presented a petition from C. Anthony and 19 others, inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs, 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.

Ordered to lie on the Table.

brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities as follows:—

Your committee, having considered the various petitions referred to, begs to report: I. That it recommends: (1) That contributions to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund be accepted from W. G. Glennie, formerly examining officer, Customs Department, in respect of his service from 1st January, 1894, to 31st December, 1896, and that, subject to the payment of such contributions, his pension be increased from £144 11s. 8d. to £173 0s. 6d. per annum, to take effect from the date of his retirement; (2) that the pension awarded to M. Foster, formerly clerk, Port Elizabeth Harbour Board, on retirement be increased from £41 5s. to £91 5s. per annum, to take effect from the date of his retirement; (3) that contributions to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund be accepted from H. J. Penny, clerk Railway Department, in respect of his service from the 16th April, 1890, to 15th April, 1900; (4) the award to M. H. Alves of a pension of £1 10s. per month, to take effect from the 1st April, 1913; (5) that, as contributions to the Civil Service Pension Fund should have been collected in terms of Act No. 23 of 1886 (Cape) from M. Power, formerly of the Customs Department, from the date of his entering the Cape Public Service in August, 1885, such contributions should now be collected and petitioner’s pension increased from £59 16s. 7d. to £96 18s. per annum from the date of his retirement; the increase in, the pension being utilised to liquidate the amount of contributions due; (6) that the pension of £437 10s. per annum awarded to Sir George Turner, formerly superintendent of the Pretoria Leper Asylum, be increased by £250 per annum, to take effect from the 1st April, 1913; (7 a) the condonation of the break in the late D. D. Birrell’s service under the Government of the Cape of Good Hope—from August 1, 1901, to December 14, 1903—so that this officer’s contributions to the Pension Fund in respect of the period of his service from April, 1895, to July, 1901 (£42 5s. 9d.), may become available to his widow and a proportionate benefit may accrue to her from the Widows Pension Fund, and (b) the award to her, in terms of Cape Act No, 32 of 1895 (section 33), of a gratuity of £100; (8) the award to Eliza J. Pratt of a pension of £1 per month, to take effect from April 1, 1913; (9) the award to W. Makenana, formerly labourer, Railway Department, of a pension of £1 per month, to take effect from April 1, 1913; (10) the award to P. Kelly, formerly clerk, Postal Department, of a pension of £1 per month, to take effect from April 1, 1913; (12) that the break in the service of J. Williams, formerly blacksmith, South African Railways, from or about November, 1877, to April 1, 1879, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service, and that the period of his service between April 1, 1879 and June 1, 1880, be admitted as part of his continuous service for pension purposes; (13) that the break in the service of Edith J. A. Black, teacher, from October 1, 1908, to December 31, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (14) that the breaks in the service of Magdalena Marais, teacher, from April 1, 1909, to September 30, 1911, and from January 1, 1912, to June 30, 1912, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (15) that the break in the service of D. G. Roux, teacher, from January 1, 1907, to June 30, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (16) that the break in the service of D. J. W. Wium, teacher, from January 1, 1910, to December 31, 1912, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (17) that the break in the service of Anna C. le Roux, teacher, from. April 1, 1894, to June 30, 1900, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service; (18) that the break in the service of D. J. Retief, teacher, from January 1, 1909, to December 31, 1910, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service; (19) that the Superintendent of Education, Natal, be authorised to place the name of A. Day, teacher, on the register for pension purposes, in pursuance of Act No. 31 of 1910 (Natal); (20) that the petition of H. T. Smith be referred to the Government with a view to the possibility of his being reinstated in the Public Service; (21) that the petition of D. Collenette be referred to the Government with a view to his reinstatement in the Railway Department.

II. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained, viz.: (1) A. Harris, (2) Anne O. Edmonds, (3) Johanna J. Screech, (4) P. J. M. Brocklebank, (5) C. Murison, (6) N. J. Lerhoto, (7) J. G. Sutton, (8) A. P. van Straten, (9) N. W. Pentz, (10) V. Begley, (11) W. Greenwood, (12) L. M. Sculpfort, (13) A. J. S. Young, (14) H. J. McDonald, (15) F. Thomas, (16) H. W. Brauns, (17) Charlotte A. Turner, (18) W. Matthew, (19) With reference to the petition of M. J. de Beer, your Committee is unable to make any recommendation thereon, as the subject matter of the petition appears to be one to be dealt with by the Provincial Administration.

The report was set down for consideration to-morrow.

moved: That the Sessional Standing Order giving precedence to the consideration of the Estimates of Expenditure by Committee of Supply during evening sittings, adopted on the 2nd May, 1913, be discharged.

seconded.

said he would be remiss in a most pleasing duty if he did not congratulate the Prime Minister and the members of the Government on at last realising that the business of the House should have the first consideration of the House. On May 2, when the Prime Minister moved the Sessional Standing Order which it was now sought to discharge, the Opposition, and the right hon. member for Victoria West, with his long Parliamentary experience, tried to explain to the Government to what confusion the business of the country would be put if the Government forced the motion through The Opposition welcomed the Government’s change of front, but was exceedingly sorry that fourteen days of the session should have been wasted by the obstinacy of the gentlemen on the Treasury benches. He hoped this would be an example by which his right hon. friend would profit, and that he would realise that, when the Opposition tendered advice to the Treasury benches, it always did so with the best intention. (Loud Ministerial laughter.) Hon. members might laugh, but could anybody say that this advice was not tendered with the best intentions, when the Prime Minister proposed to do to-day what he (Sir Thomas) suggested that he should do fourteen days ago? He knew that the right hon. gentleman depended on his docile majority—the hon. member for Port Elizabeth called it a willing and docile majority—(laughter)—but he (Sir Thomas) hoped that, this would be a lesson to the Prime Minister, and that he would profit by the experience, and that, when they on that side of the House tendered advice as to the best manner of carrying on the business of the country, his right hon. friend would accept the advice in the spirit in which it was intended. When they came to the end of the session, and realised that, owing to a good many days being wasted, in consequence of the manner in which the Government had conducted the business, the right hon. gentleman would realise that the responsibility would rest entirely on his shoulders, and on those of the gentlemen who sat on the Treasury benches. He (Sir Thomas) welcomed the motion, and he was exceedingly pleased that, after fourteen days, the Prime Minister had seen the commonsense of the proposals made by the Opposition. (Opposition cheers.)

The motion was agreed to.

who on rising was greeted with cheers. It was with very great reluctance (the right hon. gentleman said) that he rose to speak on this measure. It would have been more convenient to have given a silent vote, but he felt, and he was afraid, that after many years of devoted attention to this question of the native policy of South Africa, he would not be doing his duty if he did not give this House—for what it was worth— the result of his experience through these years. (Hear, hear.) First of all, he would say that he hoped this House would recognise the very grave nature of any step they might take which had to deal with native policy. (Hear, hear.) They were dealing with the welfare of the future of four millions of their fellow-subjects, for whom they were responsible, and who had no voice in that place. They had to consider that, when they were dealing with the Government of England in passing the Act of Union through the House of Commons, they gave very emphatic pledges with regard to their attitude in regard to the natives who were placed in their care. They satisfied them that they would be dealt with with the most scrupulous justice and with the utmost toleration. He well recollected, when that Bill was passing through the House of Commons, the only speech which lifted the discussion out of the rut of party politics was that delivered by Mr. Balfour, and the attitude which he recommended to his side of the House was that we in this country were responsible, upon us would fall the result of any mistakes that we made, we should have to pay, and we should, therefore, be left to manage these affairs as we were guided. He (Mr. Merriman) had said that these people were voiceless. They should recollect that. In the future of South( Africa, they would be judged by the way in which they handled this important question. The gold mines would perish after a time. No one could tell what the future of this country might be; but, as far as they could see, the natives would always be with us, and one of the great tasks which was imposed upon the white races of South Africa was to civilise and bring the natives up, and not to trample upon them and repress them. It was in that spirit that he and his hon. friend who had introduced this Bill had in the past tried to act. It was a spirit in which the Parliament had tried to act.

In speaking for South Africa, they were proud to be able to point to the example set by this country in regard to the liberal treatment of natives. Mr. Rhodes and he always agreed that the one thing which made politics interesting in South Africa and took politics away from the mere wrangle as to whether one section was to dominate another, was this native question. Upon whether they did their duty or not depended the future, not only of this part of South Africa, but of the whole of Africa. It was not we who were going to pay for any mistakes we made now, but we could depend upon it that those who came after us would have to pay for any mistakes we made in dealing with any matter of native policy at the present time. Therefore, he said this matter must be approached with caution. He deprecated and he hoped they would not hear any of those heated speeches which sometimes they heard outside this House, and sometimes in this House, too. They must recollect that they were not speaking to their own race merely. He might quote the words of a very wise man, speaking more than one hundred years ago of the situation of England in India. They applied with double emphasis to our situation in this country. Mr. Burke, after having described the position of the English race in India, said: “All these circumstances are not, I confess, very favourable to the idea of attempting to govern India at all, but there we are placed by the Sovereign Disposer, and we must do the best we can in the situation. The situation of a man is the preceptor of his duty.” Let them remember that the situation of a man was the preceptor of his duty. Our duty as the superior race was not to repress and keep these people down, but, while we made ourselves worthy of our position as the dominant race of this country, we should try and lift these people up at the same time.

He Should like to emphasise another and brighter side of the question, and that was to point out that the natives were not only a danger and a responsibility to us in this country, but, if they were well managed, they were an invaluable asset to the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) Let them take our trade figures and compare them with the figures of the other large British Dominions. Our figures were surprising when measured by the white population, but if they took the richest Dominion that there was under the British Crown outside South Africa, and took the trade value of those figures per head of the white population, and multiply those figures by our European population, then they might very well apply any balance they had to our native population, and then they would see, strangely enough, that upon that basis it worked out that the actual trade of three natives was worth about that of one white man. That of course, was a very imperfect way of looking at the value of these people, because the trade value of some of these natives was far greater than the trade value of some of our white people, and the trade value of an ordinary white person. He had merely indicated these trade figures to show what an enormous asset we had in the natives in that respect. Let them think what the industry of the natives had done for us. Who had built our railways, who had dug our mines, and developed this country as far as it was developed ? Who had been the actual manual worker who had done that? The native: the coloured races of this country. We must never forget that we owed them a debt in that respect—a debt not often enough acknowledged by what we did for them. Proceeding, he said that they ought to think what they owed to the docility of the natives, and the wonderfully easy way in which they had been governed when treated properly. He also paid a tribute to the honesty of the natives. He went on to say that he wished to show the way in which a Bill of this nature should be approached

The Bill was of the very greatest importance. What must strike anyone was the fact that though this Bill was really, to a certain extent, a beginning, or was thought to be in certain quarters, of a revolution in their dealing with the native races, it was not even mentioned in the speech of the Governor-General. It fell upon them like a bolt from the blue. He remembered the afternoon. They had heard a very impassioned and very heated speech from the hon. member for Ficksburg on the enormous danger of squatting in the Free State, and that was the occasion for introducing a general statement of the policy of the Government towards the natives and the introduction of this Bill. He did not think that that was the way they liked to see a thing of this magnitude approached. They often heard demands for what was called a general declaration of policy with regard to native affairs—a policy which should be applied to the highest civilised native, the owner of a farm and the naked barbarian. They could not do it. People who demanded a general declaration of that kind had not had the experience which some of them had had. The hon. member who spoke before him said that he was in favour of the underlying principle of the Bill. What was the underlying principle? The underlying principle was what one read into the Bill. One hon. member read into it that it was the separation of the two races. That might have been done when the two races first came in contact at the Fish River, but it could not be done now. Since then they had been developing the country with the labour of these people. They had been advancing by our aid. They had mixed themselves up with these people in an extricable fashion, and then some said “Haul your native policy out of the drawer and begin with a policy of separation.” He was sure that the hon. member who had brought in the Bill had no idea of that sort in his mind. Another person had the idea that they were going to set up a sort of pale— a sort of kraal in which they were going to drive these people. Then another gentleman sneered at the policy hitherto adopted, and he said that one side said that the policy towards the natives should be firm and just, while the other side said that it should be just and firm. He was sure that members on both sides of the House were absolutely in favour of a just policy towards the natives, and every man charged with the administration of public affairs should see that the policy towards the natives was firm—when they promised the native something that, promise should be fulfilled.

