions. (Laughter.)

said he knew very well that they would never be able to prevent the exportation of an article altogether, but why should they allow industries, which they were trying to foster here, in other countries getting ahead of them? He said that this country should have the chance before anybody else.

said that where they had a plant that was indigenous to the country, they would have a better chance than anybody else. If they allowed other countries to get ahead of them, then it would be their own fault. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought that the first amendment of the hon. member for Clanwilliam improved the clause. Dealing with the second amendment, he said he did not think it would necessarily have the effect stated by the right hon. the member for Victoria West. He thought the third amendment was an improvement, because it straightened the clause.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendments of the hon. member for Clanwilliam were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 12,

moved that the words “forest produce” should be substituted for “any tree or species of tree,” where these words occurred. The amendments were agreed to, and the clause as amended agreed to.

On clause 13,

moved: That the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (f), viz.: “(g) the framing of tariffs for the disposal of forest produce and the issuing of licences and permits.”

moved: As an amendment to the proposed new sub-section (g), after “disposal,” to insert “out of hand.”

moved the insertion of the following new sub-sections: (g) The offering of trees for selection; (h) qualifications entitling persons to be regarded as bona-fide woodcutters.

said he would provisionally accept these new sub-sections, but their fate would be decided by the proposed new clause.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Rademeyer was negatived

The amendments proposed by Mr. Currey and the Minister of Education were agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 14,

moved to insert the following new clause, to follow clause 13: 14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act or in any other law contained, it shall be lawful for the Minister from time to time to offer for selection, at a stated price and in the manner prescribed by regulation, any trees, the property of the Crown, which may at the time be available for sale. (2) The Minister shall allot each tree so offered for selection to the person applying for the same, and in the event of there being two or more applicants for the same tree, the right to the allotment shall be determined by lot: provided that, in making the allotment, preference shall always be given to persons to whom no tree shall have been allotted. (3) Applicants for trees under this section must satisfy the Minister that they are bona-fide woodcutters, and no tree offered for selection shall be allotted to any person who is not a bona-fide woodcutter. The mover said that this was the great chance they had in the Bill of helping the individual woodcutter at Knysna. He pointed out in detail what happened in that Conservancy, as compared with the Eastern Conservancy, when timber was sold. At Knysna some of the timber was put up in sections en bloc, and the one or two timber merchants who were there got the timber at the upset price. Then there were sections that were set aside for individual woodcutters. With regard to any tree in the section set aside for individual woodcutters, any man could demand that it should be put up to public auction, which commenced at an upset price. The merchants did not compete, but there was no rule preventing anybody going down there and posing as a woodcutter, and competing for every tree against the unfortunate woodcutter, who was a very poor man. The position at Knysna was that the rich men got whole sections at the upset price. The individual woodcutter seldom got a tree at the upset price, for, while the rich merchant could not compete, there was nothing preventing him sending an agent to every auction. Could anybody defend this system as being in the interests of the woodcutting population? He proceeded to quote from the evidence of the Dutch Reformed clergyman at Knysna who gave evidence before the Select Committee on European employment. Proceeding, the hon. member said that was really the true cause of the great poverty in these areas. What he proposed in this clause was based on the evidence of the Dutch Reformed clergyman at Knysna, that the Government should take the power to decide who were really bona-fide wood-cutters, and who were really entitled to get this wood. What he asked was that a wood-cutter should be able to buy a tree at a price which was fair both to the revenue and the woodcutter. If there were 600 woodcutters, and only 500 trees, then they could draw lots to decide who would have a tree. This would give these people an opportunity of raising themselves from the poverty in which they now were in.

pointed out that when they cut down individual trees in forest country then they damaged the rest of the section.

pointed out that the woodcutters had nothing to do regarding the trees that had to be cut down.

said it seemed clear that the woodcutters were being traded upon to a very large extent in being pitted against one another, not for the benefit of the Treasury, but for the benefit of middlemen.

in supporting the amendment, held that if the suggestion of the hon. member for George was accepted, practically all the discontent among the woodcutters would disappear. This was a very old matter which he had raised year after year. All these people asked was that the trees should be sold at a fair price out of hand, and not for the highest possible obtainable by public auction. These people should be given what was due to them, and those hon. members who had so often expressed their sympathy with these poor whites could not give practical proof of their sympathy. They had now an opportunity to help them, by seeing that the trees were sold only at a reasonable price. If the amendment was not accepted the poor white trouble would become more and more difficult. If the amendment was not accepted it was no use for that part of the country being represented in this House. It was impossible, the hon. member proceeded, to go on on the same basis as in the past. He was not opposed to the companies who worked in the forests with machines, as the woodcutters operated with them. The Minister was well acquainted with the grievances of these people, and knew that if the amendment was accepted it would do no harm to the forests. It was the Government’s own fault that these people, nowadays, contravened the law, because the law was impossible.

supported the amendment, the effect of which was to protect these poor people against oppression. The last speaker had defended the woodcutters year after year, and it was time the House listened to him.

said he desired to correct one statement which had been made by the hon. member for George. The average price obtained for the wood sold to mill owners was 111 per cent. above the upset price, which showed that there was fairly keen competition. The existing state of affairs, however, called for some amendment. If the parties could not agree among themselves, the trees were sold by auction. The difficulty of the lottery system was the definition of a woodcutter and the decision as to whom should be given the right to draw lots. The former might lead to great difficulty and dispute. However, a register could be drawn up of woodcutters, and only those whose names appeared in that register should be allowed to draw a lot. That would do away with outside men competing with the bona-fide woodcutters. The tariff was a very low one, and it was possible that it would be increased under this system. This question arose only in the Western conservancy, for in the East the competition was not so keen. He advised the committee to accept the new clause, and in the second sub-section he would move to add, after “determined,” the words “by auction or.” This would afford the Forest Department an opportunity of giving the new system a trial, and if it did not work, the old method could be reverted to.

expressed his warmest thanks to the Minister for the very sympathetic way in which he had accepted his amendment. He hoped the Government would give the question of dealing with the selection by lot a genuine and sympathetic chance. (Hear, hear.) He was perfectly certain if the Minister was firm, the difficulties would be removed, the woodcutters would have reason to be profoundly thankful to Parliament.

expressed his gratification at the attitude taken up by the Minister, but hoped that he would see to it that the minority would not rule the majority, so that one man would not be able to ask for a sale by auction if the other woodcutters did not desire that. The majority ought to decide.

suggested that we should follow the example of other countries, and first charge a small licence fee to the timber cutter, then decide that no trees below a certain size should be felled, and next allow a man to cut where he liked.

