I move—

There are two reasons which make it unnecessary for me to say more than a few words in introducing the Bill. The first, of course, is that the subject of the Bill has been discussed on four occasions with a fairly large amount of completeness by this House and with a similar amount—although not with thoroughness—in the country. The second reason why it is unnecessary for me to enlarge on the subject is that the Bill which I am introducing now comes before the House for the second time in the form in which it was laid on the Table. The remarks I want to make I will confine to three points: firstly on the nature of the Bill; secondly on the nature of the proposals contained in the Bill; and thirdly a point of a more general kind. As for the Bill I want to remind the House that it is a Bill rejected by the Senate, or, to be more accurate, it is a Bill which was so amended by the Senate that the majority in this House could not accept it. The fact that it is a rejected Bill within the meaning of the Act of Union places a certain limitation on dealing with it in the House upon reintroduction. The limitation is that if this side of the House wants to benefit from the constitutional provision that a final decision, if necessary, can be obtained through a joint sitting of both Houses, then no amendments can be passed in this House. That is in accordance with the Act of Union and with a ruling which Mr. Sneaker gave in a similar case two years ago. For that reason I say that no amendment can be considered or passed in this House unless this side of the House gives un its privilege and right to lay the matter if necessary for final decision before a joint sitting of both Houses. If this side of the House were to surrender that privilege by accenting any amendment then the Flag Bill, if this side of the House wants a decision of a joint sitting, will have to be started de novo. This explanation of the nature of the Bill is not necessary for hon. members of this House, because they are presumed to be aware of it, but it is necessary because the matter has been wrongly represented in this connection by the press and by other people outside. The second point I want to refer to is the nature of the proposals contained in the Bill. I can merely repeat what I said in the House the day before yesterday, namely, that the proposals contained in the Bill are not the original proposals or ideas of this side of the House, but that the proposals in effect and in reality are compromises. What the Government is laying before the House in this re-introduction represents the extended hand from this side of the House with the object of coming to an agreement. I can only remind the House that when the Flag Bill was introduced for the first time the presumption was that we would have only one flag for South Africa, which should contain nothing which could offend any section of the population so far as remembrances of the past were concerned. For that reason we said that neither the Vierkleur nor the Free State flag nor the Union Jack should be incorporated in it. That was the original intention and proposal from this side of the House. We have departed from that original standpoint. In meeting, if possible, the other side, and in order to try to get general agreement, we agreed to allow the Union Jack to continue to fly in the country as a separate flag, and to lay it down in the law, so that there could be no doubt on that point. That was a compromise and a concession from this side of the House to remove the objection and argument used on the other side of the House to the effect that the Union Jack was being pulled down in the country. Apart from that, we went further in our attempts to meet the Opposition on the point of the inclusion of the old historical flags on the new flag, notwithstanding the concession already mentioned. We departed from our original standpoint to meet the Opposition in this respect, in so far as the principles which we have laid down made it at all possible for us. It is unnecessary to go further into that point or other points where we tried to meet the Opposition, because I have sufficiently shown by what I have said that our proposals as contained in the Bill are compromises and that they represent the outstretched hand to our opponents. I repeat what I said the day before yesterday, namely, that while our proposals have that nature and bear that character, the Opposition have not retreated a single step from the standpoint they took up at the beginning of the flag dispute. To represent that that side was willing to make concessions and that nothing had been conceded by this side of the House is to trifle with the sound common sense of the people.

The peace loving people!

I shall just make one further and last remark, and that is that while there is a certain limitation arising from the nature of the Bill, with regard to the dealing with the Bill by the House at this stage, there is also a certain limitation in the point of view which can be taken by this Government or any Government. That limitation is that the flag eventually adopted if it is at all a success must rest on the hearty acceptance of it by at least the majority of the people.

The whole people.

The whole people if we can secure it; if the Opposition will be reasonable, then the whole people. If we cannot get the whole people, then we must be assured that the flag will be heartily adopted by the majority of the people, and that is why a referendum is contained in our proposals. I mention this point to make it clear that if this Government or any Government were to go so far in its desire and intention of meeting the Opposition as to get out of sympathy with its own supporters and if the flag which is ultimately adopted which is neither the flag of the Opposition nor is ultimately passed by the supporters or the majority of the supporters of the Government then we shall get nothing else but a still-born flag. A flag which does not get the heartiest support of the majority of the people is worse than no flag, simply because, under those circumstances, the old flags will continue flying in the country as before, not to unite, but to divide; because you will have the Union Jack flown just the same by one section of the population to the exclusion of the other, and because the Vierkleur and Free State flags will be flown by the other section to the exclusion of the first mentioned group—and, in addition, you will have created a new flag which will, indeed, be seen officially, but not acknowledged, flown and loved by the one section or by the other. Therefore, I say that this side of the House also is restricted in any concession which it might make to arrive at a general solution.

I shall follow the example of the Minister in not entering into the merits of this question at length, partly because they have been very largely discussed inside and outside this honourable House, and largely because I do not want to do anything that will accentuate the bitter feelings that already exist in the country and in the House. I do not want to do or to say anything that might close the door further than it has been closed already against the possibility of coming to a settlement on this question by agreement. I believe most firmly that there is no possible settlement of this question except by agreement. The Minister said—that was the one thing in his speech with which I agreed—that it was desirable to get a flag which shall be accepted by the great number—or all the people—I think he said. I quite agree with him. No flag that is not accepted by the great majority of both sections of the people can be a suitable flag for the country. But the Minister went on to say that if, owing to circumstances, that is unobtainable, you must get a flag by a majority, that is, a flag forced upon the minority by the majority, we must be forced to be driven to that position, that if the Government keep up the same unyielding attitude the Government has adopted so far, it will be a sign that South Africa has not reached a settlement, and it will not achieve what the Bill purports to achieve—the setting up of a national flag. Believing that as I do, I am most averse to doing or to saying anything that will close the door to a settlement by agreement. I am going to believe to the last moment that a settlement can be and will be reached, because I believe the great majority hope for and desire such a settlement. But I want to say a few words on this occasion by way of vindicating the attitude that this side of the House has taken up—against the aspersions the Minister made to-day, and on a previous occasion, when he represented that the progress of the Government on this flag question had been one of constant compromise, and that our attitude had been one of constant refusal. To my mind, that is a completely mistaken reading of the facts. I want to deal with one point the Minister raised, as to the reason why it was impossible to accept any amendment of the Bill of this House. He said, and said quite correctly, that if the Government are going to put their Bill through this session—and we fully recognize that they are going to do so in one form or another—wo cannot shut our eyes to that fact; it must be, unless the Senate passes the Bill, by a joint sitting. This Bill cannot be amended in any form, and must go to the other House in the same form as it was last session. He used that as an argument that it was useless to think of any amendment in this House. That is perfectly true constitutionally, but it does not exclude the possibility of a settlement by agreement in this House.

We cannot trust your leaders.

I do not take that as an insult from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert)—it is one of the remarks he is constantly in the habit of making, and carries no weight in this House. But my point was that if the Government have still any idea that a settlement by agreement can be arrived at, surely it is in this House that it ought to be done. This House is the direct representative of the people, and anything done in this House will carry far more weight, and is far more likely to be accepted by the country, than something done in another place, not so directly representative of the people. I put to the Minister that if there is still any idea of settlement by agreement, let us do it here, and if something is reached to which all the parties of this House are agreed, surely it is to be expected that the parties in the other place will accept it.

You cannot guarantee the Senate.

My position is that if there is a possibility of a settlement in this House, there should be no need for a joint sitting.

What do you suggest?

The hon. member knows perfectly well it is no use my suggesting anything. Anything suggested by this side of the House will be automatically rejected. I continue, and I shall continue, to hope that we have not yet passed the possibility of a settlement. I should like to recall to this House briefly the history of this flag question. As hon. members will remember, it was started in the 1926 session by an informal committee of members of this honourable House, which met and discussed the question, regarding the possibility of arriving on an agreed flag that committee failed. That failed because the Minister laid it down as an absolute condition that the flag on no account should contain any representation of the Union Jack. That is absolutely beyond denial, and the Minister admits it. Not only was there to be no Union Jack, but there was to be no symbol of the imperial connection on the flag. The Minister has been talking about compromise, but there is not much sign of a compromise there. There is not much room for a compromise where an absolute line is laid down by one party with the intimation that on no account were they going to budge from it. After the conference failed, the Minister introduced his Bill. Ultimately, the Bill was withdrawn, and the Minister withdrew it with the intimation that it would come up in the next session with precisely the same condition—that is to say that the design should contain no representation of the Union Jack. So far we have not seen much sign of a compromise. During the recess an extra-Parliamentary commission was appointed, consisting of people of different views from different parts of the country to advise the Government in regard to the flag, and I would like to read to the House the terms of reference to that commission. They are contained in the Union Gazette of September 10th, 1926. The commission was to be appointed—

That is all very good, except that it says to advise the Government on the lines of the Bill introduced by the Minister, presumably in accordance with the principle that the flag should contain no Union Jack. But it went further than that, for the reference said these terms of reference must be read in the light of the Prime Minister’s reference to the flag question contained in the speech he delivered in Cape Town on September 6th, 1926. That speech laid it down clearly that the national flag should not contain the Union Jack or the two republican flags.

