from M. A. Barry, late teacher.

from Alexander MacDougall, station master, Muizenberg.

from N. P. C. Raaff, Messenger of the Court, Bloemfontein.

for the introduction of legislation prohibiting the sale of liquor to aboriginal natives.

Final reports of a Commission appointed to make recommendations for the re-organisation of the Departments of the Public Service.

called attention to an error in the division list for the “Noes,” on the amendment of the new clause 138 in the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Bill, proposed by Sir Henry Juta yesterday, his name not appearing therein, although he so voted.

having called upon the tellers for the “Noes,” the list was corrected accordingly.

With reference to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Newlands on the 6th February last, regarding the liability of clubs to take out a licence for the sale of tobacco to its members, I beg to state that, in accordance with the promise contained in the concluding sentence of my reply to the hon. member, I have caused the matter to be re-submitted to the Government’s legal advisers for further opinion. The law officers have now advised that holders of club licences should be regarded as “licensed retailers” within the meaning of Act No. 36 of 1887, and, consequently, are entitled to take out the £1 10s. aerated water licence, which includes the sale of tobacco and cigars. It follows that holders of club licences are not liable to the £3 licence imposed under the later Act—No. 39 of 1908 (Cape)—and, accordingly, I am authorising the refund to those holders of club licences who have paid both duties of the difference between the two rates of licences—with effect from the 1st January, 1911.

asked the Minister of Finance when there would be laid on the table the papers he had promised relating to death duties and bewaarplaatsen?

replied that they were being prepared, and he hoped to lay them on the table soon.

My attention has been drawn to clauses 38 and 39 of the Land Settlement Bill. Clause 38 provides that acquisitive prescription shall not run against the Crown in respect of any Crown land, and clause 39 makes provision against trespassing on Crown land. Not only are these provisions not covered by the title of the Bill, but they are so foreign to the import thereof that they should be dealt with in a separate measure. I therefore rule that these two clauses must be omitted from the Bill.

Would it be in order to alter the title of the Bill so as to include the principle?

I have just stated that these clauses are outside the principle of the Bill, and should form the subject matter of a new Bill altogether. Even were the title altered the objection would not be covered.

who on rising to reply was received with Ministerial cheers, said that a great deal of time had been taken up by the discussion on his budget statement. He felt that the thinking members of the House would agree with him that there had been very little criticism of a real or substantial character. (Ministerail cheers and Opposition laughter.) Though that criticism had not been very real or very effective he would try to agree with his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg when he said that it was desirable on such an occasion that every hon. member should be allowed the fullest latitude to roam over the field of finance, and to speak on matters generally affecting the country. It would be unwise to curtail discussion. Mr. D. M. BRCWN: “Hear, hear.”) He agreed with that, but perhaps there was a stronger reason, namely, that on an occasion like that many members who had no other opportunity of voicing their grievances could seize that one to address their constituents through the newspapers. (Ministerial laughter.) Now, before he dealt with the principal criticisms which had been levelled against his Budget statement, he would like to somewhat modify the figures which he placed before the House the other day, when he explained the financial position of the country up to the end of March last. He gave then what he anticipated would be the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, and he said that the figures were merely estimates, because certain adjustments would have to be made for expenditure which would take several months, and also because all the returns for the financial year had not then been received by the Treasury. He was now in a position to tell the House, so far as the expenditure of the year just ended was concerned, that the figures which he had placed before the House a few weeks ago were substantially correct, but that so far as the revenue was concerned—for the year ended March 31—he found, now that he had the returns, that this figures were somewhat out and he thought it would be as well if he explained to the House how far those figures were out. He was glad to say that the figures were out, not against him, but in the other direction. (Ministerial cheers.) His estimate of revenue would be exceeded by the sum of very nearly £300,000, so that the surplus which he had indicated the other day of £446,000, would be converted into a surplus of roughly three quarters of a million, or, to be exact, £743,000, instead of £446,000. That was for the year that had just ended. That sum would go to the Public Debt Commissioners in conformity with the law that was passed last year, and would foe utilised for the redemption of debt. Before he passed to other matters, might he be allowed to deal with what he considered was an eminently satisfactory position of affairs The figures which he had quoted meant that since Union the Government would, together with the £743,000, have redeemed debt—Union debt—by a sum of over two and a half million sterling. He said the other day that the debt redemption during the first ten months, out of revenue balances, brought into Union by the Provinces, amounted to £1,800,000, and this further sum, taken from the period ended March 31, would bring the total to two and a half millions sterling. Hon. members would remember that this was irrespective and apart from the substantial provision made annually towards the sinking fund, and the annual contribution to the sinking fund was £625,000. Then he might be allowed to repeat that while this was taking place, while debt was being redeemed and while this contribution was being made to the sinking fund of the Union, they had succeeded in remitting revenue through the railways and other sources of taxation to the extent of about two millions sterling—that was, of course, including the £750,000.

What did he do?

I am coming to that later on. Continuing, he said that one of three ways by which his hon. friend could have achieved that result would have been by estimating his revenue at a far larger figure than he (the Treasurer) did. He might have wiped out the anticipated deficit by putting up the estimate of revenue by £670,000. But he did not think that hon. members on the other side of the House would have allowed his hon. friend to have done such a thing, because, as far as he could ascertain from what had been said in the course of the debate, his hon. friends on the other side were hopelessly divided as to what the revenue would be for the coming year. One expert who was not in his place at that time—he alluded to the hon. member for Yeoville—made no bones about what he thought of the matter. He thought that he (the Treasurer) had under-estimated the amount in budgeting for this large revenue for the coming year. He would have opposed his hon. friend, if his hon. friend had been on the Treasury benches and expounded such a scheme. It was true that the latest recruit to the ranks of the experts, the hon. member for East London, thought that the revenue estimates were £400,000 too low. He did not think, however, that this latest recruit to the army of experts and his estimate concerning the £400,000 need be taken too seriously. His hon. friend, however, did not indicate to the House the heads under which tins £400.000 would come. Another way of balancing the accounts would have been to deal with the expenditure estimate.

A member of the Opposition, or behind?

A member sitting opposite—(laughter)—and I have to thank my hon. friend opposite very sincerely, because this confirms my own view with regard to the Estimates. Proceeding, he said that in a speech made on, he thought, the Budget by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman)—his right hon. friend during the course of his Budget was criticising some figures which his predecessor in office placed before the House—he believed it was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. He did not know if the hon. member was speaking by the book—

Yes.

I shall read what he said on that occasion. It is, I think, extraordinarily appropriate to the present occasion. He said: “It is not my desire to blame the late Treasurer …” It was very curious, now, how fond some people were of starting with: “It is not my desire to blame my predecessor.” (Laughter.) He thought his right hon. friend was very fond of that: that it was not his intention to say so and so, or anything, about his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and then proceeded to say something very considerable about him: “It is not my desire to blame the late Treasurer or to discuss the matter from a party point of view, and I will only say he was singularly unfortunate, and we will look for the reason why he was. He was unfortunate because he persistently and consistently in this House over-estimated his revenue. (Laughter.) In 1903-4, a period for which my hon. friend was not responsible, the revenue was over-estimated by £1,810,000. In 1904-5, the first Estimate when my hon. friend was Treasurer, the revenue was over-estimated by the sum of £1,993,000, and in 1907-8 the revenue was over-estimated by £648,000.” In 1906-7 he over-estimated by £1,200,000; he saw his hon. friend always dealt in millions—(laughter)—and in 1907-8 he over-estimated by £1,272,000. Now, what he wanted to point out (said the right hon. member for Victoria West) was that the effect of that constant over-estimation was that it unduly swelled the revenue; naturally the Government was pressed for more expenditure by individual members, and at the end of the year they found themselves with an unintelligible deficit.

Barbary ostriches. (Laughter.)

Yes, Barbary ostriches—(laughter)—and £40,000 to the Imperial Government, a debt which was cast upon me by the previous Cape Governments. (Laughter.) I merely refer to some of the items: the printing bill, because of the Act of Union, and you cannot blame me for that; and but for these that economy of £670,000 would not have been encroached upon. There was the purchase of the Groote Schuur estate—£25,500—that, of course, I did not anticipate last year, and I met it out of my savings of last year. The hon. Minister went on to say that that was as far as expenditure from revenue was concerned, but the Treasury had further effected economies, and curtailed expenditure upon the loan account also; and that also appeared upon those figures and showed the sum of some £600,000, so that he thought that his hon. friends had been unfair and unjust towards him when they said that that mountain had only brought forth a ridiculous mouse. A “mouse” of £670,000 upon expenditure alone was a very substantial one. (Laughter and cheers.) He was also told that that volume of expenditure was still keeping up, and that for the next year his decrease only amounted to the sum of £108,000. He did not mind criticism when it was fair, but when criticism suppressed material facts which were within their knowledge, surely he was entitled to charge them with being unfair and unjust. He had made it perfectly clear, when he made his Budget statement, that that figure of £108,000 was not nearly all the saving in the amount, but that for the next year he had been called upon to meet expenditure of an extraordinary character, which he had not been called upon to meet before—

was understood to say that there had been savings also. The hon. Minister must take both sides.

He (Mr. Hull) had been called upon to make provision for £100,000 for Defence, and £95,000 in regard to the Department of the Minister of Justice, for additional police. Would any hon. member in that House tell him that there was any extravagance in the Police Vote, and that they had got too many policemen and police officers in the Service? (Hear, hear.) So far as he understood, constant appeals were made to his hon. friend the Minister of Justice from all parts of the Union still further to increase the police force. Well, the Government realised that there had been a considerable expansion, and that the additional police were necessary and they had made that provision. Pensions had gone up by £42,000, and he would deal with that later. There had also been an increased amount for the Post Office owing to expansion, so that altogether the saving on expenditure, as compared with the previous year, was not £108,000, but that plus £330,000, or a sum of nearly £450,000. (Hear, hear.)

