from C. Pretorius, formerly a foot constable, for a pension.

from T. K. Pierson, messenger of the Court, Ngqeleni, for a pension.

from landowners and farmers in Alexandria and Bathurst, for construction of a railway from Alexandria to a point on the Graham’s Town—Port Alfred line.

from inhabitants of Heidelberg (Cape) for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

a similar petition from Oudtshoorn.

from residents of Swellendam, for removal of the “colour bar” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.

from inhabitants of Beaufort West, for legislation prohibiting the cession by prospective heirs of their inheritances.

from residents of Worcester, for removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works, and Machinery Regulations.

similar petition from Prince Albert.

similar petition from De Doorns.

similar petition from Robertson.

Reports of the Surveyors-General of the various Provinces for 1913.

moved in sub-section (1), line 48, to omit all the words after “summon” down to “surgeon ” in line 50, and to substitute “two owners of land resident in the neighbourhood of the place where the animal was found and if such owners of land.” To omit sub-section (2). In sub-section (3), line 1, on page 6, to omit “any veterinary surgeon” and to substitute “the said owners of land.” He withdrew the amendment which he had previously moved.

thought the acceptance of the amendment might be unfair towards veterinary surgeons. A good deal of money had been spent to make able veterinary surgeons of sons of the country, and he thought the amendment practically meant a blow in the face of these people.

said the amendment only aimed at saving owners of cattle a good deal of expense. A practical farmer, he held, was quite able to say whether or not an animal should be destroyed. Veterinary surgeons would not be detrimentally affected.

The amendments proposed by Mr. P. G. W. Grobler were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 9, Police officer’s power to enter places where animals are kept,

moved the insertion of the word “European” before “police officer,” and in the same line to omit “without” and substitute “under. ”

that the hon. member ought surely to know that cruelty to animals was not a question of colour. According to the amendment only a European police officer could act in these circumstances. They were going to cause a great deal of trouble by putting in this colour discrimination, because they would limit the operation of the Bill. Surely the hon. member ought to rest satisfied with the safeguards which were provided in clause 6.

said that he would like to hear the views of the Minister of Justice on the matter. If the Minister could give him the assurance that only white policemen would be allowed to search premises he would withdraw his amendment.

said that, in the present circumstances of the administration, native policemen were not allowed to arrest Europeans, or to search premises. He could not give the assurance that that rule would never be departed from, but it was not the practice.

The amendments were withdrawn.

On clause 7,

said that he had omitted to put certain amendments which had been proposed on clause 7. One of these was an amendment by the hon. member for Standerton (Mr. Alberts) to delete the proviso to sub-section (1).

The amendment was agreed to.

then put an amendment moved by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Venter) to delete sub-section (3).

The “Noes ” were declared to have it. The amendment moved by Mr. Van Niekerk dropped.

On clause 9, Police officer’s power to enter places where animals are kept,

proposed to delete “without any” for the purpose of substituting “with a” in the words, “A police officer may, without any search warrant.”

said that as that provision was already laid down in the existing law, the amendment was unnecessary.

The amendment was negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 10, Arrest without warrant,

moved to insert at the end of the clause, “provided that a European may be so arrested only by a European police officer.” He said that if the clause remained as it stood a European might at any time be arrested by a native police officer. He, therefore, moved that the arrest of a European could only be effected by a European police officer.

accepted the amendment.

said he thought that, after the explanation of the Minister of Justice, the hon. member would not have pressed his amendment.

This is not the same case.

It is a different amendment, but it is on exactly the same lines as the other. If you put a clause Tike this on the Statute-book you are introducing a colour discrimination which will do a lot of harm.

said that the clause went too far, as it gave a police officer the right to arrest a man for the ill-treatment of an animal. A police officer should have the right to ask the address of such a person, but should go no further. He intended to vote against the clause, and if need be call for a division.

urged that a man who ill-treated an innocent animal should be arrested. He therefore supported the clause.

whose rising was greeted with cheers, asked what would become of the animals in charge of a man if the owner were arrested. Whilst the owner was under arrest they would be left to their fate. He supported the amendment.

said that the clause provided that where a man ill-treated his animals the police were to arrest him at once. There were many coloured police at the Cape, and under that clause they were bound to arrest white persons.

said that in regard to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Lydenburg there was very little chance of the ends of justice being defeated by such a man escaping.

That was just a case where there would be no arrest without warrant. Power was only given in this clause to arrest without warrant where there was a danger of the ends of justice being defeated by delay in obtaining a warrant. He took it that this clause would really apply more in the case of congested areas where it was difficult to know who’s who than in the case of a farm.

said that this clause was in the English Act of 1911 and in the Acts of the various Provinces.

said he would move that the clause be restricted to urban areas, so as to make it perfectly safe, (Dissent.)

referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Prieska, pointed to the possibility of a man being asked for his address by a police official giving a wrong name and address. He referred to instances of ill-treatment of animals in the north-west, which he said were so serious that hon. members should agree to the necessity of persons being arrested if they cruelly treated animals. For instance, instead of using a leather band, he knew of a man who made his donkeys pull with wires, and between Oudtshoorn and Prince Albert they could sometimes see the hair of the donkeys in the trees, so badly were the animals treated. The clause was necessary, and the amendment also, as the latter would prevent difficulties.

said the people of the Transvaal did not like to see the principle laid down that native policemen should be allowed to arrest Europeans. He knew of cases where this had been done. He entirely agreed therefore with the amendment.

said he thought it was folly to start amending an Act of, this sort. If they wanted a general principle laid down, let them lay it down somewhere else. This would do more harm than good. The amendment was unnecessary and he opposed it.

pointed out that grave ill-treatment of animals occurred in various districts where there were many native police officers. In native districts there were only native police. He thought they should not deal with the matter in this manner, and the amendment would only create difficulties.

said he hoped members would take notice of what had been said by the hon. member for Albany. They had passed a lot of laws without a provision of this sort, and to put it here would do more harm than good.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 10 was agreed to.

On clause 12, Half the fine goes to person laying the charge,

moved the deletion of clause 12, which he said could only lead to abuses.

agreed with the proposal.

urged that the clause was unnecessary, and would only have evil effects. He feared that people of bad character would make it their business to bring complaints.

The clause was negatived.