What about the Crown? That reference was put in so as to include the Crown; that was inserted to make a compromise possible on your own lines.

I do’not read it in that light.

On the lines you suggested.

On the lines of the Prime Minister’s speech—that the national flag should not contain the Union Jack or the two republican flags. So the commission was appointed, not to advise the Government de novo, on what design should be adopted so as to bring about reconciliation, but how the Government’s policy was to be carried out. The result of that commission was the adoption by the Government of what is known as the St. George’s Cross flag, and it was with that flag that the Government came before Parliament last session with their new Flag Bill.

Was that not in the direction of a compromise?

I did not recognize that as being in the direction of a compromise.

Nor the Crown?

It was mentioned only to be rejected. Let me now come to the select committee which sat after the second reading of the Bill. In that select committee the Government, for the first time, brought forward a design which could be regarded as an attempt to meet the ideas of this side of the House, but, as always, this step was accompanied by certain qualifications. The Government said—

They are dead flags.

Does the hon. member for Barkly think these flags are dead in the hearts of the people?

According to the statements of your leader.

They may be dead in the hon. member’s heart. That was the condition on which the Government gave this bridge in the select committee, but the condition which accompanied it again made it, and must have been expected to make it, unacceptable to the vast number of people who support the view of the Opposition on this matter. Therefore, I contend that this policy of compromise, which the Minister has spoken so much about, has been accompanied, from time to time, with statements by some responsible person which have had the effect of stirring up feeling on the other side in the direction of making that compromise unacceptable. They are taking to themselves a virtuous attitude which is perfectly unjustifiable when they say they have made their compromise, and the other side has rejected it. If the Minister had approached the question in a different spirit from that in which he approached it in 1926, and if he thereby had avoided all this wrangle and dispute through the country, and all the aspersions cast on the Union Jack, this controversy would have been far nearer settlement than it is now.

There would have been no controversy at all.

Yes, and no agitation. We have never pinned ourselves to any one design. Our attitude, from the beginning, has been that the time and the circumstances are not ripe for the fixing of a national flag. The Government would do far more harm by forcing this matter than by waiting, even if for a few years, until the feelings of the country have been more settled, until the recognition of the new national status has been more fully understood than it is now That has been our attitude throughout.

No, not throughout.

Yes, throughout. We recognize the policy of not forcing the position as an ideal one, but it is one that cannot be adopted because the Government have announced their intention of forcing it through, and, therefore, if the policy of having a flag now and not waiting is to be carried out then it should be a policy of having a flag by agreement.

I remind you of your affirmation made before the committee of 1926 when your leader said it was desirable.

Many people have said from time to time South Africa should have a flag clear of all history of the past, but no responsible statesman, until now, has tried to force it on the country. Our policy and our attitude has been that failing it being possible to put the matter off for a time, and if the matter is to be fixed now, then it should be a flag, as far as possible, in agreement with both races of the country and which embodies their traditions and which they and their children can look up to with respect. We have not gone further than that. A tentative design was put un in the Senate with which some of us agree and some do not agree.

Look at the proposals in the select committee.

Yes, that the Union Jack and the Vierkleurs should be an integral part of the national flag. That seemed to us the best method of securing a flag which would be looked up to in the future as something to respect and admire. I have said that with the idea of justifying the attitude we have taken up throughout, and which we have adhered to on this side of the House, as against the criticism of the Minister that we have done nothing whatever but oppose every design. That is not the suggestion. We are open to consider, and, if possible, accept, any design of the Government which appears to fulfil these conditions which we have laid down, that is, the flag shall satisfy the great majority of the people of both races, it will not satisfy all, and combine the traditions of both races so that they can both look towards it with love and respect. I do not want to pursue this controversy if there is any hope of this matter being settled otherwise than by a direct vote of this House or by referendum. I appeal to the Minister again not to regard the door as finally closed in that respect. There is no doubt in my mind that a settlement by coercion will not be a settlement at all. Even by a majority at the referendum it will not be a settlement. A flag is a sentiment, and if it is not it is a mere rag or a piece of bunting, and you cannot legislate for sentiment. You can compel people not to do things and punish them if they do it, but you will keep those sentiments stronger if you try to force this matter. The referendum is going to leave an open sore in South Africa, and on this account I appeal to the Minister not to abandon finally and for good the line of obtaining, even now, in this House, a settlement by agreement. We do not merely want to obtain delay. We know the Government intend to put a Bill through this session, and there is no intention on our part to propose delay. We propose to keep the door open to the last moment for a settlement by agreement, which is going to be the only lasting one. This question, as I have said, is one of sentiment, and if we do not get agreement we are going to get a revival of animosities in this country which will go to the roots of our national life. We have had other controversies in this country which have also raised the racial question. Right from the peace of Vereeniging the language and other questions have raised the racial issue sometimes to a high pitch, but these things have been settled by agreement. Attempts have been made to force settlement, but they have not succeeded. These questions have been settled one by one by agreement. Is it then hopeless to expect this question is going to be settled by agreement? I say no. As one who has lived in this country from the days of the Anglo-Boer war, to me it is an astonishing thing to see how these bitternesses have been assuaged and have died out and friendships have sprung up between people who were cutting each other’s throats and shedding each other’s blood. I do not believe it is impossible to settle this question by agreement, and I will keep that faith until the opposite has been proved. The referendum and Parliament will not settle anything. We are trying to settle a national flag. It is not like passing a law which can be rescinded again next year dealing with a temporary condition of social life which could be changed by amendment. This national flag is intended to last as long as our national life lasts, something which we and our children, and those coming after them, can look up to and respect as a symbol of our national life.

Remember how your ancestors reprobated the Union Jack.

I do not see why the Minister should be such a hide-bound conservative as to follow in their footsteps. If they made a mess of things there is no need for us to do it. For heaven’s sake let us try and get a symbol which both sides and their descendants can look up to with a common respect and worship and for that reason I will not go further into the merits of the case. I would do everything to avoid bitterness of feeling which a protracted debate will cause. If it will do any good to the assuagement of feeling I think it would be wise to adjourn the debate and think the matter over. Each side has learned a great deal since last session. We have seen the feeling of the people and the bitternesses caused by this dispute. We have got some idea of where we shall be if this dispute goes on. We have got some idea of the wreck which is going to be made in this country if this question is forced through to a referendum. Each side has seen that and I hope that each side has drawn some lessons of wisdom and toleration from that, and I move—

seconded.

I have no objection to accepting the proposal but not for the last reason he mentioned, namely, that the Government should again take the whole matter into reconsideration. If his object is that the Government should reconsider the matter and make an offer to the Opposition … The hon. member shakes his head, and if that is not his intention, I will accept the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.

Motion put and agreed to; debate to be resumed to-morrow.

I move—

I do not propose to detain the House long. The main principles of this measure were set forth by me last session. Those who were interested in the Bill last session and made a special study of it are no doubt still interested and will have kept, themselves informed with regard to its contents. I do not, therefore, propose going over the same ground again. There are just a few observations I wish to make and then I propose moving the second reading. The urgency of this measure has been enhanced by what has transpired since last session. I think it was predicted by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) that by August there would be a considerable diminution in the alluvial output. In August the output was 187,000 odd carats, the value of which was £425,000. In September the output was 233,000 odd carats, and the value over £500,000. It will be seen therefore that the anticipated decrease has not been realized and the urgency for the measure is therefore all the greater. There has been the position of the Premier Mine, with which I suppose most hon. members who are interested in the diamond question are acquainted. A decrease in population on the alluvial diggings has taken place and this is a proof that the corporate bodies are the parties who have benefitted by the situation and not the ordinary small man. The issued licences to-day are about 6,400, namely, the issues in September, compared with anything from 9,000 to 10,000 in the previous normal months since June of last year. Then the administrative powers foreshadowed in the Bill are found to be more and more necessary and especially powers in regard to the protection of sites, as is instanced by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thom versus Rex which has created considerable difficulties. There is the position in Namaqualand. There is the desirability of calling as soon as possible a conference of producers to control the output. This Bill in some form or another has been before Parliament since 1922. The alluvial output for instance at the time when we passed the Diamond Control Act was about £1,800,000 per annum. It has now increased to about £6,000,000 per annum. In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, at the joint sitting, I think it was on the Electoral Bill, it seems to me that the Government ought to take no risk with regard to this Bill, because I do not know, I cannot say definitely, whether the issue is ultimately to be determined at a joint sitting, but this certainly is one of the three Bills which were rejected or amended by another place last session in such a manner as not to fall in with the views of this popular assembly. I quite endorse the observation of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that this House is the direct representative of the people and therefore I think this measure should be passed into law this session. The two main points in which there was a difference last session were points embodied in the Bill by the Government deliberately and there are points on which this Government does not intend to budge. The. Bill will have to go through, if it goes through at all, with those points.

