presented a petition from J. Jeffries and 145 others, inhabitants of Port Elizabeth, 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.

as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Your committee, having had under consideration the question of the amendment of the rules adopted by Parliament on the 14th December, 1910, relating to the payment of members’ allowances, and having conferred with a committee of the Senate, begs to recommend the adoption of the following rules in place of those at present in force:

1. (1) Subject to the deductions, if any, the Clerk of the House concerned shall pay to every member of the House of which he is Clerk his Parliamentary allowance of £400 a year in instalments of £100 each payable every three months, the first three months to be reckoned from the date on which the member takes his seat: Provided that on the last day of a session a member may, subject to such deductions as aforesaid, be paid for a portion of three months the amount which has on that date accrued to him.
2. (2) A member shall not be deemed to have been absent on any day during which he shall have attended a meeting of the House or any committee of which he is a member.
3. (3) A member shall be exempted from deductions on account of his absence: (a) For any number of days not exceeding fifteen on which he fails during an ordinary session (being a session at which the Estimates of Expenditure for the ordinary administrative services of a financial year are considered), and for causes other than those specified in paragraph (b), to attend a meeting of the House or any committee of which he is a member; and (b) when his absence is due to his illness or the subpoena of a competent Court.
4. (4) These rules shall take the place of those which were adopted by Parliament on the 14th December, 1910, and shall come into operation after the close of the present session.

stated that unless notice of objection to the proposed Rules was given on or before the 23rd instant, the Rules would be considered as adopted.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the petition of the Transvalia Land and Exploration Company, Ltd.

It was agreed that the report and evidence be printed and set down for consideration on Wednesday, June 4.

Annexures to General Report of the Census, 1911, Parts II and III.

Preliminary Report of Miners’ Phthisis Prevention Committee.

reported that the Wines, Spirits, Beer and Vinegar Bill had been returned by the Senate with certain amendments.

The amendments were set down for consideration on Wednesday next.

moved the third reading of the Marriage Laws Amendment Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time.

said it was with a good deal of diffidence that he rose to offer a few hesitating suggestions upon this vital question. He realised what every young member of the House must realise, that he was not by any means so well qualified to speak upon this subject as those members who were much more experienced with regard to the problem contained in this Bill: but everyone would agree with him that it was the duty of every young member to think out these problems in regard to a measure which was of vital importance to the welfare of the country. He realised, also, that any members from the Cape Province spoke upon the subject dealing with the native question with peculiar responsibility and peculiar diffidence. He spoke with peculiar responsibility, because in speaking on this subject, he realised that it was obligatory upon him to say nothing against that native policy which obtained in the Cape Province. He realised also that he had against him the divergent opinions of those who came from other Provinces. Now the only other member from the Cape Province who spoke upon the subject was the hon. member for the Castle Division of Cape Town. When the hon. member spoke he gave the appearance of believing that the Bill would mean the abandonment of the policy of the Cape, which was equal rights to all civilised people south of the Zambesi. He thought it was true to say that in this Bill the House was asked to lose sight of the principle that in this country all civilised men should be treated as equals in the eyes of the State. It asked that distinction should be drawn as far as regarded the right of property between those who were white and those who were coloured. Everybody knew that at least in its political aspects the native policy of Cape Colony was based upon the maxim of Cecil Rhodes—a maxim which dated before his time, although he was the first to give it prominence—that before the eyes of the law every civilised man must have equal rights. There was no doubt that this was the underlying principle in the Cape Colony law. What were the purposes of this Bill— purposes which he thought were admirably expressed in an article in a morning paper that day—“as far as possible, to prevent the intermixture of black and white, in the interests of both: and, as absolute separation was out of the question, the, proposal is to get as far as we can in this direction by bringing into play forces which will tend to keep the two races harmonious and contented in territorially separate areas.” Now, that purpose was different from the purpose which was in the view of those statesmen of the Cape who held the principle of equal rights for all civilised men. That statement aimed at a policy of calling the native to share in the political responsibilities of the country. Now, he would submit to the House that from the political standpoint, the policy of the Cape Colony in the past had been a great success, and that it was the only policy which, from a political point of view, held out any hope for the future welfare of the country. He had heard it said that this policy had been a success, but that statement was in conflict with the opinions of members that came from other Provinces. He knew that the hon. member for Ladybrand was not in agreement with him, and he knew’ that other members and people in the North always had before their mind the fear that if the natives had political rights they would obtain dominance in the country. (An hon. member: No, no.) He believed he was correct in stating that the real reason for not giving the natives a vote was because they were afraid that the natives, having been given political rights, would be in a position to dominate the politics of the country. There was an idea in other Provinces that since the natives in the Cape were given political rights, the native vote had largely increased, and that the menace was a real one. He was speaking in Johannesburg, and again and again he had flung at him the taunt that he was elected by the coloured vote in the Cape, and therefore he was not entitled to speak for the white people in the Union if he represented coloured voters. He would like to point out what the real effects were. Let him take certain figures which had been collected by Sir Gordon Sprigg in 1886 in the Cape House of Assembly, when he was introducing a Bill restricting the number of coloured voters in the Cape Province. He took five typical constituencies where the coloured vote in the Cape was thought to have considerably increased. He (Mr. Long) took Aliwal North, where in 1886 there were 1,486 white voters and 800 coloured, and in 1900 there were 2,713 white voters and 593 coloured. Then he took Fort Beaufort. In 1886 there were 1,832 white voters and 404 coloured, and in 1009 there were 2,801 white voters and 822 coloured. He quoted that because it told against the case that he made out. The explanation was this: that in the delimitation of the Union constituencies Bedford was cut off from the Fort Beaufort constituencies, and part of Victoria East, where they had a large number of coloured voters, was put on. In King William’s Town in 1886 there were 3,301 white voters, and the number of non-European voters was 1,300. In 1909 the coloured to 814 so that whereas the general European voters amounted to 2,798, and the total had gone down in fairly large proportions, the number of coloured voters had gone down in much larger proportions. In Queen’s Town in 1886 the number of European voters was 3,679, and the non-European 1,770. In 1909 the European voters were 2,885, and the non-Europeans 573. In the constituency of Wodehouse in 1886. European voters amounted to 2,711, and the non-European to 1,325. In 1909 the total number of European voters was 2,813 and the number of non-European 138. He had no figures so far back as 1886 for the Cape Peninsula. If the hon. members, therefore, would take the period of about 30 years, practically from the beginning of the time in which the non-European vote began to be visible, they would find that the figures, instead of showing an alarming increase in the number of coloured voters, showed a decrease.

