laid upon the Table—

1. (35) Proposed sale of certain piece of land at Fort Beaufort to the Kat River Co-operative Citrus Company, Limited.
2. (36) Proposed deletion of certain condition in Title Deed of School Site at Fort Beaufort.
3. (37) Proposed erection of certain structures; on foreshore at Fishhoek, Cape.
4. (38) Proposed lease of Isinuka Springs at Port St. John’s.

Papers referred to the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

I move—

I know the subject of unemployment has been discussed during this present session but this is quite a new feature of this problem, inasmuch as this has arisen since the queston of unemployment was discussed in this House. The Cape Town Municipality proposed to close down its relief works because of the Government’s cutting down of the subsidy, and thereby throwing a thousand men on the streets. That is what I want to urge. This is a very definite matter, and is one which should commend itself to the citizens of Cape-Town. Here we have the spectacle of a local authority absolutely refusing to use its powers, and I wish to move this because ultimately the Government has the power to make other bodies take action in matters such as this.

The grievance is against the Corporation.

The grievance is ultimately against the Government of the country. The right hon. the Minister of Agriculture is amused, as usual, but this is not a laughing matter for these men to be thrown in the street. If the local authority, whether it be a divisional council, a city council or a provincial council, fails in its duty, then the ultimate responsibility rests on the Government of the country, and my motive in bringing this matter before the House is because the House rises on the 10th of this month and these men will be paid off on the relief works and will not get any relief whatsoever. For the sake of argument, suppose the city council carries out its threat, I want to know from the Government what they propose to do to deal with this extraordinary position. Are they prepared to say if the city council fails in its duty—

The hon. member cannot discuss it now, I must first give my ruling on it. The hon. member submits that the threatened closing down of relief works by the Cape Town City Council is a matter of urgent public importance. I cannot remember an instance where Parliament has interfered in regard to a local authority.

May I point out, sir, that it is not merely a criticism of the local authority, but it is an outstanding fact that before this Parliament meets after the recess we shall have a thousand men and their dependents reduced to starvation, and we feel that this cannot be passed by with indifference by Parliament.

The matter which the hon. member wishes to discuss appears to be the impending action of the local municipal authority and it seems clear to me that, for two reasons, I am precluded from accepting the motion. In the first place it may be taken as a general rule that motions for the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance must have some relation to the conduct or the default of the Government in matters for which they can be held responsible, and I cannot remember any instance of Parliament having interfered in the actions, actual or contemplated, of a local authority. As a matter of fact it is impossible for this House to exercise any direct authority over the Corporation of the City of Cape Town and I fear that the House would only render itself ridiculous in the eyes of the general public if it were to pass a solemn resolution which could not be carried into effect. In the second place there is the point of urgency, a point upon which the Speaker is the sole authority. The hon. member submits that at the end of this month he suspects that the City Council will close down certain relief works at present in operation. Can I, in the light of the time that will elapse before such apprehended action is to be taken, say that it is a matter of urgency at the present moment? Where is the urgency? I do not see it, nor am I aware of a case in which the House, on a motion for the adjournment, has been asked to discuss a matter which may or may not arise. It is difficult for me, as Speaker, to refuse an appeal on behalf of these unfortunate people who may be affected, but after all it is my duty to apply the rules, and to my mind the motion is out of order for the reasons stated. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the motion.

moved—

In moving, sir, that this message from the Senate be concurred in, I ask at the same time that certain small changes in phrasing will be adopted before the Address is finally approved because there are certain phrasings here which, I think, with all respect to the original drafters of this Address, can be improved on. I think our powers in the matter of this message would not prevent us from introducing small verbal improvements later on, when the Address comes to be put in final form.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: Section 8 is a new section which I intend to introduce in order to prevent the necessity for the Government, in the future, applying to the House for further provisions if conditions similar to those which exist to-day should again arise at any time.

Mag ek aan die edelagbare die Minister vraag, hoe dit bekend gemaak sal word; per proklamasie in die Staatskoerant, en hoe sal gehandel word met distrikte, wat miskien denk, dat hulle val ondier hierdie Wet en dalk nie as sodanig beskou word deur die owerheid nie? Dan die vraag, gesteld deur die dele lid vir Harrismith (de hr. A. A. Cilliers) of droogte en siekte beskou sal word as eweseer oorsaak te kan wees van die bestaande nood. Ek vrees namelik, dat die edelagbare die Minister gaat verskil maak tussen ’n distrikt, wat deur droogte geteister is en een wat deur veesiekte gely het. Of sal dit net droogte wees, wat in aanmerking geneem word? Want ons vind in die opgawe, deur die Regering gepubliseer, dat siekte onder die vee net so grote verliese veroorsaak het as droogte. Die opgawe word uitsluitend opgeneem deur die poliesie, en dit geskied maar op ’n lamlendige manier; hulle kom net en vra wat het iemand verlies deur droogte en wat deur siekte en wat opgegee word, dit word opgeskryf. Daar is distrikte wat reken dat hulle val onder die Wet, omdat hulle deur siekte onder die vee geteister was en ek wil graag weet of hulle gelyk het.

I think I made it extremely clear when this clause was under discussion before, that this Bill was a special measure introduced solely and entirely for dealing with the extreme circumstances which had occurred owing to the late drought. I propose, later, to substitute “two years” for “one year,” so that it will apply to the droughts of the previous two years, but the Bill is introduced solely and entirely to deal with those extreme circumstances, and it is not the intention to apply it generally.

How is the hon. the Minister going to base the areas?

My hon. friend asks me about the conditions of the districts. I have at the present time— because this thing has been under consideration for some time—reports from various magistrates as to the conditions of the country in January of this year, and I have further reports from the magistrates as to the conditions of the country in March, and of the changes that have taken place in those districts where the drought has broken. Naturally, we will have to get the fullest information as to what the conditions are in the various districts, but to enable the provisions of this Bill to be applied, the conditions there must be owing to, and following the fearful drought the country lias passed through.

Ek wil graag die edelagbare die Minister se aandag vestig op eienaardige gevalle. Neem my distrik; die sal waarskynlik nie geproklameer word tot ’n geteisterde distrik onder hierdie Wet nie, maar tog is in die omgewing van Reitz plase, waar die droogte alles verniel het, en die mense verkeer net so seer in nood as enige ander. Nou wil ek weet, kan hulle na die magistraat gaan en hulle saak duidelik maak, al word daar geen besondere raad aangestel nie? Die droogte was die laaste jaar wonderlik; sommer in die middel van ’n welvarende streek is enkele plase, waarop niks gewin is nie; sou dit nou nie moontlik wees, dat hulle na die magistraat kan gaan en dat hy hulle saak ondersoek nie?

Ek dink die vraag van die edele lid is meer op sy plek onder Klousule 3. Op die oomblik is Klousule 1 onder behandeling.

I may say to my hon. friend that its does come under Clause 3, but it would save time if I were to answer it now. I am prepared to make certain concessions in this Bill, as I stated at the second reading, but I am not prepared to go further than that, and I am extremely anxious that this Bill should get through as quickly as possible, so that it can go to another place, and be promulgated and come into operation as soon as possible. But with regard to what the hon. member says, the provisions of the Bill not alone apply to a district, but to a portion of a district, which may be suffering from the effects of droughts during the last two years. It is not a Bill for general relief over the whole length and breadth of the country, because if we propose a measure of that sort nobody would know to what financial obligations it would lead.

Ons het hier te doen met ’n punt wat ek by die tweede lesing geprobeer het duidelik te maak, namelik Klousule 1, wat lees: “De bepalingen van deze Wet zijn van toepassing op personen woonachtig in zulke distrikten of gedeelten van distrikten als de Goeverneur-generaal by Proklamatie in de Staatskoerant mag bekend maken.” Dit kom my voor dat hierdie woorde dit nie onmoontlik maak dat ’n deel van ’n noodlydende streek sal kan uitgesluit word van die hulp wat voorgestel word onder die Wet te gee nie. Al te veel sal afhang van die opvatting of uitleg van die Minister van die klousule. Sal dit so uitgelê word dat ook die eienaars van ’n stuk of wat plase wat swaar deur droogte gely het onder die bepalinge van die Wet kan gehelp word? Ek verwag van die Minister ’n uitdrukkelike versekering dat hierdie belangrike punt wel onder die klousule sal kan behandel word, want ons moet tot duidelikheid hieromtrent kom om reg te kan doen aan almal wat deur droogte gely het.

I think it is as clear as either the English or the Dutch language can make it. “In each proclaimed district or portion of a district.”

How will they be proclaimed?

By the ordinary proclamation in the Gazette.

Yes, I know, but how?

How can we proclaim it in any district until we have the fullest information? When we have that we can apply it to a whole district or a portion of a district where such conditions prevail.

No matter how small the portion?

Dit is my nie duidelik hoe die Wet toegepas sal word nie. Sal die edelagbare die Minister op sy eie informasie proklameer, as bepaalde distrikte val onder die Wet of word dit verwag dat die distrikte aansoek sal doen, want dit maak vir groot distrikte groot onderskeid of die proklamasie willekeurig geskied dan of aansoek gedaan moet word.

My hon. friend can understand that we can get information from anywhere, but I am not going to take any information without the fullest enquiry, as it may be biased. Large numbers of people might desire that this Bill should be applied to their districts, when the terms of the Act and the intention of Parliament do not apply to those particular cases. We have already, as I have said, got information from large numbers of magistrates in the country who are acquainted with the local circumstances, and we have discussed the position with prominent local people, and we are going to follow the same lines in the future. There are in many districts agricultural associations and bodies which are deeply interested in, and acquainted with, the farming conditions of the country; it is open to all those people to make representations, but what I want the House to understand is, that this Bill is not going to be applied generally to give relief to everybody whom people think should have relief, but only in connection with the absolute circumstances mentioned in the Bill. Wherever any district has been afflicted with severe drought, and a certain number of the farmers who are actively engaged in farming operations can say that their poor circumstances are due to drought, then it is these people whom the Bill proposes to give assistance to, especially when there is a possibility for them of rehabilitating themselves. In cases of this description such people can be helped exactly as in the Drought Relief Bill of 1916.

Before we leave Clause 1, I hope the right hon. the Minister will be able to assure us that the proclamation will, if necessary, include irrigation districts which have suffered as much as any other district?

With regard to the amendment which the right hon. the Minister has moved, it excludes from this section one portion of new Clause 8, which he is moving. I take it that that means the new Clause 8 is to apply generally throughout the country. If so, how can Clause 8 be brought into a Bill to provide for relief? It seems to me that this is beyond the scope of the Bill.

I think my hon. friend can discuss Clause 8 when it comes on.

Wat ek graag wil weet is, of die edelagbare die Minister instruksies gaat gee aan al die magistrate om die saak te ondersoek. My afdeling, wat grootliks ’n veedistrik is, bevat kolle waar baie gesaa word, maar die mense het geen koring of mielie oes gehad pie en het saad baie nodig. By ons is Aprilmaand die saaityd vir koring en dit vereis spoed om die mense nog te help aan saadkoring, voordat die maand verby is. Dit sou daarom goed wees as die magistraat instruksie kry om saad uit te deel. Of gaat de edelagbare die Minister nou eers distrikte proklameer en andere in die kou laat?

Dit is my nie duidelik, hoe die mense sal weet wanneer die saad beskikbaar is nie. Die vraag is reeds gestel deur die edele lid vir Prieska (de hr. Coetzee). In die noordwestelike dele is uitgestrekte plase, wat in vele gevalle 13 en 14 uur te perd van die dorp af lê, die magistrate het nie tyd om in die distrik rond te gaan en besit ook nie ’n rytuig om dit te doen nie. Die polieseman bly dan maar alleen oor om die nuus uit te bring en ek dink die Wet moet so gemaak word, dat die mense na die magistraat toe kan gaan.

Ek sou die edelagbare die Minister graag daarop wil wys; hy weet dat in my kiesafdeling die mense, tengevolge van die sprinkane alles verloor het. Die mense het glad geen koring gewin nie, ons het applikasie gemaak by die Regering en dit is toegestaan, dat hulle saadkoring kan kry, maar nou wil ek weet, of die mense ook onder die Wet val.

If the hon. gentleman will read the Bill, he will find that provision is made in this Bill in connection with all advances of seed after February 15th, 1924. That has been put into the Bill—

Order! I was going to tell the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Gen. Muller) that this question does not arise under Clause 1.

Dit lyk of alle distrikte, wat droogte gely het, onder die Wet sal val. By my het die hele distrik nie so onder die droogte gely nie, dog daar is hier en daar ’n paar plase, wat al ’n paar jaar agtereen geen reen op tyd gekry het nie en ook geen oes gehad het nie; hoe kan hulle nou applikasie maak; dadelik, of moet hulle wag, totdat hulle geproklameer word? Dit is ’n klein deel van die distrik en sal hulle vanself gehelp word, of moet hulle eers applikasie maak?

Die saak onder bespreking behoort eintlik by Klousule 3, maar hier staat iets van proklamasie en ek wil dieselfde ding vra, as die edele lid vir Pretoria Distrikt (Zuid) (Gen. Muller). Wegens die toestand van die laaste twee jaar sal my distrik nie verklaar word tot een wat deur droogte geteister is nie, maar die edelagbare die Minister het toegelaat, dat edele lede vraë gestel het omtrent persone, wat al of nie geregtig sou wees tot hulpverlening onder hierdie Wet. Sal dieselfde aan die enkele persone in ’n distrik as myne gedaan word, nietteenstaande die Wet?

Dit spyt my, maar die edele lid moet sig bepaal tot Klousule 1.

Ek wil graag van die edelagbare die Minister weet of hy my nou kan antwoord op die vraag, wat ek hom reeds gestel het. Dit is in verband met sekere mense in Winburg magistraats-afdeling wat geen saadkoring kan kry nie, ofskoon hulle woon by Excelsior, distrik Ladybrand. Hoe affekteer Klousule 2 hulle?

I would like to enquire of the right hon. the Minister if the provisions of this Bill are also intended to be applied to farmers in irrigation settlements?

I do not make any distinction in the Bill as to whether they are irrigation districts or ordinary districts. As I have said over and over again, the Bill deals with districts which are suffering from severe drought.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

Ek wens ’n amendement voor te stel—

Ek denk dit is ’n goeie amendement, want dit sal bewerk dat alle partye mooi sal saamwerk en dat geen verwyt gemaak sal word me, dat daar boereorganisasies is en die word nie geken nie; ander hoort daar weer nie aan nie en dit is goed, dat van buitekant die organisasies ook enkele mense aangestel word.

In beginsel gaan ek met die voorgestelde amendement saam, maar dit is m.i. te omslagtig en ek kan nie insien, hoe die Minister die invloedryke boere van die distrik gaan raadpleeg nie. Die mense het maar drie maande tyd om applikasie te maak en as daar eers allerhande persone gekonsulteer moet word, vrees ek dat die tyd verby gaan en dat niemand sal gehelp raak nie. Ek wil die edele lid tegemoet kom met die volgende amendement op syne—

Dit is nie alleen die opienie van my nie, maar ook van die Adviserende Raad van die landbouunie, of liewer die edelagbare die Minister het dieselfde aan die band gegee, maar as die edelagbare die Minister al daardie persone en liggame moet raadpleeg, dan word die saak hopeloos. Waar ewewel erkende boereverenigings en organisasies bestaan, gaan ek met die edele lid saam.

Ek vertrou, dat die edele lid vir Losberg (Lt.-Kol. Dreyer) die amendement van die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) sal aanneem, want ek stem ten volle saam met hom. Ek stem ook met die beginsel in, maar reken dat die heeltemal ondoelmatig. As al daardie mense moet geraadpleeg word of die magistraat met ’n hele komitee moet werk, dan gaat die drie maande verby. Dit is ’n belangrike punt en ek wil by die edelagbare Minister daarop aandring om die amendement aan te neem. Die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) het onlangs gepraat van politiek invoer in dergelike dinge en ek wil hom vra, om dit asseblief nie te doen nie. As die boere die verantwoordelikheid moet dra van die kiesing van die Rade sal dit baie help.

I do not think it is really going to help us very much if we are going to have amendments of this sort moved in the Bill. The responsible person is the Minister who is responsible to this House if the Bill becomes law, and, naturally, when you are going to find out what the condition of a district is you will take steps to get the views of those people who are most qualified to give you the information. The most qualified person is the magistrate of the district, but if either of my hon. friends are going to define in an Act of Parliament what is an influential farmer in a district, it is going to be a very difficult thing to do. If you begin to hamper the administration of an Act by amendments of this sort, you will make the working of an Act like this impossible, and instead of helping people you are going to make the Act inapplicable in several instances. We are anxious to get the views of responsible farmers in the district, but I am equally anxious to see that this Act shall not be made a lever for advances where advances are not justified, and I am not going to set up machinery for people to help others as a matter of friendship. The Committee must realize that it is the taxpayers of this country who have to find the money, and that the Minister, by whom the Act is to be administered, is responsible not only to the House but to the taxpayers of this country. I hope hon. members will not move amendments of this character which it is impossible for me to accept.

