from Barbara M. J. Heydenrych, an assistant teacher in the Hopefield Public School, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from H. Sprigg and 81 others, inhabitants of Claremont and Newlands, praying for legislation providing for the direct popular veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

from Louisa L. Heffer, whose son, the late W. H. Heifer, entered the Cape Civil Service in 1897 and died in 1912, praying for a gratuity or a refund of the amount contributed by her son to the Pension Fund or for other relief.

from W. W. Martin, public accountant and auditor, Cape Town, and member of the Corporation of Accountants, praying that the said corporation may be included in the Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill among the societies whose members are eligible to practise under the Bill, in the Union of South Africa, and a similar petition from A. Miller, of Porterville-road, a member of the Corporation of Accountants.

: That the Government be requested to submit to the House during the present session a General Pass and Squatters Bill to prohibit coloured people (1) from wandering about without a proper pass; (2) from squatting on farms; and (3) from sowing on the share system.

said that before this motion was put he would like to make a statement in regard to the matters raised there. He hoped after the statement was made that for the present the matters referred to would not be discussed at length, as there would be an opportunity of discussing them later on. His hon. friend asked that during this session there should be submitted a General Pass and Squatters Bill and his hon. friend the member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) asked further that there should be introduced during the present session a measure to deal with the purchase and leasing of land by natives. These three questions were so important and went to the root of the native life that they would require very grave consideration. (Cheers.) To deal with them satisfactorily would require the greater part, if not the whole, of a session.

In the Free State there were a number of pass laws, most of them enacted prior to the annexation of the Free State. In one particular the Free State laws differed from the pass laws elsewhere, for they applied to coloured people as well as to natives. Of course, clergymen and landowners were exempted. He was told that owing to a decision given by the Courts of Law, the Free State pass law was not now considered effective. In other words the law could be evaded, and the object with which it was instituted could not now be carried out. The Free State did not legislate during the time of responsible government on this question, but it drew attention to what it considered its ineffectiveness but a year later when Union took place. In the Transvaal there were general pass regulations which did not allow natives to move about without passes Natal, however, had no pass laws in the sense in which the remainder of the Union understood them. In the Cape the position was somewhat peculiar. In 1837 an Ordinance was issued requiring all foreign natives to carry passes—that meant all natives outside the then Cape Colony. That law was still on the Statute-books, but the Cape had annexed the Native Territories until we were on the Natal border. The result was that what were called foreign i natives ceased to exist when the Cape annexed Pondoland. The only other pass law that he knew of in the Cape Province was in Bechuanaland and Kimberley. In addition to the pass laws there was the Cattle Removals Act, which necessitated the carrying of passes. In the Cape the pass law, speaking generally, was not enforced.

I cannot make out the drift of the hon. Minister’s remarks. (Hear, hear.) I thought he rose to suggest a course of business.

I did. Mr. Speaker. I hope the statement will lead to the withdrawal of these notices of motion.

A Minister may not anticipate a debate.

I meant to convey that to you.

The Minister is going into the whole question of pass laws. (Hear, hear.) If I allow a Minister to depart from the ordinary procedure I must allow any member of the House to do so. (Cheers.)

I thought for the reasons I gave that I would be allowed to speak. If you think it is best not to continue—

Continue with the consent of the House. (Hear, hear.)

Is there any objection to the Minister continuing?

: If a Minister can make a statement like this there is a possibility that he may make remarks to which an hon. member may object, but one would have no opportunity of doing so. I shall therefore object.

I must call the notices of motion.

then formally proposed his motion, and asked if he did not say anything now whether he would have the right to speak in reply.

The hon. member can reserve his speech.

seconded the motion.

: Before you put that I would like to say that I am exceedingly glad to see the position that you have taken up in connection with the extraordinary attitude adopted by my hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs. If Ministers can make speeches before a motion is proposed—

The question now is the motion of the hon. member for Ficksburg. (Loud Ministerial cheers.)

moved (as an amendment to the motion by Mr. Keyter for the introduction of a Pass and Squatters Bill), to add at the end: “and further to take effective measures restricting the purchase and lease of land by natives.”

seconded the amendment.

I would like to say that this was not an invention of my fertile brain, and there is no ulterior object. I would be very sorry to see needless discussion before the question is put before the House in a more direct form. I spoke about the pass laws, and I said what I did to indicate that you have a variety of pass laws. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said that if they legislated on the matter now they would have to deal with the whole of the pass laws for the Union. The circumstances of the people differed, and it would be a very difficult question to deal with.

The other question raised was that, of the squatters. That was a very difficult question too. Here, also, we had different law in the various Provinces. In the Transvaal every white farmer might have five native families, not exceeding 25 persons in all, on his farm. In the Cape they might have an unlimited number of native servants on a farm, but only the number of squatters that the Magistrate thought proper as ordinary tenants, or as the Government and the Divisional Council approved of as ordinary tenants. But in the Transvaal the law could be evaded. Then a coloured man in the ward of Maroka in the Free State could keep three families on his farm. No payment was required in respect of the squatters. He was assured that the law in the Free State had been altered by the Court. In the Cape one could keep any number of servants for labour tenants, but had to pay 10s. each per annum, and £2 for ordinary tenants, after permission had been obtained for their settlement on private property. So far as the Cape was concerned, the Squatters Law had worked very satisfactorily. If the squatters were summarily removed without provision being made for them to go elsewhere, a very great injustice indeed might be inflicted, and before they could satisfactorily deal with the question they ought to be able to say to the people who in some instances had occupied the land for generations: “Well, there are different ways for you. You can go into service, for instance.” But there must always be a number of people who could not do that, and who would wish to remain on the land, and Government should be able to say to them: “There is land available for you.” If that were said it would make the passing of a Squatters Bill comparatively easy, but otherwise a great hardship would be done in many instances.