On clause 13, Powers of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and its officers,

moved the following proviso: “Provided always that no certificate shall be required from the Crown Prosecutor before such prosecutions are instituted.”

could not see why the Crown should not prosecute.

said he did not think the hon. member quite understood the effect of the section. It did not provide that the society should prosecute in every case, but it gave the society the chance of instituting a private prosecution when the Crown Prosecutor refused.

The amendment was negatived, and the clause agreed to.

The Committee then reverted to clause 2.

The amendment of the hon. member for Boshof was negatived.

The amendment moved by Mr. P. Grobler was withdrawn.

The clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with certain amendments.

said he thought the amendment of Mr. P. G. W. Grobler in sub-section 3 would make the clause unworkable, as a police officer would have to summon two landowners if an accident happened to an animal which would necessitate its destruction. Suppose an accident happened to a horse in the streets of Cape Town or Johannesburg, a police officer would have to hunt round for two land owners.

moved the insertion of the word “or ” so that the phrase would read: “Veterinary surgeon or two landowners,” so that if anyone had no confidence in a veterinary surgeon he could look up two landowners, and in line 50 after “surgeon” to insert “or such landowners".

The amendment made in Committee was negatived.

The amendment of Mr. Mentz. was carried.

put the insertion of the words “the said owners of land"

moved, as an amendment to this amendment, before “the said” to insert “or ”.

Agreed to.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

The remaining amendments made in Committee were adopted.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

The motion was carried, and the Bill was read a third time.

in moving the second reading of the Removal or Modification of Restrictions on Immovable Property Bill, said he wished to refer to the main points of difference between the present Bill as amended in Select Committee and that originally introduced. In the present measure the reasons for allowing the removal of restrictions from the Bill were clearly stated. The Bill gave the court power to remove restrictions on four grounds. The first reason was that the property was so small that it could not be beneficially occupied by the beneficiaries, or that the land, although not too small for the present owners, might be too small for their successors, or that the land might not be beneficially occupied owing to there being a provision in the will against sub-division, or in the case of circumstances having arisen which the original testator could not possibly have foreseen. Cases frequently arose in the Transvaal of mineral bearing land not being alienable owing to restrictions placed in the will, and the natural resources of the country had to be allowed to go to waste. It was laid down in the Bill that if the court allowed the restrictions to be removed on the first ground that land bought with the proceeds of the property sold would be placed under the same restriction as the original property. If no land were bought similar restrictions would be placed upon the proceeds of the money in any way it might be invested. The only difference that was introduced in that respect was where it was found that the land was not sufficient to maintain all the heirs it might be subdivided. In the previous Bill it had been provided that before the court had power to grant an order for the removal of any restrictions in the will, the report of the Master was required. It was now laid down that reports might be obtained from the Master or from any other competent person. This change was made in view of the evidence given by several lawyers before the Committee, who pointed out that frequently the advice of practical farmers would be of more value than that of the Master. A further provision was contained in the Bill to enable the proceeds of the sale of land to be invested, not only by the Master, but by any other person authorised by the court. This provision was inserted because there was a disinclination on the part of the master to invest money for long periods, and also because private investors frequently claimed a higher interest. The right was given to anyone interested in the land to appeal against the decision of the court, without having to ask for leave. The provision in the original Bill that all applications to have wills set aside be made before three judges had been deleted on practical grounds, as it was frequently difficult to obtain a full court, and the Committee was also influenced in making this change by the fact that the court would not have to decide questions of law, but questions of fact. He thought it would hardly be necessary for him to refer at any length, to the principles of the Bill, seeing that they had on more than one occasion received the approval of the majority in that House. He had no doubt there would be some hon. members who would object to the principle of the Bill, but he did not believe that there was anybody who denied that this change was necessary. He had had numerous letters from people in the country, and several eases of hardship had been brought to his notice where people had been plunged into poverty. The Transvaal Indigency Commission had strongly recommended to the Parliament of that Colony that wills should be set aside in cases where their provisions were found to inflict hardship upon the beneficiaries, and the Select Committee of that House which was appointed last year to consider the question of poor whites had also made reference to this question, and urged an amendment of the law. He thought there could be no doubt some change was desirable which, while being safe in practice, would be able to operate in case of hardship. It was frequently found that wills imposed undue burdens upon legatees, but Parliament was the most unsuitable body to decide such questions. Private members had few opportunities to introduce Bills; the expense entailed was very heavy, and, most important of all, members seldom had the opportunity of going fully into the merits of the cases on which they were asked to adjudicate. The court would be able to do the work much more satisfactorily than Parliament, and the cost of the applications would not be anything like so expensive as the promotion of a private Bill. During the past two years two Select Committees had considered this question, and had heard the views of the most distinguished lawyers in the country. The only witness who was opposed to the principle of the Bill was the President of the Cape Law Society, and even he admitted that some change was necessary. He hoped members who were in favour of the Bill, but objected to any specific provision, would assist him to pass the second reading, as they would have the opportunity of moving any amendments they desired in committee, in particular if they objected to any of the grounds upon which the court was empowered to intervene. He wished to express his thanks, as well as the thanks of the Select Committee, to the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), and to Senator Schreiner, for the assistance they had rendered, and for the useful suggestions they had made.

