Perhaps the Minister of Finance will tell us when he is going to lay on the Table particulars of the loan vote.

I hope to have the loan estimates ready early next week.

I move—

Upon which the House divided.

It seems that an offer made by the Cape Federation of Labour Unions for the lease of these buildings was turned down. What was the offer made? Perhaps my hon. friend can tell us.

I think they offered a rent of £13 or £16 a month for a period of 25 years, and they wanted to make certain alterations, and to sub-let the buildings, but as we received a bona fide offer of £33,000, the committee thought it advisable rather to reserve it, and if not required for public purposes, to sell it by public auction.

As I understand this matter, the first thing that happened was an offer made by some person or persons for £33,000, and this offer was declined. It was subsequent to that that the proposal was put forward that the property should be leased to the Cape Federation of Labour Unions, and I saw the other day, as I happened to pass the building, that some union was already in occupation, the Typo. Union, I think it was called. I am very glad to see the offer of the Federation of Labour was turned down, because, as far as I understand, the rent which would have been payable by the federation would have amounted to nothing like the interest which would have been receivable from the £33,000 cash offer that was made. Therefore, it seems extraordinary that such a proposal should have been put before the committee at all. I do not understand. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us why the department concerned ever put this before the committee. There is another point arising out of this. The committee proposes that the land, if not required for public purposes, should be sold by public auction or public tender at an upset price of not less than £33,000. That seems to me a rather unfair way of dealing with the people—I do not know who they were—who made the offer of £33,000, because the committee is trading on the offer these people made. I would like to know whether the proposal was made after the £33,000 offer was made, and what is the difference between the rent offered by the federation of labour and the interest which would have been received, reckoning it at 5 per cent, on the offer of £33,000.

The hon. member is not quite right. First of all, let me tell him that this building was leased by the previous Government to the Federation of Labour, and they claim that a previous Minister, the right hon. F. S. Malan, made them a verbal promise that they would never be shifted out of the premises. We did not take any cognizance of that. After they made this offer— I thought it was rather small, and I did not feel inclined to agree to it—we received the offer of £33,000. If anybody comes along at public auction and offers £40,000 we should take it.

If you are going to sell by public auction and get more than the equivalent of £15 a month, why should the hon. Minister not put up a specified price? Knowing the building as I do, I know you may not get such an offer again; £33,000 seems to be an extremely extravagant offer. Is it not better for the Minister to take up the position not to put it up to public auction, and if the department does not get what they consider a fair and reasonable price, not to sell it? I would suggest the deletion of all the words after " public auction ". The department may not ever again get the offer which is referred to here, but may get a very good one which will still pay the State.

No. I may tell my hon. friend it is nearly always the custom to put in an upset price for any place we sell. Parliament nearly always fixes a price below which we may not sell. It is not certain that we shall sell the land; the Public Works Department will have to tell us whether the site of the building is not required for public purposes. If it is not so required we cannot sell the land by public auction unless Parliament gives us its consent. The offer of £33,000 is quite reasonable, and probably we will get more than that for it. It is a very valuable site here in Plein Street.

I hope the Minister will leave the words in. If he takes them out you will have to sell to the highest bidder. We know there are such things as combinations at these sales, and people not bidding. Again it may be a genuine auction, but a rainy day, and very few people there. It is a necessary protection to the interests of the State to leave the words in.

I meant only to take out the reserve price. But as the Minister has such an offer, I thought he might not get such a one again

I do suggest to the Minister that he should allow these words to be deleted. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) quite sees the point. It would still be within the power of the Minister to put a reserve price on the property. Supposing the Minister should get £32,000 for it, it would be a grave mistake from the point of view of the Treasury to refuse that price because there was a resolution of Parliament against it.

I do not agree with my hon. friend, and I hope the Minister will keep the words in. He has a definite offer of £33,000. I cannot see how the Minister can take the words ont, even if he wishes to.

I hope the Minister will leave it at £33,000. He can always come back to Parliament.

Next year.

We went into it very carefully in the committee.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (5),

I should like to draw attention to the amount proposed to be accepted— £1 for two morgen of ground. It seems a great pity to get rid of Crown land at such a small figure; it would be better to keep it for the country. In any case, I urge it is a wrong principle. If the ground is worth anything at all, it is worth keeping for the country. Judging by the cheers, I am glad I have such approval of the suggestion I have made, and I hope the recommendation will not be adopted.

It is very difficult to judge unless you know the circumstances. The predecessor of the gentleman to whom it is proposed to sell the land thought it was part of his plot, so he built a dipping tank on it, and has used it for many years. The committee thought it advisable to let him have the ground for £1 as he was in occupation. The committee goes very carefully into all these cases, and does not do things in a slipshod fashion.

The explanation makes the case all the worse. This is not the first time in the history of this House that I have beaten the committee. A man has a piece of ground and he quietly builds a dipping tank on the adjoining ground. How can he be a benefactor to the public when he takes land from the Government? It is spoliation of the worst character, and the Minister says I do not know the circumstances. Of course I don't

That is why you put your foot into it every time.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (9),

As I do not know the circumstances of the case, perhaps I had better hear the Minister's explanation first.

This is a case where, through a faulty survey, a beacon was put on the wrong side of the railway, with the result that a small piece of ground was incorrectly given to the adjacent owner. Now Capt. Wilson insists on receiving an equivalent piece of ground.

I must apologize to the Minister and to the committee for not having heard what the Minister said owing to the noise in the House. However, from what I have been able to hear of the Minister's remarks, I have nothing further to say.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendations (14) and (15),

How much is the country sacrificing over this?

In the case of the Lombards Kop Settlement, the country is sacrificing £4,413, and in the case of the Brakfontein Settlement, the loss is £6,604. The ground of the Lombards Kop Settlement was bought in 1914, and when the Land Board revalued it in 1925 and reduced the valuation, I did not agree to the reduction. However, we have made further investigations, and it is an absolute fact that the land is of a very poor quality. It is impossible for the settlers to make a living, and if we do not reduce the purchase price, they will leave.

The settlement was inspected during the last recess by the Natal Land Board, and I accompanied the members. There is no doubt that the land is not sufficiently productive to enable the settlers to pay their instalments and make a living, with the result that they have been getting deeper and deeper into debt every year. It is not agricultural ground, there being no depth of soil, and it is not suitable for closer settlement purposes, although fairly good for pastoral purposes. The reduction is quite justified, and was supported, in addition to the Land Board, by the Inspector of Settlements for that area.

Recommendations put and agreed to.

On recommendation (20),

I move—

(20) The withdrawal from the list of demarcated forest areas of approximately 172½ morgen, being Lot No. 6, Newcastle, a portion of the Waterloo Bay Forest Reserve, Division of Peddie, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, and the subsequent sale there of at a purchase price of £3 5s. per morgen to John George Whitfield, subject to such conditions as the Government may approve. (Case No. 58.)

I move—

Mr. Whitfield made application to the Lands Department in 1927 for the grant of the land on the ground of prescription. The department was not prepared to admit that, and Mr. Whitfield was advised to petition Parliament. The petitioner's father settled on the land about 1850; he cultivated and fenced the ground, and treated it generally as his own property. He continued to occupy it without interruption for 50 years. In 1909 the department took possession of the land and charged him a certain sum for its use. This was paid to avoid trouble, and he continued to pay to the department until 1926. It then was taken and given to another party in 1926 not related to the family. The property has been in the hands of the Whitfield family for an unbroken period of 75 years. The petitioner is prepared to pay a reasonable price for it rather than prosecute his claim for prescription. Under the circumstances I beg to move my amendment.

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept that. This is not an isolated case. There have been a few cases in that part of the country in which for years and years people have had prescriptive rights. They have considered certain pieces of land not thoroughly surveyed as belonging to them, and they have put up buildings on them. I think even the £2 that my hon. friend refers to is really an excessive amount to ask under the-circumstances, but it would be really hard on these people to give £3 5s. a morgen. On more than one occasion the House has granted land of this sort in which there was a mistake in the survey, for nothing to the people who have occupied it.

I hope the Minister will allow the price to stand. The ground is worth much more now, and the rent has been paid for many years, even under the previous Minister of Lands. Then the person had a sympathetic Minister and paid the rent; he might have got prescription easily at that time. But now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) comes and wants the prescription to be conceded The matter was dealt with in committee containing members opposite as well, but now they come and want to grant prescription.

The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Maj. Ballantine). We find, as the right hon. gentleman has just told us, many such cases in that part of the country. Here the son of old Whitfield, who occupied the land since 1850, when the land was taken by the forestry department, not knowing the circumstances, paid the rent rather than have trouble. If he had not done so he could have come to us to-day and we would have had to give him the land for nothing, because he was entitled to prescription. It is through a mistake—or because he was afraid. Others refused, and we had to give them the land. We had to put down £3 5s. because the magistrate says the land was worth that. I must say I think we ought to take £2 instead of £3 5s. That would be a reasonable price, taking all the circumstances into consideration. If this had been an isolated case we might refuse, but there are many cases where we have met these people very liberally. I accept the amendment.

It is most interesting to hear the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) discussing a matter like this. Although a member of the Crown Lands Committee, he was not present on the day when this particular detail was discussed, and he always, on principle, opposes anything of this nature, ignoring the rights of the case. This man Whitfield had the right by prescription. I hope the Minister will agree to the reduction.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

On recommendation (22),

Can the Minister give us some explanation of the withdrawal of this 20 morgen from the forest reserve at Bellville?

It is for the railways.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (30,)

The Minister proposes to reserve 20 morgen of land at Great Brak River for a seaside resort. Who is going to get the benefit of this?

It was a camping out place. The general public camp out there.

Are you charging them anything?

It is under the divisional council. I do not know that they charge them anything.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (35),

What are the terms? There are no particulars given here.

He pays us £2 a month. He had a lease there for five years, which has expired. That was granted to him by a previous Parliament. Instead of making it five years again, I have made it from year to year.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (41,

Has my hon. friend satisfied himself that there are no diamonds on Cannon Island?

I do not think there are any, but if there are it is merely a lease, and all minerals are reserved to the State. It is only a lease from year to year.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported, considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I move—

Agreed to.

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

House in committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment, and read a third time.

Committee Of Supply.

Fourth Order read: House to resume in Committee of Supply.

House in committee:

[Progress reported yesterday, on Vote 24.]

When progress was reported, I was busy answering certain questions put to me. I will answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) a little later on, as I see he is busy now. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) asked me as to how the moneys derived from the local taxes were being spent, and whether that could not be given publicity to. As he knows, the Auditor-General publishes that, and it is published this year again in his report. Of course, one could publish it in the " Gazette " also, but I am afraid that would give no more publicity to the spending of these moneys than we have now through the medium of the Auditor-General's report. I do not quite see what else we can do. Then the hon. member raised a question as to a declaration by the Administrator of the Cape with respect to the chief inspector of native education, namely, that this post will in certain eventualities not again be filled. My attention has been drawn to a statement by the Administrator of the Cape to that effect. I can hardly believe that that is correct, because, in the first place, I think this is an exceedingly necessary officer, and, if I mistake not, he is an officer whose salary is being paid by the Native Affairs Department. At any rate, I have given instructions that more inquiries be made about this matter, and I can only say here this afternoon that, to my mind, it is very essential that the services, if not of this particular officer, at any rate connected with the post, should be retained. Then the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked what the expenses under sub-head (f) really mean. These are small contributions to the agricultural shows in various places. There is amongst others Queenstown gets a contribution, and we have this small amount of £200 for this purpose. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asked why the departmental report is not out. I may point out that it never has been the custom to publish a yearly report as far as the Native Affairs Department is concerned. It is a report that is published every three to five years, as a rule. The last report was published, I think, in 1924. This is simply because there is nothing new to state. I have consulted the department, and they do not consider it really justifies the expense of publication annually. Then my hon. friend asked again whether we should not have an economic survey of the Herschel district. Let me assure him that we have in the department economic surveys, I think two or three, giving us absolutely everything that is required. I know some time ago a private individual was asked to make an economic survey—Professor McMillan. That was sent in to us, but the department really is in possession of reports as good and as full, if not fuller. I was asked to have that report printed, but I really did not feel justified— that is the report by Professor McMillan—because I have a departmental report which is a superior report for correctness and for fullness of facts.

Why don't you start off with the Transkeian territory?

The hon. member must not forget that we are constantly receiving reports from our officers at all these places, and we have them, of course, in the department, but if he will look at the increase of printing he will see that one of the great things we have to cope with yearly is to check the tremendous expenditure upon prints which, after all, do not justify the expenditure when you come to consider how many of these reports are really made use of by the public.

What about the report of the Native Affairs Commission? There has not been one out for two years.

I do not know just at this moment. Then the hon. member asked what was meant by the ethnologist. Hon. members will remember that two years ago, I think, Mr. Lestrade was appointed as ethnologist. His functions are to study and report upon native customs, native laws, native languages and all these things which will be very necessary, in fact, which are already felt to be a necessity to have as a source of information. We are not likely to have a report from him before he has thoroughly gone into this study, and that will take him a few years. I do not think we ought to ask him for anything immature, and I think Mr. Lestrade is a person whose capabilities are of a very high standard, and I think when he does come forward with anything it will be well worth publication, but in the meanwhile he is busy studying these various subjects, and of course we should not hurry him. Then the hon. member asked how it is that we are purchasing farms all over the country instead of buying these farms really en bloc or in the native territories. These farms have all been bought within native territories or such territories as are demarcated for native purposes eventually under the Beaumont Commission report. For instance, in the Ciskei and Herschel there were natives all round, and there were about twelve or fifteen farms held by Europeans within, and we have practically bought all those out and; given those farms to the natives. They have cost us a good deal. About £80,000 or £100,000 we have so far spent. So also the others'. In Zoutpansberg in the Transvaal, there we have bought farms in order to exchange those farms for a real native location. It was a small block apart from other native lands. This is a policy which I think everybody will appreciate and be glad of, namely, in that we are consolidating. In short, all these farms are really either within native territories or within land destined for native territories eventually.

I wish to ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the native council system into Herschel, and if so, when? I would also like to repeat a previous suggestion I made to the Minister that he should visit Herschel. I do not think the Minister has ever been in the district of Herschel yet. It is a very important district, which importance is not to be measured alone by its population, which is something like 40,000, but what is of no less additional importance is its geographical position and situation with regard to Basutoland. The interests of Herschel and Basutoland are common, although Basutoland is not in the Union. Herschel is part in one sense of the larger area of Basutoland, and anything that is done in Basutoland has its vibrations in Herschel, and vice versa. I think it important, especially in view of the legislation which is contemplated with regard to the natives, that the Minister should be personally acquainted with the country. I want to emphasize further what was said by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat,) who referred to the impoverished condition of many of the native inhabitants of his district, and the same lamentable process is taking place in Herschel. In consequence of congestion, overstocking and erosion, the district is becoming less and less capable of sustaining its present population, and sooner or later there must be an outflow of natives. There are other points which I need not now enumerate, but all of which are strong reasons why the Minister should go there and familiarize himself with the conditions.

I would like to ask the Minister what happens to the local taxes of the native areas which have no local council. Take the case of Herschel. I have a letter from a native of that district, in which he says—

Unless the Minister accepts some such suggestion, I think the backward natives would never accept this council. At the present time three native delegates from Herschel are attending the general district council at Umtata to see how the functions of that body are carried on. The native councils will help to solve many of the native problems of this country, and it is the duty of the Government, not only by word of mouth, to encourage these councils, but they should encourage the progressive type of native by some form of development, and they will carry the backward men with them. With regard to proclamation system in the Transkei, about 10 or 12 years ago an undertaking was given in this House that any proclamation vitally affecting the interests of Europeans or natives would be published in draft form—published also in the local papers—before being formally promulgated—but recently, without any information to myself or to my colleague here (Mr. Gilson), I saw that a proclamation had been published in the " Gazette " dealing with the entry of Asiatics into the Transkeian territories. I do think that the undertaking given by the House and the Government should be carried out. Do not let proclamations be sprung upon us at any moment without warning. As we cannot have an opportunity of discussing in this House these laws, we should at least have an opportunity of perusing them before they are put into force. I have nothing against this proclamation against Asiatics; there appears to be nothing unfair about it; but the Native Affairs Department might have approached us and given us the draft form for transmission to our constituents, and also published it in accordance with the undertaking I have referred to, so that they can see what it is. Then I would like to have some information from the Minister about native recruiting from the Transkei. There is a native recruiting corporation associated with the mines, but recently I am advised by certain of my constituents that there is a change projected, and that the Government or officials there are trying to do away with recruiting in the native areas, and of formulating some other scheme. I am glad to see the Minister shake his head. Another matter that the native council has brought up is that it thinks that certain moneys found on deceased natives whose heirs and relatives cannot be traced should be put into the native development fund, which seems a perfectly fair proposition. I hope the Minister will take this proposal into his serious consideration.

