from Sophia Herzberger, teacher.

from A. M. Harris, teacher.

from the Cape British Indian Union, against the restrictions upon the free movements between the Provinces of British Indians residing within the Union, as proposed in the Immigration Restriction Bill.

from W. A. McMurray, South African Railways.

from William John Lewis, clerk, South African Railways.

having called upon the tellers for the “Ayes,” who, after examining the list, reported that the names of Messrs. Alberts and Griffin had been inadvertently inserted in place of the names of Messrs. Alexander and Wiltshire, respectively, the list was ordered to be corrected accordingly.

Reporte Public Service Reorganisation Commission.

moved the adjournment of the debate, as it appeared to him that the House was entitled to a little more information in regard to this proposal. Some hon. members had heard that the land had something to do with the land settlement question—that poor whites would be placed upon it. (Laughter.) Others had the idea that it was the site for a new residence for the Governor-General. If this was the case what was it intended to do with the piece of land which some seven or eight years ago was bought by the Government as a site for the residence for the Governor. At that time the matter gave rise to an important debate, and he remembered the excitement caused when it was proposed to alienate that land for quite another purpose. The present Minister of Railways and Harbours had warmly attacked this suggestion, but now he appeared to agree quietly to a similar proposal.

explained that the object he had in view was to prevent repetition of discussion. He thought that in committee there would be fuller and freer discussion of the whole matter.

agreed with the hon. member for Queenstown. They were asked to vote for a principle of which they had no mention Surely the House should be given some information at this stage.

retorted that the hon. member was always a great man for principle. (Laughter.) They were not asked to agree to any principle whatever, but to discuss a certain question in committee. He hoped that his hon. friend would stick to his principle. “What celebrated character was that,” he asked, “who said, ‘Hurrah for principle’?” ( Laughter.)

The motion that the House go into committee on the question was agreed to, and set down for to-morrow.

said that some hon. members on his side of the House had been rather surprised that this Bill, introduced with a sort of flourish of trumpets from the Government side of the House, had found so little defence from the other side. (Opposition cheers.) With the exception of the speech of the hon. member for Rustenburg, which he would deal with later, as it deserved very serious consideration, he did not think there was a single speech in defence of the Bill. At one time he thought that the hon. member for Jeppe was going to champion the Bill from the tone of indignation with which he referred to the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein. He noticed that as the hon. member went on that he really thought as little of the Bill—in fact, rather less—than the hon. member for Turffontein. (Hear, hear.) It became quite apparent that his indignation was really directed, not so much to any question arising out of the merits of the Bill, but rather it was one of the results of his attitude towards members on that side of the House. When they disagreed with any view put forward by the hon. member, they were always accused by him of doing so from the lowest possible motives, but his indignation when they agreed with him was nothing compared to his scorn when they happened to agree with some of the principles which the Labour Party was identified with. He referred to the hon. member’s speech because he seemed to be under a misapprehension. He gave as his reason for astonishment at the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein a certain report adopted by a Select Committee of the other House during last session. That committee came to certain conclusions, on which the present Bill seemed to be more or Jess founded. Because that committee came to those conclusions and adopted those principles, and, he supposed, because that Select Committee was moved for by a member of the party sitting on that side of the House, the hon. member was surprised that the Bill was being criticised at that stage. That, to his (Mr. Duncan’s) mind, was entirely a wrong interpretation of the report of the committee and the circumstances under which it was adopted. The committee that adopted that report was not a party committee at all. It was a committee consisting of members, certainly, of the party opposite and of the party on that side. The conclusions of that committee had always been regarded by them on that side as of peculiar importance, not because they went as far as they on that side would like to go on that question, but because they represented at that time the furthest point at which by agreement members in both the main parties of the country had arrived. But because that point was reached there was no reason why members on that side should be expected to be silent when legislation was introduced which, in their opinion, did not go far enough. Another point which the hon. member for Jeppe raised against his hon. friend, the member for Turffontein, was that, after all the Bill could be amended in committee. Now, he thought they did in that House waste a large amount of time on second reading debates—Ministerial cheers)—it was not confined to his side of the House—(hear, hear)—and discussing points which could much better be, and were, discussed also in committee. But it seemed to him that there was a difference between amending a Bill in committee, and totally reconstructing it, and he thought it could be shown that it was not amendment which this Bill required, but complete reconstruction. That was why it seemed that the points raised by the hon. member for Turffontein were points he was entitled to raise, because they were points going to the whole root of land settlement. The speech of the Hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill might be regarded as expressing the intention of the Government. They were expressions of a policy which they on that side had been advocating for some time both in that House and the country, and for advocating which they had been assailed, not merely by criticism, but by abuse from hon. members sitting opposite. They had been called “parasites” and all kinds of unclean associations had been attributed to them. It had been openly said broadcast in the land that, for advocating principles such as had been given expression to by the Minister in charge of the Bill, they were actuated by personal motives for their own gain or those whom they were supposed to serve. He supposed that was part of the game. (A laugh.) As long as Ministers opposite acted in accordance with views which they represented on that side of the House, they did not care very much what they said. Therefore, they welcomed the views expressed by the Minister, in moving the second reading of the Bill, they welcomed the intentions expressed by him on the subject. But they said that the Bill must do more than express intentions. If the Bill was intended to be of any use, the Executive of the country must lay down certain principles within which the Executive of the country were authorised to act. This Bill seemed to him, when it touched upon any point in regard to land settlement, to leave the whole thing in the absolute discretion of the Minister. (Hear, hear.) Now, without saying that they had no confidence in the Minister it seemed to him a wrong principle that Parliament should give carte blanche in legislation to Ministers. In dealing with land settlement, it seemed to him that there were three main points that any Land Settlement Bill must go into with a considerable amount of detail. One was the question of acquisition of land and its allotment. The second was the undertakings which the Government entered into with those who were going to be put on to the land. The third was the obligations of the men who were put on the land towards the Government as their landlord or lessor. If they looked anywhere in this Bill, they would find not merely that it was very vague on most of those points, but that there was almost an entire blank. Take, first, the acquisition of land. Now, the Minister said, and very rightly said, that if the Government were to come to Parliament every time they wanted to buy land and ask for the proceeding to be ratified by Parliament in advance, everybody concerned in the transactions as against the Government would put up the price of their land. Well, so they would. But did he think it possible for the Government to spend money on a scale such as was foreshadowed entirely in secret? The thing was impossible. Even if it were not impossible, was it desirable that the Government should have an army of secret agents out all over the country buying land or getting offers of land? They knew what that led to. (Hear, hear.) Only last session they had brought up in that House the transaction of the Government in buying the farm for Dinizulu through an agent, who made a profit of over 25 per cent, and yet they came to that House and said that the State had made a good bargain.