Dis jammer dat die edelagbare die Minister die amendement nie wil aanneem nie, wat m.i. ’n billike is. As ek goed ingelig is dan was dit aanbeveel deur die Adviserende Raad van die landbou unie, dat as ’n kommissie moet benoem word, die magistraat in oorleg moet tree met bestaande liggame, maar die Minister wil nie in aanraking tree met mense, wat aan Jan, Piet en Klaas voorskotte moet gee nie. Ek is seker dat daar goeie mense is, maar wat die edelagbare die Minister bedoel is dat net sekere mense gcholpe sal word, en ons moet aanneem dat die persone wat benoem word deur die magistraat en die landbou-veroniging die beste mense sal wees. Dit is geen onbillike voorstel nie, en ek weet die edelagbare die Minister vertrou die landbou unie en hy vertrou die magistrate, en ek hoop hy sal die amendement aanneem.

I thought I had made it clear to hon. members that in ordinary circumstances, when you are appointing a committee in a district, you want to know who are the most responsible people. If there is a responsible agricultural body which is not personally interested in the matter, naturally, we would like to get their advice, but you do not want that embodied in an Act of Parliament. I told the House before that naturally we will get all the information we can, but there may be agricultural bodies which will say because district A is proclaimed district B should obtain similar benefits from the Treasury funds.

I want to move an amendment to this clause from a different point of view, that is a financial point of view, and on the lines which I mentioned in the second reading, that the funds for this purpose for administration will be provided from revenue. I move—

I have consulted the Treasury about that, and I think what the hon. member says is correct, and that the charges should be from revenue. I understand from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) that in future, if this Bill becomes law, these administration expenses should be paid by vote from the ordinary revenue of the country. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member, as I think it is the best way to deal with the matter.

Ek gee nie om, om daardie gedeelte van die amendement terug te trek nie, wat sê “invloedryke boere” en om dan te laat staan dat sulke boere organisasies wat in die distrikte is, geraadpleeg moet word.

Ek wil net die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou duidelik maak, dat daar baie distrikte is waar die magistrate voortdurend verplaas word. Vat nou die distrik van Klerksdorp, ek hoop Klerksdorp sal onder die Wet val. Die magistraat, wat daar was en wat die distrik ken, bet vertrek na Nylstroom. Die nuwe magistraat kom eers op die 1ste Mei. Wat weet hy van die distrik en van die mense daar, tensy die edelagbare die Minister hom refereer na die landbou unies? Daar sal hy inligtinge kan kry. Vat Wolmaransstad, daar is ook ’n heeltemal nuwe magistraat Wat weet hy van die distrik, tensy die edelagbare die Minister vir hom sê, dat hy moet in oorleg tree met die bcerevereniginge? Ek sê nie, dat die vereniginge moet aanstel nie, maar hulle behoort gekonsulteer te word. En so is die posiesie van die magistrate die hele land deur. Ek verheel my, dat in die aanliggende distrik van die Vrystaat, in Bothaville, ook twee of drie maande gelede ’n nuwe magistraat gekom het, hy weet ook niks van die boere daar nie en van die toestand daar. Die gevalle het ek in my gedagte, wanneer ek sê, dat in konsultasie getree moet word met die landbouvereniginge.

Ek hoop die edele lid vir Losberg (Lt.-Kol. Dreyer) en ook die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) sal hulle amendemente terug trek. Jy kan nie die bepalinge almal in die Wet opneem nie. In die geval sou ek die edelagbare die Minister kan voorstel om ook in te voeg, dat afdelingsrade geraadpleeg word. Ek veronderstel dat dit gedoen word. Die edelagbare die Minister sal nie so in die wind boere gaan aanstel nie. In die een plek is daar boeregenootskappe, in ’n ander plek ’n afdelingsraad en ergens anders weer ’n ko-operatiewe vereniging wat geraadpleeg behoor te word. Ek dink jy kan nie al die dinge in die Wet opneem nie, maar ek dink, dat in al die gevalle die edelagbare die Minister die boere sal raadpleeg. Die Goewerment weet tog ook min of meer, welke persone in die verskillende distrikte daar is, wat vertrou kan word en wat aanbevelinge kan maak.

Ek stel voor dat in lyn 9 die woord “drie” verander word in “vyf”. Ek weet nie of die edelagbare die Minister wel goed weet, dat in baie gevalle die magistraat onbekend is met so’n distrik. In plaas van ’n kommissie wat ut twee bestaan, stel ek voor, dat die kommissie sal bestaan uit vyf. Die kan beter raad gee as ’n kommissie van twee en die magistraat help. Dit hoef nie ekstra onkoste veroorsaak nie, maar die mense is van meer adviserende waarde as ’n liggaam wat uit die magistraat en twee lede bestaan. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal dit aanneem.

I may say at once that it is not possible for the hon. member to move that, because these members are paid. If the hon. member reads the Bill carefully, he will see that provision is made, that is, the sub-committee. The central committee is paid so much a day while attending to public business, and I do not want to make this a sinecure. The Bill lays down that there will be not less than three members, and I think this is fair. But if it is thought necessary that there should be four or five, this will be done. I do not think it necessary to go further.

Mnr. Voorsitter, gaan u die klousule stel na die amendement? Gaan u die hele klousule daarna stel, of gaan u eers ander amendemente neem?

Ek stel natuurlik al die amendemente.

En daarna die klousule? Voor ons dan deurgaan met hierdie klousule wil ek voorstel, dat die bepaling dat lede van die kommissies 17s. 6d. sal kry vir elke 24 uur, verander sal word en dat die lede hulle werklike uitgawes betaal sal word. Ek wil onder die aandag bring, dat baie kere lede geen persoonlike uitgawes het nie en dan word hulle betaal. Neem by voorbeeld persone wat tien myl van die dorpe woon. Wat ’s morrens inkom en weer byna dadelik uitgaan, daar is die betaling meer dan voldoende. My bedoeling is die administrasie van die Wet so goedkoop moontlik te maak. Die voorstel lê 17s. 6d. vas, maar ek wil graag dat die edelagbare die Minister die klousule verander, deur te sê, dat alleen die werkelike uitgawes van die lede sal betaal word, in plaas van 17s. 6d.

I may say at once that I do not wish to have on this committee any man of substance who lives 10 or 15 miles from a town, and who is not prepared to make a certain amount of sacrifice to help his fellow farmers. I think in these circumstances the scale as given to civil servants is quite sufficient.

Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister is daar verkeerd, om te sê, hy sal die man wat lid is van die kommissie net vir 17s. 6d. laat werk. Ek weet nie waarom hulle so nougeset is teenoor die boere nie. As hulle die beste mense wil kry, wat nie veel tyd het om die kommissie te gaan bywoon en wat veelal ’n heel eind van die dorp af woon, dan kan die mense tog nie al die tyd én moeite en onkoste gee vir 17s. 6d. nie. Die gevolg sal wees dat die magistraat by so’n man sal kom en sal vra: “Wil jy ons nie help deur lid te word van die kommissie nie”? Die kerel sal sê: “Goed, maar wat gaat ek kry daarvoor?” Die antwoord sal wees: “17s. 6d.” Dan sal die man sê, dat dit onmoontlik is vir daardie bedrag. Dis ’n onmoontlik iets, as die beperking gestel word. Jy sal nie die regte manne kry nie. Ek weet nie of ek ’n amendement kan voorstel, wat meer uitgawe sal veroorsaak nie deur te sê, dat ingevoeg moet word na pennies: “plus sy billike reis onkoste.” As dit gedoen word, sal as die klousule lui “17s. 6d. plus billike reis onkoste,” dan loop die edelagbare die Minister nie gevaar om te veel te betaal nie. Dan sal hy ’n klas van mense in die kommissie kry, wat die beste in die distrik is.

Het die edelagbare die Minister wel die amendement gestel om in die Hollandse teks die woord “elk” te verander in “enig”? Het hy die amendement gestel. Hy het dit op papier? Dis in reël 22.

This is only a printer’s error.

The right hon. the Minister has to move the amendment.

Then I move it now—

Agreed to.

Ek wil net ’n vraag stel. Ek wil graag weet waarom die edelagbare die Minister geen betaling sal gee aan die lede van die sub-komitee nie. In lyn 45 staan: “Geen betaling wordt gedaan aan een lid van een sub-kommissie”.

I shall tell the hon. member. It is because we want to devote all the money Parliament will vote to the deserving object for which it is intended; that is towards the poor people ruined by the drought. I am perfectly certain that when we want information in any large district, as to the condition of a man living there, a man who lives far away from the magistrate’s office, many people of influence will come for ward and give the advice as to his position, and that they will help us without looking for payment.

Dis nou nie juis nodig, dat die edelagbare die Minister so opgewonde word nie. Daar word nie voorsiening gemaak nie om lede van die sub-kommissie ’n vergoeding te gee nie. Dis nie my doel nie, dat al die mense vergoeding moet kry nie, maar ek kan nie verstaan nie, waarom die beginsel aangeneem word, dat lede van die kommissies 17s. 6d. kry en dat andere, wat dieselfde werk moet doen, niks betaal word nie. Ons kan nie verwag, dat iemand in ’n sub-distrik, wat gewoonlik nog verder afwoon as diegene wat in die magistraat se distrik self woon, al die moeite moet doen sonder die minste vergoeding nie. As dit die doel van die edelagbare die Minister is om die maatreël so goedkoop moontlik te maak, laat hom dit doen, maar dan sal dit seker nie so doeltreffend moontlik wees nie.

My hon. friend must understand that the central committee will have a great deal more work to do. The idea of the sub-committee is this, that if somebody applies from an outlying portion of a district, instead of the members of the central committee going out and enquiring into all the circumstances, they will probably be able to ask one or two people of standing, whose opinions can bc relied upon, living in the district, to verify the circumstances and let the central committee know what the state of affairs is. Under those circumstances I do not think payment is at all necessary, and I do not think they would ask for it.

Ek wil graag weet, hoe die definiesie van “geproklameerde distrikte” opgevat sal word. Wat is nodig? Wie gaat dit doen? Wanneer val ’n distrik onder die bepaling om geproklameer te word? En dan: is die Wet van toepassing vanaf 1922? Die twee vrae waarop ek graag ’n antwoord wil hê.

I think if my hon. friend will read the Bill he will find that it is laid down very distinctly that the districts in which relief is to be given, are districts which are to be proclaimed by the Governor-General, and this is provided for in the Bill. The districts will be proclaimed by the Governor-General as drought-stricken areas under this Bill.

Die antwoord wat die edelagbare die Minister aan die edele lid vir Boshof (de hr. C. A. Van Niekerk) gegee het, maak dit vir my baie duidelik, dat hy nie gevolg het die bedoeling van wat ek gesê het nie. Ek bedoel nie, dat aan iedere lid 17s. 6d. moet betaal word nie. My bedoeling is, dat daar lede sal wees wat geen werklike uitgawe sal hê nie en dat die nie betaal sal word nie. Soos dit nou staan het iedere lid wat 24 uur weg is, reg op betaling, of hy persoonlike uitgawes gehad het of nie. Daarom het ek aan die hand gegee om net die werklike uitgawes te betaal en nie iedere lid 17s. 6d. te betaal nie.

The hon. member must know that in the long run it has been our experience that it will cost a great deal more money and it will mean an enormous amount of correspondence. In these cases the magistrate certifies that a man has been so long on this particular work, and he is paid his 17s. 6d. a day and the matter is finished.

Ek stem in met wat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het, maar om die rede stem ek nog nie in met die bepaling van 17s. 6d. nie. Die manne wat 17s. 6d. sal kry, sal manne wees wat in die dorpe of naby die dorpe woon. As daar ’n lid is, wat sê, vyf of ses uur te perd van die dorp af woon, dan kan ons tog onmoontlik verwag, dat waar die man die onkoste het, dat hy vir die 24 uur 17s. 6d. kry, want dan sal hy baie uit sy sak wees. Ek praat uit ondervinding. Ons het andere kommissies gehad, waar lede na ’n vergadering het moet kom en as die lede verplig word om hulle eie reiskoste te betaal, dan ly hulle skade. As ’n man net in die dorp woon, dan is dit reg en as die edelagbare die Minister net die 17s. 6d. betaal, dan sal hy net die mense van die dorp kry. Dis ongewens. Mense wat vyf of ses uur te perd van die dorp af woon, is miskien net die goeie manne en dis onbillik om te sê, dat in ieder geval 17s. 6d. betaal sal word. Die man sal “out of pocket” wees en 17s. 6d. is te min as toelae. Ek dink die bedrag behoort verhoog te word.

Ek wil ook graag onder die aaridag van die edelagbare die Minister bring, dat in sommige streke boere 50 to 60 myl van die magistraatskantoor afwoon. As die edelagbare die Minister nou sê, dat die lede van die sub-kommissie kan skrywe aan die sub-kommissie en dat hulle nie persoonlik op die vergadering hoef te wees nie, dan sal in vele gevalle aan die beswaar tegemoet gekom wees. Maar in daardie dele is daar ook baie mense wat ver van die poskantoor afwoon, wat maar eenmaal in die 14 dae pos kry en kans kry om pos te verstuur. Daar is mense wat 5 tot 6 uur te perd van die poskantoor afwoon en ek wil nou graag van die edelagbare die Minister weet of die lede van) die sub-kommissie persoonlik op die vergadering moet kom of dat hulle kan skrywe. As hulle werkelik persoonlik moet gaan, dan lyk dit vir my onbillik, dat die mense geen betaling kry nie en as die mense nie betaling kry nie dan sal die werk baie oppervlakkig gedoen word.

Amendments proposed by Lt.-Col. Dreyer and Mr. Smit put and negatived, and amendment proposed by Sir William Macintosh put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

I made a statement on, the second reading of the Bill that there seemed to be a doubt as to whether the clause as originally drafted would meet the bywoner class, and it was also pointed out that a man who had been farming twelve months might not be farming on the same particular portion of land, that is, that a bywoner might legitimately be farming on A’s farm and move four or five months later to B’s farm, and, although he had lost his stock from drought and was a desirable person, the interpretation of the Act regarding an occupier would not apply to him. I do not think that would be the case, but in order to make it perfectly clear I move the first of these amendments.

Ek wil ’n amendement voorstel in die Hollandse teks—

Daar staat nou dat ’n. man wat applikasie maak van goed karakter moet wees en “zich goed gedraagt”, maar volgens my voorstel sal dit nou lees “van goed karakter en gedrag”. Ek dink dit is die bedoeling van die paragraaf.

The reason for the two last amendments, proposed by me, is to make provision for an amendment of a subsequent clause to meet the views expressed by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) and others, that perhaps we would be doing wrong in confining ourselves to special classes of seed, and that there might be cases where we may be able to help a man with other classes of seed.

Ek wíl graag net vra aan die edelagbare die Minister dat hy asseblief vir my duidelik moet maak wát die betekenis gaat wees van “distrikten of gedeelten van distrikten als de Goevernéur-generaal bíj proklamatie mag bekend maken”. As daarnou ’n distrik nie geproklameer is nie, maar as daar mense in die distrik woon wat skade gely het deur droogte, kan dan die mense hulle nie beroep op hulp wat onder hierdie Wet verleen word nie? Ek sou graag ’n verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister hieromtrent hê.

If the hon. member will wait till Clause 8 he will see that I am putting a general clause in the Bill which applies to the issue of seed in districts affected by drought. There iá a general clause in the Bill under which seed can be issued, and when seed is issued the Land Bank takes a lien upon the crop and can deal with that crop: to see that the seed is paid for.

Ek wil ook graag ’n amendement hier voorstel, maar voor ek dit doen, wil ek graag eers kritiek uitoefen op een van die amendemente van die edelagbare die Minister, namelik om in plaas van 12 maande “twee jaar” te sit. Ek wil net daarop wys dat wat die koringproduserende distrikte betref wat deur droogte nie hierdie jaar, maar die vorige jaar skade gely het, hierdie wetsvoorstel nie in die behoefte sal voorsien nie, dat die Wetsontwerp nie die geval sal dek nie deur te sê dat ’n applikant twee jaar voor die Wet in werking tree, skade deur droogte sal moet gely het nie. Laat ons aanneem dat die Wet in werking tree op die 15de April. Nou, dit sal beteken dat die mense wat skade gely het deur droogte na die 15de April 1922, daaronder sal val, maar die edelagbare die Minister sal ook weet dat die mense nie in April oes nie, maar in November maand of Desember maand, en hulle graan verkoop al voor ’n groot gedeelte in Januarie. Neem b.v. die mense in Calvinia wat skade gely het deur die groot droogte in die vorige seisoen. Die Wet maak die stipulasie van 2 jaar. Sit nou in plaas van twee jaar, “1 November 1922”. As die kleine verandering aangebring word dan is daar nie die gevaar dat die een of andere verdienstelike geval sal uitgesluit wees nie. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal die wenk aanneem, anders sal ek dit voorstel as ’n amendement. ’n Andere amendement wat ek hier graag in wil bring is in sub-sektie (2) (b), en dit is in die rigting waarin ek gespreek het by die twede lesing. Die Wetsontwerp soos dit hier staan— ek het dit al aangetoon—lyk alleen vir mense te wees wat reeds bankrot is of op die punt van bankrotskap staan, want dit lees dat die applikant in so’n mate verlies gely moet hê dat hij niet in staat is werkzaamheden voort te zetten of te hervatten”. Dus die man moet feitelik reeds geval het, en ek dink as die edelagbare dié Minister dit goed corweeg dan sal hy akkoord gaan met die invoeging van die woorde, “niet in staat is of gevaar loopt om niet in staat te zijn”. Nou val die arme mense, werkelik arme mense, maar wat nie reeds in daardie totale gevalle toestand is nie, dat hulle gereken kan word onder die mense wat bankrot is of op die punt van bankrotskap is nie, buite die bepalinge van die Wet. My amendement is as volgt—

Die amendement maak die klousule ’n bietjie wyer as die Wetsontwerp hier is en daarom wil ek die amendement voorstel.