said that, as one of the members of the Select Committee, he might briefly explain the provisions and objects of this Bill, for the benefit of those members more particularly who had been unable to follow the hon. member for Rustenburg. The remarks of the hon. member for Rustenburg, in regard to the Indigency Commission’s report in the Transvaal, opened up a very big question, which he (Mr. Struben) thought it would be most inadvisable for the House to go into, if they wanted to get this Bill through, and that was the question of whether the rights of testators to devise their property for the benefit of their descendants should be restricted, that was, whether any rule such as obtained in England against perpetuities, enabling a person only to devise property for a life or lives in being and 21 years thereafter, should be brought in in the Union of South Africa, where the law as at present obtaining was that a man may devise his property for generations succeeding him in such a way that for at least four generations in the ordinary course it would hold good, and for longer, if he put in perfectly clear language showing that that was his intention. The committee confined itself strictly to certain specific points, and it had devised a Bill in substitution for the former Bill, which was in very wide terms. This new Bill strictly defined the cases, and the only cases in which the court should have the right to interfere as between the testator and the beneficiaries under his will or other instrument. That meant that there was no ruthless interference with the testator’s wishes proposed in this Bill at all. It followed the lines of a letter which was written to the Clerk of the House by Mr. Justice Rose-Innes, who remarked that it might be necessary to lay down with more precision the principle which should guide the court and the lines on which it should go in apportioning the proceeds of the property. The Select Committee confined itself to strictly defining the cases with which the court should deal, and, in the second place, to dealing with what should happen to the proceeds of any property forming the subject of an order of court. He knew there was a conflict between certain sections on the lines he had suggested, viz., as to the question of the limitation of the rights of testation or the leaving open of the rights of testation, and the committee had agreed upon a course between the two. In the first place, the courts would have the power to deal with wills or other instruments where the shares were so small that the beneficiaries could really get no beneficial user from the property which was supposed to have benefited them under the terms of the will or other instrument. He might say that this Bill proposed to deal with wills and other instruments, but, as a matter of fact, the only other instruments that would be dealt with would be deeds of gift. They had evidence that an estate had worked out in such a way that each of the beneficiaries of a certain disposition was entitled to about 2½d. as his share of the proceeds. In that case it was proposed that the court should have the right to step in and say that this matter was working out to an absurdity, and the court would make such order as would allow some practical benefit to proceed to somebody. Then there was the case where, although the property might not be too small for those actually in possession, it would be too small for any real use or benefit to accrue to those next in succession. He expected that it would be on this clause that they would have some opposition, if any at all. He did not think that this clause was sufficiently dangerous to merit serious opposition. If a man devised his property to eight children and each of those children were to marry and each to have eight children, in the second generation they would have 64 persons as beneficiaries under that will. In a case of that sort, although the property might be big enough for the eighty it was proposed in the sub-section that if it were proved that the property would be too small, if divided amongst the 64, the court could step in and say that the property should be sold and the proceeds invested or made available in another form.

In the third case it was provided that the court should consider applications dealing with matters where there was prohibition against sub-division of the property left by a testator. A case that was quoted was where there were a good number of beneficiaries under a will, none of whom was able to take up a scheme, say, of irrigation. The property, being subject to this prohibition against sub-division, must be used and developed as a whole, while, if it were allowed to be sub-divided, very much better use might be made of those portions In that case it was proposed that the court should have the power to say that it was to the advantage of the beneficiaries to allow a sub-division. The fourth case, which would conclude the powers of the court in cases that they might deal with, was where circumstances unforeseen by the testator had since arisen, making it almost certain that, if he had known the circumstances, he would have made other provision than was actually made in the will. As an example, an estate was left under certain conditions. Some years after that a diamond mine was discovered on the property. Under the conditions of the will it was absolutely impossible to develop that if the terms of the will were strictly enforced, and although it might give great advantage to the owners of that property to have some alteration made in the conditions of the will, unless the court had power, all that benefit would be kept away from the persons obviously intended to be benefited by the testator. Only if proof were given to the satisfaction of the court would the court have power to step in and make alterations. The powers given to the court were to order a sale in whole or in part. Now he came to deal with the question of the proceeds of the sale if the court were allowed to order a sale. He wished hon. members to realise here again that the object underlying this Bill was that it was a first principle that the proceeds of any sale ordered by the court should be re-invested or held in trust on exactly the same terms as those laid down by the testator in his will or other instrument governing the property in question. Hon. members would see that the money would not be squandered or frittered away or diverted to other purposes than those contemplated by the principal. He thought that ought to allay the fears of a good many hon. members. It was only in cases covered by the first sub-section where the shares of any of the beneficiaries in being at the time of making the application were so small that they could not be beneficially occupied or enjoyed by those holding such property that the court could order that there should be a distribution of the proceeds of the sale, for the reason that the amount was so small that an investment of the money would be practically useless. The next principle underlying the Bill was that the machinery under which applications were to be made was to be as economical as possible and with that in view the Bill proposed that the court should be the Provincial or Local Division of the Supreme Court, with a right of appeal to the Appellate Division, if a person felt aggrieved by any order made. The procedure would not be by action, which was a more expensive form than the one proposed, but in the ordinary course it would simply be upon petition before a court which should have the power to call for further evidence, oral evidence, in the more difficult cases, or refer matters to a magistrate or some commissioner appointed to take evidence and report. In every case wherever possible the remedy proposed under the Bill was cheap and equally available to poor persons, who were mainly contemplated under the Bill, as it would be to other persons. This Bill, if it passed, must refer to wills or other instruments already in existence. Evidence was given before the Select Committee to show that at the present moment there were cases of great hardship which ought to be dealt with by any Bill passed by this House.

said he rose to support this Bill with a certain amount of scruple, because he came from a good old stock of Dutch people who always felt that it was a holy principle not to alter a will or the conditions of a will. He had been bred and brought up under the belief that a man’s will was one of those sacred documents which it was not the desire of the testator that any law-maker or anybody outside his own home should interfere with. If an attempt had been made to put the Bill through the House as it was originally introduced he would have strenuously opposed the measure, because the phraseology of the Bill was such that he was not sure of the legal effect of the various provisions. The Bill, however, had gone through the hands of a Select Committee, which had placed before the House some very valuable information on the subject, and having devoured the contents of the Blue Book he had come to the conclusion that the House must support this Bill. As had been pointed out by the hon. member for Newlands, there might be some clauses that all of them might not consider quite sound, but these might be altered when the Bill was in Committee. Generally, so far as the measure was concerned, he thought its provisions were such, now that it had been investgiated by the Committee, that it would be a very wise measure for the House to pass. It was intended to meet the requirements of a country such as South Africa, where they had so many difficulties, especially in connection with the estates. He pointed out that under the old system, a will could not be altered without a private Bill, and after a great amount of money had been spent it was questionable whether the people concerned could get the Bill passed. He pointed out that relatives of his had had bitter experience. It was not intended that the House should pose as a judicial body and pose as an authority on wills. The proper machinery for altering wills and dealing with matters of such vital importance was the judicature of the country. He did not have the fears he originally held that wills would be unnecessarily changed or that the people concerned would be prejudiced.

What could be fairer than the machinery which it was proposed to deal with these matters? If it could be proved that a will could be beneficially changed he said change it, and he thought it right that the court should take upon itself the risk of changing such will in a manner that would be fair and just towards the people concerned and the country in which they lived.