When they made a stringent squatting law they should not break that law just for their own convenience. (Hear, hear.) That: was not firmness and that was not justice. It was an unworthy sneer to have said that native policy should be firm and just as if it was a mere phrase. It had fallen to the lot of his friend by some malign dispensation of Fate to introduce this Bill, but he felt certain that he would not depart one jot from the policy of firmness and justice. He was annoyed the previous night by hearing a certain section of people carping at his hon. friend for following a certain direction in regard to the native labour policy. He (the speaker) knew how his hon. friend, since he assumed office, had devoted his attention to this question of native labour, to see that the question was put right. It seemed ungracious for that section to have seized that moment for making little pricks at his policy. His hon. friend was old enough to recollect, as he did, a famous occasion when they had another Minister Who determined to lay down what he termed the native policy for all time for the guidance of South Africa, and it was called a policy of vigour. For that policy of vigour they were still paying the interest on four millions of money every year. Sometimes he felt inclined to remind his hon. friend of the saying of his favourite statesman Lord Melbourne, who on being approached by people to do the most impossible things, would say “Can’t you leave it alone?” Sometimes he felt like that. But there was the Bill, and they must approach it with the greatest reserve and toleration. In a few words he would like to deal with some of the criticism that had been advanced with regard to the measure. It seemed to him that they had not got sufficient information. Beyond the bald statistics which were given by the Minister in the course of his interesting and moderate speech, they had nothing. They were going into a thing that would stir South Africa from end to end, and which affected hundreds of thousands of both races. They had no information as to what were the ideas of the natives. It was unfortunate that, owing to this lack of information, wrong ideas had got about with regard to this Bill. It was difficult to find out what the native thought about these things; he doubted whether anybody could say that he had got at the mind of the native. The only way, and he must say that he did not take it as a real indication, was what they wrote in their newspapers. He was alarmed, but not surprised, at some of the articles in their newspapers, because they took their views from the heated speeches and writings in party newspapers all over the country, and they were very much alarmed. He thought that before a Bill of this sort was passed, there should be some attempt made to get their views. As far as one section was concerned, the Bill was going to set up a sort of pale—that there was going to be a sort of kraal in which all the natives were to be driven, and they were to be left to develop on their own lines. To allow them to go on their own lines was merely to drive them back into barbarism; their own lines meant barbarous lines: their own lines were cruel lines. All along they had been bringing them away from their own lines. It reminded him of what an English writer said about a similar policy of Ireland, because when the English went to Ireland they regarded the native Irish in the way some extreme people here regarded the natives of South Africa. They thought they would root them out. They treated them as dogs, and thought that they were dogs. They set up a pale. They set the Irish within that pale, to develop upon their own lines, but there were always Englishmen living in that pale, just as in the same way they found Europeans living among natives. Sir George Davis in describing this policy wrote that it was the intention of the Government to set up a separation between English and Irish, intending in time that the English should root out the Irish. If they changed the Irish for natives they would see how the illustration would apply. A policy more foredoomed to failure in South Africa could not be initiated. It was a policy that would keep South Africa back, perhaps for ever. (Hear, hear.) What would be the effect of driving these civilised natives back into reserves? At the present time, every civilised man— if they treated him properly—every civilised man was becoming an owner of land outside native reserve, and therefore he was an asset of strength to the country. He was a loyalist. He was not going to risk losing his property. He was on the side of the European. If they drove these people back into reserve they became our bitterest enemies. Therefore, he viewed anything that tended that way with the gravest suspicion. Again, in this Bill there was not sufficient distinction between those natives who tried to educate themselves and the ordinary raw barbarian. They were all classed under the word “native.”

What they wanted to prevent, however, was communal land tenure of the natives outside the reserve. It was rather hard to leave it to the Government of the day to say whether a native should be driven into a kraal or helped on his way. He recognised all the difficulties of this question in Cape Colony. In Cape Colony one of the last Acts that was passed by them was an Act forbidding any purchase of land by natives on communal tenure outside the reserve. Communal tenure was a tenure of barbarism—no matter what his hon. friends on the cross benches might say. He was strongly opposed to it, and he hoped that in any measure which they passed, they would make a differentiation between the two classes of purchase. It was contemplated to take land from native people, and land from white people, by the advice of a Commission. Of course, it was true that they would have to introduce a Bill, which would probably have a very rough passage through the House. He came now to what was the main object of the Bill, and that was: to do away with the squatting evil. Why was there a squatting evil? Was it the fault of the native? (An hon. member: No.) Was it the fault of the law? (No.) They had got the most stringent laws concerning natives of all the laws in the whole country, in the Province of which his hon. friend (Mr. Keyter) was a member. He did not think anything was more surprising than when they came to look at the increases in the native population in the Grange Free State. They had a huge native population in the Cape, and the increase during the census periods from 1904 to 1911—he wanted hon. members to pay some attention to this, because it showed the value of legislation—the increase in the Cape Province during that period was 8.33 per cent. In Natal, which had a huge—in fact, an overwhelming—native population, curiously enough, the increase was the same, even to the actual decimal figure, viz., 8.33 per cent.; but some allowance must be made, because a large number of natives were out at work in the mines. Now, in the Transvaal—and in taking the Transvaal figures these did not apply as regarded squatting, because the increase was mainly due to the number of natives employed in the mines. In the Transvaal the natives increased by 30.1 per cent. Now, when they came to his friend’s little State, where the most stringent laws were made to keep out the natives, how much did they suppose the natives increased in the Free State? By no less than 44 per cent. (Opposition cheers.) Was that the fault of the natives? No, it was because—having the most stringent laws—the people found it best to evade those laws. (Hear, hear.) He hoped his hon. friend would be a little tolerant. Do let him pick the mote out of his own eye before he tried to pick the beam out of other people’s. (Hear, hear.) In the Free State these laws were very severe; for instance, punishments—amazing punishments—were given, and yet the result was the increase in five years by 44per cent. of their native population. This was something that they should take a warning by. They were going to do away with the squatter in appearance, but he would still survive as a labour tenant. They might do away with the labour tenant, and he would still be surviving as a labour servant. How was the Government to distinguish between these? They had in the Cape a law which stated how many labour tenants a man should have upon his farm.

What they wanted in this country was administration and not mere legislation, and if they were to put the laws which they had into force in the Free State at the present time he had no doubt that there would be a rebellion. (Hear, hear.) They would have platforms swarming with people who would say that they could not grow one bag of mealies without the natives. But they had the laws to do it. Now they went and tried in this Bill to make a uniform law. That his poor friend the Minister of all people should be the author of a uniform law on native matters! (Laughter.) He said this more in sorrow than in anger—(laughter)—because the conditions were totally different in the four Provinces. In the Cape they had their laws, arid he did not think that any reasonable man could object to them. They had minimised their squatting evil, they had done away with the communal purchase of land by natives, and they had given their natives ample reserves. In Natal they had a system which had apparently worked well. At any rate there they were very much mixed up with this tenant business. They might pass a Bill and find that the whole population of Natal—white and black— against it, and thus they might have to alter the Bill.

No.

The hon. member speaks for the whole population of Natal. (Laughter.) In the Free State, proceeded Mr. Merriman, we were in an entirely different position, for there the people had most excellent laws from their point of view for keeping out the natives—stringent, Draconian, and violent laws, but they were not carried out, and the natives had flooded the country. All they wanted to do was to turn the native from a tenant to a labour tenant, and then salvation would be at hand. He could not see very much difference between the two, except that one was a contented advancing man and the other a discontented man approaching very closely to the Russian serf—he was a soul. Shortly we should hear of a farm being up for sale with so many souls.

In the Transvaal the problem had been complicated by the decisions of the Court and the curious way in which some ground had been given out in the Zoutpansberg district, where, he was told, farms had been given out on which the natives had been living for years, arid these farms— with the natives on them—had come into the possession of companies and individuals, and now it was proposed to turn the natives off. That would not be an agreeable thing, but he would not offer an opinion now as to the justice of it. Every good Government, went on Mr. Merriman, should set its face against communal purchase. The matter was complicated by the fact that in the Union we had not only natives in different stages of advancement, but the laws in the four Provinces were entirely different, and they proposed to cut the Gordian knot by passing the Bill. But that would be a mistake without more information than they had at the present time.

He would like to revert to the state of things which had grown up under the Draconian laws of the Free State. According to a very interesting Blue-book containing reports of magistrates, one magistrate had reported that “the pernicious system of squatting was detrimental to the working farmer, the native reaping the whole of the benefit.” The man who worked generally reaped the whole benefit in the long run. In the Harrismith district there were some 40,000 natives against some 8,000 Europeans. How did they get there? Having been a Free State burgher, he knew that the natives had not forced their way in. These natives ploughed on the half-shares, and he would like to know whether they were labour tenants or squatters. If they were squatters it would require very little dexterous management to convert them into labour tenants. The Magistrate of Hoopstad, went on Mr. Merriman, had referred to the pernicious system of native squatters. But why did not the Free State magistrates do something and put the law in force? That was the principal reason why the House was forced to pass that Bill without information, and without giving any opportunity to people who had the deepest interest in this matter to have their views heard, or to let them know what the House was going to do because the magistrates in the Free State would not enforce the law. He did think that was rather hard. In conclusion, Mr. Merriman said: I dare say I may have said a great many things which may be distasteful to my hon. friends, but I do claim their attention because at a time when they were not in such a dominant position as they are now, I pleaded for right and justice for them. Therefore, they should not take it amiss from me, because now they are in a dominant position, I plead also for justice, toleration, moderation, and delay in this matter. I do not like the amendment of the hon. member for East London, because we want to consider the matter. I think we should read the Bill a second time and then send it to a Select Committee, where we shall be able to hear the views of people interested on both sides. I shall with reluctance and apprehension vote for the second reading, but I shall certainly vote afterwards for having the Bill sent to a Select Committee. (Cheers.)

took it that as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had agreed to vote for the second reading, he accepted the principle of the Bill. He thought the right hon. gentleman in claiming that more information should be given did not perhaps give sufficient weight to the fact that the majority of that very important Commission, which sat two years ago, recommended definitely in favour of legislation somewhat on these lines, and it seemed to him (Mr. Chaplin) that whether the Bill was sent to a Select Committee before the second reading or not, no possible harm could be done by having a full discussion on the matter. He hoped the subject was one which could be handled without any display of party heat. The difference in the point of view varied according to the time which had elapsed since the white people in a particular part of the country had been forced to treat the black man as their enemy. The longer the time had elapsed the more tolerant became the feeling of the white population towards their coloured fellow-subjects.

