announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the select committees mentioned, viz.:—

Library of Parliament.—Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Close, Krige, O’Brien, Reyburn, Dr. Stals and Dr. van der Merwe.

Native Affairs.—Sir Drummond Chaplin, Messrs. Conroy, Keyter, Marwick, Moffat, the Rev. Mr. Mullineux, Messrs. Nieuwenhuize, Payn, Reyburn, Steytler and van Niekerk.

Crown. Lands.—The Minister of Lands, Messrs. Allen, Christie, Deane, G. A. Louw, M. L. Malan, Mostert, Nicholls, Col. D. Reitz, Messrs. Struben and I. P. van Heerden.

Internal Arrangements.—Mr. Speaker, Maj. Ballantine, Dr. de Jager, Messrs. Hugo, Sampson, Stuttaford and Vermooten.

Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.—Messrs. Anderson, Basson, Bergh, Buirski, Cilliers, Fordham, J. P. Louw, McMenamin, Nathan, Papenfus and van Rensburg.

In opposing these clauses in this Bill, these confiscation clauses and these retrospective clauses, it is not from any spirit of party politics that I do it. I care not on which side of the House I might sit, or under what Government. I would oppose any Minister who introduced a Bill dealing with the confiscation of property and vested interests in the way this Bill does. There are big questions where one has to sink one’s own ideals, but in a case like this where vested interests are concerned I say a man’s duty is first to his constituents who sent him here to represent those interests. Speaking for landowners in general and those who represent Cape land-owners in particular, there is not one member in this House who does not know that his constituents are deadly opposed to this principle of confiscation, and I do ask all members, particularly those who represent the Cape Province, to stand up and let the people feel that the voice of their constituents is being given adequate opportunity of being heard in this House. I know you all agree with me on this. I know every Cape man agrees with me. Most of them, last session, half-heartedly, I admit, said that this clause was obnoxious. But stand up to the Minister and tell him so. If you face him out he will collapse like a pricked bladder. To force these principles on the House is the act of a despot. The Minister is threatening us that if we do force the issue on these points he will drop the Bill. I do not believe South Africa is going to stand for that. I do not believe it is going to stand for a man who will threaten the country with a dire financial crisis because he wishes to force on the country principles which the majority of people are not going to accept. I throw out this challenge to the Minister and, I say this advisedly, he dare not submit to the unfettered vote of this House. He dare not take an open vite on these three clauses in this House. He knows very well he has not got the country behind him in this. He knows, given a free hand in this House, that a vote will go against him on these questions, and he is not doing justice to the country in forcing us to accept principles which are obnoxious to the majority of us. There are a few words I want to say on other clauses in the Bill. What is it we want in South Africa? It is development we want; it is capital we want. We have mines, lands and industries crying aloud for development; crying aloud for capital to assist that development. Are we going to foster confidence if we adopt retrospective legislation of this nature? How can we do it if you make investors feel when they put money into this country that they are to have no security? This sort of legislation is going to be fatal to South Africa. We have not the money internally to develop our resources; we have to depend upon money from overseas, and we are not going to encourage capital if we adopt principles of this sort as regards the sub-division of farms. The Minister knew very well what was going on. He knew these farms were being sub-divided. He simply sat in his office and threatened and grumbled. He told us last year that he had warned people. Why did he not come into the House with a Bill to stop it at once? He would have had the support of every member in such an action. But he allows this to go on for eighteen months and then he brings a Bill into the House and makes it retrospective. He is not going to catch the man he wants; he is going to do a great injustice to people who, in good faith, have bought land which has been sub-divided. This is a matter on which the Minister should agree to accept an amendment, and I hope another place will maintain the attitude which I think most of us feel is a very fair attitude in this matter. Again, with regard to syndicates, the Minister of Agriculture is constantly preaching co-operation. He is even going the length of introducing a Bill providing for compulsory co-operation. Yet when you have co-operation in the diamond fields, the Minister comes down on it like a ton of bricks. You are simply going to drive it underground. Syndicates will exist just the same, but they will exist against the law and to the disadvantage of the honest man. There is one more feature which I think is objectionable, and that is the enormous power which the Minister is taking himself. I have never seen such terrific powers put in the hands of any man as the Minister takes in this Bill. You will find almost every clause contains a section which says that the decision of the Minister shall be absolutely final. It seems to me that people are even to be denied ordinary recourse to a court of law. The Minister is put into a position which no man should be placed in. He has to make decisions of such a nature that there are many men who would be prepared to pay thousands of pounds to ensure such a decision being a favourable one. No one is going to suggest that anything of that sort is likely to happen with the present Minister. We know we are dealing with a man who is above that sort of thing, but we do not know who is going to administer it in future. We know that some of our hon. friends have extraordinary principles, and that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) said at Durban that he agrees with “jobs for pals,” but that the Government did not carry it far enough. If this sort of principle comes from those benches, where is it going to lead to—that jobs for pals should stand above everything else? The hon. member is very much alive to chances going his way. The Bill is a necessity, we admit, but the principles dealing especially with the clauses I have criticized for the last few days are bad, and are against the consensus of considered opinion in this country. If these principles are carried here, I hope they will not be carried in another place.

