moved, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) Finance Accounts, Appropriation Accounts, Loan Funds and Miscellaneous Funds (exclusive of Railways and Harbours) for the financial year 1922-’23, with the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General. [U.G. 38—’23.] (Laid upon the Table on 25th January, 1924.)
2. (2) Return of Staff of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa as at 31st December, 1923, rendered in terms of section 6, sub-section (1) of Act No. 18 of 1912. (Laid upon the Table on 25th January, 1924.)
3. (3) Statements of the following accounts audited by the Controller and Auditor-General under the provisions of section 60 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, together with the Controller and Auditor-General’s report thereon. (Laid upon the Table on 28th January, 1924):
   South African Museum, for 1922;
   Transvaal Museum, for the year ended 31st March, 1923;
   Natal Museum, for the year ended 31st March, 1923;
   State Library, Pretoria, for 1922;
   National Zoological Gardens of South Africa, for 1922; and
   Michaelis Art Gallery, for the year ended 31st March, 1923.
4. (4) Return prepared in terms of section 26, sub-section (3) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, showing particulars of Special Warrants issued by the Governor-General during the period 19th June, 1923, to 24th January, 1924. (Laid upon the Table on 28th January, 1924.)

seconded.

Agreed to.

stelde als ’n onbestreden motie voor—

Hij zei: Ek voel oortuig, dat alle lede van ‘die Huis laaste Saterdag met die diepste leedwese uit die koerante verneem het van die dood van onse aller vrind, James van der Merwe. Hy was een van die jongste lede van die Huis, nie alleen nie in jare nie, maar ook in dienstyd, maar niettegenstaande al sy jeug het hy reeds sy merk in hierdie Huis gemaak. Hy was een van ons jonge lede wat ’n baie werksaam deel in die verrigtinge van die Huis geneem het. Dit is altyd vir ons, wat lang deel geneem het in die werk van die Parlement, interessant en goed en aangenaam om te sien dat jonge lede werklik belang stel in hulle werk en hul toesprake goed voorberei en hulself nuttig maak in die Huis, en onder die jong lede wat ’n werkelik deel geneem het en hul gewig laat voel het en die hul best gedoen het om die werk te bevorder en nuttig in die Huis te wees, was ons vrind James van der Merwe onder die eerste en dit spyt ons diep, dat hy op sy jeugdige leeftyd weggeval is, en sy verlies is ’n verlies nie alleen vir ons maar vir die hele land. Laat my toe te sê, dat hy algemeen bemind was onder al die lede van die Huis en aan alle kante van die Huis. Hy was populêr sonder dat hy populariteit gesoek het. Hy wis hoe sy plig te doen, hy kon harde woorde spreek en kon ’n sterk aandeel neem in die debatte sonder aanstoot te gee en sonder mense seer te maak, en in die opsig het hy ’n voorbeeld agter gelaat wat waardig is om na te volg. Ons betreur sy verlies en die verlies wat die land gely het deur die dood van ’n so veelbelovend jongman. Ons voel, dat die voorbeeld deur hom in die Huis geset, waardig is om in alle opsigte nagevolg te word. Ek sal niets meer sê. Dit is moeilik om uit te wei oor die deugde van ’n lid van die Huis wat ons ontval is. Maar ons voel almal die diepste smart oor die verlies wat ons en die land gely het, en ek stel derhalve die mosie voor wat ek ingedien het.

sekondeerde. Hij zei: Mnr. Speaker, van harte wens ek die mosie deur die Hoogedelagbare, die Eerste Minister, voorgestel, te ondersteun. Ek wens ook net van hierdie sy van die Huis te getuig van ons diep gevoel van leedwese oor sy heengaan. Ek dink, dat dit vir ieder van ons gekom het as besonder onverwags, dat is te sê, onverwags tot op omtrent een maand of ses weke gelede, te verneem van die siekte, die hom waarskynlik na die graf sou neem. Ek wens ook hier te getuig dat wat wyle die edele lid betref, ons van hierdie kant van die Huis, onteenseglik hom sal mis. Dikwels is hier oor die vloer van die Huis ’n geveg ontstaan waaraan die edele lid ook deel geneem het. Wat ek en almal gevoel het is dit, dat hoe ons ook van hom verskil in die Huis, hy iemand was, wat nooit uit die Huis gegaan het om sy griewe met hom mee buitekant te neem. Maar, as ’n vegter, ’n edele vegter, het hy geweet om te veg waar moes geveg word en ook geweet dat as die geveg virby is, daar geen aanleiding bestaan vir ’n minder vriendskaplike verhouding. Ek gevoel ek sal hom dikwels mis, al is dit alleen deur dat ek sal mis in die Huis daardie blymoedige glimlag, die altyd ’n bewys was van sy vriendelike gesindheid. Ek wens nogmaals die voorstel van harte te ondersteun.

On behalf of my friends and myself. I desire to associate myself with the motion and with what has been said.

Motion put and agreed to, members rising.

moved—

He said: The object of this little Bill is to make provision in respect of a lacuna which unfortunately has been found in practice in the working of the Prisons and Reformatories Act. As hon. members know, under the Prisons and Reformatories Act, the Governor-General has power to establish institutions for the reception of inebriates, and he also has power under section eighty-seven to license private institutions, homes or retreats for the treatment of persons not liable to be detained in an inebriate reformatory. There are two inebriate institutions for males in the Union, but it has not yet been found necessary, fortunately, to establish an inebriate institution for females. But there is a licensed private institution for females in Pietermaritzburg, Natal, which has done very good work, and any female (and fortunately there are but a small number of females who have been committed by the magistrates under the Act), may be committed to the institution in Maritzburg. For some years this institution was managed without difficulty, as section forty-five of the regulations was relied on in so far as punishment of the inmates was concerned. If any inmate tried to abscond or escapes, she could be punished under this regulation. Women who had repeatedly absconded from the home, were given a short sentence of imprisonment, which had a corrective effect on the other inmates. About two years ago the Pietermaritzburg Magistrate imposed a sentence under this regulation, which came up before the Natal Supreme Court for review, and the Judges then ruled that regulation 45 was ultra vires, and as the Act stood it was legal to bring a woman back to the institute if she escaped, but not legal to impose any punishment. Since this decision became known it has had a very disastrous effect on the inmates of the retreat, who found they could walk away, and the only disadvantage was that if they were caught they were brought back to the institution, and the whole question of discipline was really put an end to in the retreat. Matters came to a head in November last, when the Board which manages the institution under the prisons and Reformatories Act passed the resolution that unless power was given to the magistrates to punish escapes or insubordinations in the cases of inmates sent there by the Magistrates, the committee would have to cease work. As hon. members know some years ago a sum of money was placed on the estimates—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) was interested in the matter—to enable this institution to carry on. When I was faced with that position, I promised I would submit a little Bill to Parliament to give the necessary powers. It is not anticipated that it will be necessary to use the powers in any number of cases, because there is no doubt that if the inmates know they can be punished for escaping, that the Magistrate has the power to punish, it will be a sufficient deterrent. I need hardly say that among women of this sort who have been committed to an inebriate reformatory, there are generally one or two of bad character and they work a lot of harm, unless they can be properly disciplined in such an institution. Now, the two points dealt with in the Bill are Clause 2 which deals with escapes, and Clause 3 which provides a penalty clause, and makes legal punishment for breaches of the regulations. Clause 2 provides that if a person is committed—that is not a person who goes voluntarily, I am not dealing with persons who go to a retreat voluntarily—if a person who is committed by a Magistrate to a licensed private institution or retreat, escapes or conspires or induces any one to escape, or is in possession of an instrument or other thing with intent to procure his own escape, or that of another person, he is guilty of an offence. I am bringing it into line with the punishment in connection with other prison institutions. Clause 3 provides an addition to section 87 (4) of the Act, which gives the Governor-General power to make regulations to provide a penalty not exceeding £50 for any contravention. I need hardly say that these cases are tried by the Magistrate. The Board itself has no power to inflict these punishments, but I think hon. members will see the difficulty that the Board, and I, were placed in and I hope they will pass the second reading of this Bill which I now propose.

Hierdie kleine wet is enkel bedoel om die wet op gevangenisse te amendeer en het betrekking slegs op inrigtinge vir aan die drank verslaafde persone. Die magistraat het die reg om persone die sig aan die drank te buite gaan na so’n gestig te stuur. Daar bestaat twee dergelike inrigtings vir mans, een by Kluitjieskraal naby Tulbagh, en een by Baviaanspoort, naby Pretoria. Dit was gelukkig nog nie juis nodig om van overheidswege ’n sodanige inrigting vir vroue op te rig nie. Die aantal in hierdie verband veroordeelde vroue is klein, te klein om ’n Regerings-inrigting vir hulle op te rig. Daar is, egter, ’n private instelling van die aard naby Pietermaritzburg; die neem sowel deur ’n Hof veroordeelde persone, as diesulkes wat vrywillig daarheen opkom. Dit gebeur nl, weleens dat persone sigself vrywillig na ’n instelling van die aard begewe of dat hulle deur famielie daarheen gebring word, behalwe nog diesulke wat ingevolge ’n vonnis van die magistraat opgeneem word. Alles het goed gegaan tot ongeveer twee jaar gelede, toe deur die Hooggeregshof van Natal, by die hersiening van ’n vonnis van die magistraat, bepaal werd, dat dit onwettig is om mense wat uit die soort inrigtings ontvlug en weer teruggebring word, deswege te straf. Die resultaat hiervan, d.w.s. die uitwerking op die soort inrigting kan mens jou maklik voorstel. Daar is altoos ’n paar van slegte karakters onder wat ’n nadelige invloed uitoefen op die res, en sedert daardie beslissing blyk dit onmoontlik om die tug te handhaaf. In November het die Raad van Beheer bedank op grond dat hulle gesag verdwene is. Ek het hulle gevraag om aan te bly en beloof dat ek ’n kleine wet sou voorbring om in die soort gevalle voorsiening te maak. Dit was net ’n oorsig dat by die neerleg van die artikel wat betref die regulasies nie ook voorsiening gemaak werd nie vir die mag om ontvlugte persone te straf. Dit handel nie oor die beginsel nie, maar, net dat persone, wat daarheen gestuur word vir ontvlugting gestraf kan word, en ten twede om die magistraat die reg te gee om by oortreding van die regulasies straf op te leg.

Ek voel dadelik die noodsaak dat daar een of ander straf neergelê sal word vir oortredings, maar ek was nie teenwoordig nie en weet sodoende nie welke bepaling en voorsiening daar is in die wet om die nodige kontrole te gee oor die inrigting. Soas ek verstaan is dit ’n private inrigting wat opgestel is vir die opneming van deur die magistraat of regter veroordeelde persone. Ons sal baie goed moet toesien, dat die Staat die nodige toesig het alvorens ons die reg gee om persone daar te straf. Ek hoop dat die Minister as ons by die Komitee stadium kom, die nodige inligting sal gee in hoeverre daardie nodige toesig aanwesig is.