I wish again to refer to hat I raised earlier in the session with regard to the development of locations in Natal. In Natal and Zululand we have one quarter of the population of the natives of the Union. I am aware there is £4,400 for a grant to the native trust for welfare, but we are in any case getting in direct taxation over £1,000,000, and by indirect taxation on one item alone £500,000, so we can safely say our natives contribute to the Treasury over £3,000,000 per annum, and surely with a revenue like that they are entitled to what I call common fair play. If a moderate amount of money were judiciously spent on the locations, their productive power would be enormously increased. Some 20 years ago the late Natal Government carried out an irrigation scheme on the Tugela River—which runs through rich limestone land—sufficient for the irrigation of 600 acres. That proved an unqualified success, and no other irrigation scheme of the same size can compare with it. Similar schemes were undertaken on the Mooi River, and they also proved successful, the water being beneficially used by the natives under European supervision. Why not extend this system? The Tugela is one of the largest rivers in South Africa, and it is perennial. All that is required is a concrete dam across the river to raise the level of the water, and the land can be irrigated by gravitation. The natives are entitled to this. As it is they have to buy their grain and carry it on their heads or by animals, as there are no roads in that district. If irrigation be encouraged it will reduce the expenditure on relief. There are many places along the Tugela where irrigation could be undertaken. The natives' annual consumption of maize is estimated at between 50,000 and 60,000 muids. So if they grew their own maize, that quantity would be available for export. I feel that the Government is not doing what it should in the development of the native locations. Money could not be better spent than to enable these people to produce more. I have raised this question year after year. I represent not only Europeans, but thousands of natives, and it is my duty to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. What excuse has the Government for not extending irrigation in the native reserves? I would like to know whether the Minister does take an interest in the natives of Natal.

I hope I shall always take an interest in the natives of Natal. Perhaps the misfortune is that the Minister has not the authority to say that this or that shall be done. Whether my hon. friend would be satisfied if that were so, I do not know. Whatever is done must be done in accordance with the law. The expenditure of public money for native purposes has first to be approved by the Native Affairs Commission, which submit their recommendations to me, and I do not remember having disapproved of any of those recommendations. Natal has received the following amounts from the native development fund: 1926-'27, £18,000; 1927-'28, £35,000; 1928-'29, £44,000. I can assure the hon. member that the Native Affairs Commission really do take the greatest interest in getting done what they think is best for the native. I quite agree with him that it would be an excellent thing if we could assist the natives in irrigation, and so on, but just as with the Europeans, we are always confined within limits by the necessity dictated by our pockets. We cannot do everything in one, two or three years.

You have not started yet.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) suggests that money found on natives who die and who cannot be identified should be paid into the native fund. I sympathize very much with that; whether it could legally be done I am not sure, but I would like to entertain the idea. As to native recruiting in the territories, I think the rumour to which the hon. member refers is probably not correct. As to the native councils, we are trying to push them as much as possible, and to get them adopted everywhere. The commission and I have the greatest faith in these councils, but the hon. member knows how the native's mind works. The native mind is a very suspicious one. Quite naturally they are children to a great extent, especially those natives for whom the councils ought to stand. That brings me to the question raised by my hon. friend the member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton). He wants to know when we shall establish a council in Aliwal. Let me thank him for his invitation to visit Herschel, but I do not think I can assist him in this question by going there, I had the natives from there to see me in Pretoria. Besides that, I have sent the chief of my department to try and persuade them how much to their advantage it would be to accept the council system. There are so many things which to us appear very petty, but to them evidently appear of very great magnitude and importance, that they have been shying all the time. In the meanwhile, there is no doubt that feeling in favour of the council is improving, and when the right time comes, the department will not be slow to move. But there are certain factors at present which if we do not keep in view and immediately force the council on the natives there, might cause more harm than benefit to the council itself. One of the great obstacles, especially in the Ciskei, has been the terrible dread the natives entertain of having titles. They have a terrible dread of them. They do not understand them. If we think back how it took the European at least 1,300 years to get accustomed to this system of registration, we can more or less form an idea as to why the natives are so shy of it. One result is that the native, not knowing what all the implications are, has a bit of ground in his name, he leaves and sells it, he never thinks of having it registered in the other man's name, and the other man does not think of having it registered in his. Eventually the man who had acquired it finds that the court steps in and says, " You are not the owner." The result is they are to-day very much afraid. It was amusing to hear their arguments, in fact, in an interview with me, but I felt from their point of view and their little conception of the implication of titles, which I can understand, that we must give them a little more time and let them see how these things work out in the other provinces, so as to enlighten them and in that way get their consent. The feeling is improving, and I hope it will not be long before we shall be able in Herschel also to introduce the councils.

I see there is a new item of 13 women assistants on his vote. I hope the Prime Minister will explain what that means. I see the Prime Minister has an item of £1,250 on his vote for the relief of distress, instead of an amount of £7,250 of last year. I have heard a great deal of the distress in the Ciskei, and I believe the Prime Minister was seen more than once this session by deputations, and I know representations were made to him about the state of affairs in the Ciskei. I was rather astonished to find that the position was as reflected by this figure. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to tell us what has been done about the establishment of town locations under the Urban Areas Act passed in 1923. Time has been given to the municipalities to get their house in order, and lay out locations and clear the natives from the towns into the new' locations, and I am sure the committee and the country are deeply interested to hear what progress has been made in the carrying out of that Act. As we know, there is a great influx of natives to the towns, and I am told the municipalities find it most difficult to cope with the situation. We should like to know whether the Government is satisfied that what is being done by the local authorities is sufficient to carry out the policy laid down in the Act of 1923.

I came to the conclusion years ago that the Minister for Native Affairs ought to be in more intimate touch with our millions of native people than he can possibly be at present. I know arguments are advanced, and a great deal is to be said in support of these arguments, that the Ministry of Native Affairs is so very important that it must be annexed to the office of Prime Minister. But look at the difficulties. The Prime Minister is a burdened and harassed man. He cannot call himself his own master.

Especially yesterday.

His days and nights are fully occupied with the affairs of the office of Prime Minister. If we reach that state of advancement when native affairs will be in the custody of a Minister, responsible for native affairs and nothing else, that will be most beneficial. Last year the Prime Minister made a meteoric tour through parts of the Transkei, and I venture to say that he acquired enough information at first hand to bewilder him rather than to help him. It is also true we have a Native Affairs Commission doing excellent work, and that we have most excellent magistrates and native commissioners in most parts of the Union. I cannot speak with sufficient praise from personal knowledge of what these men are doing, but what the natives look for is the patriarchal hand—the patriarchal system, and I hope the time is soon coming when we shall have a Ministry of Native Affairs detached from other duties.

I should like to ask the attention of the Minister of Native Affairs to a matter of very grave importance relating to the disquieting number of cases in which natives have been killed by gun-shot wounds in the last few years. I asked for a return to be tabled and I just want for a moment to invite the Minister's consideration of this return. It shows that since the present Government has been in office—I do not mean to attach any responsibility to the Government, it would be the same whatever Government happened to be in office—the deaths of these men are not in any way due to the unwisdom of the Government or actual negligence, but simply to the looseness, the light way in which native life is coming to be regarded in this country—84 cases happened during that period. There are probably over 100 by now, and of those cases, five occurred in the Cape western police area, and those five were caused by Europeans firing on natives. Two of these were due to shots fired by policemen. In the eastern districts of the Cape there were 12 deaths, six caused by Europeans, two by police. In Kimberley there were five deaths, five caused by Europeans, two by police. In Natal there were 16 deaths, 12 of which were caused by Europeans. On the Witwatersrand there were seven deaths, six of which were caused by Europeans, two by police, and one by a European warder. In the Orange Free State there were 15 deaths, 14 caused by Europeans, six by police. In the Transvaal there were 24 deaths, 24 caused by Europeans and two by police. The alarming part from the point of view of the Minister and from the point of view of every one of us, I think, must be the small number of convictions that have taken place. In the Cape Western districts, where there were five deaths, only one was tried, and there was no conviction. In the Cape Eastern districts where there were 12 deaths, only one was tried and there was no conviction. I admit that quite a proportion of the deaths were accidental. I am merely giving these figures to show that even where the deaths were not accidental, the prosecutions were small in number. In Kimberley there were two prosecutions and no conviction, in Natal three prosecutions and no conviction, in the Witwatersrand no prosecutions, in the Orange Free State two prosecutions and no conviction, and in the Transvaal two prosecutions and no conviction. I asked for a return also of the number of Europeans charged with causing the death of natives by shooting or other means, and this return is of a very disquieting character. In the Cape Western district one case occurred, found not guilty by jury. In the Cape Eastern district one case occurred, found not guilty by jury. In Kimberley two cases occurred, found not guilty and acquitted. On the Witwatersrand there was a long series of cases showing how these people were in every case acquitted. I am not assigning any blame to anybody; I am merely stating facts, because I believe the Minister will be as much concerned about this as I am. I may mention very briefly the type of cases. Accused overturned a skip into the headgear and killed a native. He was charged with culpable homicide and found not guilty. In another case, accused was charged with pushing a compressed airpipe into a native and rupturing his intestines. In a further case, the charge was of striking a native on the head with a hammer. In another, the charge was of striking a native on the head with a piece of iron. In all these cases, the accused was found not guilty. There was also a case in which the European accused was charged, together with three natives, with the murder of a native. The accused was discharged. It seems to me that this almost wholesale acquittal in cases of this sort ought to suggest to us that the native is getting a kind of justice that is only second-best, and we should consider the fairness of trying Some different method of trial than the ordinary trial by jury in cases of this kind, because to my mind a judge would be much more likely to do substantial justice in cases of this kind than a jury, which is liable to be influenced by sympathetic considerations towards the accused, and is not a fair body for the finding of a verdict in cases such as I have mentioned. I mention this matter merely to indicate that the present administration of justice in cases of this sort leaves a great deal to be desired. I am glad to hear that the Prime Minister is to visit our part of the country during the recess, and I say that one of the simplest and yet one of the best lessons was given on the part of a native chief that it is advisable to go amongst the natives, to get to know them and to be known by them. He put it in a different way. He said " you must crack a joke amongst them." I know the Prime Minister will be ready even to do that and make them feel that he is interested in them and prepared to listen to what they have to say. [Time limit.]

The point raised by the hon. member was raised during the discussions on the Criminal Procedure Act of 1917, and experience has shown, as was pointed out at that time, that the option of trial without jury, as there provided, might very well have been extended in all cases both to the prosecution as well as the accused, where a native was charged with an offence against a white man or a white man was charged with an offence against a native. Where a native is charged with an offence he is entitled to demand that he shall be tried without a jury. But most of the natives are unaware of this fact, that they can demand a trial without a jury, and I think the Native Affairs Department ought to issue a circular pointing out the right people have under this Act of 1917. We know that under the law they have to give notice that they want to be tried without a jury within three days after the indictment has been served upon them. It is true everybody is presumed to know the law, but my experience is that accused persons, particularly natives, do not know there is such a law. But that does not meet the other point, that is, where a white man is charged with a direct offence against natives. Of course, he would not elect to be tried without a jury. In some cases, there have undoubtedly been direct miscarriages of justice in various parts of the country, but that would necessitate an amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act. I rose for the purpose of asking the Minister a question with regard to the post of secretaryship to native councils. I had a letter from a native correspondent, apparently an educated man, who had applied, and apparently was wanted by the particular native council concerned, for such a post. He was informed that a circular had been issued by the magistrate saying that these posts must be reserved only for Europeans. I do not know if that is so, but if it is, I do say it is a very anomalous thing in native territories, that the post of secretary to a native council should be reserved for Europeans and that natives should be debarred. I do not say natives should be appointed if they are unfit for the job, but to tell natives that only Europeans can be appointed as secretaries of their native councils is, I think, a mistaken policy. I think the secretaryship of a native council should be reserved for the best man who applies, and if an educated native is fit for the position, he should be given the preference. This is distinctly a case where there would be an outlet for educated natives who have so very few opportunities in this country. It is not the right thing. An educated native should have the preference if he is suitable for the position. Debarring him altogether is likely to lead to a tremendous amount of disappointment and ill-feeling, and I would like to know if that is the policy and what is the reason for it.

I am rather surprised to hear this. I must say that I have very strongly supported, and still do support, the position that in native territories the various positions ought to go first and foremost to the natives themselves. Where a native is competent to perform the functions of secretary to a native council, then I certainly would not have the least hesitation in saying he should be appointed to that position. I do not know whether my hon. friend has taken the trouble of ascertaining whether that information is correct.

It is from the man himself.

Well, I will inquire into that. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is concerned, I do not think it is for me to answer that. I am glad he has drawn my attention to it, but he can well understand that this is really a question which the Minister of Justice should look into, and I will draw his attention to it because, as Minister of Native Affairs, it is my duty, if I can be of any assistance in remedying matters of that kind, to do so. The hon. member for East London thinks there must be a Minister for Native Affairs. Let me tell him I fully appreciate that, and I do believe that sooner or later the time will come when this portfolio will have to be entrusted to a particular Minister who really can, let me say, devote more attention to it specifically than I can. I fully admit that, and we know too that under the previous Government for the most part your Prime Minister never took it on. Only there is this point: That your native, to a very large extent, does want to come to the chief man, and I find that most often he is hot satisfied with any answer coming from anyone else. The money they sometimes waste on coming to see me, well, more than once, I have felt sorry for them, but they won't be satisfied unless they come up to Cape Town. That is all I can say, and I feel sure that sooner or later some change will have to be made, that while the Prime Minister retains the position of being the man primarily responsible, there must be another Minister, or my hon. friend suggested, an undersecretary or something of that kind. I do not contemplate that at present, but I feel sure that sooner or later it will have to be done. In my time, probably, it won't. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has asked me two questions to which I wish shortly to reply. First, with regard to the sum of £1,200; as we all know considerable relief will have to be given in those districts along the coast which have been suffering so much through the drought. It is thought rather strange, and I have been questioned by various members, why this should be £1,200 when last year it was £6,000, but it was because it is much better to under-estimate your demand, because you can always know that the Treasury will never refuse more, and practically all that is required is to have a sum to give you the opportunity of increasing. White discussing this with the treasury, it was felt I should put down £1,200 as conducive to economy, because the more you put on the vote, the more you may be sure you will spend. If more is necessary, I shall go to him and see that I get it. I can give my right hon. friend the assurance it certainly is not because I do not contemplate spending every penny that is necessary in those districts. We come to the establishment of town locations under the Urban Areas Act, and my hon. friend asks what progress has been made. I think the progress that has been made is excellent. There is hardly a town of importance which has not applied and instituted this new location system. They made use of the Act. I must say I have been rather pleasantly surprised at the way in which almost every little village has come in and asked for this—villages I would not have thought would do so. Perhaps the disappointment, if any, is with the big centres, especially Durban and Johannesburg. In both cases there are reasons why; there are great difficulties because of their being big centres; they have to cope with large numbers of natives, and with circumstances which make it exceedingly difficult. My right hon. friend will remember that in Johannesburg, for instance, the department has had some three cases in the court already, because it is such a tremendously lucrative thing to have natives in the towns, and let them have rooms at two, three or four times the value. Every step that is taken is questioned by some individual. The result is I have promised that I would come to their assistance by the introduction of a Bill this session. Unfortunately, it was put into my hands about a week ago, and I said it was too late then. Next year I shall come with a Bill in order that they may get their housing order there. The way in which they,; have been obstructed has very largely contributed to their not showing that progress which, otherwise they would have done. In addition, there is the tremendous cost of these new buildings; they would have to put up. They are doing their best, and we should not ask more than is reasonably to be expected.

Why not give them a promise with regard to native beer houses?

If the hon. member asked the Minister of Justice he might have got it.

We did.

What about Durban?

Durban is doing its best, but it is rather a disappointment that they have not yet come where we might fairly have expected them to be at this time.