They got the worst of the bargain, too.

That is one instance with which the Government were entirely satisfied. What is to happen if half-a-million a year is spent in this way by agents all over the country? Proceeding, Mr. Duncan said that without powers of compulsory purchase they could not have a scheme of land settlement, except of Crown land, of course, on any large scale. Without compulsory purchase they could not get land enough for settlement purposes. To judge by the speech of the Minister of Lands, one would think that Government intended to go in for settlement on a considerable scale. It seemed to him that unless something were done in the direction he (Mr. Duncan) had indicated, very little progress would be made, except to put a few poor whites on to the land. Surely it was worth while risking a little now rather than to go slow in a matter of this kind. As to the obligations undertaken by the Government towards the settlers, all they were told in the Bill was that besides the provisions for the allotment of land Government might make advances in the manner laid down by the regulations. There ought to be a clause in the Bill limiting the extent to which advances could be made. Land settlement schemes ran the risk of coming to grief either because the Government was too parsimonious, or helped the settlers too much. It must be laid down that Government must make certain advances, so that intending settlers might know to what extent they would be helped by Government. The advances should be limited by the amount of the improvements made by the settler. As to indigent settlers, they could not be expected to turn out well without strict supervision and a certain amount of discipline. (Cheers.) Any other method would produce nothing but moral and material disaster. The third point he wished to make was the obligation the Settler was to be under to the Government. As far as he could make out the only obligation the settler was under was to reside on his ground. (Hear, hear.) When he applied for land he had to make a declaration, in which he signified his intention of carrying out certain rules, but there was absolutely nothing to secure that he would carry them out. (Hear, hear.) In Victoria it was laid down that the lease given by Government must contain a condition for fencing, the destruction of vermin and noxious weeds, and the carrying out of certain improvements. No ground should be given out by the Union Government which did not contain these or analogous conditions, and the matter should not be left to the Minister’s discretion. The Minister had told them that a land bank was to be established, but there was not a word in the Bill about it. (Hear, hear.) The Opposition regretted that some of the remarks made by the Minister contained no echo in the Bill. The Minister told them that people would be able to go to the London office and make application for land, but there was no word about that in the Bill. The Minister, even by regulation, could not make satisfactory arrangements for that. It was quite clear that desirable immigrants were not going to come here on the off-chance of getting land from the Land Board, still less likely was it that they would get land allotted them before they did come here. (Hear, hear.) If the Minister really did mean to get desirable people to come here from oversea he must put into the Bill Some more definite conditions regarding them. From all the literature issued by the High Commissioner’s office in London the settler would get precious little encouragement to come here—(hear, hear)—for that literature was just about as encouraging as a frost in spring. On the question of Land Boards he entirely agreed that it would be a great mistake to have a large number of Boards. The larger the area the less the risk of undesirable selections, and the larger the Board the more impartial its considerations were likely to be. The objections raised to the Bill were not captious. The Opposition welcomed the principle of the measure, but they criticised it because they did not find the slightest evidence that the Bill was going to carry out the intentions expressed by the Minister. (Opposition cheers.) The Bill required not so much amendment as entire reconstruction. It seemed to have been put together as if a minimum of legislative enactment would give a maximum of authority to the Minister. (Hear, hear)