Sover ek weet bestaat die regulasies reeds dertien jaar, en dit is nog nooit gewysig nie. Daar bestaat volgens die regulasies ’n Raad wat deur die Regering aangestel is, en die magistraat moet gereeld sulke inrigtings besoek. Ek kan die regulasies in Komitee voorlê.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 8th February.

moved—

He said: This is also a formal little Bill which deals with two matters. Hon. members will know that native chiefs have got certain jurisdiction. All over the Union everywhere there is an appeal ultimately to the Supreme Court, but in two instances this is not the case. First, as regards the Transvaal, and second, as regards Bechuanaland. As regards the position in the Transvaal, by section 4 of the Act of 1885 of the old Transvaal Republic, jurisdiction in civil disputes was conferred upon native chiefs, and appeal lay from the native chief to the Native Commissioner. But by the Act of 1907, this appeal to the Native Commissioner was taken away and appeal to the Supreme Court was substituted. But the Supreme Court can only deal with cases which come from a Court of record, because they go on the records of the case, and as the chief’s Court is not a Court of record there can be no appeal as this matter now stands. All over the Transvaal, therefore, if a case comes before a native chief, he practically gives a final word. The object of Clause 1 of this Bill is to restore the appeal to the Native Commissioner from the native chief, and then from the Native Commissioner’s Court, which is of course a Court of record, there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court. I trust I have made this little legal difficulty quite clear. With regard to Bechuanaland, the situation is a little more complicated. Under section 31, of the British Bechuanaland Protectorate Act of 1885, which is continued in force in the Annexation Act of 1895, that is 10 years later, native chiefs in Bechuanaland have original and exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases between natives of their own tribe respectively, and qualified jurisdiction in criminal cases. The native chief has got original and exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases arising between members of his tribe. Section 33 of the Proclamation provides for an appeal from the decision of the chief to a Court composed of the Resident Magistrate of the district and such chiefs. In the event of the Magistrate and the chief disagreeing, the Chief Magistrate was appointed under the Proclamation to decide the matter in dispute. An appeal also lies directly to the Chief Magistrate from the Court of the chief. Now, as the chief has got exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases the Court has held, in several cases, that the exclusive jurisdiction of the chief has been held to necessitate a submission to his Court of cases of divorce between members of his tribe. And this divorce jurisdiction has been exercised in cases of marriage according to Christian rites. Again the officers of the department, that is to say, the Magistrates, do not like to sit with chiefs when they are only one to one, and they can be overruled by the decision of the chief. The position is very unsatisfactory as it stands at the present moment, and Clause 2 of the Bill intends to provide for three things. First, abolishing the direct appeal from the chief’s court to the Chief Magistrate. There is no Chief Magistrate in Bechuanaland. I do not think there has ever been one. There is a Chief Native Commissioner, who has been recently appointed outside the Siskei, but the only Chief Magistrate we have got is in the Transkei. We have now got a Chief Native Commissioner, Mr. Norton, who has also got a general jurisdiction in Bechuanaland, but he has not got this position of Chief Magistrate contemplated under the proclamation of 1895. So that the first provision is to abolish a direct appeal from the chief’s court to the Chief Magistrate; and thus obviate the difficulty of an appeal from a Court in which no record is kept to a superior Court. Second, by an appeal to the Magistrate. The chief may hold his court, give his decision, and then an appeal will lie to the Magistrate of the district. Third, by providing a further appeal from the Magistrate’s Court to the Griqualand West, Local Division of the Supreme Court. So that now, under this the Court which is now constituted by the Magistrate and the chief to-re-hear cases coming from the chief alone will be done away with, and the procedure will be that the chief will start the case if the case comes before him. There will be an appeal to the Magistrate, who will sit alone, and from that decision to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that you have got by these means a unanimous law right throughout the length and breadth of the Union, and one which puts the anomalies which now exist in the Transvaal and Bechuanaland on a satisfactory footing.

Ek wil van die geleentheid gebruik maak om ’n paar opmerkings te maak. Dit is ’n gekompliseerde uitleg wat die Minister daar gegee het omtrent die appèl van die Hof van die Opperhoof na die Magistraat en weer van die na ’n saamgestelde Hof. Daar wil ek nou nie op ingaan nie. Wat ek voel en wat die kaffers voel is, dat daar teveel getorring word aan die gesag en die wette van die kafferhoofde. Wat hulle gedaan het, word glad te maklik opsy gesit, en waar die gewone kaffer sien dat die uitspraak van sy Opperhoof omvergewerp word, ontstaan gou die neiging om te appelleer. Die Kommissarisse behoor instruksies te kry om so min as moontlik vonnisse van kafferhoofde opsy te sit, ten einde hulle invloed hoog te hou onder hulle onderdane. Ons moet in gedagte hou, dat die kafferhoofde by die doen van uitspraak, rekening hou met kaffergebruike, oorleweringe, godsdienstige opvattings en begrippe van reg, soas die By die kaffers bestaan. ’n Vonnis, in die lig gesien, is moontlik vir ons onregvêrdig, maar in die oog van die kaffer is dit regvêrdig. Dat die invloed van die kafferhoofde aan afneme is, staat vas, en die kaffers is nog nie sover ontwikkeld dat hulle sonder daardie gesag van die hoofde kan klaarkom nie. Sommige is al geleerd, maar dit is nie die meerderheid nie en dit is onder die geleerdes wat mens die aanhangers vind van die “Amalaita” bendes en die aanranders van blanke vroue. Jonge kaffers en jonge meide gaat vryelik na die stede en as hulle terug kom is hulle bedorwe. Vroeër kon hulle slegs weggaan met die verlof van die Opperhoof, maar sedert sy gesag so ondermyn is, steur hulle hulle daar nie aan nie en gaat en kom wanneer hulle wil. Daaraan sou ’n einde kom as die kaptein nog die ouderwetse gesag had en daarom is dit noodsaaklik, dat met die toestande rekening gehou werd. Soos dit nou gaan werk dit sleg op die beskawing van die kaffer. Ons moet die kaffer ontwikkel deur sy opvatting van reg te respekteer. Die goeie soort kaffer voel dat die gesag van die kaptein en sy raad nodig en nuttig is. Dit is die slegte, die losbandige kaffer, wat dit nie wil hê nie. Dit is die soort wat kongresse hou, wat die outoriteit van die kapitein verbreek. Die ander, die goeie, wil by die kafferkapitein staan. Op een plek werd gevra dat die kapitein die reg moet behou om grond uit te gee. Dit is ’n belangrike saak. Op bladsy 5 van die Rapport van die Naturelle Kommissie sal edele lede sien dat die kaffers daaroor klae en ontevrede is. In representasies aan die Kommissie sê hulle van die kapitein dat hy nie meer die outoriteit van vroeer het nie, en dat die Regering skuld daaraan het, dat dit so is, staat vas. Op bladsy 6 word aangehaal die beweerde verlies van grond nadat die kaffers onder Britse bestuur gekom is. Soas reeds gesê onse opvatting van reg en die van die kaffer is heeltemal verskillend. Daarom is dit heel gewaagd van die Kommissie om te sê, dat dit onreg is wat die kafferhoof beslis. Hy sit nie alleen nie, maar met sy hele Raad, daarom reken ek van die geleentheid behoort gebruik gemaak te word om die Kommissarisse te instueer om so min as moontlik die gesag van die hoof te ondermyn, want dit is ook vir die blanke mense nadelig as die jong skepsels na die stede toe kan loop net wanneer hulle wil.

I think the whole House will be in agreement with this Bill as to certain points raised by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler). One must do what one can to prevent the breaking down of the tribal system in order that the necessary control can be continued over the younger generation, until such time in the future when that control is no longer needed. In so far as that is concerned, one is in agreement with the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler), but in other respects the hon. member has spoken rather off-hand on this occasion. If he had been on the Native Affairs Committee of 1917 he would have found that it was pointed out, particularly in regard to the Transvaal, if a Bill of this nature was introduced, it would simply bring native cases closer to native customs. There is however the difficulty of there not being any documents to go before the Supreme Court, and another difficulty is, and I say this with all due respect to the judges of the Supreme Court, they were not appointed to this post because of their knowledge of native laws and customs. There is, however, every reason to believe that when an appeal comes to the Magistrate, that appeal will be heard with more attention being paid to native law and customs than it would be in the Supreme Court. That to a certain extent answers the hon. member’s second point. In so far as Bechuanaland is concerned, there the situation is much more difficult, because there is no doubt about it that the present system gives the clash between magistrate and chief unnecessary prominence. It is asking a lot of human nature to expect a chief, when he has given a decision in the negative to give a different opinion later if the man who sits with him differs from the original decision. Compatible with sheer justice, which makes this Bill necessary, the rights and privileges of the chiefs should be conserved, and I am sure that that is a point which has not been overlooked by the Native Affairs Department.

Ek gaan volkome saam met die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de heer P. G. W. Grobler) dat die gesag van kafferhoofde dageliks meer aan afneme is en dat die blanke bevolking voel dat dit sleg is, maar dit is genoegsaam uiteengesit. Iets anders is die aandeel wat die Hof van die Kommissaris het in verband met kaffersake. Die Regering het stappe geneem om die ou kaffer-kommissarisse te ontslaan en die hele administrasie word nou gestel onder die magistraat, wat terselfdertyd Naturelle-Kommissaris is. Die naturelle had ’n eienaardige ontsag vir die Naturelle-Kommissaris, wat niks anders was as Naturelle-Kommissaris; hy het hulle taal geken, hulle opvattings verstaan en het van tyd tot tyd tussen hulle rond gegaan om te verneem wat daar gaande was. Hy doet niks anders nie, alle sake kom voor hom en die naturelle het met gesag opgesien na die mense. Vandag is hulle weg en alles kom voor die magistraat. Hy ondersoek die sake wel, maar die naturelle het die gevoel dat hy niks weet van hulle wette en opvattings nie. Ek weet van één geval; die verteenwoordiger van die Naturelle-Kommissie het ’n besoek gebring aan my distrik en die naturelle werd uitgenodig om by ’n sekere byeenkoms teenwoordig te wees. Toe die magistraat opstaan om te praat en vra wat hulle daar kom doen, het hulle dadelik die gevoel gekry, hy weet niks van hulle af nie en hulle sou liewer met die Kommissaris daaroor spreek, maar daardie man is weg. Hierdie het geen simpatie, want hy verstaat hulle nie. Ek beveel ten sterkste aan dat die Minister die teruggaan na die ou stelsel nie uit die oog sal verlies nie. Ons moet nie die simpatie van die kaffer verloor nie. Ek weet dat die afskaffing van NaturelleKommissarisse in verband staan met die algemene besuining, maar ek vertrou dat dit nie vir lange tyd sal nodig wees nie.

I would appeal to the Minister to widen the scope of this Bill which he has placed before the House, because though the Bill has set out to remedy certain defects in the law in the Transvaal, it does nothing to amend the ill-defined jurisdiction of the native chiefs in the Transvaal. A great deal of trouble arises not only in native areas but where natives drift to the towns, disobeying the usages and customs of their tribes and generally tending to break down a system which has been very good for the maintaining of social discipline amongst the natives. I speak from some experience as a Native Commissioner in the Transvaal, and I feel there has been a great deal of neglect in not strengthening the hands of the native chiefs in their dealing with social offences. This class of offence is best dealt with by the chiefs, and litigation arising out of such offences should be relegated to the native courts. I think the system in regard to appeals should be amended, but I think we should widen the powers of the chiefs and place them on a broader basis.

Mnr. Speaker, ek wil net ’n paar woorde sê in verband met die kwessie van saamwerking van kaffer-hoofde, bepalinge waaromtrent opgeneem is in die wet van 1885. Die bepalinge van die genoemde wet is lange tyd nie nodig gevind nie, maar daarvan is laaste jaar gebruik gemaak in sommige kafferlokasies met betrekking tot vergaderinge ens. Wat is die gevolg? In elke lokasie is daar ’n meerderheid en ’n minderheid. Die minderheid wat teen die wil van die hoofman is gaan met sy saak voor die hof in Pretoria en die hof gee uitspraak dat die Regering te ver gaan. Die strekking van hierdie wetsvoorstel is om die gesag van die opperhoof te ondersteun en om hom meer mag te gee. Die twede punt wat ek wil behandel is, om die gewoontes van die naturelle meer in aanmerking te neem. Die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) het gekwoteer die Rapport van di Naturelle Sake Kommissie. Ek hoop hy sal, en met hom ander lede, die Rapport met aandag lees, want daar is ongetwyfeld heel party dingt wat die aandag van die Huis en die bevolking Tan Suid-Afrika verdien. Wat is die posisie vandag? Daar is niks vasgelê nie in ’n wetboek’ met betrekking tot die gewoontes van naturelle. In Transkei hier in die Kaapprovinsie b.v., waar jy duisende van naturelle en spesiale magistraat het, is daar niks wat die magistraat kan lei by beslissinge in verband met naturelle-sake. In besondere gevalle kry die magistraat een of twee naturelle om hom te sê wat die regte gewoonte is. Die Regering wil meer die naturelle raadpleeg en is vriendelik gesind en bereid tot grote mate van tegemoetkoming in die rigting waarin die edele lid vir Rustenburg (de hr. P. G. W. Grobler) gespreek het. Dan is daar die geval in ’n distrik waar b.v. ’n paar duisend blankes is en 10 maal soveel naturelle. ’n Magistraat word aangestel vir die blankes, sender can iets te weet van die naturelle toestand daar. Om in die toestand bevrediging te bring is dit die bedoeling van die Regering om in elke distrik adviserende Rade te kry met naturelle-verteenwoordiging, om van tyd tot tyd die magistraat te ontmoet en naturelle-aangeleenthede te bepraat. Dit is voor die hele Unie. Nie alleen vir Transvaal nie. Sodanige adviserende Rade sal die middel wees om die naturel te laat voel, dat hy in de magistraat die Regering tot vriend het. Tegelykertyd kom die magistraat in direkte aanraking met die belang van die naturel. Om die plan ’n sukses te maak en die goedkeuring en medewerking van die magistrate te verseker het ek ’n tydjie terug sirkulaires in die aangeleentheid aan die magistraat gestuur en verwag nou hulle antwoord en hulle opinie. Die suggestie van die edele lid vir Illovo (de hr. Marwick) om die funksies van die magistrate meer definitief te bepaal wanneer hulle te doen het met naturelle gewoontes en naturelle kwessies, sal ook ’n nader punt van ondersoek wees.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

objected.

then moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I do not propose to Keep the House very long, because, when on Friday I was discussing this matter, I showed the reason for the House not proceeding further with the Bill in its present shape. I thought at that time it was necessary to adjourn the debate, because I was certain that the bulk of the hon. members finding that the Bill before them, after the history of the last year or two, and with the Minister’s opening remarks, could not have imagined but that the Bill was merely continuing legislature from the last session—that it was a Bill which had come back from the Select Committee, altered by the Minister in many material and important points. It seemed to me that the case of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), was an indefeasible one. The Bill had been dealt with last session clause by clause, before coming before the more difficult atmosphere of this Chamber of the Committee of the whole House. Before the Select Committee all parties were represented in the solution of the difficulties. In certain matters the solutions proposed by the Select Committee differed very materially from the solutions propounded by the Minister, and from those now propounded in the Bill. Is all the work and labour of the last year to be thrown aside when the Minister says in effect “You must discuss my clauses”? I think the Minister owes the House a very clear explanation. I want to know from him what were the arguments urged upon him, and what were the arguments so urged which induced him to make these very important alterations?

I voted with the minority in the Select Committee.

Then it shows that the Select Committee differed from the Minister, and it shows that to reverse the opinion of the House, the Minister would have to crack the party whip. He would be in the position of having to ask those members of his party who were opposed to him in the Select Committee, to vote for him and to reverse their opinion. It shows that the Minister’s explanation is not justified for bringing in the Bill, and reversing the decision of the Select Committee. He said it was only a formal matter. If he was outvoted in the Select Committee, then this Bill is an entirely different one to that which was decided by the Select Committee, and in view of that I am prepared, without further discussion, to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik).

Ek wens hier ook maar net ’n paar woorde te sê, Mnr. Speaker, maar ek hoop die Huis sal ’n bietjie aandag gee aan wat ek hier te sê het en wat alreeds hieromtrent geval is van die ander sprekers. Ek moet sê, ek was besonder getref toe op Vrydag hierdie wetsontwerp voor die Huis gekom het, om die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) te hoor nadat ek die edele Minister gehoor had, en ek moet sê, dat ek nie kan sien nie hoe die Huis onder die omstandighede met enige gevoel van billikheid,—en ek sal nie eens sê van waardigheid—teenoor sigself kan in gebreke bly, om na te kom die versoek dat die wetsontwerp eers sal verwys word na ’n Selekt Komitee. Die edele Minister het opgestaan en die wetsontwerp voorgestel en by sy voorstel gesê, hy hoef nie veel te sê nie, en as sy rede aangegee, dat die wetsontwerp gedurende die laaste sitting die aandag gehad het van die Gekose Komitee van hierdie Huis. Maar die wetsontwerp nou voor die Huis is nie dieselfde wat die aandag van die Gekose Komitee gehad het en die Minister het dus nie die minste reg nie om hom op die Gekose Komitee te beroep, die Gekose Komitee wat aangestel is deur hierdie Huis. Nee, ek moet sê, dat ek besonder getref was, onaangenaam getref was, as lid van hierdie Huis. En die edele lid van Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) het opgestaan en wys daarop dat hierdie wetsontwerp ’n totaal ander is, dan die wetsontwerp wat die aandag gehad het van die Gekose Komitee, m.a.w., soos deur die edele lid van Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) aangetoon het die Minister, heengegaan en die Gekose Komitee se aanbevelinge, wat in baie opsigte belangrik was, opsy geset en aangekom met ’n nuwe wetsontwerp. In plaas van met sy originele wetsontwerp voor die Huis te kom en daarnaast te sit die baie belangrike punte, wat die Gekose Komitee vorentoe gebring het, kom die Minister met ’n hele nuwe wetsontwerp. Toe ek dit hoor, is dadelik by my die vraag opgekom hoe kan hierdie Huis, hoe kan ons, nadat ons ’n Gekose Komitee aangestel het en nadat die Gekose Komitee ’n rapport uitgebring het, wat sekere belangrike wenke aan die hand gee, hoe kan ons nou die Minister toelaat nadat die Gekose Komitee namens ons die rapport uitgebring het, hoe kan ons nou die Minister toelaat om voor ons te kom en ons goedkeuring te vra oor ’n nuwe wetsontwerp? Die Minister kom eenvoudig en sê, ons moet nou doen wat hy sê. Hy kom met ’n wetsontwerp waarin die belangrike voorsieninge aan die hand gegee deur die Gekose Komitee, nie voorkom nie.

Dit kan voorgestel word in Komitee.

Maar begryp u Mnr. Speaker wat die Minister nou hier doen? Hy gaan heen en doen wat hy laaste jaar nie sou gedurf het nie. Hy werp die aanbevelinge van die Gekose Komitee uit en sê, ons moet nou in die Kommissie van die Huis kom en daar voorstelle maak waaromtrent die Gekose Komitee laaste jaar sekere aanbevelings gedoen het, na rypelike oorweging vir weke lank. Ek neem die posiesie in dat die Minister in die laaste sitting nie sou toegelaat gewees het nie om die wetsontwerp voor die Huis te bring nie. Ek dink die Minister het die aanbevelings van die Gekose Komitee laaste jaar laat oorstaan om nou in hierdie sitting die geleentheid te kry om sonder die aanbevelinge van die Gekose Komitee, die goedkeuring van die Huis te kry. Ek sê, as daar ooit in die Huis op elkeen die verpligting gerus het om teen die handelwyse van die Minister te objekteer, dan is dit nou. En die Minister was self aan die Gekose Komitee. Die lede van die Gekose Komitee het op verskeie punte aanbevelings gedoen, afwykend van die van die Minister, en nou wil hy vandag kom en wil alles eenvoudig oor die hoof sien wat die Gekose Komitee aanbeveel het. Die Gekose Komitee het baie belangrike aanbevelings gedoen, wat in die nuwe wetsontwerp van die Minister heeltemal nie voorkom nie. Ek wil net een voorbeeld noem, die Gekose Komitee het aan die hand gegee sekere bepalings omtrent die handeldrywe op myn-areas. Waar is dit?

Dis net een punt.

Ja, maar dis ’n belangrike punt. Mnr. Speaker mag ek net sê wat ek nie lyk nie. Ek dink die Huis behoor baie versigtig te wees. Hier het jy ’n onderwerp waarby die Minister nie die minste persoonlike belang behoort te hê nie en ek twyfel daar geen oomblik aan nie of die Minister het geen persoonlike belang daarby nie. Weldus, alles moet afgehandel tussen die twee partye en altwee moet hulle sienswyse gee. Maar nou blyk die sienswyse van die meerderheid van die Gekose Komitee te verskil van die van die Minister, en nou gaan die Minister en stel in die Huis die twede lesing van ’n nuwe wetsontwerp voor. Ek dink dis ’n grote onbillikheid teenoor die Gekose Komitee en teenoor die Huis. Nou wens ik nog net dit te sê. Daar is die kwestie van handeldryf—ek glo daar is baje van ons wat insien van hoe groot belang en hoe verre gaande hierdie kwestie is vir die toekoms van Suid-Afrika. Dit raak dadelik die groot vraag aan in hoe verre maatskappye toegelaat sal word om die regte en die middele van bestaan weg te neem van die mense wat handeldryf en van andere persone in Suid-Afrika. Gaat ons ’n gedragslyn volg waaronder maatskappye verder dan absoluut noodsakelik is toegelaat sal word handelaars op die goudvelde te onderdruk en van hul handelsregte te beroof. As ons nie bereid is nie om dit geheel te belet, dan moet ons so spoedig molik bepaal hoe ver die maatskappye toegelaat sal word te gaan en hoe ver nie. Die handel dryf op mynplaase is iets waarop die mense al so veel onderdruk is, waaronder die handelaar al so veel gely het en waaronder die inwoners van Suid-Afrika al soveel gely het, dat ons weet daar moet iets gedoen word; hierdie vraag het nou jare lang al voorgekom; die vraag het jare lang al voor die Parlement gekom, en daarom is ek van oordeel, dat die Minister verstandiger zou gehandel het, al was daar dan geen andere redene, as hy die aanbevelinge van die Gekose Komitee had aangeneem en dan sou hy hier in die Huis het kan kom en die voorstelle van die Gekose Komitee hier het kan bestry, en dan sou die Huis het kan sê of die Minister of die Komitee al dan nie verkeerd was. Maar ek is bang, dat die Minister ’n pad gevolg het wat dadelik die indruk verwek het dat die maatskappye te sterk was gewees.

Nee, nee; ek het verlede jaar in die minderheid gestem op die Komitee. Ek kan tog nie ’n wet inbreng waarmee ek nie instem.

Ek kan daar volstrek nie mee instem nie. Die Minister sê, dat hy in die minderheid het gestem en hy kan nie ’n wetsontwerp inbreng waarmee hy nie instem. Waarom nie? Waar die ’n wetsontwerp betref wat geen algemene politiek bevat, geen politieke leidraad wat die Regering verbind, is die Minister nie allen vry, maar is dit sy plig om ’n wet van die aard in te breng, dit kom daar nie op aan hoe veel hy teen die wet mag wees. Dit is sy plig om dit hier in te breng; hy moet die mannelikheid hê om te sê: “dit is my overtuiging—ek verskil van die Gekose Komitee, maar ek laat dit aan die Huis oor om te sê of ek reg is of verkeerd”; en die enige ding wat kan gebeur is dat die Huis miskien sal sê, dat die Minister verkeerd is, maar is dat ’n skande, is dat iets waarvoor die Minister bang behoef te wees? Ek weet, dat ek self meer as een wetsontwerp het ingebreng waar ek nie mee het ingestem en ek het dat aan die Huis oorgelaat, en ek kan hier sê, dat die Huis my meer dan eens oortuig het dat ek verkeerd was en op andere geleenthede het ek die gevoele van die Huis aangeneem. Ek het die reg om van die Huis te verskil. En ek wens hier te sê, dat dit geen verskoning is, maar dit begin te lyk as of die Minister iemand sy kant het geneem. Ek wil geen insinuasies maak, dat dit so is, maar men kan nie weg kom van die feit, dat die suspicie dadelik opgewek word, en daar kan veel voor gesê word dat daar redene is voor die opwekking van die suspicie. Ek denk die Minister sal verstandig handel deur dit ontwerp weer naar die Gekose Komitee te laat gaan en dan kan hy die ontwerp weer opbreng. En as die Komitee weer van hom verskil, dan kan hy weer hier kom en hy kan dan sê “ek verskil van die Gekose Komitee.”

I must say that I agree with a good deal of the criticism on the Bill that has fallen from members on the other side, as to why this Bill should go to a Select Committee, but I would ask hon. members how they would propose that it should be altered or how they would call fresh evidence whether the result would not be the same. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the proper course is to move an amendment in Committee. Although I disagree with a great many of the measures, I propose to move an amendment when it comes before the Committee of the whole House. I must say that I did not intend taking any part in this debate. But when I heard the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) say he was pleased that the Minister of Mines and Industries had not agreed to accede to the request that platinum as a mineral should not be placed amongst the base metals then I thought it was time to say a few words. Although I am interested indirectly I must say I am always afraid that the Minister is too apt to take advice from the hon. member; I must also say that the reason I am afraid is because the advice generally, which comes from that quarter, is most harmful. As to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) I am surprised he has talked so much of the interests of this country and he does not mention the interests of the landowners of this country. He could only suppose that the hon. member has come under the influence of his labour friends. He is supposed to look after the interests of the landowners. My quarrel in the meantime, with the Minister, is that since the Select Committee issued its report, the Government have issued a proclamation placing eridium and platinum as precious metals.