It was satisfactory to some of them to see that in this Bill there was evidence of something like agreement on native policy in one, at any rate, if its most important features between the various sections of the Cabinet and of the Nationalist party. In the past there was no doubt that they had had placed before them very divergent views. He was glad to see that what was evidently in the minds of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet was not a policy of segregation such as he understood was advocated by the hon. member for Smithfield and such as he understood was advocated by the hon. member’s allies on the cross-benches. Mr. Chaplin went on to say that, although they were not in favour of a policy of that kind, it was surely not unnatural that the white people of South Africa should take stock of the position and consider bow they were going to preserve their position as what was and what must be the dominant race in the country. It was a sine qua non that any legislation of this kind must be carried out without fear or favour, with absolute justice to all parties concerned, and without a suspicion of favouritism or political influence. There was no doubt that the adoption of a policy such as was outlined in this Bill would greatly diminish the difficulties of native administration. He thought there was a great deal to be said for it in that it would tend to train the native towards a state of civilisation which was peculiarly suited to the native, i.e., that where the natives became collected together in thickly-populated districts, native districts, as they were to be termed under the Bill, it might be possible to encourage the native to take part in local self-government, where he would not come in conflict with white men’s ideals and white men’s vested rights, and where he would be able to train himself and become a fully-civilised member of the community. But, of course, they must recognise that if this policy were to be carried out great sacrifices would have to be made.

As to those people who were anxious for complete separation anxious for what the right hon. gentleman had called a pale which would be more effective even than the pale which was met on the Russian frontier, these people, when they said that this policy should be carried out in thoroughness and entirety, must see that, in the effort to diminish the points of contact between the native and white man, the white man must accustom himself to do without the black man’s labour. The plain fact of the matter was that we were not in this country prepared to do without the labour of the black man, and we were certainly not prepared to make that sacrifice. But, if we were not prepared to do that, we must face the fact, and he, for one, saw no reason why we should not face that fact. The whole civilisation of this country had been built up on native labour and, as the right hon. gentleman had said, the native was one of the greatest assets we had in this country, and so long as he remained in anything like his present civilisation, so long would he be needed, as the hon. gentleman said in introducing this Bill, as a labourer. It was idle to deny that in the future the question was bound to come to the front as to what the status of the native was going to be. He could not say that successive Governments in the Transvaal, either before the war or since, had done much to educate the native. However that might be, the native was going to educate himself. When we had got further in that stage, the question was going to arise how were they going to treat the educated native? Were they going to treat the native in all respects equal to the white man? If they did this, it was impossible to confine him to reserves, it was impossible in the end to deprive him of the franchise, and they had got to adopt definitely and for all time the principle that, civilisation was the thing that counted. He did not think the time had arrived for that yet, but undoubtedly that question would come to the front. Later on, assuming that the Bill passed in something like its present shape, this question of whether natives who undoubtedly were civilised, who had undoubtedly purchased land legitimately, who were working that land at least as well as some of their white neighbours, it would be a question whether those people were to be turned off, and whether they were to be put in natives districts. That, he thought, was going to be an enormously difficult task for any Native Affairs Department of any Government, however capable, and however anxious to do the right thing to settle. There was also going to be great difficulty in the demarcation of native areas. He thought they might get some light in regard to this from the Act of Union. The Act of Union recognised the principle of native areas. It seemed to him that they might gain something from the provisions of the schedule in regard to the Commission contemplated under this Bill. In that schedule it was proposed that there should be a standing Commission with its position safely guarded. He did not know whether it would be possible under the Bill to create a standing Commission of that kind. He did not know whether something of that sort would not be possible. If they found it not possible to legislate now, if that Bill did not become law, what were they going to do in the future, because the difficulties would be greater with each succeeding year. In this Bill he thought that the Minister was going a little too far. In the latter part of the Bill the Minister seemed to anticipate the report of the Commission which he intended to appoint. He did not know why he should do that. He did not know why the Minister could not be satisfied with the first chapter of the Bill, appoint the Commission and then, if the difficulties appeared to the Commission to be insuperable, nobody would have suffered. Why should not the Minister propose to the committee, if the Bill went to a committee, that it should take the first part of the Bill, and then see what the Commission was able to evolve. He did not think that the Minister should be blamed for introducing this Bill. It would have been quite easy on that side to have made party capital out of it, but he did not think that hon. members on his side wished to make party capital out of it, and he had refrained from doing so. If the Government delayed the matter for a year he thought they would find that the difficulties would be greater, and he did not think they should lightly regard this serious attempt to deal with a most important question.

said he inferred from the speech of the right hon. gentleman that he was against the principle laid down in the Bill, but he did not suggest anything in its place, and he presumed they must infer from that, that he was prepared to allow the present system to continue. He believed it was in the interests of the natives to create certain spheres where the natives could work out their own salvation, provided they were given ample scope. He looked upon the Bill as an attempt to deal with a most important phase of the native question in South Africa, but whether it was going to have the effect which some hon. members claimed he was not prepared to say. In his opinion, he did not believe it was going to produce what was anticipated, because it was aiming at the half sower, and they were merely going to convert the half sower into a labour tenant. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the farmer retaining 10 or more natives as labour tenants. Everyone would realise that they had two great questions to deal with—this question of social contact and the encroachment of the natives on areas required for European expansion. Social equality everybody realised was impossible. Although the Bill aimed at separate spheres, they were still going to have the question of contact in the towns. Talk as they liked, they must admit that the natives would still play a most important part in industrial and agricultural spheres. He pointed out that at the present time there was overcrowding in native areas already proclaimed, and by this Bill they were going to take in further areas by expropriation. They must remember that not only were the natives in the majority at present, but they increased more rapidly than Europeans, and there would always be expropriation of fresh land for natives. What was going to be the effect of creating these new areas? If they did that, he made bold to say that they would put the clock back, so far as the native was concerned. His opinion of; the communal system was that it was a most pernicious system so far as the native was concerned. They would have to have individual tenure unless they wanted these reserves overcrowded with indolents. Dealing with the effect of the creation of these large areas on the labour market, he pointed out the keen competition that existed between the farmers and the mines, and said that when it came to wages the mines were always able to beat the farmers. He was glad to see the position of the labour tenant was not to be disturbed. Dealing with the Cape, he remarked that, in his opinion, the Divisional Council were carrying out the Locations Act very well, but he would point out that while in, say, the Free State a farmer could keep any number of labour tenants on his farm, in the Cape it was left to the Divisional Councils to say how many a man should have. If they looked at the Act they would see that the Cape had been legislated out of the Bill. If they were to apply this Act to the three Provinces, and not to the Cape, it would follow that if they restricted the natives from owning land in the other Provinces, the natives Would turn their attention to the Cape. (Hear, hear.) He did not know how the Minister was going to get over the difficulty in clause 35 of the South Africa Act. The position that the Cape occupied under this Bill required very careful consideration. There were other points in the Bill which also required consideration.

This was one of the most important Bills that ever came before the House, and it should be dealt with by a Select Committee. Unless they did this, he did not think that the Bill would be passed this session.

said the right hon. gentleman had earned their gratitude for the high tone in which he had carried the debate. The speech which he had delivered was a most instructive one, and although the speaker was not in entire agreement with him on all points, he was in agreement on the point that the matter was one to be handled with prudence. Still, that was not an aspect of the matter on which too much stress need be laid, as the Bill was merely an attempt to regain a former position. If they examined the position carefully they found that it was the result of administration, of the manner in which the laws had been applied, and not the result of the laws themselves. If the existing laws had been better applied, there would not have been so many complaints made to the Department.

The position in the Zoutpansberg was this, that where there were great Kaffir tribes, large locations had been provided by the Republican Government. That Government gave no ground out to white persons until the natives had been properly provided for. In a few cases land had even been expropriated in order to give it to the natives, and there was good reason to give the remainder to the whites. However, no law had been passed which forbade the natives from squatting on the private farms, with the result that the same thing occurred there as was happening in the Free State. The natives went where they could get ground in the best way, and those farmers who had land to spare gave it to the natives, and that led to the country going back. That position of affairs would have to be improved, and it would be improved by the present Bill.

Mention had been made of the freedom to purchase land. The principal landowning companies had never sold land to the natives, but a few white persons had done so, and could not be prevented from doing it unless a law was passed which prohibited it. The companies did very much better by hiring their ground to the natives at £2 per head per year. Even when a white man wanted to. buy the ground at a good price, he could not do so. And yet, under circumstances like that, they were talking about immigration! The hon. member for Fordsburg seemed to despair of any solution of the native question, and even wanted to solve it by contriving an influx of white people into the country. But before they introduced immigrants here, they would first have to provide the land. The land companies who received good rents from the squatters, were asking prices which could not be paid.

So far as squatting was concerned, the Cape was not much better than the Transvaal or the Free State. Notwithstanding the fact that more ground had been allocated to the natives in the Cape, squatting continued to exist there. A law had, however been passed to license the squatters, and they had now practically got the question in hand. Some 120,000 squatters had been so licensed. In the Free State also they were in a good position with regard to squatting, and so far as the Transvaal was concerned, they had treated the natives with justice. In 1908 an amended Bill was introduced in the Transvaal Parliament which was based on the Cape Act. The Opposition was then patriotic, and thought that Union was too close on them, and that it would be better to postpone consideration of the question so that it could be dealt with as a whole. A Bill to that end was now before the House, and the hon. member for Germiston had clearly stated that the Opposition would have nothing to do with any further postponement of the question. And yet, what did they hear? First they heard that a Commission should he appointed, and that meanwhile they could go on waiting a little. The speaker was convinced that they should not wait any longer, for the longer they waited the more difficult they would find the position become.

It had been stated that the Transvaal squatters law was an impracticable one. He admitted that the law was drastic, and that it was difficult to apply it. But had any real efforts been made to give effect to the law? And why not? Because in the old days they had the same position as at present. At present they had the land companies, and formerly they had the influential farmers, who said they must not bother the natives because they had lived on the farms a long time and should now be allowed to remain there. The former Government had listened to that sort of thing from the farmers even as they now listened to it from the land companies.