asked what the criticism of the Opposition amounted to. They freely criticised the Bill without giving a single hint as to how it might be improved. Had one of them said, We must do this and this to better the position of our poor whites? The hon. member for Cape Town attacked the Bill, and drew comparisons with measures in New Zealand and Australia. The hon. member for Turffontein condemned it, and called on them to look at the errors in clause 4, or clause 5. The hon. member for Fordsburg had yet other criticisms. Amongst other things said against the Bill, it was stated that it had not been carefully thought out by the Minister. He (the speaker) had studied the measure, and had listened intently to the remarks that fell from the Minister, and, as one of the country’s representatives, he must honestly say that ho considered that the Bill had been well thought out. He would not go so far as to say that it was without fault. But on the whole it was a good one, though its utility would greatly depend upon the manner in which it was administered. They must first have the desire to raise these poor people, and they must trust the Government too. It was said that the Bill did not clearly lay down how much land and how much money should be granted or advanced. It was impossible for any Government in the world to say in a Closer Settlement Bill, “We will give this man £10, that man £6, and another £500.” “You must,” he added “trust your Government.” (Ministerial cheers.) The numbers of morgen allotted would vary in accordance with circumstances. In some parts five morgen would suffice to sustain a man and his family. Proceeding, he said that the poor in this country differed in some respects from the poor of other countries. He would divide our poor into three classes: those who had lost courage, those who had lost self-respect, and those who could not shift, for themselves. When a man lost courage, even the wants of his wife and children would not spur him to effort. When a man had lost self-respect, he became a most pitiable creature. Therefore, in a land settlement scheme, they must supply that stamina which might be lacking in some of the settlers. They must have a superintendent, whose duty it should be to go round and say one day, “It is time to plough your land” ; another day, “Lay on water,” and so on. (Sir THOS. SMARTT: “Hear, hear.”) Otherwise, the settlement would prove a misfortune. Before they could make land settlement a success, they must have a good irrigation law. Proceeding, he referred to the success of the settlement at Kakamas, where to-day most of the men had gained a position of independence. (Cheers.) It was indeed easy to criticise, and to look to other lands for an example, but every land had to be governed according to its peculiar circumstances. They should remember that in discussing the Bill. (Ministerial cheers.) Why talk so much of Canada and New Zealand, or England? Had the hon. member for Turffontein visited the scenes of squalor and poverty in England? When one visited England first, one was struck with its beauty, and one was impelled to exclaim, “What a happy country.” But when they went to other parts, and saw the poverty, they said, “God help them.” Was it right for them to help the affluent people of other lands, or first to lend a hand to the poor of their own country? Good agriculturists could be taken from oversea under the scheme.