As to the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg, favouring the taking of effective measures restricting the purchase and lease of land by natives, in the Free State land might not be sold or leased to natives or coloured persons except in the ward of Maroka. In Natal, Europeans and natives had equal rights as to land purchase. The law in the Transvaal was prior to annexation somewhat similar to that of the Free State. In the Cape Province the position was rather more complex, but they might take it broadly that in the colony proper the native and European stood on the same footing as regarded the purchase of land, except in the case of certain native townships. In the district of Elliot—which owing to rebellion on the part of the natives was taken and Europeans were settled on it— there was a condition in the title of the grant that the land should not be transferred without the consent of the Government. That principle was established years before. In British Kaffraria, when it was a Crown Colony—many years ago— land was issued on condition it could not be transferred without the consent of the Governor, and that condition applied to land issued to both Europeans and natives. That principle had been extended to 20,000 or 30,000 native land-owners in the Transkei, who had acquired land under the Glen Grey Act. The principle of attaching a condition that the Government should have a veto on the passing of transfer was a very old one. The Native Laws Commission, which was appointed in 1903 by Lord Milner, made a recommendation on that point. The Natal members of the Commission, however, objected to the recommendation, and so, too did one of the Cape members. The Commission—which represented the whole of British South Africa—recommended that certain restrictions on the purchase of land by natives were necessary; that purchases should be limited to certain areas to be defined by the Legislature, and that whatever conditions applied to the purchase should also apply to leasing of land.

Recently the feeling on this question had become almost acute. Certainly there was a very strong feeling that something should be done to deal with this very important matter. It was not the first time he had heard this question raised; but he had seldom met anybody who in principle objected to it. He hoped he would continue to favour what he considered a fair and liberal native policy, which did not necessarily imply that he considered that there should be social equality between the races. (Cheers.) That was a very different thing, and he had always in speaking to the natives advised them, in their own interests, that the further they kept socially from the European the better—(cheers)—as it was also for the European. (Cheers.) And he therefore felt that it would be a good thing if the native and the European lived as far as possible separate, socially. And he had always thought, in that respect, the Cape Colony was far in advance of the other Provinces of the Union. It may have been to a large extent due to accident; but, owing to that fact, it was in a far better position—though their native policy had often been criticised—to deal with this important matter; and it was owing to the fact that they had given them a large territory, and, let him tell the House, not a territory of no value, but of some of the best lands in the country. They had to leave them land on which they could live. (Cheers.) And they in the Cape had left these people one of the fairest portions of South Africa. But they were being rewarded to-day, because in dealing with this great and important matter they were in a better position than the other Provinces. (Cheers.) He thought anybody who was a friend of the native must realise that where there was contiguity, where the European and the native lived too close together, it led to friction, and may be worse. In his opinion, it was in the interests of the European and the native that, as far as possible, the system of having first a European farm, then a native farm adjoining, then again a European, and again a native, must be as far as possible, prevented. (Cheers.) In fact, it was a great pity that they had not taken steps earlier to prevent that. (Cheers.) It was much easier to prevent than cure, because once the native had bought the land, they must treat him as justly as they would a white man. (Hear, hear.) They had allowed him to acquire that land by law, and when once he had it, they must respect his rights.

He was sure nobody wanted to take it away; but the question still remained today in South Africa, and especially in the Northern Provinces more than in any other parts. Not only in the portions winch had been considered suitable for occupation, but in other parts of the Transvaal, the natives were purchasing land at a very rapid rate. In some respects they would be surprised that they were able to find the money; but they must not forget that, say what they would, the native in this country did the bulk of the manual labour of the country, and without him he (the Minister) did not know how their great industries—and farming especially (the greatest of all)—would be carried on. (Cheers.) Not only had the natives in the Transvaal, by their industry in different parts of South Africa, and by the good pay they got on the mines, been enabled to accumulate money to buy land; but by the system of chieftainship, which, to some extent, still existed, the chief said to his followers that they must bring him a pound or two pounds, so that soon the chief had a considerable sum of money, and could purchase valuable land, and was able to pay very considerable sums for it. The result was, as was shown by a return laid on the Table of the House recently, that very large purchases of farm lands were being made in the Transvaal. He was very sorry to see that that extended over different portions of the Transvaal. In some parts the natives had not been in occupation at all, and now they had bought land right amongst the Europeans at high prices in the high veld. The question to be decided was whether they should deal with that matter or not. After most careful consideration, he had decided to deal with the part of the matter referred to in the amendment now before the House. (Cheers.) The Commission made certain recommendations, and he might say that what he proposed to do was to see that no native purchased land from a European, and that no European purchased land from a native. (Cheers.) Until a Commission—a Commission of men of standing—had reported on what should be done and what should be the area within which only natives or only Europeans could hold land, and to make recommendations where it was necessary that further land should be acquired for the occupation of the native—(cheers)—and to make provision that the Government will have the power to expropriate land if necessary either in the interests of the European or the native (Cheers.) If they proceeded on those lines, they would do well. (Cheers.) Until that Commission was appointed, it would rest with the Governor-General to say, as he thought was previously done in the Transvaal, whether any native or European could purchase land. That would put a stop to the purchase of land by Europeans from the natives, and by natives from Europeans; and not only would it put a stop to the purchase but also to the lease of land; because, after all, socially and economically, it made no difference whether the man leased or purchased. (Cheers.) Therefore, as far as leasing goes, it was in the same position, and would be dealt with exactly in the same way.