Die vraag is of dit die onkoste nie sou vermeerder nie, in ander woorde dat die persone wat onder die bevoegdhede van die ontwerp val, in getal vermeerder sal word, waatdeur die onkoste vermeerder sal word?

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling is quite Correct on this question.

I was not giving a ruling, I was only asking a question.

The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) will see that this goes back to April, 1922, as I have put in two years instead of one year, and the period of two years applies to seed as well as to livestock. We have been rather liberal in advancing seed to districts like Calvinia, and the Department has been liberal in advancing seed where a farmer has not been able to provide seed for himself. I am moving a new clause which will make it possible to advance seed where a man has lost his crop, without coming to Parliament every time to get authority. The seed will be advanced and a lien taken on the next crop. The divisional council of Calvinia, two years ago, approached the Department for seed advances, and they gave security for it, but now we have a general clause that where seed is necessary we can advance it, and the Government will have a lien upon the consequent crop.

Before I accept the amendment, I should like to be informed by the right hon. the Minister whether it will increase expenditure.

Anything which proposes to ante-date the two years as moved by me in the Bill would increase expenditure. I have handed in the authority of the Governor-General empowering me to move the amendment which will increase expenditure.

I would like the right hon. the Minister to tell me whether the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) will increase expenditure?

Anything which enlarges the scope of the Bill increases expenditure.

Miskien wil die Minister die houding opneem, dat as die Huis wens om die Ontwerp werkelik, ruimer in sy toepassing te maak, hy daar nie teen sou wees nie, en cm die rede sal hy miskien nie objekteer nie om die amendement wat ek voorgestel het te laat oorweeg. Dis van groot belang want anders sal daar mense uitgesluit word, wat werkelik gehelp behoor te word.

But who are they?

Dis die mense omtrent wie die kommissie as hulle hul saak ondersoek, nie in staat sal wees nie om te sê, dat as hulle nie deur die Wet gehelp word, hulle dan sal vassteek, of dat hulle hul boedels sal moet oorgee, maar wat tog baie arm mense is, en as hulle nie onder die Wet kan kom nie, dan sal hulle hul toevlug moet neem by geldskieters wat hulle geld sal leen teen baie hoë rente, en hulle sal dan in die posiesie raak dat hulle glad nie sal kan aangaan nie. Die bedoeling is om nie die mense uit te sluit wat net op die grenslyn is nie.

The hon. member knows we have never refused to issue seed in the circumstances which he has referred to. This Bill does not lay down the circumstances under which we can issue seed, but it does state that the Government will take a lien on the crop. In cases where men are so impoverished, we have never failed to issue seed, and we intend to do that in the future.

Dit sypt my, maar onder die omstandighede kan ek die amendement nie aanneem nie.

Ek wil net sê, dat dit vir my nie lyk nie as of die amendement die onkoste sal vermeerder.

Ek het my reëling gegee.

Is dit dan nie ope nie vir bespreking?

Nee, dit spyt my, dat die edele lid nie eerder gespreek het nie.

Ek het geprobeer, maar ek kon nie. Maar daar is ’n ander punt onder Klousule 3, reel 56; daar verskyn die woord “twaalf.” Ek weet nie waarom die Minister hom daar by twaalf maande bepaal; hy het die woorde daar nie verander nie. Hy het seker woorde daar geskrap, maar die woorde “twaalf maande” staan nog steeds. Die gevolg van wat daar staan is, dat die boer wat in Oktober as die saaityd aanbreek na my distrik kom en begin te boer; hy sal miskien vir 6 of 7 maande nie geboer het nie, maar hy kom dan en begin weer. Ek meen, dat die Minister daar die “twaalf maande” in “ses maande” behoor te verander: dit sal die Ontwerp nie verswak nie. Die Ontwerp vereis nou, dat die boer twaalf maande daar in die distrik geboer sal hê voor die Wet van krag word. Die ander woorde wat betref okkupasie is uitgeneem, maar ek wens, dat die Minister nou verder sal gaan, want die droogte waarvan ons daar ly is vanaf Oktober tot aan April.

You mean to deal with drought in the future instead of in the past?

Nee; ditsê hier: “onmiddellik voor de inwerking treding van de Wet.” Die posiesie is, dat as die Wet in twee maande van krag kom, dan moet die boer daar vir ’n jaar lang van te vore boerdery uitgeoefen het; maar wat omtrent die man wat daar in November kom om daar te boer, die man wat ly tengevolge van droogte in die verlede? Daardie man kan nie gehelp word nie. As hierdie Wet in Julie van krag word, dan kan niemand daaronder gehelp word as hy nie minstens sedert Julie van verlede jaar daar geboer het.

The hon. member forgets that in so far as the issuing of seed in any case is concerned, provision can be made for that, so long as it is found that the man who wants the seed has ground in which to plant it.

Die edelagbare die Minister het voorgestel om twaalf maande te verander in twee jaar, maar ek sou liewer gesien het, dat hy dit drie jaar gernaak sou het, want daar is mense wat nie dadelik uitgeboer raak; hulle werk jaar na jaar en dan die derde jaar raak hulle uitgeboer deur die droogte. Ek sou liewer gesien het, dat die edelagbare die Minister daardie mense ook ingesluit sou hê. Maar ek wil weet, waarom die edelagbare die Minister sê “drie jaar onmiddelik voor het in werking treden van de Wet.” Dis ’n Wet vir altyd en nie net vir een jaar.

Nee, dis net vir een jaar

Ek wens voor te stel—

My bedoeling is duidelik. In die geproklameerde droogte gebiede kan die mense hier die jaar niks nie verwag. Hulle sal vir die volgende 18 maande glad geen inkomste kry nie. Ons sal die gevalle kry van mense wat deur die droogte so terug gegaan het, dat hulle krediteurs in drie maande nadat die Wet gepasseer is op hulle sal afkom en dan miskien al hulle ploege en osse verloor. Ek meen, dat as die drie maande tot ses maande vermeerder word, dat dit dan baie mense sal help; anders sal die man net voor sy ploegtyd uitverkoop word. Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister die amendement sal aanneem.

Ek wens ’n amendement voor te stel in Klousule 3, lyn 53, en ek dink, dat die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) syne dan sal terug trek. Die edelagbare die Minister sal vind, soas die Wet nou staat, dat slegs persone wat binne drie maande van die in werking treding van die Wet, applikasie maak kan gehelp word. Stel dat die Wet more in werking tree en oor drie maande is ’n sekere distrik nog nie geproklameer nie, dan is dieselwe vir daardie distrik van nul en gener waarde. Daarom stel ek voor—

Als die amendement aangeneem word dan is daar kans dat die distrik geproklameer word en het die mense ’n kans teen die tyd, wat nie die geval is soas die Wet hier staan. Dan wens ek onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister te breng, dat hy in die amendement deur hom voorgestel, die tyd moet verander van 12 maande in 24, anders sal dit vele mense nie help nie. Die mense, wat van die begin van die droogte af geteister is, sal nie geholpe raak nie. Die edele lid vir Prieska (de hr. Coetzee) en ek het ondersoek gedaan en uit gevind, dat in Februarie en Maart, 1922, is groot aantalle vee dood tengevolge van die droogte en 12 maande sal die mense nie help nie. Ek wil net, dat die edelagbare die Minister mense, waardie droogte al in Februarie en Maart die vee afgemaai het, sal tegemoet kom. Ek weet nie of dit in orde sal wees nie, maar ek wou voorstel, dat daar nou staat “gedurende 12 maande” ingevoeg sal word dit woorde: na de eerste dag van Januarie 1922.”

Die moeilikheid is dat dit waarskynlik die koste sal vermeerder.

Ek wil ’n beroep doen op die edelagbare die Minister om dit aan te neem.

Die edele lid moet verstaan, dat ek het nie die reg nie en die edelagbare die Minister het ook nie die reg nie om bepalings in te voeg op hierdie stadium, wat die koste sal vermeerder, sonder goedkeuring van die Goewerneur-Generaal.

Dan sou ek wil voorstel, dat voortgang gerapporteer word ten einde die kans te gee, dat die nodige toestemming verkrege word.

Ek wil graag die amendement van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) steun, maar ook die van die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy).

Het edele lid voor Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) heeft geen amendement voorgesteld.

Wel, ek wil die amendement van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) ondersteun. Dit kan tog gebeur, soas die Wet daar staat, dat by die invoering van die Wet, dit een of twee maande duur, voordat ’n distrik geproklameer word en dan het die mense te weinig tyd en daarom sou ek graag sien, dat die amendement van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) aangeneem word en ek sou ook graag sien, dat die voorstel van die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) aangeneem word; die tyd is te kort en ek vertrou, dat die edelagbare die Minister dit sal insien. Die meeste mense besef eers teen ploegtyd hulle nood en as dit van drie maande uitgebrei word tot ses, dan sal dit bevredigend wees. Hulle besef, as die ploegtyd aanbreek, welke soorte saad en hoeveel hulle nodig sal hê, asook hoeveel en welke soort landbougereedskap. Die boere wil nie graag skuld maak nie, voordat hulle absoluut weet, dat hulle die goed nodig het. As die edelagbare die Minister die amendement van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) aanneem, sal hy die boere grootliks tegemoet kom.

Ek wens verder voor te stel—

Wat betref die eerste deur my voorgestelde nuwe sub-artiekel, is dit duidelik wat bedoeld word; soas ek herhaaldelik duidelik gemaak het is my kiesafdeling ’n mieliewereld, waar die mense hulle lewe uitsluitend van die mielieboerdery moet maak en so ’n artiekel is te hard, waar die mense geen vooruitsig het om binnen agtien maande enige inkomste te verkry nie. Daar is mense, wat ’n verband het by die Landbank of by ’n private geldskieter en ons weet, dat hy ’n jaarlikse rente moet betaal, maar deurdat die droogte daar was en hy nie kon saai nie, is dit ook onmoontlik om die rente te betaal voor na agtien maande minstens. Ons weet, dat die Landbank die man nie sal opdruk nie, maar die geldskieter ag dit juis ’n goeie kans, waar die man geen goeie oes kon kry nie. As die amendement aangeneem word, sal die kommissies meteen die reg verkry om te ondersoek of ’n man solvent is of nie. So ja, dan is dit in die belang van die land, dat hy nie uitverkoop word nie en dat hom die rente voorgeskiet word; die volgende jaar kan hy miskien weer betaal. Wat die tweede nuwe sub-artiekel betref, wil ek verhaal van ’n geval wat onlangs, toe ek op Bothaville was, onder my aandag gebreng is Iemand had ’n span osse gekoop en jaarliks pabaiemente afbetaal; hy had reeds £15 afbetaal, dog vanjaar, toe hy nie kon betaal nie, het die man, van wie hy die osse gekoop had, gek om, die osse gevat, die £15 behou en nog tien ander osse van die man ook gevat. Daardie man staat daar nou hulpeloos en daarom wil ek voorstel dat die kommissie die reg sal hê om die onbetaalde deel van die koopsom te betaal, en hulle brand op die osse te set, sodat die besitter dit nie kan verkoop nie. Ek vertrou dat die edelagbare die Minister die twee amendemente nagegaan het en dieselwe sal aanvaar. Ek kan die versekering gee dat tensy daar voorsiening van die aard gemaak word, vele mense sal ten onder gaan. Die edelagbare die Minister het gesê dat sy plan is om die mense op die land te hou, en dit is ons doel ook. Ons wil nie sien, dat hy na die delwery of die stede gaan nie. As daar nie geld voor beskikbaar gestel word nie, sal in vele gevalle, die grond onder die mense uit verkoop word, terwyl as daar voorsiening gemaak word, die mense op die been sal bly.

Maar sou dit nie die uitgawe sterk vermeerder nie?

Nie volgens my insien nie. Hierdie Wetgewing is ingebreng om die mense te help met vee en graan en ander boerderybenodighede.

Die edele lid moet insien dat die strekking van die Wet is tot ’n sekere rigting beperk en nou probeer die edele lid om die beperking wyef te maak en indien dit so is, kan ek die amendemente nie aanneem nie.

Ek het gedag dat op ’n plek waar die droogte die wereld geteister het, daar voorsiening gemaak sou word om die mense te help, maar so nie, dan beteken dit niks.

Dit is nie ’n vraag vir my om te beslis nie; dit is tans nie ’n vraag oor die areas nie, maar oor die hoeveelheid geld, wat beskikbaar is.

Would the right hon. the Minister say whether the amendment of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) if accepted, would have the effect of increasing the expenditure beyond the scope of the Bill?

I take it that the Bill is introduced solely and entirely for the purpose of making advances in drought-stricken areas to deserving persons for the purpose of buying live-stock and implements. The amendment which the hon. member suggests is that the Committee should make recommendations for the purpose of supplying money not for the purchase of livestock, but amongst other things for interest charges which they are not able to meet. I think that it is a self-evident fact that it would enlarge the scope of the Bill very materially. The Bill as it is now before the House makes provision in these particular cases for the purchase of livestock. The hon. member suggests that cases shall be brought to our notice, not alone of impoverished people for the purchase of livestock, but cases of people who are not able to meet the interest charges on their loans, and that we should advance money for the purpose of meeting them. Surely that must increase the scope of the Bill; but I would say to my hon. friend that if we are going to introduce all these extraneous cases into this Bill the object of the Bill will be defeated. The object of the Bill is to get hold of an individual who might “make good” if we make him an advance of £200 or £300, under the provision that his creditors are not going to press him, because as I said at the second reading there is no good in advancing a man £300 to buy £300 worth of stock if he already has that quantity in his possession and his creditors are not pressing him, as that would not be in their interest. But on the other hand, whenever he is advanced this money they will press him, and I say committees and magistrates will have to take great care in coming to the assistance of anybody, that the man who will be assisted in this manner in getting time to tide over his difficulties is not going to have his debts called up and his stock sold, leaving him, if he gets the Government advance, in no better position than at the present time. That has been brought to my notice by a practical farmer in this country, when I was discussing the provisions of the Bill with him, and he said that to make the Bill a success we had to see that when a man got the advance, his creditors did not step in and sell whatever he possessed, and leave him in no better a position than before, but probably in a worse one. It will increase the expenditure, and I do not see any reason for accepting the amendment. It is only delaying the passage of the Bill if hon. members move amendments which it is impossible for me to accept.

May I say a word? I cannot see that the amendment of the hon. member could have any other effect than necessarily to increase expenditure, because you are enlarging the scope of the possible expenditure. You are enlarging the authority to spend. I just want to say, in addition to what my right hon. friend has said, though I have not been here all the afternoon, I have been listening to some of the amendments and arguments used, and I am afraid that, with the best intentions probably in the world, hon. members will injure the case we all have at heart, by moving for more and more and more than what the Bill provides. You have got a scheme here not evolved out of the minds of the Government on this occasion. It is framed exactly on the same lines, though rather more generously extended, than the Bill in which we dealt with the situation in the Karroo and the Midlands in 1916. Hon. members will remember the state of affairs then. We started with a very serious drought, and that was followed by a flood. We took measures to deal with that, and the scope óf that Bill was confined more than this—to live stock only. But that succeeded in assisting the people in the Midlands through their difficulties. It was a great success and, to their credit be it said, at the end of the business the Government did not lose more than a few thousand pounds. We need not trouble about the amount, it was very little, but it helped them through their trouble and they behaved creditably, and do not let us spoil a good thing now by driving the Government to further points, especially to the payment of cash. The question was mentioned to us by the agricultural union when they saw the Government first, and we pointed out that if we once start paying money, we do not know where we are; if you once start putting cash in their hands, you do not know what you are letting yourselves in for, and there Will be no genuine benefit to the State. You must give advances for implements and stock where the Government can have proper security, but, believe me, once you start paying people in money, no matter how difficult their situation may be, you open the flood gates. This Wás recognized by the agricultural union representing the whole country, who came to us about this matter before the Bill was introduced. They recognize the justice of this, and they agreed that that would not do, so I trust that what is a good measure, intended to assist people in regard to their distress, and getting them through their difficulties without imposing too heavy a burden on the State, should not be spoiled by endeavours to extend the scope in many ways we do not intend.