Hon. members might say that these figures were wrong and that it must be accepted as a fact that the non-European vote was increasing. Might he give them what he believed to be the explanation? He believed the explanation was that the policy of the Cape, which started with only a property qualification and not an educational qualification, had gradually found it necessary to raise the qualification as applicable to the European and non-European. Cecil Rhodes, by a Bill, added the educational qualification, and immediately there was a decrease in the non-European vote. That policy of the Cape making the franchise qualification more and more severe without distinction had been, he thought, deliberately embarked upon with a view’ to having a beneficial effect on the non-European part of the population, and setting before them a higher and higher ambition. He believed that had it not been for the unfortunate fact that in two of the Provinces of the Union manhood suffrage had been granted not very long ago the whole political question, for another 200 years, as tar as it concerned the political status of the natives, might have been settled on the lines of the Cape policy of giving equal rights to both sections of the people and making the qualifications in regard to the franchise rising qualifications. (Opposition cries of “Hear, hear,” and Ministerial cries of dissent.) What had been the result in the Cape in regard to the political status of the natives? Could anyone attribute their progress to any other reason than the fact that they had before them the political ambition of having a share in the government of the country when they had proved themselves worthy? The policy of the Cape had proved a successful policy and the only alternative was the political subjection of the natives.

Separation?

I don’t suppose my hon. friend really means separation. Continuing, he asked whether he meant the initiation in Central Africa of a non-European state under its own Government? There was a clear distinction between the political and social aspects in regard to the Cape. Whereas the Cape’s political policy had been a striking success, its social policy had been, in many cases, a lamentable and disastrous failure. (Ministerial “Hear, bear’s.”)

Let hon. members see where the Cape’s social policy had proved a success—in the native territories and under the Glen Grey Act—in fact wherever the main principle of that Bill had been adopted there the social policy of the Cape had been an enormous success. The civilisation test, as distinct from the political test, had not proved successful —

Where?

said that hon. members had only to go to the slum districts of Cape Town to see the effect socially.