He believed if they proceeded on those lines; if they recognised that there were certain areas which could be only occupied by Europeans as far as possible (though absolute separation was not practicable), and if they were honest, and he was sure this House would be—South Africa had a great name because of the way it had treated the subject races—(cheers)—and he hoped it would retain that name, because it would repay them in the end—(cheers)— if they did that, and gave the native not only sufficient land, but land they could beneficially occupy; if they specified areas for Europeans as clear for European purposes as was possible, he believed that not only would justice be done to the natives, but great service would be done to South Africa, and the natives would be better off in the long run. (Cheers.) He also proposed to make provision that all existing native reserves to which reference was made in the South Africa Act shall be continued as reserved for native occupation; and if, in addition, Parliament should, on the recommendation of the Commission, think it advisable to add, he would not say to those areas, because it might be inconvenient, but to add to the land wherever it was suitable and wherever it was necessary, they should be able to do so. (Cheers.) That was, shortly, the outline of what was proposed. He need hardly say, if that was dealt with, it was not possible for him to deal with either the Pass Law or the Squatters Law. One reason for his inability to deal with the latter law was because if they turned off thousands of people, many of whom might not be able to labour, they must have some place to go to. That, to his mind, was an insuperable bar. Under his scheme, the matter of the Squatters Law would not be delayed indefinitely. In the Cape they had dealt with it far more effectively than in the Transvaal. (Cheers.) If that was done, he thought it would give satisfaction to everybody. To his mind, there was no more vital question. They sometimes, in fact, very often, heard of racial feeling between the two white races in this country. It never disturbed him, because, to his mind, it was only a question of time. (Cheers.) The other question was far more important and vital, and he believed the solution was in the white man maintaining his supremacy—one of the essentials was that he should strengthen himself numerically —and after that the second great safeguard was to treat the natives fairly. And if they did treat them fairly, a better feeling would be created; and in the long run it would be found that if there were sacred principles, the most sacred of all would be justice, and he believed that if they proceeded with that most important matter in the way he had, indicated, they would have no cause, for complaint from the friends of the natives, and in the end it would be found to be best.

asked whether the Minister would make it clear in the Bill that anyone who let his land to a coloured person or native for the purpose of sowing on the share system was committing a breach of the law.

replied in the affirmative.

said that, in view of the explanation and what his hon. friend had said in answer to his question, he would withdraw his motion.

said that they did not know on his side of the House whether the hon. member said native or coloured person?

repeated his remarks in English. He said “kleurling.”

said that before it was put, he wanted to ask whether and when the Bill would be introduced, and whether, after its first reading, it would be referred to the Native Affairs Committee?

was understood to say that he had already decided that the Bill would be introduced, and it was the intention after the Bill had been introduced to refer it to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. He could not state the day, but it would be introduced in good time during the present session. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to withdraw his amendment.

said that, they on those benches had listened with the greatest pleasure to the statements made, because at last what the Labour Party had hammered away at for a great many years seemed to have penetrated the minds of hon. members opposite. For the past twelve years they had been preaching precisely the policy, or a more far-reaching policy, which the hon. Minister had enunciated that day. It only remained for the Minister, the Government, and the party he represented to carry that policy through and make a complete social separation of the races, because it was not sufficient to say that the natives should not be allowed to purchase land in the areas where whites inhabited, or vice versa. It was foolish, when they allowed hordes of uncivilised savages to be brought into contact industrially with the whites in the workshops. It was not only degrading to the whites, but also degrading to the blacks. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House were now, he was glad to say, getting a glimmering of the truth, although hon. members on the Unionist side of the House were hopeless. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to say that on proclaimed ground under the Gold Laws, natives in his district were squatting where white men were not allowed. White men in the vicinity had applied to work the land on the same terms as the natives, and had been point-blank refused. The ultimate solution of the whole problem was the separation of the two races, and he quite agreed with the hon. Minister when he said that they could not have separation until they had provided the natives with land.

, who at times was inaudible, was understood to say that in reference to what had fallen from the other end of the House— (laughter)—they who had been in the Colony for the past fifty or sixty years were perfectly familiar with that question, and he hoped that the hon. member would not make any more such foolish statements as he had as if the Labour Party was the be-all and end-all of everything.

said he very much regretted it, but considered that he would not be doing his duty if he allowed the statement made by the Minister to pass without saying anything. In the first place, he must congratulate the Minister on what he had said this afternoon in regard to his proposal as to introducing legislation dealing with native matters. He was all the more grateful to him, for what he (the Minister) had suggested to the House this afternoon was absolutely in accord with that which he (General Hertzog) had already suggested in public, and with what the Minister knew he had intended introducing had he any longer enjoyed the distinction of being Minister of Native Affairs. (Mr. C. A. VAN NIEKERK (Boshof): Hear, hear.) Well, he must congratulate the Minister, and he hoped that, having gone so far, he would go a little bit further, and would also accept the rest of his (General Hertzog’s) proposals when legislation was introduced into this House. (Hear, hear.) The Minister had told them that he would lay before this House a Bill providing for legislation in regard to the purchase and lease of land, but he could not do that without at the same time introducing a measure providing for the question of squatting. Well, it was just on this matter that he desired to say a few words, and in regard to which he felt himself compelled to propose an amendment. The Minister had said that the reason why he could not introduce a Squatters Law now was because they would not know what to do with the large numbers of natives who would be thrown on their hands. He only wished to say this, that if the Minister would also accept the further part of his (General Hertzog’s) proposal, he would see at once that he need not fear that, because provision was made that they should go gradually, and that in those districts where they found natives in large numbers, they could be left even for years, and that they should go step by step from district to district, so that gradually they would deal with all the natives. (Hear, hear.)