He referred to the wills of the olden days, which were drawn up by the schoolmaster or a clerk with a good handwriting. This person got a printed form, and he filled in things contrary to the first part of the will and contrary to the printed part of the will. He had seen some of the wills drawn up by schoolmasters, and he was very strong on the point. Speaking to one testator, the latter said why should he pay £2 2s. to have a will drawn up when he could get it done for half-a-crown. (Laughter.) Touching be the evil results of some of these ill-drawn wills, he said that when a person was drawn into a net by the drafter of a will who did not understand things it was only fair that there should be some court of appeal to which the will could be taken and the court asked whether in justice and equity those who were to benefit should take the property without the restrictions which were never intended to be placed on the property. There was the question of them explaining to those old staunch Dutchmen, and in that respect they had a pessimistic feeling.

If they told them that the court had the right to alter any will they would have a storm of opposition all over the country, so that it was only fair when explaining the matter to tell these people how far and in what measure the court could alter a will. It would not be fair to say that whatever will was made the court had the right to alter, but it should also be made plain that the court would only change a will after having been satisfied that such change was for the benefit of those whom the testator wished to benefit. Dealing with sub-section (b), he said that if they had any belief in the justice of the court, they would leave the matter in the hands of the court. The hon. member went on to deal with the various provisions of the measure, and touched upon the proceeds of properties sold. That was, he said, a part that was not quite clear to him. If, under the will, property was subject to certain restrictions, he did not see why, when the property was sold, the proceeds should be placed under the same restrictions. He thought an addition should be made to the effect that the court should have the right to give such further relief or make any order it might see fit, and not make a hard-and-fast ride that the proceeds of the sale should be dealt with as the property was proposed to be dealt with under the will. He thought that the provision dealing with the increase of value in property was a very fair proposition. New and improved conditions were required. It did not follow that any will could be torn up if the Bill were passed, as alterations could only be made on the order of the judicial body. He took it that the Bill provided that if the suggested change would be against the wish of the beneficiaries, the application would not be granted by the court. Notwithstanding the high authority of Senator Schreiner, he held that the Bill was a valuable one, and should be passed. Any objections to the measure could be dealt with in Committee.

said the previous speaker said he was proud of the stock he came from. But how did the hon. member show his respect for the feelings of that stock? How did he treat the feeling of that stock towards the sacredness of testaments? He (Mr. Krige) regretted being unable to support the hon. member for Rustenburg. Last year he had opposed him on this measure, and he still stood by the attitude he had then taken up. In this country our laws and customs were based on free testamentary disposition. (Hear, hear.) The testaments were sacred to the population. At present only Parliament could alter testaments. That was a wise principle, because it acted towards security and stability when only the highest court in the country could modify the terms of a will. This principle was one which, he held, should be carefully guarded before it was departed from. Had any evidence been laid before the House that a change was fair and necessary? Last year a strong endeavour was made to change the present position. Two orphan masters and the president of the Cape Incorporated Law Society had given evidence before the Select Committee on the Bill. The latter then strongly opposed any change in the present system. They should read the evidence of Mr. Syfret. When last year he (Mr. Krige) objected to the measure then proposed, he was promised that the Government would, if possible, introduce a measure. No Government measure was introduced, but a private Bill was again submitted. And on what evidence was this Bill introduced? One of the witnesses—a man for whom he had the greatest respect—had said that he would advise the Select Committee to go to the root of the matter, and introduce legislation taking away altogether the power of entailing property. The witness who said this was the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. Juta).

No.

said another witness. Senator Schreiner, had told the Select Committee that the Court of Appeal should consist of three members, and to be extremely careful before they interfered with the sacred rights of the people. The secretary of the Orphan Chamber, Mr. Steytler, a man of over 70 years of age, a man of great experience, had told the Select Committee that legislation of this kind would be unjust. The evidence which the Select Committee had obtained did not justify the Bill. Legislation had been passed by this House on occasions which the men from the rural districts regarded as unnecessary, but which members had supported, considering it of interest to the community at large. He now appealed to this House not to pass any further unnecessary legislation, especially when it made inroads on the rights of the people. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Krige said that as the Bill stood the High Court would have the right to deal not only with immovable property, but with invested moneys, and not only with people now living, but also with future generations. Surely that was a bad principle. This Bill furthermore would apply to a rich as well as to a poor estate. Under that Bill, if thirty people living on a farm failed to get a living out of it then they could go to the court and have the ground sold. Say a man went to court under the Bill, and the court said that ground must be sold and the proceeds distributed. That was done, but in a few years a coal mine or some valuable minerals were discovered on the ground. The owner had sold his rights, and where was he? Furthermore, not only the beneficiary, but even a creditor could apply to the court under the Bill.

No; read the Bill.

Before the Select Committee it was proved clearly that the beneficiary might be used as the instrument of the creditors of the estate. As the railways expanded, so the ground rose in value, and if they ordered the ground to be sold, they were selling the birthrights of the heirs. Mr. Krige then contended that there was no evidence before the House to prove that the people wanted a Bill of this kind. It was legislation of a most important kind. If it was necessary to have legislation of this kind, it should, after careful inquiry, be introduced by the Government. And he therefore moved to delete all the words after “that” and to insert the words “Government be requested to consider the advisability of appointing a Commission during the recess to inquire into the subject matter of the Bill and to submit, if necessary, during next session, such legislation as will attain the object in view.” The patent laws and mortgage bond systems of the country were of importance, the hon. member concluded, sufficient to justify the appointment of a small judicial Commission, but this was a matter of far greater importance. (Hear, hear.)

said he was afraid that if such statements as the hon. member for Caledon had been making in the House were conveyed to people in the country he could quite agree with him that there would be a great deal of difficulty, and if an hon. member so experienced and learned as he was could so misunderstand the simple provisions of this Bill, then he (Sir Henry) could quite understand that there would be a great deal of misapprehension in the country. (Hear, hear.) Anything more simple than that Bill or anything more remote from the remarks made by the hon. member for Caledon was difficult to imagine. (Hear, hear.) In fact so little was done by that Bill that the objection might be raised against it that it was hardly worth while taking up the time of the House to discuss it. That there were many important principles involved in the inquiry was undoubtedly so, but they were now in the year 1914 living still in the time of the middle ages, when a man was allowed to tie up his property for ever. There might be 1,000 morgen with 50,000 people on it and nobody could interfere with it. The questions that went to the root of the matter were beyond the scope of the Committee. The only question before the Committee was what could be done to deal with the practical present-day difficulties, and there was nothing more misleading than to tell any person in this country that the object of the Bill was to give the courts power to interfere with any condition. That was absolutely incorrect. It was an absolute misreading. The whole object of the Bill was to find a remedy, when it was no longer possible to carry out the intention of the testator. Under our law men could leave property tied up for ever, and after several generations there were so many people upon it that if the land were sold the share of each beneficiary would be small indeed. The hon. member quoted a case where the shares amounted to the magnificent sum of 4d., and no one could move a finger, nor could anything be done with the property. The thing was a perfect farce, and they in that House were to hold up their hands and do nothing because of those “terrible principles” involved. They were not interfering with the will. What they were doing was to say that, seeing that the conditions of the will could not he carried out, let the unfortunate beneficiaries whom it was intended to benefit have some benefit.