Ek dink in die algemeen kan ek met die edelagbare die Minister meegaan dat daar nie onnodige uitbreiding aan die Wet gegee moet word nie, maar ek wil sterk ondersteun wat voorgestel word of wat as ’n poging om voor te stel aangewend is. Ek ondersteun die voorstel van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers).

Ek neem dit aan.

Ek het my regeling gegee oor die voorstelle van die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy).

Dit is jammer dat beide die edelagbare die Ministers van Landbou en van Finansies van oordeel is, dat die aanneming van my voorstelle meer uitgawe sal veroorsaak.

Ek moet beslis en het my reeling gegee oor die edele lid se voorstelle.

Ek wil aantoon dat in die Wetsontwerp word voorsiening gemaak dat ’n persoon tot £300 kan kry en ek stel net voor dat dit groter moet wees, want in baie gevalle sal bevind word, dat die man se rente £60 tot £120 beloop.

Dit spyt my, maar ek kan die edele lid nie toelaat om die meriete van die voorstelle te bespreek nie; ek moet beslis of dit binne die perke van die reëls val. Die wenselikheid kom hier nie ter sprake nie.

Mag ek die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou vra om eers sub-artiekel (4) te beoordeel. Hy beweer dat dit vermeerderde uitgawe sal meebring; wat van Artiekel 5 in die geval van iemand wat een of twee paaiemente op sy osse betaal en vanjaar kan hy nie betaal nie? Daarom wil ék dat die Kommissie die reg sal hê om die osse te koop en hulle brand op te sit.

I would say at once that it is a very dangerous thing to do, if you are going to make provision that a man who has had stock from a certain individual and has not paid it back in full, that in connection with his advance part of that money should be used to pay off that stock. You do not know where that is going to lead you. These advances are only going to be made for the purchase of stock which the committee considers is necessary, and the prices of which the committee considers are fair and reasonable. To make any other provision would, I think, be a great mistake, and I hope my hon. friend will not move these amendments, as they do not further the passage of the Bill. I must not make any exception, and the £100 must be paid for a definite purpose.

Dit is vir my ’n punt om ’n reëling oor te gee, of die gevolg van die voorstel van die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) sou wees dat ’n verdere som geld bestee sou moet word, dan bedoel is in die oorspronklike vorm van die Wetsontwerp. Die vraag is nie of dit wenslik is of nie. Ek het niks hiermee te doen nie. Ek moet reëling daaroor gee of die voorstel binne die limiete sal val en of tengevolge daarvan verdere uitgawes nodig sal wees of veroorsaak sal word. Volgens my mening sal dit wel die effekt wees van die amendement van die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) deur die nuwe klousules 4 en 5 en deur die verandering van woorde in reël 26 en daarom is die amendement buite orde.

Met betrekking tot die amendement voorgestel deur die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers), glo ek nie dat die amendement ver genoeg gaan nie. Die edele lid stel voor dat die tyd drie maande sal wees na so ’n distrik geproklameer is. Maar by die proklamasie word nog nie die kommissie aangestel nie. Dus kan gebeur dat deur vertraging weens korrespondensie ens., die kommissie eers ’n maand of 6 weke na die proklamasie aangestel word, sodat vir die applikant net amper twee maande of ses weke oorbly.

Nee.

Die edele lid lees die Wet nie.

Nee, die edele lid daar kan nie lees nie. Die applikasies is in binne drie maande.

Die beste sou wees dat die applikasies gemaak moet word binne 3 maande nadat die kommissie aangestel geword is en nie 3 maande na die proklamasie nie. Ek wil dus voorstel—

Ek wil net oor die artiekel ook iets vra. Ek kan die noodsaaklikheid nie sien om perk en paal te stel aan die mense nie. Ons is besig om noodlydende mense te help, om de mense oor die droogte te help). Waarom dan heengaan en voorskryf dat applikasies binne drie maande gemaak moet word. Neem die geval van die mielieboer, hy kry miskien die trekvee nie nodig voor November maand nie. So, ek kan nie verstaan waarom dit nodig is om tyd en perk te bepaal nie. Waarom kan die mense nie gehelp word nie, al is tot Januarie van die volgende jaar? As in November hulle nie reent sal kry nie, dan moet hulle nog applikasie kan maak vir hulp van die Regering, en dan moet die Regering die applikasies nog aanneem. Waarom moet hulle applikasies maak so lank voordat hulle die hulp nodig het?

Hierdie is ’n artiekel waar ek ook nie heeltemaal mee saam kan gaan nie. Daar word bepaal dat iemand wat applikasie maak moet 12 maande landbouwerksaamhede gedoen het, maar nou kan daar sulke gevalle wees, dat ’n boer na die diamantvelde gegaan het om vir drie of vier maande diamante te grawe, of jy kart die geval hê—dit het ook voorgekom—dat ’n boer aan die spoorweg gewerk het vir drie of vier maande. In sulke gevalle het die persone nie die reg om applikasie te maak nie. Dit sou onbillik wees om die persone uit te sluit van die werking van die Wet, en ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sal daarin verandering maak.

Ik wens voor te stellen—

Op het eerste gezicht lijkt dit of het amendement niet in belang is van de applikant, maar toch bij nadere beschouwing zal blijken, dat het meer tot bescherming van de applikant is, dan tot zijn nadeel. In Klausule 3 worden plichten voorgeschreven aan de kommissie en gezegd welke voorzorgen de kommissie moet nemen met de applikaties van personen, die voor hulp in aanmerking wensen te komen. Ten eerste moet die kommissie zich vergewissen, dat de man werkelijk boer is, ten tweede dat de man in werkelijke behoefte is om applikatie te kunnen maken, ten derde, dat hulp aan hem verleend hem in staat zal stellen zijn werkzaamheden voort te zetten en ten vierde, dat de man van goed karakter en gedrag is. Nu wens ik door een amendement daaraan toe te voegen, dat hij ook zekerheid moet hebben van de grond waarop hij gaat werken gedurende de tijd dat hij zijn schuld nog niet heeft afbetaald. Als voorbeeld wil ik aanhalen de bepalingen toen beesten uitgegeven worden in Transvaal. Daar word een aantal beesten gegeven aan behoeftige personen en een van die voorwaarden was, dat als een persoon beesten ontvangen zou, dan moest hij vergunning hebben van een boer of eigenaar om zijn beesten te laten lopen op de grond van die boer of eigenaar. Die bepaling heeft goed gewerkt, er zijn geen moeilikheden daaromtrent geweest. Dit heeft 5, 6 of 8 jaar geduurd voordat de schuld afbetaald was en dit spreekt van zelf, dat velen niet die hele tijd op één plek bleven, maar dit was niet moeilijk om op een andere plek vergunning te krijgen. Toen word geen huurkontrakt vereist, maar een vergunning om op een plaats te wonen. Mijn bedoeling is, dat het rond zwerven van personen en het op lossen voet wonen van zoo ’n man minder word, omdat hij bij het inzenden van zijn auplikatie de kommissie moet overtuigen, dat hij het recht heeft, zoolang hij nog schuld heeft, op die grond te wonen gedurende de afbetalingstermijn. Dit zou verhinderen dat de man aan de genade van die persoon op wiens grond hij woont, zal zijn overgeleverd. Verder zal die bepaling verhinderen dat hij als zwerver van bakboord naar stuurboord gestuurd word, zodat hij toch ten slotte zijn toevlucht zal moeten nemen om naar dorp of stad te gaan. Dus bij het nagaan van mijn voorstel zal erkend worden, dat die bepaling door mij voorgesteld werkelijk ten voordele van de applikant zelf is. Tegelijkertijd wordt daardoor bereikt dat welgestelde mensen ook iets bijdragen tot hulp van behoeftige personen. Grondeigenaars en personen die niet in moeilijke omstandigheden zijn moeten bereid zijn om te helpen. De rijkere boer, de grondeigenaar kan hier helpen door op billijke voorwaarden een huurkontrakt of zoals het hier staat “schriftelijke vergunning” te geven, om totdat de man zijn schuld af betaald heeft, op die grond te wonen. Ik denk dit heeft een tweeledig voordeel. Het beschermt de man, die de toelage ontvangt, en beschermt de Regering die het geld geeft en ik hoop, dat dit amendement van zoo’n aard is, dat de Minister termen kan vinden om het aan te nemen.

Ek hoop dat daar niemand in die Huis gevonde sal word om die amendement van die edele lid vir Lydenburg (de hr. Nieuwenhuize) te ondersteun nie. Hy kom nou hier en probeer ons wys te maak dat die in die belang van die mense is wat gehelp sal word, dat meer sekuriteit geëis sal word in verband met die okkupasie van die grond, waarop hul nou is. Maar hy het nie daaraan gedink nie dat die uitwerking net anders kan wees, en dat dit onmoontlik sal kan word vir die Regering om onder sulke voorwaardes daardie mense te help. Want hoeveel van die arme bywoners sal in staat wees om ’n sertifikaat te gee aan die Regering as hulle applikasie maak, dat hulle die sekerheid het om op die grond te bly woon, wat hulle as bywoners het vir die termyn van 5 of 6 jaar waar oor die paaiemente loop? Hoeveel grond eienaars sal daar wees om vooruit te onderneem om hul bywoners vir 5 of 6 jaar te hou? Jy sal baie min kry wat bereid sal wees om dit te onderneem. Die gevolg gaat wees dat vooral die bywoners-klas uitgesluit gaat word van die voordele onder hierdie Wet. Maar ek het eintlik opgestaan om die edelagbare die Minister te vra ’n bietjie meer inligtinge aan ons te gee omtrent wat hy gesê het met betrekking tot die amendement van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) wat voorstel dat die Wet van toepas sing sal wees op mense wat van droogte gely het na die 1ste Januarie 1922. Hierdie amendement is uit orde gereël, en die edelagbare die Minister sê hy aksepteer dit nog Ek wil graag weet op hoe ’n wyse hy die Huis sal tegemoet kom. Wil die edelagbare die Minister kennis gee van ’n dergelike amendement op die rapport-stadium en intussen die goedkeuring van die Gowerneur-generaal kry vir die vermeerderde uitgawe, wat dit sal meebring?

I understand that the hon. member for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) moved as an amendment that, instead of three months after the proclamation of this Act it will be three months after the date when the Act is proclaimed in a particular district. I said I was prepared to accept that, because a district might not be proclaimed for a month after the Act had been proclaimed, and that would only give them two months. The hon. member for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) asked me if I would accept an amendment which gave everybody a sufficiently reasonable time, which was three months after the area had been proclaimed, and I agreed to do so.

Dan het ons mekaar misverstaan, en ek is bly dat die Minister cit verduidelik het. Wat ek meen is dit, en ek hoop dat die Minister die billikheid daarvan sal insien, ek hoop dat by die rapport-stadium die edelagbare die Minister sal voorstel dat die Wetsontwerp terugwerkende krag sal hê tot Januarie 1922 in plaas van so as dit nou is, d.w.s. twee jaar voordat die Wet geproklameer word. Dit behoor drie maande verder agteruit te wees want jy het nou die geval nie alleenlik nie van die veeboere, maar ook van die koringboere, en daar is byvoorbeeld in my eie kiesafdeling ’n hele party boere wat deur die droogte gely het, en wat niks nie geoes bet in 1922 en in 1923, en wat betref die laaste oes wat hulle gekry het, die was so swak gewees dat hulle nie in staat is nie om die saadkoring wat hulle verlede jaar van die Regering gekry het terug te betaal. Hulle moet om uitstel vra. Die bedoeling van die Regering om die Ontwerp twee jaar terug te laat gaan is goed, maar die mense van wie ek praat, die koringbcere, hulle oes in Januarie maand en dan dors hulle en hulle het twee jaar gelede baie skade gely, en hulle is onder die Wet uitgesluit ter wyl hulle ingesluit behoor te wees. Ek sal bly wees as die Minister onder die omstandighede daarin sal toestem om die Wet te laat terug gaan tot 1 Januarie 1922, en nie tot twee jaar voor die inwerking treding van die Wet. Dit maak in die Wet nie groot verskil nie, maar dit maak die verskil, dat die mense wat gehelp behoor te word hulp sal kan kry. As die Minister dit nie self wil voor stel nie dan noop ek dat hy by die rapport-stadium die goedkeuring van die Goewerneur-generaal sal hê sodat die kwessie deur die Huis oerwee kan word.

Ek het nie ’n woord op hierdie onderwerp gesê nie omrede dat ek daar mee instem dat mense behoor gehelp te word en omdat lede aan die oorkant die hele middag besig gewees is. Die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) het gesê, dat hy hoop dat daar nie ’n enkele lid sal wees nie wat die amendement van die edele lid vir Lydenburg (de hr. Nieuwenhuize) sal ondersteun. Ek kan hom die versekering gee dat ek dit van harte sal ondersteun. Die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) het gevra watter landeienaar verlof aan sy bywoners sal gee om vir vyf of ses jaar op die grond te bly. Ek kan hom verseker dat baie in die Transvaal verlof sal gee aan die mense wat op hulle land woon om vir vyf of ses jaar te bly om rede, dat die grondeienaar self daardeur bevoordeel word. Hy gee die land aan die mense om te bewerk. En hy word daardeur gehelp. Wat die edele lid vir Lydenburg (de hr. Nieuwenhuize) gesê het is heeltemaal korrek; dit sal daartoe strek dat eerlike mense gehelp sal word. In die ou dae in die Transvaal het die Regering mense met vee gehelp, en dit het goed gewerk, maar ons het gevind dat mense sonder verlofbriewe hulle vee verkoop het en dan na die dorpe getrek het. Ek hoop daar sal nie beswaar wees nie om die amendement aan te neem. Ons wil nie oneerlike mense help nie, ons doel is om eerlike mense te help en as ’n man gehelp word dan moet die kommissie of die Regering weet waar die man met sy vee gaan woon, sodat hulle kontrôle kan hou want anders is dit uit hulle hande.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Havenga and Capt. P. S. Cilliers put and agreed to, and remaining amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

moved—

I hope that the right hon. the Minister will accept another amendment in the clause. It is not quite clear to which crop this will apply, and I suggest that the word “next” in line 47 be deleted and the word “first” be inserted, and that after the word “raised” in line 48, to insert “from such seed or fertilizer.” The object is, I think, to give the Government a lien on the crops raised. The wording in the Bill might refer to any crop. I am not at all in favour of it being so. It is not many years ago that we passed an Act doing away with all the statutory liens. Now nearly every Bill that comes from the Agricultural Department contains these statutory liens re-enforced. The consequence will not at all be in favour of the farmers. They will find that as these statutory liens are increased the difficulties of borrowing money will become greater and greater. I do not wish to say much on this now, as we will have an opportunity, when new Clause 8 is discussed, of discussing that fully, but in view of the fact that this Bill is only meant to meet this present urgent phase, I am not proposing it should be confined more closely, and I therefore move—

I may point out that that really does increase expenditure, because it simply means that if a man is advanced seed or fertilizer, and he uses it and does not get sufficient crop to return the seed, and if he has got another advance of seed and fertilizer and gets a bumper crop, the State has no lien in respect of the seed which was advanced in the previous year. That will be rather detrimental in encouraging us to embark on a policy of this kind, that if a man has got seed from the Government to allow him to try and reap a crop that year, when the season is bad, and the following year he again gets seed and reaps a first-class crop, why there should not be a lien on both crops for which the Government has advanced seed. Surely that is only fair, and if the amendment of my hon. friend is for the purpose of defeating that, it is increasing expenditure, because I shall be giving the seed, and in some cases I shall not be getting it back again.

The right hon. the Minister is not quite correct in saying that the amendment will increase expenditure; it is in the nature of a lien.

It does not increase expenditure at all. It has nothing to do with expenditure. The whole thing is a question of how much expenditure the Government is going to get back.

That is increasing expenditure.

The expenditure is made first, and I might point out to the right hon. the Minister that there is nothing in my amendment to prevent the happepning he wishes. If he advances money to purchase seed, and there is a small return, then the Government will have a lien on that seed, and if more money is advanced for seed and no crop is raised, the Government will have a lien on that also, under my amendment. The Minister has not raised any tangible objection to my amendment; my object is to see that you define the crop on which the lien is, and if you do not do that, then the Government may have a lien on any crop raised on that farm whether or not it is raised through seed or fertilizer purchased by money advanced by the Government.

My point is that if you alter the clause as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) suggests, it will not increase the actual expenditure at the moment, but it may increase the expenditure because the Government will not have an opportunity of getting back what they otherwise would have. If you have a continuous lien on the crop, you may get your seed back again, but what I fear is that if you advance a man seed and he happens not to have any return to pay back again, and you advance him seed in the following year, surely the lien should be for the equivalent of both quantities of seed you have advanced. Why should the State advance money to allow other creditors who have not assisted him to come in? I say the first creditor in that case should be the State which has assisted him to reap a crop, that is my view, and I hope the House will take that view also.