During last session hon. members opposite stated that they were looking after the interests of the diggers and of the landowners. The remark was made in the House that the Minister would not be able to appear on the diggings if the diggers were told about this Bill. During the recess, however, he visited the Lichtenburg diggings and had the biggest reception which has ever fallen to the lot of a Minister of Mines. This shows that the retrospective clauses are not so much disliked by the diggers.

No, they were strongly in favour.

Yes, the diggers not only expressed themselves in favour of the retrospective clauses, but the landowners of the western Transvaal did the same. They are satisfied with the 250 owners’ claims given them under the Bill. It is a large and complicated Bill, and I believe few hon. members quite understand it. It is impossible for the Minister to move or accept amendments in this House, but there are a few small points which do not affect its principles which I hope the Minister will concede in the Senate. I support him with regard to the retrospective clauses, but wish to say a few words on behalf of the farmers and landowners. They get 285 owners’ and discoverers’ claims, and, according to the Bill, will have the right to work those claims through a syndicate, but not be able to sell to a syndicate. At a large meeting the farmers in my constituency met me on this point, and it is my duty to mention their point of view. They do not want to be limited to 250 owners’ claims and they want to sell them to whomsoever they wish. The market open to the landowners should not be restricted. As the Bill is drafted, they can only sell to diggers, who, as it is, get their claims for nothing, and there is no reason for buying the owners’ claims. In the second place the diggers have not the money to buy the claims with. I, therefore, ask the Minister to accept an amendment in the Senate so that the landowners shall be entitled to sell their claims to anyone they wish. A farmer can only make money out of syndicates. In principle there is no difference between the farmer forming a syndicate to work his claims, or selling his claims to a syndicate. The difficulty, however, is that the farmer engaged in farming does not want to be bothered with digging, but wants to sell his rights. I think the Government should encourage the farmers in this, because it is not in their interests to go digging, and we do not wish to encourage them to become diggers. We want to assist and protect those who are already diggers, but not to encourage the farmers to dig. The market of the farmers for their claims should not be restricted. The farmers in my constituency have given me a definite mandate in this respect. If the Bill passes unchanged in this respect it will injure the farmers and diggers, because the former will not permit prospecting and the latter will not have any ground to dig on. I cannot under any circumstances vote for this clause. Then there is another point in connection with the retrospective clauses. There are farms which have been divided and not yet proclaimed, and I agree that they must, on proclamation, and on the granting of owners’ claims, be regarded as one farm. There is, however, one farm on which conditions are different. I refer to Grasfontein, which has been sub-divided and proclaimed. If the Bill is retrospective with regard to Grasfontein, we need not think that we shall get at the big syndicates in that way. There are numerous farmers in my constituency as well, who have bought claims from Lewis and Marks and others. They paid cash for them—from £1,000 to £1,200 per claim. If the Bill is applied to those people, it means that the Minister will take away the lawful property of diggers and farmers. However strongly I support the Minister generally, I think he should yield on these two points. I cannot see how he can expropriate without compensation the claims which people have bought and paid for. They have lawfully bought and paid for the claims, and it will be unfair, and cause great trouble in the western Transvaal if the Minister takes away the claims merely because the people have formed syndicates. I think he should adopt the attitude which I advocate. If he does so, then even the Senate will be reasonable and pass the Bill without a joint sitting being required. My suggestion, therefore, is that the landowners should be entitled to sell owners’ and discoverers’ claims to whomsoever they wish, and that a farm which has been divided and proclaimed shall not without compensation come under the retrospective clauses. I cannot support that, because the farmers and well-to-do diggers in my constituency are interested, whilst many of my own people will be absolutely ruined.

If those claims are worth anything, then the people have long since got their value back.

Why did not the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) talk in this way last session?

There are heaps of claims which have not yet been worked. The syndicates with capital immediately worked their claims when they heard about the Bill. The poor farmers in my constituency and others were afraid about the Bill, and were not prepared to spend further money.

It cannot be a poor man who pays. £1,200 for a claim.

Whether rich or poor, when he has paid for his claim it is unfair to take it away without compensation. If compensation is paid, I shall support the Bill; otherwise not. Hundreds of our supporters will be affected if the Minister does not concede this point. I admit there were large syndicates that tried to evade the spirit of the law, but it is not a case of that sort that I now advocate. I am only pleading for a concession in the case of a farm already proclaimed. Only Grasfontein will be affected. I take up the same attitude with reference to the two points mentioned by me as I always did. I want to protect the diggers. I agree with the principles of the Bill, but we must surely consider the interests of the farming population in the western Transvaal.

Move it, and we will assist you.

No, I shall neither propose nor support any amendment in this House, but I want to ask the Minister to accept it in the Senate. If we pass an amendment here, and the Senate differs, then this Bill cannot be passed. If the other side of the House want to be reasonable then it is quite possible a joint sitting will be unnecessary. If the other place accepts amendments on these points, and approves of the Bill, the Minister can make a careful inquiry and come to an arrangement in the Senate which will obviate a joint sitting.

