from H. R. Shaw, late of Natal Colonial Service.

from E. E. Stockenstrom, teacher.

against the abolition of the Master’s Office at Kimberley.

from W. W. Rodger, Telephone Branch, General Post Office.

against the abolition of the local Division of the Supreme Court at Kimberley.

in support of the petition of J. B. van Renen.

Return of Transvaal Public Service Officers retained after the age of sixty ; and First Report Financial Relations Commission.

asked when the return with regard to the transfer of Civil Servants would be ready.

replied that he had given instructions for the preparation of the return to be hurried up as fast as possible.

moved that the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours consist of fourteen members, and that Sir Thomas Watt, Mr. Heatlie, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Searle be members of the committee.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved that the papers in connection with the dismissal of J. B. van Renen, late Civil Commissioner and Resident Magistrate of Burghersdorp, laid on the table of the House on the 8th instant, be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

seconded.

Agreed to.

said that when the debate was adjourned on Friday he was about to associate himself with the remarks of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) regarding the necessity of building railways. It was no use settling men on the land unless they were given the means of getting their produce to market. The right hon. member for Victoria West was putting the cart before the horse when he said that they should build railways first and then get the land, because when railways were built the immediate result was to enhance the price of land. The main object of he and his colleagues was to settle the people on the land so that they might have a means of earning a livelihood and incidentally develop the resources of the country. The intention of hon. members on the Opposition benches was not to build railways, nor settle people on the land, nor get the land, but bring immigrants into this country. The hon. member went on to refer to the doings of an individual representing Rhodesia, and he took it that such would be the sort of advertisement desired by hon. members on the Opposition benches. What would be the result? Hon. members on the Opposition benches wanted immigrants first Then they would say that those who did not desire to go in for farming could find employment in various trades at good wages, in spite of the fact that men were out of work. The taxpayer would be asked to contribute to the cost of the passages of these people. These people would reduce the living level of the country, and then it would mean money in poor relief. The object of hon. members on his bench was to bring about a state of affairs whereby the Government could expropriate land at a fair valuation, and in order to get the money there should be a land tax. It had been suggested that land should be taxed at its prairie value ; but the only equitable way of taxing land was on its unimproved value. He would support the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe.

said that no real argument had been brought against the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe. He (the speaker) was not surprised at this, because he was quite sure that no sound argument could be adduced. The amendment was sound and feasible, desirable and equitable. The Minister of Finance could make provision for the contingencies which hon. members opposite had brought forward, and this would remove the difficulties which had been referred to by some members. He wished to submit that there was no party more desirous of seeing land settlement a success than the members who sat on the cross-benches (the Labour Party) ; but it must be based on a sound economic basis, which was that contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell). The scheme which was now brought forward seemed to be similar to other schemes which had been brought forward in the past, and there seemed an equal risk of failure, unless the basis of the scheme were an economically sound one. He asked whether a scheme for the taxation of unimproved land values could not be incorporated in the scheme. He thought that the arguments advanced by the Opposition were not sincere. (Dissent.) He did not think they would be in favour of the Bill if it were known that it would return from the Select Committee with a scheme for the taxation of unimproved land values incorporated. The Minister proposed to penalise holders who did not beneficially occupy their lands. He thought that the Minister should go a step further than he had already gone, and penalise landowners who let their land lie idle and did not improve it. They (the Labour Party) agreed with economical production, and did not want all large estates cut up, but what they wanted was that the land should be beneficially used. The Government had no right to waste public money, and they should see whether the scheme was on an economic basis ; and they should not, by means of that scheme, raise the price of land to such an extent that land settlement would be delayed. There was no necessity to rush into it, and he thought that they could wait until the Minister of Finance had made provision for taxation of unimproved land.

said that if hon. members would carry their memories back to when the Prime Minister had issued his first manifesto they would remember that one of the planks of his platform laid down European immigration and closer settlement. (Hear, hear.) (An HON. MEMBER: They were stolen from our (the Unionist) programme.) An hon. member said that they had been stolen from “their” platform. No sooner had the Prime Minister formed his Government and certain members of the Opposition found that they were not included in that Ministry, when everything that sounded good from the Government side they said had been stolen from their programme. (Opposition dissent and Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member went on to say that if it were necessary to have closer settlement it was better to start at once, and not to wait until hon. members who were at present in Opposition assumed the reins of office. (Laughter.) The need for such a measure could not have been better expressed than by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, who had pointed out in eloquent terms the need for such a measure for the full development of the country. As far as he (Mr. Clayton) was concerned, he thought there was another reason why they should have closer settlement and as many people as possible on the land as soon as possible. The closer settlement on, and the possession and occupation of, land by large numbers of people was some sort of security for stable government—(hear, hear)—that was to say, that when they had a tendency to hasty legislation, and when they found that extreme propositions were being advanced for legislation, then was the time when they wanted a stable population upon the land, in order that they might not pass legislation which was too hasty, and not be carried away by certain enthusiasms which made their appearance from time to time in various centres. He wanted (he continued) to address a few words as one who had had something to do with land settlement, and he might say, successful land settlement. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) had tried to call out “stinking fish” in regard to Natal. The first question he had asked was what about the advances and doles which had been made to people in the Vryheid district. That had nothing at all to do with land settlement in any shape or form, and assistance had merely been given to people who had utterly been ruined in that district during the war. In regard to what the hon. member (Mr. Fawcus) had said as to the settelment at Weenen not being a success, things must have very materially changed since he (Mr. Clayton) was there if that were the case. Mr. Clayton referred to the Bill on this subject which he introduced into the Natal Parliament in 1904, and said it was necessary under the Union Bill that the Minister and the Board whom he proposed to appoint should have wider powers, in order that they might successfully deal with the various problems which presented themselves in far greater variety than ever existed in any single Province before. For that reason he thought the Minister was wise in taking more general powers. In connection with the Natal Act the one thing which nearly cost him his Bill in the Upper House was the fact that there was a proposition to borrow £1,000,000, and he did think that the Minister was wise when he separated the two things, land settlement and loans, and gave the House power to exercise control under a separate Bill. It must be remembered that year by year, according to what the Minister had stated, the House was to be approached in order that a certain amount of money should be set aside for land settlement. There was thus an annual control in regard to the expenditure of this money, which it was not proposed to ask for in one lump sum, but piecemeal, as it was required year by year. It was a painful thing, Mr. Clayton went on to say, that, when they were starting a new Constitution, and starting many other things on new lines, there should be so much suspicion in regard to the bona fides and purity of motives of members of that House, or members who were called upon to give their public services. They were not there to indulge in insinuations, but to do their best to aid the Government. (Opposition laughter.) The policy of that side of the House had changed since Union. As far as successful settlement was concerned, the greatest success in Natal had attended a settlement which was made without the aid of a Land Board. He referred to the sugar settlement upon the coast of Zululand, where, with few exceptions, the settlers had been very successful. If the Minister had a fairly free hand he could do a great deal without the assistance of a Board. At the same time he recognised that the Minister was unable to attend, in such a vast estate as that of the whole Union, to the various claims of districts for settlements which would be made upon him. Why it should be supposed that the Minister was going to establish a vast number of these Boards he (Mr. Clayton) could not tell. But it did seem to him that it would be necessary for the Minister to have more than one Board in each Province. Such a proposition as that there should be one Board for the whole Union was too absurd to think of. As far as Natal was concerned, although the Land Board there had done good work, he was of opinion that it would be better to appoint another Land Board to represent the coast districts. There were various points in this Bill which, he thought, ought to be referred to on the second reading, in order that those who were to form the committee might bear them in mind. He thought that it should be borne in mind by the Government and by the Board that some losses would have to be faced in carrying out a general scheme of land settlement. We ought to be prepared to face some loss over this matter. In Natal the Government added so much in the shape of interest to the purchase price that settlers refused to take up the land, because Government valued it at twice the price of land in the immediate neighbourhood. Government should be prepared to face the loss of interest on the money in consideration of the advantage to be gained by an influx of population on to the land. The Land Boards should consist of at least five members. It was not a good plan to place the names of members of these Boards before Parliament, because canvassing of members’ support would then take place. (Hear, hear.) With regard to advances, under the Natal Act very few were made ; he did not suppose that more than £500 was ever advanced for this purpose, the necessary advances being made under the Agricultural Banks Act. At first Natal had the leasehold system, with the result that in many cases men refused to take up the land, and the law had to be altered. He did not believe (they would be able to promote land settlement unless they gave the settlers an opportunity of obtaining the freehold of their land. He was rather puzzled at the attitude of the Opposition towards the Bill. They were in favour of the measure, but they would not be satisfied unless at the same time they had expropriation and a tax on unimproved land. It appeared to him that a Select Committee could do all that was necessary in the way of amendment. If the Opposition was sincere in its desire to promote land settlement and immigration—and he believed it was—it must face the fact that for the present, at any rate, there was not at present the slightest opportunity of getting a Bill through for the expropriation of land and land settlement at the same time. The question of taxation should be dealt with entirely on its own. If it were proposed that a large system of immigration should be introduced for South Africa at once similar to that in force in the case of Canada and Australia, hon. members would be trying to build the house from the roof instead of from the foundations. The land should first be obtained, and the circumstances and inducements should be such that men would come here voluntarily without any great drawing from across the seas. For one thing we had not the same (amount of land, nor the same circumstances, that they had in Canada and Australia. In conclusion the hon. member said he held that it was the duty of the House to decline both amendments, and to give the Minister an opportunity to carry the Bill to a Select Committee in order to make the necessary amendments without such academic ideas as the expropriation of land and a tax on unimproved land. (Hear, hear.)

said that the poor white question was of the greatest importance, and all hon. members agreed with the aims of the measure. In the Transvaal they had had a great deal of experience of land settlement, and he cordially welcomed the Bill. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg had complained that the Bill was not very clear, and he (the hon. member) had read it a number of times, but did not quite understand it yet. He had certain objections to clauses 9, 11 and 40, and he hoped that the Minister would not spend too much money on immigration. Under the Milner regime a sum of £1,500,000 had been spent on 450 settlers. Those people had mostly departed, and there was only £30,000 left. He could not understand that. Good ground had been given to settlers at Standerton at 5s. to £2 per morgen. Each settler could have got a loan for £700 without any security whatever, and many of these settlers had gone already, and they had taken the £700 with them. (Laughter.) He knew of a transaction in 1866, when they had emigration from Scotland, and when these immigrants had been granted 200 of the best farms. A company had acquired the farms in question, and had sold them at a profit. Too much had been asked the settlers at Vryheid for their ground, as it was only suitable for breeding cattle, and when trekking with sheep was stopped, the farms would be found insufficient, and the people would have to go away. In Vryheid and Weenen farms had been sold at 10s. per acre, and in other parts of Natal at £7 10s. per morgen, but the price was too high, and should be reduced. After settlements had been formed they must have railways. In the district of Wakkerstroom, and in the village too, the ground was excellent, and if a line were built, a thousand more people could easily settle there.