In the Transvaal they made proper provision for the natives in the first instance, just as they had done in the Cane. The Glen Grey Act of the Gape laid down that the natives who could not get ground in the reserves would have to go out and work. In the Transvaal the natives left the locations, but then they went and squatted on private farms.

The Minister had quoted figures to show that better provision had been made for the natives in the Cape than in the other Provinces, but in order to attain that result he must have included Bechuanaland and the Transkei. There were in the Cape according to the Minister 3.9 morgen per head reserved for the natives, in Natal 3.1, in the Free State 0.2, and in the Transvaal 1.7. But it was not reasonable to include Bechuanaland and the Transkei in the Cape figures. They had been Kafir territories for a long time past, and should be dealt with separately. If that were done, they would have it that in Bechuanaland 15.5 morgen per head was reserved for natives, in the Transkei 4.4, in Natal 3.1, in the Cape 1.1, in the Transvaal 1, and in the Free State 0.2. That more reasonable basis of comparison gave a more favourable figure for the north. In Zoutpansberg, for example, they had 475,000 morgen of ground which was reserved for natives. If they accepted the Minister’s figures, they found that the Bill, which was to set limits to the buying of ground by natives would only apply to natives living on ground which was not occupied by the owner. In the Transvaal the Bill would accordingly affect 174,000 natives. Those squatters would not be eager to leave the places, and they would make efforts to enter the service of the owner. Hon. members considered that was a great danger, though personally he did not see much danger in it. And yet those 174,000 natives would create great difficulties. Even if the Commission which was to be appointed beaconed off land for the squatters, they could not prevent the owners of the farms from urging that the natives be not removed, and asking that they be allowed to stay where they were. They would say that the natives had already been living there so long, that they were accustomed to the place, that they did not wish to remove to the areas which had been set apart for them. And then semi-civilised natives would be averse to living in the same district with barbarians. Those were difficulties which they would not find it an easy matter to remove. The hon. member for East London had stated that the landowners had inherited the natives on the farms with the farms themselves. That was in a certain sense true, but the landowners had personally also done their share. They had done their best to get as many natives as possible who were willing to pay rent, and it would not be an easy matter to abolish that squatting. Squatting, however, could not go on any longer. It was bad for the whites, and it was bad for the natives. The natives were required to help in the construction of dipping tanks and with fencing, and were not even left Tree in the matter of selling their cattle. They were only allowed to sell to certain persons, and that at a fixed price. All those things awakened dissatisfaction, and the development of the country was hindered by them. It was high time to bring about an improvement, and that was why the Bill was so welcome. After they had been, for years doing nothing but talking about the question and pointing out the great difficulties connected with it. The Minister was now able to place the matter on a better footing. The Minister should consult with the Commission whether it was advisable to set aside large pieces of territory for the natives, and thereby incur large expenditure. In other words, they should try to avoid the fate which overtook the Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal. They bought ground with the best intentions in the world, and set aside the best portions of the country for native locations. But the natives would not go there. They were a mountain people, and would not live on the flats. The ground was still there, but whites could not go and settle on it. The natives who did not work on farms should go and live in locations, and so long as that was done, it would not be necessary to set aside more land for natives. The native should be enabled to become the owner of a piece of ground, if possible in the locations. The more civilised native who did not wish to remain under his captain should be given the chance to acquire a bit of ground in the neighbourhood of his location, so that the tribes remained together. They should not compel the more civilised natives to go and settle amongst barbarians. He was strongly opposed to that. The hon. member for Jeppe had stated that it was the duty of Parliament to see that there were no native labourers in the country but that was impossible. The natives were there. The farmers could not manage without them, and they could not forbid them from having natives on their farms. That was a social relationship of the two races which they could not remove. And so long as the relations between the two races were honourable, there was no danger. As a matter of fact they heard very little of the oppression of the native. It was to be regretted that under the Bill a Commission was to be appointed. The Parliament would in that way be made responsible for the things done by that Commission. If the Commission were appointed by the Government, then Parliament could freely discuss its report, but if Parliament appointed the Commission, then it was bound by the actions of the Commission, and that was not desirable. The work of the Commission would be of the first importance, for they could not go about making blue marks on a map. All the factors in the case would have to be taken into very careful consideration. The Minister should not listen to the request for a postponement of the question, by referring it to a Select Committee. Let them discuss the matter there in the House, even if they had to sit for a day longer. The Bill was important enough to justify them in taking ample time over it. But if they were now, at the end of a long session, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, then it would never be passed this year.

considered the Bill was a step in the right direction. The right hon. member for Victoria West had not had the experience of natives in the Transvaal such as the members for the Transvaal had. A squatters law was good for the natives, as well as for the whites. In his own district the squatters law had been applied ten years before the war, and with good results. Under the squatters law the one helped the other, and the native became more and more civilised. The law laid down that not more than a given number of Kafir families might live on a farm. The right hon. member for Victoria West did not really know what squatting in the Transvaal meant. The law was meant to prevent the heaping up of Kafir families on the farms. But the difficulty was that the big companies who owned large areas of territory allowed that heaping up of families on their farms, and there were also certain leading people who owned large farms and did the same thing. That was the result of the squatters law not having been carried out. Under that law, if the law was properly carried out, there could be no question of slavery. In his own district the law had always worked well, and the Kafir had become more and more civilised by reason of it. He was not opposed to the present Bill, and would vote in its favour, but in committee he intended to move an amendment requiring the owner of a farm to state clearly how many Kafirs were absolutely required by him in order to work his farm.

said that that was one of those measures—when one considered the native population they had in this country, as compared with the whites—about which it was high time that they should have legislation on the matter. The hon. Minister had told them that that was a Bill which was only intended to restrict the acquisition of land between defined areas, and that it was a stepping-stone to ultimately settling the natives in certain defined areas under their own local self-government, areas from which the labour of the country would be drawn, without the natives living in social intercourse with the whites, except as labourers. Those who had given the native problem thought could put the native question into a few terse propositions. In the first place, they had got the natives with them, and they would be here for all time; but progress is retarded by their living side by side with the white population. That intercourse between the white and the black must eventually lead to the ultimate fusion of the two races, which, in the interests of the white races, should be averted. It was their duty, therefore, to inquire how far that Bill affected those propositions, and whether the Bill was really a step in the right direction. The hon. member for Fordsburg the other day made a striking remark, when he said that they should not move in this matter until they were perfectly certain they were moving in the right direction. When they came to consider that the native was with them for all time, that the numbers were increasing year by year, and outnumbered the white population to a great extent, they could not be blind to the fact that, unless the white race was strengthened, and the development of social intercourse between the races was restricted—he was looking to the far future—the ultimate result would be, with that overwhelming mass of natives, they would produce a mulatto race. He did not think that anybody who took an interest in the welfare of South Africa, who looked forward to their building up a nationality in this country, could view that phase of the question without alarm. They had evidence before them that, thanks to the efforts and the influence of the white race the natives were developing and becoming more and more skilled every day, and that they were entering into competition with the white races in many avenues of employment where white artisans were formerly employed. Of course the development of the native race was in the material interests of South Africa. It was also in the interests of the moral welfare of the white man, for the white race that was dependent upon the labour of a lower race must deteriorate. He thought that no one would deny the improvement of the native races. They were becoming civilised and skilled labourers, and that was preferable to the hordes of uncivilised workers which they had amongst them at the present time. But the effect would be more and more to restrict and check the influx of a white population of the labouring and artisan class into this country.

The development of the native races was resulting in the gradual withdrawal of the native not only from farm labour but from many industrial occupations, and the tendency is for the natives to acquire land and to enter into competition with the farmer in agricultural pursuits. But his presence as a neighbour, as they had heard from the hon. member for East London, was making conditions of life impossible for the farmer to carry on his operations. It is the same old experience, the presence of the natives living side by side with white men making conditions of life impossible for the white man. It seemed to him that there were just one of two courses open, either to prohibit the acquisition of the land by the natives entirely, or to restrict the acquisition of land to certain defined areas, as proposed in the Bill, for they were faced with the position that the natives were here, they were increasing year by year, and they must provide for them. Proceeding, the hon. member said that if they entirely prohibited the acquisition of land by the natives they would put themselves in the position that the natives were bound to spread to the farms, they would become the servants of the land-owners, competition between the skilled natives and the skilled white men would continue, and the great thing that he feared was that the poor white problem would be accentuated. Without a doubt the result was going to be that that native competition alongside white labour would mean deterioration, and would result in a mixture of the races, the very thing they wished to avoid. Mr. Watermeyer went on to say that the hon. member for Edenburg objected to the Bill on the ground that it would withdraw labour from the farms. The mistake that South Africa had made in the past had been that the farmer, whom it really paid to use skilled labour, has for years and years been carrying on his operations with unskilled labour; those people as soon as they became skilled would walk off into other avenues of operations. Therefore the labour was becoming scarcer day by day, and the natives were gradually checking the introduction into South Africa of white labourers for farm purposes and the influx into South Africa of a white consuming population. From that point of view, therefore, they must look a little further afield, and not try to retain the coloured man as a labourer.

The proposal to restrict the acquisition of land within certain defined areas was a sound proposition, but the manner in which the area should be set apart, the extent of the areas and conditions of tenure were matters which required very careful consideration. These of course would be subjects for the consideration of the Commission which was proposed to be appointed, but he sincerely trusted that when the Minister of Native Affairs appointed that Commission he would appoint a Commission which would largely consist, not only of men heartily imbued with the missionary and philanthropic spirit for the welfare of the future of the native races, but of practical men with a prophetic foresight into the results of any recommendations they made for grappling with the vast problems which now presented themselves and would present themselves in the future. He hoped that the Commission would make recommendations for the settlement of the natives on the land on a lasting basis. They would have to consider the question of whether it was better to settle the natives on huge areas with local self-government or whether it was better that they should live near white inhabitants. Both presented problems in the future which would have to do with the welfare of South Africa. It was not possible or advisable to discuss future aspects, but he felt that they were making for reform and that this was a step in the right direction. What the Bill would lead to he did not suppose any of them in that House could form the faintest idea. Whatever might be the consequence of the Bill, he was assured that the spirit of justice and the spirit of responsibility which had characterised the white races of South Africa in their dealings with the native would prevail in the settlement of the problems of the future. He agreed with the hon. member for Zoutpansberg that it was no use sending this Bill to a Select Committee. There was only one principle that deserved serious consideration, and that was whether they were wise in eliminating the Cape Province from the operations of this Bill. He felt the time had come for the solution of the problem, and he had every sympathy with the measure.

said they supported the underlying principles of the Bill, for they welcomed any genuine attempt to carry out what had been one of the planks of the Labour Party’s programme. Continuing, he referred to what he termed “applying the ointment”—in line 35, sub-section (2), of section 1, and other clauses, were to be found the words “other than his own labour or service, or the labour or service of his family.” Although this might be called a Bill to prevent squatting on land, every facility was offered to the farmer to get the labourer to work for his benefit. If these words were taken out it would show a genuine attempt to bring about the separation of the races of this country. The intention was still to allow natives to live and work on farms. He could not follow the right hon. gentleman when he held up Cape Colony as a model with regard to the relationship of the two races. It might have been satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman, the landowning and the employing classes, that the number of natives should increase enormously, while the whites were, if not decreasing, at least standing still. He did not see much satisfaction in that. They wanted the tendency reversed, and he could not see the Bill was going to have this effect. Their point was that the chief aim of the Minister seemed to be in the direction of preventing the ownership of land by whites in native areas, and the acquisition of land by natives in white areas. They agreed that was a step in the right direction. But it did not meet their point. It was important, but it was not the important thing. The important point was: who was going to work the land? Even as it was, it was bad enough. The proportion of white men employed upon these mines as compared with the natives was very small, and they would like to see this altered. It didn’t matter whether these farms were owned by whites or natives, so long as they were worked properly. When land was taken from the natives, land of an equal value should be provided for them in the new territories set aside for them. There was some idea that the present territories for natives were not large enough, but the question to his mind was whether these native territories were properly worked, and farmed. He did not think it could be shown that these territories were worked to their full value. He noticed that the class of persons was not specified who were to be appointed on that Commission. He thought this should be mentioned. It should not be composed of men who were antagonistic to the natives, or of men who favoured them too much. They should be very slow to use large areas for native settlement until they could see that the land was closely settled and worked to its fullest value.