This debate has reached a rather remarkable stage. We have just listened to the third member on the Government benches who has most earnestly begged the Minister of Mines to use his good services in another place so that the obvious defects in the Bill shall be rectified by its members. We appreciate the compliment paid to the majority there, and we cordially endorse the inference that it requires the brains and the energy of the South African party to make the Bill a working measure. I think if the Minister is a little reasonable he may obtain a little assistance from the South African party in curing the defects of the Bill. I join with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) in regretting that the Minister has stated that so far as this House is concerned he will not budge an inch. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) has pointed out that there are certain fundamental defects in the Bill which, if not removed, will make the measure unworkable, and which if they are to be corrected I claim should be dealt with by this House and not left to another place. I endorse what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) yesterday that the Minister in his handling of the Bill last session was not fair to this side of the House In an early stage of that debate the Minister received an assurance that he would have from this side of the House every assistance in putting the measure through—in fact there was not even a division on the second reading. Instead, however, of acting on that assurance in the spirit in which it was given, we had first of all a long delay in the introduction of the Bill followed by a short sitting in committee and thereafter the contentious clauses were fought out very late in the session amid a mass of amendments which made it almost impossible for the House to appreciate without great effort what it was doing in the matter. Not only was the House not given an opportunity of appreciating the significance of some of these amendments but the Minister himself could not have realized their effect. If I can show the Minister that this Bill, in one or two respects, is hopelessly unworkable and impracticable then he will be either compelled to allow the House to deal with it in committee or place himself in the hands of another place and ask them to assist him in his difficulty. We have been told this is a consolidating measure; yet the result is there is no power under the Bill to proclaim unalienated crown land except possibly as State diggings and no power to proclaim reserved land. If that is correct it means the Bill as it stands at present is hopelessly impossible and impracticable. As it stands there is no power to proclaim Crown land except as State diggings to be governed by regulation and there is no power to proclaim reserved land, that is, land granted with a reservation of precious stones rights to the Crown. Did the House intend that when it was forced to pass this Bill through last session? Was the Minister conscious that he was leaving the law worse than it was before? I ought to make good my statement and I ask the Minister to follow me while I show where this error has occurred. I ask hon. members to follow me in this respect when I refer to Section 26 (1). This deals with the power to proclaim. There are only two methods of making ground available for digging or mining in the Bill. The one is in Section 26 (1) and the other in Section 75 so far as concerns unalienated Crown land which may be made a State mine or alluvial digging and be dealt with by regulation. When we come back to Section 26 (1) we find it reads as follows—

In other words it refers to land defined in subsection (1) of Section 13. If we turn to subsection (1) on page 14 where we find the term “land” is clearly defined. This section deals with the claims to be given to a discoverer and share in a mine to be given to a discoverer and in line 5 we find the term “land” defined. It reads—

The sub-section relates to private land, that is to freehold land granted with mineral rights to the owners and with the rights to minerals registered separately. The only land that can be proclaimed under Section 26 is private land as so defined. I believe that is a perfectly clear rendering of the Bill as it stands now. If it is right, we have the remarkable position that under this consolidating measure the only land that can be proclaimed is land as defined under Section 13, that is, private land; Crown land (alienated or unalienated) cannot be proclaimed. There is no provision whereby it can be proclaimed at all unless it is dealt with under Section 75. There, as will be seen, power is given to the Governor-General to declare land to be a State mine or alluvial digging. But such State mine or digging must be administered by regulation. It will be seen that the House has therefore given the Minister a blank cheque to deal with precious minerals on unalienated Crown land. I ask him if that was his intention; I ask him first if he agrees with my statement of the position. This state of affairs arises because the Minister failed to consider an amendment in Section 13 when the Bill was before us in committee last session. He called the point a “conundrum” it is true at three o’clock in the morning when I daresay he was as tired as we all were. I ask hon. members: did they intend to exclude all Crown land and all alienated reserved land? I venture to say not a single member of the one hundred and thirty-five members had any idea that was in the Bill; yet the Minister says to-day he will not “budge an inch.” Surely this must have been pointed out to the Minister by his law advisers? We may not be able to compel the Government to budge an inch but if I am right it will be necessary for the Senate to consider how far they will go out of their way to assist the Minister. It adds additional point to the appeals made to the Minister by his own followers that when the Bill goes to the Senate he should ask for assistance to put these things right. I have no actual knowledge of the working of alluvial diggings, but during the recess after reading what has appeared in the newspapers it must be realized there are serious flaws in the Bill. There is no intention on this side so far as I know to jettison the eventual passage of the Bill. That is not the intention I feel sure on this side of the House but I do ask the Minister to take the House into his confidence and bring to bear upon the measure the experience and knowledge gained in the last two or three months. I can show him another defect and I will ask if that also was his intention. I deal with the effect of Sections 20 and 73. This point I think is fairly clear. It has been brought to my notice in a circular sent by the Transvaal Landowners Association and annexed to that are the opinions of two eminent counsel in the Transvaal. This circular was sent to me in common with other members in order that this point may be raised in the House, and that it might be considered. Therefore I put it forward, not as my opinion, though it is one with which I may agree, but as the opinion of a large number of landowners in the Transvaal, who have taken the trouble to ascertain precisely from their legal advisers what their position may be. I will give an illustration of the position that exists or will exist where a farm has been subdivided with the intention of increasing the number of claims available to an individual owner, and where it has been subdivided under precisely similar circumstances by a company. The Minister has the power, under Section 20, to say—