As it is now?

Certainly.

Confiscation and retrospectiveness.

I have dealt with that ad nauseam and I do not even take the trouble to refute the sweeping assertions of the hon. member opposite. For these reasons I am not going to dwell upon the various principles or the various outstanding traits of the Bill any further. I hope the Bill will be passed expeditiously by this House and that it will become law within a reasonable time.

This proposal for the second reading of this Bill has come indeed somewhat unexpectedly. I think most hon. members were thinking that most of to-day at any rate would be occupied by a discussion of the Bill the consideration of which has been postponed. I do not know whether the Minister would think it very desirable in connection with this Bill if we followed the same course as has been followed in regard to the other Bill, though not for the same reasons, namely, to adjourn this debate for a few days. In a few days the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who, as the Minister knows, is a great authority on this subject, will be back here. In view of all the circumstances I would like to ask the Minister whether he would accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate.

No, I think we ought to go on.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept a motion for the adjournment, I am not going to make one. I will deal briefly, therefore, with the situation as it exists to-day. Last session, as the Minister, I am sure, will admit, members on this side of the House rendered a great deal of assistance in getting the greater part of the Bill through this House. The necessity for a Bill of this kind was thoroughly recognized and everybody knew and it was stated that it was most desirable in regard to the world market in diamonds that the people responsible for that market overseas should receive some measure of assistance, the assurance that the Government recognized the difficulties of the position and that the continued over-production of diamonds would not be, if it could be prevented, prolonged beyond a point at which the production could be absorbed by the markets of the world. I think the Minister will not deny that we assisted him a great deal. The Minister was in extreme doubt about various points in the Bill. We had before us pages and pages of amendments, amendments upon amendments, and I think considering the stage at which those amendments were discussed at the latter end of the session, the Minister would probably admit that nothing would have been easier for us than to have wrecked the course of that Bill. What did we do? We were impressed with the importance of getting the main principles of the Bill affirmed and we, therefore, rendered considerable assistance to the Minister in getting through an enormous number of complicated amendments. What has happened? Because in another place certain amendments were inserted, which amendments we had tried to insert here without success, amendments which did not logically affect the main principles of the Bill, which did not affect the object which the Minister himself stated that he had in view, because those amendments were insisted upon the Minister deliberately decided to throw away the Bill, and now we are told this afternoon by the Minister that that is his attitude to-day. I think that is a most unfortunate attitude for the Minister to take up. The Minister has told us this afternoon that there is a great deal that is wrong with the present state of affairs in the diamond industry. He has told us that the output from the alluvial fields is on the increase. We know that the average price of diamonds has fallen. Then the Minister says to us “That being so, it is all the more urgent to get this Bill through,” but, instead of saying that he is ready to accept amendments and so do away with the objection able features of the Bill, he says that he will stand or fall by these particular points and that if we, or I suppose the other place, choose to insist upon those amendments to which he took exception last session then this Bill, important as it is, is to be lost unless he can get it through without amendment. The Minister knew when the last session closed, that this was the state of affairs. He knew that the position was a critical one; he knew that the output of alluvial diamonds was very large and that the price of diamonds was falling. One would have thought that he would have applied himself to the problem, but instead he went light heartedly off to Canada. I do not altogether blame the Minister for going to Canada. I think it is a very good thing that Ministers should visit other dominions and see how things are done there. The point is this, that whereas it was agreed on all sides when consideration of the Bill was started, that what was needed was something to reassure the diamond market overseas, what do we get? We get nothing from the Minister but the assertion of principles which we think are socialistic, confiscatory and absolutely unfair, and that was all the Minister could hold out to encourage people who are prepared to put money directly or indirectly into this country. I think that is an unfortunate attitude to take up. I think the Minister, and indeed the country, are very fortunate in this, that the control of the diamond trade has been organized and is in very strong hands. If it had not been, the losses which this policy would have cost would have been almost insuperable, and we should probably have had the finance of the country plunged into irremediable disaster. I agree it is desirable that the main principles in this Bill should be affirmed, and that the people who take an interest in the diamond market should be encouraged. It is very unfortunate that the Government should insist on these unfair and confiscatory provisions which were deleted from the Bill.

Is it not fairer to tell you so at once?

I do not complain of that. What I do complain of is the Minister’s attitude in saying he is going to insist on these points. I should have thought that in the interval he would have learnt some wisdom, and would have decided to drop these confiscatory measures which could only end in disaster. During the last session we drew attention to various defects in this Bill, and we moved a number of amendments, some of which were defeated. I have no doubt it will be our duty to do so again. It will be impossible for people on this side of the House to sit still and see the Government of the day putting upon the statute book provisions which are entirely confiscatory and contrary to every principle of right and justice. We have also, in the Bill, some highly objectionable, clauses which, while perhaps not of such great importance as the others, are still clauses which should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. There is the question in section 2 of the Bill of the Free State titles. During the discussions last session the Minister showed very plainly that he did not appreciate the large number of farms which were affected. I have here a statement of the case put forward by the Griqualand West Farmers’ Society and the Kimberley Chamber of Commerce, and they state very plainly what was stated by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), that there are a very large number of farms affected, that people have paid for these farms a higher price than they would have paid if there had been in respect of these farms a reservation of mineral rights to the Crown, and in some cases they have even borrowed money on the farms to an extent out of proportion to the real agricultural value of the land. I do not think anything has been said which would lead us to alter our opinion that to interfere with these titles would be an act of extreme injustice. There is also the case of the Cape Colony titles. There again is the question of titles on which people have been relying for many years past. Let us come down to what was the cause of the wrecking of the Bill. What, in point of fact, did the Senate insist upon, and what were the things the retention of which the Minister considers so essential that he was willing to allow the whole Bill to lapse? The first is that in Clause 20, as to the date at which these rights could have been acquired. The Minister insists on June, 1926, and the Senate inserted April, 1927. The rights acquired were rights acquired absolutely in accordance with the law. People acquired these rights: they had them registered in the manner in which rights are ordinarily registered in this country, and it is all very well for the Minister to say that they must have had in their mind plenty of warning that they were acting illegally. They acted in accordance with the law and whether it was the intention at the time these laws were made to prevent such transactions I cannot see makes the slightest difference. I do not think any Bill which contains this clause can possibly in the end give satisfaction to the country. The Minister is apparently extremely biased against any enterprise conducted by joint stock companies and syndicates. I think in the debates last session he called the people concerned in these matters a lot of gamblers. If he looked round he would see that this country could never have been in anything like its present position so far as material prosperity is concerned, had it not been for joint stock enterprise. The case, to my mind, is almost stronger when one considers that in nine cases out of ten where the Minister takes away these rights, he will not be hitting the original offenders, assuming they were offenders. If the whole matter could be probed to the bottom it is not the original person who would be punished; it is the people who come after him, the people who have acquired rights for which they have paid a valuable consideration, and which, to my mind, it would be the worst possible step to interfere with. The second point was Clause 73. There the question was how far back could the title of companies and syndicates be recognized. The Bill as it left this House said all these rights should be void and of no effect. The Senate put in that that clause, in effect, should not come into operation until October of this year and rights acquired before April, 1927, should be recognized. The principle is the same as the retrospective principle in Clause 20. The Minister said he had no objection to the insertion in the first part of the clause of the 15th October. 1927, but he said he would not agree to the alteration in the latter part of the clause from the 30th June to the 1st April, because he said a large number of syndicates had acquired rights in this way and the same position would arise as arose under Section 20. I cannot see that the Minister’s concession, so called, amounts to very much. It does seem to me that the principle of confiscation which he asserts in his Bill, is given the same prominence in this section as it is in Section 20, and there again I cannot think it can be to the interests of the country that rights duly and legally acquired, often for valuable consideration, should thus, by a stroke of the pen, be taken away as the Minister proposes to do. The position, therefore, is the same as it was last session. We are agreed that in many respects this Bill is required; we are agreed it is desirable to give people overseas who have large interests in the diamond trade, some assurance that the trade is not going to be allowed, as far as the Government can prevent it, to drift, and that we are not going to have financial disaster in this country. We have not had that assurance given at all. All the Minister is doing is to give people in this country and overseas an indication that in order to gratify his own wishes, to carry out his own policy, he will stick at nothing in the confiscation of private property. It is a bad thing to go out to the world, that this Government is prepared to support a policy like that. I agree it is perhaps no use elaborating these points to any great extent, and though one would have expected his followers to show some regard for the rights which landholders have held for many years past, they are not showing much interest in the matter. Still, if they will not take any interest in the matter, it is no use elaborating the position, a position in which they are going to suffer owing to the high-handed action of the Minister. The Minister has referred to the large increase in the output of alluvial diamonds. That is to some extent due to the proclamation of another farm. If the Minister had not enjoyed himself in Canada, he might have attended to it, and he might explain at the proper time the circumstances attaching to the proclamation of the farm Welverdiend. It would be to the interests of the country and the House if he explained exactly why that farm was proclaimed, and to what extent that proclamation has increased the output of alluvial diamonds. I understood him to say that the output was at the rate of £6,000,000 per annum, and I understood the Minister to say that was benefiting large producing companies.