They left their wives to work it, and went away to work on the mines, often to their own undoing, and perhaps that of their families. Nothing could be more undesirable, he knew, to the mining or farming community than to see Kafir labourers independent of the employing classes. There was another point he wanted to direct attention to, which was with regard to the minerals in territory set apart for natives. He did not think there was anything said in the Bill as to what the Minister intended to do with the minerals in these reserves. He did not want to trespass upon vested interests. He did not want to advocate that certain men or companies, who had acquired certain rights legally that these rights should be taken away. But if land was given to natives, either communally or otherwise, he thought the minerals should remain the property of the State, and if it was thought fit to exploit these minerals, the Government should see that they were worked for the benefit of the natives living within these areas. With regard to that expropriation clause, which the right hon. gentleman, the member for Victoria West looked upon with so much horror, so long as the Government did not pay too much for the land, he thought it was a very good idea. Governments were too much inclined to look at this matter more from the point of view of the landowner than from that of the taxpayer. In the expropriation of land the Government should not compensate an owner of land because there were natives resident upon it. He found that in the same clause 8, sub-section (3), that pro vision was made for the repayment to the Government of money expended by farmers, but in looking at clause 10, he did not see that the matter of repayment was either a fair or an equitable one. If the land was communally owned, he could see some justification for what seemed to him to be simply a poll tax, but this Bill provided that communal tenure of land should be abolished as far as natives were concerned. He could not agree with that principle, nor with the principle under these circumstances of repaying money spent by Government in this way. He had his doubts whether private ownership of land was going to exist always. He believed that in future years civilised men would find that the communal system would suit him much better than private ownership. (An hon. member: No, no.)

He would suggest that instead of levying a poll tax they should put a tax on the land itself. (Hear, hear.) That would be fairer than a poll tax. What was the real objection to the communal tenure of land? Was the power of the native chiefs any greater than that of some of the big land owners in Great Britain? The man who owned the soil owned the people on it. Sub-section (2) of clause 15 really meant the exemption of the Cape from the provisions of the Bill, but it was a mistake to specially exempt any Province from any consolidating Act. He suggested that the difficulty might be overcome by inserting a clause safeguarding the Gape native franchise, He did not wish to be unduly critical of what he believed was an attempt in the right direction, but the Labour Party’s great objection to the Bill was that throughout the measure every provision seemed to be made so that the employer of labour, the farmer and the landowner should be secured an abundance of cheap Kafir labour. That seemed to be the real burden of the Bill—that was the fly in the ointment. Under the Bill a native would be allowed to farm and live on land provided he was willing to work for the owner of it. The measure should really be called “The Encouragement of Squatting Bill.” (Labour cheers.)

expressed his thanks to the Government for bringing forward the Bill. He said he felt that it was not a complete solution of the whole question, but it was certainly a step in the right direction. In the Free State they had had that difficulty with the natives for a long time past. He was gratified to hear from the hon. member for East London that he agreed with the principles of the Bill. What the speaker failed somewhat to understand, however, was the fact that the hon. member had moved in the same breath that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Such a committee was quite unnecessary, and the House could itself, when in committee, repair any defect in the Bill. In the Free State the Kafirs were coming forward more and more. They were getting hold of the land. The right hon. member for Victoria-West had referred to the Free State as the place where squatting was making the most progress, though he made out that the laws in that Province were very severe. The assertion which was made by the right hon. gentleman was not supported by the fact quoted by him, the fact of increased squatting being evidence to the contrary. The speaker was easily able to explain that increase in squatting. They had always tried in the Free State to preserve the land for the whites. Certainly they had in the Free State a couple of native reserves, for example, that at Thaba ’Nchu. But nobody would be able to assert that the Government had treated the natives in those reserves with harshness. Well, what had happened in certain parts of the Free State? Their supply of labour came, for the most part, from Basutoland. The farmers in those parts hired the natives at a certain wage, and so long as sowing for shares was regarded as letting and hiring, everything went well, and it went well until suddenly they had a decision of the Court to the effect that sowing on shares could not be regarded in law as letting and hiring. The result was that the Kafirs would not work any longer as hired men, and refused to work otherwise than for shares. Then the difficulties commenced, and the Kafirs began to squat on the country more and more. For the farmers who refused to agree to that method farming became impossible, as they could not get labour, and they were gradually driven away to the towns. It was impossible for them to live amongst the others and farm on independent lines owing to the lack of labour. Mention had been made of the position of the civilised natives, but he was unable to understand the difficulty, for what did a civilised native want amongst the white population? His place was in the reserve amongst his own people, seeing that there was work for him there, and he could do much more there for his people than, perhaps, many missionaries. If he loved his own people, he would not flee from them, but stay and do his duty to them. The speaker did not share the fear of the hon. member for Edenburg as to filling the reserves with vagabonds. Another difficulty which they had in the Free State was the tax which a Kafir had to pay when he took service. That discouraged the Kafir from hiring himself out, even when the farmer offered to pay the tax. The Kafir was a peculiar creature, and did not trust such an arrangement, and the speaker thought it would be better to abolish the tax. In other respects he welcomed the Bill as a step in the right direction.

said that the measure now before the House would have as far-reaching consequences as the Act of Union itself. He thought it was one feature on which they might congratulate themselves that the native question had not been made a party question on one side or the other. He felt that there was a certain class of people in this country who were not represented in that Parliament, and that it was incumbent on him, in his humble way, to try and put before the House what their views were and how this measure would affect them. He had listened with a great deal of pleasure to the noble utterances of the right hon. the member for Victoria West. He did not say he agreed in every particular, small and great, with what he said, but on the whole it was an utterance that deserved to be written in letters of gold, because it struck the right note about the relationship between the superior ruling race in this country and the lower races in a state of barbarism or semi-civilisation which had been entrusted to our care. He would like to direct the attention of the House to what the four million natives thought about this matter. As the right hon. gentleman had said, they could only judge of it by their leaders, “their representative men, and their newspapers. In regard to their newspapers, in all but one the opinion was expressed that this measure aimed at taking away rights and privileges which these people had possessed in the past. They had heard the views expressed by some of their leading representatives at meetings held here, and what they had stated in letters to the Press. While one realised that they had been using altogether too strong expressions about the Bill and its purpose, one could not help sympathising with them, and if they tried to put themselves in the place of these people, who were to a large extent unrepresented in that House, and who found that the people who had the power to make the laws, the ruling race, were introducing a measure which on the first blush of it seemed to be aimed at taking away rights and privileges which they had possessed in the past, then one could not wonder at the position they took up. It would not be supposed for a moment that the missionary bodies of the country were not capable of taking a right view on this question. The Natal Missionary Conference, he found, had passed a resolution protesting against the proposal now before the House to deprive the natives of their right to lease and purchase land pending the appointment of a Commission, and earnestly deprecating the disturbance, in any respect, of the present status of native rights until a carefully-prepared scheme had been formulated and adopted, after adequate discussion. In that morning’s “Cape Times” they had the view given them of the chairman of the Transvaal Missionary Association, which represented 20 missionary societies. The chairman, the Rev. Amos Barnet, in the course of his remarks said: “Many of our people are greatly disturbed just now over the Natives Land Bill, which was read for a second time last Friday. On any policy of segregation this Association is very likely to be divided in opinion, but that is not the question now before us. I am certain that we shall be united on this, that a Bill such as is now brought forward, ought to have followed and not preceded the report of the Commission to be appointed by the Government to look into the whole question, and before such a Bill becomes law, we as the true friends of the native peoples, have a right to know something about the new reserves which are to be set apart for the use of those who will be dispossessed of their present homes. Where are these reserves? What is their character? What their area? Does that area bear any proportion to the number of people who will need a new home ? On such questions as these we have no information; but meanwhile the larger question is prejudged and foreclosed by this deplorably premature Bill. The people most affected have no representation, no voice, no civic existence. They look to us, and we certainly shall expound their grievances, even if we have no power to redress their wrongs.” The hon. member went on to say that those were samples of the opinions of those who were most closely Connected with the natives, who were looking after their interests, and knew better than any other people the feeling amongst the native population. He (Mr. Schreiner) shared in the objections which those people felt to the Bill being rushed through. If that Bill was of such importance as he had indicated—second only to the Act of Union—then he would say that there had not been time given to the consideration of the question throughout the whole country, for it affected the white people just as much as it affected the native people of South Africa. The Bill was introduced on the 25th April, and now they were not very far on in May. How could the people of the country know all the details of the Bill? They blamed the natives for taking a crude idea of the Bill, and for not having studied the details, but what time had they had for that? The Bill was of such importance that if it were published at the present time and the second reading was to take place in a year’s time, that would not be too much time for all sections to have opportunity for the full consideration of that question. Let them think what time was given in connection with the Act of Union. That Bill which was then before the House might be a Bill just to establish some little municipality.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that he believed that if the hon. Minister for Native Affairs had not had pressure brought to bear upon him—undue pressure —he would never have introduced the Bill and endeavoured to get it through the House in the time he (Mr. Schreiner) had indicated. That pressure was not in the best interests of the country at large. He did not want to raise any provincial matter, but it was not the place of the smallest Province in the Union to dictate the policy of the whole Union. To a certain extent, however, that was being done. There had been pressure brought to bear by certain Free State representatives, and he did not know the quid pro quo, hut he knew that a gentleman who was expected to follow the member for Smithfield had not done so, and was a staunch supporter of the Government. It was a thousand pities that such pressure had been brought on the Government in regard to that matter. He sympathised with the Government, because he knew the difficult position in which they were placed; but he thought that Parliament should not yield to that pressure. They ought to stand on higher ground than that. Proceeding, he said he hoped the second reading would not be decided upon shortly, and he was in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for East London, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading, in order that the most difficult matters in connection with the Bill might be thrashed out, and the results laid before the House.