said he could not help admiring the wisdom and the discretion of the Minister in bringing this skeleton before the House. If he had attempted more he would not have got it through the House. There had been objections from both sides of the House, andorld especially to regulations, to which he had deep-rooted objections, but it was inevitable that a large share of administration should be done by regulation. They had, as had been pointed out by other speakers, to allow the Minister a certain amount of discretion. Some hon. members had complained that there were too many restrictions, and some that there were not enough. He hoped, in the course of his argument, to show that many of the arguments advanced were groundless. He thought they could not do better than accept the Bill, pass the second reading, and refer it to a Select Committee. He did not think anybody would deny the fact that more white people were needed in this country, and he proceeded to refer to the Prime Minister’s speeches on the subject. One hon. member had said it would be far better to spend the money on educating the children, and alluded to the fact that there were 15,000 uneducated white children in the Orange Free State. The difficulty about these children was that the population was too sparse (the schools were few and spread far apart). Attempts had been made to found industries, but it had been found that there were not sufficient people to buy the products of these factories. The census had shown that there had been a material increase in the coloured population of South Africa, but the increase in the white population had been slight. So it was absolutely necessary that they should bring in white immigrante to this country. They should be careful not to introduce men who were unacquainted with farming, for they would simply drift to the mines. He thought it could be conceded that a larger white population was necessary, but he did not think for a moment that at the present juncture any expropriation measures were necessary Lord Milner, towards the end of the war, proposed to expropriate land for the purposes of land settlement, but he was dissuaded from doing so, and he got all the land he wanted, and he obtained a great deal more land on certain terms than he could have got at the same figure had the land been expropriated. The hon. member thought that if expropriation were introduced, the price of land was raised immediately. People always sympathised with the private individual, and they are “agin the Government” when it was a question of expropriation ; that was his experience. When Lord Milner attempted to establish land settlement in the Transvaal, land was flung at him. (Opposition cries of: “Oh.”) There was not the slightest doubt about it. It was a fact, and the hon. member had done a great deal of the “flinging” himself. Lord Milner got all the land he wanted for the purpose of his land settlement scheme, and he could have got a great deal more. One of the clauses of the Bill to which exception had been taken was clause 9, which provided that the Government could buy land selected by the settler if he deposited one-fifth of the purchase price. The hon. member thought that that was one of the most wholesome provisions of the whole Bill. We could not bring in poor white people from all parts of the world and settle them on the land: all that could be done was to make land available for people who had the means. He was aware that people in the Transvaal, and in many parts of the country, were accused of being lazy, and fond of sitting on their stoeps and drinking coffee, while their Lands were neglected ; but there was not the slightest doubt that as soon as European markets were opened to them their land had gone ahead by leaps and bounds, and would do so again. (Hear hear.) Now, of course, it was not within the province of the Minister in charge of the Bill to bring in proposals for railway construction, but this would follow in due course. He did not understand that the whole of the five million pounds would be devoted to land settlement proper, but that a large proportion of that amount would be devoted to improving the land by means of boring, irrigation work, and water conservation, and the like, and these measures would help to bring people on to the land whether we liked it or not. References had been made to very large farms in the occupation of individual farmers, but that was altogether a fallacy. There were very few large farms in the hon. member’s part of the country held by individual owners. Of course, there were large farms there originally, that were picked out by the forebears of the present occupants, but it was one of the curses of the country that these farms were handed down to succeeding generations on the “share” system. He noted that the House was going to deal with the registration measure, and he hoped that the Minister would have the pluck to see that the land was not held in very small undivided shares. In the hon. member’s experience, land had come down from the grandfather, and the result had been the dividing of the land into small fractions that in many cases were not worth holding. In the meantime, while land was held in shares all improvement was impeded, because the others who shared the land would block those inclined to develop and improve it. Recently, the hon. member found that amongst some thirty or forty farms about which he inquired from the Deeds Office, there were only three held by one owner each, and the remainder were all held in small shares. Now, in travelling across the land one saw a very large area totally undeveloped, and one would see people crowding in a limited area round a small stream. Thus, instead of having a virile and prosperous community we are cultivating a population of paupers. This was the result of the “share” system. He said that if you went to the Secretary for Land you would find a great number of applications from people who cannot get land ; in many cases these applications were from people who had the means but were unable to obtain land. Now 20 per cent. deposit by the settler had been condemned as being too little, but the hon. member had the advantage of reading a report from one of the Australian Colonies and there he found that the Government actually advanced 95 per cent. of the purchase price. He thought that we might safely advance a little more than four-fifths of the purchase price, but suggested that it should be left at that because then if a man came on to the land he felt that he had an actual interest in the land ; he was fastened to the land, and so, if the first season went against him he did not go off because he had put his own money into the land and he stuck to it. This was far better than any other system of land settlement. The hon. member understood that this Bill was to deal very largely with the poor white question, and he thought that it would be impossible to expect a poor white to put down one-fifth of the purchase price of land, or anything like it. He considered that we should be prepared to give them the land for nothing, of course on the terms provided in the Bill. There are a great many people who were unable to help themselves, and they had grown up in such a way as to have no control over them-selves. For such people as these, the hon. member thought it an absolute necessity that there should be labour colonies and schools established. He hoped that the Minister in charge of the Bill was not going to make the mistake of planting on the land people who had not been tried—those who were not fitted to work on labour colonies. It would be a great mistake to do that because every person was not a good farmer or capable of being a good farmer. Every man was not either a farmer or a miner, and in order to provide for those who did not possess the capabilities requisite for these occupations other industries would have to be established in the country, and for that we needed population. Many people in the country—and it was no disgrace to them—were compelled to live by their daily labour ; they were not capable of being anything else than daily labourers—people who must needs get their living from hand to mouth. It would be necessary to find out the people who were suitable for land settlement, and give them the land for nothing, if necessary. He would not recommend the spending of large sums of money on individual settlers ; settlers of that description were not necessary. However, there should be a limit placed on the amount to be devoted to each settler. With regard to poor people, to whom he would perhaps be in favour of giving the land for nothing, it might be preferable to spread the purchase price over an extended period, but he would be prepared to forego the amount of interest on the capital, and insist upon the occupante making improvements upon the land instead of paying interest. He thought that if it were intended to establish settlers on their land it would be necessary to make sacrifices, and therefore he would be fully prepared to recommend that interest on capital outlaid should be waived, and that improvement to the land should be insisted upon. One hon. member had found very serious fault with the right of the Minister, under the Bill as it stood, to cancel a lease. He thought the Minister should have that right. If the Minister put a man on the land, who during the period of probation failed to fulfil the conditions and make necessary improvements, the Minister should have the right to cancel that lease and turn the man off. He (Mr. Neser) was of opinion that they all felt the necessity of having closer settlement, of having more white people in the country—(hear, hear)—and, therefore, he sincerely hoped that this Bill, having been read a second time, would go to the Select Committee, that the Minister would take every advantage of improving it as far as possible, and that, when it came out, it would be a workable measure and assist them very materially in the direction of getting more people on the land, and of promoting the prosperity of the country. (Hear, hear.)

hoped the long discussion would have good results in Select Committee. The best speech was that made by the hon. member for Victoria West, which gave evidence of experience, whilst that made by the hon. member for Roodepoort was theoretical and impracticable. The Opposition had made the discovery that no settlement was possible unless they levied a tax, but that had not been announced at the time of the elections. The Labour Party wanted to have a tax on unimproved land values before the Bill was agreed to Some members were of opinion that the Government’s provisions did not give the settlers sufficient freedom, but he felt that in expending money they ought to make the regulations as stringent as possible. Only then would they get good settlers. The hon. member for Springs wanted settlements first and railways afterwards, but that was wrong, and every settlement would be a failure if opportunity were not given to the settlers to reach the market with ease. There were still many open districts in South Africa, but before being opened as settlements they should first be developed by pioneers. Many of the clauses in the Bill were susceptible of improvement. The number of Land Boards must be as large as possible, seeing that even in one Province there was great variety in the different parts. There should be for each part a Land Board well acquainted with the district. In his own constituency they were suffering from lack of water. There was a good deal of Crown land there, fruitful ground, but there was no water. Given water, there would be no occasion for the Government to look after the poor people in Hoopstad. The Government must first supply the water, and not leave that to the settlers. They should go carefully, and not too quickly in the matter of settlements. The amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Jeppe would certainly injure the Bill.

could not agree with all the clauses in the Bill, though the House would be glad to have it as a whole. He regretted that the Opposition, and especially the hon. member for Turffontein, had been so hasty in criticism. That gentleman had described the Bill as bad, but he would admit that some of its principles would contribute materially to bring about settlements. He complained that the settlers were not divided into classes, but such classification had in fact been made. The speaker could not agree with the Opposition amendment, because it referred to the expropriation of unused ground. Some people had bought ground after the war, they were now nursing it, and would be glad enough to see the Government compelled to buy it. He could not understand the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Jeppe. Did he mean to impose a tax on all ground which was not ploughed or sown with seed? Such a tax would seriously handicap farming. The Opposition wanted to have immigration at the cost of the State, and to that he could not agree, as it would be unfair towards the many white people now in the country. The hon. member for Pretoria East admitted that it would be unfair if in establishing settlements, the Government gave only secondary consideration to the people who lived in South Africa. It could not be denied that most of the failures occurred amongst people who had been imported, and how could the Government use the money of the taxpayers for the purpose of introducing them and passing over the inhabitants of South Africa? He did not wish to say that these failures were due to the settlers, as they were probably caused by bad management. If they wanted to have a new system of settlements, there were plenty of poor people in the country who could be tried. Amongst the poor there were many fine characters, and if they were helped by the Government they would show themselves excellently suitable as settlers. It was also true that there were other poor people who could not be helped. The Bill gave for the present sufficient encouragement to immigration. It was laid down in clause 20, sub-section (3) that notice of the cancellation of the hire contract would be given by the Minister and the tenant to the Registrar, but that in certain cases by signing a certificate the Minister could take the place of the tenant. The speaker would like to know in what way that power could be given. He also drew attention to clause 22. sub-section (3) and to clause 25. The provisions of clause 25 did not allow the tenant to use coal on his ground for domestic purposes, and he thought that should be altered. He was further not satisfied in respect of the provisions dealing with compensation for injury caused by prospectors, nor would clause 31 give satisfaction, as it regarded all animals and movable goods on the farm as security.

said they had waited for four days to get a declaration of policy on the part of the Government, and they certainly had some hope that a responsible Minister would lend a little assistance to the right hon. gentleman to introduce the measure and endeavour to reconcile conflicting declarations of policy or at least try to tell them what was the present frame of mind —if it were possible to put it in the singular—of the Government. Their difficulties were put, he thought, better by the hon. member for Klerksdorp than they could put them themselves. That hon. member was delighted to hear in the Minister’s speech many things that were not to be found in the Bill. Other members had thanked heaven that the Bill differed entirely from the speech, and all seemed to hope that there might be some improvement by means of regulations. Well, there was such a difference between the speech of the right hon. gentleman and the Bill that they scarcely knew where they were. They had an explanation of the Government’s policy during the recess by the Minister of Lands, and both he and the Minister of Justice spoke in a spirit entirely different from the speech now made. They had the speech of the Minister of the Interior, which was quite satisfactory, and then two speeches from the right hon. gentleman who led the party, one of which was satisfactory to hon. members on that side of the House and another that was satisfactory to those who held opposite views. No Bill of the kind would be of value unless it expressed the Government policy, and the Government had the backing of the people who keep them in office. (Hear, hear.) For four days they had every member of the Government party, with the exception of the hon. member for Klerksdorp, repudiating everything said by the Minister of Lands. Stripped of all its flummery, the view of the hon. members opposite was that the Bill was one for poor relief. (Hear, hear.) That was all it was. Before going into the question of policy he would like to point out that applicants must not be less than 18 years of age. It was practically endowing a boy with land at the expense of the State. He must have a sufficient knowledge of farming, and the local board had to know that. Thus it was clear that in practice these boards could not recommend anybody but relatives and friends. They would not be able to blame the boards either. If they had to know these things, who else could they recommend?