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 14, Removal of or injury to trees and kindling of fires in or near undemarcated forests.

moved as an amendment that persons resident within forest areas be exempt.

moved as an amendment: In sub-section (1), line 35, to omit “fifty” and to substitute “twenty-five”; in sub-section (2), line 39, to omit “or within one-quarter of a mile of.” A fine of £25 would, he considered, be ample. But how were they going to find out whether they were or whether they were not within a quarter of a mile of the forest?

said he would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that undemarcated forests included all outspans and commonages on Crown lands. If they imposed this penalty as regarded lighting fires it would mean that no one could light a fire within a quarter of an hour of a Government outspan.

said that the hon. member had evidently not read the whole of sub-section (a). The subsection provided for a penalty in case forest produce was burned or injured by fire in consequence of the negligence of the person responsible for the fire. He thought the views of the hon. member for Humansdorp and the views of the hon. member for King William’s Town would be met if he moved to omit all the words after “who” down to “forests.”

said he did not object to sub-section (b). There were natives living in the forests in the King William’s Town area, and if negligence was proved under clause (b) they could be got at. He hoped the Minister would accept his amendment.

said he hoped the hon. member for Humansdorp would stick to his amendment, and not accept that of the Minister. What the hon. member was driving at was certainly not what the Minister was driving at.

said he would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that they had two kinds of forests. He hoped the Minister would accept his amendment.

Mr. Rademeyer’s amendment was agreed to.

said that, in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for King William’s Town to insert “not being resident therein,” if these words were placed in sub-section (2) they would apply to both sub-sections (a) and (b).

said he was quite prepared to accept in sub-section (b) the words “any person who lives.”

spoke, but was inaudible.

replying, said they would then never get a conviction in that case.

said he thought they must make some provision to deal with the case mentioned by the hon. member for King William’s Town.

said that, surely, where a man lived inside a demarcated forest he must be more careful than a man who lived outside, and if forest produce were damaged, and it was not owing to his negligence, and he could satisfy the court that he had done everything in his power to prevent the fire from spreading, no court would find him guilty. After all, the object of the Bill was to protect our forests—(hear, hear)—and, if they looked at it from the point of view of an individual native who happened to live within a demarcated forest or a transport rider who went along the road and who negligently lighted a fire which spread and destroyed hundreds and thousands of pounds’ worth of valuable forest, surely the Bill was not for looking after the interests of these particular individuals. When a man travelled along the road and lighted a fire, the least they could expect of him was that he should put it out when he left. He hoped the amendment would not be accepted. If the hon. member confined his amendment to sub-section (b), he (the Minister) could not see the necessity for it.

I confine it to (a).

As the hon. member puts it now, it covers both (a) and (b), and I therefore cannot accept it.

said he must point out that this land was occupied by natives and they must have fires to cook their food.

Mr. Whitaker’s amendments were negatived.

Clause 14 was agreed to as amended.

On clause 15,

moved in sub-section (1), lines 55 and 56, to omit “one hundred,” and to substitute “fifty.”

said he was willing to accept that amendment. There was no objection where they had undemarcated forests, and they did not know where the boundaries were, but he hoped it would not be insisted upon when they came to be demarcated forests.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was passed.

On clause 16,

spoke, but was inaudible.

replying to a question by the hon. member for Heidelberg, explained the sub-section, and pointed to the liabilities of anyone causing damages by lighting fires in a demarcated area. If the owner gave notice of a grass fire, the forest official would come forward and take responsibility for a possible forest fire.

said it was not possible to go and give notice of every fire.

thought a man should not be punished if he lit a fire and did no damage. They should not be made to pay for every fire.

explained that the intention of this clause was to protect the forests. The clause simply aimed at notification in case a man wished to light a fire.

held that the clause was an essential one and protected the farm owner.

held that this was rather awkward for a man who lived in the midst of forests.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 17,

said he would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill for whom he was reserving the fishing and shooting rights. Were they being reserved for the friends of the Minister or whom?

was understood to say that it was advisable to have some reserve where animals could be protected.

suggested that the fine be reduced to £5.

said he thought it better to leave it as it stood.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 18,

said he thought the Minister was going too fast ahead. It appeared that if any man trespassed within the private forest he could be severely punished. A man might plant a tree here and there and call that a private forest, and anybody who trespassed on that might be fined ten pounds or one month in gaol. He thought that many would be inclined to plant a few trees so that nobody would be able to walk on the property. In England a man could not be punished for trespass, but only for any damage he might do. He thought the rights of the public were infringed in that matter, and he hoped the hon. Minister would not do that. It appeared also that the onus of proof was put upon the trespasser and not on the man who wished to keep people off his land. People who trespassed were to be punished exactly in the same way as a man who lighted a fire in the forest an act which might lead to very great damage.

said he could not restrain himself any longer. He was sorry that the hon. member for Umlazi had not gone further. He (Mr. Madeley) would move the deletion of sub-section (a). The rest of the clause he was largely in favour of. He quite agreed that nobody should be allowed to go into a forest and light a fire, but he could not agree that individuals should not be allowed to go into a forest. (An Hon. Member: Private?) Yes, even in England, which was recognised as the home of landlordism, there was no punishment provided for trespass. “Trespassers will be prosecuted” was an illegal notice. People could not be prosecuted there for the mere act of trespass, but the hon. Minister proposed to do that. They on the cross-benches protested against the inclusion of that in the Fencing Act. He could not understand why the hon. Minister had brought such a thing forward.

Oh!

The hon. member could understand that, because he was a landowner. It was quite right that any individual should have the right, whether it was a real forest or a sparsely-planted one, to go on the land, provided he did no damage.

urged the acceptance of the clause, pointing out that this was not England, and that England and Australia did not have to deal with a large native population.

said that all the earth was not given to hon. members opposite, and he considered that this was a piece of class legislation. What was the use of prosecuting a trespasser who did no damage? The earth was made for all the people, and not for a few.

moved a new sub-section, which he explained would extend to private forests the same protection as was given to demarcated forests. Unless this was inserted there was no offence.

said it was not necessary for the hon. member for Clanwilliam to move in this direction, for the whole of the Bill was made applicable to a private forest when the owner applied for such protection.

asked whether they were not reducing legislation to an absurdity? A man might take a short cut through a forest, and if he was found there, he was liable to all these penalties. They had argued this point when the Fencing Bill was before the House, and the hon. member for Jeppe gave a good illustration. He pictured the position of the hon. member for Jeppe if he were fined a hundred pounds for deviating from the road for the purpose of plucking a flower.

suggested the insertion of the words “or without lawful excuse” after the word “owner.” It would be absurd for a man to be liable to these penalties for taking a short cut, and he pointed out that in the Cape Peninsula in particular there were tracks in some cases instead of roads, and a man often took a short cut to get to a certain place.

said that in any case the man would be a trespasser. How could a trespasser have a lawful excuse? He knew what the hon. member was aiming at, and hoped he would be able to express his meaning in a different way.

said that the Act said “found.” It said nothing about trespassing. If one called on a man, one was not a trespasser. They might say “stick to the road” but there were a good many tracks in lieu of roads.

took exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Commissioner-street. He was a land-owner, but he stood up for the public as much as anybody else. He maintained that this clause would be taken advantage of by people who wished to impose on the public. There were places in South Africa where natives were sent miles on a roundabout course, where there was no necessity for it. They had to do so because of warning issued by these people. If on the top of this they were going to make natives liable to these penalties, he thought the Minister should reconsider the question very seriously indeed. He also took exception to a sub-section which prevented a fire being lighted within a quarter of a mile of forests—on the man’s own land—without the consent of other landowners.

wanted to know if the Minister meant that if a man owned a private forest, he must put up a newspaper containing a notice to warn people?

hoped the Minister would accept an amendment, because the clause certainly seemed to be very strong as it stood. He moved to insert the words, “any person who wilfully trespasses on a private forest,” in place of “is found without permission of the owner within.”

wished to have the end of sub-section (b) deleted, as it was not right to impose upon the owner the burden of having to notify the authorities as to the names of the persons who were not allowed to enter his forest or light fires.

said that clause 24 of the Act of 1888 (Cape) seemed to express the matter in this section far better than did the section, and it would remove all their difficulties. It seemed to him to be quite ridiculous to say that a man had to give notice in a newspaper in regard to the lighting of fires near a boundary.

said he thought they could meet both objections. He had no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. He thought the last matter referred to by the hon. member for Albany could be met by the deletion of the words, “or within a quarter of a mile of,” in lines 49 and 56, and in line 55 to omit all words from “within” down to “thereof” in line 56, and to substitute “therein.”

thought the Minister would be well advised if he let the clause stand down for a time, to enable them to consider the amendment. They were desirous of protecting their forests, but amendments hastily accepted might defeat their object.

moved, in line 45, to delete the words “permission of the owner,” and insert “lawful excuse.”

could not agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. If that amendment were accepted, a person could enter any private forest he liked. Who would be able to prove that he was there with evil intentions? He regretted that the Minister had accepted the amendment.

referred the hon. members to the definition of a private forest, saying that it seemed to be exceedingly wide. A large estate on which a forest existed would apparently be included in the term “private forest.” He did not see the necessity for sub-section (a). Why should they make special provisions in regard to trespass? Why not confine themselves to making penalties for doing things inside a forest which should not be done? The Minister must think of the very large public to whom the forests of South Africa were sources of recreation.

said the intention of his amendment was that only if people entered private forests on purpose they could be prosecuted. He did not wish to see a man who accidentally entered a forest being sent to gaol.

thought the Minister should let the whole of the clause stand down. In one portion of it a man could go into a forest and do thousands of pounds worth of damage, and only be liable to ten pounds fine. He moved that the clause stand over.

said he thought the amendments required some more consideration. According to the clause any person who lit a fire within a quarter of a mile of a forest was liable to certain pains and penalties even though the fire did not damage. If a man lighted a fire in his private house and the owner of the forest objected to it, it seemed to him (Sir Thomas) that the man might be subject to the penalties laid down in the Act.

pointed out that this clause was put in merely for Buchu forests on private property. The hon. member objected to a quarter of a mile, but he was not in the House when he (the Minister) moved to delete these words “or within a quarter of a mile.”

pointed out that his objection was that a man would be subject to the penalties if he lighted a fire in his private house if the house was situated close to a forest.

said that the deletion of these words destroyed the point entirely. He thought the Minister should consider this clause thoroughly well. The deletion of these words simply left no protection at all. Unless they allowed this clause to stand over they might have a clause full of defects.

urged the Minister to allow the clause to stand over.

hoped that the Minister would allow the clause to stand over. He told them that these words had been put in at the request of the owners of these Buchu forests. In his (Mr. Creswell’s) opinion the owners of these forests ought to take their own precaution for their own protection. (Hear, hear.) The alteration of the definition of private forests made it more vague than it was before.

said if the Minister adopted the amendment then the clause would have no sense They would have to change the word “within” into “therein,” to get sense.

said there was another point that the Minister would have to consider, and that was that the penalty for going into a private forest was ridiculously small. A man might go into a private forest and do a great deal of damage. Another point was that any farmer could declare his land private forest, and what would become of the rights of the public?

put the question that the clause stand over, and declared that the Noes had it.

called for a division, but afterwards withdrew.

moved the deletion of sub-section (b) for the purpose of substituting the following: “Without permission of owner lights or kindles or assists any other person in lighting or kindling any fire within a private forest or lights or kindles a fire or fires within a quarter of a mile thereof without giving at least one day’s notice to adjoining owner.”

did not think that the amendment proposed by the hon. member gave any protection whatever.

held that the principle of sub-section (c) was wrong. No man had a right to go on private property, and he moved the deletion of the words after “fire” to the end of the sub-section.

said the hon. member for Umvoti (Colonel Leuchars) could not really mean that one would have to give a day’s notice before one lit a fire with which to cook one’s food.

said that private property belonged to nobody but the owner of such property, and only the owner had the right to be on it.

said he thought by now that every member of the committee was so much at sea as to be unable to understand the amendments. The hon. member for Umvoti could not be serious in his amendment. It was simply child’s play for the committee to go on like this; it was not legislation. It was an absolute farce. The penalty for trespassing was too large. The committee should not waste its time in fruitless discussion.

suggested that the committee should take the two amendments on which it was agreed, and at a later stage hon. members could put their amendments on the paper.

said a great many people who were as anxious as the Minister to see the Bill go through, were very nervous about this clause. Did not the Minister realise the great danger of putting amendments which were not thoroughly understood by the committee. Subsequent amendments could be considered only at a stage when members would have the right to speak once only, and that was not the proper way to discuss amendments. The Minister would facilitate the passing of the Bill if he would allow the clause to stand over until hon. members could see the amendments on the paper. Otherwise they would be accepting amendments which would not fulfil the desires of the committee. They would be making a farce of their work if they passed amendments which hon. members could not understand.

said the Minister himself was all at sea, for he had said, “Take the two amendments on which we are all agreed.” But they had not agreed upon any amendments, unless the Minister thought he was all, which was nothing of the sort. If some of the amendments were carried it might be necessary for a man to send notice that he intended to light his pipe within a quarter of a mile of another man’s property. The deletion of sub-section (a) was absolutely necessary, and he moved accordingly.

said he had taken the trouble to go to the Table to see the amendment of the hon. member for Umvoti, and he saw that it provided that within a quarter of a mile of private forest property nobody without giving one day’s notice could light a fire, even in a private house. (Laughter.)

I certainly cannot accept that amendment.

Colonel G. Leuchars (Umvoti) withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Mentz’s amendment, which was accepted by the Minister, was carried.

Sub-section (a), as amended, was declared agreed to.

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

Ayes—69.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Hewat, John

Hunter, David

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runciman, William

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Eigidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—15.