Hear, hear.

The Minister says “hear, hear.” He has never heard of platinum until the last few weeks, when it was discovered, yet he says, “hear, hear.” According to the Minister, the landowner must go to court and prove his right to it not being a precious metal. I think it would have been much better advice if he had left it to the decision of this House as to whether this should be a base metal or not. I should like to ask the Minister this question. At the time the farmers bought their farms, they bought them under the laws as they existed in the Transvaal at that time. They all knew that the Transvaal was a highly mineralized country. [An Hon. Member: “They bought them knowing that the legislature had taken away certain rights in the Free State.”] I am surprised at that, and I would point out that I am fighting for the landowner which should be the policy of the hon. member opposite. I say that by a stroke of the pen the Government has decided to take away four-fifths of the mineral rights of the landowners of the Transvaal, giving them one-fifth, and the system of taking away the surface rights of the whole farm is a position that the Government has taken up. Now, in Natal I believe that they own the whole of the mineral rights, and you find a case in point where Vryheid was ceded to Natal and you find owners in that portion of the Transvaal have the whole of the mineral rights of the farm and you find the rest of their farms in the Transvaal with four-fifths taken away by the Government. I hope the Natal members will annex the rest of the Transvaal if we are going to be treated like that. But what I would like to say is this: I hope the Government will not try to experiment with regard to this platinum as they tried with regard to Zaaiplaats tin and work it with white labour on their own account. This mineral has never been discovered, to any great extent, in reef, and in the Transvaal where it has been discovered it is very patchy and the ore bodies are most irregular, so that when you give one-fifth, it may be that that one-fifth is valueless; it is so irregular, it is so patchy that the one-fifth—the twenty per cent.—that you give the owner, might be valueless. What is the compensation? Absolutely no compensation is given with the exception of one-half of the licence money. What is the position? The ground will be so small, it will not be payable to be worked, and they will have to get ground from the Government, or anyone owning adjoining properties. But it cannot be worked as a payable proposition if it continues to be patchy as it is to-day. In some parts, I admit, it is rich. It goes in places to over eight hundred dwt. in platinoid, but many of the patches are blank and I say it may be impossible to work it. There is another point. I would like to bring forward. That is with regard to the price of platinum. When Russia was open the price of platinum was one-quarter of what it is to-day. It was £8 or £9 per oz. It has been down as low as £4 or £5. To-day it is £30 because Russia is not open, and you cannot buy it. What will be the position when it is opened and when all this not under control? I say that some measures must be taken to control it or platinum will become more or less valueless, as far as producing it in the Transvaal is concerned. This I contend is a point to be looked into. The policy which has been omitted in the second clause of this Bill. I would impress upon hon. members from the Transvaal. I would impress upon them what it means. It means if it goes through this House, that the Government is taking away eighty per cent. from the farmers of the Transvaal for nothing. That is what it means, and I hope when the time comes, I shall get my hon. friends opposite to move in this direction and assist. Do not go along with those gentlemen over there. They represent the “havenots” of this country, and where after the savings of the people whether in land or other investments. I appeal to hon. members opposite to consider this measure, when it comes before the Committee of the House, seriously before they allow this clause to be expunged from the Bill.

Ik was verbaasd verleden Vrijdag van het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) te horen, dat wij een gehele nieuwe wet voor ons hadden. Hij noemt het wetsontwerp, dat wij nu voor ons hebben een geheel nieuw ontwerp, dat op bijna alle punten verschilt van de twee vorige wetten, die wij voor ons hebben gehad, want zoals de positie nu is zijn er drie wetsontwerpen met amendementen op de bestaande Goudwet. In de allereerste plaats is er het originele wetsontwerp, dat in 1922 door de Minister voorgesteld was, dan in de twede plaats het wetsontwerp zoals in Komitee gewijzigd, laten wij dat “het wetsontwerp van 1923” noemen en dan wat wij op het ogenblik voor ons hebben, het wetsontwerp van 1924.

Wie sij wetsontwerp is dat?

Indien het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) de opmerking gemaakt had, dat het wetsontwerp van 1923 verschilde van dat voor 1922, dan zou ik tot een zeker opzicht met hem kunnen instemmen, want de veranderingen door het Komitee, waarvan ik de eer had lid te zijn, aangebracht waren grote en belangrijke veranderingen en in verscheidene opzichten was de strekking van zekere delen veranderd; maar om te zeggen, dat het wetsontwerp, dat nu voor ons is, het 1924 wetsontwerp, geheel en al een nieuw wetsontwerp is van dat, door het Selekt Komitee aanbevolen, die aanmerking is naar ik meen, te scherp en gaat te ver en ik geloof, dat het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) geen wichtige en gezonde basis heeft om dat op te zeggen.

Ek het dit bewys.

Toen het edele lid trachtte zijn beweringen te staven kwam hij niet ver vooruit. In de aller eerste plaats zeide hij, dat sektie twee, dat is de definitie, uit het wetsontwerp gelaten is. Sektie drie was er ook uitgelaten. Er werd niet veel daarover gezegd. De klausule aangaande vliegparken en aerodromen was er uitgelaten. Ik geloof niet, dat het edele lid daar over zal treuren. Dan zegt hij ten slotte, dat de klausule aangaande stop-orders er uit gelaten is. Ik zal daarop later terug komen. Het edele lid voor Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell) heeft hetzelfde gezegd. Maar er werd feitelik niets meer over die veranderingen gezegd. Indien dit werkelik een geheel verschillend wetsontwerp is van het ontwerp van 1923, dan moet ik de wetsopsteller en de Minister mijn kompliment maken, want dan hebben zij een wetsontwerp opgetrokken, dat verschillend is, met presies dezelfde bewoordingen en presies dezelfde regels. Als men de 30 of 31 klausules van dit wetsontwerp neemt, het wetsontwerp van 1924, en als men ze vergelijkt met de tekst en de bewoordingen van het wetsontwerp dat aanbevolen is door het Selekt Komitee, dan zal men heel weining verschil vinden. In de allereerste plaats is de definitie in sektie 2 er uit gelaten. Maar het is niet onmogelik om, wanneer we in komitee zijn, een andere definite voor te stellen, die overeen komt met die definitie, die er uitgelaten is. In de twede plaats is de klausule er uitgelaten waaronder recht gegeven wordt om geproklameerde grond te nemen voor het oprichten van vliegparken of aerodromen. Dat is toch werkelik niet van zo heel veel belang. En ik geloof niet, dat het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) daar over zal treuren. Dan is daar de kwestie van stop-orders, en dat schijnt een grief te zijn van het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) zowel als van het edele lid voor Stamford Hill (de hr. Creswell). In het Selekt Komitee werd er door het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) voorgesteld om stop-orders onwettig te maken. Ik heb daar persoonlik tegen gestemd. Ik heb er tegen gestemd omdat ik mij liet leiden door een verslag van een Selekt Komitee in 1921. In 1921 was er een Selekt Komitee over het handeldrijven op mijnen en een der aanbevelingen van het Selekt Komitee was dit: “Uw Komitee voelt zicht niet gerechtigd om enige bemoeiing met het sisteem van vrijwillige stop orders aan te bevelen, omdat de getuigenis door mijnwerkers gegeven van die aard is, dat het sisteem van grote hulp en bijstand voor hen is”. Dat is de aanbeveling van het Selekt Komitee op handeldrijven op de mijnen in 1921. Wel, ik heb in mijnzaken als leek een grote dunk van deskundigen en autoriteiten en ik beschouw het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) als een autoriteit op mijnzaken, en ik luister altijd naar hem met grote aandacht. Maar om die reden komt het mij des te meer vreemd voor, dat zijn opinie aangaande stop-orders in die twee jaren totaal veranderd is. Want wat vind ik in hetzelfde rapport? In het Rapport van 1921, vind ik dat toen hetzelfde voorstel door de heren Madeley en Mullineux, edele leden voor Benoni (de hr. Madeley) en voor Roodepoort (de Eerw. hr. Mullineux), om het stop-order sisteem te veroordelen, gemaakt werd, het gevolg was, dat er 2 vóór stemden en 7 tegen, en onder de 7, die tegen stemden vind ik de naam van het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik). In 1921 werd het stoporder sisteem derhalve goedgekeurd en in 1923 werd het veroordeeld. Mijn bewering is dat het verschil tussen de wet van 1923, zoals aanbevolen door het Selekt Komitee en het wetsontwerp nu voor ons, niet zo heel groot is, en dat het niet nodig is om het ontwerp terug te verwijzen naar een Selekt Komitee; en een van de redenen is, dat in de Oostelike Transvaal, waarvan ik een gedeelte hier vertegenwoordigd er een verlangen is onder mijneigenaars, onder de kleine mijnen en onder de prospektors om dit wetsontwerp van kracht te zien, zij zien er met verlangen naar uit om dit ontwerp zo spoedig mogelik aangenomen te zien. Er wordt door hen gevoeld, dat op aanbeveling van de Minister, zowel als op aanbeveling van het Selekt Komitee, heel wat belangrijke punten uitgevoerd zullen worden die ten gunste van de kleine delverijen zullen zijn. Daar is de vraag van meer rechten voor de prospektors; de prospektor zal grotere rechten hebben en zal meer krijgen voor zijn werk en zijn moeite Dan is daar de kwestie van veranderingen van delverslicenties in prospekteerlicenties. Daar is de kwestie in verband met het vernieuwen van een mijnpacht onder artikel 47 voor een tijdperk van 5 jaar. In sektie 11 wordt er voorziening gemaakt, dat het mijnkamp te Pilgrimsrust in een “township” veranderd kan worden. Dan is er de klausule in verband met landbouw waaronder gebruik kan worden gemaakt voor boomgaarden landerijen, enz., waar de oude klausule aangaande 2 jaar uit weg genomen is. Dan is er Klausule 19 over gebruik van standplaatsen, en Klausule 2 aangaande landmeters kaarten van stands op de oostelike delverijen—landmeters kaarten zullen nu niet meer nodig zijn, maar een schets plan zal voldoende zijn. Dan is er voorziening, dat er geen pressie uitgeoefend zal worden het zij op blanke of naturelle mijnwerkers om in bepaalde winkels te kopen. Dat is ’n grote verbetering, en dan is er de Klausule 24, waarover het edele lid voor Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) sprak aangaande handel drijven op mijnen. Het kan niet ontkend worden, dat de voorgestelde klausule betere bepalingen bevat in dat opzicht. Geen enkele van die klausules, die ik aangehaald heb, die van zo veel belang zijn voor de mijnen in de Oostelike Transvaal, geen enkele van die klausules door het Selekt Komitee voorgesteld, zijn enigerwijze veranderd. Hoe zou het in die omstandigheden voor mij mogelik zijn om in te stemmen met de opinie van het edele lid voor Vredefort (de hr. Munnik). dat er een geheel nieuw wetsontwerp voor ons is? Ik meen, dat de veranderingen in het wetsontwerp aangebracht, buiten het Selekt Komitee om, gemakkelik in orde gebracht kunnen worden en besproken kunnen worden in Komitee, en ik zal het voorstel voor de twede lezing natuurlik ondersteunen, en ik hoop, dat al die leden, die niet uit de Transvaal komen, maar die in andere provincies woonachtig zijn, en die derhalve de kwestie van mijnwetgeving altijd enigzins beschouwen als buiten hun sfeer te vallen, de twede lezing zullen ondersteunen, dat het Komitee stadium zo spoedig mogelik doorloopen kan worden, en dat dit wetsontwerp in het belang van de mijnindustrie aangenomen zal worden.