I am very glad that the Minister has told us that under this vote, relief of distress, we have practically unlimited credit from the treasury. I wonder if the Minister would not consider the possibility of taking something from this fund to be administered in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act for natives? We have been told that the native will not come in under the Act, and that a more liberal scheme of relief of distress would be provided by the councils. I have no intention of querying the good intentions of the Minister or of the councils, but I do not think the latter will give further relief—the Cape council has a deficit, and I think it is the same with Natal. It is very essential, now that we are placing something on our statute book dealing with the relief of European and coloured distress, we should seriously realize our responsibilities in this direction to the natives. The Minister might show that we are making definite provision for them.

What is it exactly you want?

That you should take a definite sum from the treasury credit for this relief of distress. I want you to make the natives feel that they are not being left out.

That would require legislation.

No, I am asking the Minister to take a specific sum from this vote. He says he has practically unlimited credit from the treasury for the relief of distress. I want him to allocate a globular sum from that credit to be used for the benefit of aged and destitute natives on the same lines as old age pensions for Europeans and coloured. Natives are taxpayers equally with other sections of the population; in fact, they are very large taxpayers and certainly have every right to be considered in any old age pension scheme.

The Minister has not replied to the question of women assistants.

These women assistants appear as a new designation, but it is really an old item. It means women clerks in the office of the chief native commissioner in Johannesburg. I have no new posts. I think I am one of the few Ministers who come with a reduction on previous years.

When the Minister entered office four years ago he said: I am reading from " Hansard "—" The native must be taught to make better use of his ground, and not only told, but we should make it part of our duty to see that they make better use of their ground." What has the Minister done in this regard outside of the Transkei, where they pay for it themselves? I am surprised that the Minister can place a burden of £500,000 on the poorest natives of the country in the shape of cotton blankets, and higher duties for secondhand clothing, and yet not place any sum on his estimates to help the natives to develop. When he made that statement four years ago I thought we might see some improvement in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). They have a land and rivers, and everything suitable for irrigation and similar development in their favour, but nothing is being done. We know that Cape Town has spent £300,000 on Langa to try to attract the natives here. Just imagine what development would have taken place if that amount had been spent in the native areas! I ask the Minister to go to Langa and see the scandalous waste of money that has taken place in that location.

Who was responsible for that?

The Minister should be responsible for every thing in connection with native affairs in this country. He is responsible for the Urban Areas Act. To-day £30,000 has been spent on a few roads in that location, built by white man, but paid for by the natives. The natives complain that the Minister of Native Affairs is not sufficiently in touch with them. Although I have always urged that the Prime Minister should be in charge of native affairs, he realizes that it is very difficult for him to attend to his duties as Minister of Native Affairs. I think he is desirous of doing his duty to the natives, but I hope that if other municipalities build locations for natives the Minister will take a little more interest in the matter. At Langa they have buildings infinitely superior to anything the native demands, but they are ventilated in such a manner that I would not put my cattle in them in the depth of winter. The natives say that they cannot live in the Langa location in the cold weather. I wish I could arrange that the people responsible for the erection of the buildings had to sleep in them during a winter's night. If they did a change would be made. The Minister should make it his duty to help the natives, and should keep in closer touch with them. If he does that, we shall carry the natives with us, but, on the other hand, if their affairs are left to the municipalities and other bodies, we shall have trouble, and I think the Minister is desirous of avoiding anything of that kind.

The sum of £4,400 is annually credited to the Natal Native Trust Fund. This payment is made under arrangements that subsisted before Union, as the result of a pledge given at the time responsible Government was given to Natal. The Natal Native Trust is a body in which is vested all native areas in Natal and Zululand. What funds has the trust in hand for the development of native areas? Has there been an accumulation of funds? The money should not be allowed to lie idle, but there should be progressive development by means of irrigation schemes and more intensive cultivation of the land. The Native Development Fund is constituted by moneys taken from taxes paid by the natives. The complaint by natives in Natal is that the money is merely used for financing the dipping of cattle, and it is felt that this is a somewhat unfruitful kind of expenditure. The native hitherto had been called upon to pay for the dipping of his stock, and there was no very great complaint on that score. The natives were led to understand when taxation for development purposes was introduced, that the money would be used generally for promoting their welfare and advancement, but there is disappointment or dissatisfaction that the money is being expended almost entirely on cattle dipping. The Minister of Native Affairs should exercize his veto on the appointment of dipping supervisors by the Agricultural Department. If the native contributes his money towards the cost of dipping, we should supply him with officials who can be relied upon to treat him reasonably and fairly. Recently, however, one of these supervisors was convicted upon something like 27 charges of extorting money from natives, but the Minister of Agriculture refused to take the slightest trouble to restore the money which had been illegally taken from the natives. We cannot, however, escape our responsibilities in that light-hearted manner. If the Minister of Agriculture will not see to it, then the Department of Native Affairs should see that every penny, is restored to the natives, and that they do not suffer robbery as well as ill-treatment by officials whose salaries they pay. Not very long ago a case was reported in the press of a native court messenger at Benoni who misappropriated a considerable sum of money. In that, however, he is not singular, as European court messengers have gone the same way. A considerable sum was involved. Did the department recover the money?

Was that in connection with native affairs?

The offender was a court messenger attached to the native commissoner's court on the Rand. There is a question of trading in urban areas. There is considerable dissatisfaction among the natives that although they are confined to native urban areas the trading rights in those areas are very largely given to Europeans. I hope the Minister will encourage suitable men among the natives who I show capacity for business to take up these occupations as they become available, and will not regard trading in native locations as a perquisite of the European, because I think the European who goes to live in the native locations is out of his element. The hon. member says the native would have difficulty in getting the necessary credit. I understand that, but in Durban the policy has been encouraged of teaching the natives to trade under the protection of the municipality. The native does not trade on a very large scale, he keeps a small stock in a municipal native market, but he is managing to make ends meet, and that has a beneficial effect among the natives themselves. I think the Minister of Native Affairs should go into the question of natives travelling on railways. I know it stands immediately outside his department, but it is a question in which his interest would be very much appreciated by the natives. I was pleased to see the other day, after an absence, very much improved carriages for natives on the Witwatersrand, and I hope it will be possible to provide an improved kind of carriage for natives who are travelling long distances. In regard to catering for native travellers, I think the system that prevails on the Rand should be extensible to other areas, and we should find it possible for refreshment rooms to be run under the control of natives who understand their fellows, and can be got to act reasonably and honestly towards them. I am glad to see that the Minister has on his estimate an item which provides a bonus for Bantu studies. The encouragement of officials to take up those studies is likely to be fruitful of good results. We have too few people in South Africa who can with authority write on any specific native question. There is a great amount of crude opinion about, but very little sound study, although I am glad to see that under Dr. Lorain a considerable advance has been made. Will the Minister tell us to what extent the Native Affairs Department is to benefit as a result of the visit of the representatives of the Carnegie Foundation to South Africa? I know a certain amount of money has been donated by the foundation for various purposes in South Africa, and I am sure we all appreciate the generosity of the Carnegie Foundation. I think a great deal of credit is due to Dr. Loram for having facilitated the visit of Dr. Keppel, a most able and distinguished man, whose interest in South Africa we should all appreciate.

I thank the Prime Minister for the sympathetic way in which he dealt with the point I raised. I have laid my hands on the correspondence in which it is said a new system has been instituted. [Correspondence read.] I will band over this correspondence to him.

I think the Minister should see that facilities are given to the natives to develop trading instincts. We all know the native at present is not a trader. I think generally the native feels he has not got proper facilities for learning a business. I think they should be encouraged in urban areas. I saw a report to the effect that at the Bloemfontein licensing court they had passed the necessary authority for these licences, but the town council deliberately refused to grant them. The Urban Areas Act makes provision for the granting of licences in the native townships. It seems to me extraordinary when this House, a few years ago, recognized the principle that natives should be allowed to trade in these areas that a local board should prevent these natives from doing so. Without urging that any new legislation should be passed, if there is no measure under which we can compel authorities to grant licences I would ask the Minister, seeing he has already intimated that it is his intention next year to bring in some amendments, seriously to consider the position. I am quite convinced it is going to rouse a considerable amount of feeling amongst the natives in these areas. The Minister has not yet replied to one question I raised as to the local tax. If the natives at Herschel are told there is money in hand which they can spend if they form a local council they may form one. I would like to know what is becoming of the taxes that are accumulating in the meantime.

I want to bring a matter to the Minister's notice in connection with the collection of taxes from natives, because it causes considerable trouble to the farmers. When the native pays his taxes he must go to the town to pay them to the magistrate. I do not know the position in the northern province, but in the Eastern Province much difficulty is caused. The native is away from the farm all day to pay his taxes, and then sometimes he is not reached, and has to go again. This trouble is repeated every time the native goes to pay his taxes. I should like to know from the Minister whether the collection of taxes from natives actually comes under the Native Affairs Department, and whether another solution cannot be found by which the farmer will be given less trouble. The taxes could, for instance, be collected by the police, instead of the natives having to go personally to the town to pay his taxes.

May I just answer about the local tax? The local tax is paid out on the works as recommended by the magistrates. The rest, what is not spent, is held by the department. The question of trading has been raised. I must say that my feelings are all on the side of the native, and I say it again, that if there is anywhere where your native ought to be encouraged and given every facility to act for himself and through himself, then it is with respect to his providing for the requirements of his own community, with the result that within the locations, I have always understood, your native is to have the preference, be it for trading or anything else, but, unfortunately, I know there is a great deal of niggardliness as far as your European is concerned in this respect, and I am afraid that the municipalities, the Europeans in the municipalities, are not doing themselves any good by preventing the natives from trading where they can do so. I quite agree with my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that, for the time being, not many natives do so. They will not get the credit, and we know that if there is one thing in which the native lacks, it is his competence as a trader, but where he is competent to do it, and where he is desirous of doing it, he should be given every opportunity of doing so, and have preference over the European within a location. I have already, more than once, discussed this question with the department, and I think that we shall be able to do more than has been evident up to now. I know that, especially in connection with the Bloemfontein municipality, this question has been brought to my attention before. As regards the Carnegie Trust, I am sorry I cannot give any information in regard to that.

I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he was desirous of doing all he possibly could to develop agriculture in the native territories. I see that on the estimates there is a vote for only three agricultural supervisors. The Minister said he would have no difficulty in getting money from the Treasury in connection with the distress that exists in those areas.

Yes, for relief.

There is a tremendous amount of distress existing there. Rains have fallen too late to allow them to grow a mealie crop until next season. I would like to ask the Minister if he would not go into the question of having more than three agricultural supervisors appointed, and whether his department could not enter into conversations with the Agricultural Department and the Irrigation Department to see whether, by utilizing the services of those departments, a little more cannot be done to spur on the development that can take place, I believe, with great advantage, in the native territories. I think if investigations were carried out by the Irrigation Department in the native territories, it would be found in many cases that the supply of food could be enormously supplemented by irrigation of a not expensive character. I believe that if one or two competent people were placed there who gained the confidence and support of the natives, a great deal could be done to improve in the native areas the production of food, which is very important as far as the natives are concerned. I know the Prime Minister is sympathetic, and that so far as meeting the distress which exists is concerned, he has given definite promises which he is carrying out, but I would be pleased if the Minister would see that investigations are carried out and everything possible done by placing people there to assist the natives in the development of their resources.

May I ask the Minister for an answer to my question?

It is unfortunately a matter I have nothing to do with; it comes under the Treasury.

Does not your department make recommendations?

Yes, everywhere where the department thinks it necessary, in connection with natives.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 25, " Mines and Industries ", £379,221.

I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Industries one or two questions. In the first place, what is the position in regard to the diamond mining industry in the Western Transvaal, at Lichtenburg and about there? Last year we had some legislation of a highly contentious nature, and I notice that it has not been found altogether acceptable by the diggers there. Also, what is being done in regard to proclaiming further areas in the Western Transvaal? Perhaps my hon. friend will give us a statement showing what the position is in reference to the diamond industry in the Western Transvaal. Then I want to ask about the Namaqualand diamond fields. Last year, it will be remembered, we went in for a State diamond mining industry, or, at least, we passed a law for State diamond digging in Namaqualand. I see my hon. friend now is being pressed to allow men to come down from the Western Transvaal to Namaqualand to dig for diamonds there. Perhaps he will tell us exactly what the position is in regard to that scheme. Has he made arrangements for starting? Has he got any diamonds down there?

I will just answer questions as they come. I find it very difficult to deal with a long accumulation of questions. As regards the diamond industry in the Western Transvaal, the policy of the Government is this, that we are not going to allow any further additions from the general public to the diggers' community. We have already to-day, in the district of Lichtenburg, which is the hub of the whole position, far too many diggers there, out of all proportion to the reasonable capacity of the diggings. The population of the diggings to-day, natives and Europeans (we have no statistics, but we have a very good idea), is somewhere between 55,000 and 60,000. There are about 36,000 natives, and there must be between 22,000 and 25,000 whites. You have, at admittedly the richest alluvial diggings we have ever had, an enormous population to-day, which is out of all proportion to the reasonable capacity of these diggings, and we are trying to reduce that concentration of population by proclaiming farms in a judicious manner, and by allotting claims and not allowing the rush system. We are contemplating proclaiming a farm called Mamoosa; we are contemplating allotting claims in the Ventersdorp district. We are contemplating allotting claims on the farm Welverdiend. We are allotting claims in the Molopo reserve, which is about 25 miles from the Lichtenburg diggings. We are allotting claims on two or three more farms.

How is it working?

We have to gain experience, but it is working very fairly. The further farms to be proclaimed have been recently announced in the papers. Of course, we do not want to create another Lichtenburg. We are trying to allot farms and to control the population which will arise in consequence of the allotment of claims on any new farms. In other words, we want to keep the population according to the capacity of the farm to be allotted, so that every digger who goes there will have a reasonable chance of making a decent living. In addition to the diggers themselves, you have the traders and hawkers and other people, who simply live on the digging community, and the Government has to bear in mind that factor as well. But the root principle of our policy is that in allotting new ground we are confining ourselves to the diggers' community as to-day constituted. We are not allowing any further addition to the digging community in so far as they are competent to take part in the benefits of allotment. Say we have a total digging community to-day of 30,000 people. That is, diggers. We are not going to allow the addition of a thousand, say, during this year, or a thousand next year to these 30,000, in order to enable them again to take part in allotments of claims.

How can you stop it?

You can under the law. That is why you have the section in the new Act under which the Governor-General may confine the benefits of allotment to certain classes of people. Of course, if we do not do that you will never reduce the problem. The hon. member says these diggers are clamouring for Namaqualand, and I have already explained why the Government will not throw it open to diggers, because you would have the evils of Lichtenburg simply repeated probably three or fourfold in Namaqualand. As regards the State alluvial diggings, I laid on the Table to-day the regulations which appeared in the " Government Gazette " on the 27th April, and we hope to start digging there at the latest by the 1st June.

How many people will you employ?

We have employed now a large number of people on making roads to Alexander Bay, and we are picking the men whom we want employed for digging purposes ultimately from these men who are working on the roads to-day. It is a sort of probation. We are putting them to the test on these roads, and, as I stated in answer to a motion by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), we intend selecting for the ordinary workmen, people we could take from the poor people of Namaqualand, because we require such a limited number that it would be ridiculous to bring people hundreds of miles into Namaqualand to do that work.