said that they should remember that though the gentleman at the piano might be doing his best, the instrument might be defective. Surely, he thought, they would not be unkind if they suggested that he should be supplied with a better instrument. His hon. friend who had just spoken had, he (the speaker) thought, been the Bill’s severest critic, for he treated the measure as one for the assistance of poor whites. There was nothing in the Bill to suggest that it had anything to do with poor whites ; they on that side thought it was an attempt to develop the resources of a national asset. It was acknowledged that there was a large amount of ground which was not being put to the best use, and they thought the measure was some attempt to bring into use a great deal of the ground in this country which was not being used or adequately worked at present. But they were told by an hon. gentleman behind the Minister that it was a Bill for the assistance of poor whites. If that was so then it was a very ineffective measure. Members on both sides were in favour of helping poor whites, but the experience of every Province had shown that the proper way to assist them was not by giving them land and cattle and doles of all kinds. At any rate, his hon. friend who had just spoken seemed to him to be the severest critic of the measure. When hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House talked of immigration, hon. members on the other side imagined they were thinking of the poverty-stricken classes in Great Britain, and were quite oblivious of the poor people of this country. That was not correct. They did feel and had hoped when the measure was brought forward an attempt would be made to bring this idle land into use and so develop the resources of the country. His hon. friend on the other side had suggested that the measure had been well thought out ; but he (the speaker) would call the attention of hon. members to many small defects which showed that the Bill was not as carefully thought out as they hoped it might have been. He would call attention to clause 9, which dealt with the giving out of land. He had no objection to Government assisting the sons of farmers to get on the land, but he would appeal to hon. members on the other side, who had any idea of business, as to whether the stipulation made, that one-fifth of the purchase price should be put up by the purchaser, was sound business or anything like sound business. He maintained that one-fifth margin was not a sound proposition for lending money, and he thought that it would ultimately dead to bogus sales. Then the Government intended to give it to him at four per cent, when even the land banks did not advance under five per cent. He pointed out, in addition, there was no limitation to the advance—it might be £100 or £1,000. This, he thought, required an explanation from the Minister. Alluding to clause 16 (sub-section 4), the speaker said he had no objection to giving the Minister a veto over the Board. Perhaps that would be sound, but there was no provision in the Act of any veto on the part of the Land Board over the Minister. There was nothing to prevent the Minister parting with land in opposition to the wishes of the Land Board. Then he pointed to the fact that Ministries were liable to change, and surely it would be disastrous to place in the hands of any gentleman from his side of the House the autocratic powers that were to be given the Minister at present holding office. There were other little points that showed that the financial and business aspects of the measure had not, he thought, been fully considered. Proceeding to criticise other clauses, the hon. member said there was no provision made for a purchaser to pay off a lump sum, so as to lessen his indebtedness towards the Government. He hoped that if the Bill reached the committee stage this point would receive the earnest consideration of hon. members on both sides of the House. Then there were several clauses of the Bill dealing with upkeep and improvements that required attention. They were dealing now with improved property, in which there were valuable things to be kept up. If a man paid a sufficient share himself, he would have an interest in keeping up the property, and not letting it deteriorate. The only sound security for the Government was for the man to pay such an amount of money that the Government had ample security for the amount advanced in the margin that was left. Dr. Watkins proceeded to criticise several other clauses on points of detail. In regard to the Land Boards, he urged that farmers should be not put on the Boards simply because they were farmers. They wanted good and able business men, because this was a business matter, and not a farming question—the lending out of money practically on mortgage. He also criticised the distinction made in the rates of pay to members of the Board in different parts of the Union. In closing, he said that he did not think this was a measure which went far enough, and he did not think it was a measure which would please members sitting on the Ministerial side.

said he was sorry that he could not find himself in agreement with the hon. member for Fordsburg, when he said that the discussion upon the second reading of this measure, and indeed, he gathered from him, on all measures, was a waste of time. Surely, if there was a proper time for discussing the principles of a Bill, it was on the second reading.

What I said was that much time was wasted in this House discussing, on the second reading debate, questions that are more proper for committee.

Then when the hon. member said that he had not had the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins). (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Merriman said there could be no more important question than that of land settlement, bearing as it did on the labour, indigency, and immigration problems, and the relation of ourselves to the other races. (Cheers.) He thought the Minister of Lands was to be congratulated on the courage he had shown in grappling with this question. (Hear, hear.) If he (Mr. Merriman), as one who bore a musket in the ranks—(laughter)—was not able to go with the Minister in his heroic stride the whole way, be hoped his hon. friend would not think it was a case of mutiny. It was far from it. But he (Mr. Merriman) was disappointed with the Opposition. They had made the platforms ring with their desires of closer settlement and immigration, yet when his hon. friend brought in a little skeleton of a measure, in a most humble way, they did not support him. He was at first afraid that the Minister was going to force the Bill through the House, aided by himself (Mr. Merriman) and other musket-bearers, but the Minister said, “No ; let us have a committee,” and try to meet those who hold other views. Then the other people said, “We will not be met.” (Hear, hear.) He admired the courage of his hon. friend, and would do all he could to give him help, but he admired still more the courage of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham. When he (Mr. Merriman) saw a Socialist—(laughter)—he was always glad to meet him. The hon. member was for taking away the land from those who had it and giving it to others—a true Socialistic principle. (Laughter.) They knew the hon. member would be an ornament to the House when he got into his stride, and there was a great future for him in the Socialistic ranks. (Laughter.) Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said he felt the Bill was a little ineffective. What did it do more than the Land Acts of the Came? The only thing it did was to give Government the dangerous power to go about buying land with a brass band. (Laughter.) They had had plenty of experience of that, and its only effect would be to raise the price of land so enormously as to create a land boom.