Where does it say that?

The return that was laid on the table of the House—I shall read it—it just shows how my hon. friend rushes to conclusions. (Hear, hear.) He gets hold of one part of a case and he draws the most improper conclusions from it. Proceeding, the Minister of Finance said that the Department of Justice appeared on page 4 of the return, showing the new appointments made in the Public Service since July 1, 1910. The return stated: “Those whose names are marked with an asterisk are no longer employed.” (Ministerial cheers.) Those people who were no longer employed numbered 129. He wanted to put it to his hon. friend and his hon. friends opposite, was it fair and right to his hon. friend the Minister of Justice, or to members of the Government, to say that 226 people had been appointed when he knew from this return in his hands that 129 men were no longer employed, were merely temporary appointments, men taken on for a day or two days or a week? They were told that men had been turned off and men brought from outside into the service, and that 129 men had been brought in whose places might have been taken by the men who had been retired.

I said a certain number.

While I have been speaking, he has just discovered about these asterisks. (Ministerial cheers

I knew all about them.

He has only just discovered about it since I have been speaking.

You are wrong.

Whether he discovered it before or not, my point is still that it was the duty of my hon. friend, when he made that statement, to have said his charge was not in respect of 98 plus 123, but only in respect of 98.

I said they were temporary appointments.

said that in regard to these 129 temporary appointments, did his hon. friend seriously mean to suggest or did any hon. member opposite seriously mean to suggest that officers who were in the permanent Civil Service and who were redundant should have been asked by the Minister of Justice whether they would take a temporary job as a policeman or a warder, or a job that might last for a week or a month at 5s. a day, that they should surrender their posts and take on this job? Now he would deal with the other 99. There was plenty of time to deal with them. Well, sir, this chief sinner who was charged with putting on over 200 extra men, they found that of these, 129 had disappeared. Let them take the other 99 men. Here there was no single vestige of justification for what he said, because he had the figures to show what were the appointments made, yet he asked them to believe that 99 men were brought in whilst their places could be filled by men inside the Service.

What year do you take?

I will take no year from you.

You give pensions on the higher scale?

Yes, of course!

Then you are not saving anything.

said that the point was made very effectively, and went to show that there was not much in it either way. Another point of criticism that had been raised against him by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth was that no effort had been made to remove the inequalities that existed at the date of Union—that they were still in existence. He thought that that was a mere figure of speech. He did not think that his hon. friend could possibly have forgotten what they did last year in the way of removing inequalities, and what they proposed to do this year, and what few inequalities were left. Had he forgotten the number of inequalities that had been removed last year, the consolidation of the Mining Tax laws, and the Stamp Act? Apart from that, his hon. friend knew what was done in regard to patent medicines, cigarettes, and the removal of railway and postal anomalies. For this year they had on their list the Land Bank and the Estate Duty. The only two things that were left would be Customs and Excise, and native taxation.

And transfer duty.

One hon. member says transfer duty. Apparently he has not up to the present read the Commission’s recommendations.

Have you adopted them?

said that it was quite clear that the only two things left were Customs and Excise, and native taxation. Licences, transfer duty, and similar things were, of course, still matters that remained unequal. The Government proposed to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Financial Relations Commission, and intended to hand over these taxes to each of the Provinces. Surely his hon. friend did not expect him on the eve of these taxes being handed to the Provinces to bring in legislation by which each Province would be deprived of some of these sources of revenue. He would be at once stultifying the recommendations of the Financial Relations Commission. The charge that nothing had been done to remove these inequalities was not a charge that had any foundation. There was one other matter he wished to speak about. But he would refrain from doing so. (VOICES: “Go on.”) It was the constant cry that went up that one Province was being treated worse than another Province. He thought that the sooner they made up their minds to do away with this Provincial feeling—(Ministerial cheers)—and the sooner they refrained from dealing with railways or any other matter upon a Provincial basis, the better. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, knew as well as anyone that if one went carefully into the figures of revenue and earnings he would be the first to admit that his Province, or the Province whose interests he had most at heart, came out far better than the other three Provinces. (Ministerial cheers.)

No, he left before that.

Oh, yes. At all events his firm was closely associated with the Chamber of Mines in 1897. That is the year after the last word was said. Proceeding, he said that the Chamber of Mines appeared before the Commission and made representations to it on the bewaarplaatsen question. He wanted the House to bear in mind that the claim put forward by the hon. member was that the owners of the freehold were entitled to share to the extent of 50 per cent. in the proceeds of these bewaarplaatsen, and that if the Government did not allow owners of the freehold to share in those proceeds they would shake the credit of South Africa to its foundations. His own opinion was that neither the owners of the freehold nor the owners of the surface rights or anybody else except the State was entitled to those minerals. Prior to 1894, when the first legislation took place upon the Subject in the Transvaal, there could be no question and no shadow of doubt that the owners of the freehold had exhausted their rights. The owners of the surface rights had no rights to the minerals, and the only people entitled to the minerals were the State. However, that was beside the question. He was only concerned now with the contention that the 50 per cent. belonged to the owners of the freehold. In 1897, this was what the Chamber of Mines represented to the Industrial Commission. They said in a memorandum: “In 1891 the companies found it necessary to acquire ground at some distance from the mines for the carrying on of their operations.” In those days the companies were not in every case the owners of the freehold. “This they did by taking areas under ordinary claim licences, but as this licence gave no title to the use of the surface, bewaarplaatsen licences were also obtained. They were then advised to stop paying claim licences, as the bewaarplaats licence fully secured their rights, the Volksraad having that year passed an amendment to the Gold Law by which digging under bewaarplaatsen was prohibited, and at the same time an annexure was attached to the Gold law containing certain regulations providing that the holder of a bewaarplaats licence should have a preferent right to the minerals. In 1892, at the instance of the Government, the Volksraad again amended the law, authorising the Government, subject to certain conditions, to grant permission to mine under bewaarplaatsen and other reserved areas. The Chamber thereupon endeavoured to get a rider attached to the amendment, giving the holder of the surface rights a three months’ preferent right to take out mining rights, but did not succeed. It was currently reported that a group of speculators, cognisant of the contemplated alteration of the law, had already applied to Government for the mining rights under bewaarplaatsen, and the companies in self-protection also lodged applications. An announcement was then made that no applications sent in prior to the 1st September would be entertained, and that, in dealing with the applications, the question of preference would be a matter of careful consideration. Both the State President and the Minister of Mines gave verbal assurances that no injustice to the mining companies would be permitted. On the 1st September the companies accordingly filed new applications, but up till now their receipt had not been acknowledged, nor, within our knowledge, had they ever been considered. In 1893 the Chamber presented a memorial to the Volksraad on this subject. It was then referred to a special commission, which recommended certain further amendments to the law, one in accordance with the Chamber’s request providing that the owner or occupier of bewaarplaatsen should have a preferent right to the mining rights in question over all other applicants. The Volksraad, however, decided to defer consideration of these amendments until the next session, and to have the law, with the proposed amendments, published as a draft law.

To be fair to them, on the Volksraad’s decision, they bought out the owners.

Wait a moment. Proceeding, he said the next thing was that the war intervened. During the war the Government of the Transvaal advertised these bewaarplaatsen for sale. He did not intend to make very much point out of that, because he might be met with the answer that the war was going on, and the Republican Government was prepared to do anything to raise the wind. But the tact remained, that in February, 1900, the Republican Government offered to sell all the bewaarplaatsen, thereby showing that the Transvaal Government regarded themselves as owners of the bewaarplaatsen. (Ministerial cheers.)

What did the Commission say?

They made no recommendation as to the law at all.

We know what the Chamber of Mines says. (Laughter.)

My right hon. friend does not know what the Chamber of Mines said. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he quoted from the memorandum, and said that the Chamber of Mines in 1901-2 said—and it was closely associated with the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips) and was the trustee for the general body of claimholders on the Witwatersrand—“Cancel the old Volksraad resolutions; don’t let the proceeds go to the owners of the freehold, but to the owners of the bewaarplatsen.” (Hear, hear.) Well, he had been told the other night that if they did that, or if they did not give the proceeds to the owners of the freehold they would “create a scandal in financial circles.” Why had they not said that at the time? What was the difference? He (Mr. Hull) had only been trying to convince the House that it was utterly and entirely wrong when it was represented there that the rights were interfered with, or that any person had a right to share in these proceeds. In 1908 legislation had been introduced into the Transvaal and a law passed, of which the hon. Minister read the section dealing with bewaarplaatsen, and said that here in 1908, or 12 years after the last word had been said, according to the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips) the Parliament of the Transvaal, of which the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) was a member, passed that clause in the law under which the absolute right to sell or dispose of the bewaarplaatsen had been given to the Crown. It was true that there was another clause which said that any sum accruing to the Treasury from the rights of mining under the last preceding section of the Act should be set apart, pending the directions of Parliament. The Transvaal Parliament had therefore, first of all, stated that the right to dispose of these minerals should vest in the Crown, and the Crown might, if it liked, enter upon the property and mine itself; secondly, with regard to the area of the mineral rights in bewaarplaatsen, if the Crown disposed of them themselves, they should be kept under separate accounts, pending the directions of Parliament. Now, his point was this: if that question had been definitely settled in 1896, and the Transvaal Parliament had said that half the proceeds should go to the owner of the freehold, it would be different, but the whole question had been left an open question, and it was entirely misleading for anybody to come in that House and say that anyone had a right to share in these proceeds. The hon. Minister proceeded to quote what the Attorney-General of the Transvaal (Mr. De Villiers) had said when he introduced that law. In consequence of the statement made by Mr. De Villiers, the Government Commission presided over by Mr. Esselen was appointed. The member for Yeoville read what the findings of the Commission were the other day. They recommended that half of the proceeds should go to the owners of the freehold—(hear, hear)—and the other half should belong to the State. But, he (the Minister of Finance) said, because the Commission recommended that, it did not confer any right of any sort or title upon the owners of the freehold or upon anybody else. It was for Parliament to determine, in terms of the Transvaal law of 1908, what should become of these proceeds. (Hear, hear.)