Ek wil graag in verband met die klousule op twee punte ’n amendement indien. Die eerste is in verband met die rentekoers. Ek het by die twede lesing gesê, dat ek nie kan sien dat die Regering by produktiewe werksaamhede geld uitleen teen 6 persent waar die Regering self erken, dat op die leninge van £50.000 onder die Wet van 1916 daar net £600 verlore is en daar bestaat selfs kans om ook dit terug te kry. Waarom, terwvl hulle vir onproduktiewe dinge soos huisbou kans sien om geld uit te leen teen 4 persent kan hul dit nie vir produktiewe dinge ook teen daardie koers uitgee nie? Daarom stel ek voor dat in reels 45, en 55, waar daar in die Wetsontwerp staat 6 persent daar sal gestel word 5 persent. Dan is daar ’n ander saak en dit is dát daar groot onderskeid gemaak word, en dit onnodiglik, tussen voorskotte die gedaan word vir die aankoop van vee en voorskotte aan die ander kant vir die aankoop van saadkoring en misstowwe. Waarom die grote onderskeid? In die geval van vee daar begint die terugbetaling 15 maande na die voorskot gegee is, en dan word dit terug betaal soos die edelagbare die Minister voorstel, in 5 jaarlikse pabaiemente. Dus ’n persoon kry uitstel, voordat hy finaal afbetaal het, ses jaar en drie maande; maar as daar saadkoring gegee word aan ’n boer wat deur droogte gely het, dan moet hy alles terugbetaal in ses maande. Hy kry ’n voorskot, wanneer hy moet saai, en die eerste oes moet hy dit ten volle betaal, met rente. Dit is heeltemal onbillik en ek sou daarom wil voorstel dat dit meer op ’n gelyke voet gebring word. In regel 57 word gesê: “volgende oogst”; ek stel voor om dit te vervang deur: “twee volgende oogsten”, Dus in plaas dat hy dit die eerste jaar reeds moet terugbetaal, kry hy kans vir 2 jaar. In regel 58 staat “betaalbaar” en ek stel voor om daar in te voeg; “in twee gelyke jaarlikse pabaiementen”, In regel 59 staat: “bestuurder”, Ek stel voor om daarin te voeg: “de eerste waarvan betaalbaar zal zijn”. Waar op die einde van die reël die woord “de” staat, stel ek voor om in te voeg: “eerstvolgende”, Dit volg uit wat ek voorgestel het. Laat ek die edelagbare Minister dit sê, dat die mense wat saadkoring kry, behoort tot die allerarmste, en die ondervinding het hom seker geleer dat in die noordwestelike distrkte, as hy vanjaar koring voorskot gee, dan kom die man volgende jaar en vra uitstel. Dit is die vorige keer so gewees en vanjaar weer. Ek het petiesies, geteken deur vele, wat saadkoring gekry het en vra. om uitstel. Die oes was so, dat die mense nouliks daaruit kan leef, en ek vra, dat dit ’ne bietjie makliker gemaak sal word en op dieselfe voet gestel as in de geval van die mense, wat voorskotte gekry het vir vee, dat dit in twee jaar terug betaal word. My amendement lui dus als volg—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) is in order in his attempt to reduce the interest from six per cent. to five per cent., because that would bring extra expenditure upon the Government. If you lend money and get interest upon it at six per cent., surely your revenue is less if you lend it at live per cent., and some of these loans may not fructify. On another ground I would point out to the hon. member that I think he is rather misinterpreting the six per cent. He says that six per cent. is more than we asked for the housing loan, but the hon. member knows that the administration of the housing loan and the security we got, was entirely different to what it is in this case. The hon. member referred to the Act of 1916, and I told the House, and I had much pleasure in telling the House, that the total loss so far as the loans were concerned, was £600, but that the cost of administration by the Land Bank was £4,000, so that if we are asking six per cent., the State is getting little more than four per cent., when the administrative costs are taken into consideration. The housing loan is like a mortgage bond, but as regards a loan of this sort you have got to keep the strictest supervision to see that the stock are not being done away with. In 1916 the loss, so far as the loans were concerned, was £600 and the Land Bank’s expenses were £4,056, so the hon. member when he speaks about the interest being excessive must take that into consideration. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) has moved that this money must not come out of loan but out of revenue. With regard to seed, I think that in giving the men two years, the matter is entirely different from what it is with livestock. In livestock you look for repayment. If it is sheep you look for the wool from them; in regard to seed you look for the increase of the crop. Suppose a man sells his seed and gets a good crop, why should he be able to fritter away that crop? When he gets a bad crop the Department always knows enough about him and makes provision for him to get some extension of payment, and the idea that we should have a lien upon the crop as security for the advances made by the Department on seed, is, I think, an entirely sound one.

Surely the right hon. the Minister is not going to consider this an increase of expenditure. I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) as regards the rate of interest on loans under this Bill. We are setting out now to help people who cannot get help from the ordinary money market. The ordinary man goes into the money market and borrows from banks, rich farmers, or other people, but the object of this Bill is to help people who cannot get help in the ordinary course of business. The State borrows money at the rate of five per cent. and why should these unfortunate people, whom we want to save from bankruptcy and starvation, be made to pay a higher rate of interest than the Government pays? It is not quite right to say that the loans under the housing scheme give greater security, because there is nothing which depreciates so soon as money sunk in bricks and mortar.

I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment. It must be remembered that it is at the expense of the general taxpayer of the country that the administration of this Act is to be paid. The last speaker talked about the Government raising money at five per cent., but the money which was last borrowed at ninety-nine, and there are the expenses of raising the loan. So what is being asked is that the general ratepayer should come to the assistance of the farmer and pay everything because he has to pay one per cent. The hon. member is asking a little too much when he asks that the money be paid out at less than it cost the Government to raise it, more especially as the advance is for seed. The statement of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) is correct about the 1916 loan, but the result of advances was different. There was a loss of £2,700 and there is still outstanding £11,000. These things are on an entirely different footing, and I think that the hon. member is asking for what the House should not give, and I hope he will not press it.

I have a small amendment to move to this; it is to the same effect as the amendment accepted by the Committee on Clause 2, and which is to make this expenditure to also come under the head of revenue. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I have the following amendment to move in the Dutch text—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

This has been put in for the purpose of making this provision applicable beyond the period of twelve months.

I am really very sorry to see the right hon. the Minister moving this amendment. In the first place it seems to me entirely foreign to the present Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the present Bill. In Clause 4, you have made provision for moneys advanced under the present Bill, but this is an attempt to alter the general law of the country in a measure which only deals with cases of urgent necessity. I think the principle of this amendment is wrong. It is impossible for people to know where they are, in making advances to farmers if provisions of this sort are to be passed from time to time. We have had other examples of it during the present session. In the Agricultural Credit Bill there is a provision to the same ettect with regard to all moneys advanced by the Land Bank. We have these statutory liens day by day, and the consequence will be that no outside person will lend money to farmers in the future. It is detrimental to the interests of farmers, to the interests of this country, it is an entirely wrong principle, and if it should be enacted at all it should not find a place in a Bill of this nature. We are constantly told it is so hard for farmers to get advances, and the reason is that provisions of this sort are constantly being introduced. I say these provisions are wrong. They are determental to the true interests of the farmers and the business concerns of this country. There are many farmers who have bonded their properties and owe money to commercial men, and they are going to suffer from this law, because if it is passed the people to whom the farmers owe money, will call up the loans at once. We shall resist this as much as we can.

I think my hon. friend has worked into this clause a great deal more than is intended. The real reason why it is introduced is to protect the State. The hon. member urges that we should take up a different attitude in this country. In Australia they have more than once saved the people by advancing the seed, which was a good thing not only as far as the individual is concerned, but also as far as the State is concerned. If these People did not get the seed and the Government did not give it to them, they would have to be given poor relief. But instead of this being done and their migrating into the towns, if they have land which may produce a crop, the State will lend them seed, and then it is a fair thing for the State to take a lien upon the prospective crop, and so protect itself. Otherwise what happens? You will advance seed and as you have no lien upon the crop you very often dó not get paid, and the State is the loser. I introduced this clause in order to protect the Agricultural Department and we put in February 15th because the seed was advanced to allow the farmers to take advantage of the sowing season. It is no good to make advances for seed wheat in May or June. The seed has to be carried a long distance up country to the farmer and should there be delay the season will have passed; the advances of seed must be made at a time when the people can take advantage of it, and sow the seed. In these circumstances I would ask the hon. member not to press the matter, especially as such a clause as this is a protection to the State.

Are you going to insist on the six per cent?

Proposed new Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8 put and agreed to.

On the Schedule,

I move—

This is a formal amendment to bring the schedule into line with the previous amendments in the body of the Bill.

Mnr. Voorzitter, u stel tog nie nou die hele bylae?

Die hele bylae.

Dan wil ek net daarop wys dat in paragraaf 7 van die Hollandse teks word daar aangegee as vertaling vir “progeny of such livestock” “aangeteelde levende have”. Dis nie die regte vertaling nie. Maar dis nie die punt nie. Die punt is dat in paragraaf 7 neergelê word dat sodra die prys van goedere betaal is, kan die goed in eksekusie geneem word, in andere woorde, sodra een van daardie mense gehelp is deur die Departement en hy het die beeste gekry, maar nog nie feitelik daarmee klaar gewerk het nie, dan kan sy krediteur kom en die bedrag betaal wat die applikant verskuldig is aan die Regering en die vee in eksekusie neem. So staat paragraaf 7 op die oomblik. Sommige lede skyn dit nie duidelik te verstaan nie. Veronderstel dat ons ’n applikant gehelp het met skape teen £1 per skaap en die mark van skape gaan op. Die skape het ons gekoop teen £1 per stuk en hulle word nou £1 10s. word, dan kan enige krediteur, enige skuldeiser kom en sê ek betaal die £1 per skaap aan die Regering en dan neem ek die skape in beslag. Die edelagbare die Minister moet ’n bepaling maak dat die goedere nie in eksekusie geneem kan word nie, tensy ’n sertifikaat toegeken is, dat die goed aan die applikant behoor.

I do not think that requires an answer. I believe in order to take over the stock the creditor must obtain the judgment of the Court. Once the advance is made the stock is secured to the Government and if the Government were approached they would tell the creditor that they had no interest in the matter. The objection of the hon. member is that the stock might be of greater value than the amount advanced. This is provided for in paragraph 7 of the Schedule—

I think that is quite all right.

Die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) het ’n belangrike punt aangehaal. Wil die edelagbare die Minister nie daarop antwoord nie? Dit lyk vir my dat dit ’n punt is van groot belang.

May I point cut that the position is this. We are giving the applicant six years in which to repay the purchase price of the stock; in other words he is given six years in which to farm with the stock and make a living. Under paragraph 7, the position is this. If we give him, for instance, in May, sheep valued at £300, in October these are worth, say, £450. He owes £300 to the Government and if his creditors, under paragraph 7, get judgment and deposit £300 with the Government, they can then take the sheep in execution. The Government will have to accept the deposit.

How does the hon. member suggest dealing with it?

The Government should have the right at any rate to say: “No, the sheep are ours and we refuse to issue our certificate.”

But the debtor can refuse to consent. I think he has the remedy in his own hands.

The hon. member forgets the provisions of the Magistrate’s Court Act under which the sheep could be taken in execution.

I will look into it at any rate.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.12 p.m.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

moved—

He said: I am going to move the second reading of a Bill which has given rise to a great deal of misunderstanding both inside South Africa, and, perhaps still more, outside South Africa. This Bill has been misunderstood both as regards its scope and its intention, from two entirely different points of view, from two contradictory points of view. On the one hand, it has been represented as being intended for the ruin of the Indian people living in South Africa. The Indian people here have been told that it is intended to ruin them materially, and to inflict upon them serious degradation. On the other hand, the Bill has been criticised inside South Africa as being of no importance, of no use, and not worth the trouble which it has given. I say it has been criticised from these opposite points of view, each of them resting on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and intentions of the Bill. In the first place, dealing with the first misunderstanding, it is not intended to ruin the Indian community in South Africa, or to inflict upon them intolerable degradation. Nothing of the sort, Sir! On the other hand, it is my opinion, and I think, I hope, the House will accept that opinion, it is going to effect a very considerable improvement in the relations that exist now between the European people of South Africa, and the Indian community. Its real intention is to remove certain immediate present causes of race and trade friction which now exists in South Africa. It is intended to bring, and I hope it will have the effect of bringing about, a state of things in the relations between the European population and the Indian population, in which we can proceed calmly and sanely to consider what these relations are and how they should be arranged so as to meet the needs of both sections of the community. We intend, Sir, in regard to this Bill to deal with what is sometimes called the Asiatic or the Indian question in South Africa. We intend to deal with it in accordance with the peculiar requirements and conditions of South Africa. We have here a state of things which I do not think exist in any other part of the world, where the European race and the Asiatic race have come into conflict or come into relation with each other. We have here a state of things which is far more complicated than exists either in the State of California, where a similar conflict is taking place, or m the Province of British Columbia, Canada, where the same thing is obtaining. Our condition in South Africa is different from all of these, because we have here a European population who have brought civilization to this country, on whom the maintenance of the civilization of this country depends, and who are surrounded by a much more numerous native population—not imported—who have to be governed, who have to be educated and directed, from barbarism into civilization by that European civilization. I ask the House to consider that our circumstances in South Africa are peculiarly different from those in other countries, where similar trouble and similar friction is taking place. We intend to legislate on this matter, and to deal with it with every consideration for the alien people, who are being effected by this legislation.

They are not aliens; they are born here.

All the more so in those provinces of the Union where they are not directly represented in the legislature of the country. I say it is our duty to deal with the interests of these people with the fullest regard to the claims of justice, particularly where they have no voice in the legislature of the country. At the same time, we do not intend to be deterred by any threats of resistance inside South Africa or by any threat of political action outside South Africa, or by any retaliation which may take place outside South Africa. It may interest hon. members to know, that a law has recently been passed in India by the Indian legislature and has become law, by which retaliation has already been effected, not for what they are proposing to do in this Bill, but for what the Union of South Africa did ten years ago, when the Immigration Act of 1913 was passed. When that Act was passed it was generally understood, and the representatives of the Indian community at that time accepted that position, that the immigration of Asiatics into South Africa should cease. It was understood when that law was passed they should not be discriminated against by name; that there should be no bar put up against them by name in the Statute that was passed, but that, by administrative action under the powers conferred by that Statute, an end should be put to the immigration from Asiatic countries, and particularly from India, into South Africa. Quite recently, during the present year, a law has been brought into effect, has been passed through the Indian legislature and brought into force, whereby persons who visit India, not being of Indian race—there racial discrimination comes in—whereby any person who visits India from any British dominion, and not being of Indian race, will be subject to the same restrictions in regard to their rights of landing in India, of entering India, as Indians are, from that particular dominion from which these visitors come; so I might warn South Africans, not being of Indian race, who wish to visit India, that under this law they will be prohibited immigrants. I just mention that to show what the position is, because it is a position we have to face, and do face, and we are proposing to legislate in regard to this particular Bill on the basis of what we consider to be our requirements in South Africa, and what we consider to be the needs of this country; and we are doing so with every consideration for the interests of those people of Asiatic race who are settled here and who have built up interests here. I am talking about this Bill as if it referred only to Asiatics or Indians, as a matter of fact, the Bill has been brought into this House because of the pressure of the Indian population in Natal and the Transvaal, mainly, and it is a criticism against this Bill that we do not name the Indians. The Bill does not refer in express terms to Indians or Asiatics, but, every one knows that the circumstances which have given rise to the introduction of this Bill have been brought about, I may say. solely by the pressure, the friction— racial, social and commercial—of the Indian population which is felt here, in Natal and the Transvaal. I am asked: “Why do we not say in the Bill it is directed against Indians?” In the first place, that would be causing needless difficulty, and giving needless offence to certain people inside and outside this country. When the Immigration Act of 1913 was passed, to which I previously referred, it was strongly represented that we should not specifically refer in any statute which was put on the Statute Book, or discriminate against any particular race or people; that as far as possible we should refrain from putting on the Statute Book statutes which discriminate in terms against other people and other races, and I think it is quite a sound principle. For that reason this Bill does not, in terms, refer to any particular race or any particular section, but I want to be perfectly frank and say that this Bill has been brought into this House because of the pressure of the Indian inhabitants on the European population in Natal and in the Transvaal; and it is to be anticipated that it will be put into operation largely, if not solely, in the case of these people. That is why I am speaking throughout this debate of Indians, because it is to the Indian population that this Bill has effect, and it is by them that its effect will be most felt. The Bill, as I said, has been criticised because it does not solve what many people in this country talk about as the “menace” with which the European people is faced, by the competition, by the presence, of the Indian population in South Africa. I want, first, to ask the House to look calmly and sanely on this so-called “menace.” What is it? What is it in its effect now, and in its effect in the future? In a matter of this kind we are not justified in thinking only of what is happening to-day; we have to think of these problems not as they are to-day, but as they are going to be, as far as one can see, in the future, and therefore I ask hon. members who criticise this Bill from the point of view that it does not go far enough, to consider calmly, and with what I might call the long view, what this menace is that we hear so much about in South Africa. I regard this so-called menace as arising not from the increasing numbers of Indians or Asiatics in South Africa, but from the fact that a large Indian population which is here in South Africa, and which, for the most part, has been brought here by South Africans for their own purposes, is now arriving at a stare of civilisation and education when it is coming to make itself felt in competition not with the unskilled labourers of the land, but with the skilled trades and with commerce and professions generally. What is being felt as the Indian menace is due, not to the influx of Indians from outside, but to a gradual rise in the scale of civilisation, in the scale of efficiency, in the scale of education of the Indian people who have been here for many years.