If legislation were considered by this House on the basis indicated by the Minister, they would be really tackling the squatting question. What did the Minister intend doing with the hundreds of thousands of natives who had ground on lease? He wished to prevent that state of affairs, but he could not possibly deal with it without being brought face to face with the squatting evil. He could assure the House that as soon as they started on this question of purchase and lease of ground, they would find themselves face to face with the squatting native, and they would at once be compelled to take steps to deal with that question. (Hear, hear.) The Minister had said that he wished to have a Commission appointed to divide the country into various divisions, so as to make provision for legislation to be introduced in regard to squatting. The Minister should not think that the work of such a Commission would be so very simple. The beaconing off was not a question of one or two years; a number of years would have to elapse ere he would be able to say “This is white man’s ground or native’s ground,” and he would not advise him to wait with the introduction of a Squatting Bill until he was in possession of the report of such a Commission. As he had said, it was because he felt that the Minister could not tackle this question without at once coming into contact with the subject of squatting, and secondly, because he felt that the squatting evil was to-day just as dangerous in South Africa and as detrimental to the welfare of the agricultural industry, that he held that they should introduce legislation dealing with this question at the same time as they dealt with the question of purchase of ground. That was the reason why he would move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Ficksburg: “That this House is of opinion that a Bill should be introduced during the present session of Parliament, providing for the effective restriction of the purchase and leasing of land by natives within certain areas and by Europeans within certain other areas within the Union, and, further, regulating the squatting of natives on farms.” (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he wished to congratulate the Minister upon having got as far as he had done and upon being prepared to tackle the matter. He need not bring this question any further to the notice of the House, but he was convinced that this subject was to-day one of the most important and most urgent subjects they could have to deal with for the purpose of legislation. (Hear, hear.)

seconded the amendment.

said he was sure that he rejoiced exceedingly to find that the sketch of the Government’s proposals which had been made that afternoon by his hon. friend received the support of the hon. member for Smithfield. It was a little difficult to see in what particular the amendment which he had proposed to the House instead of the motion of the hon. gentleman who sat behind him—which upon the statement of his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) the hon. member was prepared to withdraw—really departed from the proposals which his colleague had laid before the House, except in this one particular, that, instead of there being any delay about the introduction of legislation dealing with the squatting evil that should be proceeded with at once. He wanted to point out how unreasonable it was to expect that this House could possibly deal with a number of subjects affecting this difficult and complicated matter of the native question in one session. His hon. friend said he was prepared to deal with what he (Mr. Burton) thought everyone would agree was the most acute and urgent question, viz., the question of land ownership. That was the most pressing thing. In the Transvaal and Free State this matter had become one of the most urgent questions, and unless they could stop it and stop it soon, it would attain a stage where they would find it extremely difficult to deal with. Two sessions ago he published on behalf of the Government, while he was Minister of Native Affairs, a Squatters Bill, which proposed to deal with the squatting business in a way which, he thought, on the whole, allowing for difference in details, met with general approval in the House.

Why didn’t you go on with it?

said he did not go on with the Bill because the Government was charged with more urgent and pressing matters during that session. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said he did not want to say anything about the hon. member for Smithfield’s (General Hertzog) proposals in regard to the native policy. So far his statements on the subject, although voluminous, were somewhat vague.

: Have you not a copy of my Bill?

I was about to say that instead of those speeches the hon. member made all over the country, the hon. member would have been in a better position to speak if the country had had a copy of his proposals. (Opposition cheers.) I have not yet seen those proposals in concrete form. I have heard of them on public platforms. I have not got that measure, and my hon. friend knows perfectly well it was not laid before the Cabinet. Proceeding, he said he wanted to say in regard to his proposal, the hon. member seemed to think that there was something new and something revolutionary in it that was going to solve the whole of the native question. Well, he differed from his hon. friend when he thought that with a stroke of the pen, or a stroke of the sword for that matter, they were going to solve the native problem. As far as this matter of the ownership of the land was concerned, and as far as the question of the separation of the blacks and the whites of South Africa was concerned, he could assure his hon. friend, in case he did not know it, his proposal was as old as the hills. (Cheers.) It had not only been discussed for years past, but that measure was the recommendation of a Commission. It was a specific recommendation of the South African Native Affairs Commission which enquired into this matter and reported in 1905. It may be said that that Commission proposed it, but until now no action had been taken. He would tell the House that though he did not proclaim his intention from the housetops, had he retained the office of Minister of Native Affairs he would have been able to put before the House just such a measure, and the hon. member for Smithfield knew that perfectly well. So there was nothing revolutionary in it. There was indeed a difference in the views they took on some other matters, but, as far as he understood the proposals, the hon. member did not propose to deal with the separate holding of land, but proposed to go in for the detailed policy of segregation, actual physical segregation, and, altogether, to embark upon a sea of trouble. (Cheers.) He was perfectly certain that those of the hon. member’s proposals were utterly impracticable. (Cheers.)

: What are they?

One proposal was that in any area where Europeans were allowed to hold land no other than a white man should be allowed to do skilled work. Well, a proposal of that sort is perfectly fatuous, and, therefore, I say that once you get beyond the manageable point of the question of the ownership of land and embark on these projects to do away with nature, you find you are attempting something you cannot carry out. (Cheers.) That is where I differ from the hon. member.