That is our case.

Your case is that we are shaking the foundations, that if we don’t pay half of the proceeds to the owners of the freehold we shall shake the foundations of South Africa. I say it is perfectly competent for this Parliament to say: “We will adopt an entirely different basis from that of the Commission, or any basis at all.”

That is taking away a man’s property.

Where is the man’s property? I think I have shown quite clearly that the hon. member for Yeoville was entirely wrong when he said that the last word on this question was said in 1896. The question was not settled as recently as 1908, and it is not settled today, and until this Parliament directs me what I shall do with the proceeds, I believe it to be my duty, as the Treasurer of this Union, to retain the whole of the proceeds under my charge and under my control, and not disgorge or pay over one single penny of these proceeds, either to the owners of the freehold or the owners of the bewaarplaatsen. (Ministerial cheers, during which the Minister resumed his seat.)

in replying on the debate, said that this debate on the Budget had taken longer, he thought, than any debate on the Budget that he had ever known. (“No.”) There might have been some that were longer; this certainly is much longer than the last debate in the House of Commons. Recently he saw that the Budget debate in the House of Commons took three days, but then, of course, the House of Commons had only 670 members, and this House had 121. (A laugh.) They had to do with a world-wide Empire, with a revenue of about 180 to 185 millions, and this House had to do with a small population and a revenue, combining railway and general revenue, of something like 30 millions. But, then, he did not think the House of Commons had so many financial authorities—(laughter)—and in that he thought this House was to be congratulated. (Renewed laughter.) They had also developed in that House a new way of obtaining close attention to their addresses. It was the first time, he should say, that he had found that a Minister was not allowed, although the debate lasted for a week, to absent himself for a single moment, even though he were obliged to do so, without attention being drawn to it, and a threat made that the House would adjourn. (Hear, hear.) These were new manners. He ventured to say that it was a practice which might prove very inconvenient. He was not one who objected to debate or criticisms, but if the debates were unduly long, he must say that they were likely to find difficulty in getting through measures which were in the public interest—(hear, hear)—and which were necessary to be made law during the present session. After last session, hon. members who sat opposite were good enough to go about the country and say, “We are such patriots that whenever the Government were right, we supported them.” He hoped this session they might be able to go back and be able, not only to say that they helped the Government when they were right, but also that they did not take an undue time in discussing matters, frequently of minor importance, because he did not believe that in any House about 89 per cent. of the hon. members on one side of the House discussed almost every question that arose. After all, the first object of Parliament was to get through what was necessary in regard to legislation during each session. He had no objection at all to offer to the criticisms that had been levelled against the Budget that he had submitted, he meant so far as the subjects were concerned. In very many instances the matters that had been criticised were of a very trivial character, and if he did not reply to all the points raised or to all the criticisms, it would only be because many of them were of such minor importance, and the time occupied in doing so would be so great, that he should trespass, not only on the time of the House, but he would, perhaps, be wasting what was valuable time at present. Therefore, he should select matters which he thought were of some public importance, and deal with them as briefly as possible. Now, before coming to the main question which had been debated so far as the Budget submitted by him was concerned, he wished to refer to a few minor points raised by several members. He would take the items more or less in the order in which they were raised. The first point was a very small one, and was raised by his hon. friend the member for Vryheid, who thought that the railway refreshment department should show more sympathy towards the use of Colonial produce. He was very much surprised to hear that complaint, because from 80 to 90 per cent. of the articles of food and drink, etc., used were entirely South African. He wished that some of their friends, the merchants, who were always telling farmers how to conduct their business, would show a little more of the same sympathy as the Railway Department. In fact, every South African article that was good for use was used.

I only quoted the Prime Minister.

said the hon. member for Durban had referred to the question of rates in respect of soap, fertilisers, and maize. He (Mr. Sauer) was quite prepared to admit that the rate on soap was a little unusual, but it had existed for some time, and he hoped that the matter would be considered later.

Uitenhage.

No, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth.

What about Uitenhage?

Well, I heard him cheer—and I thought of the Greek orator who said when he was cheered, “What foolish thing have I said?” (Laughter.) There is hardly a platitude or a foolish thing said but what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, acting as a sort of clack, doesn’t applaud.

I cheer you sometimes. (Laughter.)

It shows how foolish you are. (Laughter.) The amusing suggestion was made to pay the men first and collect the money afterwards. He made some inquiries and he thought the contribution was a little too high. But the man who did not handle money to-day might handle it to-morrow, and men were constantly shifted from one position to another; and on all the railways he had been connected with it was the rule.

Rich and poor?

Well, I don’t know. I don’t know if any of them are very rich, and it is well known that these people are good, respectable people on fixed salaries or wages and they have no difficulty in getting credit. (Cries of “Oh!”) Proceeding, the Minister said it was not a matter on which there was any very strong feeling, and unless there was a hardship done, or serious inconvenience, he naturally did not feel like parting with £18,500. He would very much sooner give it away in additional wages than spend it where it was not necessary. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) intervened in the debate and he did not think that the psychological moment had exactly come when the question of education should have been re-opened. (Hear, hear.) But he did not think that the incursion improved matters. (Opposition cheers.) The incursion by the hon. member for Pretoria East especially. (Opposition laughter.)

We thought you meant the Minister. (Opposition laughter.)

The hon. member has always, ever since I have had the very great pleasure of knowing him, been true to the traditional habits of his country, and is always trailing his coat so that someone might tread upon it. Proceeding, he said he was not going to object and wax wroth, but he must say that he was a little surprised at the vehemence of personal and reckless character the hon. member adopted in delivering such a telling off as he said as ever man had. He said much about a promise made; a solemn promise. The hon. gentleman repeated it till it was likely to lose its effect by repetition. He did not suppose, and did not insinuate that the hon. gentleman or his friends were less likely to keep their promise than they (the Government) were. But talking of promises, what about a promise made to Mr. Chamberlain? How was it kept? and how angry people now got who were parties to the breach of that promise.

His colleagues did.

I will leave the matter there. I can well understand my hon. friend being uncomfortable. I shall leave it there for the present; but if it is opened up again I shall have a little more to say.

It is opened.

I think it was a mistake to reopen it, and I think it was an equal mistake to speak on it in the way the member for Pretoria East did.

Why didn’t you object?

We won’t tolerate it.

The member for Pretoria East, like so many others, read the farmers a lesson and made comparisons; those little comparisons comparing one country with another, losing sight of local conditions and various other matters; comparing New Zealand, where they have the finest sheep walks in the world, with the Cape—

I never mentioned it.

Well, the hon. member who sits behind, then.

Yes, try again.

But the member for Pretoria East complimented the member behind him on the excellent speech he had made, and the information he had, and said that most of what he wanted to say had already been said. (Ministerial cheers.) Really, if the hon. member knew how much I am upset by these interruptions he would let me go on. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said the hon. member gave them some comparisons. In the one place, New Zealand, they had a country one of the best sheep walks in the world. They had a regular rainfall, and various drawbacks which they had in this country they had not got there. They might just as well, say, take an equal area in the Soudan and compare it with the same area elsewhere, because that was all people seemed to think they need take—area and population. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. J. W. Jagger), was a hardened sinner in regard to figures. He gave them figures, but did not read into them. Now, in this country he did not say they had made all the progress they should have; but he would say that in the last three or four years, and even before the war, the progress made in this country, under great difficulties—drought, want of communication and transport, diseases and other things—had been very great. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member for Pretoria spoke of the under-development of the Cape. He would like him to go to the South-western Districts, and then show him where there was equal development; and he would say there was not greater development in few parts of the world than on some of the rivers in this country. (Ministerial cheers.)

Where do you make your profits?

I say that the idea has always been that the Transvaal railways pay so well because they charge such high rates, and I say the competitive area is charged a, low rate. We are told at the same time: look at the Cape. The Cape’s railway position is apparently not so satisfactory, but what is the main reason for it? Because the Cape Province lines carry South African produce at a low rate, and the Johannesburg people get the chief benefit. While we take produce cheaply to the Transvaal, and Johannesburg gets the benefit of that, we carry imported goods for them at a lower rate than anybody else, and they turn round and say: how badly we are treated; and see there is that miserable Cape. (Laughter.) If we were to charge the same rate for South African produce as we charge for imported goods, the position of the Cape would be very much better. (An HON. MEMBER: You will lose your market.)

What is the cause of your deficiency?