Ek dink die Minister vir Mynwese sal met my instem, dat verlede jaar op die Selekt Komitee daar ’n baie goeie gees diet geheers toen ons hierdie wetsontwerp het behandel. Daar was ’n gees gewees van geef en neem. Ons het baie verdelings gehad, maar die Minister sal instem dat die verdelings nie op party leine was gewees nie en dit het dikwels voorgekom dat ons op hierdie kant van die Huis die Minister het moet ondersteun om punte deur te kry waar sy eie kant nie met hom het ingestem nie, en ek voel oortuig, dat as die Minister die wetsontwerp, so as deur die Selekt Komitee gepasseer verlede jaar het ingebreng, hy nie baie moeite sou ondervind het, en ek voel ook oortuig, dat as die Minister die veranderinge nie sou ingevoer het in die ontwerp, hy ook nie baie moeihkhedo gehad sou hê.

Moe nie glo nie.

Maar die vraag kom nou op: wat het in die tussentyd plaas gevind dat die Minister nou die veranderinge het ingebreng? Die Minister het die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) te verstaan gegee, dat hy in Selekt Komitee teen hierdie punte gestem het, maar ek wil sê, dat in verskeidene gevalle sommige van die klausules wat nou uitgelaat is op voorstel van die Minister ingeset is. Wat het sedert die verdaging van die Parlement voorgeval? Ek glo nie, dat dit op die versoek van die landeigenaars gewees het, dat die veranderinge ingebreng is; ek glo nie, dat dit op versoek van die lede van die Huis gewees is. So daar bly nog maar net die mynbase oor—dis weer die mynbase wat gesegevier het. Ek wil net ’n paar klausules aanhaal om te toon, dat sommige van die klausules op voorstel van die Minister self ingeset is.

Wie ontken dit?

Daar is die klausule wat die edele lid vir Lydenburg (de hr. Nieuwenhuize) voor wil stem; die regte van die landeienaars is heeltemaal weggegee. In die Transvaal in die verlede het die land, die oppervlakte, sowel as die myn regte aan die eienaar van die oppervlakte toebehoor. Maar langsamerhand was die mynregte weggeneem van die oor-spronkelike eienaars en aan die Staat gegee. Maar die tyd het nou aangebreek, dat ons begin moet om halt te roep. Dan het die Minister self voorgestel dat Klausule 2 van die Selekt Komitee ontwerp sal bepaal wat edele en wat onedele metale was. Dit was door die Minister self voorgestel, so dat in die toekoms daar geen verdere gevalle sal wees waar ‘n mens nie sal weet wat edele en wat onedele metale is; maar nou vat die Minister daardie klausule uit die wetsontwerp en nou wil hy die indruk gee, dat hy self teen daardie klausule gestem het.

Nee, nee, dis nie die rede nie.

As edele lede na die Blauwboek wil kyk, dan sal hul op blads. 33 sien dat dit ’n klausule was wat die Selekt Komitee oorgelaat het sodat hul seker advies en informasie kan kry omdat die kwessie baie ingewikkel gewees het. Die Myningenieur het van Johannesburg moet kom en hy het advies gegee en dit was glo ek, op advies van die Myningenieur, dat die klausule ingeset is. Die klausule kan deur edele lede gelees word en die voorstel en die besluit staan in die Blauwboek op blads. 33. Dit staan daar “Op voorstel van die Voor-sitter dat die ou klausule geskrap word en vervang deur die volgende klausule ...”. Lede kan dit self sien. Die Huis het vandag die indruk gekry, dat die klausule daar ingeset was teen sy wens en dat dit volstrek nie sy begeerte was dat die klausule daar in sou kom.

Dis nie so nie. Ek het dit nie gesê.

Dis die indruk wat lede gekry het. Wat het gebeur sedert die verdaging van Parlement verlede jaar? Twee metale, radium en platinum, is nu ook geproklameer onder edele metale. Die mense in die Noor-delike Transvaal was baie bly toen hul gehoor het van die ontdekking van platinum. Hul het gedenk, dat hul nou in staat sal wees om iets vir hul self te maak, dat hul iets uit de ontdekking sou maak. Maar daar was toen dadelik ’n kennisgeving, dat die metale edele metale was. Daar die dinge is van die eienaars weg geneem en hulle is nou onder die edele metale geplaas. Ek is een van die mense wat boere verteenwoordig wat die regmatige eienaars van die metale is en ek kan hierdie ding nie laat verby gaan nie. Wanneer ons in Komitee kom sal ek ’n voorstel maak om die klausule in te set wat die Minister in die Gekose Komitee het voorgestel—ek sal voorstel, dat dit weer ingeset sal word.

Ja juis, dis die beste manier.

Dan kom ons by Klausule 3. Klausule 3 was een van die klausules wat oor-gestaan het. Op Klausule 3 was daar sekere moeilikhede aangaande mynpagte, en ons het tot ’n ooreenkoms gekom, dat dit beperk sal word tot klasse “A” myne, Johannesburg, die Wes Rand en die Oos Rand. Dit was op voorstel van die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik). En hierdie klausule het eenparig deur die Selekt Komitee gegaan. Daardie klausule is nou uitgelaat. Lede kan dit alles op blads. 34 van die Blauwboek lees.

Niemand ontken dit.

Die Minister het die indruk gegee aan die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) dat hy daar teen was gewees.

Nee, nee.

Dan vra ek “hoe kom dat die Minister nou sonder ’n woord te sê daardie klausule uitlaat?” Die Selekt Komitee was eenparig. Wat is die rede dat die Minister nou omgedraai het? Hoe kom sê die Minister glad niks nie hier behalve dat die wet drie jaar voor die Parlement is gewees—dis nie dieselfde wet. Ek verklaar dit hier sodat sekere verkeerde indrukke uit die weg geruim sal word. Dan is daar Klausule 8, een van die meest belangryke klausules in die ontwerp. Daardie klausule was deur die Selekt Komitee oorgelaat. Die Minister het gesien dat die klausule so sosialisties was as maar kon wees. Die Minister het dikwels teen sosialisme gepreek en daardie klausule vat die regte weg van die landeienaars. Hy moet seker geweet het dat die klausule nooit deur die Huis sou heenkom en toe het hy die weglating van die klausule voorgestel; toe kom hy met ’n nieuw voorstel wat meer aannemelik was, maar niet-teenstaande dit, en ofskoon dit nie so sosialisties was gewees, het die Minister tog die onderspit gedelf. Lede aan die kant van die Minister het self ook daarteen gestem en het die sosialistiese klausule uitgegooi.

Hul het selfs verder wil gaan.

Nee die Minister weet net so goed as ek weet, dat hierdie kant van die Huis gesê het “ons gaat nie die regte van die landeienaars aanraak nie.” Maar nietteen-staande dit voer die Minister weer ’n klausule in, en dit lyk vir my as of lede aan daardie kant van die Huis, wat landeienaars verteenwoordig, maar al te bly is om agter die Minister te hardloop om die regte van land-eienaars weg te neem. Ons kom nou aan ’n ander klausule wat baie bespreek is. Dis die stop-order klausule. Die Minister het gesê, dat daar net één punt uitgelaat is; ja, maar die een is van die meest belangrike punte; dis een van die meest belangrike punte onder die stop-order sisteem, en die Minister het net so goed die heel klausule kan uitlaat. Die edele lid vir Lydenburg (de hr. Nieuwenhuize) het uit die Gekose Komitee van 1921 gelees, maar as hy goed lees sal hy sien, dat die stop-order sisteem deur die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) voorgestel was en deur die meerderheid van die Komitee was aangeneem. Dit was ’n voorstel van die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik), en die edele lid vir Lydenburg (de hr. Nieuwenhuize) verklaar nou dat hy baie verwonder is. Ek dink dat die Minister ’n groot fout begaan het deur te probeer die wetsontwerp stilletjes deur te druk. Het hy gedink, dat lede die wet glad nie sou lees nie? Ek kan dit sê, dat die gevolg van dit alles sal wees dat lede huiverig sal wees om weer op komitees te sit as die Minister hul werk somar so op sy kan gooi en hul glad nie ken en as hy maar net enig ontwerp kan inbring net soos hyself wil. Dit sal lede laat voel, dat hul hul tyd beter sal kan gebruik dan op Selekt Komitees te gaan en maand na maand te sit en dan hul werk somar so op sy gegooi te kry. Die Minister had die Huis moet vertel, dat die wetsontwerp nie die voorstel was van die Komitee, maar dat dit sy voorstel was. Ek wil nou dit sê. Ek voel dat ons nou unifikatie het gehad vir 14 jaar. Elke jaar het ons baie wette gepasseer en baie werk gedoen, maar ek meen, dat die tyd nou gekom het dat ons gelykvormige wetgeving behoor te hê en dat die gees van provinsialisme moet verdwyn. Hoe kan dit gedoen word? Dit kan gedoen word deur één wet te hê van die Kaap tot die Transvaal. Dit is onbillik om één wet te hê in die Kaap en ’n verskillende wet in die Transvaal en weer ’n andere wet in Natal en die Vrystaat. Die landeienaars in die Transvaal het hul eiendomsregte—waarom moet hul altyd gemelk word en hoekom is daar nie dieselfde wet in die andere provinsies? Toen ek hierdie kwessie voor die Selekt Komitee gebring het het die Minister gesê, dat daar so baie gevestigde regte in die Kaap was. Het ons dan nie dieselfde gevestigde regte in die Transvaal nie? Aangesien daar nie goud in die Kaap is nie, gaat ek voorstel, dat die wetsontwerp terug verwys sal word na die Regering en dat één gelykvormige wet vir die hele Unie ingevoer sal word. Daar is nie goud ontdek in die Kaap nie, maar dis altoos moontlik, dat daar goud ontdek sal word. Ons het in Natal die distrikte van Vryheid en Utrecht, waar geen goudwet bestaat omdat by die proklamasie van Lord Milner die distrikte uitgesluit is van die werking van die Goudwet. Ek wil vra onder watter wette die Minister die myne daar bestuur? Dit lyk vir my as of die Minister nie één wet vir die hele Unie wil hê nie. Hoekom is verskillende dele van die Unie uitgelaat? Verskillende regte so as die van die De Beers is goed beskerm onder andere wette maar andere landeienaars soos ons in die Transvaal is glad nie beskerm. Ek stel voor—Alle woorden na “Dat” te skrappen en te vervangen door—

sekondeerde. Hij zei: Dit is duidelik, volgens die argumente, dat dit die waarheid is, dat die wet nog nie gekonsolideer is nie. Dit is nou reeds drie sittinge dat die Minister sukkel om die wet deur die Huis te kry. Al die veranderings in die goud wette is ten nadele van die grond-eienaars en elke verandering kom op die Transvaal neer, omdat die meeste minerale daar gevind word, en alle veranderings beteken soveel inkortings van hulle regte. Volgens hierdie wet moet hulle ook sekere regte prysgee aan die Staat en aan die bevolking van die Unie. Dit is tyd dat ons die wet so maak, dat die volk voel dat die wet op die hele bevolking druk en nie op Transvaal alleen nie. Van edelgesteente moet in Transvaal sestig persent en in die Vrystaat veertig persent afgegee word. My afdeling lê naasaan die goudvelde en die wet maak inbreuk op hulle regte. Die mense wil liewer dat die Goudwet bly soas hy is, en as die Minister wil ’n wet maak, moet hy rekening hou met die gevoelens: Daar is plekke, wat vroeër geprcklameer is, wat opgegee is en nou vir landbou doeleinde gebruik word. In hierdie wet kom die gevaar, in artiekel 6 oor “die bepalingen van toepassing by de de-proklamatie van of opheffing van beperkingen met betrekking tot geproclameerde grond”. Die gevaar wat ek sien is, die mense wat die rief besit, is die mynmense. Maar wanneer dit nie betaal nie en gedeproklameer word, kry die Kommissaris volgens hierdie artiekel die reg om sekere oppervlakte te vervreemd, en daar is regte wat die eienaar nie die hand kan op lê nie, en mens weet ook nie vir hoe lank nie. Ek moet hierteen protesteer en kan daarom nie vir die wet stem nie. Laat die Minister liewer die wet terug trek en dieselwe na ’n kommissie verwys. Voor die tyd is dit net lappery en die regte van eienaars word weggeneem. Solank as dit nie gebeur het nie, is dit beter om met die ou Wet aan te gaan.