The Bill did not go nearly far enough in his opinion even for the solution of practical present-day difficulties. Something could be done, they could come to that House and no doubt a private Bill for cutting off the entail would be carried out at once, for no legislature would be so wanting in common-sense as to let it continue for ever when there was hardly room for the beneficiaries’ feet. There would be some expenditure, of course, but instead of that they were saying that the courts should have power, and if it was found the ground was too small to be beneficially enjoyed, the court should deal with the land, and invest the money, unless it was so small as not to be worth it. That was the whole scope of the Bill. It was not a Bill which was going to give the court power to do away with any conditions imposed. If a testator was so eccentric as to tie up the land and say that the heirs for generations should not sub-divide with the result that no one could enjoy the property, surely it was only common-sense to assist those who were intended to benefit. He could not suppose that any testator would have been in his senses when he imposed such a condition. No one should ever tell anybody in this country that the object of that Bill was to prevent testators from imposing a condition or to give the courts of law the power to take away or annul any conditions; the whole object, so far as he could see of that Bill, was that where it was possible no longer to carry out the intentions of the testator, they should be able to go to the rescue and put it to practical use. (Cheers.) Proceeding, the hon. member said there were several objections he had to the Bill so far as drafting was concerned, and to the substance also. He objected to the drafting of the Bill, inasmuch as it dealt with a will or “other instrument.” It would have been better to say to any restriction imposed by “testamentary writing or deed of gift.” A contract was another instrument, but it was never the intention of the Committee to give the courts power when two people have made a contract to alter that contract. They should leave no loophole which should allow of conditions being altered in a contract. He could not see why it was restricted to immovable property, for it applied equally whether it was movable or immovable property. He could not see there was any difference.

Continuing, he said they were not proposing to deal with people not yet born, except in the circumstances he had mentioned. Dealing with sub-section (2), he said that in almost all these wills no restriction was placed on the person who enjoyed the life right selling that right. A man with seven or eight children gradually got into difficulties and sold his life right, and, unfortunately, the experience was that it was done without the protection of the court, and he got very little for it. He and his children then had to leave. There was no grosser mistake made than the sentimental idea that if a man left land to nine children, that they were always going to enjoy that land. They did not do it. The father got into difficulties and sold his right, and he and his children had to wander. What did the children do? They also sold their life right for a song, so that the beneficiaries were not on the land at all. What this objection with regard to the creditor was he did not know.

It was not in the Bill, but it might just as well have been in the Bill, because the creditors or the purchasers were on the land now. Why when land was too small to be occupied beneficially could it not be treated so that it did become beneficial to somebody? With regard to sub-section (d), he said he did not profess to know what it meant. He did not see what it did. A plaintiff would go to a court and ask for the restrictions to be taken away, as circumstances had arisen which could not have been foreseen or contemplated by the testator. Who in the world was going to prove what a dead man did not contemplate or could not have foreseen? Supposing land was entailed for the next four generations', and there was a probability of gold being found, and that land could be sold at a very high price. What he wanted to do was to give opportunity for the land to be sold at that very high price, and the proceeds invested again in other land for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Surely not a soul could be prejudiced if that was done.

It is in the clause.

This is quite a different thing. Supposing again, he continued, the land was wanted for an irrigation scheme, and a high price was offered. He did not see how they were going to get it at present. He wanted power given the court to sell the land and put the proceeds into other land. He did not understand what the clause referred to except an earthquake or an eruption. These objections, however, could be met on the Committee stage. It was the same with clause 2. It did not give power to the court to authorise that the money should be re-invested in land; as long as they allowed people to tie up their property for generations, they should at any rate try and observe the intentions of the testator. Otherwise he did not see any objection to the Bill as it now stood. It seemed to do so very little that he felt inclined to apologise to the House for taking up so much of its time.

said that undoubtedly there were cases where property was tied up by impossible conditions and restrictions, with the result that the heirs could not derive any benefit. Then it was necessary to go somewhere for relief. As the law stood they could come to Parliament, but everybody knew the expense which attached to such proceedings. He must say that the Bill before the House was a great improvement on the production which was put before them on the last occasion. He was surprised that the Minister of Justice put his stamp on the first Bill, because it made such a radical alteration in the law of the country, and the House was entitled to look on the Minister of Justice for guidance. He (Mr. Wessels) knew that during the session the Minister was a very busy man, but there were so many law advisers that they might have considered the measure. He thought that private members should be discouraged from bringing in Bills which made radical alterations in the law of the country. As had been stated by the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, the Bill only virtually dealt with restrictions and conditions on landed property, and left other matters severely alone. He thought that if Parliament passed this Bill its intention would be only to concede the rights in extreme cases, where it was proved that the conditions of a will were such that relief must be given. Opinions might differ as to the size of a piece of land which a man might farm successfully. The whole onus was thrown on the court to decide whether a farm was large enough to enable farming operations to be carried on, and Judges, although learned in law, were not always the best authorities where agriculture was concerned. Clause 2 was very useful, as it laid it down that the proceeds of the sale of entailed property must be invested in landed property, and thus to carry out— more or less—the wishes of the testator. He (Mr. Wessels) would not oppose the second reading, but certain alterations would have to be made in Committee, and he would move then that sub-section (b) of clause 1 be omitted.