Do you want higher rates on farm produce? The Cape is carrying more South African produce than the rest of the Union, and the bulk of our cargo is South African produce. Johannesburg is more benefited by these low rates than any other community; and the farmer appreciates the value of the Johannesburg market. Then, as to why some of the Transvaal lines pay so well, he would like to point out that a large percentage of high rated goods was carried in the Transvaal. The profit that they made was on imported goods, and very properly so, but 45 to 50 per cent. of that came through Delagoa Bay, and the result was that the Transvaal railway made a very large profit. A good deal was carried through Durban, also at a high rate, and the result was that the Natal railway showed a good result. They carried a small amount of that through the Cape, and that was a reason why the Cape railways showed a worse financial position that the others. But let them have a uniform rate to-morrow all over South Africa, whether it was on imported or South African grown produce, and there would be a very different tale; but he did not think it would be good business for South Africa. They had got Union, though he held that whether they had Union or not they should carry South African produce at a low rate, so as to help both the consumer and the producer. As to the position of the Cape, let them take the last two years. He knew that the profits in the Transvaal were greater than elsewhere, and he knew that in Natal there was a profit, and that in the Cape for the last financial year, or the last calendar year—he was not sure which—there had been a loss of £130,000, largely due to the large amount which went to depreciation. If they took 1910, the earnings at the Cape were £3,365,000, and in 1911 they were £3,499,000, or an increase of £134,000.

What did the Majority Report consist of?

It consisted of two.

Two out of four.

Well, the majority said that theirs were the methods generally adopted. He would say that this question of piecework being introduced into shops did not originate with this Commission. The idea that the question should be considered had been long present in the minds of the Administration, but it was delayed until they had full information and the opinion of competent men, because it was a question of great magnitude. But what he would like to point out was that every member of that Commission was in favour of piecework, though all the speakers opposite carefully concealed that fact. Three of the Commissioners, after referring to the fact that this question had been twice reported upon during the past four years, once by the former Railway Commission and more recently by the committee dealing with the grading, pay and conditions of employment, stated that the conclusions they had arrived at were substantially the same and that they were in favour of piecework. Mr. Beatty had also stated that this question had received a great deal of consideration, and it seemed to him that a system of payment by results was very advantageous, as enabling a larger output of work to be obtained. He recommended that a system of piecework or a bonus system be adopted. Now they had listened for days and days to hon. members opposite, and yet they had heard nothing that these four gentlemen were all in favour of piecework. Mr. Beatty had come to see him that afternoon—he had not asked him to come—and they had discussed certain matters, and Mr. Beatty said in conversation that if they had piecework at Salt River it would be the most efficient shop in the Union. Piecework had been in force in the Cape Colony, and the reason for its abolition was that, as Mr. McEwen said, they found they were turning out so much work that they had more men than they wanted, and they did not want to turn them off.

Do you withdraw the charge?

It has been said that I put a slur on the men. I read the report made by experts, but, sir, I do not know that reading that report is necessarily casting a slur. But if some shops are more inefficient than others it is my duty to say so, and I shall say so—(Ministerial cheers)—if we think it is deserved. I do not say it is, or it is not, in this case. But are we going to be such poltroons that we dare not speak the truth? (Ministerial cheers.) Are we to he so intimidated because men have votes? (Ministerial cheers.) If I think that any shop is inefficient I shall say so. I know that this objection is partly made in order to get political capital; it is done very largely to estrange the good feelings which have existed—and which I hope will continue to exist—between the railway people and myself. If I should do anything which would separate the people with whom I have worked most agreeably—and I speak more particularly of the people at the Cape—nothing would give me greater regret than to feel that I had lost even a little measure of confidence or a large measure of their good feeling; but I shall be slow to do anything which will disturb this pleasant relationship. I hope I shall show that I shall be as good a friend in the future as I have been in the past.

Will you take the opinion of the men?

I have never refused to hear them. (Ministerial cheers.) If they wish to approach me and lay their case before me I shall give it full consideration. I shall take no step in the matter before they have ample opportunity of voicing their view. Continuing, he said there was only one more question he wished to deal with. He had been told that, rather by inference than otherwise, he said it was proposed to take away the political rights of the railway employees in Natal. He had never said that. What he had said, and said again, was that the men in Natal should enjoy the same rights as the others, and any rights they had in excess of those enjoyed by the men employed in the Cape and Northern sections, and by the Civil Servants would be abrogated from them. Their ordinary political rights would be enjoyed by them just the same. In reply to the hon. member for Maritzburg, who spoke about recognising the men’s Union, would they let him say at once that he had no objection to the Union per se. He had no objection to railwaymen or workmen seeking to get their rights, or seeking to get a minimum wage. He entirely shared the view that in the past the division of profits between the employer and the employee had not been on the side of the employee, who was perfectly within his right to try to improve his position. But when they told him that he must recognise the Union that did not consist of half the people in the Service—

Oh, yes.

It is only 40 or 45 per cent.

Who told you that?

The Administration told me, and I believe them. The Union does not comprise all the men, nor even a majority. More than one man on the railway had said: Save me from the Union. (Labour cries of “No,” and Ministerial cheers.) Proceeding, he said that even a minority had rights, and why should he take cognisance of a body that could not speak for all, and ignore the others?

Hear them as well.

The Union wished to speak for the whole Service. He was going to leave it perfectly free, and would endeavour to let the men understand that whether they joined the Union or no it would be all the same, and they would enjoy the same privileges. It was all very well for the officials of the Union to take up this attitude, but let him tell the House that he knew what was going on in the railway. Many people did not favour the Union, and preferred to remain outside it—(hear, hear)—and he was bound to regard the feelings of those people. He would treat union men and non-union men alike, fairly and justly—(Ministerial cheers)—and he would take no step that would coerce any man to join that body. (Ministerial cheers.)

On a point of order, will the Minister lay on the table—

No; that isn’t a point of order.

The Minister—(Loud cries of “Order.”)

The hon. member must resume his seat. He has already spoken. (Further cries of “Order.”)

said that he did not intend to speak at any length. He wished only to ask the question that the hon. member for Jeppe had been prevented from asking. Would the Minister be good enough to lay on the table the whole of the report from which he quoted?

The Minister has replied, and cannot reply further.

I am not asking him to reply. (Ministerial cries of “Order.”)

The motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates was agreed to, Wednesday being the day fixed.

Before proceeding, sir, I want a ruling. A few days ago, I asked you whether—(Cries of “Order.”)

There is nothing before the House for a ruling. Does the hon. member rise to a point of order?

I do.

What is the point of order?

The point of order on which I wish your direction is this. A few days ago I asked you, sir, to direct that certain papers should be laid on the table. I was then informed that too long a period had elapsed since the incident to which I had referred, and my application to you is to order these papers to be laid on the table. A few minutes ago I wished to ask whether the Minister would lay certain papers from which he quoted on the table, and I was not allowed then to do so I want to know precisely the right moment when I can ask that these papers be laid on the table.

I am not prepared to give a ruling as the question does not arise now.

When can I bring it up?

The hon. member can give notice

Can I ask now that the papers be laid on the table? (Cries of “Order.”)

No, the hon. member is out of order.

moved the following amendments: In line 30, after “may,” to add, with the approval of Parliament first obtained”; and in line 33 to delete “exclusively” and to add a new sub-section (5) as follows: “A report containing a list of all applications received, and all applications accepted and rejected, shall annually within one month of the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament be laid on the tables of both Houses.”

said he did not think that the hon. member was securing his object. He hoped that his hon. friend would not move the end of the amendment, but embody it in another clause. He sympathised with the first part of the amendment, and would support it.

said he thought it a distinct advantage that the House should have full particulars, but could not understand the Minister supporting the first part of the amendment. He was surprised at the attitude taken up by the Minister, because in committee the Minister of Lands accepted the proposal as it stood.

said that the clause was drawn up by the Minister and placed in the Bill.

said that he could not see that the amendment made any great difference, and he hoped it would not give rise to two discussions instead of one.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

withdrew the new sub-section.

said that now an hon. member on the Ministerialist side introduced an amendment which altered the tenour of the whole section

How?

I will tell you why. The hon. member went on to say that as regarded its effect on the practical working of the Bill, it seemed to him the amendment would make all the difference in the world. It was now proposed that no applications from oversea shall be invited, except with the express approval of Parliament. That meant that, in spite of the fact that the Bill gave Government the power to invite applications, that power was only to be exercised in favour of applicants on this side; and that for applicants from oversea fresh legislative sanction had to be obtained. Well, that rendered the section perfectly useless. He thought it was perfectly obvious that it would nullify the whole policy that was contained in this section, and that was a policy on which they on that side of the House had laid great stress. He did not want to go into details, but it was perfectly well known in the House that leading members of the Government had identified themselves with that policy. The Prime Minister identified himself with it in speeches delivered in London, and the Minister of the Interior strongly in speeches delivered up-country, and now that a concrete proposal was brought forward, they had members on the Government side bringing forward amendments that would nullify the idea, and Ministers getting up and telling them they should accept them, because they would have no effect on the section. That was a policy they could not support. (Opposition cheers.)

said he failed to understand the reasoning of the hon. member opposite, and failed to understand by what process of reasoning he came to the conclusion that the amendment was going to nullify the effect of the section. He would have thought that hon. members opposite would welcome this amendment. (Opposition laughter.) His hon. friend the Minister of Lands would come to Parliament next year—he would suppose—and asked for £100,000 to be devoted to buying up land for distribution among settlers. Parliament voted that money. If that money was voted, as the section now stood, it would be competent for his hon. friend to say: “I am not going to devote a single penny of that money to South Africans. I want to favour a policy of land settlement from abroad. I am not going to give a single holding to a South African; but the sum I am going to devote to settlers from abroad, and I am going to send all these lots to England or Europe to be allotted.” What did the amendment say? Under it—and he would have thought the hon. members opposite would welcome this policy more than hon. members on his side—the Minister of Lands would ask for £100,000, and in asking for that sum of money to be devoted to land settlement, he would have to say: “I am going to devote £5,000 or £10,000 to be allotted abroad.” As the result of that the House would have the fullest information so as to be able to shape the policy of the Government. He would have thought hon. members opposite, who favoured land settlement, would welcome this, as otherwise the Minister would be able to devote the whole of the £100,000 either to applicants from abroad or here, and the House would be none the wiser. The advantage of the amendment was that when the House was asked for money it would know exactly what were the intentions of the Government. Parliament should be able to criticise the policy in advance. The proper thing was when the Minister asked Parliament for money for land settlement, he should state, for the approval of Parliament, how much was to be devoted to settlers in this country, and how much to settlers from abroad. He thought the fears of hon. members opposite were entirely groundless. It was most unfortunate that they should start with the assumption that the object of the amendment was to kill land settlement from abroad.

said that when the Minister of the Interior asked the Opposition why they were so distrustful, he (Mr. Duncan) would remind him of what was said a few days ago by the mover of the amendment, namely that if he had thought that a clause of that kind was to be put into the Bill he would not have voted for the second reading, and that so long as a single Afrikander wanted land, not a single person should be brought from abroad.