Not natives.

said that he had been told by a native living in Maitland Location that the test they had among themselves of their respectability was as to whether they lived in the location or not. The native said that the good people lived in the location, and the rest went to the towns. He had the utmost respect for the coloured people of this Peninsula. They were straightforward, honest, hardworking and excellent citizens, but he did say that the tendency of the present conditions, of whites, coloured, and natives mixing up, made it harder and harder for the coloured people to maintain their best traditions. If it was true that wherever they found white, coloured, and the natives living together, it was difficult for the coloured people to maintain their best traditions and be worthy of that respect which they had won for themselves in the past, then it was equally true with regard to the white people that such close association made it difficult for the whites to retain their self-respect and retain their position in the scale of civilisation. Continuing, he said that this close association in daily living between white and black was not good, and if they could only apply this principle of separation wherever it was possible, it would not only be for the good of the white races of South Africa, but good for the coloured races of South Africa. If, to-day, in South Africa they could pass a law separating the whites from the coloured, they would be doing an inestimable service not only to the future of the whites in South Africa, but to the future of the native races in South Africa. He believed that the proposal was to try and carry out that principle of separation where it was possible, and prevent a repetition of those unfortunate conditions which had reduced the Cape Peninsula to its present condition in regard to the mixing up of white and black.

He believed the Bill was a good one, not only from the point of view of the whites, but also from the point of view of being in the best interests of the natives themselves, and also from the point of view of being in harmony with the best traditions of the Cape native policy. It was important, if the Bill were to have the effect that was intended, that its true purpose should be understood by the natives themselves. Unless it could be proved to the natives that the Bill was designed in their interests, they would be apt to think that they would be suffering under an injustice if the measure became law. He disagreed on this account with the hon. member for Cape Town Castle, who had stated that the Bill was the abandonment of the civilisation test and the imposition of a colour test. So far as the civilisation test of the Cape was concerned, that had been fatal from a political point of view. He thought there had been very little time in which to approach the leaders of native opinion, and to show them that the Bill was designed to safeguard the integrity of the native races. He would ask hon. members to hesitate before quietly accepting the Bill, and rather to support the amendment of the hon. member for East London to refer the measure to a Select Committee, in order that the principles of the Bill might be thoroughly understood, that the natives might be thoroughly educated, and next session they might see a measure passed which would be to the benefit of both whites and natives. He disagreed with the hon. member for Tembuland when he stated that the great bulk of the natives were unrepresented in that House. (Ministerial cheers.) He believed that every member in that House felt it his duty to act as the natives’ representative with a tenderness of conscience which exceeded that which a member had for the ordinary constituents, who could throw their member out if they so desired. (Ministerial cheers.) Mr. Long concluded with the following quotation from a memorandum made in 1848 by the Hon. Wm. Porter (then Attorney-General of the Cape) on the question of the establishment of a representative Assembly in the Cape: “Perhaps there is no country in the world where mere difference of rank or class, complexion being the same, is less marked than it is at the Cape of Good Hope, especially in the country districts. And although difference of colour continues, and probably will ever continue, to influence the social sentiments of the community in which it exists, I regard all political oppression, to be carried on through legislation, as being utterly impossible. Protected by the most influential part of such opinion as there is in the Colony; by able and zealous men who would be found in the Assembly itself; by the Legislative Council; by the Governor; and above all by the Queen; no yagrant law of undue stringency could possibly be carried; and I am aware of no other quarter from which any danger could be apprehended.” He (Mr. Long) believed the same words applied equally strongly to the Union Parliament, and he appealed to hon. members not to pass a law which had even the appearance of stringency, but to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London. (Opposition cheers.)

said they saw in Cape Town how the problem had been complicated. In the Free State there was not the same complication, and that was because there were better laws in the Free State than in the Cape. There were increasing numbers of natives qualifying for the Cape franchise, and in a very short time the number of native voters on the roll would increase more rapidly than the number of white voters. That was one of the dangers. He would like to reply to what the right hon. member for Victoria West had said about certain Free State laws. The right hon. gentleman had chaffed them because the laws were not carried out, hinting that the people themselves did not wish them to be carried out. He (Mr. Fichardt) thought that was scarcely fair, though he admitted that a considerable deal of blame attached to the people of the Free State in this connection, because many of them thought that by obtaining labour through having squatters on their land was a cheap form of getting it, but now they were discovering that that particular form of labour was the most expensive that could be employed. (Cheers.) Gradually the system was breaking down. The trouble was that there was a number of lazy and indifferent people who were able to work their farms under this system. He himself had had to adopt the system, because it was impossible for him to get labour unless he did so. The law on the subject was a good one, and the Free Staters wanted to know why it was not carried out. The right hon. member for Victoria West had quoted figures to show how these squatters had increased in the Free State in spite of the stringent laws. That was not altogether right. The old law was effective, but it was amended, and from that day there was a great increase. When the Masters and Servants Act was repealed under the Crown Colony Government, that led a large number of natives to come in and squat where they liked. The right hon. gentleman had pointed out that the native represented a considerable asset, but he (Mr. Fichardt) looked upon him as a very considerable liability, and he reckoned that three natives kept out three white men. If this Bill were not going to do anything in the direction of segregation, if it were not going to do anything to keep the two races apart, then he said a great deal more would have to be done to strengthen the Bill in the direction he wanted it. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) had asked who had developed the country? He had said the native. He (Mr. Fichardt) asked had the white no part? Had not he also to put his hand to the plough and help to bring this country from a state of raw barbarism into what it was to-day? As far as the Bill itself was concerned, it would seem to allow an interpretation to suit either inclination. To that extent he was in favour of it.