They make inquiries.

That is all I expected from an hon. Minister who has not had my experience of boards. Continuing, he referred to the Witwatersrand district, where the Nationalists could only get one member into Parliament. He pointed out that notwithstanding this fact, there was always a majority of Nationalists on the boards in that district. This went on until they came to the Rand Trading Board. If hon. members were sceptical he asked them to look up the histories of those boards, and they would find that what he said was true. He did not believe that the average of intelligence possessed by hon. members on the other side was so extraordinarily high that a Nationalist majority of the best men should always be picked. It was more than accident. They, on his side, were suspicious, and required better safeguards. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein ; they had a reason for not supporting the other amendment. His party’s amendment did not wreck the Bill, and did not mean a long postponement. It only meant a matter of three weeks. They did not trust the other amendment ; because it meant scrapping the Bill. If they were defeated, as he thought they would be, they would vote for the second reading, because they wanted some measure of land settlement. They did not take up the attitude of demanding a whole loaf or no bread at all. It might only be a crumb, but they would accept it. He agreed with the hon. member for Victoria West with regard to the purchase of land “with a brass band.” The criticism directed against Lord Milner was on the ground that he bought the land at a price the settler could not pay. The Minister would not be able to buy the land. He would not dispute his bona fides, because he thought he would make sincere efforts in this matter. It would be impossible for him to get the land in sufficient quantity at fair prices. There were other ways to get people to co-operate with him, and some of the ways were those his party had suggested. With regard to the acquiring of the land, he would first of all like to deal with the policy of immigration. They had been told only that day by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Clayton) that there was no good flooding the country with thousands of immigrants, such as were being imported into Canada and Australia. If there was one thing his party had said, it was that this country was unsuited for immigration such as Canada had. Apparently the only object on the other side was to misrepresent what his party had said. Members on his side not only disapproved of, but resisted, the policy to bring unprepared and ignorant people into the country. That point had been dealt with many times before by members of his party, but he did not think it had been dealt with in the House Therefore, he would say that his party had never once advocated or thought of importing large numbers of immigrants, as had been done in other countries. They knew quite well what would happen. The presence of the native in this country would exclude them from the lower forms of employment, because the unskilled labourer is prevented from competing by the presence of the native, and they would only go to swell the band of unemployed whites, which already constituted a difficult problem. It would be a crime to bring them in here, and for that reason all agreed that immigration of that kind would be a crime. Certainly his party wanted something, but they asked for something much less than that. They would like to see a sympathetic attitude adopted towards those who wished to settle in this country, and who would be prepared to come and settle here and bring their own capital with them. To meet them, they would like to give them assisted passages on the boats, reduced rates on railways for themselves and families and equipment, and in that way they would be bringing into the country those who had enough to start on. Up to the present all the speeches that had been made could only be regarded as a warning to those people who thought of coming to settle here against doing so. The London office had been described as an office for warning people not to come here. Other countries were doing all they could to get white people to settle there, but in this country, what were they doing? Why they were doing all they could to warn them against coming here. All they did was to put up a notice, “Trespassers will be prosecuted: keep out of South Africa.” Hon. members need not fear that they would come here in any large numbers, in view of the encouragement that other countries were giving them to settle down there. The facilities they were offered elsewhere were too great. They could go to Canada and find their land ploughed for them, and also have their water laid on, cereals provided for them, and all of that they need not pay for cash. All they had to do was to bring their team of horses, put in their own labour, and begin to pay for land and advances out of the profits of the harvests. All this talk of flooding South Africa was a mere bogey, or else was put up with the political purpose of establishing fear, and therefore the whole issue was obscured by it. Now, the suggestion had been made that the better way of establishing land settlement was to build railways. Well, the right hon. gentleman who spoke first about it made a very clear distinction between main lines and backdoor lines. Well, they had the main lines built. Now they had to consider what the building of these proposed lines meant, and the erection of the irrigation works. Unless the Government of this country—which was the people of this country—could own the land or had a prospect of owning it, or else by automatic process succeed in getting the land into their possession, or induce people to work it, it would not be much use bringing in such a measure. They would merely be granting bonus upon bonus to large landowners. Already they were asked to build a long line to carry 50,000 bags of wheat. Would that pay for a railway? No, it merely meant putting up the price of land privately held for a rise. Therefore, if they adopted this Bill as it stood, they were asking the Minister to increase the price of land. It certainly was the business of the landowner to put up the price of his land if he so desired, but it was not the duty of the Government to put up the prices for him by means of this kind. They would never get land settlement in that way. He would like to touch on the question of land taxation, and have it out face to face. They did not propose to tax farmers because they were farmers ; they did not propose to increase the taxation they paid now, but to adjust it. Once it was understood every progressive or industrious farmer admitted it was a good thing. Every member opposite knew what was happening. For instance, one man took up a bit of land on the side of a river, and nobody knew better than the hon. member for Oudtshoorn what he was going to state was true. This man bought it at 5s. or 10s. per morgen, and worked it up, and eventually got £3 or £4 per morgen for it. The man on the opposite side of the river also had a farm, but did not work it, but because the one man by his industry land enterprise had shown what could be done, this squatter and land-locker, who had never done a single hand’s turn of work or spent a penny or allowed anyone else to live by working the land, demanded the same price, and generally got it. If they did not get that price for it, they held on to it, and there they sat like the aasvogel sitting on an ant-heap waiting for something to die. Everyone knew that through his enterprise the one man had to pay in Customs dues, in railway rates, and the Divisional Council rates, and the various other taxations, but the loafer paid nothing, and he benefited. He did not want to tax the energetic farmer, but he wanted to tax the loafer. If they took a little off the enterprise and put it on the property, then they all paid alike on what they called the prairie value. The meaning was perfectly clear. The prairie value in the different parts of the country would be estimated, and this would be the unimproved land value that would be taxed, so that, the man who wanted to hold his farm as a speculation or as a luxury paid for it, and they would contribute to the development of land settlement. Therefore, the man through whose enterprise a farm pays is the man who can afford to pay, whilst the other, who gets nothing out of his farm, will be out of pocket, and must lose money, work, sell, or lease. Today they said they had everything in this country that was necessary—the people, the land, and the money. Well, of course, they had the five million pounds—in the Bill—but what was this Bill? It was not a Land Settlement Bill at all: it was sim ply “window dressing” ; it was a coloured advertisement for the Five Million Loan ; and if it meant anything else, provision would be put in the Bill for it, and they would not rely upon the speech of the hon. Minister to explain these things. They had the money, and they had the people, which was borne out by the unanimous testimony from the other side, and they knew that there were others willing to come, if they were given a little welcome and encouragement. They had the willing settlers, and they had the land in South Africa, but how were they to get hold of it? (A VOICE: “And land companies.”) He quite expected that that would be said. Now let them consider how the land was acquired by its present holders. The first class were the pioneers, who broke the Land, and were wide awake to its possibilities, and they knew which was the best, and they took it. Then next to them came the buyers of land, and these two classes acquired the land for farming purposes. After them came the land companies. They did not buy good land, because it was expensive, and they did not want farming, but mining. They bought cheap land, distant land, where there was little water, and a promise of some precious stones, with a view to finding some mining proposition. Almost nine-tenths of the property on most of these farms came within that category. (Ministerial dissent.) If it were not so, they were holding good land in large proportions. Let them tax them. That was the answer. If they did not use it, tax them.

They farm the land with Kafirs.

I know other people that do that, and on a very large scale. But, stop that, too. You will stop it ; but I hope not without leaving the natives some place to live in. The point is that the land companies do not own the land that is really wanted. If they do, they must fall under the same penalties or privileges as anybody else. There is no protecting them. If you have a clause about absentee landowners, provided you make it equal all the way round, apply it to them. Proceeding, Sir Percy referred to the question of compulsory expropriation, and remarked that, personally, he thought that compulsory expropriation under proper safeguards was a very desirable thing—(hear, hear)—but he had never advocated it for the reason that it took a long time to get people to understand thoroughly that compulsory expropriation was not confiscation, if it were fairly done. (Opposition cheers.) It could be done perfectly fairly for the benefit of the State, and without hardship to the owner, provided they gave him credit for the work he was doing. They ought not to expropriate a property which was beneficially occupied and worked. They wanted to get at the people who kept land locked up. They could put on a minimum value below which they would not expropriate, because that land was already closely settled or else it was of such a low value per acre that it could not be more settled, so that it was exempt. It was very little that they asked ; make a beginning by bringing into operation those forces which would work the right way, and if they did that they would make every landowner into an unpaid agent for closer settlement. Everyone would be a volunteer worker for the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fischer). He did not want to go over all the points of policy that had been dealt with. He had hoped, in common with all his friends upon that side of the House, that they would have had a declaration of the policy of the Government which they could have understood. Now, it was no use mincing matters ; they did not understand. If the Bill lent any colour to the very reasonable speech mode by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Fischer) they would be reassured. But there was no guarantee in it. There was nothing to show what was meant. They had had four days of debate in opposition to immigration. They must know that the policy of the Government came from the benches opposite. Every man there had spoken in a sense hostile to the sense in which the Minister had spoken. He (Sir Percy) was in agreement with one hon. Minister, if he might take his speech, of which there had not been any modification, as far as he knew, and that was the Minister of the Interior. He was in agreement with the Minister of the Interior in what he said in Pretoria on this question, and he did not speak as Minister of the Interior, in his (Sir Percy’s) judgment, but as Minister of Defence, and that WAS why he was in agreement. He (General Smuts) was looking at it from a point of view that did not occur to every hon. member opposite. Very likely he (Sir Percy) would be told to mind his own business and interpret his own speeches, but he took the chance of that. In his judgment, the Minister put his finger on the spot. It was no good talking about holding this country and developing this country if we were content to remain as we were. Any hon. member who took the slightest interest in the Morocco crisis must have known the position of South Africa and the position of peril. Anyone who read the cables and looked at the terms dictated by Germany to France (the cession of territory on the West Coast and the pre-emptive right to the Congo) must have seen that South Africa would have been belted in by Germany—60,000,000 people to one and a quarter million people here, and only the British fleet to keep us in our position of security. Of course, he knew perfectly well that the Minister was speaking with conviction and knowledge of the position of South Africa. They could not hold South Africa with any certainty while they were dependent upon the British fleet alone and unable to keep their own end up. They could not hope to hold South Africa if they were content with the present position. What they felt was that there was no tendency to encourage others to come in here. There was no question of votes.