Corporate bodies—not small men.

The fact remains that the position of affairs has created, and is creating, great difficulties in the diamond market, and I, for one, should like it to go out that this House and the Government are determined to see, as far as possible, that the trade meets with reasonable protection; and we should not make the mistake which has been made by the action of the Government, during last session, to show the world that in their opinion it is not of so much importance to conserve the trade as to enforce doctrines which are a thorough discredit to the country.

I am bound to say that I think the Minister has treated us somewhat cavalierly. His introductory remarks occupied less than two minutes, if I watched the clock aright. The country expected from him that he would give a survey of the whole position—what is going on in the diamond market, and we should have expected something about the diggers themselves—the human element. From what I have seen, the conditions are perfectly appalling on the diggings, and I take it the object of the Bill is to improve their condition. The Minister has been away on a jaunt to Canada, and has overlooked, it seems to me, the human side—the conditions of the men and women on the diggings. I doubt whether there are any European communities in the world living under the conditions which our diggers are living, with precious little sympathy from the Minister. What is going to happen to the country when 50,000 or 60,000 of our citizens are living under conditions as they are on the diggings? When this Bill was introduced, as I understood it, its main object was to provide for two great purposes: firstly, the control of the output and sale of diamonds, and, secondly, looking after the interests of the diggers themselves.

You are entirely mistaken. There was no question of control in any previous Bill until April of this year.

Surely the object of the Bill is to control—

It is one of the objects—not the original object. The Bill was before the House last year without any mention of control.

That was one reason why we tried to help the Minister to get this Bill through, because we realized the outstanding importance of these two cardinal points—the condition of the diggers and control. Surely it is common knowledge that the value of diamonds depends on the control of the output. We were ready and anxious to help the Minister, but, instead of realizing that, he introduced a lot of extraneous clauses and principles into the Bill. He could have got his Bill through last year without any trouble, if he had stuck to his intention and directed and devoted his energies to ameliorating the conditions of the diggers and securing a proper control of the output. But he forced in certain personal foibles or idiosyncrasies of his own.

What absurdity!

I can quote a very prominent member of the National party, the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). He has told us, what I have not heard contradicted, that not one-tenth of the members of that party behind the Minister support this question.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I am prepared to accept the word of the hon. member for North-East Rand.

I was rushed on the last day not to concede the points of the hon. Senate.

The Minister knew how anxious we were on this side to get the chief-object of the Bill through, and banking on that he tried to play poker with us, and tried to bluff us, but we called his bluff. He banked on another place not throwing out the Bill. We were more anxious than hon. members on the other side, because we have shown that we take a greater interest in the diggers and the broader interests of the diamond industry than hon. members on that side. I am told the Minister has a personal vendetta against Lewis and Marks.

You are capable of imputing anything.

I am telling the Minister for his own information what is the common talk—he has been away. I do not know anything about it, but the Minister ought to refute it.

Should I refute such nonsense?

Even a Cabinet Minister is not such a high and mighty authority that he can afford not to refute. The new principles were confiscating the rights of property owners—a very far-reaching precedent, which I am astonished to find has met with no opposition from hon. members opposite who are always telling us they are the farmers’ party. Wait until you have your Labour friends in power—then you will hear some more. My point was that it was a purely personal idea of the Minister, and there was no public backing. He wrecked his Bill in forcing through the confiscatory clause in it. It was purely an extraneous issue which the Minister went out of his way to force upon us. In the second place, we come to the retrospective clauses. We have, on this side of the House, never held a brief for what did happen, and the men who made these sub-divisions certainly disregarded the spirit of the law. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has just put his finger on the trouble; the Minister, in pursuit of his vendetta, is going to penalize the wrong people. I know from my own knowledge of Johannesburg of a large number of private citizens who put money into these syndicates after these sub-divisions had been registered. Surely it, is an unhealthy principle in this or any other country to penalize men for doing what the law allowed them to do. If anything was wrong it was the law, and not the man. Here, again, it is an extraneous issue forced into this Bill purely as the whim of the Minister. Thirdly, we come to the syndicate clauses and there, again, a brand new principle is introduced on the Minister’s sole responsibility. On what principle may a syndicate be formed to mine for gold, coal, platinum, or anything in the world, and not for alluvial diamonds? What is the moral difference between ten men floating a company to dig for coal or anything on earth, except to dig for alluvial diamonds? Surely there must be some reasonable clause for every law passed in this country. I tried last session to extract from the Minister a statement why there should be this adverse discrimination against the alluvial digger. He may say it was to help the small man, but he has not done so.

With his economic nightmare.

I think that was the explanation. Has the Minister ever gone over those diggings and seen the conditions under which the diggers have to work? They cannot do the work singly, and they have to have machinery. The Minister is going to ruin a large number of small men by these clauses, but I submit that the principle is entirely wrong and entirely alien to the spirit of our laws and the spirit of our people. Why should I not be allowed to work a, claim in partnership with someone else? How the clause is going to help the small man I fail to see. Living conditions on the diggings have been appalling. The Minister, through his obstinacy and pertinacity last session, made it very difficult for the Government to help these people to improve the sanitary and living conditions. The Minister should see the conditions under which the poor man and the small man have to exist at Beckers and Christiana. I want to be fair for I realize it is exceedingly difficult for the Government to control sanitary conditions where a continually shifting population is concerned. But admitting the difficulty the Government has been remiss in doing its duty, for the sanitary conditions, the filth and the lack of water are appalling. I do not think any other civilized community would have tolerated so large a section of the people living under such unhygienic conditions as our mining population has been doing. I do not blame the diggers, but the Government. The Government is continually appealing for sympathy on the grounds that it is the people’s Government. The Minister, instead of going to Canada on a joy ride, should have stopped in his office and attended to the needs of the mining community in the Western Transvaal. The Minister laughs, but he would not laugh if he knew the unspeakable conditions under which large numbers of women and children have to live. If the Minister is once again going to be obstinate and is going to insist on the retention of the contentious clauses, his will be the responsibility and the moral guilt, for in its present form the Bill will take a very long time in going through the House. I warn him that the diggings are crying out for Government assistance; that assistance can be given only when the Bill is passed, and the additional sufferings which are going to take place on the diggings will be rightly laid at the door of the Minister if he insists on clauses which have nothing to do with the main object of the Bill being forced on the country.

If the other place had objected to Clause 1 and to Clause 2 there would have been something to say for the attitude it adopted, but to object to Clauses 20 and 73 only shows what is at the bottom of its opposition. With the exception of a few minor points the diggers are absolutely satisfied with the Bill. If the Minister does not see his way clear to accept the amendments which the diggers suggest, he should, at a later date, bring in a small amending Bill, when he sees where the harness chafes. That will satisfy the diggers, even if it will not satisfy the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who is no digger and knows no more about the matter than the man in the moon. The diggers object to the clause which prevents a diamond buyer financing a digger and also to the increased diggers’ fees while they do not know how Clause 75 is going to work. As a whole the diggers are satisfied with the Bill. The Opposition has had the Precious Stones Bill under consideration for years, but has never had the courage to bring it forward. As to Clause 73 the diggers object to their being prevented working in partnership without the consent of the Minister or his representative, and if that consent be granted without a digger having to travel, say, 70 miles, to obtain a certificate from a, mining commissioner, they will be well satisfied. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) may know something about Port Elizabeth and its surroundings, but he knows nothing about the diggings. The diggers are praying that the Bill may go through and the sooner the better, and our friends from Kimberley and Beaconsfield also desire that the measure be passed, but for the Senate to object to Clauses 20 and 70 only is so much eye-wash.

When the matter came before the House last session I did not participate in the debate on the Bill because I knew comparatively little of the subject, but since then I have had an opportunity of reading the Bill several times, and I have also visited the. Lichtenburg alluvial diggings. I left the diggings with a feeling of sadness. Thousands of morgen of land have been irretrievably ruined through those diggings, and there are phases of life on those diggings on which I do not care to dwell. It was as if a boy had got hold of a delicate piece of mechanism, such as a watch, had taken it to pieces, but could not put it together again. These thousands of acres of land are irretrievably ruined. Personal investigations have satisfied me that the provisions of Section 73 are likely to cause a great deal of hardship because there are several places where the search for diamonds has been to a considerable depth. If the digger is lucky in getting finds as he goes down he may be able to pay his expenses, but if unlucky at the outset, he is debarred by the Bill from getting anyone to assist him financially in carrying on the search.