said he was one of those who did not like testaments to be interfered with, while at the same time he did not like injustice to continue. As the Bill stood, however, he could not vote for it. There were various clauses which he could not agree with; for instance, as a member of the Select Committee he had felt bound to oppose paragraph (b) and some words in paragraph (c). The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had spoken of his experience. Well, he (Mr. Keyter) also had experience. At Ficksburg he knew of cases where sons of testators lived on 200 morgen and made a good living. If these people thirty years ago had been told that they must live there they would have run away. (Hear, hear.) They could not have lived there. How could the court decide then what it would be possible to do in the future? He was prepared to remove anything in the nature of an injustice, but he was not prepared to see testaments as a whole upset. One clause, as it stood, gave the father of nine children, for instance, the right to go to court and say: “I have a thousand morgen of ground, which is sufficient for me, but it will not be enough for my nine children.” In twenty years’ time, however, circumstances might have altered so that these thousand morgen would be quite enough for the children. They in this House should not shake the confidence which people had in testaments. He would vote for the second reading of this Bill, but reserved the right, if certain sections remained, to vote against them at a later stage.

said he was surprised at the arguments of some hon. members. What would the “noble forefathers ” of the hon. member for Bethlehem have said if they had heard their grandson to-day? The arguments of some hon. members clearly showed that if they once started with matters of this kind they could not see the end of them. Even now some hon. members argued that the Bill did not go far enough. He, for one, held that when they came to deal with such drastic questions as the alteration of wills, Parliament was the right and the only body to make the alterations required. In the Court too many side issues were raised. He could not support the Bill.

said when a man died there surely still remained the probability of circumstances altering so that the wills became quite impossible. Why should the heirs then be the sufferers through this change of circumstances? It was quite right that in certain cases restrictions which injured the heirs should be removed or modified. The hon. member for Caledon had quoted the evidence of Mr. Syfret, but, like a lawyer— (laughter)—he had only quoted the evidence here and there. In that evidence Mr. Syfret had referred to instances where hardships might be created, and that witness had said that, although he did not like the idea, he agreed that in such cases of hardships there should be a possibility of relief. He (the speaker) was surprised at the arguments of the hon. member for Caledon, who wanted the measure again to be referred to the Government. After all, they had already had three Select Committees on this subject, and now the hon. member wanted another Select Committee. He hoped hon. members would help in the passing of this Bill. Any details could always be put right in the Committee stage. They all knew how carefully and conscientiously a court of law went into the law, and, therefore, he could see no reason why this Bill should not pass. It was altogether too expensive to have to appeal to Parliament in such cases, and a settlement by the courts would be far cheaper. The courts would not suffer any change to be made unless it was in the interests of the heirs. He intended to support the second reading. Improvements might be effected in Committee.

said that last year he had strongly opposed the principle of altering testaments. That principle he still held. But after having listened to all arguments, he held that not one iota or title of a man’s right was taken away in regard to his will. On the other hand, a certain amount of security was given to the heirs, who would be enabled by this Bill to exist. After all, a will was made for the benefit of the heirs, and no change would be made in a will except in their interest and at their request. He personally, had recently come into touch with a case where the heirs in an estate could not live on the ground left them, and could not sell. The position was quite untenable. If he thought the Bill aimed at interfering with anyone’s rights, he would oppose it; but, after all, the Bill only aimed at benefiting the people concerned. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons he would vote for the second reading.

said if ever a good Bill had been drafted, it was the one at present before the House. He personally knew of cases where an absolutely impossible state of affairs had been created by the provisions of a will, and where dead men’s bones were figuratively taken out of their graves. When there were many heirs on one farm the strongest man was usually the master. He intended to vote for the Bill.

said he went into Committee feeling very strongly that there was a very great prejudice among their people having their testamentary dispositions interfered with in the slightest way. On one side there were difficulties with regard to testamentary dispositions, difficulties which must be removed; and on the other side the only alternative when they wanted to remove the difficulty was that the only course open to beneficiaries who wanted to appeal was to come to this House. What they had to consider was whether there was not another course. They discussed the matter in Committee, and the underlying feeling was that where difficult circumstances had arisen it should be in the discretion of the court to consider those matters and if necessary alter or modify the will. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, had said that the Bill did not go far enough. There were other matters which ought to be assisted, but they thought in this Bill they ought only to go so far as to remedy matters where circumstances had arisen which had brought them to such a pass that if the testator were alive he would be the first to want to remedy the matter. Many of those circumstances were caused by the slipshod way in which the will had been drawn up in the first place. There was a clause often put in which the old legal practitioners introduced, and schoolmasters and others had followed one upon another and had continued to put in, that no master or other official was to interfere in the estate in any way. Proceeding, he said he was surprised at the mode in which the Bill had been received by the hon. member for Caledon. who had tried to make out that the Bill would interfere with a man’s right to testamentary disposition, but it did not interfere. What the Bill did was to provide that where difficulties had arisen, where it was unjust to the beneficiaries for that state of affairs to continue, the court should have the right to step in. The hon. member quoted an instance where such circumstances had arisen, and went on to say that the opposition to the Bill by the hon. member for Caledon and that of the hon. member for Bechuanaland arose from the fact that they did not like to see a Bill brought in, which would have a far reaching effect, by private members. It would be a good thing if the Government would appoint a Commission so that they could go into these matters of testamentary disposition with a view to finding a law which would meet all cases without interference, for they must not interfere with a man’s right to testamentary disposition. If they tried to do that in this country they were bound to fail. He supported the Bill without fear that it would encroach upon the sacred rights of testamentary disposition, and thought it was as necessary as any Bill which had been before the House.

said he knew of a case where an estate which Some years ago was worth £7,000 was now worth £30,000. A Bill of this kind opened the door to any estate being dealt with by the Courts. Since he had been in Parliament very few cases dealing with testaments had been brought before them, in fact in the last fifteen years he remembered only one case. The Bill, he remarked, was based on Socialistic lines— it was a line which aimed at protecting the minority and damning the majority. Not five per cent, of the population would make use of the Bill if it were passed into law, and in his own district he only knew of one case where it would be used. He was opposed to legislation of that kind. He would support the amendment of the hon. member for Caledon, and hoped the Government would look into the matter.

said that last time he spoke in favour of the Bill, and he still supported the better measure that had come from the Committee, and thought the House would be doing wrong if the Bill was not passed that session. He touched on cases of wills in his district which had only brought poverty because of impossible conditions, and he thought they should do their best to get he Bill through that session. (Hear, hear.)

said the whole country should be grateful to the hon. member for Caledon for his impartial opposition to the Bill, because there was no doubt but that it was to the interest of every law agent to support the measure. He (the speaker) wished to support the amendment most heartily, as he held that the subject matter of the measure should be inquired into by the Government. The hon. member went on to refer to the argument used by several hon. members in the past that the large farms should be made smaller. But now that this was being brought about they suddenly saw objections raised. It was in the interest of everyone concerned that the alteration of testaments should be dealt with by the highest Court in the land. If the Bill were passed it would provide plenty of work for the Courts.