Andrews, William Henry

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

E. Nathan and B. W. Long, tellers.

Sub-section (a), as amended, was accordingly agreed to, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Education were agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Cronje was negatived.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 19, Fabricating or altering marks on forest produce without authority and bribing of officers.

moved, on page 14, to add at the end of paragraph (e), “or acts as an agent for others or trades in forest produce.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, on page 14, line 25, to omit “one hundred” and to substitute “fifty.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 23, Special orders of a civil nature by magistrates courts,

moved in line 34, to insert “Crown” before “forest,” and after “forest” to omit “reserve.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 25, Detention of and offence by persons in possession of forest produce if they can give no satisfactory account of how they became possessed of the same,

moved in sub-section (1), line 12, to omit “forest or on a road” and to substitute “Crown forest or in transit.”

The amendment was agreed to.

said he thought there was a certain amount of danger in this clause, because here again they found that the principle of throwing the onus on a man of proving that he was innocent of the charge levied against him was contained. He had got to prove that he had a right to certain produce which might be found in his possession.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 26, Control of trees on roadsides,

moved to delete all the words after “body” to the end of the clause. He said he did this in order to raise the question of control of trees in areas under the jurisdiction of local authorities. The proposal in this Bill was to extend the present Act to the rest of the Union. This Act laid it down that no local authority, unless it were specially exempted under the provisions of the Cape Act, should have the right to cut down trees within its boundaries. He thought the day had gone by for any such legislation, and it should be left to the local authorities to have full jurisdiction over the trees within their areas. In the old days, when the Government provided £ per £ for tree-planting there was no doubt something to be said for it, but under existing circumstances he thought that local authorities should have control over trees within their limits.

moved, in sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 40, to omit “no” before “such”; in the same line, after “issued,” to omit “except”; and in line 41, after “concerned,” to omit all the words to the end of the paragraph.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

rose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, and said it was not right that the Government should in any way allow the head of the Forestry Department to dictate to the municipalities. He maintained that the municipalities should have control within their own boundaries. In Durban they had a small Forestry Department of their own. The clause, in his opinion, was a very unfair one, and he hoped that the amendment would be accepted. There was another point he would like to put to the hon. Minister. He (Mr. Henwood) was under the impression that, under the South Africa Act, all matters dealing with municipalities had to be dealt with by municipalities, and not by the Union Parliament. Either the hon. Minister had overlooked that law, or he intended the House to override it, by including that clause in the Bill.

moved an amendment: In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 36, after “Board,” to insert “or”; in the same line, after “Council,” to omit all words to the end of the paragraph; and to omit paragraphs (b) and (c). He trusted the hon. Minister would accept the amendment, because he thought there would be unnecessary interference with the rights of the municipalities. As things stood at the present time, municipalities could get out by passing a resolution to the effect that they wished to be out of the operation of the clause. The effect would be that the “Gazette” would be encumbered with Proclamations, because every municipality would ask to be relieved. He had a letter from the secretary of the Transvaal Municipal Association, in which he was assured that the Municipalities of Pretoria, Vereeniging, Standerton, Krugersdorp, Rustenburg, Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp, Heidelberg, and others were against the provisions of that clause. He understood that, in the Cape Province, municipalities had received Government aid; and in such cases there might be some use for a provision of that kind, but where municipalities planted their own trees, there was no need for that at all. He believed that, if anything like that was put in their law, it would slacken the efforts of the municipalities. If they could trust private individuals, why not trust the municipalities? He thought it was a move in the wrong direction.

He could not understand why municipalities should not be allowed to deal with trees as they thought fit. In his town, the worst offenders were the Central Government; they erected telephone wires, etc., and cut down trees in the most ruthless manner. If he could do so, he would move a provision in the Act rather the other way about, so that the Central Government should be subject to the by-laws of the municipalities. That would be a much wiser provision than anything of the sort contemplated by the Government in the Bill. He hoped that the hon. Minister would accept the amendment.

rose to support the amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Neser). He could not understand why the hon. Minister had put the provision in the Bill, unless it was because of some different system with regard to local government in the Cape Province. He did not know whether the hon. Minister was aware of what they were doing in Bloemfontein. It was extremely difficult to make trees grow there. They had spent thousands of thousands of pounds to grow trees. If they took the tree-planting in that area which had been done by Government, and compared it with what had been done by the municipality, they would find that, if any credit was due, more was due to the municipality than to the Central Government. It was wonderful what a lot of money the municipality had spent in that direction in Bloemfontein.

What he said of Bloemfontein was true of Harrismith, Ladybrand, Ficksburg. All these municipalities had voted a large percentage of their revenue towards tree growing. Now they had the Minister trying to limit the control of the municipalities over trees of their own growing. The facts being as they were, it seemed to him utterly useless and utterly arbitrary to deprive these people of the things upon which they bad spent their money. The Minister of the Interior knew what they had done in the Free State, in a desert like Bloemfontein.

No, no.

Yes, it is a desert in the sense that I mean. There is very little rainfall there. Continuing, the hon. member said that they had laid out forests, and they were spending their money, and they desired to have control over their tree plantations By what right did the Minister try to take away that control from them? After the eloquent appeal made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, he hoped the Minister would accept the amendment proposed by him to delete this clause It was useless, and it would not achieve its object.

said he wanted to point out, first of all, that this clause did not refer to plantations. It only referred to any trees planted on the side of a road or street. He also wanted to point out that from the experience that they had in the past, they found it necessary to have some legislation of this kind. There were parts of the Union where trees grew more readily than in Bloemfontein, and people were inclined to cut these trees down. He had intimated to the hon. member for Ficksburg that he would accept the amendment, but it seemed to him that municipalities would exempt themselves under these provisions, and therefore he would have no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Baxter).

thought the better amendment of the two was the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens.

said the hon. Minister had not answered all the arguments of his friend, the member for Victoria County. Why should this matter come into the Act of Union at all?

I have withdrawn it.

wanted to know why this question came before the Union Parliament? Why was it not a Provincial Council matter? The Provincial Council had appointed itself a censor. It had taken upon itself the right of directing the instruction of their schools. It had taken upon itself the right to tax their amusements, but it was not trusted to look after their trees. (Cries of “Order.”)

pointed out that under the existing Act of the Cape Province these provisions applied, and as far as this was concerned it was not left to the Provincial Council, but to the Union.

The hon. member for Ficksburg withdrew his amendment.

said he understood that in Natal there were other bodies which were not described as municipalities or Divisional Councils or Village Management Boards, therefore he would add the words “or other or similar bodies.”

The amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom was withdrawn.