Where is he debarred from getting financial assistance?

He is debarred from getting a partner. It says that subject to provisions of Section 4 that no corporate body, etc., shall be capable of holding a claim licence or any right or interest in connection with any claim. By that it is evident a man is debarred because it is often his only security, and no man will invest his money unless he has an interest in the claim, or absolute security.

Look at Sub-clause 3 (a), which refers to claims under partnership prior to July 26th. Also look at 4.

4 makes no difference.

Certainly it does.

There again it is holders of claims since June 30th, and the Minister has the last word. The Bill in many respects places autocratic powers in the Minister’s hands. I am an individualist, and I do not believe in interfering with liberty of contract. This grandmotherly interference simply does harm. I am astounded at the provisions of Section 2 and Section 20, because there is no doubt the Minister is invoking the power and authority of the State to do violence to private rights. Security of the individual and property are the basis of our civilization, and if a man keeps within the law he should have the protection of the law. I should be failing in my duty if I did not protest against legislation of this sort. The principle is unsound and unjustifiable. In fact, it is robbery and spoliation. The letter which has just reached members, and to which the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has referred to, from the Griqualand West farmers should appear in the votes and proceedings of the House, because it is a dignified and strong protest, and it should be on record that, notwithstanding the case has been put so strongly, and so clearly before it, yet this Government persists in a course of injustice and unrighteousness. I deplore the introduction of legislation of this sort.

Has it never occurred in any of our mineral laws?

Even if it has, these people have a particularly strong case.

Why should they be better off than the Free State farmers. They derived their rights from the Free State.

Two wrongs do not make a right. What right have you to deprive them of their rights. In a letter of July 2nd, 1876, written to Lord Carnarvon with reference to rights they had been in possession of for fifty-one years, Lord Carnarvon wrote saying that he would especially undertake to safeguard the rights of the people in respect of their fully vested rights of their title deeds which should remain in force as if under British protection. What defence of or justification for the retrospection clause can there possibly be advanced? I regret that these confiscatory enactments should be put on the statute book. I think the Minister will be well advised to reconsider many of these matters and come before the House with fresh provisions, taking out the objectionable clauses. This Bill is badly wanted in the country, and if he would do what I suggest, he would get the support of this side of the House. Why force this through. I consider it my duty to protest.

I agree that it is unnecessary to say much about the Bill. I, however, hoped that after his long rest and pleasure trip he would be a little less obstinate and would try to get this important Bill on to the statute book. It is in vain for the Minister and his supporters to throw the blame on the Senate. No one but the Minister is to blame for the Bill not having been passed, and I hope the Minister will not take it amiss if I speak frankly, because I want the Bill passed. He merely has to yield with regard to the few clauses which were amended by the Senate. I refer to the robbery and expropriation clauses by which vested rights are taken away. If the Minister had given in during last session it would have been unnecessary to-day to have a further dispute. It will be fresh in the Minister’s memory how much trouble he gave us last year in connection with the Bill.

This year.

If the hon. member had been attending he would have seen how the discussion of this Bill was made difficult by the large number of amendments. It made discussion very complicated. It is certainly being introduced in a better form this year. I want to give the Minister credit for having included good amendments here and there, but he will not accept the proper amendment to assist him out of his difficulty. There was, for instance, the proposal to allow claims to be issued in proportion to the size of the farm. If the clause is not altered I assure the Minister that the sub-division of farms—which I do not approve of—will not stop. The Minister wants the diggers to understand that all the principles in the Bill are in their interests. As I, in my simplicity, understand the Bill, however, everything is in the hands of the Minister of Mines, and he can keep the alluvial diggings closed as long as he wishes. Is that in the interests of the country? It seems to me as if the Minister is afraid that too many diamonds will be taken out of the ground. That appeared clearly from the speech of the Minister on the number of diggers’ licences and the yield. Although the yield in July, August and September had become less, it is still too large to my liking. I regard the matter from another point of view.

So you are not in favour of controlling the yield?

I am in favour of control, but I am not in favour of the diggings being closed in the interests of a few large companies who have made much money in the past and want to make more.

What do your colleagues, the hon. members for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) say?

I have nothing to do with my colleagues. The hon. member always talks so much about helping the poor people, but where Providence has, as in this case, given them the opportunity to make a living, they must not use it. The impression seems to exist that the people on the diggings are vagrants, and worth nothing, but the Minister ought rather to have given up his pleasure trip to Canada and visited the diggings, Then he would be under a different impression to-day.

I did visit the diggings.

The Minister was in too much of a hurry.

It was not necessary to live there three months to see that two and two made four.

If the Minister went there then he was unsympathetic with the people because he left as soon as he could. His locum tenens was a little sympathetic because he proclaimed a few farms to see if he could assist the people. I cannot understand such a spirit of wanting to kill the diggings. The diamonds have been put there and have always been locked up, and have now been discovered in order to enable people to make an honest living. Poor people have been driven there, but the unfair proposals in the Bill will result in the bread being taken out of their mouths. The Minister can say what he likes, but the principle of the Bill is that he is to have everything in his hands. He wants to keep everything closed as long as he wishes, and yet the diggers are told that the Bill is in their interests.

They will find that it is in their interests.

I hope I may prove wrong.

Yes, you will he wrong.

We find that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) is absolutely quiet. There has already been a deputation from Namaqualand asking that ground be leased, and I am not so much opposed to that. The restrictions on large companies, however, are wrong. I have a little knowledge of the diggings, having been there.

Have you a syndicate?

There is a lot of work left on the diggings for many people, but it is not work for one man. The restrictions on companies are wrong because the people should be given opportunity to work on a big scale. Last year the natural digger was spoken about, and it was argued that only those people should be provided for. There are, however, hundreds of other people besides the natural digger who get work through the diggings, and the State also is assisted. The trade of the country is also much benefitted by it. I do not know whether the Minister quite understands what responsibility will be thrown on the Government by all the power he wants to assume. My feeling is that if diamonds are discovered they must be worked. Diamonds have been placed there by Providence, and it is not right for any Government to keep them locked up. I know that there is a fear on the part of some hon. members, on this side of the House as well, that there will be too many diamonds. Well, I am not afraid of that. Rather allow the people to take out more diamonds and sell them cheaper so that more people can have an opportunity to make a living out of them. Then I also object to the provision that owners’ and discoverers’ claims cannot be worked before proclamation. No, I want the idea of keeping everything locked up to disappear. I hope the Minister will allow the dangerous clauses, with reference to owners’ rights, to be deleted. I and my party will do as much as lies in our power to protect the landowners’ rights, and I hope that hon. members opposite will do the same. It will not be easy for the Minister to get the Bill passed if he does not yield on those points. Then there are all those trivialities by which a man may not work with more than five prospectors, and by which every prospector is limited to ten natives. What nonsense and stupidity it is to put such a thing on the statute book! Has the Minister thought how many natives there are in the country who have been tried by the drought? These people must also make a living. Why should a man be prohibited from working out his ground as fast as he likes? I know that the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) assisted us last year, and that the Minister yielded a little, but the Minister ought to delete it altogether. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) mentioned that we are trying in South Africa to bring about co-operation, inter alia, in agriculture, but this Bill provides that there is to be no cooperation. That is the spirit that runs through the Bill. The Minister and the House can be assured that the Bill will not remain on the statute book. Conditions on the diggings are constantly changing and they will have to be adjusted. The hon. member for Ventersburg will assist me in this. Surface digging is coming to an end, and the people are obliged to work deeper. If it is not permitted that they can spend more and employ more people, then all the diamonds will remain locked up in the ground. The diggings have assisted the Government in connection with the poor white question, as the Government would have had to supply work and food for many, but the work on the diggings has obviated that. I have admired the courage of more than one of those people when I saw how they struggled to get work.

We have not denied it.

The hon. member knows nothing about it. If he will go there to see—

I have been there.

I beg pardon, but the hon. member, I suppose, turned back just as quickly as the Minister. I am sorry I did not meet the hon. member there and show him round and make him understand how the people there struggle to make a living. I hope the Bill will be passed, but without the dangerous principles it contains. I do not say that the whole world should be thrown open, but the spirit of keeping the diggings closed which I see in the Bill—

The spirit of closing the diggings which you see is a ghost of your own imagining.

The Minister takes all necessary power in the Bill to proclaim farms whenever he wishes, and to-day said that too many diamonds were produced, and that the Bill ought to have been passed before. That goes without saying.

Does not the Government possess the right to-day to proclaim or not to proclaim farms?

The Government was always only too glad to proclaim farms to give assistance to the poor people, but that is not the case to-day.