I should like to ask the Minister for some information. I am very sorry to hear that the Government is going on with the State diggings in Namaqualand. I do not want to traverse the same ground again. We have had a long debate already, but I believe the Minister is making a mistake. He is making one of the usual mistakes, and we shall be sorry, in the end, for this experiment of a State digging which he is now initiating. It is going to be a precedent which will be followed, and which will have undesirable results. I would like to ask the Minister whether he proposes doing anything for those people with whose rights he interfered so arbitrarily when he closed Namaqualand to prospecting a year ago. Very large numbers of people had taken out licences in the ordinary way, and had prospected. Some had spent much money in connection with prospecting—I am told one person spent over £20,000—but anyhow, a great deal of expense was gone into, and the Minister quite arbitrarily at one stage simply closed that country to prospecting. Whether he was acting rightly, of course I do not know. It is a matter which, I believe, is before the law courts, but he did so. When pressed, later on, to say what his intention was, he would not say anything at all. He said he was going to wait until the new Precious Stones Bill was through. The result is that these prospecting rights were valuable and were traded in. They were offered to outside parties sometimes for large sums of money, and in the end, after all this trouble has been gone to and this expenditure has been incurred, the Minister has simply done nothing at all, and deprived these people of the rights they have had, very unfairly and arbitrarily. He then selected a few people who had made discoveries and gave them rights. I think five of these discoverers' rights were awarded, and then have been amalgamated by a syndicate which the Minister has recognized against his policy, laid down in the Precious Stones Act, of not recognizing syndicates. I do not say he has favoured certain individuals; the public impression is certainly that. While hundreds have had their rights taken away, a small syndicate is allowed, under certain restrictions by the Minister, to work. It is all creating a very bad impression, and I think the Minister ought to consider very seriously whether he should not deal fairly with those people with whose rights he interfered. We all admit that over-production of diamonds ought not to be allowed, and that that ought to be the policy. It would be a disastrous policy to allow the alluvial diggings to go on without let or hindrance; but the Minister has unfairly and arbitrarily applied that policy in a way which hits private people who had no notice whatever of his intentions, and who to-day are the sufferers. The Minister ought to consider whether these people who have a prospecting licence should not be allowed to go on with their prospecting until they have exhausted their licence, for which they have had to pay. I see no reason why they should not exhaust their rights, and why the Minister should not recognize any rights they may have. If there is to be suffering, do not let an individual suffer, but let a general policy be laid down of restricting. The Minister has it entirely in his own hands. The restriction of these rights need not mean over-production of diamonds, but he can limit production as in the case of the syndicate. There is a great feeling of grievance, and I think a justified feeling of grievance, with the way he has dealt with the matter. In the Western Transvaal the Minister has again worked in exactly the same arbitrary way. While he is quite right in limiting the production of diamonds, and keeping control of this production, he has proceeded arbitrarily. Why was that done? It interfered with the rights of a large number of people. The Minister has, in carrying out this laudable policy, closed the country to prospecting, and large numbers, hundreds and thousands of owners of farms who looked upon their rights as valuable, cannot exercise their rights. I cannot see what harm prospecting would have done.

Harm has been done in the past.

The Minister is sufficiently unpopular and has made the Diamond Act sufficiently unpopular, and I do not see why he should have proceeded in this way. There is a right way of proceeding and a wrong way.

Parliament has agreed to it.

It was forced through the House. The Minister said he would apply the Act in such a way as to help the small man, and he was going to dissolve all these syndicates and partnerships and joint claims, and the claims would be held by the small men. I do not know what has been done in carrying out this policy which has been announced and is the law under this Act. I saw a statement made in the press that the Carliss Syndicate, after having been stopped by the Minister, is allowed to go on again. I suppose it is just this syndicate that is working and working as heretofore. All that creates a bad impression. It seems to be favouritism. People do not understand how the law, which should be impartial and have equal regard to the rights of everybody, is applied in a case like this.

You say it is favouritism?

No, I did not say that.

You know well enough you would not be justified.

The Minister has no right to be angry at all. What I say is perfectly fair. When such things happen, people draw their conclusions and make charges—sometimes the wildest charges. [Time limit.]

As usual, the statement of the right hon. member (Gen. Smuts) shows an entire misapprehension of the most elementary facts in regard to the matter—an entire misconception. He says that in Namaqualand I took away prospecting rights. What rights did I take away? Every right that was legally acquired in Namaqualand has been faithfully respected and given effect to. There is not a single mineral law in any province in this country, old or new, that has ever recognized the right only in regard to prospecting. The only right that has been recognized has been a discoverers' right which the law takes notice of.

That is not the practice— you know it.

Will the right hon. member allow me to proceed? The Act of the Cape says distinctly that if a man gets a prospecting licence it is issued not for a particular place, but for the whole of the Cape Province. You could get a prospector's licence, but the licence does not say it is for prospecting in any particular district, but for prospecting in the Cape Province, and in the very same Act there is a section giving the Governor-General the power to close any place at any time. A person, therefore, obtains his prospecting licence on the distinct condition and understanding that although it purports to be a prospecting licence, prospecting may be stopped at any time and at any place indicated by proclamation— it may be a whole district or more than one district, and it may be the whole of the province. Therefore, if a person at the time the proclamation was issued, in February, 1927, regarding Namaqualand had not yet discovered any diamonds, he had acquired no rights. He has no action at law—he has no moral claim even.

Surely he has.

He takes his licence knowing the law; He is in the same position as a person who becomes the lessee of a house, the land lord of which says that he will let it at so much a year but that if he goes to the lessee and says he wants possession on the following day, the tenant must vacate it. A licence is issued under the law.

Which was never exercised.

If that is so, we must agree to differ. The Government took the best advice it could obtain, and that was the legal interpretation of the Act. The right hon. member has referred to the cases pending in the courts. I can only say that in the case of Nolte, that the court decided that the proclamation prohibiting prospecting in Namaqualand was valid, and as regards the cases still pending, I do not suppose that even the right hon. member wishes me to go into them. That is the simple position, and it has been the position in every province ever since mineral laws came into existence. The right hon. member knows better than most members that in the Transvaal hundreds of thousands of pounds have been lost by people on prospecting. A certain man may spend £10,000 at a particular spot looking for a reef; he may take a year or two doing that work. Then somebody else comes along, and within a month, and at the expenditure of a comparatively small sum, finds that reef and has all the benefits of discovery, the other man being out of it. The law recognizes only the discoverer, so it is entirely a misapprehension on the part of the right hon. member, and he has no right to say that the Government acted in an arbitrary manner. The Government has acted in a responsible way after ascertaining all the facts and taking responsible legal opinion. Then he went on to say that we had selected a few people in Namaqualand. How often have I not explained this matter? This question of prospecting was gone into fully when we discussed the new Precious Stones Act. It was discussed and explained ad nauseum, yet the right hon. gentleman now propounds this question as if he had never heard this explanation or any explanation. Surely we must arrive at some finality! I do not resent being asked about it so often, but I merely point out that it is by no means a new question. These questions were put repeatedly on the Rill which has now become law. Let us take the Namaqualand cases. The first is the farm Kleinzee. I cannot help it if the ordinary small man sells his rights for a mess of pottage to the capitalist. Can the Government or anybody else help it? We are very anxious to see the small man take his part and retain his rights, but what does experience show? Directly the small man has a discoverer's rights on a farm on which there are diamonds or gold, he sells it and the big man gets it. The farm belonged to an ordinary small man. He thought fit—and we cannot control him—to sell his farm to Ronaldson and van Praagh of Kimberley, and I think the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) has an interest with these people. I canot help these things. The farm is very rich—it is at the mouth of the Buffels river. The right hon. member knows, or ought to know, that the farm Kleinzee fell entirely outside the legislation of the Cape Province, which was in force until we passed the new Diamond Act, and if these people produced diamonds at the rate of a million a month before we passed the Act, we could not touch them, because they fell entirely outside the old Cape Diamond Act. One of the first sections provided that farms on which the mineral rights are not reserved to the Crown are not affected at all by legislation. That was the legal position. I tried to control Kleinzee, but on taking legal opinion, found that the people who owned it, or wanted to buy it, had taken private advice. They sent me copies of their counsel's opinion, and claimed that they fell entirely outside the law. I took the opinion of the Government law officers, and they had to agree that Kleinzee fell entirely outside the old Cape legislation. Up to now it is the only farm in Namaqualand that falls outside that legislation. Under the new law, owing to the attitude of the right hon. member and his supporters, we are entitled only to limit the production from Kleinzee. The first thing we did under the new Act was to compel these people to reduce their production to £6,000, this being their average monthly production when the new law came into force. I believe it was a coincidence that shortly after the Act came into force, these people at Kleinzee suddenly struck a very rich pothole and whereas their average production had previously been £6,000, they took out diamonds to the value of over £200,000 a month. Under the law, as it stands, what more can we do? First of all, they were entirely beyond the reach of the old Cape law, and none of the members opposite would make the new law far-reaching enough to control them, except the provision in section 115 that we could limit their output, and that we have done.

made an interjection.

The hon. member will remember Clause 2 of the Act about Free State titles. It was shown in the course of the debate that in the Cape Province there are about 98,000 farms. Of those a small minority, I think about four per cent., are farms with mineral rights in the possession of the registered owner, whereas the vast majority of the farms, about 92,000 or 93,000, have mineral rights reserved for the Crown. The legislation in the Cape affected only those farms where the mineral rights had been reserved for the Crown, and Kleinzee, being in Namaqualand, the only farm we know of that belongs to the minority of farms, was unaffected by any diamond law that existed previous to this Act that is now in force. Therefore, if they produce £1,000 or £1,000,000 in a month, we could not touch them in any way. Under the new Act, all we could say to them would be to tell them that their output must be reduced to £6,000 a month as it was in 1927 and previously before the new Act came in. With regard to a supposed showing of preference—I do not know whether that was the implication—but all the discoverers' claims at Alexander Bay and Buchu Bay had been recognized pursuant to the old Cape law, because the discoverers' claims were made under the old Cape law, and unless Parliament went out of its way and passed retrospective legislation, we must act in accord with the facts that existed before the new Act came into operation. Important discoveries were made by Dr. Merensky. I do not believe he was counted one of the big men in the country financially, but assuming that he was, the other discoverers' rights were due under the law to comparatively small people. These people went and sold their rights to the H. Merensky Association, and the members of that association are Sir Abe Bailey, Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, Dr. Merensky and Mr. Becker, a financier from Johannesburg. They form the association. They have obtained cession or transfer from these small people of the various discoverers' rights, at any rate so far as Alexander Bay is concerned. There were, of course, more than these five people who applied for discoverers' rights, but, like anywhere else in the country, when you have a number of applicants, it is the duty of the mining commissioner to go into the merits of these applications and decide which is entitled to claim a genuine discovery, and which not. In the ordinary exercise of that discretion, although there were more than five applicants for discoverers' rights in respect of Alexander Bay, only five rights were recognized. The department, therefore, decided to issue certificates to five people. These people ceded their rights to the association I have just mentioned, and as each right means 20 claims on proclamation, this association has acquired 100 claims in Alexander Bay. We cannot deny their rights or cancel them or diminish them. We have done the next best thing. Not only have we limited them under section 115 of the new Act, but we have got an arrangement with them under which every diamond they win must be deposited with the Government, and we can keep every diamond and they cannot even deduct a penny for working expenses. We can keep those diamonds for the next five or ten years if we like. The diamonds are the property of the Association, but it is entirely in the discretion of the Government to deal with them as we think fit. We can say to the association we are not going to allow you to sell one diamond for the next five years. These diamonds are being accounted for to us and are being deposited under our directions with banks or depositing places prescribed. You have never had a digging community in Namaqualand, and every member of this House and every inhabitant of Namaqualand might be thankful, because if Namaqualand had not been closed by that proclamation, you would have had not 25,000 white people, but tens of thousands of white people streaming to Namaqualand, and a fine state of chaos it would have given rise to. They would have starved by the thousands. Now the same reasons that prompted the Government in closing Namaqualand to prospecting, which fortunately the old Cape legislation gave them the right to do, prompted them in utilizing the powers under the new Act to close the rest of the Union to prospecting. For this simple reason, that we have already a list of farms that have been fully prospected, which are ample for the next 18 months to two years, to proclaim and to allot and to provide for all the diggers that are to-day members of the digging community. That is the simple reason, but there is another reason. On of the great grievances of the diggers under the old legislation of the Transvaal was that prospecting was systematically abused. What is the object of prospecting? It is simply to test the value of a given property, not to make money out of it by winning diamonds, but to test whether there are payable alluvial diamonds on the farm, and, if it is bona fide prospecting, it all means expense, a loss, not a gain. But what did they do in practice before this new Act came into force? They simply employed people not by hundreds, but in some cases by thousands. On one farm we had an instance where there were 2,000 people under the private owner doing so-called prospecting work, and all the time they were digging intensively and winning diamonds as hard as they could, and the result was that when the farm was proclaimed there was not an inch of ground, so to say, left for the ordinary digger, and the worst of it was that, with these 2,000 people on this farm under a private owner, allowing them to prospect, there was not a shred of Government control. So that we were forced afterwards to proclaim. That was, unfortunately, the position under the old law. I will tell hon. members our experience under the new Act. I will give one instance, Holfontein, in the district of Krugersdorp, which luckily is free from a digging community. The new Act was proclaimed on the 16th November. Prospecting was closed on the 16th December, and in that one month, although we had the powers under the Act, which are undoubtedly materially more than under the old law, but, after all, our mining commissioners with their staffs have also their limitations, in that one short month, incredible as it may seem, on this very farm, instead of bona fide prospecting they simply scooped out diamonds. That was the position, and people simply flocked to this farm. The Government had no option but to exercise its undoubted powers under the new Act and stop prospecting under these circumstances. But the right hon. gentleman says, " Why must you have recourse to the limitation of prospecting? Let the people prospect, let them produce, but limit the production or limit the disposal." I have previously dealt with that point also. Is it not much better to allow a man, when you are ultimately going to give him the right to sell a cupful of diamonds, to limit him to the production of a cupful, and would not the position be far more unsatisfactory and give rise to far more grievances if you were to allow him to go and produce a bucket full and you pounce upon him and say he shall only sell a cupful? The right hon. gentleman refers to the poor farmer who wants to make money out of an option he wants to give, but if unlimited right of prospecting is to continue, if the state of the diamond market is to be endangered, as it undoubtedly has been in the past, you presently reach a stage when there will be no difference in the value of a farm on which there are diamonds between its mineral value and its prairie value. Because then you will have given the diamond industry and the diamond market such a shock that the farm will have practically only its prairie value. Then the right hon. member said that we professed to help the small man. So we did, and we are helping him, hut we are not responsible for these people flocking to Lichtenburg in their thousands and tens of thousands. The Government did not invite them there, on the contrary, they were systematically warned and we are warning people every day still. We had to do with an accomplished fact, till the new legislation came into operation. We could not solve that problem in a few days or a few months. We are busy solving it and I have no doubt we will materially solve it, and one of the means is by not allowing any people who have never been diggers to become diggers. You have already in conscience' name sufficient diggers. You must limit the benefits of proclamation and allotment of farms to people who are diggers, and attempt to gradually get them away from the diggings and deal with the matter in that way. Then, in regard to what he says about the Carlis Syndicate, hon. members will remember the tussle we had with Sections (20) and (73) of the new Act. Section (73) said that not only shall a corporate body not hold a claim, but no natural person shall hold a claim in trust for a corporate body. The position with regard to Carlis—it is not the Carlis Syndicate—he wants to create an impression that it is a corporate body or syndicate, but it is nothing of the kind—is that when the Act came into operation we gave notice in January or towards the end of December to all corporate bodies that they were to cease working and they have ceased working. Not a single one of them has resumed work. That is a benefit surely to the small man. We are now taking steps to proclaim the remaining portion of Welverdiend, one of those rich farms, and render the claims available to diggers by allotment. We proclaimed at the end of December the rest of that rich farm, Grasfontein, and rendered it available to diggers. Corporate bodies could not take part in the benefits of that proclamation. Diggers have already benefited by the administration and application of the new Act. Now, in regard to the Carlis Syndicate, no such body exists. What happened was this. In view of the specific provision of Section (73) of the Act, that no natural person may hold claims in trust for a corporate body, we being under the impression, and we had good reason to think so, that Carlis was merely a trustee for a corporate body, we notified him that certain discoverers' claims standing in his name were virtually the property of a corporate body, and that, therefore, he should stop working them at once. He stopped working. We similarly gave notice to Carlis and Donaldson that certain owners' claims registered in their name were the property apparently and evidently of a partnership, which is also prevented from holding claims under Section 73 of the Act. We said, "You must stop the work," and they stopped. Afterwards I got letters from their lawyers. Carlis said, " I am a natural person, and do not hold these claims in trust; from the very start they have been in my name; I am willing to lay before you my books and documents, and you can send anybody to investigate "; and Donaldson took up the same attitude. They said they were not a partnership, but held these claims as joint holders. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is very much interested apparently. If he and I go and buy a farm in the Stellenbosch district it does not constitute us as a partnership unless we are already a partnership and contemplate partnership in respect of that farm. Section 73 has nothing to do with joint owners or joint holders. They are not forbidden, but regarded as ordinary natural persons.

And if they work the claims together don't they become a de facto partnership?

No. We took legal advice and came to the conclusion it would not be right to strain the law and to mulct the Government in the heavy costs of an action.

May we see that advice?