I do not say it is not serious. I know that it is serious. I know that in many country towns of the Transvaal and Natal, for instance, the European trader who used to flourish there has disappeared, and in other ways also the competition is being felt in a manner which I would be the last to deny is serious; but I would like hon. members to reflect that this seriousness is not a matter that is going to last for ever. The seriousness of the competition of these people is a matter for this generation, for a little longer than this generation; but if the European population in South Africa increases and expands as it ought to do, as we wish to see it do, as it must do if it is going to hold its own in any case, if it increases in that way then this competition, this friction, this impact of the European population who are in South Africa will not be a serious matter for this generation or perhaps the next. I say if the European population does not increase to that extent, in any case its future is doubtful; if it does increase in that way and to that extent it will in time settle this problem itself, so that what we have to deal with now is the impact, the competition, the friction which exists for the present and ‘or a considerable time to come. I want hon. members to bear this in mind that they, as the legislators of this country, have to look not merely to the present but forward also to the future, and that if they look forward to the future with any confidence in their country’s expansion and growth, then they can look forward to a time when this particular menace will not be a serious one. Immigration, as I already said, has now been stopped and I would like to give hon. members some figures to show what the extent of the Indian population in the Transvaal and Natal is, and what its growth has been, by comparing the two last census returns which have been taken, those of 1911 and 1921. In the Transvaal the Indian population is about 15,000, and the increase between 1911 and 1921 is 1,500 males and 2,500 females. That may appear to be a big increase in the 10 years, if you look at it as a percentage of the existing population, but there are special reasons why this increase has taken place. First of all, a number of these people who left in the troubled times just after Union, just before and immediately after Union, came back again after the census of 1911; and then a number of those who have been settled here have brought wives and children, under the arrangement that was made in 1913. The main centre of this trouble however is, as hon. members know, in Natal. In regard to Natal, the number of Indians who were brought over under indenture during the years from 1860 to 1911, when the importation was stopped, during that period about 152,000 were brought over under indenture. Others, of course, naturally drifted in there as traders or in other capacities, but the number brought over under indenture alone was 152,000. The present Indian population in Natal is 140,000.

How many of these indentures went back?

I cannot tell the hon. member that. No doubt a large number did, but the present population there at present is 140,000. Between the years 1911 and 1921 the figures show an decrease of 500 males and an increase of 8,000 females. I am giving these in round numbers—the male population decreased by 500 and the female population increased by 8,000 in those ten years from 1911 to 1921. During the same years the European population in Natal increased from 98,000 odd to 136,000 odd, or an increase of just under 40 per cent. I quote these figures to reinforce the arguments which I just used, that in dealing with this matter hon. members must look ahead. They must have regard to the fact that immigration has ceased, that a considerable number of these people in any case go back to their homes, they do not want to make their homes here, and we have to deal with a problem which is not caused by any increase from the outside of these people, whose racial and social and commercial friction we have to deal with, but by a gradual rise in the scale of civilization, advancement and efficiency of those whom we have here. Now this particular Bill which is before the House aims at the separation under carefully guarded conditions, where the local authorities in urban areas think it desirable, of the areas occupied for residential or trade purposes by any particular class given under this Bill. What the Bill aims at is not what is sometimes called segration. We do not aim at, or think possible a scheme for putting these particular classes of people somewhere right away from us, across an imaginary line where no relations between them and the European population will be possible. Not at all. What is aimed at is a separation for residential and trade purposes or one or other or both of the particular classes affected by this Bill, from the rest of the community. Now the object of that, as I said at the beginning, is not to ruin these particular people. The object is not to make it impossible for them to live decently, but the object is to avoid racial and social friction that goes on now, that is being felt, and is producing a reaction all over the Union owing to the fact that the people of the Asiatic race are gradually penetrating into areas which are occupied for residential purposes and for trade purposes by European members of the community. That is what gives rise to the most aggravated form of this racial and social friction. When you have a particular area, for example, I am speaking now from the European point of view, where European people have acquired plots of ground and have built their houses, and where people of Asiatic race, say, for example, start acquiring ground, then in that particular area you get this social friction in an acute form. The European man feels that his property is being depreciated in value. He knows that he cannot sell it to another European because that other European will not come there and that gives rise to a state of feeling which makes it impossible to contemplate or deal calmly with the conditions where the relations between these two races in that particular town are concerned. The same thing happens where one of these classes of people comes along and starts a shop side by side with European people— you have this competition, this racial and social feeling in its acutest form. This Bill is intended to remove that. It is intended to remove the evils which come from this social and racial competition, from this mixture of peoples who have different racial origins, different conditions, different standaras of living and whose mixture has never been found to be for good in any part of the world. This Bill is intended to prevent that, but while it does that, it does not want to overlook the claims that a person of Asiatic race has to be allowed to live according to his own standards, his own ideals, and to live according to these standards and ideals in places which allow him to do so. These people are here and we have to deal with them fairly and justly. It is no use ignoring or denying or shutting our eyes to the facts that there is this racial and social friction, that there is this incompatibility of the two races to live together in a way in which races can live together who can ultimately amalgamate and become one. That condition does not exist among the European and Asiatic races and it is useless for the Legislature to shut its eyes and to think that that condition of affairs does exist. The Legislature has to take account of the aspirations, the ambitions and the feelings of the people, even if these feelings, these aspirations and these ambitions are not what the most advanced people would wish to see. The legislature has to take account of these feelings, where they exist among the mass of the people, and there is no doubt that among the mass of the people there is that feeling of incompatibility, of friction between them, and the people of the Asiatic race. But we are not the only people who have these feelings and these troubles. I mentioned earlier in my speech the case of California and the case of British Columbia. There you have the European and the Asiatic races experiencing the same difficulties from their relations that we have here. And even the Indian people themselves are not exempt from these class and caste prejudices. There are classes and castes among the Indian population who refuse to have anything to do with each other, and regard each other’s presence as a pollution. Take also the position in the United States of America. There you have a population of European origin and a large negro population brought in, just as the Indian population was brought into Natal by the European race, for its own purposes, in order to exploit its labour. Now, in the United States, the constitution and the law are on the basis of absolute equality. The negro has an absolute equal right to go to the polling booth as the white man. The negro has the right by law to use any hotel and any public conveyance, just as much as any white man has; but although the racial incompatibility is ignored by law, custom goes in the very opposite direction. What the law allows, custom by violence takes away. Force comes into play because the law lays down equality. Custom, backed up by force, takes it away. Everyone who knows what takes place in the Southern States of America, knows that this equality which is allowed by law is denied by custom. Therefore, we have to legislate sanely, and to pass laws which will be in accordance with the fundamental feelings of the people of the country, otherwise your laws will not be carried out and the main purpose of this Bill is to do away with a certain clash which is taking place now, owing to the penetration by the one race into residential and commercial quarters occupied by the other. This Bill is brought in in order to allow the, what I call alien race, to develop, to live its life under decent conditions and in a manner which will not infringe upon the sentiments and the feelings of the other. It is only if that state of things is reached that the problem of the Asiatic people in South Africa, which is a great and serious problem, can be considered with that calmness and sanity with which a problem of that nature and magnitude should be approached. Now it has been pointed out as an argument against this Bill that it is going to bring about a state of things comparable with what used to be known as the “Ghetto.” It is going to produce certain quarters, certain areas in a town, which will be inhabited by a certain class of people who will be denied the conditions under which people can live decently. A great deal of argument has been founded on that. Well, Sir, I fully recognise, just as much as the people who use this argument, that to condemn a section of the community to live in our towns in insanitary conditions, in conditions where people cannot lead decent lives, is fundamentally wrong. That is going to react, not only on the people condemned to live under those conditions, but on the whole of the community. But this Bill does not carry an implication of that kind at all. This Bill does not aim at producing slums or places where people cannot live decently. What it aims at is a separation of the residential quarters and also, if necessary, of the trading quarters of the particular races and the other sections of the community. It has safeguards which are intended to provide that a separate area set apart under this Bill will be such as will enable the people who are going to live there to live decent lives without risk of degradation or deterioration, either to themselves or to the rest of the community. But we have heard quoted against this Bill the case of Vrededorp. I see my hon. friend, the member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser)’ is in the House. It is constantly held up as an argument against the Bill what the Asiatic Commission said about Vrededorp. Well, I would just like to say one or two things about Vrededorp so as to meet this argument which is so often used in the Press and elsewhere. The Asiatic Commission reported very strongly against the conditions prevailing in this quarter of Johannesburg which, as I have said, has a distinguished member in this House. Now the fundamental thing to remember is, that Vrededorp is not an area set apart for Asiatics, it never has been and is never likely to be. If Vrededorp had been an area set apart for Asiatics under the laws of the Transvaal, it would have been in a much better condition than it is now. I do not hesitate to assert that, because in that area the officials concerned with looking after these Asiatic quarters in towns would have had some authority, but at the present time, Vrededorp is just a part of the municipality of Johannesburg, it is a slum in Johannesburg. There are other slums, I need not mention the names, it is one of them, it is one of the worst; and one of the greatest obstacles against getting anything done in Vrededorp is that much of the slum property is owned, but not inhabited, by Indians. It is owned by Indians who let out their property at exorbitant rents to natives and coloured people, who house there and shelter there in enormous numbers. These houses are let out under conditions which are almost a menace to the health of the natives and others who find accommodation there. The property is owned by well-to-do Indians but they do not live there. Therefore I want to make it quite clear that Vrededorp is not an example to quote against this particular Bill, because Vrededorp is not, and never has been, set apart under the Transvaal laws as a quarter for Asiatics. And I would like to quote a report which I have received from the official in the Transvaal who looks after these matters—

Well, I do not bring that up as a charge against the Indian in particular, because the European landlord in many cases acts in the same objectionable way, but what I do say is that we cannot have Vrededorp brought up to us as an examle of what will happen throughout the country if this Bill becomes law. Now, before coming to the particular provisions of the Bill, I should like to deal with one or two points of general interest. The Bill, as I have said, is couched in general terms. It applies to classes, and a class is defined as persons having certain common racial characteristics, but excluded from the scope of the Bill are, first of all, European persons, and, secondly Cape coloured persons, and thirdly, natives. Now natives are excluded because they are already provided for in the Native Urban Areas Act, which was passed last session by this House, but the Cape coloured person is also exempt from the scope of the Bill, and that may, perhaps, require some explanation. The explanation, I think, is quite simple. The person described as a Cape coloured person, is in the main a product of the mixture of the European and the native. The European is responsible for his existence in South Africa. He is one of the South African people, he is a member of the South African community. He is present in all gradations of mixture of colour from the one end of the scale to the other, and the European population of South Africa cannot dissociate themselves ultimately and finally from the coloured man. The European population is responsible for his existence, it must be responsible also for his education and civilization, and it must find a place for him inside its own boundaries. There are quarters in our large towns inhabited by the Cape coloured population, which are insanitary and unhealty, and which are known as slums. These must be dealt with by municipal regulations and not by this Bill. The European person is also exempt.

Why?

In the Bill as originally published there was no exemption of that kind at all, but I think it is quite possible that the object aimed at by the Bill might have been carried out just as effectively by proclaiming a European area, as by proclaiming a non-European area. Perhaps that will actually take place, but as hon. members know, those particular provisions called forth objections from various sections of the European population. I do not know why, but certain sections of the European population considered that there was a risk of their being separated from the rest of the European population, and dealt with on racial grounds, and on grounds which I venture to say have never been put into force against them in South Africa, and are never likely to be. However, it was thought better in order to avoid these fears to exclude altogether the European people from the scope of the Bill. Then also there has been a certain amount of agitation raised against the inclusion of the Cape Province under this Bill. It has been pointed out that when the Asiatic Commission sat to inquire into the relations of the European and the Asiatic people in South Africa, they reported that in the Cape there was no acute trouble. In the Cape Province the Commission found this particular problem gives rise to no acute trouble, and, as I say, pressure has been put upon me to exempt from the scope of this particular Bill certain parts of the Union where the problem does not give rise to any acute trouble. The Cape Province is one and the Free State is another. I will consider favourably an amendment of this kind. We do not want to bring it into force in parts of the Union where it may give rise to feelings of apprehension, fears, and uneasiness, and where its application is not asked for or required.

What about the Free State?

There are practically no Asiatics in the Free State, and the trouble will not arise there. I am prepared as I have said, to accept an amendment exempting the Free State and the Cape.

And the Transvaal and Natal?

That would be one method of shortening our discussion. In Natal at present the sort of separation aimed at by this Bill does not exist in law, but in many parts of Natal it exists in fact. In Natal you will find, as far as trading areas are concerned, that the Asiatics trade in one area and the European trade is in another. That has been brought about not by force of law, but by administrative action on the part of the authorities responsible for the issue óf licences. The feeling against this mixing up in favour of separation has been expressed in that way, and this separation in regard to business and residential areas already exists in many towns in Natal. The question of residence has, however, begun to be an acute one, and in many of the towns you will find that this residential penetration, if I may say so, is causing so much friction and trouble that animosity has begun to make itself felt. In the Transvaal we have a law, which was passed in 1885 by the Volksraad, which prohibits Asiatics from acquiring land and confining their residence to certain areas to be marked off by the Government. That law is still in force, and where an area has been laid out by the Government for the residence of the Asiatics then, they can be compelled to reside within the area, but they cannot, however, be compelled to trade in such separate area. The court has held, I think it was in 1904, that the law as it stands, does not apply to trading areas, and although an area may be set apart by the Government for the residence of Asiatics, they cannot be compelled to trade inside such area, and in fact, were not subject to any restrictions as regards trading. Therefore the only effect now of the law of 1885 is in regard to residence, and many of these traders live in the premises in which they trade, and it is found extremely difficult to give effect to that law, even where it has been found advisable to set apart an area, as it does not extend to trading. But the difference between that Act of 1885 and this Bill is a very important one. Under that Act of 1885, the Government was empowered to set apart areas in which Asiatics should be compelled to live. Well, what happened? If the Government go to a particular town in the Transvaal and say they wish to set apart an area for the Asiatic people in that town to live, the municipal authorities immediately point out some area which is far remote from the town, and as uninviting from the point of view of residence as they can possibly find, and the Government has either to accept that proposal or to give up the idea of starting a separate area, or to arrange some kind of settlement with the urban authorities. But under this Bill the initiative is with the urban authority. If a certain town wants a separate area set apart, it must come to the Government for a proclamation, and the Government must appoint a Commission to enquire into the suitability of the land it is proposed to set apart, and only where it is satisfied that the proper arrangements are being made, and that adequate ground is being allotted for these people, and adequate amenities are being provided, where they can live and where they can carry on some kind of trading, only then will the proclamation be issued to bring this Bill into force. If you compare the Act of 1885 with the present Bill, you will find that before this Bill is carried into effect, satisfactory arrangements must be made with the municipal authority concerned, to provide satisfactory accommodation for the people who are to be provided for. As far as the people for whom separate areas are to be provided are concerned, they are very much better off under this Bill than under the Act of 1885, and the fact that it has been so difficult to find adequate accommodation in towns under the Act of 1885, has to a large extent been responsible for it being so indifferently carried out. Now I touch upon the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill as I have said enables urban local authorities to apply to the Minister for the issue of a proclamation. They must indicate first of all an area within the limits of the local authority, which is fit for residential purposes for a certain class of people, and that they desire the Act to be applied to it. Then a Commission is appointed by the Government who have to enquire into certain matters. They have to enquire into the condition and nature of the area, and enquire whether there is any other area which is occupied by this particular class. They have to enquire whether there will be afforded by such an area residential or trading sites, or both, as the case may be, whether due and proper provision is made for water, lighting and other necessary services in the area, and whether it is desirable that the provisions of this Act should be applied. This Commission has full powers to hear evidence on oath, and to compel people to give evidence, and it has these definite matters entrusted to it for enquiry. The Commission has then to report to the Governor-General, and if he is satisfied on that point, he will then issue a proclamation. Then, after a proclamation is issued, this particular area is set apart, and after that time no persons belonging to a different class of people can lease or own ground in that area, nor can any person in that particular class acquire or lease property outside that particular area. An exception is made in connection with a lease of property where it contains a right of renewal. In that case where a person holds a lease with a right to renewal outside the property set apart for persons of his class he can get that lease renewed.

And if he already owns it?

He goes on owning it; it cannot be taken away from him. This Bill respects vested rights, and where a man owns property outside the area he goes on owning it. If that lease gives him the right of renewal he has the right to that renewal, and his rights are fully preserved.

It leaves the present position just as it is?

Or a little worse.