The question with him was, what was to be our destiny in this country ? He felt that there were only three ways which were open to us—(1) we must either predominate in this country, or (2) the native must predominate, or (3) we should have to become a bastard people. If there were any danger of either of the two latter, then he said they were justified in taking steps to retain their position in South Africa. He should probably be told that it was the law of God that the two races should live together in this country. But, he would ask, was it such a law? It would rather seem to him that the great distinctions which there were between the races inclined to the idea that they were meant to be kept apart. He was not quite prepared yet to accept the position that it was the law of God that the two races had to be mixed. He did not want to offer any opposition to this Bill, because, on the whole, he supposed it was the best they could get under the circumstances. It was certainly by no means what they hoped to get, and what they wanted. He should take the opportunity in Committee of moving in certain amendments, which, he trusted, would be accepted. What he regretted most in the Bill was the prospect it opened up of having dotted all over the country native areas, which were not going to be in the best interests of the people. The Bill seemed to tend in the direction of compelling the natives and Europeans to dwell in close proximity to each other. He learnt from the speech of the Minister the solemn duty which they, as a white race, owed to the natives committed to their charge. In that speech there seemed to him to be one point which had been missed, and that was: the duty to the white man in this country.

Hear, hear.

said that, by their law, it seemed to him that they had done everything to uplift the native. In addition to that, he had secured under communal tenure large tracts of country, which he might never be deprived of by any action of his own. These lands were situated in the richest, most fruitful, and most productive portions of South Africa. In these lands intensive cultivation was possible, closer settlement was practicable, and those lands in time would carry a large population. It seemed to him that they had everything making for the development and strength of a coloured nation. Over against that, what was the position of the white man? Our laws did not mother him, as they did the native. The white man might remain a vagrant as long as he liked; he might cripple himself as he liked with alcohol; and, in addition to that, he had only his personal ability to secure to him the tenure of his land. To him, what were the portions of the country which had been allotted? The great North-west, the West, the Karoo—these were the portions into which he had to go and make a living, and work out his salvation, and here he could, at best, as far as he (Mr. Fichardt) could gather, eke out a poor existence. In the very nature of things, his habitations were scattered far and wide. Was there, a chance in such an area of co-operation and closer settlement? Under the economical conditions under which he was going to be placed in South Africa, he asked how the white man was going to win? Was it any wonder, in face of these handicaps, that the immigrants who were now in this country went past our shores? (Opposition laughter.) The reason, he suggested, that the immigrants went past this country was the handicap placed on the white man, owing to the position that the native occupied. It seemed to him that the man who wanted protection against the overwhelming numbers, and against the geographical position, of the natives in this country, was not so much the native as the white man. The question was not insoluble, if only the leaders of thought in this country would apply themselves to it, and would start with the premises that it was the white man who required protection. He was inclined to think that here, under the shadow of Table Mountain, they were inclined to accept as their destiny the conversion of the people into a coffee-coloured race. That was not the view held further North. This was not a matter for the Orange Free State, it was a matter for the whole of South Africa. He had feared, and the fear was shared by many, that in passing this Bill they were going to set their feet upon a path which they would be unable to retrace. What he understood the Bill to say was that the ground would be expropriated from the white men as well as from the natives. (An hon. member: By Parliament.) It was possible for them to pass a Bill which would definitely lay down what had to be done. He felt very much in this matter that the Bill that was before the House did not carry out on the face of it all that should be carried out, and that was equality of justice. If they were to deal fairly with the natives of this country, then according to population they should give them four-fifths of the country, or at least a half. How were they going to do that ? As he said in the earlier part of his remarks, he was quite prepared to support the Bill, because he thought a step was being taken in the right direction.