There are numerous opinions given. These people took their own lawyers' advice; I consulted our Government attorney, and there were persons who investigated the actual facts for me. As a matter of fact, Carlis, in regard to the discoverers' claims, had anticipated the difficulties which could be created, in respect of the corporate body in which he was interested, by the new Act, and on the 7th of November, before the new Act came into force, he entered openly into a deed of sale with that corporate body. Discoverers' claims have always been in the name of a natural person. He laid before me the advice of various prominent counsel in Johannesburg. I went into the matter, and came to the conclusion that it was doubtful that the Government could make out a good case in a court of law, and recognized his title; the same with Donaldson. There is no question of a syndicate or favouritism whatever. In regard to other corporations, they have been notified to stop; and stopped. Donaldson and Carlis stopped, and have resumed only under the arrangement with the Government, which is the same as with the Merensky syndicate in Namaqualand. Every diamond they produce must be deposited and cannot be disposed of, except with our consent. They are not entitled to retain a single diamond to cover working expenses in the meantime. They are to employ white people at a certain fixed minimum wage, and at least 500 white people are to be employed at Welverdiend. As regards the Merensky Association, they are to employ none but white people at Alexander Bay, and Carlis and Donaldson are to employ white people at a minimum wage—and a very good wage it is. That is the simple explanation of the whole thing, and, therefore, I say the right hon. member was not at all justified in suggesting favouritism. The public will impute anything; whenever you have a crowd of people who are disappointed, especially in a matter of speculation, they will impute anything to anybody. Are we to be swayed by that sort of thing?

I should like to bring a few points to the Minister's notice in connection with alluvial diggings in the Western Transvaal and Unemployment among the diggers. We are very grateful to the Minister for having already taken steps in proclaiming further farms, and because the diggers have already got certain ground, and have found some work, but there are still thousands of diggers unemployed. A very large percentage have no ground to work, and the farms which have been thrown open are not sufficient. There is, e.g., the case of the farm Goedgedacht. When the Minister suggested the prospect of opening up Goedgedacht there was, as a result, a general flow of diggers there from the district of Lichtenburg. Unfortunately, the position is now such that the Minister says that there is not enough water, and that the farm, therefore, cannot be proclaimed. For the last few months boring for water has taken place, and they have gone as deep as 300 and 400 feet, without success. I have a letter here from the owner of the adjoining farm, and I want to invite the Minister's attention to what he says, namely—

I want to suggest to the Minister throwing open the farm Goedgedacht, which has been surveyed, inasmuch as there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, and enquiring about the water which is found in the neighbourhood of Goedgedacht. That would put an end to the trouble of the accumulation of diggers that now exists at Goedgedacht. Another point is the survey of farms. The Minister said the other day that he was going to survey certain farms shortly, namely, Vetpan and Hartebeeslaag. What is the position? The Minister holds out that prospect, the farm is surveyed and a lot of time is wasted. That makes the diggers impatient. I suggest to the Minister that not only these farms, but also others, should be surveyed like Holfontein. Then there is another point with reference to the stopping of prospecting. The Minister has stopped prospecting because it is being abused. Instead of prospecting, certain persons have actually mined, and when the farm is thrown open it has been mined out. We agree with the Minister that it was necessary to put a stop to that, we know castes occurred where prospecting had been done to the detriment of the diggers, but under the new Act the present position is quite different. The farms are restricted to five prospectors and 60 workers, and I think that there is no longer any danger in the prospecting of farms. Then there is another matter. The owners to-day feel aggrieved at an injustice done to them by not allowing them to prospect their own lawful property.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

At the adjournment I was speaking about the proclamation of diggings. I had just pointed out that, owing to the restrictions in the new diamond Act on prospecting on farms there is no longer any danger of the farms being worked out under the guise of prospecting, as the Minister fears. The Minister, in his reply to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), said that at present enough farms had been prospected to provide for proclamations for the next eighteen or twenty months. That may be so, but the danger is as to what security he and the Minister have that those farms which have been prospected will be a success. We have seen in the past that many very promising farms have proved failures. In the circumstances, I think the Minister should give an opportunity for prospecting the ground. As I have said, there is no danger under the present Act of the ground being worked out during prospecting operations. Under the new Act it will take a long time before a farm will be properly prospected, therefore, the Minister can now permit the prospecting of ground. That does not say that when the ground has been prospected it must be proclaimed and thrown open, but then we have the certainty that when the ground which is now prospected is worked out there will be ground for working. Then it will not happen again, as is the case to-day, that we shall be at a dead-end, and as the proclaimed farms are worked out others can be thrown open. Then there are a few other matters I want to bring to the Minister's notice. One of them is in connection with the stipulation by the Minister that a person can only take part in the lottery for new claims if he surrenders the old claims. I want to assure the Minister that there are many diggers at Mooi river in my constituency who did not rush for Lichtenburg, but remained where they were and, although their claims do not pay very well, they cannot surrender them before they know that the new claim will pay sufficiently. The new Act says that anyone who has drawn a claim can, up to five days after the day of the lottery, become the owner of six other claims. I hope in the circumstances that the Minister will remove the restriction so that the digger need not give up his old claim before he knows that he has drawn a good one. Then there is another point, namely, the limitation of persons taking part in the lottery. The Minister has now laid down that if a man wants to take part in a lottery he must have been carrying on diggers' work for twelve months before the lottery takes place. The diggers see to-day that there must be a certain amount of limitation of the person taking part in a lottery, and that the flooding of the diggings with people who have never been diggers must be prevented, but they feel that bona fide diggers will be excluded to-day if the limitation is applied in that way. [Time limit.]

I should also like some information from the Minister. I want a little clarity because it seems to me that I am a little stupid to-day, and I should like a little information about Alexander's Bay which is now being called a State digging. Regulations have been drafted, but there is something which I cannot find in the regulations, namely, a reference to the hundred claims of private persons or companies and so on. Regulation 9 says that no one will be permitted on a State digging except certain persons who have permission, namely, the members of the company and their workmen. Now I want to ask whether they will be allowed indiscriminately to walk about the diggings, or whether the discoverers' claims will not be beaconed off so that the access to them is quite separate from the State diggings. I want to know how the Minister is going to restrict the people to their own portion. We want to know what is going to happen, for how can it be that the people who are connected with that company will be able to walk about the State diggings, but no one else in Namaqualand will be able to? If the Minister does not explain this a feeling will arise that he wants to hide something. I do not think so, but the Minister must not give the impression. The Minister has possibly not yet thought it over, and if he consults me, I will advise him to fence it with wire, so that the people's property is separated. The Minister has his officials there, and can make enquiry what the people are doing there, how many diamonds they are finding, etc. Then another matter. The Minister, if I understood him rightly, said he would allow no more diggers. I think he announced in " Die Burger " that he wants to wait till June before he reconsiders the prohibition against prospecting, and sees if it cannot be removed. It seems to me the diggers' votes in the Transvaal count for a great deal, but that the votes of the diggers in Namaqualand are worthless. If the Minister says that he is going to permit no more diggers I want to ask him whether, if prospecting is done in June on private property, and it is found that there are diamonds in payable quantities, what the position will be with regard to Namaqualand? Has the Minister already divided the area into circles, and will people be allowed to go from one circle to another to dig, or what is the position? Will the Namaqualand people then be the only ones allowed to share in the Namaqualand diamonds? What circle does Namaqualand fall in? Are the Namaqualand people going to share in the percentage basis or not? I think these are matters we should all like to know. The Minister said that ground had been worked out in the past under a pretence of prospecting; then it took place owing to the Government's neglect. There was then no excess of diamonds, but now the alluvial diggings are mining up to £6,000,000. If the Minister is still afraid of such things after the passing of the new Act, then I ask what about Clause 115? If an average amount of £6,000 is fixed for Kleinsee, let it be put at £2,000. The Minister used the simile of the cup and the bucket, but if the demand is a bucket and one only has a cup, who is to supply the difference? The demand of the world will remain the same, but if the alluvial diggings, e.g., are restricted to £2,000,000, where will the rest come from? Will it come from the people who have entered into contracts? If it is so, then the small man will actually be restricted, and not the big capitalists. The Minister must not take up the attitude that Namaqualand will not be prospected, and if it is prospected will never be thrown open. Famine has been present in Namaqualand since 1924, and we are entitled to know what to expect. In Lichtenburg diggers can always find work in the neighbourhood, and pay for such work, but in Namaqualand they can be given no work because no one there is able to pay for the services. Is Namaqualand then always to remain closed? The Government has done a good deal by sending someone to make enquiries, but the report will only be issued after Parliament has adjourned, and I shall then have to hover between Pretoria and Namaqualand. I do not like it, but it is my duty. When we see our people needy and oppressed, we often have to use all our resources. I just want to know from the Minister whether Namaqualand is to be kept as a kind of reserve until Lichtenburg is worked out, and that then the people from there can come to our parts. In that case the Minister and I cannot remain friends. It is a matter of public interest, and the Minister must not take amiss my asking him the question.

I think that I can immediately dispel the mists. It is not necessary for me to take time to think, because things are already clear to me. As for the remarks of the hon. member for Losburg (Mr. Brits) about the farm Goedgedacht, I want to say that it is a typical case. In the first place people shout for a thing, and when they get it they reproach the Government because it turns out badly. The diggers came to me and insisted and pressed me to get the remaining extent of Grasfontein proclaimed. I told them beforehand that they must know that, owing to the sub-division and the cutting out, it was worked out to a very great extent. However, they wanted it, and it was proclaimed. It had hardly been proclaimed when the Government was reproached for giving them an empty shell and for misleading them. That is the daily occurrence with all the farms. People come and insist on our proclaiming, and when we do so, they say the farms are worth nothing. At Goedgedacht there were difficulties about water. If we had proclaimed it, we should have been reproached for the absence of water and for raising hopes that were not fulfilled. The divisions among the diggers are so great that it is really impossible to argue with such people. The Government must, however, go to work on the information it has—and the information is very voluminous in regard to the whole position. Every member comes, and every digger, and every farmer, and every owner come with their own particular matters and concerns, and want the Government to proclaim their own particular farms, apart from its influence on the general interests. They do not worry themselves about the effects, so long as they attain their own special personal object. My hon. friend will admit that the Government must take account of the whole position in general, and the position at Goedgedacht, unfortunately, is such that, if it is proclaimed there is a possibility of our getting a population of 25,000 or 30,000 people there. That will, of course, not be a new population, because we restrict the benefits to existing diggers. We must remember that a large part of the population of Lichtenburg and other places will go to the farm Goedgedacht. The hon. member will have to concede that the Government, before we allow the people there, must be certain that there are reasonable sanitary and public health arrangements, and that, in the first place, there is water for the people. We are not sure that there is sufficient water there. I learn there is water on the next farm, but I want to point out to the hon. member that, by virtue of Sections 92 and 93 of the Act, we have control over the water on proclaimed farms, but not of the water on adjoining farms. The matter is under consideration, and I hope we shall be able to proclaim, but I cannot guarantee the date. Accordingly we are taking steps to have some other farms surveyed, so that we can supply the needs of the diggers from time to time, and so that we may have sufficient surveyed claims which we can gradually give out by way of lottery. Then the hon. member insisted that I should survey Holfontein, but he must appreciate that the discretion as to what shall be taken from time to time must pre-eminently rest with the Government. If my friends come and say that this or the other farm must be taken, it will be best for them to take over the Government and my portfolio. I get a number of letters from all parts with the request: " Proclaim my farm. If the hon. member has a business, and there is a vacancy for which 100 applications come in, he surely cannot give the post to those 100 people.

I only asked that enough farms should be surveyed.

I do not object to the member asking the question, but I only want to explain something that is very clear to me. The Government is having farms surveyed with a view to the future. I mentioned a few tonight, and we shall have further farms surveyed. We are taking action, but the people must leave it to the discretion of the Government, who are advised by experienced people, and who consider everything. The reason why Holfontein was not surveyed has already been given. It is in a district where there is no diggers' community, and I appeal to any member of the House to say if it is not a sound and sensible policy to limit the proclamation of farms, seeing there are so many farms that can be proclaimed, to the districts where diggers' communities already exist. Why should we take a district that has never yet had a diggers' community, and proclaim farms there? Then the hon. member referred to the recent official communique in the press, namely, that the Government, after they have the statistics of the yield of the alluvial diggings up to and including the month of June, will consider the position in connection with the prohibition of prospecting. Hon. members know that the prohibition to prospect expires in any case on the 16th December. It was only imposed for twelve months, but so far we have only information about two months since the enforcement of the prohibition. Officially we only have the figures for January and February, and not even for March yet. If the Government had good reasons for imposing the prohibition in December, we surely ought to have a fair chance of judging what the yield is for, say, six months during the prohibition, so as to be able to compare it with the past, and to see how the new Act and the prohibition proclamation influences the whole position. What we intend is to consider the whole position when we have the figures up to the 30th June. I make no promise, and that is also my reply to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert). He wants to know what we are going to do in July or August. As I told him when the Bill, which is now the new Act, was before the House, I cannot say so far beforehand what the administrative policy of the Government will be. Then the hon. member for Losberg says that I said that there was probably a sufficient supply of prospected farms for eighteen to twenty months. That is correct, but he asks what proof have I that when the farms are drawn for they will be paying. They have, of course, already been prospected, and that has proved their payability. Nothing on earth can be guaranteed; and, even if the whole world were thrown open, it would still not be a guarantee about the particular place. The value of a place can only be properly proved when it has been mined out, but, as far as it is scientifically possible, and according to our experience, they are tested farms. Now the hon. member says that, on account of the powers in the new Act, there is no danger, in the case of the prospecting prohibition being withdrawn, of the farms being worked out under the pretence of prospecting. It is strikingly curious that it is the very hon. member who, after the new Act came into force, told me that Holfontein to a great extent had practically been worked out in the short time between the 16th November and the 16th December. I do not blame the hon. member for that. I appreciate his frankness; he told me what happened there, and it does him great credit, but I only want to point out what difficulties the Government has to contend with, and I want to point out to him that, if the right gravel exists on an alluvial diggings, even under the existing law restricting the number of persons, it is possible in a comparatively short time to take out quite a lot of diamonds with 60 people, and we know how in the past the position was systematically abused. The number of people is restricted under the new Act to 60, namely, the owner who can prospect, and five persons who must be licensed, and they may each employ ten persons to assist in the prospecting. Now I come to the regulations. I am glad that in any case I can tell the hon. member something pleasant. We have drafted regulations with regard to the control of the diggings. The hon. member will remember that the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) told us in this House that there were thousands of people on the diggings who had had no income. To assist them—not the people who already have claims and who have a claim to work—we provided in the regulations in connection with lotteries of claims that only persons who had no claims, and who had been working as diggers for a certain time, could take part in the lottery. That was to meet the most necessitous people, of whom, according to the hon. member for Delarey, there were thousands. But hardly were the regulations issued and applied before the cat came out of the bag, and it looked as if there were comparatively few people at Lichtenburg who had not claims, and then they all insisted that those who already had claims should also have a chance of taking part in the lottery. The Government specially drafted the regulations to assist people who were stated to be in misery, and suffering from hunger, and not those who had already been assisted. We know of people like van Wyk who struck a hole out of which he took diamonds to the value of £1,000 and more every month. If a man who already has a claim can also participate in a lottery, then a man like van Wyk— and there are more such cases—who has already become wealthy, can also take part. Whether they are put up to it or not, I do not know, but it is a fact that immediately after the publication of the regulations they urged the Government to alter them, so that persons having claims could also take part in the lottery. It was not a matter of life and death to the Government, and as the diggers in general wished it we said that they could take part, whether they had claims or not, and that we would see what the effect was. I am convinced that no measures can be taken by way of regulations which will ever satisfy the people. They are too hopelessly divided amongst themselves. Then as to the three months during which they must have been working as diggers. We started from the view that we should restrict the benefit from the lotteries to people who were already diggers, and that we ought not to permit any further rush of the public to become a part of the diggers' population. Our object was to prevent the diggers' community being increased from the public, and accordingly we said that anyone wishing to participate in a lottery must have been a digger himself, and have been digging within a certain period, namely, three months in the preceding year. Suppose we are at the end of 1927, and the regulations came into force on the 1st January, 1928, then a man who has been digging in January, February and November, e.g., will comply with the requirement that he must have been digging for three months in the year. It seems to me a reasonable provision. In that connection there is a grievance. There are no doubt people who have suffered through the drought, and who from time to time have been driven to the diggings by the droughts. It may happen that a man who was on a diggings two years subsequently went to farm again or to carry on some other business, and after two years was again driven to the diggings. Possibly two years ago he was digging for six months, but never again after that. Now we are asked to give the man a chance, although he has not been digging within the twelve months. Suppose now that the notice was issued that a farm would be proclaimed on the 31st May, and that the lottery would take place on the 7th June. If the three months stipulation lapses, then anyone between the 31st May and the 17th June may dig for two days, e.g., and will then immediately fulfil the requirements of digging within twelve months, and we shall therefore have to include him. Then, however, we shall practically have to include the whole of the public, because hundreds and thousands of people will simply go up a few days before the lottery, and so fulfil the requirements. It is very difficult for the Government to draw a line between a certain class of farmer who has been tried by the drought, and the general public. There are thousands of people in towns and villages who have had a bad time and suffer hunger, and we shall have to include them. The basic principle the Government adopted is sound, viz., to restrict the benefits to the diggers' community, and not to allow any other persons to come in. In any case the Government will, as far as possible, do what is fair and just. Now the hon. member for Namaqualand referred to regulation No. 9 of the State diggings that nobody shall walk over an alluvial diggings, that no women or children shall be allowed to live on or come to such diggings, except on the authority of the permit issued by the committee of control. The first error of the hon. gentleman is that he considers that the hundred claims do not constitute a part of the State diggings. If he reads section 75 of the Act, he will see that they not only belong to the State diggings, but that the rights are acknowledged as well, because the section says that the ground is proclaimed as a State diggings. The hundred claims are therefore part of the alluvial State diggings. I want to point out that they have vested rights, under the old laws of the Cape Province, and we cannot exclude them under the regulations. If a man has a right to a claim, and to work it, the right follows undoubtedly that the Government must give him reasonable access to the claim for himself and his workers. If, however, the Merensky syndicate wants to-morrow to put twenty people who are not connected with the diggings on the State diggings, or even on their 100 claims, we shall not allow it. Suppose they want to erect a sanatorium, not for the diggers, but for other people, then we say under section 9 that we will not allow the people there. Hence the regulation. The hon. member for Namaqualand also enquired about the yield of diamonds, and what the difference was between a cup and a bucket. I take it he is referring to the demand which has already been made on us by the diggers' union of Lichtenburg to alter the basis and to allow the alluvial diggings 50 per cent, of the yield of diamonds in the Union. I have already dealt with that on the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). If we were to ask the farming population around Kimberley, or the Premier mine or Jagersfontein, or the people employed at Jagersfontein, whether they wanted the mining companies to be curtailed, I know exactly what their answer would be. Many of our farmers are dependent on places like Kimberley, Jagersfontein and the Premier mine, and are we to-day to materially curtail the rights which have existed and been exercised for almost a lifetime? We cannot ruin those places. We have imposed no limitations. The position practically is that absolutely no restriction has been put on the alluvial diggings, but on the large mines that I have mentioned, the chief producers in the Union. They are limited by contract, and by virtue of the Diamond Control Act of 1925. They may not produce more than a certain quantity, while the alluvial diggings are absolutely unrestricted. The Government has never yet applied a limit to them, but perhaps the hon. member thought that there was such a limit. We want to avoid it, and prefer to regulate the matter by proper, wise administration of the Act than to force the people, and to say that we would only allow them £3,000,000 or £3,500,000, or what not. Only three bodies are limited, the mines mentioned, the Merensky syndicate and Carlis. The Government felt that we need not worry about the small man who would not over-produce, but the hon. member must know that if we throw open the whole country and allow unlimited prospecting, there will then be enormous pressure from the general public to have a share in the diggings, and where will the diggers be then? Does the hon. member know that, for the three months January, February and March, more than 2,000 diggers' certificates were applied for to the magistrate of Lichtenburg alone, and if we were to throw open everything to-morrow there would be tens of thousands of applications. I would strongly advise hon. members to allow us to see what the effect will be of the prospecting prohibition up to the 30th June, when the Government will carefully and earnestly review the position.