That is what we want.

No one wants that—it only brings sorrow and misery afterwards. (Cheers.) If you do that you are either going to get land of no use, or so high in price that people would not be able to make a profit out of it. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said he did not wonder at the Minister’s anxiety to do something. The platforms had been ringing with denunciations of the Minister, and naturally he said: “We must do something” ; a most dangerous frame of mind. Often great harm was done by well-meaning men. There was no subject more difficult than land settlement, but they must always consider the higher law of economic development. They might go on, but the world turned round, notwithstanding all the Acts of Parliament. He could speak from 42 years’ Parliamentary experience of trying to stop the Atlantic with brooms in the shape of little Acts of Parliament. If hon. members would study the Statute-book they would find how much money had been flung away over this business. He did hope that his hon. friend with all his experience would not be led into doing that simply because of the clamour of the platform. That was nothing. They did not find the Government’s supporters calling out for these measures—they were too wise. (Laughter.) But their opponents did. They would lead the Minister into this little experiment, and then be the first people to turn round and rend him. Do let a humble individual like himself warn his revered leader not to be led away by clamour to please the Opposition and those who were only anxious to see him walk into the pitfall and make a mistake. We had had a good deal of experience in the matter of land settlement, and we had no reason to go to Australia for examples. In the Gape Colony we had had a good deal of experience, and so, also, had the Transvaal and the Free State. He proposed to give a slight sketch of Cape legislation on the subject. It was exactly 42 years ago since he—bumble as he was—introduced the first Land Settlement Act—No. 10 of 1870—a well-meaning Bill, almost the same in many respects as the present one before the House. Under it not more than 500 acres were to be taken up by one person, and there was to be full purchase after ten years. People were bound to make certain improvements, build a dwelling-house within two years, and cultivate a percentage of the land within stated intervals. A useful measure, as he thought at the time. In those days he thought you could reform the world by Act of Parliament—he was wiser and sadder now. He did not think very much was done under that Bill. In 1877 the Clape Parliament said that a certain area should be set apart for land settlement, three-quarters of which should be available for immigrants. They were great on immigration in those days. In 1879 they tinkered at the Bill again and a person—living either in England or here—might have 20 acres allotted to him. In addition there was to be a commonage, which was to be divided up. Something was done under that Act. The late Mr. Laing, who was Commissioner of Lands at that time, saw—naturally and wisely—that the best immigrants in the world were Scotsmen, for having left their country they were in no hurry to return to it, as so many others were. Mr. Laing got out an admirable collection of Scots farmers. What happened? In three years’ time they skipped to New Zealand. (Laughter.)

No; they are here now.