The debate was adjourned until May 13.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

Papers and correspondence relating to the proposed reservation for Church and School purposes of sites in Native areas in Natal (1 to 26).

The papers were referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

said his self-respect compelled him to challenge a reply given to a question of his on the previous day by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Something like a week ago he had raised a question in the House and received a reply. He did not blame the Minister for the reply, but he wished to say that he had repeated the question yesterday because he knew from evidence in his possession that the first reply was untrue in principle, and in general detail— the answer was in conflict with the answer given a week before. At least it was not possible that both were true.

I think the hon. member is going a little too far. He can say that the reply was incorrect, but not that it was untrue.

Then I will say that in general and in detail that it was incorrect and not in accordance with facts. Continuing, he said that in his reply yesterday the Minister took advantage of his position to deliver a lecture which, in the opinion of members who did not sit on the cross benches, was nothing less than a gratuitous insult.

And impertinence.

continuing, said that when he had been guilty of a breach of good manners it would be time for the Minister to tell him so. As a member of that House he had a right and in the interest of the nation it was his duty to Speak on behalf of men, especially railwaymen, who could not speak for themselves. For sixteen years he had travelled on the railways of the country and had never seen a railway servant with one exception who was discourteous. The person concerned in the matter mentioned by him had made no complaint, but he (the hon. member) had a number of friends, commercial travellers, who had supplied him with the information, and he could supply their names. Again, yesterday he (the hon. member) had mentioned that the young ladies in the restaurants on the railways were paid 1s. 10d. a day for Sunday work. That was incorrect; they only received 1s. 5d.—something like half their ordinary pay. It was surprising that they had to wait until a question was brought before the House to get their dues. They also, according to Regulation 57 should not pay to the sick fund, unless they received 4s. 6d. a day, yet they were compelled to pay. These unprotected women were deliberately being wronged. He expressed the hope that members would in future receive the same courtesy from Ministers as they did from the Chair. Resuming the debate on the Estimates, he said it was not surprising the expenditure was so great, when the revenue was being absorbed and squandered in directions from which they got no return. On the other hand, they had appalling poverty, and no action was being taken.

The amendment of the member for Georgetown was a severe indictment against Government, Parliament, and the country; all were to blame.

He wanted the Government, if possible, to look at our position from the standpoint of civilisation. Wise men told them that, in proportion as Government was really civilised and placed upon a sound foundation, in that proportion would Government be self-sustaining. Civilisation implied government, but a Government that had to be kept up by opportunism and by unjust proposals was not worth the name. The Minister of Finance the other afternoon told them that, in order to secure stability and security, they must have solid foundations. He (Mr. Haggar) asked where were those foundations to-day? We had no security of any kind in this country. No working-man had the security of a single week that he would be in a position to earn his bread and meet the social responsibilities that we imposed upon him. No financial house, no business house, felt secure. The Minister of Finance had laid down as his Starting-point that we must consider the interests of the country as a whole. He complimented the hon. gentleman upon this new departure. So far so good, but so far, and so far only, did he venture. He (Mr. Haggar) had looked through the history of this Parliament, and he could rarely find one single look in the direction of solving a real national problem. Did the Government, in spite of their word, still cling to the idea that there was only one section of the country which was to be considered, and that all the other sections were to look after themselves, or not be looked after at all? It was because the economic foundations of this country had either been laid with rotten wood, or not laid at all, that we were in such a hopeless muddle. Take the social outlook. The social outlook to-day was absolutely hopeless in the main, yet the very hopelessness of that outlook was the only hope he had got. He believed they would find society before long deciding that that which it could not secure by patient waiting, it would rise and take by sheer force and determination. Wherever they found large communities, what else did they find? They found there was revolt in the heart, fire on the tongue, war in the eye, everywhere they found parched lips drawing the milk of bitterness from breasts which were burning with hate, and we sat and looked idly on, as if there were nothing to be surprised at or stirred by.

Why?

It is said that it takes a fool to ask a question and a wise man to answer it. I will tell them why. We know why and they ought to know. Proceeding, he said that this state of things must end. It would either end the Government or be ended before very long. The amendment of his hon. friend contained four propositions. One was that there was an alarming increase of poverty in the Union to-day. Another was that unemployment was pressing us very acutely. The amendment also referred to the departure of men from this country, not immigrants, but emigrants, and it alleged that the main causes of these disastrous conditions were the labour policy adopted and all the attendant circumstances. Where did they find this degrading, this grinding, this depressing poverty? Not so much on the Government side of the House, not with those poor farmers who could afford to buy their magnificent motor-cars. This poverty was at the very place where there ought to be none, at the very base of society. The poverty was found amongst those who would be required to produce the future wealth; required as fathers and mothers; as soldiers and sailors. Thousands of the working-men in this land were as poor to-day as were the working-people of England 500 years ago. To be exact, in the year 1450. A shilling in England then could buy as much as 40s. would buy in England to-day. His point was that there were thousands of poor people in this country, the working-people, the wealth producers, those people upon whom our future must depend, poorer than were the poor people in degraded England 500 years ago. The hon. member for Beaufort West talked about tuberculosis. He wished the hon. member would tell this House that tuberculosis was largely due to poor food and social degradation. Why were these people so poor? It was not because there was any lack of food or because the climate or the country was very niggardly and gave nothing in response to our labour. Adequate food, the means of a decent life, a fair income—these things were as impossible to multitudes in this country as if they were shut up behind the bars of a gaol. He wanted to come to the position of the Minister. His own facts and figures told them the other day that the working-people of this country were under a handicap of 230 per cent. as compared with the people of Australia. The minimum wage of the labourer in Australia was 8s. a day. The minimum wage of the labourer in this country was anything down to half nothing. The labourer’s wages here, and considered fairly good wages, 4s. a day, were 100 per cent. below the wages of the labourer in Australia. Those were the Minister’s words. Rent was 30 per cent. higher and food was 100 per cent. higher. If they took the actual facts, the wages in Australia were 100 per cent. higher, making in all that the working people in this country were handicapped 230 per cent. compared with Australia. This country could produce wheat at a handsome profit. Had members read the report of the Industries Commission? In producing macaroni they must have the finest wheat that was grown. In the Transvaal they were producing finer macaroni than could be produced in any part of Europe, and they could produce it at a profit of from 7s. 6d. to 12s. a bag. In this country they could produce staple food as cheaply as they produced it in Australia. Proceeding, the hon. member said a large quantity of flour was brought to these shores. They were told that the average price of flour in Australia was £7 10s. per ton, and when it reached this country it jumped up to £14 10 s. per ton, and when that flour came back as bread, came back to their houses they had to pay £35 10s. Where did the money go to? On top of that the farmers were asking for an increased duty, so as to bring the price of our bread to £44 10s. per ton. In South Africa, if we wanted to buy meat we had to pay anything from 8d. to 1s., and in Australia it was anything from 2d. to 4d. for a better class. Here, too, butter was anything from 1s. 6d. to 2s., and in Australia, from 5d. to 1s. Was it any wonder that the people of England streamed across there? Was it any wonder the people there were so vigorous and strong, and was it any wonder that here with food so high, so rare and so common in quality in many respects our people were so degraded, so hopeless, and so disinclined to advance?