Oh, yes. I see the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) is a critic of this Bill. I do not know whether he considers it goes too far or not far enough. In regard to trading, after an area of this kind has been set apart for trading purposes, then it will not be lawful to grant a licence to any person to trade outside that area, but a person who now holds a licence to trade outside that area can get that licence renewed, but an application for a new licence outside that area cannot be granted. An exception is made of certain classes of traders the nature of whose business makes it necessary for them to extend their operations over the whole area. The main class of people under this head will be hawkers, and provision is made that if the Governor-General is satisfied that such person or persons should carry on such business outside an area set apart, he can give them that permission. It recognizes the fact that if you confine this man to the separate area, you will probably be taking away his existence. I would point out to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) that as far as my experience goes, the Asiatic hawker does not compete with any European hawker, because the European hawker is not there.

He has driven him out of the land.

It is provided further that if any particular area is inadequate for the people who have to live there, it can be extended. Then there is a further provision which I regard as important. If at any time the Governor-General is satisfied that a class residential area, or a class trading area, or a combined area established under this Act, is inadequate or unsuitable to the requirements of the population, and that there is delay, or will be delay in removing the causes of inadequacy or unsuitability, and that delay would cause serious prejudice to the population concerned, then he may suspend the provisions of the Act, and that I think will be a very useful lever on the urban authorities concerned, that they do provide decent and proper areas for the people who live there. [An Hon. Member: “What would happen if the provisions were suspended”?] Then they could go and live anywhere. Clause 9 contains an important provision, and that is where an area is set apart for trading or residential purposes, there is to be established an advisory board which will consist of persons residing within that area, and a chairman, who may or may not be a European. The other members will be appointed in accordance with the regulations of the Act. The functions of this board will be to advise the urban authority within whose bounds they are, of their needs, and bring before them their requirements, and by this means the interests of this class of persons shall be submitted to this advisory board. These are the main provisions of the Bill. They are drawn, as I have said, with the object of bringing about this separation, commercially, socially and residentially, a separation which if not brought about, will be in an increasing measure a cause of difficulty and friction, and may lead to violence. It is our business as a legislature to remove these conditions, and to bring about a state of things where the two communities can consider their relations and conflicting interests in a calm, sane, and reasonable manner. I would like to mention one particular criticism which has been levied against this Bill, and that is, in bringing forward this Bill the Government has been guilty of a breach of faith of an agreement between the right hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. Ghandi, when he was in the Transvaal. It has been objected that this Bill constitutes some breach of the agreement which was entered into by the right hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. Ghandi at that time. I have examined very carefully the correspondence which passed at that time, and it was also examined by a Select Committee of this House in 1919. This charge of a breach of faith has been laid, as far as I have been able to make out, on two grounds; one it is alleged, and I think correctly alleged, that a general undertaking was given at that time on behalf of the Government, that if and when the immigration of Indians into South Africa was stopped the Indians who were actually here should be treated with due consideration and with every regard to their rights. As far as that is concerned I do not regard this Bill as any breach whatever of that undertaking. This Bill, as I have said, is intended to apply, and will only succeed if it is applied, with due regard to the rights of justice for the Indians who are already here. But the charge goes further and alleges that an undertaking was given on behalf of the Government of the Union at that time, that vested rights would be respected and under the terms vested rights are included, the rights of Indians who are now trading here, or those who may succeed them as traders here, to go on trading under the same conditions as they are trading now. Now, sir, I would like to make it quite clear that this term “vested interests” employed by Mr. Ghandi in his correspondence of that time, was never intended by him, and never understood by anybody else, as carrying any implication of that sort at all. What Mr. Gandhi was dealing with at that time, was the question of the rights of certain traders, who had been allowed to trade on the goldfields, against the strict terms of the law. He was dealing with the question of what should be done in regard to these men; whether the law should be applied to them strictly, and they should be turned off, or whether the rights which they had built by acquiescence should be respected. When the Act of 1919 was under consideration, that point was brought up, and that Act made careful provision to respect the rights of vested interests of traders, which had been acquired in opposition to the law, merely owing to the fact that they had been so acquired and enjoyed, and the Act of 1919 made provision that these rights should be respected. After that the Asiatic Commission went into this particular question, because the Government throughout had been most careful to avoid any possible breach of faith in connection with the agreement which was made between Mr. Gandhi and the Government. The Asiatic Commission went into this matter and said—

That is the report of the Asiatic Commission which sat in 1921. I think that shows quite clearly that these vested rights which were referred to by Mr. Gandhi in his correspondence, referred only to the rights of these traders who had been allowed to establish their businesses without interference, although strictly against the law, and I should like to quote another testimony which, perhaps, may be regarded as more impartial. That is the testimony of Sir Benjamin Robertson who was allowed to come out here by the Indian Government to assist the Asiatic Inquiry Commission in South Africa, and he put before that Commission a memorandum setting forth his view of the condition of affairs in the Union of South Africa, in regard to the relations of the European and Asiatic populations. In that memorandum he deals with this question of Mr. Ghandi’s letter, and the claims which have been based on that. He says—

and then a quotation from this letter—

I have gone into some length on that because this is a question which has raised a considerable amount of feeling, which has been used both here and in India to excite resentment and feeling against this particular measure.

How did the Indians carry out their part of the agreement?

The hon. member will be able to tell the House that when it comes to his turn. In conclusion I should like to remind the House that this is not a problem we have to be afraid of, but is a problem which we can approach in a clear, calm, and sane attitude. It is certainly not a problem that is going to be solved by injustice or oppression. You have to remember that you are dealing with people who have been settled in this country for a comparatively long time, with people who have built up large business interests in this country, with people who have brought up their children here, and you have to deal with every consideration, in all equity. I know their claims go much further, I know they claim to have the fullest social and political equality with the European, or any other people in South Africa. That is a claim to which we cannot possibly make any concession at the present time. The conditions of South Africa are such that we are in every way precluded from entertaining any claim such as that, but with that restriction we are not only justified, but required to give every consideration to the legitimate interests of these people who have been settled. This Bill will not be workable, and no solution of the question will be workable if this is lost sight of. We must remember that if we are going to use the force of the State, and the powers of this House to set apart separate areas where these people are to live, we must remember that these areas must be such as to enable them to live decent wholesome and clean lives, and that it will not be to anybody’s interests, least of all our own, to force them info places where they cannot live in a decent and civilised manner. There is one other line of policy which we can pursue and that we are doing. That is to make it easy and indeed to encourage those people, who may wish to leave South Africa and go back to India, to do so. The question of compulsory repatriation we cannot even consider, but where these people decide to go back to India we should make it easy and indeed attractive for them. It is just as well to recognise quite clearly, that there is no place for the expansion of those people politically and socially in South Africa, as it is at present situated, and if we can help them to go back to their own country, among people of their own race, we shall be fully justified in doing so. I would like to quote to the House what we have done in that respect. Since the Act of 1914 was passed, which empowered the Government to give assistance to the passages of Indians from South Africa back to India, 17,000 have gone back under it.

How many?

17,000. During the last three years, more attention has been given to this matter, what might be called an intensive propaganda, has been carried on, bringing to the notice of Indians the benefits that are held out to them, about 25,000 have gone every year.

Each year?

Yes, in the last three years.

How much money did it cost?

The total since 1914 is 17,000 under this scheme; of all indentured Indians entitled to their return, 12,000 having now gone, making 29,000 in all.

What expenditure?

I cannot give the amount actually spent. As the hon. member will probably remember, we vote annually a sum of £25,000 for this purpose. That policy I think can be developed and extended, and it is on these lines that we are now proceeding. There is one thing which I would like to mention in that respect, and that is that I have found, possibly amongst people who talk most about the Asiatic menace and its terrible consequences, very considerable opposition to Indians of the labouring classes being repatriated. They tell you that these Indians ought not to be sent away, that they are a benefit to the country. That is based on a fallacy which has done a lot of harm to us in South Africa, that you can use the labour of a man, and insist that he and his descendants shall always stay in that class where they can give that particular sort of labour. I am only saying what is a matter of ordinary experience and common sense; labour develops a man, educates and trains his faculties, and if he is content to remain in that state of life all his time, you may be perfectly sure he will bring up his children to be something better. Therefore, hon. members must really clear their minds of this sort of thing, and make up their minds that, if it is desirable that we should encourage Indian people who are here, to go elsewhere, either to India or some other place, where they will be welcomed, they must not attempt to draw the line, and say: “You must keep this class and send away that other class.” That, really, is all I have to say about this particular Bill. It is not going to be a panacea for all the troubles that are affecting us in regard to the relations of the European and Asiatic people settled here. It is not going to solve what we sometimes hear so much about as the “Indian menace.” That can be solved only in one way, and that is by the European population of South Africa so expanding and developing on the land and in the industries, that the numbers of the Asiatic population who are here will cease to be a menace, and cease to give any ground for alarm or fear or even serious competition, to the Europeans. That is the one road over which you must go, if we are going to get rid of this menace. No; this Bill is not going to be any panacea for our troubles. It is going to bring about, if it is applied carefully and considerately as it is intended to be, a small, but, I think, a useful step, which without inflicting any serious hardship or injustice or oppression upon any section of the community, will enable us to approach the various difficult problems that arise out of the relations and inter-relations of these two races in a spirit of calmness and justice, and without that aggravation of racial and social friction which is so much in evidence to-day. If we do not stop that, it will lead to even worse consequences than we see now. I believe it can be stopped by this measure of separation, and it can be stopped, as I have aid, without inflicting degradation upon any section of the community, or any injustice in regard to their existing rights, and it is in that spirit and intention that I move the second reading.

I think we have all listened with pleasure to the candid way in which the hon. the Minister has set out what he has to say in praise of this Bill. He said it with the modesty which many of us think the occasion requires, because, as he said just now, it is not a panacea, and I think that not only is it not a panacea, but it is going to have extraordinary little effect in dealing with the problem that is concerning us. This Bill purports to be a Bill to deal with a very acute state of feeling, with a very acute situation which is felt, as he has rightly said, more in Natal, which is more in evidence in Natal than anywhere else in the Union, but the fears and the threat of which is certainly felt in other parts of the Union. The position which arises to-day is that when we have this Bill before us, the closest examination shows that it does not seem to us to touch the causes or the effects which are complained of, and failing to touch the causes we fear, that it will be a Bill which will do little to help. Let me say at once I give the hon. the Minister and the Government credit for their intentions in this matter, but I fear that the effects will be far from good. I just want to put it in a nut-shell quite clearly, the principle influences which desire some legislation of this sort are those connected with the trading community. Now, I will deal with that more at length later on, but if you are going to relieve the traders of the pressure of this competition of which they complain, it can only be done by placing some disabilities upon their competitors, and this Bill is framed in a way which, if it is going to have any effect at all, must be achieved by some such means as that. This Bill entirely bears out the right hon. the Prime Minister’s words in a reported interview which he had with Mrs. Naidu, that it is “very far from his intention to place any disabilities on the Indian community,” so that you are really on the horns of this dilemma. If you desire to relieve the European trading community of the competition of which they so bitterly complain, obviously it can only be by altering the balance of that competition and placing some disabilities upon their competitors. Now, ineffective as we think this Bill will be, innocuous as I agree it is in the main in its effect upon an Indian community, we witness this most significant phenomenon: That the publication of this Bill has produced a tremendous outcry on the part of the Indian population not only here but, as the Minister just said, in India; and at the same time it has produced from the European section mainly concerned evidence of a very vivid and keen interest, and a very vivid desire, that the Government should take much bolder steps in their interests.

Hear! hear!

The hon. member says: “Hear, hear!” I shall no doubt have cause to differ from him later.

The hon. member did four years ago.

I always did differ from the hon. member.

The hon. member is always in the wrong.

The hon. member is always with the majority; I am with the minority, and we are generally right. What will be the position to-morrow? The hon. member is nearly always following our footsteps. There again these two facts endorse most clearly the remark of the right hon. the Prime Minister as reported in the same interview in regard to the “great need to relieve the acute tension of feeling” in the country. There is an enormous amount of prejudice in this country. I am afraid of this Bill, I am afraid of the effects of this Bill. Let us all admit that it is an exceedingly difficult problem to deal with, and I realize the difficulties in regard to the position as much as anyone does. I appreciate the difficulty which the Government has to face, but if you are going to deal with this matter, then for Heaven’s sake, in the presence of an acute tension of feeling on this matter, in the presence of that growing race antagonism which the hon. the Minister himself has spoken of, we want to be very careful in the way we deal with it, and above all we must avoid doing anything in the nature of merely pretending that we are going to relieve the situation. That may be accepted for a year or two, and then when it is found that the situation is not relieved at all, instead of public feeling being allayed, it will be much more excited than before. That is what we fear, end we fear that the Government is failing to deal with this problem, as it has done elsewhere, through its lack of sympathetic understanding of the root causes. It seems to us that in dealing with the matter they are not going to the root of the problem. It is not, as I shall show. In our opinion, it is not merely that the trading aspect has to be dealt with, and let me say again that I agree with the hon. the Minister that we have to keep our heads cool over this matter. It is not as if we had a continual flow of immigration here. We all are united on this particular point, in spite of the Indian Government having taken these retaliatory measures, we have to stand firm and not complicate our already difficult problems, our difficult racial problem in this country, by allowing free immigration to a totally different race, with a totally different standard of civilization, into this country. I do not want to import into this question anything in the nature of party politics, because this is one of these subjects on which there is a degree of agreement in every quarter of the House. If there is any disagreement, then we must all approach it in the same spirit, and make our disagreements as clearly connected with the convictions we hold as we possibly can. In this case we all agree up to the hilt with the principle which the hon. the Minister expressed when he laid it down that it was our duty, not only our right, but our duty in this country to maintain the European civilization with which we in a measure, though not completely, have redeemed, and which we have stamped upon, this country. As I have said before, we, in this corner of the House, look upon that as almost the guiding clue in the labyrinth or difficulties which we have to face. There we have our duty. We cannot shoulder that on to anyone else, and it is our business to see that the European type of civilization shall maintain itself, and expand and stamp itself upon the type of culture which will eventuate in this country. I believe we also agree with some other words which the hon. the Minister let fall. I believe we do agree, although I am bound to say that the actions of the Government have often made me doubt the sincerity of the Government’s policy. But the hon. the Minister has let fall a few words with which we all agree on these benches, that we must do our utmost to provide an expanding opportunity for European life in this country. The Government, in our opinion, are gravely at fault in their policy, which runs counter to that principle the hon. the Minister laid down, although they agree with it and say that they agree with it, but to us their policy is incomprehensible, in that it is in utter conflict with what the hon. the Minister has told us here. But I want to say again that I agree to the hilt with the words the hon. the Minister has just let fall in this regard. He said that this problem is a serious one to-day, but that if our European population expands and increases in this country as it should do, then the problem will be more easy and less complicated as time goes on, and as the proportion between the races redresses the balance more and more on the European side. The hon. the Minister said that the European population if it increases, as we hope it will increase, and must increase, will bring about great changes. Our view in this corner of the House is that there must be radical changes in policy if that aspiration, and that improved state of affairs, and that amelioration which we are all looking for, is really to be brought about. Our supreme problem of course lies here. I want to speak on this subject in a way which will avoid giving any offence whatever to our Indian fellow subjects in this country. I am aware, we are all aware, that they belong to a race which was civilized and had a high civilization when our ancestors were still going about painting themselves with the juice of berries. We have here one supreme problem, and that is the problem presented by the co-existence in this country of the European race with its own traditions and civilizations and the black race which is only barely emerging from barbarism. We cannot regard without great anxiety, having this problem which is complicated enough, further complicated by the intrusion of another subsidiary racial problem through the short-sighted action of our predecessors who introduced another population element into this country; and it is our duty to try to project our ideas into the future, to adopt some coherent and some sound policy which may go far in the direction of a solution, though it cannot be an entire solution. There cannot be an entire wiping out of the mistakes of the past, but at all events there should be a mitigation to the greatest possible extent of the great mistake made in 1860 when this importation of Asiatics was begun. I will just set forth as briefly as I can what our views of this matter are, and let me just very briefly submit our view of it in its historical aspect. The whole of this trouble began in 1860 when the European population of Natal, the dominant influences there, against the popular sentiment, in violation of the popular instincts, taking it as a matter of course that the proper thing to do, if they wanted to get rich, was to use other people’s labour and at the cheapest possible rate, imported large numbers of coolies into Natal. They imported them, not a primitive race, but a race belonging to an old civilization, a race of remarkable adaptability, as they have shown in many fields and in many parts of the world. Natal in those days was not what it is to-day so far as social organization is concerned. One has only to go into the corridor upstairs to see the picture of West Street in 1860 to notice the wonderful changes which have taken place since then. As things developed in the next generation a great many difficulties began to make themselves apparent. This theory of buying in the cheapest possible market, irrespective of the standard of living, of the labour used, extended to other occupations and the descendants of these coolies more and more invaded other wage-earning occupations, and steadily began to oust the European wage earner, and the European population in other occupations in the more humble walks of life. The voice of the European worker went unheeded. The more well-to-do among our people looked upon it as the most natural thing that they should use cheap labour, irrespective of the standard of life which that labour had to maintain, and if the European worker could not hold his own and descend to the standards of his Indian competitor, then he had to go. The wage-earning Europeans did not look upon it in the same way, but their voices were unheeded. I will not dwell on this point. Later on the coolies set up as business men themselves, the merchants saw the terrible mistake made in the chapter of coolie immigration. Those who for so many years paid no heed to the complaints as to the decreasing number of European wage earners who could get a living, began to feel the pressure of the competition themselves. I remember that in 1912 and 1913 this competition was called attention to in this House and it has since become more acute. I point this out in no carping spirit—we are all subject to it— we do not regard an evil as a vital matter until it hits ourselves. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. Henderson) shakes his head. How often did he and his friends complain of the Asiatic ousting European wage earners? How often did they raise their voices in protest when the white tailors and white men in other occupations found themselves being ousted by Asiatic competition? He has represented a Durban constituency for 14 years, and I have represented one for two years, but I raised my voice more often in the House before I represented Natal in connection with this question, than the hon. member has ever raised his. There were 200 white tailors in Natal 15 years ago; there are now only 40. When the trouble reached the traders this more vocal stratum of society calls attention to the evil.