Ek weet nie hoe die Minister met vrymoedigheid voor die Huis kan kom met die wensontwerp, waarin dinge weggeneem word en ander in die plek gestel. Die Minister weet so goed as ek, dat die boere die bewerasie kry as daar ’n goudwet voorgebreng word, sonder dat dieselwe na ’n Gekose Komitee verwese was. Welke reg het die Minister om die wet voor te breng, voordat dit na ’n Gekose Komitee verwese was, wanneer ’n wet na so ’n kommissie verwese word, is die werk in twee of drie dage afgehandel, alle skerp punte is weggeneem en alles is in orde. Ek denk die Minister sal alle verdenking en blaam wegneem as hy liewer openlik met die ding voor die dag kom en toestem om dit na ’n Gekose Kommissie te verwys. Vandag is die myne op bepaalde plekke, maar morre of oormorre kan dit glad op ’n ander plek wees. Daarom is die boere bang vir hierdie wet, daarom wil ek, dat die wet degelik deurgegaan sal word. Die edele lid vir Johannesburg Noord (die hr. Geldenhuys) praat wel teen sommige dele van die wet, maar as dit tot stemming kom, sal hy tog maar vir die wet moet stem om sy Ministerie op die kussings te hou, veral as dit eers by die Komitee stadium kom. Hy sal maar moet buig en stem ten gunste van die wet. Ek wens die Minister te vra: laat alle verdenking vaar en gee die boere ’n kans, want ons regte en voorregte is neg altoos stuk vir stuk weggeneem. In die wet is dinge ingevoeg, wat nie deur ’n Gekose Komitee gegaan het nie. Waarom is dit dan? Die Minister weet, dat as hy so sou torring aan die regte van die mynmagnate, hy gou sy kop sou stamp, maar hy denk, dat omdat ons ontwikkeld is en uilmekaar sit, hy met onse regte kan doen wat hy wil, hier is ’n verandering aangebreng wat betreft die proklamasie van edele metale. Wat sal gebeur as daar ’n kontrak bestaat van die ou dae af en die grond word later geproklameer? Moet die myne die voordeel hê, omdat die Regering nou ’n wet indien ten koste van die eienaar? So word sy grond verkoop sonder dat hy daar enige voordreel uit kry. Ek sal bly Wees as die Minister die wet eers weer wil terug trek.

Ek is bly oor die aanmerking van de edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). Hy meen, en ek stem met hom saam, dat daar die laaste tyd teveel toegegee word aan die sosialistiese party. Ek is seker dat die lede aan daardie kant verplig is om die grondeienaar te beskerm. Ek is teleurgestel met die edele lid vir Germiston (de hr. McAlister) en die edele lid vir Boksburg (de hr. R. H. Henderson) dat hulle nie die houding aanneem nie. Die mense sal reken dat daar regte van die eigenaars Weggeneem word en ek wens te laat verstaan, dat ek hier staan as vertegenwoordiger van die grondeigenaars. Daar word teveel geredeneer, dat dit die myneigenaars is, wat die grond in die hande het. Die mense het ewewel die grond nie gesteel nie, maar daar behoorlik voor betaal. Ek wil nie die hele land laat inpalm deur mijneienaars nie. Aan die ander kant, as ’n myn betaal het, moet hy sy regte kry. Verlede jaar is ’n Gekose Komitee benoem en die ding staat nog so, dat as ’n plaas gepro klameer word, kan die mynkommissaris aan die munisipaliteit net soveel gebied weggee as hy verkies. Ek dra die belange van die mynindustrie op die hart, maar wil nie sien, dat regte van die ware eienaars vervreemd word nie. Dit is reeds sedert die dage van die republiek ’n vaste gebruik, dat die regte van die grondeienaars beskerm word. Die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het verklaar, dat die myneienaars altoos agter die dinge sit. Ek wil verklaar dat die Minister van Mijnwesen en Industrieën teveel toegee aan die sosialiste stelsel en ek wil daarteen werk. Behandel hulle regvaardig, maar as hulle onse grond wil verdeel kan ek nie mee gaan nie. Ek sal bly wees as die edele lid vir Wolmarans stad (Gen. Kemp) die sosialiste ook wil teengaan, dat hulle nie sover gaan om onse regte te steel nie. Ek sal vir die tweede lesing van die wet stem.

I cannot support any amendment that will send this Bill back to the Select Committee, because I realize that there is always a possibility of a Bill being delayed, and in some cases when we get a Bill to this stage in this House it is almost certain to be delayed, if it is sent back to the Select Committee. New, last year it was expected by most members of this House that the Bill would become law, and it was delayed so long in the Select Committee that it was impossible to pass the Bill during last year.

Nothing of the sort, the Government delayed it.

Very well, let it be said that the Government delayed it. At any rate the hon. member will admit that sending the Bill to the Select Committee, and the time spent there, did not help to make the passing of the measure probable. At this stage and with the Bill in its present condition, I submit that the interests of passing the Bill on to the statute book as early as possible would not be best consulted by its being referred back to a Select Committee. But that is only by the way. Whatever little regrets one has that the right hon. the Minister did not introduce this Bill as fully as it is his custom, I think on the whole many of us, at any rate on this side of the House, and I presume on the other side, will agree that the Minister has adopted the better course maybe in the end to give ample time in Committee and to consider the Bill clause by clause on the floor of the House. I think, with the patience that the Minister has previously adopted on Bills of a similar character, that we are justified in saying that the better course has been adopted. I realize the difficulty of this Bill; perhaps there never has been a Bill introduced into this House where there were more conflicting interests than those in connection with the present Bill. And this naturally because of the original Gold Law and of the amendments subsequently brought forward to fill the position at the time and of the immediate future of these who had surrounded the gold mines. If we will take the question of the leasehold townships: the leasehold townships filled a mission at the particular time, but when the law came later that land was not permitted to be sold in leasehold but only in freehold. All the old conditions of the leasehold remained, and consequently to-day those who are looking forward to the early passing of this Bill see only now a possibility of relief from some of these onerous conditions. Now, there are the surface owners. The surface owners, those who own this property, have to-day all changed. You have no more of the old surface owners. Their rights have all been acquired either by companies or groups. I do not submit that as any reason why the law should be any different at all because they are groups instead of people. I notice the Transvaal Municipal Association asked that all the de-proclaimed land should be handed over to the various local authorities. One realizes that the local authorities have never had any land and that the local authorities to-day are in rather a terrible position for want of either Crewn land or land immediately outside their borders, and when we remember this, the onus which the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, 1923, places upon most of these Reef constituencies, we realize their demand and their great anxiety to acquire a portion of this de-proclaimed land. But these are only some of the difficulties which—

That is nothing.

The hon. member says they are nothing.

All for nothing, I say all for nothing.

Now, I admit, and I notice with some regret, there are very serious omissions in the Bill; I think, matters of vital principle, matters of great importance to the community, and when we look particularly and compare Clause 7 of the new Bill with section 8 of the old Act we will realize there at any rate that the urban local authorities will be very considerably disappointed in not having practically any of their demands acceded to. Now, the Bill provides that those municipalities and others who have land and upon which there is a building valued at £500 shall acquire and keep that land. Very well, following that they must purchase at the market value further land required or expropriated. Now, expropriation always appeals to me. At first sight it sounds a perfectly fair position, but the difficulty here to me is what is the value of that land? How will you get at the value of the land, because after all the value of the land by expropriation eventually comes down to the real value of the land? Now, without going into the question at all of who has created those values, or who has been responsible for those increased values, there are means by which these values can be completely changed. For instance, suppose the land is held back and is only put forward in very small portions for sale, you will find that the land there will become enhanced in value. You will find also if the Native Urban Areas Bill is to be carried out that the greater the want of the local urban authorities the greater increase will come in the value of this land. This possibility appears to me, and I want the hon. the Minister to consider it from this point of view. If we place these onerous conditions upon the local authorities then we ought to give them some means of carrying out those onerous conditions. We have placed the whole of the onus upon the municipalities; that they shall establish model locations, native villages, and hospitals for male and female natives, but all these conditions require land. I think it is quite correct to say that none of the municipalities on the Reef, except Krugersdorp, have got land. The greater the demand of the local authority the greater the market value of this land will be. I submit that this is one of the strongest points to be considered in connection with these clauses, and we may do the greatest injustice to the authorities by raising the price of this land. The next point I will deal with is this—and I know the hon. the Minister will smile—but I want to deal with that seven miles of missing Reef between the E.R.P.M. and Benoni. One spends some hours after every session with some of the most interesting of mining men in the country, and although I admit I have no knowledge of mining. I have received important information on this point and on this seven miles of reef between the E.R.P.M. and Benoni there is not a single mine working, and it is a remarkable thing, notwithstanding that they say there is no gold there, the fact remains that they are paying licences upon that ground the whole time, It is remarkable too that if the best known experts of the gold world say there is no gold there at all that these mining houses should continue to pay licences. It is one of those things which is not easily understood. There are many people who know more about gold mining than I do, and they are anxious to know the Minister’s views and to know what is intended to be done in the future. A mine either closes completely down or nothing can be done with it, and in this respect we have a remarkable outstanding case in the Cinderella Gold Mine. Many hon. members have read, as I have, with very considerable care, the reports on that mine written by Denny and men of such character. There seems to be no doubt amoung mining men that it is rich enough to be worked and should be worked. But it is opened by one group who are unable to work it and they cannot come to terms with another group. In other words, while men are clamouring for work, while there is unemployment among the miners—men who are worthy of employment—no work can be found. We have two groups fighting together while the town and the men are starving. I mention this only because I wish to congratulate the Minister, despite what has been left out of the Bill, on the power which is now placed in his hands and the control which he now has and which he has not had up to the present. But I now come to what is a very vexed question on most parts of the Witwatersrand, that is, mine trading. The resolution of the Associated Chambers of Commerce some years ago—I have not got it here at the moment—condemned all mine trading generally, and approved of the Co-operative Bill of 1922. It has been stated that the mines do not trade. I am not going to say they do or do not, but I do know that the Native Recruiting Corporation do trade, and to most people who are interested in this matter there is no difference at all whether the mines are trading surreptitiously or otherwise. The position taken up is that it is a violation of the law. The mine trading by the Native Recruiting Corporation should be done away with, because trading directly or indirectly should cease once and for all. There has been nothing which has caused more trouble than mines trading with their natives. To-day I am prepared to say from evidence given to me that the conditions which once might have justified this trading do not now exist. If the natives are paying too high a price for their articles of commerce I could then see some reason why the Native Recruiting Corporation should come in to enable the natives to get their commodities at a lower price. It is a very remarkable thing that the Cost of Living Commission in its present report says that those who then did native trading on the mines make the smallest profit of any class of trader in the Union. I am not defending the character of these storekeepers, but I do say that there is the Cost of Living Commission’s report, which says that the native traders on the Witwatersrand are the only ones who did not make any profit or at any rate only made a very small profit during the war period. The Native Recruiting Corporation is still there and is still trading. Now the Bill provides far these native traders to trade only in townships. That is good in itself, but there is no necessity for their being allowed to trade at all whether in townships or on mining ground, and the only solution which can give satisfaction is that the mines should cease trading with their employees. I think it is one of those matters which the hon. the Minister will have to consider very carefully. I hope that this will not develop into a party matter, but that consideration will be given to the permanent interests of the country in matters of this kind. There is another side to the mine trading position which is the stop-order system, of the Mine Trading Benefit Society. I can conceive where the stop-order system may be desirable, and where a co-operative society might be commendable or might be supported. I can understand the employees banding together for the good of themselves, but they have just the same rights to come under the law as the ordinary trader has and that is under the Co-operative Act of 1922. These are the two final points I want to touch upon in connection with this Bill. I hope that both sides of the House will assist to enable this Bill to be a workable Bill. Generally speaking, I support the Bill except, if I may describe them, those portions which have been omitted and which were approved by the Select Committee and excluded from the Bill. This Bill ought to make provision in regard to mine trading, and that while it shall not be unjust it will settle the question once for all and stop this eternal agitation provoked by mine trading.

I only want to speak on one aspect of this Bill. This is a matter which affects the whole of the Union. The distribution of the enormous amount of money which is made by the mining industry means that the greater the area of that distribution, the better it will be for the Union. Ninety-nine per cent, of the whole world is composed of those who have not enough, and personally I think that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) will admit that every State should see that the wealth of the country is distributed over as great an area of the population as possible. If you are going to confine your attentions to the few rich people in the community, then your community is not worth talking about.