I would like the hon. the Minister to think for a minute about the coal industry. He is Minister, of Mines, and the coal industry is a very important one. I would like him to consider what the position at the present time of the coal industry is. There is no doubt at all that the coal industry is in a very bad way. We have collieries that in the past have been turning out from 30,000 to 40,000 tons a month going on short time and only producing about a third or one quarter of that quantity. This country's trade in coal falls into three categories. We have first of all the local trade which must come to us, although, owing to the heavy railway rates on coal to South-West Africa, most of the coal consumed there comes from England. Our railway rates are so high, that neither the Transvaal nor the Natal collieries can compete with English coal. Then we have the export trade, and the coal companies in South Africa have been selling coal for export at less than cost in order to keep their collieries running. The export trade depends very largely upon the steamers available for taking cargoes of coal to various parts of the world, and that is a matter which is beyond the control of the Government. With regard to another important branch of the coal trade—coal for bunkers—there I think the Government is very much to blame for the position it has taken up. I am raising the point now in the hope of inducing the Minister to use his undoubtedly great influence with the railway department in connection with their rates. Prior to the war the average price of coal charged by the collieries was 9s. a ton, and the railage charged from the Natal coalfields to the Point at Durban was 6s. 8d., so that coal could be sold for 15s. 8d. for bunkers for steamers. The Minister may be surprised to hear that the railage charged by the railway administration has jumped from 6s. 8d. to 14s. 6d. a ton. It was about 15s. 6d. a short time ago, but the railage has been reduced by 1s. Now we have the astonishing fact that while this coal trade is falling off, the railway administration persists in charging an additional 7s. 10d. I admit this charge has not been imposed by the Minister, but this is an industry which is of the utmost importance to the country, and one which fails within the purview of the Minister, and I hope that he will use his influence, as I said before, and press for a reduction of this very serious increase on coal rates. It is true that, owing to the increased cost of production, the colliery companies have put up their prices for bunker coal. As I said before, the coal for export is being sold for less than it costs to produce, the companies depending upon the price they get for bunker coal to try and balance profit with loss and pay working expenses. Very few of them are paying any dividends, I may say, because they are in a bad way, but at the present time coal is sold in Durban at less than 25s. 6d., as compared with about 15s. 8d. prior to the war, and, as I have said, the railway administration gets 7s. 10d. per ton more than they got prior to the war, while the colliery companies for this class of coal, bunker coal, only get 2s. a ton more. I have been informed by one of the principal men connected with shipping in this country that if we could supply coal at Durban and at Cape Town at the prices that obtained prior to the war, we should have practically the whole of the Australian steamers coming round the Cape, instead of going by the Suez Canal. This gentleman, who speaks from knowledge, tells me that if we could supply coal at the prices I have mentioned, we should have, in the course of the year, 4,500 extra steamers calling either at Cape Town or Durban for coal. Each of them would take 1,0 to 1,500 tons, and one can imagine that this would be a great fillip to the coal industry and at the same time we all know that cheap coal means cheaper freights. The shippers of goods to this country and from this country would get cheaper rates, the public would get their goods at a cheaper rate, the farmers would be able to send their produce away at cheaper freights, and altogether the benefits which would be derived by making a reasonable charge for coal would stimulate every branch of industry in this country. While we are charging at 25s. 6d. for bunker coal at Durban and 33s. to 35s. for bunker coal at Cape Town, steamers leaving England can fill up their bunkers at 13s. to 15s., and the result is that they take as much coal as possible in England and as little as possible in South Africa, and if we could bring our rates down to the pre-war rates of about 15s. in Durban and 20s. to 22s. in Cape Town, we could increase our bunker trade four-fold. There is one very curious feature in connection with this business which I find it difficult to understand. If a colliery company in Natal sends coal to Cape Town it is charged railage from the coalfields to Durban at 14s. 6d., but on the same coal to Beira they are charged railage at 6s. to 6s. 6d., according to the distance from the port. Here we are penalizing ourselves. We talk about running the railways on business principles. Can the Minister tell me why, when the Natal collieries are sending coal to Cape Town by sea they should be charged 14s. 6d. for railage to Durban, whereas if they are sending coal to Beira or anywhere up the coast they are charged 6s.?

You must put that to the Minister of Railways.

It does not seem to be business principles. Of course, the reason is that the railways want to haul the coal through the Free State down to Cape Town, and they will not give a reasonable rate on the railage from the coal fields to Durban because they want to compel the companies to send the coal overland. The consequence is that trade is being driven away from Cape Town. Coal that could be sold at Cape Town at about 21s. a ton costs about 32s. or 33s., and there is no doubt that the people in Cape Town, whether they are private individuals or manufacturers using coal, or whether it is the case of ships calling here for coal, are made to pay from 12s. to 13s. a ton more than they ought to pay if reasonable rates were charged. It is a very serious matter, and it is one that is vitally effecting one of the principal industries in the country. There is another anomaly about this matter. If coal is sent from the Transvaal to Cape Town the railage is 18s. 3d. a ton for a distance of from 1,100 to 1,200 miles, but if the same coal is sent a distance of 300 miles from the collieries to Durban it is charged 14s. 6d. There you have a difference of about 3s. 9d. for the 800 or 900 additional miles that the coal is carried to Cape Town. I hope that the Minister will seriously look into this matter.

There are, of course, anomalies in regard to coal rates and so forth. The hon. member has himself recognised that that is a matter for the Minister of Railways. He brought in a motion some time ago on the production of oil from coal and, naturally, all these questions, rates, etc., may be very seriously affected if the Government acts upon the desire of the hon. member and the desire of many members, a desire towards which we are very sympathetic, that we should do everything possible for the production of oil from our coal. We are taking steps which, I think, will be very advantageaus towards the attainment of the object that the hon. member had in bringing in that motion and certainly the Government will consider the matter with a view to this. It will be necessary to discuss this question of coal very thoroughly with the Minister of Railways. That will be done. The hon. member must bear in mind that, owing to the English strike the year before last, our export of coal was inflated and, therefore, the drop of last year appears to be very serious, but it is only serious if compared to the inflated export which took place the previous year.

I would like the Minister to give the committee the benefit of the latest information he has from his department with regard to the ravages of miners' phthisis and the steps, if any, he is taking to cope with the disease. The figures I have seen lately, I am glad to say, show that the percentage of disease is on the decrease, due, no doubt, to the improved mining conditions the dread the men have for the disease, and which is now making them more careful, and also to the fact that the men now going down the mines have to pass a very severe medical test, and therefore are men of better physique than formerly. If it is the case that phthisis is diminishing, I would like the Minister to tell us whether the result will be better rates of compensation, because I consider the benefits that are now paid totally inadequate, considering the fate of the sufferers. There is an agitation at present among mine workers as to Whether the lump sum awards given to-day should be abolished and pensions given instead. The lump sum given is supposed to be on the percentage of disability, and it is assumed that men who leave the mines will be able to obtain some other employment, but, in my opinion, when a man leaves the mines through phthisis, he is not fit for any other class of work. By education and training, he is unfitted for any business and the only physical work he can do is that in which he would have to compete with natives, which would be difficult enough for a thoroughly fit European, and thoroughly beyond the capacity of a man weakened by disease.

It seems to me the hon. member is now advocating an alteration in the law. I cannot allow him to do that.

With all deference, I am putting up a few suggestions with the hope that the Minister will be able to give the House the benefit of his information on the subject. I am not suggesting that the law should be altered. At any rate, the point is this: To-day men get lump sums which they very quickly spend.

May I ask the hon. member, do not these men get lump sums under the present law?

That is so. In that case, if I may not pursue that topic, I will content myself with asking the Minister to kindly give the committee any information he may have with regard to the ravages of miners' phthisis, and if he has in view any intention of taking steps to deal with the agitation which he must know is going on for a different basis of awarding compensation.

I am afraid with these poor and unfortunate sufferers, like all large numbers of people who either suffer from occupational diseases, or are in a very precarious condition financially, that you will never satisfy them. The Government feels particularly sympathetic towards phthisis sufferers. The Act of 1925 shows that. Under that Act we increased the benefits over the past benefits to an extent of £800,000.

No benefit to the present people working in the mines.

£800,000 was paid by virtue of the Act of 1925.

For past sufferers.

It does not matter if it was for past sufferers, but that was the sum paid, and the benefits yearly were increased by something like £45,000. That was a consolidating Act. A select committee of this House sat over it for months and that Act improved the condition of these unfortunate people very very materially. With regard to the question as to the ravages of phthisis, this is the position to-day. I think the hon. member is labouring under a misapprehension; the position, has not become worse.

I said it has become better.

Yes, that is quite right. These are the figures I have from Dr. Irvine as chairman of the Miners' Phthisis Bureau. There are three classes of miners, the "New Rand Miners," the " Old Rand Miners ", and " Rand and elsewhere." The miners working up to their sixth year show .01 per cent.; miners working in their seventh and tenth years show .51 per cent. Those are the " New Rand Miners." If you take the " Old Rand Miners," these are before 1916, and the position is naturally somewhat worse. Miners up to their sixth year show 1.03 per cent, and up to their seventh and eighth years 6.92 per cent. Then you have the third class of miners, " Rand and elsewhere," and they show a higher percentage: Miners up to their sixth year show 1.62 per cent., and miners up to their seventh and tenth years 7.11 per cent.

I am very pleased with the clear statement given by the Minister this afternoon, because it has removed much misunderstanding. I have risen to thank the Minister on behalf of the diggers in my constituency for what he has done in proclaiming Molopo a diggings. It will possibly surprise him to be thanked by a member representing the diggers, because the position he occupies is a very thankless one, but I have been specially instructed by the diggers to thank him. It is a fact that the proclamation which stopped prospecting is a grievance with the diggers and a great deal of party political capital is made out of it by stirring up the diggers, especially by the statement that when the ground being proclaimed is worked out the Minister will then have the diggers unconditionally in his hands. I believe that he will greatly assist the diggers by repealing the proclamation, and I agree with the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) that, under the new Act, there is no danger of overproduction, if the present prohibition is repealed, in as much as the richest alluvial ground to-day is situated on Crown land, and the Minister therefore need not proclaim it if he does not think it necessary. I do not agree with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) when he says that a definite area must be reserved for the people on the spot. If the diggings in my constituency were such a restricted strip, then I would ask the Minister to repeal the restriction, so that Namaqualanders, if they wished, could go there as well. Then there is another point to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. It is that at Lichtenburg there are still 2,000 claims belonging to a private company. They call the company the " Treasure Trove Company." It is one of the farms where the claims lapse to the Government, and I should like the Minister to tell me the reason for not yet throwing the claims open to the public. The farm lies close to Grasfontein, where there is great distress, and where there is a large number of diggers who have no ground to work.

The hon. member said that the Minister did not get much thanks, but that he has been instructed to thank me on behalf of the diggers in his district. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said this afternoon that I was making myself unpopular. I fully appreciate that, but that is the necessary consequence of the alluvial diggings, and the steps I have to take in connection with them. If the Angel Gabriel were in my place he would not be able to satisfy all the diggers. Now the diggings mentioned by the hon. member are restricted diggings, in the sense that they are restricted just like all alluvial diggings that are proclaimed. The new Act says that the digger, if he goes down ten foot, may not have more than ten natives in his service, and if he goes ten foot and more, he may not have more than 20 natives in his service. In that sense every diggings is a restricted diggings. A man cannot now go, e.g., from a place like Brakfontein to Molopo and take part in a lottery there, but Lichtenburg people can participate in a lottery at Molopo because they are old diggers. My hon. friend said, I think, that there were only 100 diggers in his district, and the ground which is being thrown open there is 500 morgen, which will allow of many claims. In the circumstances we thought it best to allow people from the storm centre, Lichtenburg, to take part there. As for Namaqualand, I want to say that if some day the State should employ hundreds of thousands of people on the State diggings—I do not say it will happen, and I want to warn people strongly against expecting such a thing, because I think it will never happen—then we should still not be limited to Namaqualand people. It could not reasonaby be expected, and I have never promised anything of the sort. All we say is that at most, 80 Europeans will be required for the State diggings there, and that in as much as there are 1,500 poor people in Namaqualand, it would be absurd and unwise to take 50, 60 or 80 people from Lichtenburg and use them in Namaqualand, where such poverty is at the door. The Government has not yet finally decided what to do with the Treasure Trove claims. Section 75 (6) lays down that the Government must decide how to deal with the claims when such claims lapse. They were warned not to work the claims any further, and they obeyed.

I notice the Minister is asking us to vote £22,000 for the diamondcutting industry. The subsidy, I notice, is £15,000, and there is £3,000, refund of import duty on machinery, tools and so forth, £2,500 steamship and rail fares and £1,500 general expenses. I would ask the Minister if he has any estimate what the Minister of Finance will lose in export duty during the same period, and if so, we shall get some idea what this diamond-cutting industry is going to cost the country. Can the Minister inform the committee what the Government's intention is with regard to the agreement, after having received the report of the select committee which sat on the matter? I should like to know whether the Minister accepts that report entirely, and will follow the advice and suggestions given by the committee, whether he is going to adopt the report in its entirety, or what action he proposes to take.