I am glad to hear it.

continuing, said he made that statement to make it clear to the House that the idea that something new, something entirely revolutionary and drastic and complete which the present Government had never yet conceived and would never have carried out, was proposed by the hon. member, was wrong. His (the Minister’s) views were embodied in the proposals the Minister of Native Affairs had enunciated. He welcomed them and hoped the House would agree to them. (Cheers.)

said that if the hon. member had only added two or three other items to his proposals they would have had the whole native question settled that afternoon, though most thoughtful people thought it would take a couple of generations to do that. He agreed very largely with the statement made by the hon. Minister; and he was only sorry he did not see his way clear to introduce a general Pass Law, because he would find it was perfectly impossible in a general Pass Law for the whole of the Union to embody the stringent regulations in the Free State. It was impossible for the hon. members from the Free State to suppose they could impose their laws on the whole of the Union. There was the utmost dissatisfaction in the Free State among the natives and coloured people in regard to the powers given to municipalities to demand passes. On the question of squatting he was very glad that the Minister had taken up the position he had. The old Republican Government had found the same difficulty as the Crown Colony and Responsible Government to carry out these laws in the Transvaal, because they did not have sufficient land on which to settle these native people. There was no large reserve there as there was in the Cape Province to which these people could be removed. The Transvaal was in such a peculiar position that perhaps the Government could not get such a large tract of territory as the Transkei, but the Government could obtain some ground to which these natives could go. These people were called “squatters,” but in the dictionary sense of the word they were not squatters at all, as they were paying for their settlement on the land either by labour or by money. A true squatter was one who was unauthorised at all to live on such land. In the Cape Province they had no such “squatters ” as they had in the Transvaal. The hon. member referred to legislation which had been passed in the Cape to deal with that question, and said that the owner of the land had to pay for every “squatter ” on his property. In Natal the question was not such a crying one as in the Transvaal, and in Natal there was no pressing need for a Squatters Law, any more than there was in the Cape Province. In the Orange Free State there was an entirely unique position of affairs; and there was no land reserved for natives there. He described what the condition of affairs was there, and said that in 1908 a measure had been introduced in the Volksraad against the share system, as it was, it seemed, considered derogatory for a European to live on the work done by the natives. But that measure had not received the assent of the Home Government. Yet here they were asked, in the Union Parliament, to pass something similar. If they passed such a Squatters Bill as the hon. member for Smithfield wanted, where could the natives of the Orange Free State go to? He did not know of any place in the Free State where they could send the natives.

As to the restrictions on purchases of land by natives, he understood the hon. member for Smithfield to say that he had gathered that this was to be for all time. The Minister of Native Affairs distinctly said as a temporary measure, until the Commission had reported on the question, and as to the areas in which purchase by natives should be permitted, and purchase by white people should be permitted. If the view should go forward that the Ministry were in favour of a permanent law in that direction, he thought it ought to be opposed by everybody who realised that they had to protect in that House the interests even of the natives and coloured people, as well as their own people. He feared that if this prohibition of sale were allowed as a temporary measure, either by the force of circumstances or by the power of agitation on the part of those who would wish that it should become permanent, there would be great difficulty in bringing that prohibition to an end. He thought the Minister had steered a moderate and middle course, which would, perhaps, commend itself to the majority of members. He would remind the House that the report of the Native Affairs Commission of 1903 and 1905 had never yet been before any Parliament and their recommendations had never been adopted. He thought it would be well that these recommendations should have been adopted before they had a Bill. He agreed that, as a general rule, it was not desirable that natives and white men should live cheek by jowl on adjoining farms, but he did not think they would ever be able to carry out complete geographical segregation in South Africa. His objection to the position of the Minister was that it did not seem to him (Mr. Schreiner) to be fair that rights which existed at the present time on the part of natives to purchase land should be abrogated before the recommendations of the Native Affairs Commission were carried out. He would like to say a word from the point of view of the native. Why had the native been buying land for the last five or six years? He had not been buying land in the Cape, as far as he (Mr. Schreiner) knew, to any greater extent than before, and he could not buy land in the Free State, on account of the state of the law. In the Transvaal, owing to the decision of the Supreme Court, it was understood that there was no hindrance in the way of natives or coloured people buying land. Then arose the question of squatting, and the driving off of hundreds and thousands of people. Where had they to go? The whole of the ground was in the hands of the European farmers, except a few locations, which were already overcrowded. Where were they to go when the Squatters Law was put into force? It was only human nature that they should try and protect themselves by buying land as a place of refuge. The majority of purchases had been on ground which had been in the hands of their ancestors. It was only in the Transvaal that this question had become so acute. Why, then, should they interfere with the position of affairs in the other Provinces at the present time, where there was no great call in the matter? Continuing, Mr. Schreiner said he did not want any consideration to be shown to the native that was not shown to the whites, but people must not be forced to part with land they already possessed. It would be impossible to move the hundred thousand natives in the Transvaal without a military force. Referring to the proposals in the Native Squatters Bill published in 1912, Mr. Schreiner said that under one of its clauses, it was possible to turn out within a, few’ days a man, with all his belongings, who had been allowed for many years to live on Crown land or private ground on payment of a settled sum as rent. That was spoliation. Where the poor devil was to go to, he did not know. (Laughter.)