I never used the word “Afrikander,” but white persons.

I did not use the word “Afrikander” in a racial spirit. But is that not enough to make us wonder whether the amendment is to further the object we have at heart? We think this amendment is intended to affect the whole meaning of the section. Proceeding, Mr. Duncan said that the Minister had stated that the amendment would extend Parliamentary control but he (Mr. Duncan) trusted that the Minister would have to show how the money was to be spent in any case. If they must come to Parliament anyhow for money, why put the section in? (Opposition cheers.) The Opposition had no doubt as to what the intention of the amendment was. If Parliament wanted to consider the principle of giving land to settlers from oversea, let Parliament consider it now. The question was before Parliament now, and if Parliament were against that principle, they would rather it said so now. (Opposition cheers.) But if Parliament were not against that principle, why put in the amendment? He did not take the optimistic view of the amendment that the Minister of the Interior did. They had heard views during some days past upon this clause, and that it seemed to be taking away the inheritance of the children of the country. Surely this land was not the inheritance of the people who were living here only. Where would the hon. members be now if this policy had been applied in the early days of South Africa.

It seemed to him that they were saying to the whole world “we are the chosen people.” No wonder that anyone hearing such statements would say that the progress of the country was delayed. Because of the few people that were here they wanted to divide up the land of the country and prevent others from making good use of it. He regretted that the Minister of the Interior had given up his views, because of the people who were behind him. As far as he was concerned he had no objection to the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Standerton. They would not say that the people who belonged to the country should not have the first chance, but they did not want to shut out people from oversea. He could only come to the conclusion that the power in this section would never be used, unless the hon. member for Ficksburg modified his views. (Opposition cheers.)

said that they respected the opinions of hon. members on the opposite side, and he hoped that they, on their side, would respect the opinions of members on the Government side. The Select Committee had gone and put an altogether new clause into the Bill, and he could not be expected to accept it without some consideration. They had no objection to people coming into that country from Europe, and they were quite free to come in, but it was quite a different matter when they said that the Government must assist them with money belonging to the State. The idea of the Opposition, no doubt, was to get more people into the country who would be their political supporters—(hear, hear)—and he was not going to help them in that.

said they had all come to the conclusion that the Minister of Lands wished to bring forward a decent Land Settlement Bill for South Africa. They had worked with him in committee and the clause was actually drafted by the Minister.

With the consent of the Government?

Of course, with the consent of the Government. Now, the Minister of the Interior comes to the House and explains an amendment which wholly alters the Bill. Do we understand that the Minister of Land agrees to that? Would it not be better if he said that he had altered his mind. Continuing, the hon. member said that the Minister of Lands’ colleague, the Minister of the Interior, had quite enough upon his own shoulders. What would he say if the Minister of Lands were to alter his Defence Bill? The increase of the native population was at nearly double the rate of the increase of the white population in the Free State. (An HON. MEMBER: “There is no danger.”) When the voortrekkers first went to the Free State there were no blacks there at all. Hon. members opposite looked at the matter from the view-point of their present convenience. With the Irishman they exclaimed: “What have we to do with posterity! What have they done for us?” They were asked to completely nullify the effect of this clause by the amendment. They were showing their teeth. Without a better explanation from the Minister they were bound to think that he was in the know as to the alteration, and was shielding himself behind the hon. member.

said it appeared to him the Opposition thought they were the only people who loved South Africa. The last speaker alleged that hon. members on the Government side of the House did not think of the future, but only took account of present advantages, and were therefore lacking in true love of the country. But on his side of the House there were men who were a hundred times more devoted to their country than was the hon. member for Weenen, who was about the last person who should make them such a reproach. He believed the hon. members on his side knew South Africa more than the hon. member for Weenen did—(hear, hear)—and they were not opposed to immigration, and hon. members opposite had continually girded at the Government, both this session and last, for spending money without the authority of Parliament, and yet they now raised opposition to the provision in the amendment, whereby the sanction of Parliament had first to be obtained for spending money. He could not understand such an attitude. The amendment was necessary, as the Minister was thereby compelled to show how he proposed to spend the money. It was said they wanted immigrants in order to improve the relative proportions of whites to blacks. In 1840 the disproportion would have been even more to the disadvantage of the whites, and yet the whites continued to exist. (Ministerial cheers.) He agreed that it was wise that they should increase the number of whites, but it should not be used as an argument in favour of immigration with State help.

did not think that the hon. member for Weenen had been quite fair to the hon. gentleman. He thought that after the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior—who, he was sure, loved South Africa as well as the hon. member for Ermelo and himself—that the right hon. gentleman had no course left open but to carry out what these gentlemen, in their capacity outside the House, had given to the world, namely, that through affection for the welfare of South Africa, we should increase our white population, and as we could not do that sufficiently from within, we should encourage immigration from without. He thought that when the Minister proposed this clause he was honestly carrying out what his leader had publicly expressed his conviction in favour of. But, since then, a change had come over the scene, and it had become pretty evident that that clause was not going to be carried. The hon. gentlemen opposite were up in arms, and there was no need to make a mystery of it: they were opposed to immigration from abroad. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) Perhaps he might be able to convince the hon. member for Ermelo of the erroneous basis on which he had built his remarks. He put it to the House that a change had come over the scene, and that a number of the supporters of the right hon. gentleman who introduced this clause were not in favour of it, and were not going to carry it. It therefore became necessary for the Ministry to save its face. (Sir T. SMARTT: “Hear, hear.”) Those of them who had some experience of Parliamentary practice knew how it became necessary for a Ministry to save its face. (Laughter.) Consequently, the Minister of the Interior got up, and of all the specious special pleading—(laughter)—that touched the fringe of the question and left out the substance, he had never heard a better example. (Laughter.) If the hon. member for Ermelo would give him his ear, he would show how utterly specious and unfounded was the plausible statement made by the Minister of the Interior.

If Parliament were asked by the Minister of Lands for money to buy holdings, the point taken by the hon. member for Ermelo (General T. Smuts) was that Parliament ought to know whether those holdings were for men from oversea or for men in this country. The Minister was not bound to come to Parliament for one penny, provided that there were Crown lands belonging to the Government which might be allotted for holdings, and provided that the Government had got lands of its own, which it might exchange privately for lands which would be suitable for holdings. The hon. member for Ermelo understood that, because he had said that he was in favour of immigration from oversea, provided it did not cost anything. (General T. SMUTS: “Oh. no. no,” and laughter.) He had gone on to say that if the money had to be voted by the House for immigration from oversea, it was only right for the House to know’ what money was to be voted for that purpose. What became of the argument of the Minister of the Interior that the new amendment only meant coming for money? It meant, of course, absolutely nothing of the sort. Government need not come to Parliament for a single penny. Therefore it was absolutely incorrect, to say the least of it, to imagine that that amendment, which said that the Minister might only with the approval of Parliament allot holdings to immigrants from oversea, meant only that you must come to Parliament for money—because it did not mean that. The meaning of the amendment was that you would have to come to Parliament, and that the Ministry would not be able to allot a single acre of ground to an immigrant from oversea without taking a vote of that House and setting the whole of the machinery of the Union Parliament in motion. Therefore, it was quite erroneous to say that the vote for money was an essential part of that amendment. It was not. If that was encouraging immigration, it was a most extraordinary way of doing it. (Opposition cheers.) Either they meant to assist immigration, or they did not—it might be a good thing or it might be a bad thing—but if they adopted the policy which had been laid down by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, was any man of sense going to say that every acre you were going to allot to an immigrant from oversea was to be voted upon by that Parliament? It was a farce, and it meant that no man was going to come in from abroad.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had got into such a way of using superlatives that one was almost afraid to reply for fear of again raising his ire. (A laugh.) If the hon. member would do him the justice—that clause had not originated with him, but with an hon. member who was not present just now—

You accepted it in the committee.

was understood to say that he had, and he was not escaping the responsibility. (Hear, hear.) He had been, and was still, for the clause as it stood, with any reasonable emendation which could be made to make it clearer. (Opposition laughter.) In dealing with that question preference should be given to those who were in the country, and provided that there was a sufficient number in the country of the right quality they need not go hunting outside—and they all admitted that that had been said by everybody. The clause, as it stood, had engendered doubts in the minds of those who sat behind him that there was no guarantee that it might not be use d in the “opposite” direction, and that preference might be given to those of other countries. Preference should be given to those who were here. He maintained that one could not guarantee it by putting in a percentage which might be, or seem, a fair one to-day, but in a few years’ time too small for the requirements of the country.