You confine your attentions to the rich.

No. A great deal of the misery of the world is due to the fact that some people seem to imagine that only those people who have large fortunes should be protected. The greater the distribution of wealth the less distress and crime you will find in the country. The State cannot prosper unless you have a contented and happy population. The Minister has introduced this measure in a most extraordinary way, and how he had the assurance to do it in the way he did I can’t understand. Here we have a case of the Minister going to a Select Committee and after two years a Bill is presented involving as he says important principles. To a certain extent he is right when he says that every clause is a principle, but one of the principles of the Select Committee was that the Chamber of Mines should not have a monopoly of trading on the Witwatersrand, and the Committee put in protective clauses. I am only going on what the Select Committee did.

You are quite right; quite right.

I would remind the House that the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) did not treat it as a party matter in Committee. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that this system known as the stop-order system—which is a misnomer—this stop-order system on the Reef amounts to a means whereby the mine owner can do all the trading with their employees, and the stop-order system, as the hon. member who has just spoken has said, means that those who do the mining shall also do the trading. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. McAlister) moved and carried an amendment to one or the vital clauses in Committee and the Select Committee urged that this trading should not be allowed inside or outside the townships. In Clause 27, as amended by the Select Committee, it is provided that you are not allowed in any way to pay a man’s wages to somebody else. It should be paid to himself or to a benefit society, or an insurance company. These were definite principles laid down clearly for freedom of trade for individuals on the Reef. There is no necessity to suggest to the miner that the competition on the Reef is not enough to get him a fair deal; there is no necessity to tell him he has to trade with the mine owners. The Select Committee gave their report six weeks before Parliament broke up, and there was ample time to put it before the House. The amazing thing to me is that if the Minister, who was Chairman of the Select Committee, had to come into the House last session he would have had to bring that Bill in as drafted by the Select Committee. He now makes the amazing excuse that because he cannot reinstate the Bill under the Rules of the House, he is not bound by the work of the Select Committee. Without any respect to the Committee or Parliament he brings in an entirely new Bill and says that nobody will object—and there is not a word of explanation. Without being aware of the facts, when I first saw the Bill, I thought it was an innocent little measure, but when I heard the speeches of the hon. members, I began to look into the Select Committee’s report and into the old Bill and I was amazed when I saw that the principles passed by the Select Committee and endorsed by a substantial majority of the members, including some on the Minister’s side of the House, viz., that the freedom of trade on the Reef should be protected, and that the stop-order system, which led practically to a monopoly of trading by the mine owners, should cease, were given no real chance in the present Bill. Unless these safeguards are re-introduced, in a few years’ time there will not be a trader left on the Reef—and the whole of the trade will be in the hands of the mine owners. I have had representations on this matter, from the Johannesburg Chambers of Commerce and traders along the Reef, and they are unanimously of the opinion that if the Bill goes through in its present form the traders on the Reef will be destroyed. Is it right that these wealthy mining corporations should not be satisfied to get their profits from the mines, but attempt to get profits also through trade and put the smaller traders quite out of existence, and even big traders who have their families to support? Is it because they think that those who have, should receive more? The Minister’s Bill in respect of this point introduces an absolute reversal of the principles laid down by the Select Committee. Why did he decide to throw overboard the recognition of the Select Committee’s finding as to stop-orders—did he do it off his own bat, or did the Cabinet as a whole approve? Unless these questions are answered, this Bill should go back to the Select Committee, and we ought to give those who are in favour of freedom of trade in the Union a fair chance, and we should see that the clauses which have been cut out are replaced in their position as originally placed by the Select Committee.

I think this debate has been carried on with an entirely false view of the constitutional position. It seems to be implied by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) and other hon. members, that if a Bill comes back from a Select Committee, as this Bill came back last year, it is the bounden duty of the Minister to re-introduce it in the same form as it came forth, and not to alter one jot or tittle of the Bill. I want to say that in my opinion this is an erroneous and false assumption. I take it that the constitutional position is this—the Government alone is responsible for the initiation of legislation. Again and again the Government has disagreed with the decision of Select Committees. I would remind you of the case of the New Modderfontein lease, where by a large majority the Select Committee on Public Accounts came to a decision against it and the Government, following its undoubted constitutional rights, decided to differ from that finding. In the particular instance which we are discussing, if the Minister was bound to re-introduce the Bill in the exact form in which it emerged from the Select Committee, he would be introducing a Bill which was not his in certain respects, and he would be forced to bring up a Bill containing clauses with which he did not agree and have to say, “I am introducing this Bill, but it is not mine, and I object to the principles contained in such and such a clause, and when we go into Committee I will move something different.” If he adopted this attitude, those who have been criticising him would be equally captious and say, “What a curious thing it is for the Minister to introduce a Bill and tell us at the same time, ‘I do not agree with certain of the principles in the Bill?” I submit that the proper thing to do was to do what he has done, namely, to introduce a Bill which represents his policy and the Government’s policy, and to leave it to this House to accept or reject it. I do admit that it would have been far more satisfactory if the Minister had plainly outlined in his speech on the second reading the points on which he had departed from the Select Committee. That would have saved a great deal of trouble, and probably he realizes it now. I propose now to deal with the actual amendment moved by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), for I regard as fantastic and somewhat foolish the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), and in any case it does not appear to be taken seriously. To deal with the former, that the second reading be discharged and the matter again sent to another Select Committee, I wish to say that I was a member from the inception of the Select Committee which sat upon this Bill, the Select Committee of 1922, and the Select Committee of 1923, and I say this that no measure ever came before this House which has had more meticulous attention and care than this particular Bill received from that Select Committee. We went very carefully into every provision of the Bill and introduced a great many revolutionary changes, and the Minister himself introduced many new provisions in the Bill. The Bill which came back was three times as long as the Bill which went to the Select Committee. It is now suggested that we send it to another Select Committee. I say from my knowledge of the work of the Select Committee that this course is entirely unnecessary, and I characterize as purely a party move this amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). On what grounds does he introduce it and on what grounds do they support him? It is said that this Bill is entirely different, from the Bill that came from the Select Committee. It is said that it is virtually a new Bill and that it requires fresh examination. That is not the case. I say the Bill before the House now is as to 95 per cent, of it the Bill which came back from the Select Committee. I have been through the two Bills and I find that there are only two points—two main points—in which the present Bill differs from the old Bill which came from the Select Committee. In the great majority of cases the Minister has accepted the decisions of the Select Committee whether he approved of them or not. On two main points during the recess he has apparently found that he cannot accent the findings of the Select Committee. One is that the definition of “precious metals” has been dropped and the other is that the Minister has dropped the provision relating to stop-orders. With regard to the first one—I am looking at the report of the Select Committee—I find that the new definition of “previous metals” was introduced by the Minister himself. It was not a provision forced upon the Committee against the opposition of the Minister, but it was something introduced by him himself presumably on the advice of his technical advisers. I take it when he reconsidered it he found that this provision is not workable. The second is the provision as regards stop-orders. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) introduced into the Select Committee a proposal to this effect: that a mine should not in future accept stop-orders on their wages given by its employees, but should pay in future the salaries of the employees direct to those employees. We discussed this provision at some length in the Select Committee. It was moved by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and received support from members on all sides excepting three members, including the hon. the Minister of Mines and myself. I admit this is an important matter. I admit that the Select Committee came to a decision different from that of the Minister, and I say that in the interval, I myself have become convinced that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) was right, and I was wrong, and I shall urge the Minister to reconsider his dropping of this particular clause. But I want to get back to the point I was making and say that the Minister is perfectly within his rights as a Minister in taking up the attitude he does if he does not approve of the principle in question, and in not having forced upon him a decision from the Select Committee if he thinks it is wrong. It was never contained in the original Bill. I am hoping, however, that on further consideration, he will find that this provision was necessary. I will tell you why I have changed my mind. I have been told by merchants, Chambers of Commerce, and other bodies along the Reef what the present position is. It is open to a mine to say to its own co-operative society, carrying on business under its own wing: “We shall accept stop-orders given to you by our employees, but no outside merchant will have stop-orders given to him honoured by us.” I am told that this is creating a position which is quite impossible for the mercantile community. I am told that if this continues, the dice will be so loaded against the commercial community on the Reef that the present distress existing amongst them, and the present tightness of money and depression of trade will be accentuated to such a degree that many will be forced out of business. I did not accept this at its face value, and in the recess I made enquiries, and I am convinced that if the Minister allows the present state of affairs to go on, trade depression will come into being such as we have not known up to now, and we have known a bad state. What is the present position? There is no reason why the employees of any mine should not form a cooperative society. There is no reason why a mine should not assist them with a site to trade upon and assist them with its general goodwill; 5 but I think the limit of fairness is passed when a mine says to its employees “You may go to any trader you like—say in Boksburg—and if you buy from him you must get credit or pay cash, but if you go to this particular co-operative society, you can sign a chit and we shall honour it at the end of the month.” Well that in itself gives the co-operative society an advantage over the ordinary trader in the Reef towns, against which it is absolutely impossible for him to compete. I agree that the co-operative societies should be encouraged. But it is quite a big advantage enough for them to compete against the ordinary trader from the fact alone that they are co-operative societies. When you carry it to this extent that you allow the mines to pay these co-operative societies on the stop-order system, and refuse it to the ordinary trader, it places the former on a pedestal which gives them an undue advantage over the ordinary trader, and that is unfair. Under the present Gold Law we have a prohibition of the truck system. We do not allow a mining company to pay its employees in anything but cash. It cannot pay them by boots or blankets as part wages. But is it not an infringement of this principle if you allow a mining company to recognise a stop-order from its own society, and allow it to refuse to honour the stop-orders from outside merchants? Our railways have introduced a rule that they will not recognise stop-orders at all; they have had so much trouble with them that they have introduced a railway regulation forbidding the giving of stop-orders at all by their employees to the merchants—[An Hon. Member: “What about the mines?”] If the mines said the same thing, that would be absolutely fair. That is, as a matter of fact, the effect of the clause introduced by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) that it should be illegal to accept stop-orders. If that is done it will be fair to all. If the present state of affairs continues, then I say it is grossly unfair, and it makes the task of the ordinary merchant impossible. I have gone into this matter at some length because it is a point on which I have changed my mind since last year. But I say again that the Minister is within his rights if he takes an opposite view from this (in the Bill. I think the Minister has gone very far in accepting the advice of the Select Committee. In one or two instances he has not accepted their views, but in the great majority of instances, even when out-voted, he has accepted the view of the Select Committee. I would urge upon the House that it is not necessary again to have this twice-digested meal digested again by a third Select Committee. It is unnecessary, and I hope that the amendments will not be accepted by this House.

Ek sien, die edel-agbare Minister is baie haastig om die wet deur to kry. Ek is glad nie haastig nie. Ek ver-teenwoordig die boerebevolking, grondeienaars, en die lede van die Huis weet dat die reef van die Witwatersrand hom uitstrek ook tot my kiesafdeling. Ek sê, ek is nie haastig nie, en ek hoop die Minister is ook nie haastig nie en sal ons ’n kans gee om die wet weer terug te wys. Ons, wat in die Transvaal woon, kan nie daarvoor nie dat al die edele metale by ons gevind word nie. Ons het almal vir die grond betaal, en goeie pryse betaal ook. Waarom nou die profyte wegneem ten bate van ander eienaars of van die Regering. Ek wil hê dat ons bepaal wat edele metale is. Onder die ou wet was goud en silwer die enige edele metale. Dit is van die grootste belang dat ons duidelik bepaal wat edele metale is. Nou sal platina ook onder edele metale gebring word, maar waarom? Die Minister van Mynwezen kan eersdaags ook tin as edele metaal proklameer. Ek weet dit nie, maar ek het eksperts hoor verklaar dat tin min of meer dieselfde erts is as platina en op dieselfde plekke gevind word. Dus kan die Minister oor ’n paar jaar ook tin gaan bring onder edele metale. Ons eienaars-regte in die Transvaal word voortdurend ingekort. Ons is bang vir al die wette. Ieder jaar word ons regte meer ingekrimp. Hier b.v. meet ons gaan verloor vier-vijfde van ons eiendom van platina. Ons gaan maar een-vyfde kry. Ek dink dis baie onbillik. Ek wil graag weet waarom platina onder edele metale gebring word en ’n behoorlike defeniesie van edele metale. As net goud en silwer as edele metale beskou word, dan sal daar geen verdere moeilikhede kom nie. Dis moontlik dat hier in die Kaap Provinsie of in Natal ook eendag metale gevind word en ek dink dis wenslik om ’n wet te maak vir die hele land. Waarom moet ons in Transvaal ’n Goudwet hê wat heeltemal apart is van alle andere Provinsies? Daarom gaan ek heeltemal saam met die edele lid vir Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). Nou wil ek nog iets sê omtrent stop-orders. Dis baie gemakkelik vir die werkers om op die stop-order siesteem skulde te maak. Maar wat gebeur? Al wat hulle salaris is, word aan die begin van die maand uitgegee op step-orders en as die vrou aan die end van die maand geld nodig het, dan is alles uitgegee op die stop-orders. Ek hoop die Minister van Mynwezen sal die artiekel terug bring tot die Komitee stadium.