Who are the vocal authorities?

The vocal authorities, used in this sense, are those who have command of the press, and who have influence in organizing things. They have aroused public opinion and I am glad they have done so. In our opinion this Bill is the best the Government can do, as they are inspired by principles and ideas of a commercial kind. It is the best they can do on lines compatible with the commercial idea of life, the idea of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, the idea that there can be a complete indifference to the standard of living of those who render service, so long as the service can be paid in so many shillings, the fewer the better. The position broadly speaking is that the coolies were imported for higher profit; their descendants have displaced European wage earners and others, to secure higher profits for the employers. And to-day Natal is more an Asiatic than a European Colony. We have now in the country another race with whom we have got to deal, and to deal with humanely, adhering at the same time to the principle that our civilization and our modes of living have to dominate the situation in South Africa. Let me now go to another point. There are various kinds of opinion on this subject. There is one body of opinion which would not be satisfied, and will never be satisfied, until you have got rid by force or some other way, irrespective of any humanity, until you have got rid of every Asiatic in the country, and that you have a clean bill of health. There are many who, I think, would even wish to see on the 30th June next or some fixed date all Asiatics lined up and given a dose of cyanide. These are the hopelessly and utterly unreasonable people. Then there are the commercial classes who are very vocal to-day, but with them it is the law of the Medes and Persians, that they must be able to buy their labour as cheap as they can. This Bill is in our opinion the best the Government can do along lines which are compatable with the commercial idea of life—the idea of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, and not minding how your employees live. It does not go on the right line. When one examines the Bill—one is sure that this Bill is going to leave the present position practically unchanged. There will be no material change in the present position of the trader in the big towns of the Transvaal and Natal or in other towns. The traders who are there to-day will be there to-morrow and they will go on carrying on their business and the people who are so anxious for immediate relief will find that this Bill affords them no relief. In the future, supposing these traders who own their property will remain there? Supposing in the big towns you have large areas 40 or 50 years hence occupied entirely by Asiatics, what will they be? Precisely to the extent to which the Asiatic inhabitants in such areas are limited in their opportunities of their making a livelihood by trade, and it will force them into other occupations wherein they will make the competition with the people in those occupations all the keener and more severe. That seems no eventual solution at all. It seems to show a disregard of the actual facts which we ought to recognize. In the small towns—really it is laughable when I meet in the lobby the town clerks of municipalities sent down here urging one to support this Bill at any cost—when one thinks how utterly futile and useless it will be so far as the small towns are concerned. Think of such places as Pietersburg and Ermelo and then just look again at the big towns. Suppose you have this process going on and the European wage earner eliminated, where would be the customers of the European traders? It seems to us that this Bill deals with the matter without any apprehension of the real elements of the problem. The only one thing of virtue in the Bill is—and it is good to that extent— is that it introduces the idea of residential separation, which I believe ought to be a line, the voluntary development of which ought to be encouraged to the full. The process today exists, certainly in Natal, where to a very large extent they inhabit different areas. In my own constituency there is a perfectly clearcut process of segregation in Green Wood Park, where a servitude has been imposed that any land sold shall be sold to an European. In that respect I agree with the Government in the desire to bring about a lessening of the friction, the social friction, so often referred to in the hon. the Minister’s speech. I will now sketch as briefly as I can what we consider should be the policy to be pursued. I do not pretend to work it out in detail because an investigation of this sort requires either a commission or a Select Committee, which I shall propose just now, or it requires all that machinery of investigation which only those who occupy the treasury benches can command. But we do not fool ourselves that we can do other than this, than to contemplate that in this country a certain Asiatic section is going to be one of the permanent ingredients of our population. We believe it is our duty to mitigate the difficulty presented by that as far as possible—I was going to use rather an Irishism, a larger difficulty than we can digest, but let me say a greater mass than we can deal with, and I am going to suggest on the lines the hon. the Minister has been speaking, that we shall take more vigorous steps and offer greater inducement to diminish the difficulties of the problem. We must realize that while the right hon. the Prime Minister had the whole of the people of South Africa behind him in his attitude at the Imperial Conference, that is not an attitude which can be maintained for all time. But it seems to me that what we have to look to in the future, is that we must realize that there will be in the future, elements of the Asiatic inhabitants who, with capacities and intellectual ancestry, one might say, entirely equal to our own, cannot as they acquire European culture and position, be treated for all time as political helots. Those things we have to anticipate; and I am trying to put the position as well as I can. The difference between hon. members over there and ourselves is this. The views of hon. members over there say: “Pay your labour what it demands, and never mind how it lives.”

What an absolute untruth.

I think it is so—I think that is in point the effect. I am not speaking of the benevolent philanthropic employer, but I am speaking of what is in point of fact the ruling maxim—if a man chooses to sell you his labour for so much, then it is his business how he lives.

The hon. member is quite wrong when he says that that is our point of view.

Hon. members over there represent what are the dominating influences, the commercial and financial influences.

What financial influences?

The hon. member is very self conscious. There are more people concerned than he himself.

The hon. member is generalizing.

Well, at any rate that is my view, that is the view which the action of hon. members over there and the policy which they pursue suggests to us that they hold, because their policy is in accordance with what I have just said, and that is how it presents itself to us. On their side they recognize as the rule of commerce that it should buy in the cheapest market, that the man’s business is to sell his labour, and what he does outside has nothing to do with them. We here take a different view, and we look at the position in our country. Take England, Europe, or Australia or anywhere where you have a homogeneous population—the application of such principles induces its natural reaction, and the evils which result from this sort of policy are prevented through labour organizations interfering, and stopping the evil. But in South Africa, with your heterogeneous population the position is very different and the effect of the application of such principles is the elimination of civilized conditions of living for the wage earners, and the ousting of the civilized worker. We can point out in thousands of different places in our industrial and social system, where precisely these things are taking place, and where life is becoming harder and harder for the man with civilized traditions. In pursuance of that we would say that we would attack this problem from the other end.

Will the hon. member give us his solution?

Following that line we say that the first thing to do, the first line of attack should be by means of municipal regulations, and rigorous enforcement of the public health laws. The hon. the Minister himself said that there were places which were nearly on the border line of a public danger, from the public health point of view. I say that if we were less inspired by the commercial idea, and the public health regulations were more vigorously enforced, that standard of life such as one sees, not only among the Asiatics but also among Europeans, would be impossible in this town or in any other town. Let us insist on standards of civilization, on economic standards compatible with life according to European standards, standards such as we look upon as civilized. That will interfere with profit. It will diminish the possibilities of great fortunes, but it will be vastly better for the people of South Africa and for the future national destiny. I know that some of these may be hard words for hon. members over there, but be they hard or be they not, the fact remains that when you open your eyes and look around, you see the application of this iron law, this inhuman competitive system without any regard to the standard of life, gradually eliminating the European from occupation, withering the race, the white race, and touching the future of this country in a manner which is endangering the white race from every point of view. We have to stop this. If, it costs us some radical changes, then let us make these changes in our attitude. Let us begin at the bottom and insist upon making an economic living standard compatible with our civilisation. When you have done that, when you take that course, then I verily believe, and I could bring arguments to support it at other times, that it would diminish the difficulties and the competition and the troubles of your European trader. As the hon. the Minister has said, these Indians are not an ever increasing element in this country. My contention is that if you had a larger and more prosperous wage-earning population, there would be more business for all and by your public health regulations and municipal regulations, you would be entitled, whether Indian or European, to insist on the standard of life which would prevent unfair and unequal competition, against which the European of decent stamp cannot stand up. But if you take that line which I have indicated, I can see that there is one essential, one absolutely essential ingredient in chat policy—complimentary principle which we must also face. I speak for myself and I say that if you take that line, there will be many men who will find that serious hardship will be inflicted upon them. I say that you must make the most liberal financial provision to help any man to repatriate to his racial home, who finds that these regulations place upon him difficulties which are hard, almost impossible for him to surmount. You must be liberal in your financial provisions to enable that man to return to his racial home, where he can live in standards more congenial to his racial traditions. The hon. the Minister has told us that some 17,000 Indians have been repatriated in the last 17 years. I had the privilege of a short interview with Mrs. Naidu on this matter, and I understood from that lady that many of those who went back are living in distress and poverty, and that it is not approved by the Indian community. It seems to me that we who brought them here, are responsible for this evil, and it is no use us pretending that we will mitigate these difficulties at the expense of someone else, and if the difficulty is that we are not making sufficient provisions for these people to many of whom India is as foreign a country as Europe is to a European born in South Africa, then I say that we are doing the wrong thing, and we ‘should put that right and make provision which will be really effective in inducing voluntary repatriation on a deservable scale. If we are going to pursue a policy roughly in accordance with the principles I have sketched, then, in my opinion, a necessary complimentary portion of that policy must be the providing of something which must be a real inducement to a very large number, who do not fit in with the order of things to leave the country.

Order.

I have almost finished, Sir.

Is the hon. member for or against the Bill before he sits down?

I will tell the hon. the Minister. This Bill in my opinion, I am speaking for myself, this Bill is going to effect nothing.

It does not go far enough?

I do not want this matter laid aside, but what this Bill is going to do is to raise the hopes of many that something is going to be done, but they will find that they are disappointed. I move as an amendment—

I said at the beginning that our duty was to point out how this subject could be dealt with. We want the subject to be tackled properly, and if this is all you can do, then it is very little indeed you are going to do.

In seconding the amendment just submitted by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) I feel, Sir, that I can endorse practically every sentence the hon. member has uttered in connection therewith. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has asked the House to »calmly and sanely consider the position, but I submit that we cannot possibly in this House calmly and sanely consider a matter of this character. The only place where a question of this kind—and it is admitted to be a very delicate and difficult question can be thoroughly dealt with is in a Select Committee of the House. I further support the amendment in order that a Bill may be brought forward that will at least do something towards a sound solution of the problem. It may truly be said that few measures have created so much interest, particularly in Natal, as the Class Areas Bill. At the recent bye-election in Umvoti the question of the Asiatic came very prominently to the front, very prominently indeed: in fact, the election was almost entirely fought upon the Asiatic question, and the successful candidate said that it was his one great ambition to be sent to the House of Assembly in time to assist the right hon. the Prime Minister to pass the Class Areas Bill.

What did the other man do?

If the hon. the Minister will give me an opportunity, I will endeavour to approach this very delicate and difficult question.

What did the other man do?

I have no doubt he was very much like the hon. member; took up a contrary view. A lady who was asked at the last general election in England as to what her husband’s attitude was on the question of protection said, that when he was with the protectionists he was a free-trader, and when he was with the free-traders he was a protectionist, and she added, when he was at home he was a confounded nuisance. The people of Natal are convinced of this: that it will only be when a Nationalist Government is in power in this House, that the Asiatic problem in this country will ever be properly tackled, and I take it that the principle reason why the right hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of the Interior is now endeavouring to do something to satisfy or attempt to satisfy the people in Natal, is because of the dissatisfaction with the present Government in connection with this matter.

Will they give the hon. member a minimum wage?

The hon. the Minister will have to speak up if he wants me to hear him. The press of the country has set the pulse of the people agog on this Bill—in anticipation of something tangible forthcoming—but anyone who carefully reads this Bill, will surely realize that it is a case of much ado about nothing. As the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) has stated, this Bill is only trifling with the question of the Asiatic in Natal and elsewhere.

Where did the hon. member say that?

We have suggested that this Bill should be sent to the Select Committee before the second reading, in order that the united wisdom of the House may devise legislation which at all events will help towards a solution.

We have received our instructions in the hon. member’s amendment-— apparently those emanate from the united wisdom of Labour members.

It is along those lines that we think this matter should be considered. We feel it is necessary to have something more than social and trading segregation, and that is all this Bill seems to do, if it does anything at all. I am pleased, however, that the Government is moving. In Natal it has now become a question of race preservation, and I welcome the first step—though it is a very short one. At the same time I am thoroughly dissatisfied with this Bill, as it is of a nature which only touches the fringe of the Asiatic problem. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked the Government in 1921 to do something similar to what is proposed in the Bill. In 1922 the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan) advocated the early introduction of legislation which would provide for the allocation to the Asiatic community of separate and distinct areas, rural and urban, wherein the Asiatics could develop in accordance with their needs and standards of civilization, due regard being had to the interests, present and future, of the European and native population. That was not the whole text of the motion by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan), but those are the lines on which he made his representations. These motions were always very sympathetically received, but nothing further was done. Sympathetic treatment was all that the hon. members for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick) ever received. The hon. the Minister of the Interior replying to a motion moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan), said that the commission of 1921 had found that a good many of the representations regarding the so-called Asiatic menace in the country towns, had been exaggerated. He endeavoured to throw as much cold water on the proposal as possible. The hon. the Minister also said that compulsory segregation was impracticable, and that the Government had found the greatest difficulty in securing even a small portion of land necessary for a native location or leper settlement, and yet this Bill gives power to municipalities in Natal, to set aside areas to segregate half the population. Where is the land to come from, and where are the areas to be situated? When the municipality of Pietermaritzburg decided upon one end of the town for a native location, the residents of that part got up in arms, and owing to the pressure brought to bear by residents, we are still without a native location in the town of Pietermaritzburg, and an exactly similar position will arise when any attempt is made under this Bill to select an area in which the Asiatics will be asked to live and trade. [An Hon. Member: “How can you solve that?”] That will be a matter for the Select Committee; they will go into the pros. and cons. of the questions, and they will decide how these and other matters are to be solved. The people of Natal want something more than sympathy from the Government in connection with the trouble with Asiatics. After all, Natal is the province principally affected in this matter. The other provinces saw to it, by legislation, that the Indians were kept in Natal, and especially so was this the case in the Free State. I gather from official statistics that there are only 100 Indians in the Free State. This legislation is still in force, notwithstandng that Natal entered the Union. If these Statutes were repealed, Indians would be able to spread right throughout the whole of South Africa. Then, perhaps, we would have a little more interest taken on a question of this character. On the last occasion when this matter was discussed in this House, the local press said it was “Natal Day in the Assembly,” as if it were a question of no concern to the other provinces. Natal people must not be shouldered with the responsibility of bringing the Asiatics into their colony. The franchises in those days did not give the majority of the people a say as to what their rulers were to do—rulers who were interested in the sugar industry. I have not time to go into the historical side of the question as I should like to, but I want to impress upon the House the position of Natal to-day. It is true that the entry of indentured Indian labour was put a stop to in 1911. But not at the instigation of any South African Government. The position in Natal to-day is that half of the Indians who are there now were born in Natal. They in all number 161,000.

That is not so; 140,000.

Yes, I made a slight mistake there. In Natal there are 141,000 Indians. The figure (161,000) is for the whole of the Union. That is the position to-day. To be exact we have 141,336 Indians in Natal, half of whom were born there. It was intimated at the South African Party Congress held at Pietermaritzburg, that the Government at last intended to tackle the Asiatic question, and this miserable Bill is the result.

It does not go far enough.

The majority of the people in Natal, if they thoroughly understood it, would agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the Bill does not go far enough and that it does not tackle the problem in the proper way. Natal is often referred to as “Loyal Little Natal,” and undoubtedly it has always been a loyal colony, and many of the people there have been kept quiet because of the Imperial complications associated with the Indian question. I think the right hon. the Prime Minister once emphasized that very strongly to a deputation of Natalians who presented resolutions to him. The present-day temper of the people in Natal can best be judged by the utterance of a prominent citizen when he said: “We must tell England if necessary that she must choose between India and ourselves.” That puts the position very clearly, and hon. members may put whatever construction they like on the statement. To touch briefly on the unfair economic competition between the Indian and the European, the Durban unemployment committee, of which the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Mackeurtan) is chairman, has stated that most of the unemployment in Durban bad been caused by the inroads made in all occupations and trades by the Indians. That is a committee which has gone thoroughly into the unemployment question, and they are of the opinion that the unemployment in Durban, especially where Europeans are concerned, has been caused directly by the inroads made in all occupations and trades by the Indians. In Pietermaritzburg there are Indians employed by the Corporation as constables directing, or misdirecting, the traffic at the street corners. Yes, Indians are employed as constables, and the boot factories are full of Asiatics.