They are coming.

Well, they are coming in the face of very severe discouragement—(Opposition cheers)—and most of them that come here go to the industrial centres. You cannot say that you are properly balanced in that way. We are not properly balanced. We want more people on the land and closer settled on the land, but we have been told that not an immigrant is to come from oversea or be helped from oversea until the thousands and tens of thousands of our own poor whites are settled upon the land. I have not an opportunity of speaking with any knowledge of what the Government policy is. I suppose we shall get that in the ordinary course of the debate. Proceeding, Sir Percy said that when his hon. friend the member for Germiston was quoting the speeches of the Prime Minister he quoted the Eighty Club speech, and there was the deadliest silence one ever observed on the other side, not a word of applause or approval or endorsement. When he quoted the Losberg speech, when he said that not until the thousands and tens of thousands in this country were settled upon the land should any encouragement be given to any one to come from oversea, loud applause came from the opposite side, and the Prime Minister himself said “Hear, hear.” He (Sir Percy) would take it that that was the policy of the Government. He would admit that it was little to go on. If that were so, what was the position to-day? No immigrant from oversea would be welcomed or helped in settlement of the land until the thousands and tens of thousands in this country were put on the land. Did it occur to hon. gentlemen opposite that, whilst it was a very good thing and a very necessary thing to help these people, in no country in the world could they expect to find all the people landowners? He supposed in every country, in every civilised country, at least three-quarters of the people were labourers, workers, as distinct from the owners of property, and yet here was the theory advanced perfectly openly that the duty of the Government was to impose burdens upon thousands of people in this country in order to endow that single portion of a certain section with land. Were there to be no workers? It was a monstrous theory. These people would go on increasing by the birth-rate every year. And that was to go on for ever and ever. “It seems to me,” exclaimed Sir Percy, “that the whole thing may be reduced to this, that one section of the community has got to breed them and the other section has to feed them.” (Laughter.) Continuing, Sir Percy said they had been told that this was a scheme for catching votes.

Don’t speak of those things.

No, except with pain. Look at the result of getting people in if you do it with the object of getting votes. They are not always on our side. You may do what you can to get them votes, to get equal rights provided for them, but they use their power as they think proper, and it is not for those who get them in or help them. The answer is that they won’t be with us, and we know they won’t be with us, these people who settle on the land. The farming and industrial classes have got their legitimate differences. They fall in every country into two classes. They have different interests, different policies, and if you can get rid of one little trouble that we are in the way of getting rid of that we are trying to get rid of, you will find many more people will vote with you on conviction, and I might be among them for all I know, as farmers. The talk of importing voters to put them on the land is moonshine. (Opposition cheers.) Proceeding, Sir Percy said there was a much more important thing, and that was the stability and strength of the country. They could not secure that on the lines of the policy advocated by hon. members opposite. The helping of the poor whites was a duty, but a duty much better performed, as they saw, by religious and charitable enterprise, than done by Government doles. It was a duty, but it did not mean that every one of them had to be given a farm or be put upon the land. That would be absurd. There must be a proportion of them who had to work and not be Landowners. Even if they were put on the land it did not mean that immigration was hostile to the settlement of poor whites on the land. He called immigration complementary and essential to the success of the land settlement of poor whites. A prominent farmer in the constituency of the Right Hon. the Minister (Mr. Fischer)—who differed from him (Sir Percy) entirely in politics—had written to him stating that all his farm labourers were natives. “I have,” wrote the farmer, “tried the poor white labour of our own people, and found them impossible.” These people, proceeded Sir Percy, must have the school of example, and no better one could be found than the methods and success of industrious settlers from oversea, affording, as they would, a practical illustration of new methods and scientific methods, as they prevailed in other countries. But to represent the Opposition’s policy of land settlement and immigration as hostile to the settlement of our own people was to misrepresent the case entirely. (Loud Opposition cheers.)