In the case of the individual he is restricted to one set of owner’s claims and if the owner is entitled to claim as a discoverer, to one set of discoverer’s claims. What is the position of a company? The company gets in such a case no rights of any kind. Did the Minister intend not only that he would prohibit the subdivision from having the effect of increasing the claims, but did he intend to go further and take away from that owner being a company even the little that was left to it. The first point that I would put before the House for its consideration is that we are entitled to claim that this measure should be recommitted to us in committee with the opportunity to make amendments, and that if the Minister declines to consider them on their merits we should then register our protest against it by voting against the Bill on the second reading and thus throw the complete responsibility upon the Minister, leaving it to another place to consider the manner in which important legislation of this kind has been dealt with here. I want to deal again with the position of farm owner’s rights, which have been so ruthlessly dealt with by the Minister in the course of the passage of this Bill. We, on this side, cannot fail to do our duty, because by reason of some caucus direction or something of that sort hon. members opposite are not prepared to speak. It brings back to my mind very vividly the speech made by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) just after the conclusion of last session, when he said that—

I would like to refer to Section 2, which the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has spoken of in the remarks that he made. The effect of that section so far as Cape freehold farms may be concerned—and let me say again, although, of course, the House knows it, that we are dealing with farms not only in Griqualand West but throughout the whole of the Cape Province—is that the proposal of the Government is to take away from an owner in case there may be a diamond mine upon his property 50 per cent. of those rights, and if there is an alluvial digging upon his property 99 per cent., if not a fraction more. In the one case it is given to the State; in the other case it goes to another set of people. In other words, the farm owner in the case of an alluvial digging gives up all but one-half per cent. of his rights in order that the State may present them to the digging community. When the matter was discussed by the House last session there was not a definite or sufficient opportunity given to farm owners in the districts more particularly concerned to express their objection to the Bill. I would like to refer to a circular that I have received in common with other members from the Griqualand West Farmers’ Society and the Kimberley Chamber of Commerce and to what they describe as the intolerable hardships of this Bill. They ask the House to take into consideration “the proposed drastic confiscation of valuable rights inherited or acquired by them in good faith.” They say that they feel that it is not generally realized that the result will be ruinous to the landowners, and they call attention to the position in which owners will be placed if the bonds on their properties are called up. I would ask what is to become of these farmers who have borrowed on the strength of their surface rights, combined with their mineral rights. If their bonds are called up and these people cannot pay, is the Minister of Finance prepared to step in and remedy the difficulty? When we deal more particularly with these Free State titles I think one can go a step further than these petitioners have done in pointing out the strength of their position. They have told us that these titles were confirmed by the British Government in a proclamation when Griqualand West was taken over from the Free State, by the Cane Parliament subsequently and by this Parliament in 1919. They refer to a letter which was written in reference to these very farms by Lord Carnarvon to President Brand, in which the following passage occurs—

A proclamation was also issued in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. The whole history of the question is reviewed in a case which was heard before our Appeal Court in 1918. It was pointed out that this quieting proclamation, as it is called, was issued specially to reassure these landowners. It was issued on the 27th October, 1871, and its object, as recited, was—