He did not think that the committee should tie this down to a question of percentage. They wanted any assurance, and surely hon. members who were not prejudiced members, were entitled to ask for that? Let them give these hon. gentlemen that assurance. They wanted to deal with it in such a way that the person in South Africa would have the preference. In some respects it was a question of money, and they said: “Don’t come and tell us what you have done when we have not got the control.” Hon. members on his side wanted to be certain that the circumstances with which they had to deal would be fully considered. This law would be on the Statute book for a long time, and they did not want to see the stable door shut after the steed had gone. He (the Minister) did want to see new blood introduced into this country. He did want to see quality introduced into this country and they had to reckon at the same time with the circumstances of the country. He said they should give hon. members the information beforehand to which they were entitled. Why should they deny the principle of going to Parliament? He thought they should give the article a fair trial and not judge after the event had happened. This suspicion on both sides was ill founded.

I am extremely sorry for my right hon. friend —

Thanks. (Laughter.)

I will tell my right hon. friend why, and I think that many hon. members will agree with me. I have never seen a Minister subjected to such indignity by one of his own colleagues as the Minister of Lands has been subjected by the Minister of the Interior, the reason being, no doubt, that my hon. friend the Minister for the Interior’s argument was so subtle that he thought it would be impossible of interpretation by the Minister of Lands. Continuing, he said that the Minister of the Interior, despite what happened before the dinner interval, had not shown very much interest in the matter. The Minister of Lands piloted this Bill through the second reading and into the hands of a Select Committee, and he found on page fifteen of that committee’s report that the Chairman moved—why the Chairman moved it he did not know—a new clause embodying the suggestions that had been brought forward because he found them so good. Now the Government was being dragooned into an entirely different policy, and it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. He regretted that his right hon. friend the Prime Minister was not in the House to give them his definite policy on immigration and land settlement. He understood that the Prime Minister was in the building at the present time, and he would be obliged if one of his colleagues would send for him in order that the House might obtain from him a statement of policy in regard to this land settlement scheme. Either the Government was in favour of encouraging immigration, either the Government was in favour of that policy enunciated by the Prime Minister in England, or the Government was in favour of the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister when, yielding to pressure, he went to Losberg and repudiated every word of what he had said in England. (Cries of “No, no,” “Nonsense,” and Ministerial laughter.) Hon. members on the other side might laugh. Would one of his hon. friends send for the Prime Minister? His hon. friends laughed. It was a serious thing when the House was not in a position to get a straightforward exposition of the policy of the Government on this subject.

The hon. member said they were. He believed two members of the Government honestly were in favour of it—the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior—but their favour was useless when they were afraid to carry out the policy of which they were in favour. (Opposition cheers.) He did not know why the Prime Minister was absent. He sympathised exceedingly with the hon. member for Ficksburg. He was honest enough to get up in the House and say that he believed in the policy that was enunciated by the Minister of Lands before his instantaneous conversion in the committee-room the other day, and in the policy enunciated by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Lands said some short time ago, while the Prime Minister was in England—he would contradict him if he was incorrect—that to introduce set tiers into this country before every white person in it was settled on the land, would be a sin. He may have said a crime; but at Smithfield he said a sin. But what did the Prime Minister say in London?

We know.

You know it, and it is because my hon. friend knows it that he thinks it is necessary to move this amendment to make it impossible for my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to carry out that policy. I understand it thoroughly; but I want the House and the country to thoroughly understand the position in which we find ourselves. The Prime Minister in London said on May 27th—there have been great changes since then. He said: “We have a very large country in South Africa—”

So we have.

Right, and we want ‘to fill it up with suitable people to develop it; and you want to prevent it. Let us be perfectly clear upon the position. It is perfectly justifiable for hon. members to hold different views from me, and to advocate that position. I am not disputing so much with them; but I say you have a certain section of people in this country who won’t allow you to know what their opinions are. It is not the position of my hon. friend who honestly speaks out and tells us his position; but it was the position of the Minister of Justice who speaks at different places with a different voice. The Prime Minister said in London: “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. In assisting people to immigrate to our part of the Empire we ask you to send your very best men. (Loud cheers.) We have any amount of room for a large population in our country. Those men who began to establish the policy of liberty in South Africa may die, but the fruits of that policy will live for ever, and that will continually bring South Africa closer to the Mother Country.”

Proceeding, Sir Thomas said he had to cheer the Prime Minister himself, because he believed those sentiments were genuine; but he was also beginning to think he was living in an atmosphere of make-believe. (Opposition cheers.)

At the Imperial Conference there was a very interesting debate, at which the Prime Minister spoke, and he would commend it to the hon. member for Ficksburg. He said “Now, I am very much in favour of supporting emigration to South Africa.”

Hear, hear

Well, I wish my hon. friend and other people who think with them would give us some tangible expression of their favour by voting for this clause and not voting for the amendment, which makes it entirely inoperative. The Prime Minister, proceeding, “But there I do not want men who will be idle in the streets; I want agriculturists, and for that class I am prepared to spend money, and I hope, if we get over this difficulty we have with the Union-Castle Company and get that settled, to make provisions to support our immigration scheme, because we are in favour of it, and we are going co encourage it to a very large extent. But, at the same time, I think we shall have to be very careful in bringing in or trying to bring in the best and the right men to South Africa. Unless we are careful it will be a hopeless failure and a great drawback to us in South Africa. Everything, therefore, depends solely upon the selection of the men.”

Well, proceeded Sir Thomas, he would ask hon. members on that side of the House if anything could be more plainly stated in favour of the duty of the Government to arrange for immigration into this country of immigrants suitable for agriculture, than the statement made by the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference in London last year. Had his hon. friend read the Bill? Did he know that under this clause immigrants who would be assisted to come into South Africa would be carefully selected in England? It was a most regrettable thing that hon. members on that side of the House differed from hon. members on this side with regard to the advisability or not of introducing immigrants into this country. What he did say was that the attitude of the Government—in one place they said one thing and in another they said another thing, whereby the people of this country had no real idea of the policy of the Government. (Opposition cheers.) He thought that those who had sat in this House and seen how the pressure of the back-benches on the Government prevailed, knew full well, no matter what their intentions were, their policy was a policy of maintaining the votes of these gentlemen behind them Well, it was not a very high-minded position to behold. It was pitiable. The Minister of Railways and Harbours smiled. Surely it was the duty of the Government to lead the House? Surely it was the duty of the Minister of Lands, after accepting this clause in the Bill, not to be dictated to by the hon. member for Ficksburg; but to tell him that this was the confirmed and thought out policy of the Government, and if the hon. member and his friends did not like it they had their opportunity in this House of voting against it. (Opposition cheers.) Surely the House was not going to expect that the Government was going to run away from its own policy, and—worse than that—to have speeches of the Minister of the Interior giving the idea that the Government was in favour of oversea immigration, when it must have given assurances to hon. members on the Government benches that if the amendment were carried it would make the Bill absolutely useless. (On-position cheers.)

saw nothing absurd in the amendment. The speeches which had been made by the Prime Minister were not in conflict with the object of the amendment. It was untrue that the Minister of Justice had described immigration as a crime. That was a half truth, and therefore worse than a lie. What the Minister had said was that immigration at the cost of the State was a crime. He (the speaker) was astonished that the Opposition was willing to place so much power in the hands of the Minister of Lands, seeing that in the debate on the Irrigation Bill they were unwilling to give him any power at all.

said that whether the amendment was carried or not, he did not think it was going to make a particle of difference to the amount of immigration that there would be. Whether they put in the amendment or not, they, on the cross-benches, did not believe it was going to make any real difference, for no immigration was ever brought about by measures mainly destined to induce the immigration of persons with capital. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Ficksburg had conveyed the impression of being frightfully nervous about anyone coming into the country. (Hear, hear, and “No, no.”) They entirely sympathised with the view that it was not right to take the children’s bread and cast it to people from outside. That view was very closely akin with the feeling which prevented hon. members on the Government benches from really facing the land question in this country. When they saw a large number of men born in this country gradually being driven out of agricultural pursuits into the towns, they said that the same process which made it difficult for these men to exist on the land was going to make it equally difficult for immigrants to exist on the land. If hon. members opposite would bring some of their patriotism to bear in considering the circumstances of their own countrymen who were becoming more and more landless, the same measures they would take to cure these evils would be the same measures that would bring about a natural stream of immigration that was desired. Convinced as he was that the main reason of this amendment had its rise in the old feeling that no one outside the country should come in—(loud Opposition cries of “No”)—he would oppose it.

said he was a member of the Select Committee which sat on the Bill. It was not the Minister of Lands who introduced the suggestion first, but when it was introduced he accepted it without an objection, and said that he would see that the idea was put into proper form. Later on the Minister moved that very clause. What was the use of having a Select Committee and having a clause accepted by the Minister, only to find when the matter came before the House that he went back on it? (Hear, hear.) They believed that the Minister in bringing forward this clause brought it forward with the full consent of his colleagues, and that he would do his best to see it through. What were they to expect from this manoeuvre? He was one of those who read the speeches of the Prime Minister in connection with this question, and many people in Natal believed that he meant what he said, and they meant to stand by him. Why was the Prime Minister not there just then to stand by and defend his action? As already had been pointed out, this amendment was to prevent people from coming to South Africa. Why had they not come forward and said they wanted to have the clause deleted? Anyone would see who had studied the Bill that it was intended mainly for people already in South Africa, and this clause was the only one in it providing for the settlement of immigrants from oversea. It was only a permissive clause, and the Minister was not bound to take action under this clause, but the Government could work upon the clause if they wanted. According to a statement the Government had 50,000,000 acres of land, much of which could be used for settlement, and they would not need to use the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg at all. After all it was well that they knew the policy of the Government, and that there was no further need for misunderstanding. If this clause were not passed, then they would understand the policy of the Government. (Opposition cheers.) He welcomed the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg, because they knew now what was intended. Taking for granted that this was the position, he thought members on the other side were very short-sighted. If they looked to the future of the country, how could it possibly go ahead if they did not encourage immigration? If they took the whole of the Union population, they would find that the black population was increasing four and a half times faster than the white. How were they to counteract that? Last year it would be remembered the Senate appointed a committee to inquire into this very matter.