The more he studied the Bill, the more he felt convinced that it was very complicated. Nearly every clause formed matter enough for an Act of Parliament, and yet all were bundled together. He looked upon the Bill as an effort to please parties in the country of two opposite ways of thinking, and as trying to hold the balance between them; but they knew how difficult it was to sit upon two stools. He entirely endorsed the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria West with regard to the confidence they had in the Minister of Native Affairs, and he hoped what he had said would not be construed in any other way. He considered, from his knowledge of the past of the hon. gentleman, that he would always endeavour to uphold the interest of the European population and the natives of the country. Of course, he did not think that native affairs would not be better if they were conducted by his side of the House, but, nevertheless, the Minister of Native Affairs had his confidence with regard to the native question. There should be no hurry with regard to that question, and in order to give time, the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. Let them not say that the Bill should be passed this session; there was no such urgent call. The Bill was founded on certain foundation principles, and the hon. member proceeded to quote from the report of the Native Affairs Commission, which sat in 1904.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said, on referring to the recommendations of the South African Native Affairs Commission, they must bear in mind that there were two objects in view, one was to define and limit reserves that were in existence at that time, and the other was to prevent natives buying ground in certain areas. In that part of the country which was not reserved for natives, they did propose limitation of purchase, but not in the way it was mentioned in the Bill, because they never touched the white man at all. The white man was just the same as before. They limited their recommendation to this fact, that the natives should not be allowed to buy land everywhere. The idea was not to interfere with the districts where there was a large native population living with Europeans, but in districts that were clear and that should be kept clear. That was very much what was proposed here, but the Bill differed from the recommendations of the Commission, which in effect allowed that natives could buy from a white man and a white man could buy from a native, except in certain specified districts. He had always been in favour of the recommendation of the Native Affairs Commission, as he understood it. He did not think it was for the best interests that Europeans and natives throughout the whole country should be mingled together, but he did not hold with the argument that was grounded on the fact that in native reserves so-called, the white man was not allowed to hold ground—though he does, to a large extent, by permission of the Governor—and he held that these native reserves were not covered by the recommendations of the African Native Affairs Commission to which he referred. When that Commission proposed that areas should be defined, and so forth, they must have supposed that some machinery would be provided for defining these areas, and it was necessary to propose that a Commission should be appointed. Eight years had passed since that report had been made, and nothing had been done in that direction. Now the matter was sprung upon them at once, without any due notice. He would go as far as this, as to say that such a Commission should be appointed. He took it that the House would be in favour of a recommendation to appoint a Commission. The Commission would have some guiding principles to go by in the Bill, so there was something to be said in favour of discussing it, and putting down the provisions now. It had been said that there was urgent need and call for such legislation. Upon what grounds? What circumstances had arisen to call for this legislation? All of a sudden they were called to discuss this matter of supreme importance as if it was of urgent necessity.

The only evidence of urgency that he knew of for the measure was a return which was called for in February last regarding the number of farms registered in the names of natives. That return was certainly an eye-opener to many people. It stated that during the last three years 144,000 morgen, worth £95,000, had been transferred to natives in the Transvaal alone. He was astounded. Everybody thought that that ground was purchased during three years, but he, asked for a further return. From this second return it appeared that 58,032 morgen out of the 144,000 morgen were not purchased by natives at all, but were grants given to native chiefs principally by the late South African Republic. Some of the grants dated as far back as 1876. In one case 46,000 morgen in the Lichtenburg district, granted several years ago, were not transferred until some years later. Then one or two items were repeated more than once through some error in the office, he supposed. Again some farms amounting to 3,017 morgen were bought prior to the three years covered by the return. Altogether 93,447 morgen out of the 144,000 morgen had not been purchased by natives during the three years. He thought the first return had caused many members to think that there was need for legislation, but he did not think it was dignified of Parliament to be swayed by such inaccurate information, and to initiate panic legislation. He knew no reason why the Bill should be introduced without full time being given to all the people to express their opinion, and to discuss the matter fully. He did not agree that all buying from and by natives in the non-scheduled areas should be stopped, nor could he agree that the rights which they now enjoyed should be taken away.

There were two great omissions in the Bill. The first was that no provision was made for defining other areas than native and non-native. There were some parts of the country where the people were so mixed that it was impossible to separate them, and the Bill did not recognise that there must be mixed territory. In the King William’s Town district there were 96,000 natives and 10,000 whites; in the Victoria East district there were 18,000 natives and 1,400 Europeans, and in the Peddie district there were 19,000 natives and 1,500 Europeans. What was one to do with such districts— declare them non-native areas? That would mean that the natives would have to be bought out by the whites, or were those districts to be declared native areas. He believed the more the Minister thought about it the more he would see that allowance must be made for mixed areas, at all events in the Cape.

There are reserves in the King William’s Town district.

The whites and the natives are there together. You must leave the thing as it is—you cannot make any change in some of these districts. Another great omission, proceeded Mr. Schreiner, was that no distinction was made between civilised and uncivilised natives. He did not think that that was ever the intention of the Native Affairs Commission. The Minister said he was not in favour of absolute segregation. But if we were to push the educated and civilised natives back, and say to them “You are to go to the native areas, and become leaders of the natives,” we should be doing everything possible to bring about absolute separation. In the Cape, owing to the natives having the franchise, the Bill could not be carried out in that Province, but the clause inserted in the Bill by the Minister did not cover the point. The Bill could not be applied to the Cape Province, because it would be contrary to the Act of Union. If the Cape were to be included in the Bill it would initiate a revolutionary and absolute change of policy, such as had never taken place before, and he did not know what the result would be. Clause 15 (1 a) clearly put the Free State out of the Bill, or at any rate fixed it as a non-native area. There was no uniformity in the measure, and Natal ought to be out of the Bill. He did not think they were ready at the present moment for any revolutionary change.

The Bill aims at making provision for the settlement of the squatters question by, providing land of places to which they might go if they were removed from the farms where they Were now. He was glad that the Minister indicated the other day that, though they were called squatters here, they would not be called squatters in any other country. If their skins were white they would be called small peasants, and pay rent to the landlord of the farm. The Minister said the other day that some 200,000 were there illegally in the Transvaal, while those in Natal were there legally. Let them consider what that meant. There was a law in the Transvaal carrying out a besluit of the Volksraad against squatting. That law had not been repealed. As it has not been repealed, it might be said that these people were there illegally, but that was the only sense in which they were there illegally, otherwise they were in the same position as people were in Natal. In the Cape they were not called squatters, and they had labourers and labour tenants and ordinary tenants. He wanted to say about this question of squatters that the fault of the Bill published last year by the Government was that there was no provision whatsover for any lands to which these people might be moved if they were removed. He was glad to see that the Minister in this Bill had done his best to make provision for such land being created in the future. He would like to deal with some of the sections in this Bill. He thought he had made it plain that he was not in favour of the restriction of sale and purchase until the Commission had reported. It might be said that there was a restriction on the whites, but the real object of the Bill was to prevent the natives from buying, not the whites. He could not see why it would not work well if things were left as it was now. Instead of hindering a final solution of the question, it seemed to him that it might help the final solution of the question to leave the right to purchase as at present. If there was any tremendous amount of land being purchased so that there was a real danger of people being swamped in certain districts, it would be a different, thing, but there was nothing of the kind. There was some animadversion on the cross benches in regard to sub-section (2). He thought that was one of the best things in the Bill. It provided that those people who worked on shares would not be declared people who were hiring and come under the provisions to be finally established until the Governor-General had declared that particular land a non-native area, and had set apart an additional native area in which such people may occupy land, but it recognised existing conditions. He welcomed the provision that all the engagements which had been entered into already or existed at the present time were not to be disturbed until after the Commission had reported. He argued that Cape Colony ought to be out of the Bill. There was no necessity in Natal for it, and he suggested the whole tenour should be changed, and it should be made into a Bill to deal with the state of things existing in the Transvaal. With regard to the clause relating to the expropriation of land, he understood from various speeches there were objections to that, but to his mind it was the only way that the objects of the Bill could be secured, and in doing that he was of opinion that the hon. Minister would have the support of everybody in the House. He would like the Bill to go to a Select Committee before the second reading. There were so many difficulties that he could not say he was in favour of the Bill, the hon. Minister of Native Affairs had certainly tried to hold the balance fairly and squarely between the needs and the wants of the different sections; still he (Mr. Schreiner) did feel that the Bill was a double-edged sword, which in the hands of an administrator like the present Minister of Native Affairs, who would always try to do what was just, would not entail tremendous hardship, because it would be fairly administered. He could imagine, however, that the Bill with those same provisions in the hands of other people being misused so as to create tremendous hardships and tremendous injustices amongst the natives, who were the major portion of the population of the country. Consequently, he felt very doubtful about the final results of the Bill, and he would say that it behoved everyone of them to be careful of what they were doing at the present time, and to do nothing they would repent of in the future when it would be too late. There were tremendous issues at stake in the future in the provisions of that Bill. They opened the business of the House every day with prayer, and appealed to Almighty God to guide them to do right, and he trusted that in the consideration of that Bill that prayer would be in the hearts of everyone of them, and they would not consent, however much their private interests conflicted, to anything that would not stand the test, not only of their own opinions, but would stand the test of time and of God’s scales. They should put everything from them except what was to be for the benefit of the country.

said that when the hon. Minister of Native Affairs introduced the Bill, he stated that all natives residing in the Transvaal and squatting upon private and company land, were squatting there illegally, but those squatting upon Government land were doing so legally. In reference to that statement, the hon. gentleman had been wrongly advised. When the Locations Commission defined the various locations, the majority of the tribe was living in the location areas. At that time there was a large number of the tribes outside the locations. These natives were instructed to go into the locations. Some did, and some did not. It was well known what methods the natives adopted. They only scratched the soil, and when in two or three years it was exhausted they left it in an impoverished condition, occupying farms belonging to companies and the Government, and as soon as they had exhausted this soil, they went to other areas.

A resolution of the Volksraad, in 1891, stated that the Volksraad had decided to give to all commissioners and sub-commissioners instructions, through the Superintendent of Native Affairs, to see that henceforth no natives should reside on Government land, on certain pains and penalties. Although the Government had taken rent from these natives, that did not annul this resolution; the acceptance of rent from natives was perhaps illegal, but the occupation of this laud by natives was rendered illegal on account of that resolution. That resolution is still law in the Transvaal, and, consequently, natives residing on Government land had no legal right to reside there.

Although the Government has taken rent?