It also, declared that Her Majesty had no intention, in any way, to prejudice such titles, but intended to confirm them. It was also stated that the parties who might be able to establish their right in fact to land in that province should be entitled to demand and receive from the Government, an indefeasible title to the land awarded to them. I venture to say that when the Crown has thought it right to give a specific assurance with reference to the validity of legal rights, with reference to the sacredness of land rights, it is not proper for any succeeding Government to set aside that express declaration made in order to quiet apprehensions as to the validity of titles. That is what this House is asked to do by the Minister of Mines, to declare that notwithstanding this quieting proclamation, this House will sweep away their rights which were assured to them in that way. It is not as if the matter concerned merely these sixteen or seventeen farms which the Minister, when he introduced the Bill, believed to be affected. It was discovered that 167 alone were affected in Griqualand West, and a total area of 651,000 morgen will be detrimentally affected because of this measure. As far as this side of the House is concerned I do ask hon. members To voice by their protest their firm determination not to be a party to that confiscation of rights. It goes further. It is not a matter that is confined in the least degree to Griqualand West, but it applies to every freehold title in the Cape Province. We have, from the Minister himself, an approximate statement, and perhaps an under-statement in some slight degree, that there are 4,106 freehold grants in the Cape Province or 4.2 per cent. of the total granted land in the Cane Province that will be affected by this arbitrary act of confiscation. I ask this House this question, where is the next discovery of precious stones to be made in the Cape Province? We have had a very interesting theory put forward recently by the geologists that these stones which have been found on the West Coast have travelled up the coast and not downwards. The geological evidence seems to indicate that these stones have been carried by a current northwards and there are certain gentlemen who believe that the origin of the stones in Namaqualand will be found in the Van Rhynsdorp district or Calvinia. It may be found subsequently that the geological theory is correct, and the Minister of the Interior who represents Calvinia may then find himself, for example, very busy in other and unexpected directions in explaining why this Act of confiscation was brought into the House by a Nationalist Government. The House is entitled to ask the Minister why this should be done. The only reply we have is that it has been done for the sake of uniformity. In the Transvaal and the Free State, it appears, there are similar provisions, and this House, having so late as 1919 passed an Act saying these rights shall be respected, is now asked to reverse that policy for the sake of uniformity. Uniformity: what crimes can be committed in the name of uniformity! Is there no better reason why these owners should be deprived of their rights than a mere foible on the part of the Minister? Let me ask the House to consider one further aspect of this matter which more particularly concerns my hon. friends on that side. The Minister himself moved an amendment in Section 2 in which he exempted from the operation of this decree of confiscation those farms upon which work had been done for the recovery of minerals. In other words, where a landowner had improved his farm by working for diamonds, either himself or through others, then the Minister’s Bill would not apply, but where his neighbour has not worked the property then the Bill would apply. What is that but the confiscation of unimproved mineral values? My hon. friends on my left are to be congratulated on being able to introduce into this Bill one of the cardinal principles of the Labour party programme. The first party to lay down the principle of the confiscation of unimproved mineral values is the Nationalist party. So far as we are concerned, I think that point deserves emphasis. I think it should be known clearly through the country that this is confiscation of the unimproved mineral value of farm property. When, at some future date, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) leads the new Labour party, he will be able to point out how the Nationalist party in 1927 was the first party to lay down, without protest from its own members, that the unimproved mineral value of land could be confiscated by the State. The Labour party deserves to be congratulated, wrong though they are, because they are very astute as we are now beginning to find out. We may be powerless; we may be told the Government will not budge an inch, but, at any rate, we shall at least be able to show the country that we did raise our voices in protest. Let me refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), who referred to the interference with the water rights of owners. I notice in this circular from the Transvaal Landholders’ Association that they draw particular attention to that section of the Bill which deals with the arbitrary allocation of water to the owners of farms. We, find in this Section 23 that the amount of water available to the farmer affected is to be fixed by the mining commissioner in consultation with the owner, and subject to the approval of the Minister. I wonder how many Western Province farmers would be content to leave it to a Government official to say how much water a farmer should have for the cultivation of his land. The mining commissioner will be placed in a difficult position. On the one side he will have to consider the legitimate requirements of the owner, and on the other side he will have to face pressure from the diggers. How it will be possible for him to determine what is the proper amount of water to be left for the bona fide cultivation of farm lands I do not know. If the Minister thinks fit, he can have boreholes sunk without the consent of the owner to trap the underground water for the alluvial diggings. I think the farmers have legitimate ground for complaint against the Minister. Even when you do allow the farmer to have these claims his market is so seriously restricted that their value becomes a great deal less than it would ordinarily have been, because he will not be able to sell to anyone except an individual digger who holds a digger’s licence. Where can it be said that we have any authority from farmers to limit the market for the disposal of their discoveries? Where does the mandate come from for the Government to act in this way with respect to the property of private individuals? I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I have gone through his speeches, and I find it all comes back to this, that he desires to protect what he calls the small man, the individual digger. I won’t suggest that small men have votes, although it is quite obvious that when the Minister just after the end of last session addressed a meeting at Lichtenburg, he had before him a large number of potential voters. Of course, outside the House there are people who might consider there was a mild degree of political pressure applied. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) yesterday referred to the fact that the character of mining in the Lichtenburg district was something wholly apart from ordinary alluvial digging, as we have known it in the Union. He pointed out that in some cases these workings go down to 100 feet, and expensive machinery was necessary to work them. If the Minister insists that this kind of work must be done by individuals, it means that this potential mineral right will be left undeveloped. If members will turn to Section 73 (c) it will be noticed that the Minister, where a company owns claims, and where he thinks they are in an area where digging by individual diggers is not feasible, may permit a company to operate for such time and under such conditions as the Minister may signify. If a company in these circumstances were seeking for money to develop such a place, I do not think it would be regarded quite as a gilt-edged investment. [Time limit extended.] I do feel obliged to the Minister for allowing me to continue, because I would like him to consider these points. Whether they are right or wrong, I do feel we are entitled to ask him to deal with them when he replies, because let me assure him that they are not the mere creations of a legal brain. I am endeavouring to represent to him questions brought to me by persons who have asked that their views should receive consideration. The Minister, in his reply yesterday, to the hon. member for Delarey was not correct when he stated that in the Lichtenburg area he could grant a dispensation so as to allow digging to take place in those newly-found deep claims; for this reason, that sub-section (c) only permits the Minister to give that permission in an area where the Minister is of opinion that digging by individual diggers is not feasible. The Lichtenburg area has already been declared by proclamation of the Government as suitable for digging of that kind. So we are faced with this difficulty, as the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) pointed out yesterday, that either the Government must allow these valuable areas to be developed by combined capital or it must allow them to lie dormant. The expenditure involved in their development by the individual is too great, and as this stands, if a company is compelled automatically to leave the diggings because their claims are forfeited, this valuable mineral wealth must remain undeveloped. Is that helping the small man, the big man or the country? That is one of the flaws of the Act which it is the duty of this House to put right. Our objection to Section 20 still must stand good. We are told in justification of that section, which operates to confiscate claims on land subdivided with the object of increasing such claims, is that there has been a contravention of the spirit of the law. No one suggests for a moment that the letter of the law has been broken. In September, 1925, the Minister announced to the diggers that the law had not been broken and that he could not interfere with subdivisions. This law has been in existence since 1903, as far as I know, and there must have been many subdivisions—but whether there have been or not, the right of subdivision has been there. Now 24 years after, a majority of this House comes to the conclusion that the Transvaal Parliament made an error, and that this House should rectify it. What justification is there for this assumption? I submit there is none. The onus of rectifying that error is transferred by Parliament to the shoulders of innocent people who are in no way responsible for it. If Parliament makes an error it should be rectified by Parliament, without retrospective effect on people who have enjoyed rights which have been conferred by Parliament. To rectify that error at the expense of private interests, to take away rights lawfully acquired by them, and to punish them is a step which is bound to react most unfavourably on our credit, and will bring Parliament into contempt, and I say so with all respect, in the minds of our fellow countrymen. If Parliament thinks such subdivision wrong, prohibit it in the future; but do not punish innocent men who have exercised rights laid down by Parliament. Might I just say that my object in putting these points is simply that the Minister may realize that the Bill as it stands is unworkable and impracticable. It has been put through this House amid pressure and amendments introduced by the Minister which made it impossible for hon. members to deal fairly with it. If he will not give the House an opportunity of doing what should be done, he will be put in the unenviable position, and one which is almost humiliating, of going to another place, and asking it in the kindness of its heart to put right the errors made by him in this House.