Very few of them. In 1881 I was red-hot then, too, and had a great opinion of Scotsmen, and under the auspices of a distinguished Scotsman—Mr. John Walker—(laughter)—we imported another party of Scotsmen and settled them at the Kei Mouth. Where are they now? Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said they went on with their schemes, and in 1882 introduced the Agricultural Lands Act, wherein the principle was brought of a Land Board to report upon applications. He thought that was a good Act. He could describe a number of changes that had occurred in the laws. At first the idea was to get as much out of Crown lands as possible, and they had screwed an enormous amount out of that much-despised man—who was scarcely ever mentioned in the House without a sneer—the backveld farmer. He, the back-veld man, had contributed between one and two million pounds to the country when, as he had often remarked, they ought to pay a man for going to Jive there. That sum had been spent in harbour work and other improvements. He hoped the backveld farmer would get a little of it back this session, because it would be nothing more than his due. The policy had been found to be a bad one. Then they had a scheme of putting the rent of the land up to auction. Mr. Saul Solomon, than whom there had been no more astute nor liberal-minded man in that House, had what was in theory a very good plan. He said, “It is no use a young man sinking all his capital in the land ; we will put up the rent of the land, instead of selling it by auction, because a man requires his money to stock his farm.” What was the result? After this Act had been in operation a short time, the farmers said: “Waar daar is een kwestie van land is daar geen broederlike liefde nie.” (“Where there is a question of land there is no brotherly love.”) Laughter.) They used to go into town and bid far too much, and numbers of them were ruined by the Act. It became so patent that they were deliberately ruining the people that they altered the principle, and sold the land by auction. They allowed the settlers then to retain four-fifths of the land. In 1895 they introduced the Consolidated Land Act, and after years of struggle, they introduced a principle which he thought the only sound principle, namely, selection on very easy terms. Mr. Rhodes was then Prime Minister, and although a great many clever men were against them, Mr. Rhodes agreed with him that the great principle was to make settlers in the country. (Hear, hear.) Although he (the speaker) was then in Opposition, Mr. Rhodes had assisted him, and a committee was formed and produced the Act of 1895, through which a great amount of settlement had taken place. By that Act the price of the land was fixed, and the settler paid 5 per cent. of the price for 20 years. Then he became the owner of the property. More settlement would, he thought, have taken place in certain parts, only officials liked to show a big revenue, and did not sufficiently regard the higher object, which should be settlement. He merely gave these instances to show how very little they had been able to progress. They had tried every possible plan, but, really, they could not make an empty bag stand up—(laughter)—and unless a man had energy and a certain amount of capital, there was not the slightest use placing him on the land. It had been said that it was better for private people to take this matter up. Well, there were people here who owned vast tracts of land. Why did not they do this?

They do.

“I am glad to hear they do. They do not let their right hand know what their left hand doeth. (Laughter.) Their goodness is blushing unseen.” (Laughter.) Still, that was what they ought to do. This was a most difficult business—to get the right man, place him on the land, and get him to remain on the land. In the Cape Colony, they had an experiment at Wolseley. The Government purchased a farm, and if his hon. friend on the other side who was so enthusiastic would look at its history, he would find it instructive.

Take the Cape Flats.

said that he would come to that later. Proceeding, he said that that scheme had been a bad and unmitigated failure. The same people started another settlement in the Wodehouse district upon the most favourable terms. They brought out every convenience and luxury, a doctor, a parson, a nurse, and a superintendent. (Laughter.) En passant, he might say that there was no difficulty in getting superintendents. He did not know of any post so readily filled. When they wanted a worker it was quite a different matter. He did not think that there was a single man on the settlement now. “Now,” he continued, “we come to the Transvaal.”

What about the Cape Flats?

You asked me about the Cape Flats. I brought some Germans out there. If you could bring Germans here now I believe they would be the salvation. You cannot get them. You can no more get a colony of German peasants now than a colony of angels. (Laughter.) He was sorry to say, too, that the man they got from Germany now was generally a social democrat. Turning to Transvaal experience, he asked how much money had been spent on settlement in the repatriation time, how much had been thrown away. Yet the hon. member, with a courage that did him credit, with all these things staring him in the face, wanted to repeat the experiment, and spoke of five millions as if the sum were a mere bagatelle! There was nothing so dangerous as a large scheme. It was easy to get people to borrow money in a moment of enthusiasm. “Do you know,” he asked, “that for all these large schemes you put a mortgage on your farms and on the landed property of this country?” And the money was going to be wasted like the five millions in the Transvaal. The hon. member might say no, and refer to Australia for examples. Did he know that in 1909 a Commission sat upon small holdings, and—

Which State?

“In Victoria ; the one you quoted from.” Let them see how much money had been spent there, how many men they had got out, and how many were there now. The outcome of the whole business was bad, bad. Therefore they must be very careful about their large schemes, more particular as one thing they wanted in this country before land settlement or anything else was communication. (Ministerial cheers.) If they wished to do good to the people they must open up the country. (Cheers.) When they had done that they had a tangible asset. They would not have sunk their money like the repatriation money ; out of that money £500 went in administration ; this had been hopelessly wasted. If they built a railway for £500,000 they might call it political––––

A back-door railway.