That does not annul the law; that does not repeal the law. The hon. member for Fordsburg said that residential owners in the Transvaal could permit natives to accumulate upon their farms, by allowing them right of occupation for service; but this was incorrect, because the Squatters Law was not yet repealed. The law laid down that it forbade any commissioner to allow any native to move on to a farm where there were five or more natives residing, and this regulation was strictly enforced. It was rather amusing to hear the right hon. member for Victoria West speak about the trade value of natives, and call it a very important factor; yet every year, when the right hon. gentleman criticised the number of Civil Servants in the Union, he entirely ignored the fact that a great deal of the expenditure upon the Civil Service was caused by natives. (Hear, hear.) When the amount of administrative expenditure was shown, he calculated it upon, the basis of the white population, not upon the basis of the whole population. As to the Bill itself, he heartily welcomed it, and he hoped it would have a speedy passage through the House. In this Bill they were just touching the fringe of the native question, or as some put it, the native problem. But it was the first step, and most certainly one in the right direction, and it should commend itself to, and be approved by the House, as its underlying principle was based on absolute fairness and justice to both races. The great underlying principle was one upon which our native legislation of the future would be adopted. They were laying a correct and sound foundation for future legislation, but how could they to-day solve a problem which took different aspects year by year, as time went on ? The principle adopted was, that as far as possible, in the interests of both faces, domestically and socially, the residential areas of both races shall be apart. All they could do was to pave the way for the solution of the problem by fair and wise legislation. He had never been an advocate of the policy of drift, but he did not believe that they were going to solve the problem by party legislation They must not forget that, they as a superior race, owed duties to the natives. This country was as much the natives as it was theirs. The native knew no other country but this. In time, this problem might find its own solution, and, if not, their children would meet the problem with calmness, fairness, justice, and liberality. He now asked members of the House to look at the other side of the question impartially. If they, as a superior race, owed obligations to the natives, they must also recognise the immense obligation which the native races owed to the white races of the country. The favourable circumstances under which the natives were now living were obtained for them by the white men in the country. (Hear, hear.) They had to thank the white man for their very existence. Internal strife had ended, tribal warfare had ceased. What did they find in Zoutpansberg many years ago? They found there that the few tribes remaining were fleeing from kopje to kopje with their women, but without cattle, because these had been raided. Children whom the mother could not carry, and who would hamper them in their flight, were put to death. He had been reading a diary of an old farmer— Willem Marais—written seventy years ago. An entry in that diary stated that he had allowed the Chief Lagalie, with twelve followers, to settle On his land, the same applied to other tribes such as Segop Ramagoep, Matok, and others. From those circumstances great tribes had been founded. (Hear, hear.)

The Government of the South African Republic decided to give locations to the various tribes, the principle being extended in the interests of the natives in 1888 by resolution of the Volksraad. While the Europeans had obligations towards the natives the latter also had obligations towards the former. (Ministerial cheers.) After the war the system was continued, and 49 locations were granted to as many different tribes in the Zoutpansberg district. There were only six native tribes in that district which had not been given locations. All these natives had been liberally provided for in the past, the Republican and the present Governments being no enemy of the native races. The Europeans had always tried to fulfil their obligations towards them. (Ministerial cheers.) Since the advent of the white man into the Transvaal a large number of native tribes had come into that country. About the time of the first voortrekkers; a tribe the Bavenda came from near the Congo, settled in Rhodesia, and passed through to the Zoutpansberg. To these people locations had been granted. Many natives came to the Transvaal after that country was settled by Europeans, the Magwamba from Gungunyam country under Joas Albosini, now number tens of thousands. In December, 1881, a proclamation was issued by the Transvaal Government, referring particularly to the native tribes which sought refuge in the Republic. The proclamation stated that ill-intentioned persons had sought to compel the natives to remain, but all native tribes might obtain free passes to leave the country with their property. On the other hand, assurance was given that all native tribes willing to remain would receive the full protection of the law. That proved conclusively that these tribes had come into the country, and had been provided for out of land belonging to the then South African Republic. The Europeans were handsomely fulfilling their duties to the natives and the former expected that the natives would fulfil their obligations to them. (Hear, hear.) After the occupation of Mashonaland in 1891 two tribes—one an insignificant one—left the Transvaal and crossed into Mashonaland. Mapen and David Marelong. These tribes did not leave because they were dissatisfied with the rule of the South African Republic, but they were dissatisfied with the way they were imposed upon by agents of land companies, who used to collect rents, and very often, because the native owed £2, an agent would seize an ox for it. That condition of affairs existed no longer, the present agents of the land companies being strictly honest, upright, honourable men. (Ironical Labour cheers.) The Bill was a first step to paving the way for the eventual peaceful solution of the problem. Strenuous opposition was offered by some hon. members to the Bill, but those gentlemen would in future years be regarded as anything but as friends to South Africa and the native races generally. Nothing could be more disastrous to this country than panic-stricken legislation. The hon. member recalled the fact that after the Gaika and Geleka wars of 77-78 the mind of the natives was much disturbed, and no natives could be got to work on the extension of the railway to Kimberley, Basutos were induced to come and work on the lines on the promise of being able to buy rifles—Enfields and Tower musket. With these they returned to their country. Then in a moment of panic the Cape passed the Sprigg Disarmament Act, and then came the trouble in Basutoland, consequent upon the determination of the Cape under the Sprigg Ministry to disarm the Basutos. In regard to the latter trouble, what, he asked, was the result?

The Cape ran away.

You are not far wrong. I ran away, too. Proceeding, he said that the prestige of the white man was badly shaken. These natives looked to oversea people for sympathy, to people who should have no direct concern in the natives of this country. In closing, he said that the principle laid down in this Bill was the only principle which could be accepted by this country with a view to the future settlement of the native question, upon the principle of this Bill all future legislation in reference to natives should be founded, and he felt that future generations would be deeply grateful to those who participated in passing this Bill, and if the underlying principle contained therein was extended the native problem would hold no terror for him, and he hoped that the Bill would have a speedy passage through the House.

said that as the representative of 70,000 natives in his constituency, he should like, on their behalf, to thank the right hon. member for Victoria West for the manner in which he had handled this question. The position he took up seemed to be the high moral position that this question should be looked at. In the course of his speech the right hon. gentleman asked, what did the natives think about this Bill before the House? His (Mr. Fawcus’) opinion was that the natives did not think anything at all about it. He should not think there was one native in a thousand in South Africa who was aware that this matter, so vitally affecting their future, was at present at issue. The hon. member for Middelburg had referred to the natives as “schepsels.” He believed the day was rapidly passing away when we should refer to natives as “schepsels.” They were an easy-going folk, and they thought little about title deeds and land laws. So great was the native’s attachment to the land on which he lived, in many instances that they could not rackrent him off it. These were the people that the Bill wished to dispossess and drive off the land. Surely it was the very irony of fate that the present Minister of Native Affairs should be the man to pilot such a Bill through the House. One of the weakest things he had heard him say was when he stated that so many natives were living on the land they held in illegal possession. It might have been illegal, but he thought when they were paying rent to the Government, and the Government were accepting the money, that should be taken as an earnest of lawful occupation. As to the communal ownership of land, in his opinion, from a knowledge of natives and native locations, one acre held under individual ownership was worth three or four acres held under communal ownership. The natives had had security of tenure and had made very little use of it owing to the communal system under which they held the land. What we needed in South Africa was a wider extension of the Glen Grey Act, or similar system of native tenure. The hon. member for Georgetown had thrown out a challenge that afternoon. He had said no one could give any reason at all against communal ownership. He (Mr. Fawcus) would reply in the words of an authority whom hon. members on those benches were fond of quoting, especially when it suited their purposes. Adam Smith said: “Take away from a man his right to individual ownership, and the man can have no other object in life but to eat as much food and do as little work as possible.” (Labour cheers.)

It was said that this Bill would prevent a white man buying in a native area or location. That was as it should be, because he thought the average native was too stupid to enter into competition with the white man. But he thought that as long as a native was prepared to buy land under individual ownership there could be no objection to his doing so in a white district. The figures placed before them showed that the land held by Europeans per head was fifty times the amount held per head by the natives. Surely there was no need at the present time for legislation which would prevent natives getting a little more land than they now had. It appeared to him that the necessity for this Bill had largely arisen through the Free State not having supplied or laid out any land on which natives could go. There were no native locations in the Free State. The Transvaal, it was true, had laid out native locations, but the trouble there seemed to have arisen from the European landowner being willing to sell land at 5s. an acre, which he got for nothing. He did not think it could be put down to the fault of the native if he was willing to buy and live on land rather than pay rent. The figures given in this connection were very instructive. Eight acres per head were held by the natives in the Cape, six acres in Natal, about 1½ acres in the Transvaal, and about one-third of an acre in the Free State. He thought this Bill was perhaps coming on a little before there was any necessity for it. In conclusion, he would like to impress upon the Minister the exceeding importance of the Commission he intended to appoint for the purpose of buying land. In his opinion, there should be a separate Commission for each Province. He hoped this Bill would not fall short of its framer’s expectations, hut he had very strong doubts upon the matter. So much, after all, depended upon the way in which these laws were administered.

said his remarks would be from the standpoint of the natives themselves. In his opinion, whatever might have been the motives of the hon. member for East London, should his amendment be carried, he would have rendered a distinct service to the native population of this country. A great deal had been introduced into the discussion, very much like the famous Dred judgment in the United States, and the character of the Bill agreed with that. According to that decision, negroes had no rights which they could compel white people to respect. Most of the discussion had gone on the assumption that natives had no rights, and all that they may, expect were a few concessions, and those concessions were determined solely by the convenience of the whites. But that was not a right standpoint. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member who had raised the point of competition, Mr. Haggar said it was only when competition was against their own pockets that certain people considered competition to be a bad thing. There was a great deal of competition in this country between white and black, and it seemed to some that if the poor farmers were not to go to the dogs they must either cease to civilise the blacks or they must get an earthquake on to swallow them up. With regard to the encroachment of land by the whites, he said that for fifty years at least the feelings of the natives in South Africa have been that the white man had had his eyes on the natives’ land, and had done all he possibly could to get the land from the natives.

The hon. member for Umlazi had intimated that the natives in this country knew nothing about that movement, and cared less, but unfortunately that was not true. He held in his hand resolutions passed at a recent congress in Johannesburg, and at that present moment numbers of intelligent and influential men were going through the Union and scattering those by the thousand. The people were stirred, and they were going to take a definite stand. He was surprised the hon. Minister had not said anything about the deputation he had received, or about information which had come to him. Mr. Haggar quoted a statement of the Minister to the effect that to treat the natives fairly was in the interests of the white people. He had heard of people saying that they did not come for the benefit of the black people, but for their own advantage to exploit the black people; and indeed many of them had done so very successfully. They came a long time ago, and said in effect to the natives that they were going to see what they could make of him. The native understood. however, that he was measured to a arge extent by what could be made out of him. The hon. member for Edenburg objected to the Bill because it would rob the farmers of the labour they required. There was a feeling very deeply set in the minds of some that the white men had some divinely conferred right upon the labour of the black man, but they should not go on those lines. They had created an appetite, and how could they say as honest men to the natives now that they had spurred their appetite, that they should deny the food. They had shown him the prospect, and they should not deny him the right to that they had promised and the desire for what they had created. In connection with the question of communal tenure, as the hon. member for Georgetown had said, they had had no definition of it, and not a single statement as to why it should be abolished or opposed. Was it wrong in principle? If so, it was a very funny thing that so long as the Christian Church was healthy and strong and progressive communalism dominated, for 900 years. It had been stated that these people had no voice, but they had a feeling upon that one question of communal tenure. They asked why should the white people interfere with their customs, which were good for them and not injurious to the white people? They were not allowing to the black people a principle they were allowing to the whites. The natives were supposed to take no interest in that question, and yet they saw that one principle would apply where a white man was concerned and another principle where only the native was concerned. Any step they could take in that House to allay suspicion and increase the confidence of the natives they should take. Did the Bill give them that confidence? It certainly did not. If they could make the natives believe that the Government was all it pretended to be they would do a great deal, but the Bill did not do that.