The Government has the same right to-day.

We must get away from the idea that there are so many diamonds. In the Transvaal there are a few places where diamonds are good, but there are not so many. Perhaps they are numerous in Namaqualand. Where is the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert)? Has he been converted, or has the Minister promised to give him a piece of ground to work? When we get into committee I hope that the far-reaching clauses will be dropped. The Minister says he cannot do it here, but can in the Senate.

It is clear that this matter has placed hon. members opposite in a difficult position. It is disappointing, also, to note the trend which the debate takes when a Bill is discussed dealing with such important principles. Speeches are made which are clearly intended to create a wrong impression as to the real object of the Bill. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) argued that the diggers require protection and also tried to create the wrong impression that this Bill does not aim at protecting them, but that their interests are being attacked. Certain remarks and observations have also been made about the diggings and the diggers which do not throw an honourable light on the conditions which prevail on the diggings. Although I do not possess great knowledge of the diggings in the Transvaal I represent a large number of diggings, and I can frankly say that conditions there, in so far as the diggers’ lives are concerned, are not so bad as they have been represented. This bad impression about conditions on the diggings is naturally created to give force to the argument that the Government is occupying itself with big principles and neglects to attend to the improvement of the conditions under which the digger has to live. That is a false representation of things, at any rate as far as my constituency is concerned. In 1924 conditions were terrible, and there was undoubtedly at that time plenty of room for improvement, but since then they have so much improved that I must protest at the diggers to-day being still represented in such a wrong light, although I still welcome, of course, all steps intended to improve their lot. The view that members such as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has expressed gives a false representation of things. It is however noticeable that when these hon. members come to the actual interests of the diggers the latter have to give way to the interests of the capitalists. That is the attitude which was adopted in all four of the speeches made on the opposite side, and I make bold to say that it will be the attitude which other hon. members opposite will take up. They only see the interests of the capitalist and of the landowner, and not those of the digger. It is necessary for this Bill to be passed as soon as possible. All who are interested in the diamond trade, diggers and speculators, as well as owners of the diamond mines, say that such is in their interests. In the circumstances I urge the Minister not to make any alteration in the Bill because it may possibly mean delay. I do not say that the Bill is satisfactory in every respect but it is such a big matter that we do not dare risk delay. It is specially in the interests of the digger that there should be stability in the diamond market. When fluctuations and depression come the small digger will be the first to be driven out of work and compelled to abandon a respectable life, and have to go on the streets or into the slums. There must be stability and when that exists, there is great need on the diggings for more ground which can be worked, so that more diggers can make a living. When once there is a regular diamond market we do not see why more ground cannot be thrown open, but I am opposed to the immediate throwing open of ground without a regular market. Our poor white people, who make a living on the diggings, have been mentioned, but before they can get work this Bill will have to be passed. Extraordinary interest has been taken on the opposite side of the House in the rights of the landowner. Two speakers mentioned the letter from the Griqualand West Farmers’ Association protesting against the taking away of certain mineral rights from various freehold farms in Griqualand. Personally, I think as much of the rights of landowners as other hon. members. That is why at every meeting in my constituency I brought them forward to test the feeling of the electors and giving them an opportunity of making themselves heard. A question was only asked at one meeting and at no single meeting was a resolution proposed or passed against it. I realize that a valuable thing such as a mineral right is of importance to a land-owner. But the intelligence of our landowners enables them to appreciate that there is no foundation for the extraordinary attitude taken up by certain persons in connection with these freehold farms. They understand that these rights which are still held by those farms are an exception to the principle generally accepted with regard to mineral rights. It was represented in the House that the Bill affirmed in this respect an extraordinary principle. Hon. members such as the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) have represented that the Bill introduces a new and unsound principle in our law of ownership, but he ought to know that in so doing he is merely poking fun at the intelligence and credulity of his supporters and the want of enlightenment of his opponents. Why should they represent it as a new principle introduced by the Bill to take certain rights from properties and as a step in the direction of the socialization of property as advocated by the Labour party? This representation of things is ridiculous and it is unthinkable that hon. members should believe it. We take up the attitude that the mineral riches under the earth belong to the State. It may be said that this principle is not sound, but the fact is that it is the principle which has prevailed for 114 years in the Cape Province, and to-day also in the rest of the country. How then can hon. members represent it as a new principle which this Bill is introducing? If this principle is only applied to these farms, we can still make a good case against it, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has made it clear that it only affects 5 per cent. of our farms whilst the principle has already been applied to all the other farms. It has been said that it affects 137 farms or according to this letter 168. That is a small number when we remember that the same principle is also followed in the Transvaal and in other parts of the country, then we are now concerned with a small matter to secure uniformity, and not in the least with a new principle which is being forced upon the country. When action such as that of the Farmers’ Association of Griqualand West is taken to ask protection in terms of letters from President Brand and the Earl of Carnarvon, then the thing seems to me a little transparent.

What about the title deeds?

The title deeds have the same value as the Free State title deeds which are cancelled although issued on the same conditions, cancelled by persons who were not elected as their representatives. When we have to do with such serious allegations it seems to me there are two important things to bear in mind. It is said that the rights of private owners must be preserved, and that we must not take away rights granted under the old title deeds. It is added that the public take so much interest in these farms that the title deeds must be preserved. This arouses suspicion, and creates an impression that the cloven hoof is not entirely absent. It seems to us that De Beers is behind this business, and I should like to know how many of these farms belong to De Beers? We have a lively discussion on the protection of private rights, but it is noticeable that private rights are not protected when they belong to poor people, only those of capitalists. The matter is creating great interest and it is indeed one of importance because the public are told that no one knows where the pernicious principle of expropriation may end. But when the people outside know that no new principle is being incorporated they will find that all these rumours about a moral crime against landownership are without foundation. It is clear that the Opposition have abandoned their standpoint that a moral offence is being committed and they now argue for the particular interests to whom those farms belong. I want to add that there are some respects in which the Bill can be improved, but the Minister has given the diggers every opportunity to meet him in and out of season. If it is said that he was unapproachable, then I know better, and I can testify that that is not so. It is a pity that one who was in close touch with the history of the matter is no longer here to confirm what I say. He was chairman of the diggers committee and had charge of the matter, and expressed his full satisfaction with the manner in which the Minister had considered the representations of the diggers.

Where is he?

He is unfortunately dead. The diggers are fully satisfied with the way in which the Minister has treated them and I hope that in embodying a recognized principle, such as the right of the State to the minerals under the ground, the Bill will be passed as it stands, so that control over the diggings and the diamond market can be exercised in the interest of the small man working there.