He was prepared to accept the Bill as something to go on with, but he hoped that in the future it would not constitute a stumbling block. He would much rather have seen that the matter had been gone into more fully, and that some scheme had been laid before them so that they might have more readily been able to judge how the Bill would work. It was because of all these difficulties that he felt that they could only accept the Bill if it laid down that there was no intention of taking the country from the white people and handing it over to the natives.

said it would have been far better if some measures had been taken 50 years ago. He congratulated the Minister on bringing the Bill into the House. It was a bold measure. There was a feeling in Port Elizabeth that they might drift away from the policy of the Cape. The policy that was laid down in the Cape was the right policy. If they departed from that policy they simply built a future that would be most disastrous. Personally, he thought that they made a great mistake when they broke down the tribal system. He believed in the separation of the two races. He believed in their segregation as much as possible, but they could not stop the native from going ahead. He understood that there were large tracts of land unoccupied, owned by companies, which could be expropriated. He believed that no matter what steps were taken there could not be a permanent settlement. Natives themselves said—that is to say, good natives—that they preferred living among themselves. It was only the scum of the natives that preferred living among the white people. Therefore he said separate the two races as far as possible. Continuing, the hon. member pointed out that they were dealing with a very different type of native to the native of fifty years ago, and that fact had to be realised. He did not see why some firm policy, which could be improved with the passing of years, should not be adopted, and in congratulating the Minister on the measure which he had placed before the House, he would like to say that it had his hearty support. He would like to see the appointment of an independent Commission that would go right through the country, and recommend what was thought best for the natives and the country. In conclusion, be said that he heartily supported the motion before the House.

said that he had listened with the greatest interest to the eloquent speech that had been delivered by the hon. member for Liesbeek, but added that he did not think that that hon. member had paid sufficient attention to the northern point of view; or rather, he thought that, the hon. member was a little too harsh in interpreting that point of view. The hon. member was more in touch with natives who were more advanced than the natives of the North, the majority of whom were little better than savages. He felt sure the white people in the North would never acquiesce in natives taking part in making laws governing whites, in fact he did not think natives would prove fitted to do that any more than he considered whites were fitted to make laws for natives. Dealing with the proposals to separate the natives from the whites, he said he thought it desirable that advisory Councils should be established as soon as possible to advise Parliament with regard to native matters. He supported the principle of the Bill, though he took exception to some of the details of the measure, adding that he was not objecting to these details simply because the measure was one dealing with natives He would have objected in the same way if the Bill had been one dealing with whites. Practically everybody seemed to have subscribed to the principle of separating the races, and he thought that this Bill was a short though important step towards a solution Of the problem which confronted them. He used the word separation as distinct from segregation, which was generally understood to mean something like the compound system where the natives were compounded at night, but brought out in the day to work with the whites. Any idea of separation by making the natives live apart from the whites for a part of the time only was no solution. Continuing, he said there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to what was meant by the native problem. Some people seemed to think the problem was one of how to make the native work for the benefit of whites, and the other view, as voiced by the hon. member for Fordsburg, and one with which he (the speaker) agreed, was the necessity of doing away with points of social contact. As instancing what many people thought in regard to the first point of view he had mentioned— he quoted the statement of a witness before a Mining Commission, who said that the natives were put down here by Providence to work the mines and other industries. That was a very common, but also a very bad point of view which must be eradicated from these people’s minds. It was often said that we should not do away with the competition of the native by separation. He agreed that they would not do away with competition by settling the natives on these large or small areas of land. That fault could not be laid to the door of separation. It was rather an argument against the present competitive system of production. Complete separation was impossible, he thought, at the present time; the possibility or desirability of complete separation would rest with the people who would follow them. But they should leave the road open for complete separation if it was thought desirable in the future. He believed that any attempt to force the natives would lead to disaster; on the other hand, he thought that the Minister and the Government should at all times do everything that tended to encourage the separation of the races. He urged that the Government should do more than merely dump the natives on to the land. This was really a Native Land Settlement Bill. They would go much further if they were dealing with a Bill for the settlement of whites. Therefore, in this matter, he thought that they should treat these natives on all fours with the whites, If they were helped to develop the land and found industries by means of advances, he thought that the fear with regard to the “labour only” clause would be done away with, because the tendency would then be to encourage natives to transfer to these areas. Without some such help from the Government as this, the Bill would remain practically a dead letter as far as populating the native areas were concerned, and squatting in white areas would remain much the same as it was at present. They must also alter those existing laws which had a tendency to force natives into white areas to compete with the white.