I think the hon. member must realize that he is a bit previous. The diamond-cutting agreement is on the order paper, and we certainly propose dealing with that order in due course. I expect the hon. member will be in possession of the report on Monday. It is only one typewritten sheet. The other question the hon. member has now put can be raised again. Every phase will be discussed on that report, so I hope he will refrain this evening.

The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has raised the question of greater facilities being given in respect of the export of bunker coal, and the Minister stated it is a matter more for the railways than for his own department. I am concerned with the question, not so much in regard to the export of coal, as with regard to facilities for the people of South Africa to get coal at the most reasonable price. I want to draw the Minister's attention again to the fact—I did so earlier in the session, but it was after the Minister had spoken—that there are continual, and justified, complaints, particularly on the Witwatersrand, as regards the existence of a coal ring there. I am credibly informed that the same applies to the Cape and elsewhere. On the Rand coal sold at the pit's mouth at 5s. or 5s. 6d. a ton, and which costs, delivered, in Johannesburg, 10s. or 10s. 6d. per ton, is being retailed at 24s., so that the coal owners and the consumers are being prejudiced to the extent of something like 125 per cent. It is desirable that consumers should have coal at the lowest possible figure, but the difference in price is scandalous. It comes to this, that a small number of people have formed a ring and have fixed prices. If anyone suggests the Government should fix prices, hon. members hold up their hands in holy horror, but here are private people fixing prices to the detriment of the public. Will the Minister instinct the Board of Trade to inquire into the matter? Then general complaints are being made as to the existence of a butter ring, to the detriment of both farmer and consumer. The price of butter has been raised to such an extent that householders cannot obtain it at a reasonable figure. According to statements, this increase in price has not been through a shortage of butter, but to a certain number of people having either cornered the market or fixed prices in order to fleece the public. Will the Minister take steps to get the Board of Trade to investigate the matter and take action to prevent the fixing of prices? The Government should take steps to fix prices so that both producer and consumer shall be adequately protected.

I am the second member who wants to thank the Minister on behalf of his constituency. What I also want to ask the Minister, seeing there have been people so unfortunate as to draw no claims in the lottery at Kings Ground, Delports Hope, is whether he will have a lottery as soon as possible for the other claims, because the people are waiting for it. I want to thank the Minister for the way he has applied the lottery regulations. If they had been applied as was announced, much trouble would have been caused to the people. They would have to apply on care day, and come back the next to ascertain whether they were getting their claims or not. Moreover they would have some time before to hand in then old claim licences for the new one, but the people have been met by the Minister, and they are very thankful. But I want to ask him to proclaim the ground which has been prospected in the district of Barkly West. If the Minister does se, the difficulties which prevail in Lichtenburg will not arise there. I can understand that if the Minister were to-morrow to throw open a plane in Dichtenburg like, e.g., Goedverwacht, then all the people would rash there, even established diggers on the old diggings, but if the Minister were to proclaim ground in the strip along the upper and the lower portions of the Vital river on the old established diggings Klipdam, Sydney on Vaal and even Baritly West, where the old diggings were established, then we should keep the people there. The people there are living in various well-arranged camps. They have an opportunity of living respectably, and, they will not have to go to places such as Lichtenburg, where there is no proper provision, where some of the people have to live in huts made of sacking. They have schools there, and everything necessary for civilized life; therefore, I ask the Minister to throw open ground in that area where there are established diggings. The conditions there are as good as possible, and if the Minister proclaims the farms Laugs, Delportshoop and Barkly, he will prevent the people going to Lichtenburg. Difficulties such as those on the Lichtenburg diggings will not arise, because there are sanitary arrangements there and facilities for the education of the children, All the trouble in the district is due to the people in the Lichtenburg district not having the facilities that the old diggers' camps have. The agitation starts there, with the result that the diggers are dissatisfied.

One would naturally think that with so many coal owners and producers of coal, there would be genuine and extensive competition, but I would refer the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to the Board of Trade report on the restraint of trade which deals with the question of coal. I will discuss the question of butter with the Board of Trade, but I cannot promise to give the hoard instructions in any particular direction. I understand, however, that the Director of Statistics is of opinion that such a ring does not exist.

*The hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) will agree that the new claim lotteries are an experiment by the Government. We have not had lotteries before and we shall of course observe the effect of the regulations from time to time. It is not yet a case of the laws of the Medes and the Persians, which are unchangable when once they have been proclaimed. The regulations can be altered according to circumstances and have already frequently been altered. One thing we have done in connection with the regulations is to lay down that only Europeans shall have the benefit of, and take part in a lottery within a definite geographical urea, if the people there have all the other qualifications, and the reason is obvious. If we, for instance, were to allow people to come from Boskfontein to participate in a lottery at Deiportshoop, where there would be 120 claims available, and possibly get thousands of people from another district taking part in the lottery of those 120 claims and the 120 local people weald only get a very insignificant part of them. Accordingly, definite geographical areas have been fixed, and the Delportshop people are, e.g., restricted to the local diggings. Bet at the request of the diggers of the Western Transvaal the Government decided to fix the whole of the western Transvaal as a geographical area and it is now treated as such. Then the hon. member asked about those who have not drawn claims in a lottery. Say there are 5,000 people and only 1,000 claims to be drawn. Then there are 2,000 people who have drawn nothing. If in that neighbourhood a further 3,000 claims become available, then the Government will try to give the people who have drawn blank a chance of participating in a lottery of these claims. Such cages have, of course, to be dealt with according to circumstances.

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to his vote under sub-head D 5, trade commissioner, Kenya. It would be very interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister what are the duties of the trade commissioner in Kenya, and not only his duties, but the object and purpose for which he is stationed there. Apparently he has not very onerous duties to perform at the present moment, because I notice he has only two clerical assistants and one messenger. When I see that; I look at the amount against that work, and I see over £3,000. It seems a considerable amount of money for a small staff consisting of four men. Of course the duties he may perform may be important. Is he stationed there for the purpose of improving the trade position, between the Union and Kenya, and if so, what, particular products, are we anticipating sending to Kenya?

Col. Turner is our representative in Kenya, and I must be quite candid, the Board of Trade and Industries reported some time ago that really our office there is not justified. His functions are in practice—I do not say his official functions—not confined to mere trade functions, and the Government has considered the matter, and his come to the conclusion that as Kenya. colony is practically our neighbour in Africa; Or look, upon us as their neighbours, and at we want to foster a good spirit between Kenya and ourselves, it would not be advisable to close out office there. So far as the expenses are concerned, the position is that Col. Turner has appealed to us very cogently for better pay both for himself and his assistants, because they live there in a climate where they should be better paid, and where they should get leave occasionally, and these people have never; enjoyed any leave from us during these past years. From time to time he communiciates with us with regard to things in general. So far from this being excessive, it is very likely the Government may feel itself Constrained to give them better allowances. He is very short-staffed now for the work he does.

Exactly what work is done?

He is, in a place there that practically affects some 15,000,000 natives.

Yes, but we cannot do any trade up there;

I will not say we cannot do any trade at alt up there I practically admit the board has reported, that the office is not justified, but we have discussed that matter, and the Government has decided not to close the office. With a view to future developments it is very likely a wise decision.

As so much has been said about diamonds it will possibly be a nice change and a refreshment to the Minister to revert to gold, precious and base metals. In the first place I should like information in connection with a matter of an administrative and local nature. There are reports circulating that the mining commissioner's office is to be removed from Pilgrimsrest to Sabie, also that the Barberton office is to be removed there, and the two offices will, therefore, be unified. What will happen to Lydenburg then? Is it to come under Sabie, or possibly under the Pietersburg office? And then I want to ask when the intention is to carry it out? The second point I want to raise is something which the Minister will possibly find a little boring, but I cannot help returning to it again, because conditions are so much more unfavourable, and there has as yet been no change in the policy of the department, namely, in connection with the development of mines in outside districts, under Item No. 7 on page 130. The item reads: " District mining development—construction, maintenance and repair of roads, etc." I want to refer the Minister to Section 129 of the gold law. There the Minister is allowed to give assistance in prospecting for and the exploitation of precious and base metals by the erecting of batteries, smelting furnaces, pumping stations, the construction of roads, boreholes, etc., etc. The outside mines are only asking money for one of the things mentioned here, namely, for the construction and improvement of roads and drifts between the mines and the railway stations. For the last six, seven or eight years there has been the stereotyped amount of £4,000 on the estimates for that purpose, but the position has been considerably changed during those years, and much more is needed. Where formerly the only outside mines were at Pilgrimsrest and Sabie, and some small gold mines away from the Rand, there have now been consider; able additions, such as the platinum mines in Rustenburg, Potgietersrust and Lydenburg, the asbestos and chrome mines in Onverwacht, Grootboom, Mooihoek, Barberton, Pietershurg, Zoutpansberg, etc. The position with reference to the roads between the mines and the stations requires much improvement. Last year I was encouraged a little when I found that £2,500 had been added to the amount, but it appeared later that it was simply meant for the diamond fields of Namaqualand, and now I first took fresh courage, when I saw on the additional estimates an amount of £90,000 for mining development. But there is a footnote that it is intended for alluvial State diggings; therefore, not for development of district mines, except in respect of diamonds. I think it is high time to deal more justly with the district mines, and I hope the Minister will make a little more than £4,000 available for them. A third point I want to raise is of more personal interest, namely, the request of the various associations of small mines and prospectors in my district that the Minister should find time to pay a visit there, in order to have an opportunity of convincing himself personally of the necessity for making more money available for the construction of roads and the improvement of drifts between the mines and the stations.

The hon. member is wrong, there is no item on the estimates for district mining development. There is nothing on the estimates this year. The Government have considered the matter and decided that a considerable sum would be required to comply with the various demands of the public, and that it would be better to delete the whole item, because year after year it is practically a farce. I admit this frankly. The amount of £4,000 which was voted, and in some years it was £2,000 or less, was an absolute farce, and absolutely nothing could have been done with it to meet the requirements. The hon. member mentioned the gold law. He will know that the whole Witwatersrand as regards mining development is considered a private undertaking. It was the policy of the old Republican Government and of the previous Government, and has always been the policy of this Government, to leave mining development to private enterprise. I am not aware that we have ever departed from this policy, and I fear that it will have to be continued. Then, with regard to roads, and drifts. Well, the hon. member has already often done me the honour of inviting me to visit his district. I should much like to go, and will try to do so during the next recess, but I cannot faithfully promise. In any case, I can say as to the roads, that when the Financial Relations Act was passed the question arose whether it was desirable to allow the provincial councils to continue, and then the policy was laid down to see how things would go under the new arrangement. Roads come under provincial councils, and the Government does not as yet want to do any poaching on the preserves of the provincial councils. With regard to the removal of the mining commissioner's office from Pilgrimsrest to Sabie, I must say that in this connection the Government mining engineer intends to go there soon after Parliament adjourns, and will then make a report to me, after which I will consider and decide the matter.

It is somewhat inconvenient the Minister adopting the line that he is doing, because we have got to revert to questions that the Minister has already replied to. The point raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is one of considerable importance. A little over two years ago retailers were selling coal in Johannesburg and on the Witwatersrand at 20s. per ton. That was a very high price. This matter has had an enormous effect on the cost of living. These retailers, as I say, were selling at 20s. a ton, and it was paying the mine-owner and paying the retailer to sell at that figure. But then the ring; or the Coal Owners' Association, to give it its proper title, gets on the move, and now no retailer on the Rand will be supplied with coal unless he agrees to sell at 24s. a ton. One case was brought to my notice where a man had sold coal at 20s: a ton, and said he was satisfied with the money he was making, but he was told that he must sell at 24s. a ton, or they would stop his supplies, and now he is ordered to sell at 20s, a ton only in the native locations. If he sells an ounce of coal to a white individual or outside the location, his supplies will be immediately stopped. This is a serious state of affairs, and it is a big thing to the housekeeper, the poorer class especially, that during the winter months they should have to pay this 24s. a ton for coal, and it has all been brought about, not because there has been an increase in the wages of the collier or anything that is bound to increase the price, but simply because the ring has come in and told the retailers that they shall not get their coal unless they agree to sell at 24s. I do not know about the report that the Minister referred to, but this is something that requires attention, and immediate attention, because the cost of living is serious enough without continually adding to it. There is also the other ring that the hon. member spoke about the other day, the butter ring. We do not know what ring is coming along next to say they are not going to supply a merchant unless he agrees to supply the commodity at a fixed rate. These things want getting right down to. I do not want to interfere with a man getting a return on the capital he has put in his business, but I do want to see a fair deal, especially for the poorer classes of the population. I want the Minister to get the Board of Trade to look specially into that. They can get any amount of evidence to show that this is a ring operating for the restraint of trade and sending up the cost of living.

I indicated previously in answer to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) that the Board of Trade have gone into this question and similar questions all under the very comprehensive title of transactions in restraint of trade.

What ie being done?

Well, it is a very far-reaching document, and we cannot attend to these things all at once. It will take some time before we can digest that document and go through the recommendations and decide what to do. I refer members to that document, because they will find that very question is discussed there, and personally I know—complaints have reached me—that that sort of thing has gone on, at any rate in a measure. If it is not general, it does occur. I personally disapprove of that sort of thing very strongly, that a producer in producing and selling his article tells a small trader, "Unless you sell my article at a certain minimum price I am not going to supply." It is certainly a thing which does not carry my approval personally. It is a matter I have also discussed with the Board of Trade.

In the course of the Prime Minister's vote the question was raised with regard to oar trade commissioner in the United States. The Minister of Mines and Industries said he would take the whole question of trade commissioners up when his vote was under consideration. The vole for the United States trade commissioner has been raised from £6,620 to £7,293 under the present vote. In the last three years the trade has been reduced. In 1995 it was £2,104,000; in 1926 £1,903,000; and in 1927 £1,600,000. I do not know how that comes about. It seems extraordinary. Then there is the question of the trade commissioner at Kenya. Although the cost is the same as last year, the trade has been reduced since 1925, when it was £73,000. In 1926 it was £67,000, and in 1927 £55,000.

I have already answered that question

These figures were not then before you. The whole question of trade commissioners is one I would like to refer to. Here, in Africa, there is a wide field for our trade, without going beyond it. In Rhodesia alone it is about as much as it is with the United States. The two Rhodesias together provided over £1,500,000 last year. I would refer the Minister also to the Belgian Congo. I think a great market could be made there. I do not want the Minister to set up large establishments in these places, but a trade agent in such a place as the Congo could do a great deal for us. Our trade there last year was £117,000, consisting of fruits, wines and sugar, and I notice also a good deal of furniture being sent up there. That is a trade that could be developed. The Belgian Congo is becoming a very extensive and valuable mining country, and one with which we should endeavour to foster trade. Then there are our neighbouring territories, for instance, Nyassaland. We only had £2,000 trade with them, but if we had a trade agent he would be able to Help us materially. Portuguese East Africa, our trade is £100,000, and South-West Africa last year it was £665,000. Agents in touch with our own Board of Trade would he very valuable indeed, and I would commend that to the Minister. There is also the Tanganyika trade, where our trade is only about £10,000, and Where big developments are likely to take place. I commend these suggestions to the Minister for submission to the Board of Trade, and I think he would get very Valuable information and probably good advice.

I think, of course, it is quite a sound suggestion that we should look to our own continent for the development of our trade. I will certainly bear these points in mind, and discuss them with the board and see what can be done, but I wish to point out an inconsistency. Hon. members criticize the trade commissionership in Kenya, and at the same time urge us to develop our trade in our own continent. How can you develop trade in our own continent and at the same time exclude Kenya? It shows that the Government's policy is a sound one. With regard to America, it is admitted that Mr. Louw has done extremely good work, and it is admitted he should, at any rate, remain in America so far as Canada is concerned, and it is suggested he should lie transferred to Montreal, I hope hon. members have read his second annual report.

We are not saying anything against Mr. Louw.

I would like members to bear in mind an opinion expressed by a gentleman with considerable experience of the work of trade commissioners, Mr. Perry J. Stevenson. He says—

That is what the Government feels also. I am glad the hon. member realizes that, and I am glad of the hints he has given me with regard to our own continent, and I will see what can be done.