proceeding, said that unless a man got the line to his own back door he called it a back-door railway, but if it passed his own back door it became a main trunk line developing the country. (Loud laughter.) If his hon. friend had many loose five millions knocking round, let him take a piece of advice. Let him be anxious to improve the value of his Crown lands, to settle people on them, and let him make railways. He (the speaker) had recently been to a place where tens of thousands of bags of wheat were rotting on the ground, and at the same time steamers were bringing cargoes of wheat from Australia and landing them here. It was of no use talking of closer settlement until they saw that they had a market for their produce. He did not think they realised what had been done in this matter of closer settlement. The country was being closely settled in the best way—by the individual enterprise of the people. There was a place near Port Elizabeth. He remembered years ago, when the late Mr. Kirkwood used to preach at Sunday’s River to the unheeding, who used to sneer and laugh at him. But, through irrigation development, Sunday’s River was progressing. Land had gone up in price. They were settling down, and making homes. Let his hon. friend go to Ceres, and see what had been done there by one man, who had turned the barren commonage into a fruitful orchard, and was making a good profit. Let him go down to Robertson. Let him see how they began with one scheme which had been taken up by the people themselves, who got money under the Act without one penny being lost over the business. Where one had lived, there were now ten. Let him look at his own (the speaker’s) district. Where there had been four people there were now forty.

And Bottelary?

Are you going to buy it? (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that it had been stated that the Bill was for the purpose of relieving poor white people. But there was only one safe course, and that was to teach them to work. (Hear, hear.) They felt for those unfortunate people who, he was afraid, were sometimes not very industrious. The sanest way he ever heard of dealing with these people was the course pursued by General Botha in Church-square, Pretoria, at the time of the Customs Conference. He (the General) had induced a number of these people to go to work on the Bloemfontein-Kimberley railway at moderate wages. General Botha said he would do nothing further for them. Then two men in red ties came from Johannesburg–––––

Why not?

Why not? Because they ought to have been put in gaol. (Laughter.) They came over and preached the doctrine that these men were degrading themselves by working for 3s. 6d. a day.

What were their names?

I don’t know.

Oh!

I saw them there, and so did my hon. friend. Continuing, he said that these men tried to raise an agitation, and General Botha went out and spoke to the workers. He said he had given them this opportunity of work, and that he was not going to help them any further. He added that those who did not work would not get food. He succeeded in getting them to go ; they did go and they did well. They did well wherever they went. What was wrong in this country was that they did not take enough trouble with these people. Let them take 100 families on their farms and endeavour to lift them up in the social scale. That was what they ought to do. Instead of talking of what should be done and what Government should do, let them take a few of these people on their own farms and show them how to work, and they would be setting an example far finer than any precept in the world. The gospel of work was wanted in this country. What he feared about this Act was that in many cases it would stop that useful work that was being done at the present time. They were going to the mines and the railways and were breaking down the insane idea that every man was on exactly the same level and entitled to live by the work of the native races. They were raising themselves enormously in the social scale. By giving them land and propping them up with doles, what was going to happen? No sooner had one got land than he ran about to get a black fellow to work for him. How many would do what the peasants—who worked night and day on the same piece of land—did in other countries? These peasants led happy and contented lives by their labour. They were face to face with the colour problem, and they were always breaking against it by trying to settle poor people. Let them bring a man from England and put him on a little piece of land. Before he was here six months he would have a black man working for him. Bring a miner from Cornwall, who worked there at £3 to £4 a week, and he would soon have his Kafirs at work. Bring a carpenter here—why, no self respecting mason would carry his own tools. (Laughter.) He had his Kafir behind him. (Laughter.) That was the difficulty they had to cope with in this country, and it should be broken down by giving these poor whites employment on the farms. They were difficult to manage at first, but they would improve in time. That was true salvation. He saw that it was proposed to give farms, and there was a cry that the farms in the country were too big. Did people know what was going on? Farms were being divided into small pieces that would have been thought impracticable at one time. What was being done in the Burghersdorp, Steynsburg, and other districts? There were farms of 200 morgen. (Hear, hear.) He (the speaker) was surprised when he paid a visit to these districts. He belonged to an institution where they received applications for loans, and he was astounded at the small size of the farms. He took it as a good sign. (Hear, hear.) He recalled the time when his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) and he were in the ranks of a small party which was opposed to the law of inheritance as it was then proposed. They had the Roman-Dutch law, but it was argued that the English law was best for the country. There was much talk about primogeniture ; the Opposition wanted large estates, and they succeeded. He and a few others voted against the proposal. They had the land banks lending money to people to buy land, because these banks only lent on the security of land. In the same voice they were proposing to buy land from other people with borrowed money to give it away. As far as he could see, it was absolutely inconsistent. Work and the national progress was the only solution of the economic problem, provided the Government did its duty—to open up communication as far as they could and assist irrigation schemes as they were doing by loans, which were always secure, and where no interest was in arrear. Another thing they wanted was a law against holding land in an undivided state. That had done more harm to the country than anything else. Where was the courage to tackle that question? (Hear, hear.) He went on to refer to an instance in one of the best districts in the country, where the land was undivided—where no one ventured to plant an orchard or do anything, because an estate was undivided. That was one of the faults. There was a cry, “Do something”—an idle thing. In nine cases out of ten they did the wrong thing, and it cost the country a great deaf of money. Let them go on with railways and with irrigation. Open up the country, and they need have no fear about the rest. Every man who owned land here was a farmer. He was a yeoman who was remarkably quick to seize the main chances. Let them do away with undivided farms, which had been nothing but a curse in this country. If they wished to do anything with this question, he implored them not to talk about five millions. Rather let them set up a non-political Board of the best people they could get, who would not want to be paid for their work—at least not more than their bare expenses. Let them go to work, as the Congested Board did in Ireland. Give them a certain amount of money, not too much, which they must expend. They would buy land much cheaper than the Government could. They would go to work in the right way. The minute the Government went into the market, land would go up 50 per cent. Let the Minister creep before he walked, and walk before he flew. His hon. friend wanted to try his wings. (Laughter.) Let him beware! (Laughter.) If he would go on, he must not let Government take the whole of the responsibility. Let him make an experiment. Let him be guided by what England had done in Ireland. Let the Minister keep out of it as much as he could. He need hardly say that he should not vote for his hon. friend Mr. Wyndham’s motion, because if there were one thing he disliked more than another, unless he were absolutely driven into it, it was the idea of taking away the property of one man in order to give it to another. (Hear, hear.) That was taken again from New Zealand, where they had huge estates, and it was a matter of importance to break up those huge estates. It was done in Australia, where they had the squatting system. We had not got anything of that kind in this country. It would not do for this country. There was not the slightest chance of carrying it through that House, he was thankful to say, or, indeed, through this country. Therefore he should vote for the second reading of the Bill. He thought his Tight hon. friend had done right to send it to a committee. (Cheers.)