They stated in their report that the presence of a large coloured population in South Africa was an outstanding factor in the consideration of closer settlement. Whilst it afforded a cheap and very good supply of farm labour, under such conditions unskilled white labour could not be economically settled in South Africa. In the best interests of the Union, the committee considered that the ranks of the settlers should be supplemented by settlers from oversea. It seemed undoubted from the evidence (they continued) that the chances of individual prosperity would be far greater by the addition of fresh settlers from oversea The interchange of ideas would be beneficial, and the promotion of individual friendship between members of the different races would be a national gain. The committee went on to state that they believed if there was an organised and earnest system of land settlement, these requirements would be met, and recommended that while this was being provided for, steps should be at once taken to organise the introduction of reliable settlers. It seemed to him that there could be nothing clearer than that. The committee had been comprised of Senators on both sides, representing both races, and they were agreed on that point. Any hon. member who cared to go through the evidence would find the opinion running throughout that the country required settlers from outside. He earnestly asked hon. members opposite to be careful in connection with this matter. They should not let the impression go abroad, beyond the House and beyond South Africa, that the people of South Africa did not want settlers from oversea, and that they wished to keep this country a close preserve for the people at present in it, and that they wished things to remain as they were. Under those conditions, they were bound to go back. He thought this a very important subject. He was not sorry that it had come before the House. The sooner it was decided one way or the other the better. (Opposition cheers.)

said it appeared to be the opinion of the Opposition that they on the Government side of the House were entirely opposed to immigration. That was not the case. He (the speaker) was not opposed to immigration, but it ought to be placed on a proper basis, and should not be allowed to degenerate into a sort of speculation. They wanted more help in South Africa to cultivate the land, but it was their duty in the first place to help those who were already here That policy had always been preached by the Prime Minister. The speaker was not afraid of immigration, nor of immigrants from oversea becoming landowners here, and it was improper continually to reproach back bench members with being opposed to the whole policy of immigration. Immigration was one of the planks in their political platform. Hon. members on the cross-benches were always talking about a land tax and such like proposals, but in his (the speaker’s) opinion it was not the right thing to import newcomers at the cost of the State. He could not understand why they should not be prudent in such a matter, and that was the object of the amendment.

said there was one point which hon. members on that side of the House, at all events, should consider in all seriousness. It had been the policy, since the Union Parliament was started, for the Government when it brought before the House a matter which concerned the interests and was in the best interests of the country—it had been the custom of the Government to suggest to his (the speaker’s) side of the House that such a measure should go to a Select Committee. That was done in this case. The point was that this clause was introduced into and passed by the Select Committee which was appointed, and they had it from the Minister of Lands that he himself was responsible for the introduction of this very clause. The moral which they had to draw from this experience was that in the future hon. members on his side of the House must be very careful about what they did, and not be so eager to help the Government over stiles. It had proved a complete let-down on hon. members on that side of the House, and Government had gone back on what they had done in the committee. It was pitiful to see the attitude which had been taken up by the Minister of the Interior, and he (the speaker) would like to see the Minister of the Interior on his (the speaker’s) side of the House and hear what criticism he would have brought forward on such a subject. His argument was that this was a safeguard against the rash action of a Minister who might devote all the land at his disposal to settlers who came from over the seas. He could hardly understand the position of the Ministers; it was the most extraordinary position he had ever heard of in any Parliament. He had a good suspicion why his hon. friend the Minister of the Interior had come forward in an attempt to save the Minister of Lands from the consequences of his rash act when the Bill was before the Select Committee.

He thought the time had come when the country realised that the policy of oversea immigration enunciated by members of the Government was mockery and mere farce. He thought that the Prime Minister believed that the salvation of South Africa lay in the introduction of new blood, but he was not allowed by his followers to enforce his views on this important subject. It was futile for the Minister of the Interior to tell them what was meant by the amendment which had been tabled, in the face of speeches which he had made from time to time in that House. The time for words had gone past. He would point out to his hon. friend the member for Vrededorp that he was not now standing on an election platform of that place. He was not on the platform at Vrededorp making promises; but was in the House of Assembly at Cape Town, where he should carry the promises out. He asked the hon. member to fulfil the promises which he had made on the platform at Vrededorp. If they required a million acres of land; if it was necessary to borrow a million to buy land for first settlers who were in the country, then they ought to borrow another five millions to settle people who came from overseas. It did not matter so much from what part of the world these settlers were imported so long as they were good settlers. He would not be opposed to the introduction of settlers from North Germany, and they could get excellent settlers from Denmark. If they could get good settlers from these countries why should they not get them? He did believe that if they encouraged immigration from overseas and spent money, therein would lie the salvation of the country. If the committee passed this amendment, then he (the speaker) would be in favour of the deletion of the whole clause. The clause would be absurd if the amendment were inserted. Why should they insert something into the Bill saying that legislation for legislation could be passed by Parliament in the future, when all they need do was to tell the Minister to bring in such a measure. There was no point in it. There was no necessity for it. He thought that the time was passed when the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government could throw dust in the eyes of the people of South Africa, and he was delighted at the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Durban. The warning had been given the Government that the time for throwing dust in the eyes of the people was past. People were beginning to realise that the speeches of the Prime Minister on the subject were merely oracular. They knew these speeches meant nothing.

expressed his regret that the business of his Department had prevented him from being present at the debate from the beginning, as he would have liked to hear the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. He (the Minister) had never misled anybody and never would mislead anybody, least of all he British people. What he had stated in England, and what he had stated in South Africa, he intended to repeat. It was the truth. If the amendment were agreed to, it would be much easier for him to give effect to what he had said. He had been accused of breaking his cord, and it had been said that South Africa could now see what the speaker’s real object was. Such speeches were not intended to assist in obtaining immigrants for the country nor to help to advance the good of the country, but there was something behind it all. What they wanted was to have more men who would vote for the Opposition. (Hear, hear.)

You do not get voters from Den mark.

The amendment was honestly intended to settle a difficult matter. It was well known that public opinion in South Africa was divided on the question of immigration, a large proportion of the people being opposed to it. The clause as amended would accordingly give Parliament complete power to supervise immigration, and it was so drafted that the question could be discussed every year. The Opposition could introduce a motion year after year to compel the Government to disclose its plans in this particular, and if the amendment were accepted the members of that House would be responsible for the carrying out of the immigration scheme. If the clause were left unamended, the Minister might either spend too much money on immigration, or refrain from exercising his powers, and they could never compel the Minister to exercise them. They should not make a political matter of it. His position was made sufficiently difficult already by speeches from some members of the Opposition. When he had declared that before he would support a scheme of State immigration, the tens of thousands of poor whites already in the country ought to be dealt with, some hon. members opposite had at once declared that those poor whites were already proved failures, and that it would be useless to put them back on the land. Those speeches had frightened the public, who had afterwards expressed themselves against immigration. If the Opposition were sincere in the matter, they ought to help him in his work. He regretted that he had not heard the rather sharp speech which had been made by the hon. member for Fordsburg. In a question of settlements they must think not only of the land, but also of the industries. If they wanted a big white population in this country, they must deal with the question not only of importing farmers, but also of workmen for the different factories and industries. It surely was not the intention that immigration should ruin the farmers. Why did not the hon. member for Fordsburg, when he was in power, adopt an immigration policy? All he did was to import 50,000 Chinamen. Why not 50,000 whites? (Hear, hear.) If there were more workmen required, he would be willing to co-operate in importing them. If the hon. member for Fordsburg could persuade his friends to employ fewer Kafirs and to employ more whites, then they could do justice to a policy of immigration. In that case no legislation would be necessary. The people would come of themselves if there was work for them to do. When he (the speaker) discussed the question of immigration he had no other object in view than honourable objects, and the acceptance of the amendment before the committee would assist him. At present they were going in a wrong direction. The Select Committee of the Senate had recommended immigration, but had added that in the matter of settlements preference should be given to those people who were already living in South Africa. That was exactly what the amendment intended. If the clause proved to be practicable they might put a large sum next year at the service of immigration. He was bound to admit that he could not agree with everything which had been said in the House against immigration, but it was a fact that a large portion of the people were opposed to it, and if anything in the nature of compulsion were attempted the matter would certainly not be made any easier. It was impossible to bring forward any valid reason against giving to Parliament a power of supervision. He was a supporter of immigration, but not such as was proposed in the new clause. It was intended by that clause to allocate certain pieces of ground exclusively to immigrants, but such a scheme was bound to miscarry. If they wanted a scheme of immigration to succeed, they must mingle the newcomers amongst the present inhabitants. If ground for settlement were purchased, it would be necessary to make certain parts available for immigrants, and the following year he could point out the available ground to Parliament. His party were entirely in favour of immigration, but they were not disposed to make a failure of it. Mr. Birrell had reported in England on the subject of immigration, and had stated that only a few of the farmers were willing to emigrate, yet those were exactly the people who were wanted in South Africa. It would also be desirable to obtain people from America who were skilled in the culture of tobacco and cotton. If the clause remained unamended, the speaker feared they would have not a single immigrant. The amended clause would facilitate immigration under the supervision of Parliament. Surely they were not afraid of Parliament?

Why wait another year?