In regard to repayments for land, instead of a tax per head they should provide a way by means of a tax on the unimproved value of the land. It must be remembered too that in many cases the natives were going to buy back their own land, and in cases of that kind there should be some exemption. It seemed harsh that by the law we were going to ask natives to pay over large sums of money for the retention of land which they practically had never been off. Again, there was no restriction in the Bill as to the amount of land a native was to be allowed to own. He thought there should be some restriction, and there should be no loophole for a man to own land which he did not properly work. He regarded the land tenure clauses as, the crux of the Bill. He objected to individual titles in land. He did not want to see reproduced in native areas the evils of landlordism. It would be better, he thought, to create fewer but larger native areas that would reduce the points of social contact between whites and natives considerably. Then we should retain the ownership of the land in the State for the present, and vest the land in native Councils, who could settle the minor questions arising out of the holding of land under lease. A Land Tax should be imposed so as to recover the money spent in the purchase of the land, to be afterwards spent in land development. So far as he had heard, no real argument had been urged in that House to the communal holding of land. The communal owning and holding of land were two very different questions. Nobody on the cross-benches advocated that land should be taken away from people, but that the title in the land should not be theirs, that there should be some sort of perpetual lease of the land from the State, and the title should belong to the State in the interests of the whole people. So long as people profitably used their land there was no one on the cross-benches who would attempt to take their holdings from them. If freehold were allowed in the native areas there would be an aggregation of land in the hands of a few persons. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the people of Scotland had been much better off under the old system of communal tenure than the individual ownership created by the extension of the English land laws, which had led to the transportation of large numbers of them. A safeguard should be inserted in the Bill against that by not allowing the freehold to be placed in the hands of the natives. Continuing, Mr. Sampson said there appeared to be some opposition on the part of the natives themselves to the Bill. He had tried to find out what there was in the Bill to which a native could really take exception. They were told it took away rights. As it was the natives bad precious few rights at all. The native could only hope to aim at governing himself and making his own laws in the future by separating from the whites, for the whites would never allow natives to have a hand in the framing of laws for Europeans. (Hear, hear.) The Bill implied merely an exchange of rights, the native being asked to exchange one right for another. A lot of misconception had arisen out of our treatment of natives in the past. The Squatters Act had frightened the natives. Previous efforts had been in the direction of driving the natives off the land without making suitable provision for them, but the present measure was an improvement on that. The right hon. member for Victoria West had argued that the civilised native should be treated differently from the uncivilised, but in making laws for whites we did not make laws according to the classes. Why should we single out a few civilised or educated individuals for preferential treatment? The proper place for the civilised native was with his own fellows and he should try to lift them up (Cheers.) Were we to consider a few freaks gallivanting round Europe being petted and pampered? Their proper place was with their own people. We had not to consider that class, but the great bulk of the natives. Under the Bill there would be hardship and sacrifice on both sides. A native might be asked to leave the place where he had been living for years, but the same would apply to the whites. In conclusion, Mr. Sampson said the request that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee was a subterfuge for delaying the Bill for the present session. Everybody had pointed out the danger of delay, and he trusted that the Minister would go or, with the measure this session. (Labour cheers.)

said that, in the first place, he wished to congratulate the Minister of Native Affairs on the step he had taken in introducing this measure. (Hear, hear.) Not that he regarded it as by any means sufficient, but he regarded it as a guarantee of what would come in the future. But he thought the Minister, at any rate, deserved credit for the step he had taken. (Hear, hear.) Not that he (General Hertzog) agreed with him on all points, but the points where he disagreed were really more points of personal impressions and characteristics. Before he went any further on this subject, he wished to emphasise that he thought this House owed a debt of thanks to the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman), not so much for what he had said, but for what he had made this House and the people outside feel. (Hear, hear.) There was a good deal in his speech with which the speaker could not agree. Fundamentally he (General Hertzog) differed from the right hon. gentleman, but there was one great point on which he quite agreed with him, and on which he was convinced South Africa owed him thanks, and that was for the manner in which he had again drawn the attention of this House and of the people generally to the fact that they had here to do with a matter which they must regard and deal with not only as a matter of the greatest importance, but as a matter differing from those generally brought before this House, because they had to do here with a section, a large section of people, in regard to whom they had greater obligations than they had even in regard to the white people, because these people were in the position of not being able to come into this House and making hon. members feel what their interests were. (Hear, hear.) But he thought that the House would especially feel grateful to the right hon. gentleman for having lifted the debate out of a rut, which, if it had been persisted in to the end, would have given the impression to these people that they in this House, when considering this law, had conspired to say as little as possible about the native people. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had at once pointed out that, in dealing with this Bill, they had to do with people to whom the future was as dear as it was to themselves, people who required just as much that nothing should be put in the way of their development as the white people. It was for those reasons that the speaker felt grateful for the speech of the • right hon. gentleman. As regarded the conclusion to which Mr. Merriman had come, he (General Hertzog) must say that he differed from him. Mr. Merriman had not said really what his view was, but he had made them all feel it. He (General Hertzog) must say that so far as he understood him, that it appeared to him that Mr. Merriman was not at all pleased that this House and the people of this country should take their refuge in legislation such as that now before the House. It seemed that the hon. member (Mr. Merriman) would rather that the Bill had not been introduced. That was the speaker’s impression, and in that, he (General Hertzog) disagreed with the right, hon. gentleman. He considered that it was as much in the interests of the white as in the interests of the native people that a step such as indicated in the Bill should be taken. He held that the time had fully come for such a step to be taken. When they looked at the conditions prevailing in South Africa, then they must admit that they could not get away from the fact that there was friction in this country between the natives and white people, or rather let him say between the rights and privileges of the native and the white man.