I did not intend speaking, but yesterday hon. members referred, in connection with this Bill, to what I said last session. My attitude was perfectly clear. I pleaded for the rights which landowners have under the old law, and in some cases I succeeded. But with regard to the rights about which such a fuss is being made to-day, and so much noise took place in the Senate, those are not lawful rights, as I pointed out last year. The Bill was not rejected by the Senate owing to the rights for which I pleaded. There are rights which landowners had under the old law with reference to the number of workers who could be used for prospecting, which are now limited to five. Rights regarding the selection of claims are limited, and last session I advocated the retention of the privileges under the old law. As for the retrospective clauses, I took up the attitude that the rights affected by those clauses were illegal rights. The old law gave the minerals to the State, but, nevertheless, gave the landowner certain rights, namely, 250 claims, as mentioned on the title deed. Certain persons and companies—fortunately not farming landowners—used this right in another way, which amounted to an evasion of the law, with the object of increasing the owners’ claims. If they had done so in a proper way and had divided the farms into four or five portions, I should have agreed with it. But they cut up the farms into small portions, and in that way virtually robbed the State and the public of the mineral rights which they had on the farms, and I cannot approve of that. The diggings which should provide for the poor man are in that way reserved for the rich people. Some of the syndicates have sold their rights to other syndicates, and these syndicates have cut up the farms still further, so that a piece of 100 morgen has been divided into four. They were not entitled to do that, and it was a violation of the rights they had under the law. It is on this point that the Senate wrecked the Bill, and why it is before us again to-day. The other place did not propose an alteration on points where the owners’ rights were actually Interfered with. They wrecked the Bill because provision was made to conteract the action by which people have robbed the public and the State. The other place did not act in the interests of the land-owners, but in the interests of a few persons and companies. If it had carried the motion that the Bill should not apply to a farm that was already proclaimed, and for which the people had paid, I could have concurred; but that was not done, and the other place, just like the Opposition here, supported the companies that wanted to evade the law, and who deprived the public of their rights, and I really cannot understand that the Opposition can defend such injustice. As for the syndicates who have already spent money on buying claims, I admit that there are some who have lost money, and I think it is desirable that the Minister of Mines should be given the opportunity of using his discretion so that, in connection with this one farm, the people shall be met. I am not in favour of the people losing their money, but, as I have already said, I disapprove of the companies having tried to deprive the public of their rights. The Senate has not acted in the interests of the general public, but for the benefit of a few big capitalists. I still stand for the owners getting their rights, but with regard to the retrospective clauses the Bill does not take away any rights from the owners—it actually gives the owners more claims than they have hitherto had.

I did not intend taking part in the debate, but the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) has put me in an awkward position. Last session he and I adopted a certain attitude, and went to meet the diggers about this matter, but to-day the hon. member, to my astonishment, takes up the opposite attitude, and now pleads for people who bought claims at Grasfontein as a speculation. During last session the hon. member argued against them. On reference to his speech of the 27th of April, we find that he said—

The hon. member now argues in favour of the speculator.

I am still of the same opinion.

If the farm buyers are speculators, so are the claim buyers. The hon. member spoke about Grasfontein and said—

What applies to the syndicates applies to the syndicate buyers. They also are busy making money Further on in the hon. member’s speech his then view comes out clearly, and he will agree that he is to-day saying the opposite. He then said—

If the hon. member was right at that time, then he is wrong now, and vice versa, but yet he said that he had instituted a proper inquiry and that he is convinced that the public will not be affected. I am surprised at the hon. member’s change of front.

You do not understand it.