Mr. Baxter’s amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

New clause 28,

moved the following new clause 28: For the purpose of encouraging the planting and cultivation of trees by Divisional Councils, Municipalities and Town Councils, all and singular the provisions of Act No. 4 of 1876 of the Cape of Good Hope shall be regarded as and are hereby incorporated in this Act, and shall be hereby extended to the whole of the Union.

said the clause involved expenditure, and therefore it was not in order.

ruled that he was unable to accept this clause as its adoption would involve expenditure.

said that to pay the fines to the informer was wrong.

On the schedule, Laws repealed,

moved that Act No. 4 of 1876 (Cape of Good Hope), to encourage the planting and cultivation of trees, be deleted from the list of laws proposed to be repealed. The mover explained that this Act enabled any municipality in the Cape which spent a certain amount of money on tree planting, to recover a certain portion of the money, but not exceeding £250, from the Government. Under that Act many municipalities had done good work. Fond as they were of the Forest Department, he thought it might do better work if it encouraged municipalities to go in for tree planting. (Hear, hear.) It was a great mistake to concentrate everything in the hands of the Government, and it would be a great misfortune if the Act were repealed; instead, he would like to see it extended throughout the Union.

wished to know whether the amendment was out of order, and asked if it did not mean an increase of expenditure.

in supporting the amendment, said the Act could be made the means of doing a great deal of good, but it was not put into operation. He would say that it was about ten years since any money had been paid out under it, for, unfortunately, the Act had been a dead letter for a good many years.

said that some money for the purpose appeared in the Cape Estimates for 1909-10. It would be a great pity not to encourage tree-planting.

said that it would be a mistake to retain the Act for one Province only—(hear, hear)— as that would manifestly be unfair to the municipalities in the other three Provinces. The municipalities now fell under the Provincial Councils, and under the Financial Relations Bill the Provincial Councils had a certain amount of responsibility towards these municipalities. The Provincial Councils could assist the municipal bodies.

said that was a thoroughly official reply. He knew very well that the Forest Department had always been against this Act, for it wanted to keep things in its own hands. That was so like officials—(laughter)—to think they were the only people who could plant trees, but the municipalities had done quite as good work up to the limits of their resources. As to the municipalities being under the Provincial Councils the Forest Department was under the Union Government. However, he was glad to have elicited from the Minister the latter’s extreme interest in tree planting. Legislation alone would not plant a single tree, and the only way to get that done was to encourage the people to do it.

said if he might take the liberty of supporting the right hon. member he would do so on this occasion. (Laughter.) Afforestation should be encouraged in every way. Some countries paid their State debts by means of national forests.

said if it were not possible to retain the Cape Act, he sincerely trusted that the Minister would take steps to enable the Government to assist municipalities and other bodies to go in for tree planting. (Hear, hear.) In that way forests would be spread all over the Union. But if Government thought £250 was too much to pay to one municipality, let the amount be reduced. It was of the utmost importance to the country that tree planting should be promoted.

said there was an easy way out of the difficulty. He understood that the only difficulty in the way of accepting the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was that it would introduce different legislation in the various Provinces. In that direction the whole Committee was with the Minister of Education, but if he accepted the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West the Minister at a later stage could come to the House with a message from the Governor-General-in-Council which would enable the provisions of the Cape Act to be extended all over the Union, and the whole thing would be placed in order. (Cheers.) That would do a great deal of good, and if necessary, the maximum amount to be paid to each municipality could be made less than £250.

thought the House would be getting into difficulties with the Provincial Councils if the amendment were adopted for those bodies had the control of the municipalities.

said he hated to disagree with his hon. friend—(laughter)— but if he had listened carefully to the Minister in charge of the Bill—he was one of the hon. member’s leaders—he would have heard that the Act of Union particularly reserved the matter of forests to the Union Government.

said it would be a most unfortunate thing if the Government were allowed to interfere in these matters. He would like to ask the Chairman’s ruling: if that matter was deleted would it not involve more expenditure?

said that it would not. It kept the Act in force in the Cape Province.

said that surely the Act of 1876 was not for the purpose of planting trees in the streets, but for afforestation. He thought if they were going to move that Act from the Statute-book that they were taking a retrograde step. He agreed with what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said. The Provincial Government had nothing to do with afforestation, and it had been specially reserved to that House.

said that perhaps the hon. member for Worcester might be able to tell the House that one of the first plantations on a commercial scale had been established at Worcester, and he believed it came under the Bill which his hon. friend had referred to. That plantation was the precursor of many plantations in the Western Province. It was an example of what could be done, not for the purposes of beautifying the streets, but as a commercial proposition.

said that he hoped the House would not agree to the proposal. For the past ten years that Act had been practically a dead letter, and if it had not been, very few people knew of it. As far as he knew, it had not been put into operation for the past ten years. They were going into matters which dealt with another body. If they put in what was proposed, they would make it a dead letter. He thought it was far better to leave people free to do what they liked. If necessary, they could introduce another Bill to deal with Town Councils. It was a matter which belonged to the Provincial Council. Would the House, he asked, be prepared to approve an annual item of £50,000 for the 300 municipalities? If the planting of trees was so very remunerative, the local bodies would be likely to do it on their own initiative, and to favour some of them would only create dissatisfaction.

said that what the Prime Minister had said about the law being practically a dead letter was no argument for wiping it out. The Worcester plantation had given a handsome return. The Government had taken charge of forestry for the whole of the Union, and should not put obstacles in the way of tree planting.

said that he was sorry he could not follow the arguments of the Minister. Surely, when that Act of 1876 had been passed, it was passed with the object of encouraging the planting of trees, and the promotion of plantations. What was that Bill but something for the same purpose, and the suggestion of the right hon. member for Victoria West was quite at home there, and quite pertinent. He hoped the Minister would give them some assurance that he would introduce a paragraph, giving the Government the same power as they had under the Act of 1876.

said that he agreed, to a certain extent, as to what was said about leaving it as far as the Cape Province was concerned. He would like the Minister in charge of that Bill to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Even if it was going to cost the country £30,000 or £40,000 more, it was money well spent. They spent money on afforestation with good results, but they should increase the amount, and it would even help private individuals, and be a step in the right direction, to plant forests, as he had said on a previous occasion. The Worcester Municipality had gone in for tree planting on its commonage, with good results. It was able to do that; but smaller municipalities could not do that, and some could not spend money for results 20 years hence.

said that where he and his hon. friend differed was in regard to what the latter advocated, one body spent the money and another body got the benefit. Trees were planted at the cost of the State, and the municipalities got the benefit. Where the Forestry Department now planted trees every man got the benefit of it. There was a great difference between the one system and the other. It was a wrong thing to say that they would give money to the one body and not to another. They might as well pay money to the farmer who planted trees. Let the body that got the benefit take the responsibility. A municipality could, if it liked, hand over a portion of its ground to the Department, and the ground could be planted. That had already been done, and done in a manner which secured to the Government a return on its money. Matters of that sort had to be carefully considered before they introduced legislation.