The hon. member must moderate his language.

said he would rather die on the floor of the House than that such a provision should become law, and he hoped the Minister of Native Affairs would take warning, but they felt sure that the Minister would be absolutely fair and just. The hon. member for Ficksburg had used the word “coloured.” Surely the time had arrived when they must make a difference between the coloured people and the civilised or educated natives, who were almost or quite on the same level as the European, and the mass of natives who were still uncivilised. In conclusion, Mr. Schreiner said he had felt it his duty, as one interested in native affairs, and more or less representing the native, to state his views, which possibly might be of some assistance in the drawing up of legislation.

, in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Ficksburg, said that if the motion were accepted the native problem, if not solved, would have at any rate advanced a step in the right direction. He held that the time had come when this great question should be solved. He wished to deny the allegation that people of the North were against all the coloured people. Neither the Free State nor the Transvaal wished to treat them unfairly. What they proposed doing now, as a matter of fact, was just as much in the interests of the natives as of the white people, and the honest coloured men themselves recognised the necessity of the pass law. The coloured people in the North did not object to carrying passes, which passes they regarded as, in fact, a sort of protection. Well-behaved coloured people in the Free State were not required to carry passes. As regarded the squatting evil, he held that it was detrimental to the natives to be allowed to be idle and herd together in laziness on farms. It only led to beer-drinking and stealing. It was also bad for the landowner. He emphasised that it was essential that every man, including the native, in the State should do something towards the progress of the State in which he lived. (Hear, hear.) He was not against the squatting of natives so as to assist the lazy farmer, but simply because he held that squatting was detrimental to everyone concerned. The present state of affairs of natives spending their time in idleness was the first step to crime, he held. In reply to the statements by Mr. Schreiner, he wished it to be understood that at the very least, ninety per cent of the Free State farmers would be opposed to the system of allowing natives to sow on shares. A law prohibiting it was passed in the Free State in 1908, but for one reason or another was never given effect to. He did not know why. Under this system the poor whites were kept off the land. He was pleased that something was at last to be done to alter the present state of affairs.

said he would vote for both motion and amendment, and emphasised that this native question brooked no delay. Last session the speaker had himself introduced a motion dealing with the native problem, and pointed out the evil of allowing native men to do women’s work. The present conditions were responsible for what was known as the “black peril,” and incidentally 100,000 natives were lost to farming. The hon. member went on to refer to the reports of the Commission appointed by the old Free State Parliament to inquire into these conditions. The report of the Trades and Industries Commission pointed out that in the Cape Province 30,000 more coloured children than white children were receiving good education—and he had come to the conclusion that these children were being educated at the expense of the white children. The coloured children were also receiving industrial education, whereas the white children were doing nothing. In the Cape Peninsula, at any rate, the white workmen were being replaced by coloured people. The worst point however, was that this state of affairs was spreading to the northern Provinces. The hon. member went on to deal with the location system, which he regarded as an absolute pest. The mines and the farmers had no labour, but the locations were full. The natives could not give any account as to how they lived, but neighbouring farmers could. Some years ago, the hon. member went on, one could not walk about decently in Johannesburg or Cape Town owing to the immoral women one came across. That state of affairs had now changed, but the immorality was now found in the locations. Such a state of affairs had got to be changed. He would be unable to return to his constituents without some solution of the question. And he was pleased to hear the promise of the hon. Minister that something would be done.