I very much regret that the item of £4,000 for roads to mines, etc., no longer appears on the estimates. How are the roads now to be made to the mines and diggings? There is, e.g., the road from Prieska to the Brakfontein diggings. The Divisional Council cannot afford to do it, the Provincial Council has no money, and the Union Government will do nothing in the matter. I regard it as very unfair. If there were not such a large surplus, I could understand the attitude of the Government, but in view of the surplus it would have been a bagatelle to put £4,000 on the estimates. How is the road to Brakfontein to be made now? I hope the Minister will find a way of making the money available.

I see that last year the Minister took a vote for £30,000 bonus to the iron industry. Is he going to pay any bonus to these people? I want to call his attention also to the Board of Trade. I see he has just increased the salary of the chairman from £1,200 to £1,500 a year. It is rather strange, and a rather large increase. What is the reason? Then does the Minister control the Board of Trade with reference to these inquiries in regard to duties, because I want to urge on him that they ought to hold these inquiries in public. It is no good holding them in private, because they do not get all the information. With regard to some duties, they admit they have not got the information. It would be better to do as is done in Australia, and hold the inquiries in public, when you would get more information. With regard to Mr. Pienaar's report, he complains he was rather badly treated, and of the want of attention which he gets from the officials on this side. [Report read, pages 9 and 10.] He says that on the administrative side there is no improvement, and things have gone from bad to worse. Then I would like to say that I do not agree with my hon. friend about the trades commissioner in New York. I do not think it brings a pound's worth of extra trade to this country. We had last week a report of what was said in an interview by the Minister of Customs, Mr. Patten, in the Commonwealth of Australia, about the Australian commissionership. He agreed with Sir Hugh Denison, the commissioner in the United States of America, about the uselessness of trying to develop Australian trade in the United States so long as the present policy of the Government there is continued. Fruit was excluded in the American off-season. We had exactly the same experience. We worked up a small trade in melons sent from the Cape to New York, but as soon as this trade became of any importance, at once they clapped on regulations on the other side which killed the trade. Mr. Louw mentions that we have done a fair trade in the export of fluor spar, but they are already commencing to discuss the desirability of putting on a duty, and it is the same with manganese. I have not the remotest shadow of a doubt that they will succeed. I put my money on the interests of the other side putting on a duty I have come to the conclusion, and most other merchants have also done so, that it does not pay to maintain that office; the £6,600 comes out of the taxpayers' pockets, and it does not pay Us. It is the same with regard to Kenya; the Minister admits it does not pay from the trade point of view, but he wants to maintain that office from the diplomatic point of view. I think my hon. friend must look at it from the taxpayers' view, and not maintain officials who are not required.

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit), I may say that I have already dealt with the matter in answer to the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nienwenhuize). He asked us to put the amount on the estimates again. When it was on the estimates we did not know what to do with it, because there were so many applications that the amount seemed totally inadequate. I want, moreover, to remind the hon. member that the Government have practically got nothing out of the diggings as yet, practically nothing as yet out of the wealth of Lichtenburg. Too great riches has, indeed, not been found, but now and then we hear of rich finds, and all the Government gets out of it is 10 per cent, export tax. The people at those places had better try to help themselves a little.

With regard to the iron and steel bounties, the Newcastle Company applied for bounties on production up to March 31st, 1927. That matter has been concluded by the judgment of the Appellate Division and is, therefore, res judicata. Judgment was given for the Government with costs. With regard to the further period of six months from April 1st, 1927, the Minister wrote to them, in answer to their application that having gone into the matter, he was not satisfied with the data laid before him. Therefore, that matter is also concluded, and that period of six mouths is wiped out. No further application has been made for any later period.

You are still liable for it.

I don't want to discuss the matter further, for only yesterday I wrote to these people what I conceived to be the position. I told them I would address a further communication to them, and that makes it further undesirable to discuss it, for evidently they contemplate the necessity of appealing to the Privy Council, so the matter is still sub judice. As to the increase in the salary of the chairman of the Board of Trade, he is insufficiently paid even now. For the work he does he ought to receive at least £2,000 or £2,500 a year. He is a professional man. Take your ordinary professional man. Even if a junior he makes £3,000 or £4,000 a year in Johannesburg. There are others in a similar position to the chairman of the Board of Trade who receive a better salary. The Board of Trade has done most excellent service. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) is fair, although sometimes his words go against him, and he is convinced that this hoard has done excellent service. We cannot expect to keep these talented young men in the service of the State if we do not pay them well. We have lost some excellent men because we do not pay them well; we have only recently lost one of the finest geologists in the country; we have lost the services of men like Dr. Percy Wagner. With regard to the enquiries of the Board of Trade, under the Act the board can only enquire through me, but in order to save time and simplify matters, my colleagues can refer subjects to the board and, unless I have special objections, the board makes the enquiry. Naturally, I do not raise objections. The Minister of Agriculture has referred various matters of the board, and any question of customs duties is referred to them by the Minister of Finance. As regards the board holding these enquiries in public, I know the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) is a fighter, and I admire his tenacity. Through the board notifying through the press that they are enquiring into certain matters, sufficient public interest is immediately elicited, and there are, naturally, always two sides, and the board gains sufficient evidence to create two contending sides. There are various disadvantages attending on public enquiries. One of the great disadvantages would be that the press, which is always very eager to get copy, will attend these enquiries and you would have the risk of matters being prejudiced and influence being brought to Bear by the press. The Government has considered the matter and we prefer to follow the practice of Canada, where, I understand, the enquiries are not held in public, in preference to the practice of Australia. In regard to the complaint of Mr. Pienaar, the trade commissioner in Milan, he is an exceptionally able gentleman, but he has his little eccentricities. The little matters which have been referred to are samples of his eccentricities. In regard to the first point, that he has been constrained to contravene the laws of Italy, the explanation is perfectly simple. He asked the Civil Service Commission to make leave regulations applicable to his staff in Italy. The Civil Service Commission is not conversant with the laws of Italy, and it appears that in applying our Union rules and regulations to Mr. Pienaar's staff, they gave leave to a lady clerk shorter than that compulsory under the laws of Italy, but directly they discovered the difference they rectified it. It was at Mr. Pienaar's own request that the Civil Service Commission here applied these rules. With regard to the other point, I am glad to see the hon. member pays a tribute to the administrative ability of my department and the economic ability of the Board of Trade and Industries. So far as my department is concerned, the Board of Trade and Industries carry on the whole correspondence with Mr. Pienaar. I certainly have never handled it. Since the establishment of the Board of Trade and their taking over from my department what used to be the Industrial Division, under Dr. Caldecott, things have gone more smoothly.

On the administrative side they have gone well.

That is the only channel I know of. The hon. member has referred to the position of the Trade Commissioner in New York. I am afraid we must agree to differ. It has been discussed again and again and the Government is still of opinion that Mr. Louw should continue what we conceive to be very good work, not only with regard to Canada but with regard to the States. I would like to refer my hon. friend to a report of Mr. Louw in which I quoted names of Canadian firms which wanted us to trade with them direct and not via London. That is very significant. When I was in Canada, people expressed the same sentiment. With regard to the quotation of an Australian Minister I would refer my hon. friend to a cable appearing in this morning's papers. Sir Hugh Dennison has expressed the opinion that not only should there be an Australian Trade Commissioner but that they should actually have an Australian Ambassador.

I hope you are not going to be led astray by that.

I am not expressing an opinion on the merits of that question. It is here in the " Argus " [extract read]. The hon. member quoted from the newspapers what the Australian Minister had said, but let me refer him to this—I am quoting from the "New York Times ":—

That rather differs from what the hon. member has read.

The hon. the Minister just now referred to the idiosyncrasies of the trade commissioner in Europe. If he reads the report of the trade commissioner, he will find that he states he was asked from the department in the Union to give the names of deputy commissioners who have been appointed in various European capitals, whereas by the same post by which this inquiry went, a document or pamphlet went from one of the departments in this country containing the names of the people whose names and addresses they were asking for. I should have thought in that direction the idiosyncrasy lay on the other side. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred to the alteration in the emoluments of the chairman of the Board of Trade. If the hon. the Minister has a copy of last year's estimates before him, he will see that the salary of the chairman of the Board of Trade is laid down as £1,200 per annum. Now if he will look to the estimates this year, he will see the salary of the chairman of the Board of Trade is now £1,500 rising by £50 to £1,600 per annum; whereas the secretary of my hon. friend's own Department of Mines, whom I presume has been a long time in the employment of the Government, is £1,300, rising by £30 to £1,450. The salary of the chairman has been increased by £300. Take Defence, the salary of the chief of the staff is £1,330 to £1,450; the salary of the Secretary to the Interior, also an important post, is £1,440 to £1,600. Really, there is an extraordinary jump in this particular case. I am not going into the question of whether it is a requisite salary or not, but jumps of this character are bound to cause great dissatisfaction in connection with secretarial appointments in the various ministerial offices where the scale is the same now as it was last year. I am sorry the Minister says he does not agree to the Board of Trade holding inquiries in public. My hon. friend can very well understand if a manufacturer desires to get increased duty, it is much easier for him to bring his case privately before the Board of Trade than if he brings that case forward in public, when everybody who has an interest in it will have an opportunity of giving evidence. Then the Board of Trade will have an opportunity of considering the evidence given by the interested party, and they will have an opportunity, against it, of considering the evidence given by people who hold different views. The public will also be able to follow the reasonings of the Board of Trade.

Will they?

My hon. friend is even doubtful about that, but at least the public then will have all the facts before them, and when duties are increased or diminished they will have an opportunity at least of reading the evidence and knowing the reason why. Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister will also inform the committee why these two economists are attached to the Board of Trade and Industries. I understood that in the Board of Trade and Industries division you have the chairman and three members, and that the only justification for the appointment of these people was that they were all economic experts. I would like to know what are the duties of these two economists.

I gave the explanation last year.

Perhaps my hon. friend will also give not alone the House, but the country, some interesting information. I understand that information has come by cable that an agreement has been arrived at in connection with the negotiations in Portugal, and I am sure, if that is the case, this House and the country will be anxious to know the character of the agreement that has been entered into. If an agreement has been arrived at, I think Parliament is the first place which should have the opportunity of hearing what that agreement is.

As regards the last point, obviously the negotiations are still proceeding or have just been concluded, and I have, therefore, nothing to communicate to the House. The hon. member surely is not serious in that. The hon. member points out that the secretary of my department gets only up to £1,460, whereas the chairman of the Board of Trade is now drawing £1,500 per annum.

No, I am referring to the scale.

As a matter of fact there is only an acting secretary, and he is the Government Mining Engineer. The past secretary, whose place has not yet been permanently filled, the Government Mining Engineer acting as secretary, since Mr. Warington-Smyth left, drew a salary according to the scale plus an allowance which brought his salary up to £1,700. Although the scale for the secretary of the department was fixed at £1,400, the Government Mining Engineer who, in a sense, was under the secretary in that he could only approach the Minister through the secretary, was drawing £2,000. So there is nothing inconsistent in it, and the simple explanation is that the Government Mining Engineer is a professional man.

I was not discussing the Government Mining Engineer.

I am pointing out the apparent anomaly. It does not necessarily follow that because the secretary of the Department of Mines and Industries draws a lower salary, therefore the salary of the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries should be the same or lower. It does not follow for a moment because the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries has been appointed because of his professional qualifications. He is a professional man and he is not even a member of the public, service. The hon. member referred to the board holding its inquiries in public. He gave the instance of a manufacturer wanting protection and the public would be unaware of it, but; I stated that no inquiry was held by the Board of Trade unless it was publicly and prominently notified to the press, and the subject-matter would be announced in the press. I have impressed that upon the Board, and they do advertise these things; and they do not merely advertise them but they see that all interests are given a chance of giving testimony before them. The Government has repeatedly considered that matter, and we have decided that these inquiries, as is done in Canada, should he held in this way.

There is just one question I want to ask the Minister: if he could give us any information as to whether it is possible for the men to get the wage payments due to them from the liquidators of the Central West Mine. There is a good deal of unrest about this matter, and while they appreciate the action of the Minister in helping by giving expert assistance in the liquidation court, they would be very much encouraged if the Minister could make some statement. I hope something may be done.

I was informed before I left Pretoria some months ago that the liquidator had stated that these men would get special preference, and I have just had handed to me a note from the Government Mining Engineer which says, " The auditor, Mr. Carter, informs me that there is every reason to expect that the men will get very considerate treatment."

There is one other point I would like some information about with regard to this remuneration of the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries. I notice that his increments are £1,500—£50 up to £1,600. I notice that there is no other person as far as I can see in the civil service who gets rises of £50 a year. I think you will find the general average is about £25 or £30. I can only find one of £40, and in regard to the others, even the largest salaries, you will see increases of about £25 to £30 per annum. Why is the exception made? You are setting a new precedent. The Secretary for Justice, the Secretary for the Prime Minister, the Secretary for the Interior and all the other heads of departments will naturally expect the same grade of increase. You must bear in mind that many of these men are what the Minister calls " professional men " Why they should be particularly selected for very high salaries I do not know, because in ordinary life a professional man does not pretend to be a person in possession of such a very huge income. I would also draw the Minister's attention to the Auditor-General's report, page 214, section 7, where he makes a special note of the constant increases in the cost of the Board of Trade, and rather complains of the expense when it was £6,179 in a year. I am afraid the Auditor-General will go grey haired when he sees the rate at which the expenses of this department are increasing. The expenditure has now gone up to £14,737, and it is constantly increasing. I do urge the Minister that it requires some care to see that that increase does not get out of all proportion. I notice that from now onwards it is only the trade commissioners in London and Kenya who come under that vote. Cannot he give us any idea what the organisation is of this department? The other trade commissioners, I understand, come under the Prime Minister. I would also draw attention to another item mentioned in the Auditor-General's report, page 114, section 9, where we pay £35 for a Union Day dinner. I do not worry about that amount, it is a very small one, but are we going to institute these dinners all over the world where we have charges d' affaires or whatever you call them? It seems to me it is a very bad precedent. There will be all kinds of demands for dinners. On page 12 of his report Mr. Pienaar makes very grave reflections in our statistics, practically taking up the position that the South African trade statistics are comparatively worthless. He states that according to the Union statistics we exported 24,900,000 lbs. of bark to Belgium, but the Belgian statistics record the arrival of only 1,500,000 lbs. of bark from South Africa. Further, according to the South African statistics, we exported hides and skins to the weight of 11,959,256 lbs. to Belgium, whereas the Belgian statistics show that she received from South Africa only 684,241 lbs. Will the Minister give an explanation of these extraordinary differences? Are they due to the information supplied by the exporters, or are they altered by our statistical department in accordance to what they consider the countries of destinations are. It is useless publishing figures unless we can be reasonably certain they are reliable.

Mr. Pienaar is wrong. Our department contend that the figures which have been compared do not always tally. It is a well known fact in regard to Belgium that when goods reach that country in transit, the Belgian authorities do not record the actual quantity. Our statistics are correct.

And Belgium is wrong?

Yes. In regard to the chairman of the Board of Trade, he is entirely outside the civil service and has not the benefit of a pension or allowances. The chairman of the Phthisis Board has at various times drawn as much as £2,900 a year. As regards the item of £35, I hope the hon. member will not be too particular.

It is the principle I am after.

I think the hon. member will, of course, Ire fully justified in objecting when the thing is over. It is quite a small item.

I would like to point out that as far as this officer, who is now chairman of the Board of Trade goes, I am net objecting to his salary. His scale is £1,550 to £1,800, whereas perhaps one of the most important officers in the public service, secretary to the Treasury, is £1,440 to £1,600. It is not right, and I would like my hen. friend to go into that scale.

The Minister told me this afternoon that I was in error, and that I had said that there was only a quota for the mines and not for the alluvial diggings. We know that the quota for the mines is fixed at £8,000,000, and I did not mean that. What I meant is the £6,000,000 of alluvial diamonds which are produced. But since last year an Act has been passed by which the Minister has the control, and if the alluvial diggings do not produce so much now has the Minister the right to say who is to sell the extra diamonds? Say the yield of the alluvial diggings is brought down to £3,000,000 who then supplies the extra £3,000,000? Will the people who want to prospect be given a chance? If the Minister says that the alluvial diggers will then be given a chance of further prospecting and of working new ground, will the Namaqualand people then not get their share also? It is late, but I cannot remain quiet, because I must look after the interests of my people, and even if they do not get any relief I must still do my best.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee on 14th May.