The debate was adjourned until tomorrow.

in the absence of the Prime Minister, said it was with very deep regret that he had to announce the death of one of their colleagues. Mr. Aucamp, the member for Hope Town, who had died during the course of the day. He had had the honour, as many members of that House had, of knowing Mr. Aucamp for many years. He was a man of remarkable intelligence. He was one of the best of friends, and he made a useful member of that House. He had a very large circle of friends, and was generally liked and respected. It was only a few days ago that he sat there, apparently perfectly well, and now he had been taken. He had, as a mark of respect to the deceased member’s memory and as showing sympathy with those who were near to him, to move that the House do now adjourn.

said that he rose to second the motion which had been moved by his hon. friend the Minister of Railways. Those of them who sat on that side of the House knew how strongly political views were held by the hon. member for Hope Town, but he (Sir Thomas) was one of those who had the privilege of knowing the hon. member for many years, and, notwithstanding his strong political views he never, so far as he was aware, allowed those political views to enter into his personal relations with hon. members opposite. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member stood in regard to himself in a peculiar position, because he was the representative of that part of the country in which all his (Sir T. Smartt’s) interests were placed, and he, consequently, had many opportunities, both on Mr. Aucamp’s own farm and in the district in which he resided a large portion of his time, of coming into most friendly communication with the Late hon. member for Hope Town. He was sure what the Minister of Railways said expressed the opinions of both sides of the House, that they sincerely regretted the sad and unforeseen death of the hon. member for Hope Town, and he desired to second the suggestion of his hon. friend that the sympathy of that House should be tendered to his family and everybody connected with him.

speaking in Dutch, said that Mr. Aucamp had always, in his public life, been governed by the most disinterested motives. He had worked quietly and earnestly for the good of his country. He had only entered Parliament in 1908, but previous to that date he had taken an active and useful part in public life, both in Parliament and as a member of the Kimberley Divisional Council. His character was such that evoked admiration from all. In family life, too, he showed the same lofty sense of duty, giving his children an excellent education, and leaving them a noble example. If there was one man who had made sacrifices for the sake of his children, it was Hendrik Lodewijk Aucamp. Although he would no more record a vote in that House, his memory would always remain fresh in their minds. Hearty sympathy would go out to the relatives.

The motion was adopted in silence, members rising in their places.