said that he would have thought that after the explanation of the Minister of Native Affairs it would not have been necessary to enter into any debate. He thought that seeing that legislation was to be introduced, hon. members should have reserved their arguments to such time when the second reading of the Bill was proposed, because otherwise they would simply have a double debate on the same subject. (Hear, hear.) He had hoped that they might have devoted the afternoon to the discussion of other legislation. But after all it appeared that this afternoon must be spent in a debate of a more or less academic nature—(hear, hear)—and in the circumstances he would also like to make a few remarks. There could be no doubt but that this whole question bristled with difficulties, yet those people who had never studied the subject were those who had most to say about a solution having to be found. He remembered that ever since the days of his boyhood people had been talking about a solution, but he certainly never had seen any effective scheme put on paper. Undoubtedly this was the greatest problem that could be put before them. The Government realised their responsibility, and realised that they must do something to find a solution—a solution which should be just and fair to every section of the community. (Cheers.) It was nonsense to try and solve this problem in the way some people suggested—by making slaves of a certain section. Some persons wanted to see 50 families of natives allocated to this farmer, 50 to that, and 50 to another. Well, these people would have to be disappointed, because they could never force any individual to go and work for another if he did not wish to do so. (Hear, hear.) They could pass measures to remove a native from one place where he could not live, but they could not by means of legislation force him to work for anyone. (Hear, hear.) Well, what could they do now to put an end to the present unsound state of affairs? The unsound state of affairs he meant was that gradually a condition of congregation of whites and natives was being created in this country, a condition which was just as unsound for the natives as for the white people. (Hear, hear.) Everywhere in the country they found places where a native had never lived. Let them look at the highveld of the Transvaal, for instance. For the past 70 years no natives had been found there, but white men brought them with them from other parts, and eventually the natives came to those parts in large numbers and bought ground at what he called mad prices. They paid £8 per morgen for ground which was worth £3. But the regrettable part of it all was that there were white men who were prepared and even eager to sell to natives. Where they had such a position coming into existence it was essential that steps should be taken. Naturally white communities could not allow natives to settle among them like that. In a district like the high veld, they could not permit natives to settle there. Well, the Minister of Native Affairs that afternoon had clearly indicated that legislation would be introduced this year to prevent this state of conditions, and he hoped the House would be satisfied on that point and accept his statement. (Hear, hear.) Another question also arose. They had large farmers in this country, but some of them were so rich they did not want to live on their ground. Instead they lived in the towns or in England or elsewhere, and they did not care to whom their land was leased; a native consequently became the lessee, and the other farmers who had to live on their land in the vicinity, and who had to work their ground, felt the evil effects. That was done not only by people from other countries, but also by Africanders. Such conditions were dangerous to the country. If a farmer could or would not live on his land, then he (the Prime Minister) would go so far as to advocate, if necessary, that his ground be expropriated, so that other people who would work it could be settled on that land. (Cheers.) He knew of one case where a farmer lived on his farm and yet let it to Kafirs. His children had to ride mealies for the Kafirs, and if he himself required meat he had to buy it from the Kafirs. He contended that there was room for improvement in their legislation dealing with native affairs—(hear, hear)—and he hoped Parliament would deal with these matters on broad lines, aiming at the progress and: welfare of the whole country. They should not tackle the matter in a party spirit, and say, “ This or that party will benefit by it,” because, if they did that, they would never achieve their object. (Cheers.) Before Union, (General Botha proceeded), it had been impossible to do anything, because they could not get every Parliament of the different Provinces to take the same measures. Now, however, they had one Government and one Parliament, and they had an opportunity of doing something, and something would be done. (Cheers.) But they must be cautious. They were dealing with a great people and they should not lose sight of the fact that they were, so to speak, the trustees of the natives, that they had the control of the natives. (Hear, hear.) They were not like the Chinese, they were subjects of this Union, and they (Parliament) were responsible for them. But they could talk as much as they liked, but it must be clear that social rapprochement between the whites and the coloured races was impossible, and could only lead to the greatest misery. (Cheers.) But unless they went slowly and carefully, there was a danger that they might take steps which would be unreasonable, unjust, and unfair on one section. For that reason, he regretted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), because the amendment would have bad results if it were accepted. It would lead to an over-hasty measure of a most impracticable kind. This House would have to demarcate exactly and immediately those parts where the natives would have to live, and he asked them: was this House able to do so? (Cries of “No.”) It was all very nice to talk and take a map and draw lines on it. He had seen something similar done in regard to railway lines, and a railway line which was supposed to be a hundred miles would, if the map were taken, be something like a thousand miles. (Laughter.) On the map they might be able to beacon off parts, and say, “This is for the natives,” but then, when they put their scheme into effect, they might find that the ground of many individuals had been taken away without any inquiries or any investigations having been made. (Laughter, and “Hear, hear.”) This House would expropriate the rights of many white people, and they would meet with the greatest opposition. Where were they going to put these people then? In the Transvaal, farmers certainly would not consent to this; he did not know the people of the Free State so well, but he doubted whether they would agree. (A Free State Member: “No, they certainly will not.”) Instead of taking any steps like this, they should be practical, and not land themselves into greater difficulties than they could help. Governments before them had done their best. He agreed that the squatting of natives should be put an end to as soon as possible, but they should not lose sight of the fact that many Governments before them had done their best to put an end to this squatting evil. He knew well how the Transvaal Government had, year after year, taken up this matter. But what did they find? Simply that when they had passed a Squatters Law they could only put it into operation in one small part of the country. (Hear, hear.) To introduce another Bill like that would simply mean deceiving the country—(hear, hear)—and the natives. If they accepted the proposal of the Minister of Native Affairs to appoint a Commission to investigate the various conditions prevailing throughout the country, he thought they would be taking a step in the right direction. (Hear, hear.) However, care was essential, because they must prevent causing a sort of revolution throughout the country. What they wanted was a measure which would be acceptable to the white man as well as to the native. (Hear, hear.)

As regarded the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), he held that that did not in any way deal with the whole question. “It is only half a measure.” It touched on certain points, such as the purchase of ground, but it could not in any way be said to solve their difficulties. (Hear, hear.) If they wished to solve the whole question they should see to it that they had all the natives in South Africa under them. (Cheers.) To-day there were various protectorates which had a different form of government. If they wished to deal properly with this great problem, then he held that this House should agree to instruct the Government to approach the Imperial Government with a view to allowing all the protectorates to fall under the Union. That would naturally facilitate the position, because one would then be able to grant self-government to the natives in the larger areas in the same way as was being done in the Transkei to-day. (Cheers.) There was still the question of the coloured franchise in the Cape. In conclusion, the Prime Minister said that it was just as impossible to finish the whole question by means of an amendment such as they had before them to-day as it was to touch the sun with one’s hand. (Laughter.) The leasing or selling of lands to natives must cease, and there must be an end made to the squatting evil. On the other hand, distinct places must be set apart where the natives could live together. He was convinced that it would be detrimental for this House to accept the amendment, and he hoped that they would look carefully into the question and accept the statement of the Minister of Native Affairs. (Cheers.)

said he understood from the Prime Minister in the early part of his remarks, that this debate might very well have been postponed owing to the statement of the Minister of Native Affairs. All he would say was that, if that were the right hon. gentleman’s view, as leader of the House, he might very well have taken the House in his confidence, and he (Sir T. W. Smartt) could only inform him that a great deal would be saved in the conducting of the business of this House if the right hon. gentleman would lay down the policy of his Government, and prevent some supporters from going into various channels of opinion on important matters before the House. He looked at the paper and found that this notice of motion had been considered of such importance by the Government that they gave it a special Government day as the first order on the paper. Under these circumstances he at once thought that it was the intention and desire of the Government that a full-dress debate should take place on this important question. Instead of that, they saw an extraordinary procedure on the part of the Minister of Native Affairs, who forestalled one of his stalwart supporters behind him, and instead of allowing the hon. member to give his speech, made a speech himself on this motion. He thought that the Government had decided, whether under pressure or not as the hon. member for Smithfield seemed to assume, to deal with this important question. Under these circumstances, he thought it would have been far better for the House not to prejudge a measure before it was laid on the Table, and to have an opportunity of seeing the conditions and clauses embodied in it. They on that side were prepared to judge any measure of that sort on its merits. (Hear, hear.) They felt that it would be an evil day for this country if the native policy of this country were made the battledore and shuttlecock of parties. (Hear, hear.) As one who sat in the Cape Parliament for a considerable period, he could say that the remarks which had been made by the member for Queen’s Town were absolutely and entirely correct. (Opposition cheers.)