said that the Bill was to encourage afforestation throughout the country, and he thought there was no more economical manner of carrying that out than by the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria West. The right hon. Minister had said if they wanted plantations in municipalities the proper thing was to give sections of land for the Forest Department. What was the great object of plantations of that sort? They could not have any greater educational institution started in a town where members of the farming population could go and see what could be done in the way of tree planting. The plantation started some years ago at Worcester had been a great object lesson in tree planting. The municipality had shown that it was a commercial undertaking, and many plantations which had been started, for instance in Robertson and other places in the South-Western district, would never have been commenced but for the lead given them. It was in the power of the House to limit the amount of money which would be given to encouraging work of that sort. He was sorry that his hon. friend did not look at it in that direction. He thought the only way to deal with the question properly was for the hon. Minister to consider, at a later stage, the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, and make the provision which applied in the Cape of Good Hope apply to the whole of the Union.

said that no one was more anxious to propagate afforestation, and he was sorry that they had just decided to exclude the central authority from dealing with the question in municipal areas. His experience had been that the Forest Department had always been willing to assist the municipality in selecting sites and advising as to what kinds of trees to be used, but the department was excluded by the amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, and now they wanted grants from the Central Government. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that it must be done under that Act, he (Mr. Krige) had some experience of municipal government, and he wanted to state to the committee how things were managed from the municipal point of view. If they wanted to set aside a part of the commonage for tree planting they must go to the Administrator for consent, for he had complete control of the management of municipal affairs. The Provincial Councils had a right to go to the Treasury for a grant on the £ for £ principle, things are usually worked by that principle, and if they adopted that method they would have no duplication. He was in favour of a grant, and he thought the Prime Minister was correct in urging that the matter should be worked through the Provincial Councils.

said that the subsidy, according to the Cape maximum, would not exceed £75,000. He supported the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said that the hon. member for Durban, Berea, had altogether forgotten that section 26 had been deleted. If the hon. member and the Minister of Education were in the right there would be no objection in leaving the Act on the Statute Book, for the Provincial Council would have to administer it as it administered all similar laws. They were taking a step in the right direction if they accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, for other Provinces would not be affected at all. It had been rightly pointed out that the Provincial Councils would have to pay the subsidy in the Cape which the State formerly paid.

said that if the Act were allowed to remain in force the Cape would have an advantage over the other Provinces. They could not do that. The Provincial Council would itself import if it wished to do so.

put the question that the words proposed to be admitted stand part of the Schedule, and declared that the Ayes had it. A division was called for, which was taken with the following result:

Ayes—54.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Burton, Henry

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Clavton, Walter Frederick

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beaton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuizen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—34.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Botha, Christian Lourens

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Currey, Henry Latham

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Long, Basil Kellett

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Merriman, John Xavier

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Whitaker, George

J. Hewat and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment negatived.

moved: In the second item under Province “Cape of Good Hope” opposite “Act No. 28 of 1888”, in the fourth column after “The whole”, to insert “except section thirteen”; and to omit fourth item under Province “Cape of Good Hope”.

said he would accept the amendments.

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Friday next.

moved: That the Committee of the whole House on the Bill have leave to consider certain amendments to the “principal law,” which are not covered by the title of the Bill, and to amend the title accordingly.

The motion was agreed to.

moved to omit, in line 10, “natives and,” and in line 11, after “coloured persons,” to insert, “(as in the principal law defined),”; and in line 25, to omit “native or.”

asked the meaning of the amendment.

said that in the Transvaal law coloured persons included natives and Asiatics. It would be much better to retain the Transvaal definition.

moved to omit the words, “by natives and coloured persons in such locations and bazaars as have been lawfully established by local authorities,” and, in line 14, to omit “this section and, of” and to omit the sub-sections 2 and 3. The mover said he wished to raise a discussion on trading in mining areas. There were three courses open to hon. members—to vote against the clause, which would leave things as they were; to alter the clause on the lines he suggested, the effect of which would be to abolish concession stores; or to adopt the clause. These concession stores had been the cause of a great grievance among the outside traders, who were hardly able to earn a living. This was an old-standing grievance on the Rand. The concession stores had gradually drifted into the hands of a few men, and had become very valuable properties. Instead of extending the concession stores, Parliament should consider whether it would not be advisable to abolish them altogether, and to have something resembling free trade on the mines. It would be better for the outside traders and for the people in the townships to allow them to have a fair share of this trade. He did not think the mines were protected one little bit by the present system.

said the question raised by the hon. member was too wide a one to go into thoroughly that night, but unless there was some control over the stores they would open the door to practices which would increase the evils an attempt was now being made to control. He referred to the illicit liquor thaffic and to the illicit gold traffic. If the whole of the Rand were thrown open so that any number of people could erect stores, that control would be lost. Provision was made in the Transvaal Act of 1908 to remove Asiatics and natives into bazaars.

said he quite agreed with what the Minister had said, but he would like to ask him if “coloured persons” included “natives.”

replied that in the Transvaal the term “coloured persons” included “natives.”

said it was time a distinction was made, because it caused confusion.

said that there was something in what the Minister had said, that the absolute free trade system amongst the stores on the Reef might lead to abuse, but the present system of giving licences on the Rand was also open to abuse of a different kind. The system was not one which gave satisfaction.

said that some of these trading rights had changed hands for £5,000. He would like the Minister to look into it, and see if the people who were best entitled to these rights got them.

said that the promiscuous setting up of these stores would not be for the public welfare, and if it were under the municipality they would allow a reasonable number of stores, under proper regulations. He thought it would take a lot of persuasion to believe that the Board acted without fear or favour, and in the best interests of the public. It was not advisable to perpetuate these scandals in the country, and the only way to avoid them was to hand these stores over to the municipalities.

The hon. member withdrew his amendment.

amendment was agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3, Repeal of definition of unwrought precious metal and substitution of new definition,

moved, as an amendment, in line 41, after the word “any,” to insert the word “unmanufactured,” and to add at the end the words “except under such a licence as hereinafter provided.”

moved another amendment: To add at the end: “The onus of proof that any bangles, chains, or other articles have been made up, smelted or manufactured in the Union shall lie with the Crown,” but on the Minister of Mines giving an explanation, withdrew it, the hon. member saying that as the hon. Minister had admitted that the onus of proof lay upon the Crown he would withdraw his amendment.

asked how one could tell whether a bangle, chain, or any other article had been made under licence in that country or not.

said that he was suspicious of these little words inserted in the clause. He moved that the words “bangles, chains or any other articles” be deleted. He said that they were subjecting the public and working jewellers to a very great danger indeed. They were tightening up the law, to make it easier for the police, and he asked why they could not treat thefts of gold like a common theft. He objected to these special laws for special interests.