Now he has let the cat out of the bag. (Laughter.) They could not begin immediately with immigration, but must first help the people already in the country. There would certainly be no beginning of immigration even in the following year. (Applause.)

said that what he understood his right hon. friend to say was, that the attitude of the Opposition upon this poor white question had frightened his supporters upon the Government side of the House. Well, he would disabuse his mind of that feeling, because they on that side had done the most to make the settlement at Kakamas what it was to-day. (Ministerial dissent.) They would always find them friendly on that side of the House to this sort of idea of restoring people in the country to the soil. The right hon. gentleman said they wanted to get people to come to the country and vote for them, but he would say this, that the party the Prime Minister represented was likely to get just as much support from these settlers as they were. He would go into the question of the law if this clause was passed. In Natal, an Act of 1897 gave special permission to the Minister to declare any of the Crown lands to be available for settlement by Europeans only, at such prices to be fixed, the implication being that they might be offered for oversea settlement. The Prime Minister was not in the House when the hon. member for the Harbour Division (Sir H. Juta) stated that they could not put a single oversea settler into the country unless they came to Parliament. Now, he wanted to point out that although the preamble to the Bill stated, in the first clause, that the Act shall be considered as an addition to and not in substitution of any other Act that had been passed, nevertheless, it was in absolute conflict with the law of Natal, because the latest Act would prevail where there was a conflict. This amendment was certainly going to put up a barrier against immigration, and he hoped the Right Hon. the Prime Minister would think twice before he voted for it.

The question now was whether they had a stated policy from the Government? There was no question, in his mind, that the hon. member for Ficksburg’s intention was to divert the object the Prime Minister’s statement had in view. There was no use making speeches in favour of immigration when they voted against it. The policy of the Government announced by the Prime Minister was just the reverse to that enunciated by the hon. member for Ficksburg. If the Government voted for the amendment, it Would convince the people of the country that it was not the policy of the Government to carry out a policy of immigration into this country. The right hon. gentleman had said: “Vote for the amendment, because hon. members who sit behind me, and who are assisting in passing this clause, as amended, must in consequence vote for the principle of assisted immigration whenever the Government comes down to this House for financial assistance.” Would he put that to the test? Would he put a small amount down on the Estimates, and see whether the hon. member for Ficksburg would vote for the allocation of money for immigration into this country? Would he vote for it?

It is on the Estimates.

What?

It is on the Estimates.

That small amount! Is that supported immigration? The country won’t be populated at that rate. Continuing, he said it was no use the hon. member trying to bamboozle hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House, because they would not be bamboozled. He would only say this: that the Prime Minister had enunciated the policy of the Government in regard to immigration. He (the speaker) had taken his word. He was still prepared to take his word. But not if he voted for the ciause as amended? The result of voting for this amendment would be to put up the barrier that was wanted by the hon. member for Ficksburg. He thought it better to allow the clause to stand over, and allow hon. members on the other side to think over the matter.

asked who moved the amendment? The hon. member for Ficksburg. What did the hon. member for Ficksburg say at another stage? Now the Minister said that it was a good amendment. No amendment could be good that came from a tainted source, and the hon. member said that he was practically against immigration into this country, so that he thought it was wrong on the part of the Government to allow the hon. member to move this amendment after what he had stated in that House. There seemed to be an idea that this was a poor man’s Bill. It was not a poor man’s Bill. A man had to deposit a certain sum of money. Continuing, he pointed out that if hon. members read up the immigration history of the world, they would find that countries were built up by men who came to them with practically nothing. By whom was South Africa made? It was made by men who, owing to their love for their religious convictions, left their own country and came here with nothing. Let him come to the Minister who had preached them a sermon of platitudes and trust. Who had to do the trusting? Why, they on that side of the House had to do the trusting. It was not a matter that was settled in a day, but it was only brought forward after earnest consideration.

They implicitly trusted the Minister. They went into that committee to do their best to try and put that Bill ship-shape, for it was most crude. The first duty of the Act was to the citizens of this country, driven to poverty under stress of circumstances. He knew the people they should rescue and put on the land. They were told by the hon. members that they would get a vote every year. Was there any other country that took a vote every year? Did Australia do so? Could the unfortunate immigrant coming to this country afford to wait until Parliament made up its mind? He was glad to hear the strong pronouncement that had been made. They had a vote the other day which tended to strengthen the tie between this country and the Mother Country; and that vote was refused on the grounds of economy.

The hon. member cannot allude to a past debate.

I am sorry, then I shall allude to a future one. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said, supposing something was put down. They did not require to put very much down, because of the terms they could make with the steamship company. He only wished they could have heard the Minister speaking in committee; how he was going to help this man with a horse and cart, and another with a cow, and so on. He would appeal to the Prime Minister that he had no light to accept that amendment from any member. They should have stood by their Bill. He only hoped when the vote took place some of the hon. members who sat opposite would show that there was something more than the Natal mess of pottage to be decided on, and would vote for bringing in the best men and women they could obtain. He would like the hon. member for Oudtshoorn to find a man who was a pioneer of this country, and who did not come from oversea. Would the Minister not consent to the withdrawal of this clause and bring it up at a later date?

said he was very sorry indeed that this most important question had been made a party question. (Opposition laughter.) They all remembered that the Opposition drew up its programme, which, of course, included land settlement, and after the Government’s programme was issued in Pretoria shortly before the General Election it was found that it included that same clause. There was an immediate chorus of approval throughout the English population of South Africa, and they were told by the Press and Opposition speakers on platforms that now they would have a flow of immigrants into the country, and that the progressive element, which, of course, was represented by the Unionist party, would be so strengthened that the backvelders would have to take a back seat. (Ministerial cheers.) That impression was current—

Who said it?

It is not possible at the present time without a considerable amount of inconvenience to see—

It is an invention.

It is an absolute fact that the Unionist press of South Africa, time after time, made it appear that their cause was going to be enormously strengthened by this flow of immigration from oversea—

It is pure invention.

It is not.

It is.

I repeat it.

You may repeat it; but it is not true.

The boomerang which the Opposition had thrown had come back and hit them. He honestly believed them to be anxious to promote white immigration, but by instilling suspicion into the minds of a good many people the Opposition had brought about this amendment—(An HON. MEMBER: “Bunkum”)—because they had excited the fears of a number of people in the backveld that their position was about to be attacked.

So it is intended to exclude them.

said that after the Premier’s very clear statement that he was going to stand by his programme to ask him to put money on the Estimates for immediately starting immigration from oversea was preposterous in the extreme, when there were hundreds and thousands of settlers in the country clamouring for land. (Hear, hear.) Recently in Natal there were 400 applicants for land who could not be satisfied. It was utterly futile to charge the Government with being hostile to white immigration because they refused to put money on the Estimates to encourage that immigration, for after all, charity must begin at home. (Cheers.) It was the duty of the Government to settle people on the land who already were here, before bringing people from oversea. They were told that Government had reversed its policy because it was going to accept the amendment. The clause gave the Government power to make arrangements to introduce settlers from oversea, and in order to satisfy the fears of a minority of the Government’s supporters—fears caused by the ill-advised action of the Opposition—the Government had very wisely said: “We will consult Parliament before we do anything.” It was quite apparent that at present Government had no land to offer settlers from oversea. He believed that the great majority of the Government’s supporters were in favour of getting settlers of a proper class from oversea. (Ministerial cheers.) The experience in Natal had been that the men from oversea had in many cases introduced very valuable improvements in agriculture. (Cheers.) Fencing had been introduced by men from oversea, the men who advocated the passing of the Scab Act and who improved the wool production were from oversea, and it was the men from oversea who started the wattle, tea, and sugar industries.

We are all from oversea.

They were the men who came to this country and were not born here.

Kick them out. (Laughter.)

said he did not assume that because the hon. member for Ficksburg was nervous about immigration that he was upsetting the policy of the Government, but the hon. member had quite as much right to express an pinion as anyone else, although he thought his fears were groundless. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir Thomas) was in favour of the clause as originally drafted, but after the very explicit declaration of the Prime Minister—(ironical Opposition cheers)—of course it was good party business to throw ridicule and doubt on the professions of the head of the Government, but he had too much respect for the Prime Minister doubt a solemn statement he made in that House. After the declaration of the Prime Minister’s policy he (Sir Thomas) saw no harm in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg, although he would rather have seen the clause without it. One reason why he was supporting the Government was the policy of the Prime Minister’s in favour of white immigration, and he was glad that the Prime Minister had made it quite clear that night that he still adhered to the policy which he laid down in London.

said that if the matter came to a vote he would be found to vote in the same way that he did in the Select Committee. (Opposition cheers.) He saw absolutely no necessity for the amendment, but at the same time he thought there had been an unnecessary amount of feeling over this subject, and he was afraid that sentiment had played a very important part in it. He did not think that the Bill was going to create a revolution. If the hon. members on the other side of the House thought they were going to have an enormous influx of immigrants into the country, they were very much mistaken. They did not want indigent people, however; they wanted people with capital. This was not a Bill to provide for poor whites. After all, he would like to see Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Irishmen upon the land, because they knew them, and could get on better with them. (“Hear, hear,” and cheers.) Speaking for his constituency as well as himself, he would be glad to welcome these people upon the land. But he remembered a large number of people who came to a district he knew, but the majority disappeared when times of adversity arrived. Only men born on the veld could really put up with the difficulties. It was invariably the rule that when a large number of people were put upon the land, the great majority failed to make a success. What he was glad to see was that large numbers of Englishmen were putting their children upon the land, instead of putting them into the Civil Service. That was satisfactory; but, on the other hand, a great many people were leaving the land for the towns. That was not altogether a bad thing, for the more the two races mixed up together, the better it would be for the future of South Africa. He must say that he did not sympathise with the prejudices that had been shown by either side. The clause was perfectly unnecessary, but having accepted it in committee, he was not going to go back upon it.

moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Monday.