I still stand where I stood last session. I live among the diggers of the western Transvaal, but the hon. member does not. The diggers all said that the Bill ought to pass, and that they were satisfied with it. I want to ask the Minister not to take too much notice of the hon. member who, within six months, says exactly the opposite of what he said before.

I say the same as I said then.

I had the privilege of spending four or five days with the diggers because I wanted personally to ascertain the position. The alluvial diggings extend for thirty miles. Now we must imagine what that means, where our people are living close together in thirty miles of drought and sand. The condition of some of our people is sad, and it was a disappointment to see how the children live there. There are scores who are employed in sifting diamonds—white children, without clothes, nine, ten to twelve years old. There are a few schools, but the condition of the people is of the very worst. I brought the matter to the notice of the Provincial Administration, and I think that everyone who loves his people will feel that things are serious, and that the Government must take action to bring about a change. Those of us who live at a distance from the diggings do not know the position. The people are working frightfully hard, and are suffering. The object of the Minister is to assist the small man, but, on the other hand, he also wants people on the diggings to be rescued with a view to the future. I am afraid they will be ruined if action is not soon taken. Then I also want to say a few words about the retrospective clauses which I regard as indispensable. I admit I am not one of the legal lights, but I think that anyone with common sense can understand the position when he sees how farms are cut up into small pieces for the purpose of speculation. I know that there are farms that were cut up before the discovery of diamonds for the purposes of land speculation, but the intention of the law was not to allow farms to be so cut up for that purpose. Farms were, however, sub-divided, the judges validated it, and it is, therefore, necessary for the Minister to make the Bill retrospective. One hears in this House of the injustice that is done by retrospective legislation, but I would call to mind how many times retrospective Bills have already been before the House. There are the Indemnity Acts to put right all the injustice done under martial law.

Your land is not affected by it.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) may laugh, but indemnity Acts are retrospective as to acts that have been done. I was one of the sufferers in that respect, but if I had had the right I would have pursued you from Dan to Beersheba.

You got well out of it.

In the second war of independence the hon. member took care to remain on the right side, and I would recommend him not to boast.

We know where you were.

Valuable blood was shed, of which the hon. member was the cause, and he must be careful about what happened in the past. Indemnity Acts have been passed, and it cannot be said that this is the first time that a retrospective law has been made. No one could think it possible that claims would be increased. I have spoken to the owners of the farm Welverdiend, and they said they could not have believed that that was the law. Well, that is the position, and where injustice is done by sub-dividing farms to increase the number of claims, retrospective clauses must be passed to put things right. The people were deceived because diamond-bearing ground was first selected, and then the worthless portions were sold. I also am a landowner, and we feel that the sixty owners in Griqualand West of farms with the old Free State title, who protest against the provisions which affect them must not forget that all the Free State farmers have lost their rights. Why should the former be excepted? When you go to the diggings at Welverdiend you see already the start of a big mine. I am convinced that it will become like the Premier Mine. The hole there is already 100 foot deep, and the place can no longer be regarded as alluvial diggings. It is a diamond mine. When one goes about the thirty miles of diggings one finds places where the surface has only been scratched and abandoned. Now, however, people come along with machinery, and they find diamonds in quantity. The diggings will yet be proclaimed as a mine, as the Premier Mine was. Diamonds will be dug for years and years, therefore it must not be regarded as an alluvial digging, but treated as a large diamond mine. Let us pass the Bill as proposed. If there are a few little things wrong they can be rectified in another place. There is no law without mistakes nor can we expect it in this large consolidating Bill. As for Namaqualand, I want to point out that at present prospecting licences for base metals are being taken out. Everywhere in Namaqualand people are going about looking for base metals, but the object is to find all the places where there are diamonds. Therefore, I think the Minister should stop prospecting, because, if the area should subsequently be proclaimed, then some people will know and others will not know where the diamonds are.

I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) overlooked one thing in his able argument, that if these original Free State titles of farms now in the Union (which were once Free State farms) had remained on that side of the rectified boundary, they would not have bad the privileges he claims for them to-day. Why, then, take exception to our going into possession of rights which have long ago been resumed by the Free State which granted the original titles? That is where the whole of his case falls away. He is right in saying we stand for the socialistic possession of these minerals. We do. We say they belong to the State, and I sincerely regret the Minister in charge of this Bill ever accepted from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) a point which weakens that position. We should have stood on what we had in the Bill at the start—