expressed his satisfaction at the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East. During the recess that gentleman had made most speeches in connection with settlements. The hon. member had said, amongst other things, that they on the speaker’s side of the House had not supported the Minister of Lands in connection with the Bill. Well, if they on his side were afraid of the Bill, it was to be ascribed in great part to the speeches which had been made by the hon. member. The hon. member only wanted settlers who would vote for his party, and failing that, they were no good. The speech in which those words appeared was printed in the Opposition press, and it was not to be supposed that that press would wrongly report their leaders. The hon. member alleged that the Government deprecated closer settlement, but that was not so, and they had done everything in their power to bring about co-operation between the two sections of the population. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Pretoria East had also referred to jobbery, and made it appear as if there were something taking place in the country which was wrong. In considering the Bill the hon. member had complained about certain Commissions which had been appointed by the Government in Johannesburg, and of certain of its actions, but those actions were not to be compared with those followed by the boards of directors in Johannesburg, on which the Government were not represented. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member had further asserted that the land which was in the possession of the land companies was rocky, and that it was not suitable for farming. He denied that, and would quote in support of his denial the fact that when the Crown Colony Government established their settlements they bought their ground in great part from such companies at the Glasgow South African Company and the Transvaal Consolidated Land Company. If those farms consisted solely of rocky ground, the Crown Colony Government had acted very wrongly in giving such ground out to settlers. (Laughter.) The same Government bought land for its own officials. Closer settlement was of the greatest importance to a young country like South Africa. If they went into the question they would find that only a small minority were landowners, and when the Government spoke of closer settlement, they thought that out of the people who did not own land the best of them should be selected. If the Government did not establish settlements what would become of the farms which were being daily brought into the market? The Government should buy them up, and settle people on them. In that way the Government thought to establish a counterpoise against the great land companies, who did their best to get all the land into their hands. He was disappointed at the speeches made by members of the Opposition, and still hoped they would see that the Bill, although not perfect, was a step in the right direction. He was especially disappointed at the speech made by the hon. member for Fordsburg, who had had great experience in the matter of settlements. He had in fact been Treasurer and Colonial Secretary in a Government which had done a great deal in that direction, but out of all his experience he had told them nothing. The speaker regretted that insinuations had again been made with reference to a certain farm which had been bought last year. Things had taken place in the Transvaal which had created a far deeper and worse impression in South Africa. Under Crown Colony Government, for instance, a quarter of a million pounds were given to one Carlis to help forward a settlement, and they were still paying for that. That was the sort of settlement of which they on the Government side of the House were afraid. That £254,000 had been placed in the hands of a man to help a settlement forward, but in reality for the purpose of speculating with poor people. For what happened? Most of those settlers were subsequently, under the management of the hon. member for Fordsburg, bought out, and the settlers had gone away. Altogether that affair had cost about £100,000. That was not the way to help closer settlement. If they gave a piece of ground to a settler, he ought ultimately to be enabled to buy it ; but Carlia’s settlers were afterwards driven away, and did not then enjoy the protection of the hon. member for Fordsburg. The hon. member was a great supporter of settlements, though he had formerly helped to drive the settlers away. Not a single settler had remained at Standerton. The people had been bought out and sent away After they had cultivated the land for years they were bought out with six or eight oxen. The good settlers in the Transvaal had his esteem, those who were left. They had done good work, and were an example to their neighbours. Some people held the view that it was impossible to lose money in settlements, and he hoped that would prove to be the case. Settlement had as its object to make practical people of those who were not practical and industrious, to bring good farmers on to the land ; but he feared that such a work could not be done without loss. The settlement at Witrivier cost £75,000, and yet there were not five settlers remaining, notwithstanding the many improvements that had been made. Such things must not happen again. Formerly there was no Parliament which would keep a close eye on the finances, such as there was at present. The Bill proposed to help four classes of persons. (1) The poor whites: There were many people who with a little help would be able to help themselves and improve their position, and he would here refer to the colony at Kakamas. He had personally been there, and seen everything with satisfaction. The ground there never became the property of the people, but many worked entirely by themselves, and some had already sufficient money wherewith to buy their own ground. If the Government lost money in settlement it would only occur in a few instances. Many excellent people had gone away to the towns, where they and their children suffered morally, and it would be a crime if Parliament neglected to help them. (2) The bywoners: Those were people with practical experience of farming, but they worked under contract, which made it impossible for them to improve their position Most of them needed but little help. (3) Those whose capital was too small to go on their own. In the case of a small land-owner who had many sons, those sons were obliged either to go to Rhodesia or to work in the mines. They usually had a little money, but not enough to buy land with. They deserved to be helped. The sons of townspeople also should be assisted in the same manner. Provided they could pay one-fifth of the purchase price, the Government would provide the remainder. That was a sound principle, whereby speculation would be made totally impossible. (4) Farm labourers: It would be a good thing to import farm labourers from England and Europe. Provided those people were first set at practical work on the farms here, they could get no better for the settlements, and if it could be done the Government would not neglect it, seeing that it would be of the greatest advantage to South Africa. He was disappointed at the amendment which had been introduced by the Labour Party, as it went too far. That party objected to helping the poor, but if the Government failed to do it, it would be a crime. He could not understand the attitude of that party. They were opposed to the importation of mine Kafirs from Mozambique, and opposed to the importation of workmen from Europe. They wished in that way to form a labour monopoly in favour of the workmen who were now in the country. Of course, that would be in the interest of the workmen, but it was not in the general interest of the country, which in the first place ought to be regarded. It had been asked where the settlements were to be placed? The hon. member for Umlazi spoke of the million acres of Crown land which were suitable for settlement, but it was generally known that the greater part of those lands were situated in unhealthy districts or in districts which for other reasons were uninhabitable. In the first place the Government would naturally use the best available Crown lands for settlement purposes, but more ground Would be bought afterwards, either from private persons, by obtaining options, or otherwise. In purchasing ground for irrigation works they always acted on the advice of experts, and they would act in the like manner when buying land for settlements. They would do their best to prevent an increase in the price of land. Small settlements could only be placed on good ground. On the proclaimed ground near Johannesburg there were suitable farms for small settlements, seeing that they were there in the immediate neighbourhood of the market. The settlement at Stompies was a success, and it was quite possible to establish other similar settlements. He feared, however, that when it came to the question of buying the land they would have to pay more for a morgen there than elsewhere for a whole farm. It was of course possible that money would be lost, but so long as the greater part of the money produced good results, there would be much won. He had several times been accused of speaking with two mouths, which he totally denied, and everybody who was well acquainted with the facts would agree that it was only one of the many accusations which appeared in the Opposition newspapers, which were devoid of any basis in fact. In his speech in London on the subject of immigration he said that the Government would permit immigration, and that the people in England must send their best men here. At the Imperial Conference he had said, in connection with the same subject, that they did not want vagabonds here but farmers. The Opposition now asserted that since he had returned from England there was talk of the tens of thousands of poor whites in the country, which last was in conflict with what he had said in England. He had never said in England that immigrants would be preferred to the inhabitants of South Africa. He had clearly stated in Pretoria that the Government were in favour of immigration and settlements, but that in the first place the thousands and tens of thousands of South Africans must be helped. He repeated those words in Losberg, and had been consistent in his attitude from the beginning. Help the people in South Africa who needed help, and if money remained, then import others from elsewhere. The hon. member for Victoria West had stated that it was better to build railways than to establish settlements. But settlements and railways should go together. To build railways was good, but the population of South Africa was small, and if a lot of railways were built now, that would lead to the imposition of heavy taxation afterwards. The hon. member for Turffontein was one of the Transvaal settlers, and one of the most favoured. He obtained a farm without its being advertised—(hear, hear)—whilst other farms had to be advertised. The hon. member had handed in an amendment in which it was laid down that no settlement scheme would be satisfactory which did not promote the utilisation of all unoccupied ground. To whom belonged that unoccupied ground? It belonged to the land companies. There were companies which owned three million morgen of ground, and it would not do to introduce legislation to enable them to sell their land at high prices. Those companies wanted to get rid of their ground, and during the speaker’s stay in England some 300 of their farms were offered him for sale. (Hear, hear.) They must beware of those land companies, for they would ask high prices, and settlement would thus be a failure. He regretted that the amendment had been moved, and thought it would have been better if the Opposition had shown that they wished to help in establishing settlements and making a success of them. The Minister had spoken of a loan of £5,000,000, but out of that sum £2,500,000 was intended for irrigation loans. If, for instance, a man wished to construct a dam on his farm, he would be able to obtain a loan from the Government out of the £2,500,000, for which the whole of his farm would remain as security. A big amalgamation had taken place formerly in Johannesburg in connection with the waterworks. Millions of pounds had been devoted to it, and an Ordinance had been agreed to giving consent to pump water out of the Klip River valley. The result now was that all the water from the Klip River was pumped, and the hundreds of families who lived there obtained not a penny in compensation. A good deal had been talked in the course of that debate about expropriation and compensation, but the people at Klip River obtained no compensation from the Crown Colony Government, although the water was expropriated. And if expropriation was so good, why had not the members of the Opposition, who governed the Cape Colony more than twenty years, not passed an Expropriation Act? And why had no such Act been passed in the Transvaal? At that time they had nothing to fear from their opponents, who were then unable to bite. If expropriation were in the true interest of the country it would be applied, but it was not at present necessary. There were enough farms for sale. (Cheers.) Then came the question as to what people had to be assisted. In the first place, there were the poor whites ; and the most conclusive evidence he had yet seen of the way in which the poor whites could successfully be assisted was in the Labour Colony at Kakamas, which he had recently visited—(cheers)—and there were many other people in South Africa who could be similarly assisted. He was not only speaking of one section of the population, because they had thousands of English poor whites too, and it would be a crime if Parliament did not take any steps to save the children of these people. (Cheers.) The second class was that which was in a little better position—he was referring to the “bijwoner” class—who had had a little more experience, and if put on their feet, could make a success of farming. There was the third class, who had a little money, and who could make excellent agriculturists if the Government only came along and gave a little assistance. Therefore he was glad that the Minister of Lands had introduced that measure, and he was of opinion that the prevention of speculation, for which the Bill provided, would make the project such a successful one, because once these settlers began to speculate, the scheme would be bound to end in failure. What had most disappointed him was the amendment of the hon. members on the cross-benches. They stated that you must not be allowed to import native labour from Mozambique, nor white labour from Europe. Why? Because they wanted a monopoly. As to the land which the Government had to acquire for the settlement scheme, the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) had spoken of the millions of acres of Crown land, but, as one who knew of the conditions of South Africa, he must be very well aware that the largest portion of those Crown lands were quite uninhabitable by the white man. The Government must, therefore, have to purchase ground. The difficulty was that they must depend on the advice of the irrigation experts. The Government would do its best not to create a land boom in South Africa and to prevent speculation. (Cheers.) He thought that much could be said in favour of the ground in the proclaimed district of Johannesburg, which was very suitable and near to a large market. If the project proved a success, other ground could be purchased in the neighbourhood of Springs, for example ; but the whole question must be very carefully gone into, or the Government might have to pay more per morgen, perhaps, than would otherwise be paid for a whole farm. He was quite prepared for the Government to lose some money, but if the result of the scheme was to put permanently on the land a number of people, he would be satisfied. (Cheers.) As to what the Opposition had said about his speech in London, what he had actually said was that they must first of all look to their own people, and after that they (in England) could send of their best. What he had said in Pretoria, and repeated at Losberg, was that he was in favour of immigration, but they were first going to help the ten thousand who needed help in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) Let them first help their own people, and when there were no more of their own South African people to assist, then let them look to immigration from oversea. (Ministerial cheers.) It was a very good thing to build railways, but railway development and land settlement went together. They must, however, be careful before they constructed a line and not go too fast, or their schemes might result in failure. Coming to the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham), he said that he was one of the favoured settlers in the Transvaal—he was one of the lucky ones. (Laughter.) But as to the “unoccupied land” referred to in the amendment, who did it belong to but all the big land companies? (Ministerial cheers.) (Sir P. FITZPATRICK: Tax them.) He had no objection to taxing them, but he objected to their coming to Parliament in that way. They must be very careful with that amendment, as, if carried, it would kill land settlement for good and all in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) As to the amount which was to be spent, £2,500,000 would be devoted to irrigation. If a man got a farm and developed it and constructed a dam, he did not only improve his own farm, but the whole neighbourhood too, and so made land settlement all the easier. In Johannesburg, he regretted to see there had been an amalgamation of all the big water schemes. Why he regretted it was because all the water was being pumped out, and the farms which needed water could not get it ; and had not received any compensation. Such a case as that of the Klip River was one of the worst examples of “confiscation,” as the Opposition desired to see. What had prevented them passing an Expropriation Law under Crown Colony government? If it were found to be in the best interests of South Africa to expropriate, let them expropriate by all means. But expropriation would not at present be in the best interests of the country. One could hardly pick up a paper without noticing land sales advertised. If later on it appeared to be advisable to have recourse to expropriation, they would do so. Passing to the poor white aspect of the Bill, he said that he thought it was the duty of Parliament to help the poor people, and what they could do under this Bill would be a step in the right direction. In conclusion, he said that if they made use of the opportunity now presented them, they could make a great success of land settlement in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.)

remarked that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister had not very much to say regarding the Bill before the House. He had discussed it in an abstract way, and had pointed out some of the difficulties attending land settlement, of which they were all well aware, but he had not touched on the Bill itself. He dwelt, for instance, on the difficulty of expropriation ; that might very well be left to the consideration of the Select Committee. He regretted the Prime Minister’s reference to the Klip River water scheme. It was common knowledge that the supply of water varied with the pumping. Compared with the question now before them, it was too trivial a matter with which to engage their attention. He had referred with a great deal of pride to the settlement at Kakamas. It was a success, because it was in the hands of highly-qualified people. The broad question was whether it was possible to have a settlement scheme in this country which would be a success. It was their contention on his side of the House that the poor white question should be dealt with in a separate Bill. Attempts had been made to rehabilitate poor whites, but they had not been successful. Many of the poor whites had lost the habit of work, and before it could be hoped to make them successes as settlers, they would have to be submitted to a period of training, after which they could be transferred to the settlement. They wished to see the two questions divorced. They had to make provision for those people who were willing to come to this country with varying amounts of capital. But settlers of this kind needed different treatment, and were all many stages removed from the poor white. Proceeding, the hon. gentleman stated that some settlements in this country had been successful, notably that in the Standerton district. He referred also to “Westminster.” Though this settlement had been laid out on a most extravagant basis, its tenants were to-day all paying interest on their holdings. Surely this success could also be obtained in other parts of the country. This was a great national question. He did not believe that white and coloured people would work satisfactorily side by side on the settlements, so that he would not be surprised if on the smaller settlements they would in time find only white people.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing, said it was true that there were difficulties and failures in land settlement as well as in farming, but there were also successes in both. Only the other day a farmer in the Bedford district, who started practically with nothing, died leaving a fortune of £200,000. A farmer who lived near his (Sir Lionel’s) farm, in the Zoutpansberg had gone in for steam ploughing with considerable success, and this year—in spite of it being exceedingly dry—he expected to have a rich harvest. This was not luck, but the result of hard work and enterprise. They had heard a great deal about railways developing the land. Without means of communication nothing beyond stock raising could be done on the land, but he very much feared that some of those who clamoured most for railways, looked upon them, not for the purpose of carrying produce, but for the purpose of increasing the value of their land, in order that they might sell out and go to another part of the country. In that House they heard very frequently quoted the experience of New Zealand and Australia, but that need not necessarily be of value to us here. South Africa had peculiar problems and pests to deal with, and we must deal with them ourselves. (Hear, hear.) As to clause 9, there would be some difficulty, perhaps, in controlling settlements widely distributed all over the country, but in some respects he was heartily in accord with the clause, for it would be an advantage if the intending settler obtained an option over the ground he wanted before approaching the authorities, for in that case he would in all probability be able to get it cheaper. He held very strongly that the Land Board should be a properly constituted body of impartial and independent persons, and it should be able to tender advice to the Minister which he would not see his way to refuse. (Hear, hear.) That was the only basis on which they could get a successful scheme. If these enormous powers were placed solely in the hands of the responsible Minister, the time must come when the system must break down, and if they did not have favouritism and jobbery they would at least have charges of them, which would militate against the successful working of the scheme. The Minister would be wise to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, for then the House instead of blindly accepting certain principles in the Bill, would have the advantage of knowing that it had been examined by a committee, able to take evidence if necessary. He would say a word about expropriation because he was connected with a land company, and people would say that he was afraid of expropriation if he did not refer to the matter. If the Government had power to expropriate land no one would have reason to be afraid of it, for they would be compensated. However, he did not think the power of expropriation would be used for many years to come, for land would be acquirable without it at a reasonable price. The essential thing was to have a very live Land Board, because that would be a safeguard to both landowners and settlers, and was going to ensure the confidence of the country in the measure. Reverting to the proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, the hon. member said the Minister had admitted that the measure required to be examined by a Select Committee. In that case, why ask the House to agree to a lot of principles which the Select Committee might find were not desirable? It would facilitate the passage of the measure and produce a more workable Bill if it were sent to a Select Committee before being read a second time. Land companies had been talked a great deal about in the House, and as he was associated with one he would feel rather guilty if he sat down without saying something about them. The majority of the land which had come into the hands of the land companies was second-class land, and was originally acquired because of mineral possibilities. If the Government desired to acquire any special farm belonging to the land company with which he was associated, the company would be only too happy to part with it on very reasonable terms. If hon. members on the Opposition side of the House were sinners in the acquisition of land, the same could be said of hon. members on the other side. (Hear, hear.) The sins were, therefore, not the sins of one side of the House, and no capital should be made of this point. The land companies would be found as reasonable as individuals, and he did honestly believe that if Government were to place a small tax on the prairie value of land it would tend to benefit the value of land in South Africa. The time would come when such a tax would exist ; he thought that it would prove a beneficial tax. It would not give rise to any agitation so long as it was fair and equitable. Land settlement was not a subject for violent speeches. It was a question of vital importance to the future of South Africa. It was a question that demanded calm judgment and inquiry. It must not be a measure framed in such a way that the whole of the power would rest in the hands of one person. The whole idea seemed to be to deal with a particular section of the population—the submerged tenth. He did not believe that they would benefit these people by the methods that were proposed. There was a groat difference between placing people who had failed on the land and a real scheme of closer settlement. It must not be done in any haphazard way. He agreed with his hon. friend the right hon. member for Victoria West, that they must not plunge into the five millions ; if good resulted, it would only be from a well-framed measure. He urged care and forethought, and said he supported the amendment which had been proposed by the hon. member for Turffontein.

thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein would be the best means to produce a Bill dealing with a question that was of the utmost importance to the future of South Africa. There was an unfortunate feeling of suspicion among his friends opposite, and this feeling would disappear if the Minister in charge of the Bill would accept the amendment. There was a feeling through the length and breadth of the land that Government was not acting in a bona fide manner with regard to immigration. They wanted to see the best Bill possible evolved for the purpose of grappling with such a vital problem. If the matter were brought before a Select Committee before the second reading of the Bill something more tangible would result. There was one thing he would like to remark upon. The Government lacked the power of expropriation, and unless they had that power, he thought they may be thwarted in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. He did not say that the power should be used, but it should be ready for use if need be. He hoped that the Government would give the hon. member for Turffontein the credit of being bona fide in bringing forward his amendment. The Minister of Lands had said in his remarks when introducing the Bill that he would be willing to receive suggestions, and here was one that would assist him to improve the Bill before the House.

said that after debating this question for five days it was surprising to him to hear the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg and Yeoville ask that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. If that was done, how many more days would be wasted in discussing the measure? Dealing with the question of railway communication, the speaker said that railways did not always tend to increase the value of land. There were cases where people were suffering in a bona fide way because they had not the means to get their stuff away from the farms. Proceeding, the speaker referred to the disabilities suffered by farmers who had land under Act 14 of 1878, and said that if the Minister would turn his attention to the plight of these people he would be doing an act of a most beneficial character. He certainly thought the Bill as it stood was a good Bill, and he meant to support it and vote against the amendment. (Ministerial cheers.)

as a representative of many poor whites, considered himself obliged to say something on the subject of settlements. His opponent during the last election, a member of the Unionist party, had said that his party would bring back the poor whites to the land. That did not help him. But why, then, were the Opposition against the Bill? The hon. member for Turffontein was opposed to it, because perhaps he was one of the settlement failures. (Laughter.) He (the speaker) had been in favour from the beginning of having settlements on the Rand. He could only explain the attitude of the Opposition in the light of the resolution which they took at Durban. (Hear, hear.) If it was the intention to discuss every Bill for five days, then he would have to take part in it. The giving out of land to settlers must be done on business lines. There were many people still on the railways and in the towns who ought to be on the land. They were failures in the towns and on the mines. Apparently the members of the Labour party did not know what unworked ground was. They called grazing land unworked ground, but that was wrong. The hon. member for Yeoville had done a good deal for agriculture, but why then did he now want to tax the farmer? That would only handicap him. The speaker was himself a landowner, and thought it was the duty of the Government to make all the people landowners. It was excellent to support colonies such as Kakamas, which had helped many people. First they must assist the people in South Africa, and when that had been done, then they must get the right class of immigrants, people who could work and who understood farming. There was no eight-hour day for the farmer. They should not import settlers for whom the Agricultural Department would have to prescribe what clothes they must wear in the morning, midday, or evening —(laughter)—nor people who occupied themselves with sports. Neither an eight hour day nor strikes would be permitted —(laughter)—for which on the farms there was no time. He knew that the Opposition would make an attack on him in his division, but he had spoken merely in a straightforward way, and had always told his electors that the Government would only help those people who were willing to work.

said it was his intention to support the Bill, for the reason that he thought there was an honest attempt on the part of the Government to tackle the question. He was a non-party man—(Ministerial cheers)—and could therefore judge the Bill upon its merits without being actuated by party considerations. He sincerely trusted the Opposition would withdraw its amendment to the second reading, because they had a strong representation on the committee and would therefore be able to rectify any mistakes when in the committee stage. He could not agree with the hon. member for Victoria West when he said it was dangerous for a Minister to feel that he must do something—that while he was a responsible Minister he should think it his duty not to do anything. He would like to know whether the supporters of the hon. member for Victoria West entertained this view of him as a Minister when the question of the leadership of the party was being decided. The settlements which the hon. member had quoted might have been failures as far as the locality was concerned, but they brought people out to this country who became permanent settlers. There was the Burnstown settlement with its 350 families ; to-day there were not 100 descendants of those families there, but they had gone into the Free State and other parts of South Africa. Gould they say these settlements had been a failure? He thought not, because they had served the purpose of bringing out settlers to the country. They would excuse him for mentioning the little colony of Natal, but there were settlements there that might well be taken as an example to be followed in other parts of the Union. New Germany and New Hanover were settlements in which families had been brought oversea Many of them had left these localities for other districts to become the prosperous farmers of the country. Winterton, he regretted to say, had not been a success, but then it had only been founded a little while ago. From these examples they must conclude, if they took a broad view of the question, that past land settlements had not been the failures that it was tried to make them out to be. Then, again, the hon. member for Victoria West was afraid that the purchase of land by the Government would create a boom, and that it would be dangerous to give a Minister power to go about with a brass band buying land. (Laughter.) Three years ago. Natal passed a Bill not unlike the one now before the House, and the board vested with the power of purchasing land bought as much as they wanted at a fraction under the current value of the surrounding properties, nor was there any evidence that land had materially increased in value owing to the purchases by Government. He saw no reason, if the Central Board to be created only did its duty properly, that there would be any boom in land, nor need there be any exorbitant prices paid for any land required. There seemed to be some suspicion on the opposite side of the House with regard to immigration, that the purpose of bringing out settlers was to get a British vote. He did not think there was any fear of this, as many members opposite had been elected by the English vote. Nor would these settlers forget to vote for the Government that was in power and had been the means of bringing them out as settlers. He had no hesitation in voting for the Bill, because he thought it was an honest attempt to settle the land question. (Cheers.)

said that he did not wish to take up the time of the House at any great length but he could not allow the speech of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to pass without some comment. His right hon. friend was good enough to say that nobody had made more speeches in connection with this matter than the member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick), and he thought it was largely due to the character of those speeches that a certain number of members on the back benches behind his right hon. friend were frightened of the question of land settlement and immigration. His reply to that was that, if there were any speeches that had had a tendency to bring this question to the fore, it was the admirable speeches which the hon. member for Pretoria East delivered throughout the country, and which awoke the country to the importance of the question. (Opposition cheers and Ministerial dissent.) He intended to quote some of the speeches of the right hon. gentleman, and leave the House to judge whether he was correct, or the Prime Minister was correct. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman painted such a dark picture of the results of the land settlement in this country in the past. His right hon. friend gave many cases of land settlement in the Transvaal, in which the impression left upon anybody in that House was that the majority of the cases of land settlement to which he referred were failures. One of the reasons of failure was owing to the price that was paid for the holding, and although he did not know the circumstances of the particular case to which his right hon. friend referred, he had alluded to a certain case of a gentleman going about with a blank cheque and £250,000 in his pocket buying up land in the Transvaal.

I did not say that.

The right hon. gentleman referred to somebody having £250,000 to buy land for the purposes of land settlement. (Ministerial dissent.) We will take it another way then that some individual had £250,000 for the purpose of furthering land settlement in the Transvaal. He inferred that that land settlement was a failure. What does the Minister propose? To give my right hon. friend (Mr. Fischer) a million a year for five years to establish land settlement in any case that it may be desired to establish. (Ministerial dissent.) Proceeding, Sir T. Smartt said that, as regarded the settlement of poor whites, no one would more strongly support a measure for the amelioration of the condition of the poor whites than he would. His right hon. friend had referred to the success of Kakamas. It was because that colony was such a success that he was impressed with the idea that if Parliament was determined to do something of a practical character to deal with the settlement of poor whites upon the land they had got to look to religious and charitable organisations to carry on those colonies, with money freely supplied by Parliament. On that basis, he (Sir T. Smartt) introduced a Bill into the House which was subsequently taken up by his hon. friend the Minister of Education. It was the Rev. Mr. Marchand, over and above everybody else, who had made a success of Kakamas. They were never thinking to get administration of that sort when they dealt with the poor white question in connection with Government organisation. His right hon. friend had divided the people whom he proposed to benefit by this Bill into four classes. The first class was the absolutely poor white ; the second class was the bijwoner ; the third class was those with a very small amount of capital, who were not in a position to acquire land for themselves. In the fourth class the Prime Minister spoke about agricultural workers, a class of people whom, he (Sir T. Smartt) presumed, it was his intention under the Bill at some future time to import into this country. The Prime Minister then went on to deal with the supply of land for these people, and he entirely disagreed with statements made on that side as to the character of the land held by the land companies in this country. If that were the character of the land and it was not available for settlement, why did the right hon. gentleman not accept the motion of the hon. member for Turffontein for the imposition of a tax ou undeveloped land? In every land settlement scheme there were certain vital principles which must be recognised if the scheme Were to be a success. They must have their settlement in the vicinity, if possible, of large markets. The settlement must have a fair supply of water and, if it were not in the vicinity of large markets, it must be within reasonable communication of the markets. He had risen really to say that he was surprised at the character of some of the remarks made by his right hon. friend. He had said that he was not in favour of advocating immigration into this country in connection with land settlement until all the poor whites in this country and the people Without land were provided for. He had really thought that afternoon that his hon. friend had gone back to the position of his Losberg speech—that he could not understand why during his absence in Europe people had introduced the subject of immigration—because he had never stated that an immigrant was to be introduced here until the thousands and tens of thousands of poor whites were placed on the land. Then, largely due to the political campaign of his hon. friend through the country, the Bloemfontein and Durban Conferences, his right hon. friend had introduced another policy, not quite so strong as the policy he had advocated in England, but far stronger than his Losberg policy. (Opposition laughter.) Most hon. members opposite—there were one or two notable exceptions—stated that they would vote for the second reading, but not if there was any intention of inducing immigrants to settle on the land. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) “Then,” said the hon. gentleman, “words betoken nothing. If that was not the idea, why did not they vote for the amendment of his hon. friend increasing the scope of the Bill?”