I hope the Minister will be prepared to take the adjournment now. I move—

seconded.

I am sorry, but I think that there is every possibility of our coming to a decision in this matter. As I explained before, all these matters have been before a Select Committee, have been threshed out there, and will ultimately come for decision to this House, and whether you sent the stop-order to thirty Select Committees you will have a division of opinion there, and ultimately this House must decide. The House has now got a perfect opportunity of deciding, because when we come to that any member can move that this clause be restored or move that as an amendment, and the House can decide on it. I trust the hon. member can find time to say now what he has to say, and I will say a few words in reply and we will go to a division.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and negatived.

I am sorry that the Minister was not prepared to accept the adjournment for two or three reasons. He says in the first place that this matter has been thoroughly threshed out. That I deny; and, secondly, the Minister expects me to say what I have to say before 6 o’clock. Then he says also a “few words in reply”. He said a very few words when he introduced the Bill, but gave no explanation at all of why it was that he saw fit to go against the decision of the Select Committee.

Give me a chance, give me a chance.

And he wishes to induce this House to gloss over this very important Bill, in view of the changes introduced by the Minister, and he says also “a few words in reply.” Perhaps it is as well; perhaps the fewer words the hon. Minister says the better. But while I am delighted to see the changed attitude of the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), there are one or two matters to which I will refer. I quite agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the Minister is quite within his rights in introducing an entirely new Bill. I for one do not maintain the position that a Select Committee, having made certain alterations in a Bill which he originally introduced, that he will reintroduce it next year as amended by a Select Committee. I agree with him that he has the right, as representing the Cabinet, of introducing or reintroducing the old original Bill. But I do say that it was only due to the House that when he was making such important changes, overriding, so to speak, what had been said by the Select Committee after, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says, having given it the most meticulous care, that the Minister should have given a most complete and satisfactory explanation. Why has he dared to override the recommendations of the Select Committee? A Select Committee, it cannot be emphasized too strongly, which was composed, as all Select Committees are, of a majority of the Government side of the House. Never forget that, and never let members of this House forget it, that you have never yet had a Select Committee set up by this House—especially a Committee which is going to enquire into the policy contained in a Bill which has been thrown on the floor of the House by the Government itself—never has such a Select Committee been embodied that did not contain a majority of the Government side of the House, and therefore it might reasonably be expected to, as it were, stereotype the decision, the foregone decision of the Minister himself. And yet, in spite of that fact, so impressed were the Government representatives on that Select Committee of the enormity of the danger that was likely to arise from the framing of that Bill as it stood, that they decided to vote against the Minister himself, the Government, and their party’s policy, and decide to recommend to this House that those very changes should take place and should be embodied in the law. We have got to remember that, and I want to impress it on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that this is the reason why the Minister should have thought long and seriously before he made the changes in the first place; and in the second place, he should have given the fullest explanation to this House in order that members might be in possession of all the reasons, all the influence, all that was telepathically made to him, no doubt, by people situated in high places that caused him to change his mind and ride rough shod over the Select Committee, which sat and gave such careful and meticulous consideration a year ago. There is another point which was made by the hon. member. He said that the Government initiates legislation in this House. Well, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has sat long enough on the Government side to know that that is not so. If he thinks so, that is labouring under a delusion.—[An Hon. Member: “That is a fiction”]. That is a very comforting delusion. Yes, it is a fiction. No, the Government does not initiate it; it only gives effect to it. It is their friends situated in high places, notably the Chamber of Mines when it is mining legislation which comes before this House, and our friends over there wag their tails and then place it before the House. I look upon this, both the alteration and the method of alteration, and the few words that the Minister gives as introduction and the few words he proposes to give in reply and explanation, as nothing more or less than political sharp practice. Nothing more or less. I hope that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will translate his speech this afternoon, or whenever the vote is taken, into action, and that he will vote against the Government and vote in favour of the elimination of this stop-order system.

You can do that in Committee. I say the opportunity comes in Committee.

There the lawyer stands revealed. Will you seize the opportunity? Will the hon. member?

Wait and see.

Wait and see; and we hope to hear too, and the Minister will be whispering. I notice that there are several important alterations made in this Bill as framed by the Minister since the recommendations of the Select Committee were obtained by this House, several very important alterations indeed, and it does give one furiously to think. Can one be blamed for suspecting that the Government does not initiate legislation, at all events of a mining character in this House, when one sees that all the matters recommended by the Select Committee which were new matters and inserted on the Select Committee’s recommendation, that all those have been eliminated, and all those were disowned in the interests of the whole mass of the public of South Africa, and the alterations made or suggested by the Minister laid down to the honour and glory of the mining houses themselves, and to the detriment of the people who have to live in South Africa? I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) into a dissertation upon platinum. I am not going to express an opinion whether it should be considered a base or precious metal; but I am concerned and I do propose to emphasize in this House the tremendous importance to the vast mass of the community of the alterations that are proposed by the Minister of Mines. For instance, it has been mentioned, and I could not use more earnestness or better language on this question of the stop-order system. It goes far deeper than what the member refers to. No doubt his usual modesty prevented him from traversing the matter. He was dealing with the mercantile community. I agree with him. The inevitable result of the introduction of legislation of this description, that is preventing the Select Committee’s recommendations coming into being, the result is going to be the elimination of the whole community on the Witwatersrand, because they cannot exist under the conditions which it is proposed to give the Chamber of Mines control over. That is one aspect. But there is the other aspect, and it is an aspect based upon very wide experience in England which caused them to introduce what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) referred to—the Truck Act—the greatest danger to those employed in an industry of being paid in kind. It may seem a far cry, but it is not so far when one comes to examine the question. It goes very deeply indeed, and this is the aspect of the question that first drew my attention to the enormity of it. If the House will do me the honour of remembering, the first Committee which sat on this question was the Trading on Mining Lands Committee of 1919 of which I was a member. I moved definitely that the stop-order system should be declared illegal, and I did it because I was interested in the welfare of the employees themselves, the mercantile community incidentally, but chiefly because of the men who are employed by the mining companies. It will not be very long before, human nature being what it is, these inducements which have been offered to workers on the mines, they will be wholly and solely dealing with their employers; the money being stopped in the office, everything being carefully tabulated by the mine staff; it will not be long before the employers themselves will know exactly what it costs a man to live. I am satisfied of this that we know our mining houses, we know our financial people, we know our employee class, and it will not be long before they decide that that is the certain amount these men can live upon, and the men will soon have to work for the rent, their food, their clothing, and nothing else. That is precisely why the Truck Act was introduced. That was the great danger which I saw in the first place, and that is the view which our mercantile community takes, a very necessary section of the community we socialists recognize. I do think that the Minister, whom I have had a great deal to do with publicly and privately, and whom I know to be a well-meaning man, will be prepared to reconsider the position now that it has been pointed out to him so very forcibly in the House, and will decide that after all what is of more moment to this country, in the words of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), is not how much can be dragged out of it in the form of profits, sent overseas or into a few pockets, but how much benefit is the whole community to derive from the existence of this, that, or any other principle That is what counts: the larger the population that you can have living upon an industry and in happy comfortable circumstances the better for the country, and you cannot obtain that and at the same time increase the amount of profits that the employers themselves desire. In these circumstances I am opposed to the second reading, although there are parts of the Bill of which I am heartily in favour; it is like the curate’s egg—good in parts, and I propose to examine these with meticulous care in detail in the Committee stage, but unlike the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I am prepared to say now in the House on the second reading that I am going to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, ek sou graag ’n paar vrae wat hier gedoen is, wil beantwoord. Die eerste een is waarom ek nie gestaan bly het by die rapport van die Selekt Komitee nie en waarom die behandeling van die wetsvoorstel nie hervat is by die stadium waarin dit was na die rapport van de Selekt Komitee. Maar, die reëling van die Huis sê dit kan maar twee sittings agter elkaar gedoen word en dit is die derde. Ingestel nou dat ek by die tweede lesing vra om ’n beginsel te bekragtig wat ek in die Komitee weer gaan teen staan. Die Huis word in die selfde positie gesteld as hulle sal wees wanneer die wet nou van die Selekt Komitee sou terug gekom het. Ek kan die besware van die verskillende lede nie sien nie. Die edele lid van Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) stel voor om artikel 27 te verander. Dit kan in Komitee van die hele Huis behandel word. Lede wat daar voor is kan hulle mening sê. Ek denk, die hele punt is nou duidelik. Dis nie dat daar invloede by my gewerk het na die rapport van de Selekt Komitee of dat ek die Selekt Komitee het wil beledig, ek is dit nie van plan nie. Dan is daar gevra waarom platina te verklaar as edele metaal. Dit het nodig gewees om die bestaande wet te gebruik en platina as ook osmum as edele metalen te verklaar in die Transvaal, want, by die rafineer van goud het die ertse gevent geword en dit nodig gemaak om hulle as edele metale te proklameer. Daar het ’n deputasie by my gekom met die versoek om met die proklameer te wag tot die Parlement se mening daaroor gesê het, maar so as die edele lid vir Witbank (de hr. de Villiers) sal sien het dit net die teenoorgestelde werking gehad. Neem nou die stop-order kwessie. Die mynwerkers wat aan die ko-operatieve vereniging behoor (nie die myneienare) het die wens geuit om hul vereniging te behou. Ek het gesê ja, maar dan moet die ko-operatieve vereniging onder die akte kom. Hul se ons is bereid. Die stop-order stelsel is een algemene stelsel oor die hele land. Dis nie net vir die Witwatersrand nie, en ons kan nie ’n spesiale uitsondering maak vir een gedeelte van die land nie. ’Maar daar is veel voor te sê en veel teen, en as die meerderheid van die Huis in Generale Komitee van mening is dat artikel 27 behoor verander te word sal ek nie daar teen skop nie. Die edele lid vir Vredefort (de hr. Munnik) wril hê dat dit naar een kommissie sal terug gewys word, maar so kom ons nie verder nie. Daar sal weer menings gegee word en ons kan voortgaan tot in die oneindige. In Komitee kan die hele Huis oor die punte beslis. Die Huis word in die selfde posiesie gestel as die Huis gewees sou het nadat die rapport van die Kommissie was uitgebring. Met betrekking tot artikel 8 het ek geprobeer om die skaal soveel moontlik in balans te hou, en met die belange van die munisipaliteit en die van die grondeienaars daarby soveel as ek kon rekening hou. Die munisipaliteite sê “ons wil die grond vir niks hê”, en die grondeienaars sê “jullie gaat glad niks kry nie. Die Huis sal oor die meriete van die wetvoorstel kan oordeel en in Komitee kan alle besware vorentoe gebring word.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion; and the House divided:

Ayes—62.

Bailey, A.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell. L.

Brown, D. M.

Buchanan, W. P.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claassen, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Graumann, H.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Henderson, R. H.

Jagger, J. W.

Jordaan, P. J.

King, J. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, F. S.

McAlister, H. S.

Mentz, H.

Moffat, L.

Moor, J. W.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Purcell, I.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stuart, W. H.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Eeden, J. W.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—46.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Boydell, T.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Enslin, J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jansen, E. G.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Malan, D. F.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Wilcocks, C. T. M.; Sampson, H. W.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Munnik and Gen. Kemp dropped.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 11th February.