Hear, hear.

said that everyone in South Africa who came into contact with the native, where he most pressed on the white people, must admit that there was pressure. That pressure, and consequently that friction must increase and make itself felt more and more as time went on. What, was the reason of that? What was the reason, for instance, that last year they had such a question as they heard of day after day, the “black peril question?” The people in the country had not been satisfied until a Commission had been appointed. When that was done, feelings subsided somewhat; but he would tell hon. members that those assaults on their women and girls would again take place if matters were allowed to remain and go on as they were. (Hear, hear.)

And every time such feelings were roused owing to renewed assaults, matters would become worse, and eventually it would take but very little to create a condition of affairs here between the native and the white man, a position which would be fatal to South Africa, and which would be even worse than the position of which they read so much in America. (Hear, hear.) He thought they should take a lesson from what had happened there, and from what was still taking place there. And what would be the effect, he asked? Simply that every time the white man would become more conscious of the danger. There, again, they had to do with one of the fundamental causes which they found everywhere in ordinary social life and when they came down to bedrock, they would find that it was again the great economic factor—their bread and butter. That was a factor which no people had ever been able to get away from. Why, he asked, were people so happy in the Cape Province, as the right hon. gentleman had expressed it, in regard to this matter? Why were they less happy in the Free State, less happy again in the Transvaal, and least happy of all in Natal? The reply to this question was, that in the Cape the pressure of the native population on the white was less and in the Transvaal and Natal the pressure was the most severe. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had referred to an expression used by Burke, which, if he remembered rightly, was: “The position of man is the preceptor of his duty.” That was so. It was because that preceptor here in the Cape so much differed from the preceptor in the Transvaal, the Free State, and Natal, that they had learned such a different lesson from that learnt by the right hon. gentleman here. (Hear, hear.) They, here in the Cape, had been in a situation in which, unfortunately, the other parts of the Union had not been, but he also felt that, as time went on, the situation now felt in the other Provinces would make itself more and more felt here. He wished to refer the fight hon. gentleman to the position in a district not far from East London. Less than six months ago a highly-placed official there informed him (General Hertzog) that there was one part of the district where the white man and the native were very much mixed. The natives had continually kept on increasing in numbers there, and in the Divisional Council to-day all the members were natives. Natives there made laws for Europeans. He had been informed that the position there was really intolerable for the European. Well, if that was already so in a part of the Cape Province, they would realise that the pressure of the natives was already being felt here, and that would be more so as the proportion of natives increased. Let them realise that the white man in South Africa felt that a danger was threatening him, and that danger was making itself more felt in the Transvaal than anywhere else. Because there it had been found that the native—and he said that it was to the credit of the native—was waking up to the realisation of what it meant to him to be the owner of land. And so wide-awake had the native become in this regard that he was not only buying ground where he could, but he was also forming companies, and, in the name of these companies, ground was being bought for the natives. And the native went even further, and he (General Hertzog) had been assured that in the natives’ deeds of transfer there was a condition that that ground could be sold only to natives. He (General Hertzog) quite agreed that, for the white man as well as for the natives, it was one of the most encouraging thoughts to know that he was the owner of a plot of land. (Hear, hear.) And all this was to the credit of the native. But, General Hertzog proceeded, what was the result? The native went and obtained ground adjoining the ground of the European. And now they came to the great factor which was one of the main causes of the whole trouble. They had to deal with two distinct stages of civilisation, and they forgot what the direct result was of the difference of civilisation. There was, on the one hand, the European, the man who knew how to conduct himself and to keep within his bounds, and there was the native, on the other hand, who did not know that sufficiently well. During the short while he (General Hertzog) had the honour of being in charge of the Portfolio of Native Affairs he had received scores of letters from people in the Transvaal, who pointed out that farming was impossible where natives and Europeans were next to each other. (Hear, hear.) That naturally must have the effect of creating ill-feeling and bitterness, with the effect that it became more and more difficult for the native and the white man to live in harmony, and as the number of native landowners increased the friction must naturally also increase.