He ought to make it more ambiguous.

said that he felt aggrieved at the attitude of his hon. friend. He (Sir Thomas) had been taken in, and a lot of the public had been taken in. He had attended a luncheon given by the Eighty Club to the overseas Premiers. It was a fine luncheon—(laughter)—and there were some very fine speeches ; not the least of them being the speech of his right hon. friend.

He is noted for it.

said that the views there expounded were held by his right hon. friend until pressure was brought to bear from another quarter —from Smithfield and Bethulie. (Laughter.) He would quote from the speech: “We have a very large country in South Africa, but it is a country full of problems, and we ask that we should be helped to solve our problems in the best possible manner.” (Ministerial cheers.) He hoped that hon. members would say “Hear, hear,” when they heard the next sentence. He had been so taken in that he nearly cheered himself. It read: “… in assisting people to emigrate to our part of the Empire, we ask you to send your very best.” (Ministerial cheers.) If the Government were sincere, there were many of the very best willing to come. He quoted again: “We have any amount of room for a large population in South Africa.” (Ministerial cheers.) Had he understood the Prime Minister to say that he had never held out any encouragement for immigration? Proceeding, the hon. member quoted: “We offer the hand of brotherhood …” (Loud laughter.) There would be no better example of “the hand of brotherhood” than the honest desire to get these people to settle on the broad acres which his right hon. friend had said were crying out for population. They knew full well the reason why he had not laid down clearly that it was the intention of the Government to do this ; if he did, he would not have in his division list a large number of his staunch supporters. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) “Oh, yes,” retorted the hon. member, “don’t let us make any doubt about that.” (Laughter.) Then the Prime Minister had said that he never offered them any financial assistance. As against that, he would turn to the minutes of the Imperial Conference of 1911.

That’s old.

It is old. It was before the campaigns of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Lands. (Opposition laughter.) The hon. member then read from the minutes: “I want agriculturists, and for that class I am prepared to spend money”—that was not what he said that afternoon—“and I hope when we get over this difficulty with the Union-Castle Company to make provision for our immigration scheme, because we are in favour of it, and we are going to encourage it to a very large extent, but at the same time we shall have to be very careful to get the right men.” He asked any impartial person if that was in keeping with the statement made at Losberg.

Absolutely.

I shall leave the people of Great Britain to judge, and I shall leave the members of the Eighty Club to judge. He had no doubt that his right hon. friend was speaking his convictions then, but owing to the exigencies of the political situation he had found it necessary to alter his opinion. Under these circumstances how could they be expected to be satisfied with the Bill? He asked that the Bill should go before a Select Committee to increase its scope, but if not, they were still prepared to vote for the second reading, to maintain the principle of land settlement, but they were not prepared to accept a Bill which did not lay down the broad principles under which it was to be carried out. Proceeding, he said that he regretted extremely that the Prime Minister had made a very unfair statement with regard to the hon. member for Turffontein. He insinuated that the hon. member obtained possession of a holding in the Transvaal by some underhand, some indirect method. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) The right hon. gentleman knew that these statements were made in public, and that at the bar of justice in the Transvaal the hon. gentleman had got full restitution. Under the circumstances it was very unfair of his right hon. friend to bring up the matter. Surely they could enunciate their differences on the questions of settlement and immigration without introducing a personal matter which had been cleared up in a court of justice to the entire satisfaction of his hon. friend.

said that from the commencement of the debate he had wondered why hon. members opposite, who had set campaigns afoot and proclaimed from the housetops how they favoured this great movement, should take so much trouble to oppose a Bill that dealt with it. He remembered the occasion when the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) was announced to give a lecture on Closer Union, and he spoke on Chinese immigration. (Laughter.) But when there was an opportunity of getting something practical done, not merely to catch votes, the hon. member and his friends advanced what was admitted to be strenuous opposition. They had shown their anxiety for closer settlement in a very peculiar manner. They said, “Have the details discussed in a Select Committee.” That was what the Minister of Lands proposed. When they moved for the discharge of a Bill before its second reading they meant to administer a severe snub. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Yeoville said the Select Committee could alter the principles of the Bill, but that was the first time he (Mr. Sauer) had heard that a Select Committee should do that. Then was the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. Smartt) the speech of a man anxious to promote closer settlement? (Ministerial cries of “No.”) It seemed to him (Mr. Sauer) that the Opposition was only giving effect to the famous resolution in which it said that it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. Since the Durban Conference it had opposed every measure of the Government. He had very grave doubts whether the Opposition was sincere on this subject. (Laughter.) Before the Unionists went to Durban they were all for compulsory expropriation. At Durban they sang a very different tune. (Ministerial cheers.) They dropped compulsory expropriation, and proposed taxation on unimproved land values. (Hear, hear.) Not a word about compulsory expropriation. Continuing, Mr. Sauer quoted from a letter published in a newspaper and signed “H. P. Gordon.” (Laughter and cheers.) The Unionists ought to know him, because they had employed him a great deal. In this letter Mr. Gordon stated that Sir George Farrar, in April, 1910, gave him an unqualified promise that the Transvaal Progressives—of whom Sir George was then the leader—would form a closer settlement. Later on, the writer was engaged by Colonel Crewe to deliver a series of addresses on closer settlement. After the general election, Sir George renewed his promise and referred the writer to Colonel Crewe who, however, said he was opposed to closer settlement, and that the Eastern Province farmers would have nothing to do with it. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Sauer said the Opposition had advocated closer settlement because they thought it a very good election cry. But what had they done for it in the past? And now when Government made a serious attempt to deal with the subject, it met with this opposition. Why was there no agitation for closer settlement in Rhodesia, where there was a territory half the size of a continent, and where they could give effect to their principles? After 20 years’ occupation there were no more than 15,000 Europeans in Rhodesia. There was ample room for closer settlement there, though he did not know whether all the land had been syndicated away. (Ministerial cheers.)

We are not in charge of Rhodesia.

But there are people of influence in this House who have some say in the matter. Why must you only come to the Union, where in the main the land is occupied? Proceeding, the speaker asked why did not those on the other side suggest that the principle should be tried in Rhodesia. There they had no Parliament to hamper them. Why did his friends not practise the question of taxing unoccupied land he would like to know what it meant. What was unoccupied land? He would like the hon. member for Cape Town to give him an answer. Was a large extent of land unoccupied which could only carry 2,000 sheep? And what was unimproved value? It was difficult to improve land here in the same way as was done in England. Not a single member who had spoken on this subject had given a bit of information on the subject.

We thought you understood it.

said that the fact was that the Opposition had attempted to bring about a breach on the Government side. That was their tactics in trying to get that which was so dear to their hearts. It was not explained how this system would be put into force. It had been said that the only object of the Bill was to put poor white people on the land. If that was the object there would be no need to put the Bill before the House, for the reason that there was legislation on the subject in all the Provinces. The fact was that some people saw danger of a certain kind. At any rate, he would say that not all these people were hopeless. When the Prime Minister said that the people of the country would have the first chance, he (the speaker) did not understand him to mean the poor whites of the country. Recent settlements in the country had shown that on the average the South African settler did much better, and met with greater success than the settler who came from abroad. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had said there were some men who were desirous that their sons should go on the land, and it was they who should have the first opportunity. He believed that they would succeed in getting people in this country who would occupy the land in a beneficial manner. It was difficult to get suitable people and suitable land. It was especially difficult to get good people in Europe, let alone England, where there were good people who could not be induced to go on the land. If they thought they would get any number of suitable people from England, they would be disappointed. They would have to do the best they could. He was as conscious as anybody that it was wise for them to encourage the incoming of Europeans into South Africa. He thought the Government had recognised that necessity, and said that soon after it came into power it decided that it would not increase the number of black people from outside. That was a wise step. He asked hon. members on the other side of the House why they did not employ white men as labourers on the mines if they were so anxious to get them out to this country?

To do what?

Work.

asked why his hon. friends did not send men on the land which they owned? They had the means and the brains—it was said that there were more brains to the square inch in Johannesburg than anywhere in South Africa. Why did they not practise what they were so fond of preaching in the House? There was ample room for white men in the mines. He did not believe that the country could absorb whites like Canada or Australia, but that there was room for more people there was no doubt. Now that an attempt had been made to carry out what was required, he thought it would have been hailed with pleasure. Although there was no room for large immigration of white people as in other countries, there was room for more people than they had in South Africa at present, and it depended very largely, in his opinion, on the suitability or otherwise of the land on which these people were placed as to whether they succeeded or not. The remark had been made by several people that it was no use putting people on the land unless there were markets near by. He read the other day of a very distinguished Frenchman, who was in New York and spoke at a big meeting. It was said that his country was the richest in the world. He replied, that one reason was because every bunch of carrots a farmer grew was brought to the market, either by means of a good road or some other means. Therefore, he believed one of the true necessities was to, as far as possible, put the people on the land where they could get their produce to market. He hoped that the proposal of his hon. friend the Minister of Lands would be accepted, and he hoped it because he really believed it was the surest way of getting a Bill such as he hoped would enable them to carry out closer settlement to a very considerable extent indeed. If they carried the proposals of the Minister, which, after all, meant one thing, and if it did only mean that it meant that he got the right to expropriate land. Now, as a commonsense thing, did they think if they carried that on paper, did they think they would get a House like this to consent to compulsory expropriation? A number of their own people would not vote for it, and a number of people on the other side would not vote for it. If they wanted to do something real, they should take the opportunity they had now ; because he thought it was not a party question, but a question on which, for the general interest of both sides of the House, they should co-operate in relieving a difficult question, because it was a difficult question, which gave rise to considerable feeling on both sides. They should help to introduce a moderate measure which would be the first step to the introduction of a very important principle in this country, and that was closer settlement on a somewhat larger scale. He still hoped it would be dealt with in that spirit, and after this week’s debate he thought it could still be passed to enable the Minister of Lands to bring in a larger Bill. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he should not have risen if his hon. friend, after complaining that time had been wasted on this matter, had not given them a 25 minutes’ speech on it. It was said that the Government wanted a real Bill and not a sham. The Opposition introduced a resolution intended to turn the Bill, which was weak, into a strong Bill ; to give reality to the intentions expressed by the Minister of Lands. The criticism of the Bill had not come entirely from his (Sir Edgar’s) side of the House; it had come from the whole House. Every member had found something to criticise in it, and the hon. members on the other side who had not found flaws in it generally supported the Minister because it was clear they had not studied it. One hon. member said he would support the Bill because it provided for poor whites. There was nothing in the Bill for poor whites. Poor whites were almost excluded in the Bill. The only reference in the Bill to settlers of that kind was that the Minister must satisfy himself that settlers had some capital.