It is admitted almost everywhere now that the whole question resolves itself into “the greatest good for the greatest number.” I am delighted the Minister of Mines is becoming so great a socialist. He is the greatest practical socialist in the Union. We must take into consideration the underlying principles of this Bill. It is one of a series laying down the whole policy of the Pact Government and standing, with other Bills, for a policy with which we, as socialists, agree. First there was the Diamond Control Bill, which lays down definitely the State should absolutely control the diamond industry. That is in the interests of all, and no exception has been taken by the public to it. Then we came to diamond cutting, and there again the Government assumed control, and now we come to the alluvial, which the Government is going to regulate. It is all part of a very great policy. But when we see these socialistic ideas developing we realize, to our astonishment, how they are reconciled with the individual interests of the big operators. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) has reason to congratulate himself that whilst we have these socialistic measures passed the financiers are reaping the reward they always did. No wonder his genial smile broadens. We were going to stand by the poor digger. Poor digger! We were going to look after the poor diamond cutter. Poor cutter! To-day who is reaping the benefit of these great riches of South Africa? Not the poor digger, and the “poor digger” is not going to get any help here as far as I can see. It is time some attention was given to finding out how these socialistic measures are working on behalf of the people chiefly concerned—the poor producers. The big interests are able to look after themselves and do it very thoroughly. The great mistake of the Minister in administering the policy of the Government in regard to diamonds is that he did not put into effect the projected Board of Control. If he had established this board of control two years ago he would now have someone to turn to who, having no axe to grind and no private interest to consider, could have given him sound advice. It is impossible for the Minister to know everything about a huge industry like diamonds in this country, of the annual average first value of ten millions. He has worked very hard, but he has been compelled to turn to poisoned sources for the information he is working upon. Even the valuers of diamonds for export are under the nose of De Beers at Kimberley, and all the growing difficulties because the Minister did not take good advice and bring the board of control into existence. He preferred to keep everything in his own hands, and the result is the failure which is being tossed in his face to-day. I have here a statement, recently published, of the Premier Mine, which is going to retain its diamonds unsold for six months “because there has been too great a production of inferior stones.” This account goes so far as to say these inferior stones amount in value to £10,000,000. The “ring” might just as well have said £50,000,000. Their mendacity is ever equal to the credulity of ministers, which is saying a great deal. These wild statements are always being made. Naturally, the poor quality stones are difficult to dispose of, and Rhodes said the rubbish should be dumped into the sea. Certainly it ought never to go out and be termed diamonds at all—the trash should be exported as abrasive powder free of duty. The State owns a 60 per cent. interest in the Premier Mine, and yet we read here that the share of the trade which would have fallen to the company in that period of six months will be transferred to De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., and so, to oblige these great producers and not for the poor digger, we hand over that quota of allotted production we would have supplied from the Premier Mine, to De Beers. This published account says that this great company now owns all the deferred shares in the Premier Co., and these shares determine the directorate, so De Beers transfer the quota of production as an addition to their own! The State is not even represented on the board. Can folly go further? It is the same in our State partnerships in gold companies on the East Rand. But it is perfectly useless offering any useful criticism to the Government. We hoped for a change when the Pact assumed responsibility, but these futile hopes exist no longer. I watched the whole operation of governing the Government, and without any charge against good intentions of Ministers I must say they are infants in the hands of the big interests, and are not only cradled to sleep, but their feeding bottles are “doped.” Even the people’s ownership is subjected to shareholders’ representatives, and Government is simply impotent to interfere. No private interests would ever put up with it. My heart sinks when I think of the great opportunities lost. I would ask the Minister what truth there is in a statement which has just been published in regard to diamond cutting in this country. One statement—and it seems to be semi-official—is that a Bill is to be introduced which will embody a contract which has been entered into and signed by the Government. I would like to know whether there is to be a Bill, or whether the contract is merely to be placed on the table. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will tell us. If it is put on the table I hope for another opportunity to be able to discuss it more fully. In passing, I might say that here again one simply rubs one’s eyes to know where we have been living all this time since the Kruger regime. I really began to think (with this concession being quietly handed out to speculators) that I was once more in the old republican Transvaal, when every morning one heard of somebody getting a concession through an official. Here we have a number of cutting industries which have struggled along feebly without any encouragement, the Minister tying them up tighter and tighter every year to prevent them from being further developed; and now we find this concession is to be handed out without giving our local people a chance of having anything whatever to say or offer in regard to it. We are going to put this most valuable concession into the hands of speculators from Amsterdam who have taken no interest in this country and who now come here just to suck the orange. For two-and-a-half to three years the Government has been “spoofed” in regard to a contract for diamond cutting. Two Ministers and a greatly influential member of this House gave the assurance to Kimberley early in 1925 that “almost at once” they were going to establish a large cutting industry. It never came off. Is this another “contract” just to cover another two years, so as to put us off having anything of that kind? If it is genuine, of all things that I have read that the Government ought to be ashamed of, it is this contract concession which is going to be handed out to these Amsterdam gentlemen. Instead of saying to the cutters struggling against big odds in this country—

this subsidized monopoly is to be handed over as a special prize for people who may or may not be genuine. At all events, I reserve what I have to say in regard to that iniquity until the Bill itself comes before the House. I want to ask the Minister to point out how he proposes in his legislation and his policy really to help the poor digger. When he voices the slogan: “South Africa first,” he should make it genuine, not a pretence of “South Africa first” when serving these oversea interests. We are weary of a meaningless motto; we want it made a real and living force.

So much ancient history has been repeated, that I shall not occupy the time of the House in going into everything again. In any case the Opposition benches are empty and the persons who asked questions containing anything useful are not present. Hon. members opposite either did not take part in the debate, or only raised points and asked questions which have already been before us. To the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) I may reply that I am not able to make a statement to-day on the question of a diamond-cutting industry. I shall do so at a later opportunity. I have nothing further to say.

Motion put and Mr. Robinson called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—63.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Waterston. R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—47.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Jager, A. L.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider. W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.