I have already spoken on this Bill in the House, but there are a few points on which I think the Minister will be wise to make amendments. I hope that at the last moment an opportunity will be given to deal with them. In the first place we can read Clause 20 together with Clause 73. Quite a number of farms have been proclaimed since this Bill was before the public which were definitely sub-divided. If the Minister had been consistent and had not proclaimed those farms, he would not have got into difficulty in connection with this Bill. Take, e.g., Grasfontein, portions of which were proclaimed in March when the intentions of the Government had already been clearly stated in this Bill. Thereafter Welverdiend was proclaimed in nine portions and in respect of each portion discoverers’ and owners’ claims were allowed. The owners of these claims have in certain cases sold them to individuals, syndicates or companies. The persons who bought are innocent. They did it under the law, and formed syndicates, and the claims are being honourably worked to-day under the law. Now what happens? I should like Clause 20 to be cleared up by the Minister because possibly I read it wrongly. [Clause read.] Paragraph (3) says that when such a sub division takes place and discoverers’ and owners’ claims are obtained under a previous law on any portion of such sub-divided land, then no further discoverers’ or owners’ claims can be granted with reference to any other portion of the land so divided, and the Governor-General may proclaim that land under Chapter IV as if such sub-division had not taken place. What does that mean? I may give two examples. As the Minister knows, Grasfontein and Welverdiend have not been entirely proclaimed yet. Of the former 21 and of the latter nine portions have been proclaimed. Does the clause mean that the Governor-General regards the remaining portions as one, Or the whole farm as one? If the intention is that this Bill respects the existing proclamations, viz., if one is going to respect all the owners’ and discoverers’ rights already obtained, then I am satisfied that the remaining portions may not be regarded as portions but as a whole piece. I should like to know clearly what the intention of the Minister is. When a farm is sub-divided and discoverers’ rights are not granted, then there are only a few strips, and I think the Government is quite right in saying: “There is the farm, and we shall regard it as one farm in the proclamation.” The difficulty comes when various parts of a farm have already been proclaimed under the existing laws. I gather from Clause 20 that existing proclamations are being respected, but that the remaining extent of the farm will be regarded as one farm even if it consists of 50 portions. Now I come to a great difficulty, namely, the provision in Clause 73 which deals with the limitation of interests of corporations and associations in claims. [Clause read.] I am not opposed to public diggings in future being the property of diggers working there, so that they can do their own work. Diggings are not like gold and platinum mines. It is, therefore, right, when a man pegs off a claim on a public digging to make him work the claim, and not to come into ownership of it through syndicates. In the past this was not so, and in practice it happened at Grasfontein, Welverdiend, Baker’s and Treasure Trove that syndicates, corporations and two or more persons worked the claims. There are claims there with machinery costing £20,000 to £30,000. Some of them cannot be worked by one person, and this is, perhaps, where the Minister could apply Clause 74 if those diggings had not yet been discovered. The ground there is not like that of Bloemhof, Christiana and Wolmaransstad where the digger makes a hole and can then say how deep the gravel goes. Here you have holes and no one knows how deep the gravel goes, and so machinery is necessary. The result is that syndicates are formed in a perfectly honourable way to work almost every claim that is worth the trouble. I know of many of my friends in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria who have saved a few hundred pounds to invest in the diggings, and they quite honourably formed a company to work the claims. If my reading of Clause 73 is right, then none of the syndicates there now, who have rights and have invested money, are entitled to work after the 15th of October. Even the diamonds can be declared forfeit. If the Minister can be prevailed upon in the Senate to say that existing proclaimed ground shall not be affected by this Bill, then it will be a good law because care will be taken that the diggings are kept for the diggers, while rights are protected in the case of ground already proclaimed, where claims have been pegged off and syndicates have acquired lawful property. If it is necessary, Clause 74 can be applied to the diggings and claims can be leased to syndicates. Then we shall not have the debacle there is to-day. If the Bill is passed as it is, then these syndicates will cease to work. Where will the diggers get the money and machinery to work those claims? No one can help them. A digger has to be on the list of diggers for six months before he can get a claim himself. He must work alone, but cannot work a large claim. When the Minister signed the recent proclamation of Welverdiend and Grasfontein, was it his intention to proclaim the 21 portions of Grasfontein and to say: You can sell to whom you like; and immediately thereafter to say again: I am going to push a Bill through to take away the owners’ rights which I am granting? Let me give an instance. On nine portions, 1,809 claims in all have been issued after the proclamation, and machinery has been erected. If Clause 73 is applied, then 200 instead of 1.800 claims will be granted. How will the claims be divided? What company will be benefited and what company will be damaged? Clause 73 (2) almost reads as if the penalties were not only applicable when the division took place with that object, but even when it has that result, and discoverers’ claims are increased. Then the Minister cannot apply the exemption. He has not got that power and discretion. I shall be satisfied for the Minister to retain a discretion under Clause 73 (3).

Where has he not got the discretion?

In Clause 73 (3). I shall be glad if the Minister can assure me that he has the discretion, namely, that the proclamations which he has issued will be respected. There are hundreds of people who have invested money in syndicates.

The proclamation is in respect of ground which was opened for pegging. That is why you have the rush.

Yes, but the owners are also pegging. They are making use of the proclamation and are selling their claims. The diggers who go there are also unable to work, and they borrow money from others.

The owner is entitled to his claim under the provision of the law without proclamation.

Are those rights going to be taken away? When proclamation takes place then the diggers cannot peg the owners’ claims.

The proclamation of diggers’ claims is confined to ground when three months had expired.

What of the nine portions on Welverdiend where discoverers’ rights were granted?

Three months passed, and the rights of the owners accrued without the proclamation.

Even if 250 owners’ claims are granted under the proclamation, then the owners’ power is limited with reference to the disposal of the ground. The owner already makes a great sacrifice if he agrees to proclamation, but if his selling rights are restricted so that he can only sell to individual diggers as laid down here, then his powers are very much restricted in disposing of what he gets. I suggest that owners’ and discoverers’ claims should not fall into the same category as ordinary claims. The ordinary digger pegs his claim without it costing anything. Good, limit him so that he can only work his claim himself, and can sell it to a digger. I agree with that, because it is for the benefit of the digger. It is different, however, in the case of the owner. The proclamation costs him his whole farm. The Minister has been there himself and he knows that no farmer will again work Grasfontein, Welverdiend, Treasure Trove, Elandsputte and Vaalboschputte. The owner feels that he should be given more rights as compensation for surrendering his farm. I want the Minister to have the discretion to approve of the sale of the claims to a syndicate or association of persons, which he cannot do under the Bill. Even after the 15th October the owner or discoverer who cannot work his claims ought not to have the right of disposing of them. The owner ought to have a proper market for his claims. The ordinary digger will not buy because he will peg for himself. The digger is further limited under the Bill to six months on the list of diggers, and he may not use more than 20 natives, nor may he get any help from anyone else with an interest in his claim. He must not work through an association or a corporation, and all this limits the market which the owner has for his claims The object of the Bill is that the digger who pegs off his claim will in future have to work it himself, and when an owner or a discoverer gets claims then he must—if he cannot work them himself—make them over to a person who is himself a digger. If this could be effected in the Senate, giving the Minister discretion to approve of owners’ and discoverers’ claims being sold to corporations and syndicates, it will be an improvement.

I am sorry that the Minister does not give us more information, because there are various things at the diggings which are not known to hon. members. I want to know the present position. There are many complaints, and the Minister has himself listened to them. The question is whether the difficulties will disappear after the Bill is passed. As far as I can see it will make the position still more difficult, especially on account of the hiatus in the Bill which we pointed out last year. I thought that the Minister would introduce a new Bill.

What made you think that?

It was easy for the Minister to draft a Bill removing the difficulties.

You surely do not seriously mean that!

I do. The position is the same to-day. Last year we said that reasonable difficulties with regard to hospitals, sanitary conditions and the control over the yield and sale of diamonds to prevent the prices dropping too low, should be removed, because we appreciate that if there is overproduction the State suffers. The objections to the Bill still apply. I feel precisely the same about the Bill to-day as I did last year. It is said that its rejection last session was due to the South African party.

That is true.

The hon. member is one of those who agreed with us in many things, but when it came to voting ran away and was too cowardly.

The hon. member must withdraw. He may not say that another hon. member is cowardly.

I withdraw, but it is notable when a man takes up a certain point of view and then puts up the white flag when driven into a corner, the blame is thrown on us. The diggers are told that they are having a bad time on account of the action of the South African party, and even the High Com missioner in London is making speeches in Europe and blaming us for the rejection of the Bill, and for that reason the diggers broke up the meeting at Bloemhof. What ignorance! The Bill was withdrawn by the Minister. The Minister proposes to cancel all sub-divisions of farms since June, 1926, and this, although the farms have been surveyed and registered in the Deeds Office. How can we legislate to cancel a right which a man has under the law to sub-divide his ground.

That shows bow little you understand the matter.

He is absolutely right.

Read the Bill. Then there is the matter of syndicates. We said that if diggers were prevented from co-operating to work their claims, then it would not be for their benefit. I have been to the diggings and seen that a digger with a claim may be very poor. If he is not in a position to get money from other people, or to co-operate with other diggers, then he cannot work his claim.

You ought to know that provision is made for that. You know it well enough.

Provision is made, if the claim is so deep—

It is not confined to depth, it is general.

No.

It is.

I am glad to hear it, but as I read the Bill no one has the right to form a syndicate to work his own claim, and if he does so he is punishable. Now I ask the House how far the poor man is assisted by that. If I were a poor man and had a claim I could not deal with my property as I wished. Must the right of the ordinary owner under the law be taken away? Take another matter, namely, water rights. An owner of a farm on which diamonds are found has no right to the water because the Minister takes possession. Is it not going too far to encroach in that way on owners’ rights? Then there is another matter. Where a man has prospected and found diamonds on a farm he cannot work the claims unless the Government issue a proclamation to throw the farm open. It may be that the proclamation is soon issued, but it may also be that the farm remains closed for ten years. I might myself find diamonds on my farms, but, if I find diamonds and give notice of it, then I have to sit and wait on the Minister. I might be a poor man, but yet I have to wait for a proclamation. I say that that is not fair. If the farm is not thrown open, let the man continue prospecting and work under a prospecting licence. That is for the benefit of the farmers. Put a provision in the Bill that a farm shall be thrown open as soon as diamonds are discovered in payable quantities. That is not done, because the Minister retains the right of proclaiming when he wishes.

Do you not know that it was always the law that the Government can proclaim or not as it thinks fit?