asked for some further explanation of that tightening up. He thought that people should take care of their own property. That law had a very far-reaching effect, and he thought it would be better to go about the matter in another way to see that proper precautions were taken. Let those who complained pay their own police. They were going deeper and deeper into that sort of thing. He did not think the Minister himself liked that sort of legislation. The police, with their Criminal Investigation Department and large staff at their disposal, should do what they could under the ordinary law as it was at present, and that was bad enough. They should do what could be done, and those people who complained of the thefts should be told to look after their own property. The hon. Minister would no doubt say that it was not in the public interest that dishonesty should be allowed to continue, but neither was it in the public interest that these special laws should be made. They had gone far enough without stretching that law.

said he did not agree with the legislation, nor did he like the special legislation they had with regard to diamonds, but what could they do? As a matter of fact, the police reported to the Government repeatedly that unless they had access to these so-called jewellers who were there for the purpose of getting hold of illicit gold to work into some rough sort of article so that the law could not touch them, they could not deal adequately with the matter. As an example of what had actually happened, the hon. Minister produced a specimen of a piece of pure gold in connection with which the police came on the scene at the last moment. The illicit smelter who tried to save himself at the last moment had put a two shilling piece and a penny into the flux to make an alloy, but he was just too late, and the two shilling piece and the penny could be plainly seen attached to the amalgam. The police urged on the Government if they were going to deal with the matter satisfactorily at all, they must deal with it on the lines laid down. It was not because they did not like it, but because they could not help it.

said that if there was one thing which was the duty of the State, it was to protect property against violence, and to do that it was necessary to take special steps for special cases.

said that the hon. Minister had pointed out how easy it was to make an alloy for the purpose of evading the present law, but in other countries they did not subject the public to the conditions of having to find the proof. It was a special thing in South Africa for the benefit of the gold mining industry, but he did not think it would have the effect which the hon. Minister thought it would have. Those who went in for that class of theft, went in for it on a large scale. To use such broad terms as bangles and other articles might subject many people to the necessity of proving that they came into possession of various articles legally. He could not see through the defence which had been put forward by the Minister for going on with that clause.

said that they would find that this was not a special law at all. If a man was found in possession of ostrich feathers, for instance, there need not be any proof that the feathers were stolen, or that any man had missed them. He could be convicted of theft. Personally, he was not in favour of legislation of this kind, but he must point out that it was not a new thing.

protested against the remarks of the hon. member for Umlazi with reference to his hon. friend the member for Commissioner-street. The hon. member for Umlazi knew that he was misrepresenting and distorting the remarks of the hon. member for Commissioner-street, who was simply anxious to prevent the incarceration of innocent men, and who would rather see a dozen guilty men escape than that one innocent man should be punished. All Governments —or nearly all Governments—were capitalists, and their primary function was the protection of property. The protection of persons came a long way after that.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

said he hoped the hon. member for Umlazi would explain what he said when he made that remark, or withdraw it.

said he did not think any explanation was needed after the words of the hon. member who had just spoken, who explained that he would rather see a dozen guilty men escape than see an innocent man punished. Personally, he would rather see guilty men punished, and let the innocent man prove his innocence.

said he thought it was the whole idea of English jurisprudence to give a man the benefit of the doubt. The hon. member for Umlazi did not seem to bother whether an innocent man was put in gaol or not.

The amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street was negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of Mines was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 4, Repeal of section 106 of Act No. 35 of 1908 (Transvaal) and substitution of a new provision,

moved to delete lines 14, 15 and 16, because he thought they were entirely opposed to the idea of British justice, seeing that they threw upon a man the onus of proving his innocence. However bad the previous clause was, this one was very much worse. This principle was being extended in every law simply to protect vested interests.

stated that this was simply a verbal alteration. The law should remain as it was, but the wording was better.

thought a clause should be inserted providing that if a man proved that he purchased from a licensed vendor, that should be sufficient.

said that so long as a person could satisfy the court that he came into possession of the article in a legal way that would be quite sufficient.

remarked that under the law the purchaser had to satisfy himself that the vendor had the right to sell.

asked the Minister to give the matter a little more consideration. The Labour members were not at all surprised at the silence maintained by hon. members on both sides of the House on this question. He did not envy the Minister his job; the Minister sat there carrying out work—undoubtedly distasteful to him—for hon. members who sat still and allowed him to push this iniquitous proposal through the House. The Minister’s defence was that it did not materially alter what was already Provided for in the main Act. But the House was not slavishly to follow a bad Act. He (Mr. Andrews) failed to see where this sort of thing was going to end, under which hon. members put the liberty of citizens second and the benefits of big corporations first. It was exceedingly dangerous to put this enormous power into the hands of the police. Under the trapping system men were tempted to commit crime, and then they were put into prison. The Bill was in the nature of panic legislation, and was on the lines of legislation in Great Britain providing for the re-introduction of flogging for certain crimes. This vindictive legislation had never been beneficial, and had never lessened crime. The time would come when the country would say that the Labour members were right, and that the Government and the Opposition were absolutely bartering away the rights of the people.

The amendment was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

New clause 5,

moved a new clause 5 as follows: “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in chapter IX. of the principal law contained the Minister of Mines may with the consent of the owner of land held under a mineral concession granted by the Government of the late South African Republic, permit the use of such land for agricultural purposes, and such permission may be granted for such periods and upon such terms and conditions as the Minister of Mines, with the consent of the said owner, may determine.” The mover explained that under the old Republican Government in the Transvaal certain mineral concessions were given in the Zoutpansberg, Pietersburg and Barberton districts. Now the owners of the farms could not renew their leases. These farms did not contain any minerals so far as was known, and it was felt that instead of allowing the land to lie idle the owners should be allowed to enter into agricultural leases.

hoped that the committee would not accept the new clause They knew that “to those who hath, shall be given,” but there were limits. He must protest against the Minister pressing that claim. There was no mention in that Bill of the new departure, and only that morning had they appeared on the paper. Here the Minister wanted to hand over to these concessionaires something which ought to be dealt with by legislation of a very different nature. The surface concessions should not be added to the mineral concessions held by these people. The Minister was asking them to legalise encroachments without any explanation, and he asked the Minister to let the matter stand over.

asked what the effect would be if that clause was not passed. Did it mean that the land would be locked up, and would not be available for any public purpose at all?

said that he might point out that it was not the concessionaires who were asking for that right, but the owners of the land. The concessionaires had no interest in that matter; they were holding their concessions, and biding their time. They did not want that land locked up. Why the amendment had not been put on the paper earlier was because the late member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had approached him about the matter, and he had told the hon. member that he could move an amendment; but as the hon. member was no longer there, he (the Minister) now moved it.

said that he quite sympathised with the Minister’s object, but the proper way to set about it was to de-proclaim the land. He thought that amendment was encouraging the locking up of the land, and was not the proper way to go about agricultural settlements.