In connection with the question of segregation, the black man did not want to enter the social life of the white, they wanted social segregation, and to a certain extent they wanted political segregation. The white people had no right whatever to the idea that the natives were to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, that the whites were to do the ruling, and that those people had to have no voice at all. He wanted them to have a voice so far as their intelligence and their sense of justice would allow

Let him just refer to this illegal occupation of land—which may or may not be correct—and he was just telling them what these men had said to him, sitting round a table night after night. When they talked about illegal occupation, they said, “What about the white men?” It was well known that there were large areas of land given away to white men upon certain conditions, which were not complied with, and without any Crown grant. He would put the matter in a very short compass. (An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.) The natives complained that they had been treated upon principles that were different from those that were applied to the white men. The Minister said the other day that they had to observe the social and economical laws, but in dealing with these people, let them observe the moral laws. (Hear, hear.) They had not done so in the past. They felt that there was insecurity in this Bill, especially in the words, “until otherwise determined.” They felt that there was unnecessary interference with their customs—customs that were good for them, and no injustice to us. Suppose that two men agreed to take a piece of land, one of them agreed to work in the town, and the money that he earned would be sent to his partner, to be put into the development of the land. White men could do this, but the black men could not do it. There were two other points. These people felt that they ought to be consulted, because they held the people who had the most at stake, and the people who were most keenly affected, were the people to have been consulted. He did not doubt that the Minister would act wisely, and justly, but these people thought they ought to have one of themselves, upon the Commission, or, at least, a member that they had chosen. They did not think that the Bill was necessary. They had had no time to discuss it thoroughly. In some cases it was very loosely drawn up. Because the Bill was unnecessary, because it was resented by these people that had most at stake, he asked the Minister to consider that request.

said that this was the most important Bill that had been brought into the House since Union, and he must confess that he would like to associate himself with the right hon. member for Victoria West, the hon. member for Tembuland, and the hon. member for Umlazi. They were not led to believe, at the beginning of the session, that such a vital matter was going to be brought forward. It seemed to him that some pressure that had not yet been fully explained had been brought to bear upon the Government. The Government was trying, apparently, to outbid the hon. member for Smithfield, and those that supported him, in bringing forward this measure. He thought it was a pity that the Government did not deal with this measure themselves in their own way, and not in a panicky way. It was simply a sham Bill, because the squatting evil was not going to be dealt with at all, because it was simply going to change one form of squatting into another form of squatting.

The Bill was a sham, and it did not deal with the evils of squatting, but it would supply lucky farmers with a large number of free labourers. He did not see the necessity of the measure, because it would not do away with the evils which were said to show its necessity. All these evils were matters of administration, the necessary laws being in existence in the various Provinces concerned. “Again, the measure was premature, while in one respect it was the most extraordinary ever brought before that House. He had never before heard of legislating in the dark and at the same time appointing a Commission to throw light on the subject. A Commission would be absolutely useless unless the Bill was postponed. Then he had been told on good authority that the provisions with regard to the expropriation of land were hopeless, and if the Bill did not contain adequate provision for the repayment of the money the result would be that the taxpayers would have to pay it. In the Bill we had the thin edge of the wedge, and he was afraid it would be an undesirable precedent, and that later on we should have measures in which it would be laid down that it was the possession of a white skin which would entitle a man to privileges rather than the possession of skill and intelligence. Rather let us lay down a standard of civilisation and let every man —no matter what his race, religion or colour might be—have full opportunities of reaching to that standard, and when he did, let him be treated as would be any other person who had attained that level. But the Bill was in total variance with that principle. Rather than the Bill should be thrashed out across the floor of the House and the question be made a party one, it would be better to refer it to a Select Committee. If the Bill were not sent to a Select Committee, the natives would have no opportunity of stating their views.

said that some hon. members did not know what they wanted. The hon. member for Roodegoort knew only, a little about the matter, and lacked the key to it. When they came to examine history they would see that all the whites must stand together, and together draft a law. Johannesburg had been established as a town in 1886, without having many natives in its neighbourhood. To the north of that town they now found thousands of natives on the farms. The men were working on the mines and women did the farming, The Kafirs no longer dwelt in the bushveld, but in the vicinity of the goldfields. Eight miles outside Johannesburg they could drink as much beer as they wanted Not only sheep were stolen, but also cattle, and when these were sold, the money obtained was used for the purpose of buying ground. Hon. members did not know what was going on in the Transvaal. Then, in Pretoria, although they had moved the location, and the municipality had built a new one with good houses, the natives refused to go to it. At present they had 38 morgen of ground in Pretoria which they had hired for 99 years for £4,000, and were living amongst the white people. Was not legislation necessary to put an end to such a state of things? Just read the horrible things, the hon. member continued, which they found in the newspapers. To the east of Pretoria also they bought ground, and it was said that the money of natives was as good as that of the whites. But the money of the natives was stolen money. The natives came from Basutoland to the Rand stole and slaughtered cattle, and then bought land with the money. Should not such things be brought to an end?

In the Cape they had coloured people who were civilised and refrained from acts of crime, but in the Transvaal such things occurred daily. In the Transvaal all the natives were going in for squatting.

He would never vote for the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The Bill should not be smothered in that way, but should be passed as speedily as possible.

It would be necessary to appoint very shrewd men on the Commission, so that no unnecessary ground might be expropriated, and mineral rights should remain the property of the original owners.

Neither the locations in the country nor in the towns should be increased in size, but the natives ought to be kept apart from the whites. The farmer required to have natives for farming purposes, but where the natives were not required they should not be allowed to remain. They must put a stop to “Kafir farming.” If the Bill were unanimously adopted, it would be to the supreme advantage of South Africa.

said he was deeply grieved to hear the terrible indictment which the last speaker had brought against the Minister of Justice. The hon. member had pictured a terrible state of things in the Transvaal which should receive the immediate attention of the Government, but that was a state of affairs which the Bill was not going to change, for they were matters which were practically outside the scope of the Bill. Proceeding, he said he could congratulate the Minister on one step he had taken in bringing forward the Bill, and that was in recognising and distinguishing between the aboriginal native of the country and the coloured people, and he was sorry that that only extended to a part of the Union. In the Free State the coloured and the aboriginals had still to be lumped together. It was also a matter for congratulation that provision was made for exemption for those who had attained a certain stage of civilisation, for the Bill provided for exceptional cases in which men had raised themselves so far above the standard of the aboriginal native and were entitled to be recognised as fit to hold land in any part of the Union. The hon. member for Victoria West had told them about the extreme statements which had been made in the native newspapers. He spoke of some extraordinary articles. He (Dr. Watkins) knew about many of these articles, and they did not constitute a just charge against the Bill, but many of them were wrong because the people who had written them did not understand the provisions of the Bill. How long had they had to understand the Bill or to discuss it? There had been no time for them to have it explained to them, and they thought it was a measure of repression. They saw in the Bill things which were not there, and they did not see things which were there in order to safeguard them. He was in favour of the general principle of the Bill, as he was two years ago. The hon. member went on to say that in the earlier part of the session there was no indication that such a Bill was to be brought in. He felt that such a Bill should be published six months beforehand. With regard to the objections to the indiscriminate purchase of land by the natives, he recognised that if natives could buy farms in the midst of European farmers it was bad, and would have a deteriorating effect on the European farmers. He was not sure that he could say that it would be bad for the native, but at any rate there was nothing unfair to the native in putting him in areas which were recognised as native areas, so long as they dealt justly and fairly with the natives and saw that they had fair scope and had access to the land. He did not regard the Bill as essentially prejudicial to the interests of the natives if the latter were fairly dealt with.

When they appointed that Commission how were they going to instruct them as to how much land it would be necessary to set aside for the natives? They all knew that the natives outnumbered the white men by about four to one. Were they to say to the natives “We are taking nine-tenths of the country for ourselves, and we will give you one-tenth.” He was not going to say how much ground should be set aside, or how much would be considered a fair amount. That was a matter for the Commission to deal with. He hoped it would be possible for the Minister to find five men whose names they held in respect, and whose suggestions they could adopt, but they were asked to legislate not upon the report of five men whose names they all knew, but they were asked to pass a law that when these five men had reported, then the law would come into effect. This was like putting the cart before the horse. They should not pass a measure to drive men off ground they were beneficially occupying in order to force them to work for other men at low wages. If that were the object of the Bill he would have nothing to do with it. One was horribly afraid of anything which would be looked upon as repressive legislation, and one felt that any measure of repression was a most dangerous one. He was not as regular an attendant at prayers as was the hon. member for Tembuland, but he would like to quote a line from the old Book: “With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.” They lowered the standard of the white man directly they, did anything to the black man which was unfair or unjust. If the House passed unfair and repressive laws with regard to natives this session it would be passing unfair and repressive laws in a few years time with regard to white men. There were many States in which right and justice had ceased to exist, but he believed that the Union Parliament wanted to do what was right and fair. The danger of contact with natives had been made a great deal of. It was a true danger, but the Bill would not greatly affect it. We were none of us prepared to go in for a policy of segregation, which would press natives into one portion of the country and which would lead to the total curtailment of native labour for Europeans. Instead a proper contact should be beneficial to both whites and blacks, for the sense of responsibility and trusteeship for the natives should elevate and enoble the white race. He would strongly appeal to the Minister to accept the proposal that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. Such a course would have the advantage that people who were greatly interested would have an opportunity of discussing it. He thought it was of the greatest importance that they should carry the native population with them in this matter, and he thought, if it were explained to them, and they were given an opportunity of being heard before a Select Committee, it would be found that they would accept the Bill and the necessary provisions with regard to the acquisition of land. How many of them in that House could claim that they could speak for the native? It was more important than in anything else, perhaps, that in regard to a measure of this kind, before it passed its second reading, they should be given an opportunity of coming forward. He also felt that it was important that the missionaries should have an opportunity of expressing their views in regard to this Bill. He had no desire to kill the Bill, but he did feel that it was a matter which should not be dealt with hastily. He urged that a Bill should be passed for one year, and if the Commission said at the end of the year that they had been working hard but had not finished their work, then it should be passed for another year.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned till to-morrow (Friday).