Yes, but why does not the Minister make the Bill reasonable? I expressed my views last year, and I still regard the Bill as unsatisfactory. The clauses having retrospective force are not understood by the people. As a result of the existing law many farms have been sub-divided and sold, and the portions may have passed through the hands of two or three people. How can it now be laid down that the position once more is as it was previously. The claims are worked out, and the owner of the farm can do nothing with it. All the difficulties could have been removed, but the Minister was obstinate last year, and seems so now. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) seems to be afraid to say a single word, though, last session, he made a great fuss. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) is also quiet. Last year I supported him on an amendment, but when it came to the vote he also ran away. I am not pleading for the big syndicates or for the man of capital, but it will be found that the poor man on the diggings will suffer as a result of the Bill. If he does not go to the monied man he will be forced by the Bill to sell his claim cheaply and will have to work like a slave for a man with money. This Bill is not in the interests of the prospector or digger, and the Government will hereafter be very sorry that it was passed.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) explained that he was not pleading for the syndicates, but the Bill’s rejection in the Senate must be attributed to a desire to please the syndicates. It is our old charge against the Opposition that they fought for the capitalists when they were in office. It has been dry in Namaqualand since 1924, and Namaqualand is suffering to-day through the rejection of this Bill. Namaqualand has been locked up for months because of the amendments proposed in the Senate. Now the hon. member says that the S.A. party is not responsible. The leader of the Opposition sits here, and when the whip cracks the S.A.P. members in the Senate obey him. S.A.P. supporters in my constituency said that the Minister ought to be crucified, but now they understand that they cannot dig, although in other parts of the country it can be done. Clause 75 provides that a State digging can be established and the people in Namaqualand are so poor now that they have to work for the Government.

They are State diggings.

Yes, where they can get a wage and a percentage of the yield. Then they can get on their legs and become rich like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) who has now become a digger. If we have that sort of digger in South Africa we shall find that within five years they have exhausted the diggings. The hon. member is the kind of man who does not plead for the diggers but pleads for himself. He is the kind of man who has exploited South Africa and become a capitalist. We know his career from the days of the second war of independence. He cannot speak for poor Afrikanders.

I know the story well.

Now he is getting hurt. That is the kind of man who has no sympathy for the poor man. He goes to church on Sunday and knows that his food awaits him when he gets home. And now he talks of how he is looking after the poor man, but he is not doing so. The hon. member for Witwatersberg spoke about the farmers’ water rights. There is no law in the world that compels a farmer to allow prospecting on his farm. If he does so then he is the cause of an accumulation of people. Only when water is too expensive can the Minister intervene, so that the owner cannot exploit the diggers. Does the hon. member think that his party consists of those who first take the people there and then rob them? Does he support that sort of thing? No, these arguments are hypocrisy, but the poor man has found them out long since. Namaqualand suffered bitterly for three months, and if the Minister concedes two points for Namaqualand I shall be satisfied. In the first place I plead for the State diggings where people can work and receive a wage. They are very poor and will go and dig to-morrow. In the second place, we ask that men like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) shall be kept away from them.

You would be glad if I came there.

No, I am a Namaqualander, I have no interest in any diamond mine in Namaqualand nor in any option. I challenge any person to prove that I am interested in anything of this sort. I intentionally kept out of it, so that I could plead for Namaqualand which has suffered for years. The Minister has reserved the right to lease ground. I do not wish to tackle him now, because if an amendment is moved the Bill will not be able to be passed. The Opposition want to entrap us, so that it shall not pass, and then Namaqualand will remain closed and other parts open. My endeavour is to open Namaqualand. Then it is a case of administration. If the administration is wrong I shall fight, but not to-day. I want to assist the Minister to pass the Bill. The hon. member for Witwatersberg accuses me of being cowardly. No, it does not suit their book for things to have taken the course they did, but it least of all behoves him to make such a remark when we think of the time of the rebellion when he pursued our people. For years we were told that if we wanted freedom it would cause blood and tears.

The hon. member must keep to the motion.

So long as we keep out the syndicate I shall be satisfied. A few years ago there was no question of over-production, but to-day it is the syndicates, the rich people and the mining magnates who are interested in the diggings. We must remove the evil which has made control necessary. The sooner we do so the better for the poor man who is suffering from hunger to-day because their fields are closed. Hon. members opposite do not realize how difficult things are in my constituency while people in other parts live in luxury. People who for years have supported the S.A. party curse them to-day. There are women and children who no longer have clothes to wear, but they will not give them clothes. Yet they talk piously here without assisting them.

Do you give food and clothes?

I have assisted a great deal.

It is no good the last speaker drawing a red herring across the trail. The reason why there are so many objections to the Bill is largely the confiscatory clause, to which the hon. member objects as much as I do. I cannot understand how the Nationalist party, who are conservative like myself, can see their principles jettisoned as they have been in this Bill and other bills which they have allowed to pass without raising their voice in protest; There is one aspect of this Bill which I think everyone will have noticed and felt, and that is the absolute abrogation of Parliamentary control in the attitude of the Minister. There is no party question in this Bill—we are all agreed on the necessity for control. Yet the Minister has absolutely refused to take the slightest advice or listen to suggestions from either side of the House. The Minister is not giving away one iota to the constructive criticisms either of his friends or of the members of the Opposition. We do not come here to listen to and endorse the ideas of one man which are absolutely repulsive to the conservative feelings of this country it is our duty to represent those feelings. When the Minister introduced the Bill first he said it was a most complicated measure and dealt with the most complicated interests, yet bearing that in mind and the need for giving and taking, the Minister has simply kicked against any criticism or suggestion of alterations or amendments. Surely that is not the way to treat this House or the country. The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) has suddenly discovered that this is a perfectly wonderful Bill and is exactly what the country has been asking for. Last session, however, he criticized the Bill, drawing attention to many faults in it, and in particular he said the result of Clause 63 would be that hundreds of poor diggers would be cleared off the diggings. Yet to-day he asserts that these very diggers are absolutely satisfied with the Bill. What are we to believe? I am afraid that my friends on the other side who live on the land have swallowed their principles and are going to support a measure which they must dislike as much as I do. There are only one or two points in particular I wish to deal with now. One I fought last session, and that was this extraordinary principle involving the confiscation of private rights. Surely there is no justification for that. I listened to the whole of the debate last session, and the Minister gave absolutely no valid reason for confiscation. It seems that the Minister has jettisoned all his old ideas and ideals and through his association with bad company he has absorbed socialistic principles. Let us take these Griqualand West titles. They were confirmed by the British Government, and the holders were told that the rights they received with these titles would be respected. By Act No. 11 of 1899 (Cape) these rights were again specifically confirmed. In this House in 1919 by Act No. 15 that same assurance was repeated as far as I can gather, by common consent of both sides of the House, surely these are sacred assurances. The owners of those titles paid enhanced prices, over and above the prairie value of the land, in order to secure the mineral rights. With regard to the Cape titles in 1844 the then Cape Government was bankrupt and, in order to raise revenue it said that although in the past it had reserved the mineral rights, in order to tempt people to buy land they would give the purchasers rights to any precious stones and minerals that might exist on the land. Consequently people bought land on that assurance. When people pay the Government for certain rights they do not expect, in later years, that any Minister with a party subservient to his whims, will abrogate those rights without any reason. In effect the Minister says that as the Transvaal has not these mineral rights he does not see why any other portion of the Union should have them—in other words, that because the Transvaal jackal has lost its tail, the Cane jackal must also lose its tail. Many of us who represent those who have always had these rights, fail to perceive any reason why these rights should now be taken away. There is no attempt at compensation, although the Minister knows that in Griqualand West high sums were paid for land, not the prairie prices, but for mineral rights which were firmly secured to these people by a solemn assurance given here in 1919. Without reason or compensation the Minister is now taking these rights from them. Speaking for the land-owing class, I want to emphasize that if we are going to admit a principle of this sort and allow our titles and vested interests to be interfered with, not for the public interest, nor for public works, such as the construction of railways and roads, but just to satisfy the whim of a Minister, it is a very serious matter for the country. All those who realize the sacredness of their rights in their land and property should be careful before admitting a principle of this sort in this House. You have never before in South Africa adopted this principle, you have done it in the public interest, I grant you, and for such purposes we would agree to it subject to compensation. Here is a very different state of affairs altogether, once you lay down and admit this principle, and don’t be surprised if in a few years the ideas, so vociferously ventilated from those empty cross-benches, become the principles of a great many, and they will argue that the principle was admitted in 1927 of confiscation without compensation and you will be fettered by your actions of to-day. I cannot see why those who represent the farmers on the other side, who feel equally strongly about this matter, do not give us their opinions. Let us get their opinions. Does the silence mean they agree with these acts of spoliation, and that it means they must put up with it now they have made this Pact? I would like their real opinion. They have never given it to us on these matters, and when one is faced with blank silence and lack of spirit from the men you expect to stand up for the rights of property, well, where are you? Who is to stand for the conservative element? They represent the farmers, and should at least voice the opinions of those who sent them here, and those who sent them here are dead against legislation of this sort. I have been amongst them, and I understand their feelings, and these men who should represent those feelings so strongly held by those who sent them here are suddenly stricken dumb. I want them to tell the Minister to his face this is the sort of thing we shall not put up with.

Let us hear more words of wisdom.

They are wasted on you.

On the motion of Mr. Gilson the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.