said it was a move to allow the owner upon such terms as might be agreed upon to use his land for agricultural purposes. He believed the object of the clause was to give the concessionaire the benefit, and not the owner. The clause was not clear, and he hoped the Minister would consider the matter further. It was unfair to ask them to legislate on a notification which had appeared on the order paper for the first time that morning. There seemed to be no hurry, and he would ask the Minister to withdraw the motion.

said that reference had been made to the Pilgrims’ Rest Company or farms in connection with that. He was connected with that company some years ago, although he was not now. He wanted to know if the House contemplated dealing with that, because his recollection was that the company were the owners of the freehold, and he thought it was a mistake to suppose that the provision had reference to Pilgrims’ Rest.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria East was quite correct. There were some cases like that. There were other cases again where the mining company was really the concessionaire of the mining rights for those areas. As to the question of the agricultural rights, they were in the difficult position that his hon. friend wanted to cut the Gordian Knot. He would say that if the owner consented, the concessionaire also ought to agree with regard to the agricultural rights, but there was no urgency. He doubted the possibility of dealing with that land question under the mineral law. There was no urgency for the provision, and there had not been sufficient time to consider it. He thought the question of land rights should be allowed to stand over.

said there were cases at Zoutpansberg where they had good irrigable land blocked up there, and no agricultural lease could be granted. He did not see why those surface rights should not be let out to people who would be prepared to develop them agriculturally. It could not do any harm, and it would not interfere with the mineral rights.

said they must tackle the whole question of those concessions. He ventured to say that this concession system retarded the development of many parts of the country.

thought that the hon. member was mistaken. It would be a very good thing if some of the land that was tied up now could be used for agricultural purposes.

said he interpreted this clause to mean that the concessionaire was in the way, and the Government got the power to dispose or allow the land to be used for agriculture. The only person that they would have to look to for consent was the owner. He felt that there should be a little more explanation, else he would be inclined to vote against this. Land was given to Mr. Moodie because the old Republican Government had been unable to pay him his salary. At that time the land was valueless, and nobody would even look at it; but, fortunately for Mr. Moodie, gold was subsequently discovered there. The concession system at Pilgrims’ Rest had kept the place back for a generation; but these concessions were legitimately granted, and a thousand shareholders had since come in innocently; and it would be an injustice to confiscate their property now, even if originally the concessions were improperly granted. He would strongly suggest adopting the suggestion of the Minister of Finance.

said the clause was not introduced with the idea of assisting the concessionaire, but of helping the lessee. The owners of the farms entered into agricultural leases before the Act came into force. The leases were falling in now, and the lessees—who had effected improvements—wanted the right to renew their leases. It was quite clear to him by this time, however, that other interests were involved, and that this was a contentious matter, and as he was very anxious to get the Bill through this evening he would withdraw the clause.

The clause was withdrawn.

moved a new clause 5 as follows: The Minister of Mines may contract with the Transvalia Land Exploration and Mining Company, Ltd., or its lawful assignees (which company has been granted certain rights under an agreement entered into by the Government of the late South African Republic, on the 11th day of December, 1897, by the chiefs of the Baloeroetse tribe, and published in the “Staatscourant” thereof, under Government Notice No. 556 of 1898), for the grant to such company or its lawful assignees of: (a) The exclusive right for a period of twelve years of prospecting for precious metals on an area in the Marico district of the Transvaal, occupied by the Baloeroetse tribe, and more fully described in the said agreement; and, if the company or its lawful assignees discover precious metals in such area; (b) a mynpacht brief or mynpacht brieven, conferring upon the holders thereof in such part or parts of the said area as the said Minister may determine the rights which the holder of a mynpacht brief possesses under the principal law upon a mynpacht selected in terms thereof. A contract entered into by the said Minister under this section shall be valid, anything to the contrary notwithstanding in the principal law contained.

said that here they were introducing a very contentious matter at that late stage. The question was: whether the minerals be longed to the Chief or the Crown? Could the Chief have given something which had not belonged to him? The Chief had been paid £500 for the right to these minerals. The hon. member quoted from the evidence of Mr. H. Warington Smyth, Secretary for Mines, and other evidence, given before the Select Committee. In conclusion, the hon. member said he did not think it was wise at that late hour to introduce a motion of such great importance. He thought the assets of the country should not be given away. This matter had been resting for years and there was no reason why it should not be held over.

said it was not a question whether the natives were entitled to the minerals or not, it was a question in whom the land was vested. It did not matter whether the land belonged to the natives or the Crown, they had the right to grant prospecting rights over the location If the land at the present day still belonged to the native there would be no question whatever as to the validity of the contract. A great injustice was done to the company in 1908, when the law was passed in that year. With regard to the delay it was not until last year that the Government decided that the land did not belong to the native but to the Crown. If it had the Select Committee decided that a quarter should be abandoned every three years, so that after twelve years the whole area would be free from the company. The rights of the natives were fully protected under the contract and in course of time would be perfectly free.

said he hoped the hon. Minister would be reasonable about that, as he had been about the previous matter. There had been no time to acquaint themselves with the matter. They were not able to discuss that matter properly at so short notice. They were granting concessions over an area of 230 square miles of Crown land. If they were going to pass such a clause as that, in that kind of way they were going to make a precedent and to open the door to make it very easy for public rights to be given away, which should not be given away. The Select Committee was appointed on April 22, but if the matter were so urgent it could have been brought before the House before it had been sitting for three months. It was not a good thing to give away public rights on the strength of a thing scrambled through in this way. He hoped that the Minister, seeing the danger of this, would be as reasonable over this matter as he was over the last clause. But doing the thing in this manner was inviting people to get a job rushed through by the assistance of hon. members.

said he must really take exception to the hon. member’s last remark. The thing was not rushed through at all. On the contrary, the Government refused to put an amendment of this kind into the Bill until the matter had been investigated by a Select Committee. The remarks of the hon. member were a very serious reflection on the members of the Select Committee. What steps more could be taken than to appoint a Select Committee and take evidence? When a committee of this kind, representing men on both sides of the House, came forward with a unanimous report that was not rushing legislation.

said he entirely protested against the construction that had been placed on his words. He made no reflection on the Select Committee any more than one did on any Select Committee with which one disagreed. Were the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and his Party going to endorse that? That was rushing things through that House if the Select Committee reported in the morning, and they were asked to legislate in the evening.

said that he had understood the remarks of the hon. member like that. It was rushing matters through. Quoting from the evidence, he said that three years ago they had known it was Crown land.

said that as a member of the Select Committee he must say that they had taken considerable trouble in the matter, and they were thoroughly satisfied that but for the passing of the Act of 1908 there would have been no trouble raised at all, because they had not been aware at the time of the passing of that Act that no provision was made to safeguard their interests. It seemed an oversight in 1908 that their rights had not been protected. He was perfectly satisfied that that was the correct thing to do.

The new clause was agreed to.

The title as amended, was then agreed to, and the Bill reported to the House.

Consideration of the amendments was set down for Friday next.