The Prime Minister made a statement of a very serious character—a statement which deserved the very fullest consideration. He did not wish to misinterpret the right hon. gentleman, but he (Sir Thomas) understood that speaking as one who, in the Prime Minister’s position, was really responsible to the natives, he said that he (the Prime Minister) considered the time had arrived when they should fully debate the advisability or otherwise of taking over the Protectorates on the Union border, and embodying them in the Union. Well, he (Sir Thomas) thought that before the House began to think of contemplating a policy of that sort, it should give it far more consideration than they could do in an afternoon’s debate such as they had had that day. (Hear, hear.)

I did not say that. What I said was before we can have a proper solution.

said that before they could contemplate that they must arrive at a proper solution of the problem within their own borders. Between the coloured and the native question there was a great gulf. (Cheers.) He interpreted the promises made by the Minister of Native Affairs to apply entirely to the natives and not to the coloured people. He thought that the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) wanted to be sure that before a Commission was appointed Government should pledge themselves to introduce a Bill altering the legislation, certainly of the Cape Province

As regards the coloured people?

Yes. I would like this to be cleared up in the interests of the people of this country, because statements of this sort, if misunderstood, are liable to cause the most intense unrest throughout the country. (Hear, hear.)

The country must recognise that both parties—or every party—(A LABOUR MEMBER: “That’s better”)—are only going to deal with the matter with the determination to administer justice. (Cheers.) We have great obligations to these people, and things said hastily in this House may have a tendency to foment feeling which will be of incalculable detriment to South Africa. Proceeding, Sir Thomas said that why he referred to this point particularly was that the motion of the hon. member for Ficksburg referred to coloured people. When they used the word “coloured” it had an extremely wide significance. Among the coloured people in the Cape Province there were persons who had raised themselves in the scale of civilisation, and people to whom the State should give every recognition. He wished to know whether people were to be prevented from leasing land because they were coloured. He would be glad to know if the Bill would deal with the question of natives and coloured people, and also if there was any intention, before the Commission reported, of altering the law under which people in this Province were allowed to do certain things which, in the mind of the hon. member for Ficksburg, they should not be allowed to do. With regard to the question of squatting, the present Minister of Railways and Harbours introduced a Bill last year dealing with that, but it became a self-evident fact that they could not remove hundreds of thousands of natives without making some provision to assist them, or finding some place to which they could be removed. It would be better if there were a free discussion between Europeans and the representatives of natives, because he believed there were solutions which it would be possible to arrive at after full discussion, but that it would be detrimental to peace and prosperity to allow coloured people and natives to consider that a section of the white population was going to ride roughshod over them, irrespective of their rights. (Opposition cheers.) Under those circumstances he must apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House, and would defer anything further he might have to say until they had something more definite from the hon. Minister. (Cheers.)

said he had introduced his motion not for the purpose of embarrassing the Government but because he considered something should be done, and because the people of the Free State were not satisfied to allow the present state of affairs to continue. The speaker referred to the petitions which had been received asking for an end to be made to the pernicious system of sowing on shares. The Prime Minister had promised the Free State that the old “model” laws would be enforced. As regarded his motion, Mr. Keyter referred to the Great Trek of 1838, one reason for which had been that the Government allowed the natives to trek about freely on the borders, and commit murder and robbery. In those days they had an open Free State to go to, but to-day they had no such places to go to, otherwise there might have been another great trek. Under present circumstances, however, they could only obtain their end along constitutional lines. The hon. member went on to refer to the old pass laws of the Free State, and the decision of the Court to the effect that those who sowed on shares were partners with the owners of the land. Much was said and heard of a white man’s country, but they should do something to make it a white man’s country, and if they did not they would find that in 20 years’ time it would be a black man’s country. As long as he was a member of that House he would let his voice be heard on that matter. He considered the sowing on share system as nothing but a kind of rent. As to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said, he must reply that he would be the first who would protest against rights being taken from coloured people which they had once been granted; but at the same time, he was against any rights being given in the Orange Free State to coloured people— rights which they had not previously had. They did not want to take away any of the rights of the coloured people of the Cape Province. He thought that the demands of the O.F.S. were reasonable, and that if they went on as they were going they would make this a black man’s country, instead of a white man’s country, of which they had heard so much on public platforms. The views he had enunciated were honest views, and he thought it was only right that he should have clearly stated what their position in the O.F.S. was. (Hear, hear.)

said that if the Minister could assure them that the Squatters Laws would be carried out, they would be satisfied. He thought it was the feeling of every party in that House that there was a struggle between white and black in South Africa—one for self-preservation. He agreed with what had been said by the Prime Minister, and that it was not at all so easy to deal with squatting by means of legislation. They were bound to treat the natives with justice, but they were also entitled to strengthen their position by fair and just methods, and one way was to educate their children. It rested with the people themselves, especially the farmer section of their population. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until March 19.

rose to reply to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. “The hon. member,” he said, “asked whether I contemplated

The debate is adjourned.