Clause 40.

said that clause 40 allowed the Minister to make advances to settlers on their stock. If the clauses were contradictory it was all the more reason why they should be altered. The main point of difference between them was with regard to the acquisition of land—take the criticisms of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), who damned the Bill altogether. He said the machinery was bad, except where it imitated to some extent some Legislative efforts of his own ; he said it would fail in its object, and he said the machinery which provided for the purchase of land was utterly foolish, but he was going to vote for its second reading.

It is going to a committee, isn’t it?

said that with regard to the committee, the Minister of Railways and Harbours made much of it, but all the resolution asked was that the Government should extend the scope of the Bill, and give it larger powers. The Minister admitted he was going to have difficulties in buying land in this country, because, as everybody knew, the land was going to be put up in price, and if they could not acquire land, it was no good getting settlers, because they would have nowhere to put them. They were asking the Government to take larger powers than the Bill gave them, in order to let them carry out the Bill, because they believed they were not going to carry out the Bill, because they were blocked. Then they talked about Socialism. The land belonged to the State ; it belonged to the nation. The owner had right to the land rights, which were clearly defined by law, but the nation had some right to it also. The nation had a right to take land for national purposes, and if this was for national purposes, and if the Government was sincere then surely the Government should go to the logical conclusion of its own Bill. They talked about expropriation, but if they expropriated they were going to give an equivalent for it. In all colonies it was laid down for the expropriation of the land, if the Government and the owner did not come to satisfactory terms, they put the matter before an Arbitration Board. The reason they put that in was because they really supported land settlement and were prepared to support the Government in carrying out that policy. They believed that the Bill would not be a success, and it could not carry out what was intended. Later he hoped the Government would still reconsider the matter and that they would accept some amendment. He had heard a good deal said of the extent of Crown lands in South Africa. He did not know if the Minister of Lands was aware yet of the extent in the Cape Colony of Crown lands which had never been alienated. They had never been granted, but at the same time the State had lost their hold on them. He thought the Minister’s definition was perfectly sound. He said Crown lands meant all land that had got to be alienated, but later on in the Bill he said that all land that had prescriptive rights should be respected. Now, there were large areas of land, much of it entirely suitable for the objects of this Bill, which had never been granted, but which had been occupied by farmers who had never had any title to the land and never had any grant of it. What he wanted to put to the Minister was that before this Bill passed he should consider that position. That land belonged to the State, and no consideration whatever had been given for that land. These odds and ends of corners of land would gradually pass out of his hands unless he took some steps to stop it. Among those who had been loud in their outcries against land companies was the hon. Minister of Justice. He had repeatedly held them up to execration.

You must be thinking of someone else.

said he could quite understand the Minister of Justice not being able to remember all his speeches or he would be in one continual blush. (Laughter). Now it was proposed to create a similar state of affairs. They had a number of people in this country who had bought land and were holding it for a rise. Did the Government intend to purchase this land at what was a fictitious value? This was an opportunity of taking such land as was suitable and to put it under profitable cultivation. All sorts of good things had been promised in the Bill, and they had given the hon. Minister their promise to support it, and he hopel the amendments would be considered while it was in the House. As the Bill stood at present they were disappointed with it. They were given to understand that when it was introduced into the House it would be a complete Bill and one that was workable. Instead of that it was a measure that not a single responsible person in the country would approve of. The body of the Bill was loose, crude and apparently drafted in a hurry. In fact, it left all the work to be done by a Select Committee. He trusted before it left that House some attempt would be made to shape it into a perfect measure.

craved the indulgence of the House to say a few words in reply to the previous speakers. The hon. member for Turffontein had also claimed a similar indulgence on account of his inexperience, and had gone on to complain of the “sketchy” manner in which such matters as immigration and irrigation were dealt with in the Bill. He (the speaker) had never said these matters were dealt with in this Bill, nor was it intended they should be. In sketching this general man, he (Mr. Fischer) distinctly stated that half of that would be covered by the irrigation advances and other matters, and that, therefore, at least £2,500,000 would go to the very vote to which he had already referred. He wanted to continue to spend that money.

Do I understand that you are going to spend £500,000 a year for five years?

Well, I am not quite clear that I can give the hon. member a clear understanding upon this question, as he does not appear to have understood the previous explanation, which I thought was quite clean to most hon. members.

Do I understand that you are going to spend £5,000,000 during the next five years? (Cries of “Order.”)

said he had explained that what they intended to do with half the money would be to deal with it in the same way as they had done up to now. In regard to the other half, they intended to appropriate that or the greater part of it to acquire land and to acquire it in exactly the same way that that land had been acquired in the past by the very Bill which had been mentioned. They proposed to acquire it by purchase, and even by that more horrible idea, the idea of private purchase. They did not intend to go about buying with the brass band that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had referred to. The intention was to follow up the very principle which they found in nearly every Land Settlement Bill. It was to be done by coming to Parliament and specifying in their schedules what they wanted each year. Parliament could vote it. Nothing could be done until that money was voted. There was the safeguard for spending the money. The hon. member had used some other expression as to what was really required in this Bill. This Bill was too simple for him ; he said that what they required was complicated legislation (Laughter.) He (Mr. Fischer) hoped they would not have anything of that kind. The very thing they wanted to keep out of Irrigation Bills and matters of that kind was complicated Laws. Then it was said they wanted high-handed administration. They wanted, he maintained, to avoid that. Then it was said that the Bill did not lay down how the advances were to be made. Of course it did not. If there was one matter that should be left to regulation, surely it was that. In regard to the question of the number of Land Boards, Mr. Fischer said that the hon. member had stated that he did not know under this Bill how many Land Boards there might be. His own notion was that each Province should have one, but it was quite possible that a large Province like the Cape might require more than one. At the outside he should be exceedingly sorry for his own part if there were more than five or six Boards. He was exceedingly averse from having one Board only. Supposing he had put these matters in the Bill, that the application should be in writing in a prescribed form, that it should be sent in by a certain date, and so forth, one terrible result amongst others would have been that they would have lost the presence in South Africa of one of their most progressive farmers, the hon. member for Turffontein himself, because he got his farm allotted to him some days before the date he had submitted his application in writing. In that case, anyhow, there was probably common sense in not strictly complying with the law. (Laughter.) He did not want those hitches. He did not want to tie settlers up with red tape. Such matters could always be adjusted under regulations. The amendment proposed by the hon. member opposite boiled down virtually to this, that they should have a compulsory expropriation clause before they dealt with land settlement. There was a very great divergence of opinion with regard to compulsory expropriation. But were they going to hang up the whole subject because of that divergence? There was every opportunity within the scope of the Bill to put in something more than it now contained, but if the object of the Opposition was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee with a view to putting in a clause which the hon. members knew would never pass that House, were they honest in saying that they wanted closer settlement? (Ministerial cheers.) What was contained in the Bill was the general principle on which the Government could act. The arguments of the Opposition were not arguments against the Bill, or against its going to a second reading. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) told them that for 40 years he had tried various ways of arriving at a successful land settlement scheme, but without success. That showed that sometimes mighty giants fail. His right hon. friend, the member for Victoria West, had said, “Leave it to others.’ Could it be said that because a Minister under a Colonial Government had made unsuccessful attempts to do a certain thing, that this was sufficient to damn a measure brought forward on a similar subject. Because one Minister failed, was that to say that no other attempt should be undertaken by anybody else? That was a wrong thing to say. If that principle was to apply in every instance, he wondered whether any work would ever be done in Parliament. He proceeded to refer to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said with regard to the Prime Minister and his followers, and read an extract from a speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Elast dealing with the fear expressed by some on his side of the House, that if Large numbers of immigrants came into the country they might be outvoted. Proceeding, the Hon. the Minister said it had been said that this was a Bill only for poor relief, and an hon. member, with others, quoted the great powers the Government took to themselves, and which had to be put into the Bill. Might he also refer hon. gentlemen to the very Transvaal Bill that was quoted, to show how very careful they were in section 42 to say that in applications for land they should do so and so, and that the amounts should be so and so and the conditions this, that, and the other. But section 43 said that notwithstanding the foregoing, the Governor-General-in-Council could do practically what he liked. They should say whether that was the legislation they wanted or whether it was not more honest to say that they should have the provisions clearly laid down.

1902?

Yes.

Transvaal?

Yes.

There was no Parliament then.

But that was the Bill which was so cracked up. It was passed by the Legislative Council. Proceeding, the Minister said it was the Bill which was said to contain better provisions than this ; but it put provisions in one clause and took them away in another. The Opposition had opposed the Bill for the sake of opposition, and having had their say and having fulfilled that solemn treaty entered into at Durban, they would now vote against it. (Ministerial laughter and cheers.) With these remarks he would conclude, and would leave it to the common-sense of the House to say if that Bill did not agree in principle with everybody, and whether under this Bill a proper attempt might not be made in land settlement. (Ministerial cheers.)

then put the question that all the words after “that,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion and declared that the Ayes had it.

on behalf of Mr. Wyndham, called for a division, which was taken, with the following result :

was directing the Clerk to read the Bill a second time, when

rose to a point of order. The Speaker had ruled that all the words after “that” be omitted. If these words were omitted then, naturally the amendment of his hon. friend dropped, but according to the Speaker’s ruling was it not necessary that the motion that the Bill be read a second time be now put? Many members on the Opposition side of the House were in favour of the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Turffontein (the Hon. H. A. Wyndham), which now dropped, but they were equally in favour of voting for the second reading.

said the hon. member was perfectly right, and he would now put the question that the Bill be read a second time.

This was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

put the question that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

This was agreed to.

put the question that the committee consist of ten members.

moved as an amendment that the number be increased to eleven.

seconded.

moved as a further amendment that the number be twelve, pointing out that one section of the House was unrepresented. They had separate views to either party.

seconded.

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

The amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi was put.

declared the amendment negatived.

called for a division.

On members dividing,

said that when the amendment was moved he accepted it.

The hon. member made no suggestion.

The division was taken on the question that the word “ten” proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, with the following result :

said he would give notice of the additional name.