The hon. member should not refer to that matter. Notice has been given by the hon. member for Springs.

I will not anticipate future discussion. Continuing, he said that that unemployment was much the result of the system, and either they must destroy the system or be prepared to meet the effect which the system caused. Little Holland was the most prosperous country in Europe, comparatively speaking, and had not a single unemployed man. He believed that South Africa could have their black stain wiped out, and he believed if they were allowed to do it, they (the Labour Party) could do it; the Government could within five years arrange that there should not be an unemployed man in the country. Let the Government start great State enterprises, and give those unemployed men a chance to earn their daily bread. Let them take the whole of Europe and the United States of America and they would find that the conclusions were that from 65 to 74 per cent. of the social and industrial misery was due to causes over which the people had no control. The main cause of that misery was unemployment. What was this country doing to meet the poverty that existed? The Prime Minister had said that the House ought to do something, and he asked the Prime Minister to move in the matter.

Why?

I would have appealed to justice and to men who love right. Continuing, he referred to the numbers who were leaving the country, and said that the mining engineers told them that the best men had gone from the Rand. The best men were the men who went and talked and influenced the money market, and when these men went it was no wonder that the Minister found it difficult to raise loans. It was a painful sight to see honest, capable, and intelligent men go over the seas to grow food and sell it to people here at double price. If he spoke as he felt on this subject he would say many nasty things. It was wicked in the last degree that these men, women and children should be driven from their homes. The cause of many of these evils was, as his hon. friend had said, cheap, degraded, and semiservile labour. He referred to the infamous system that obtained in the Province of Natal.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had stated that he had never seen a starving man in Australia.

I didn’t say that.

Well, what did the hon. member say? He said he had never seen a hungry man in Australia.

What I said was that I have never seen a hungry mouth in Australia that would not get filled for the asking.

said that that inferred that there was no poverty in Australia. He found from the official Yearbook that they had benevolent institutions in Australia, to which the State in 1911 contributed £218,000. There were four homes for the destitute in Western Australia, supported by public funds. There were many men out of work at this moment in Sydney. The hon. member had also spoken about the production of sugar in Australia, and had compared it with Natal. He (Mr. Jagger) did not want to say anything in defence of the system in Natal, but he would mention that to keep up white labour in Queensland there was a bounty paid of £545,000. The hon. member had given expression to some views on taxation, which, coming from one who claimed to represent the working-classes and the poorer classes in this country, certainly made his (Mr. Jagger’s) hair stand on end. He had stated that taxation should not be levied according to a man’s income, but for services rendered by the State. (Hear, hear.) What greater service was rendered to any man than the protection of life? Surely it was equally important to the poorest man in the country that his life and liberties should be protected, as it was to the richest. The service was equal to both parties, whether rich or poor. Under the hon. member’s doctrine, they would tax the poor just as much as the rich. He (Mr. Jagger) had always been taught that every man in the country had got to make some sacrifice for the benefit of the State, to keep the State going, and, if they accepted that, the only just thing to do was that a man should make that sacrifice in proportion to his income and to his means.

What about wages?

I will deal with that later. Last year they imported food into this country to a value of £6,000,000, and they paid in duty £1,303,000, or 20 per cent. The tax on foodstuffs contributed very largely to the cost of living. The tariff today was not solely a revenue tariff. In this tariff there was a large measure of Protection. The duty on flour and wheat and mealies was 26 per cent. The duty on tea was 36 per cent., and yet the Minister wanted to increase it by a 1d. on small packages.

(Surprised): The number of employees is excessive?

Yes. What did the Minister’s own official say? In the report of the General Manager of Railways for 1911 it was pointed out that the number of employees on the S.A.R. per 100 miles of line was 537, taking three coloured men as being equal to two white men, whereas the number on Australian railways, not famous for economy, was 410. He was aware there had been an increase in the mileage, but he did not think the Minister’s increases had been justified; there was a tendency to increase the number of men quite out of proportion to the traffic. Another matter was that of Indwe coal. They could not go on spending money on that coal. They could buy better coal in South Africa. They could go to the Transvaal. the O.F.S., or Natal, and get better coal and cheaper. That matter cost the country between ten and fifteen thousand pounds a year.

regretted to see that so much of the time of this House was taken up by long speeches on miners’ phthisis, strikes, Trade Unions and matters like that. The taxpayers wished to see something done for their benefit, but hon. members on the cross benches thought differently. Who were the cause of so many men being out of employment and of so many men on the Premier Mine having lost their position?—Nobody but hon. members on the cross-benches, he held. (Hear, hear.) He considered that the dismissal of the 368 workmen at the Premier Mine was the indirect result of the inciting speeches which had been delivered by members of the Labour party. The hon. member proceeded to emphasise that if the farming community prospered, the whole country prospered. He hoped the farmer would be given an opportunity to develop these waste grounds of which there were so many in the country. For that purpose railways should be built so as to enable farmers to get their products easily to the markets. He was glad to learn that large sums of money were to be spent in the making of dams on the Crocodile River, at Worcester, and other places. But even that would be useless unless they had railway communication with the markets.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned until to-morrow.