But then there was another fact which the right hon. gentleman had lost sight of. The right hon. gentleman had said that he did not consider it advisable for the natives to be restricted within certain divisions where he would be told to stop and have his property there. Unless they made such provisions he (General Hertzog) was convinced that they would never be honest towards the native, and that they would never act honestly and straightforwardly towards him. (Hear, hear.) There was no one in that House, he contended, who would dare tell him that to-day they were acting honestly towards the natives. It would not blind him to hear people say “We are giving the natives equal rights.” The fact was that so far they had always seen to it, and would always do so, that in practice, whatever his rights on paper might be, the native would not have these equal rights. “I am convinced,” General Hertzog proceeded, “that if my right hon. friend were asked to give his consent to the extension of the Cape franchise system to the rest of the Union, and that if the effect of such extension would be to give the natives the majority in this country, he would not agree to do so. And if he were to agree to this, how many people in South Africa would agree? Let me appeal to the Cape members in this House and ask them whether they would be prepared to give absolute equality to the natives and Europeans in South Africa? Would they accept a proposal to that effect, even if they knew that the result might be to give the natives a majority? I am convinced that with perhaps five exceptions at the utmost, every member would be opposed to such a step.” Proceeding, General Hertzog asked what effect this action towards the natives must have on the minds of these people? There could be no doubt that the native had not only a feeling of suspicion towards us, but he must also lack confidence in our honesty.

The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the education of the natives and the civilising process they had undergone in the Cape. What did that civilisation mean and what did it amount to if the native was yet excluded from taking part with the European in the latter’s civilisation and the results of that civilisation? (Hear, hear.) It was a great disadvantage to the native, and he must feel it to his soul— if he felt as we did—to be excluded from the privileges which the European people enjoyed, to be excluded from Parliament, to be excluded from the drawing-rooms, and to be excluded from ordinary contact. Under the present circumstances under which they were trying to help these natives along it could not be anything but detrimental. Some hon. members had asked: “What about the civilised and what about the educated native?” He repeated what he had said before, and the same had been said by educated natives in America: “The place of the educated native is not among the white people, but among his own people. (Cheers.) When in the Middle Ages an educated German came back from Rome, the centre of learning, to his own people, had he felt any objections, had he felt degraded because he went back to his own people? The missionaries, who were the best educated people, had to work among people who were just as barbarous and worse than the natives were to-day. To-day still they had missionaries from all over Europe. Did these people feel degraded because they lived among people of a lower stage of civilisation? Well, if it was not unbearable, not intolerable for the European, could it then be so intolerable for the native to go back into the midst of his own people? After all, he (the educated native) had bonds which tied him to his people, and these bonds would always remain. (Hear, hear.) As a matter of fact, these educated natives, notwithstanding their education, should feel more in common with the people of their own class than with the Europeans. What was written by American authors, such as Thomas and others ? It had been tried there, too, to bring the civilised negro into permanent contact with the white man, socially and otherwise. They knew how detrimental that state of affairs had been for the Europeans as well as for the negroes. Negroes preaching in America on the subject had said “ We know it, the place of our educated negro is among our own people.” (Hear, hear.) How could the right hon. member say that he wished the natives to be educated if he did not wish the educated native to have a chance of looking after that education, but asked him, instead, to come and sit with the whites? It was unnecessary, he held, to give these educated people the option of living among the white people, because there could be no hardship for them to have to live among their own folks. (Hear, hear.)

There was another point he wished to make in this connection. The education of the natives here took place to-day as the right hon. member would like to see it. That afternoon the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) had quoted a number of figures to the House. Could there be anything more condemnatory of the system of the Cape Province, he (General Hertzog)asked, than these figures quoted by that hon. member? The hon. member had shown clearly that the number of natives possessing the required franchise qualifications had during recent years decreased in the Cape. That franchise was based on two factors, education and property. Had the education, he asked, had the effect of the native’s property or fortune decreasing, or could the native no longer achieve the standard he hurl been able to achieve in former days? He could not believe that the native possessing the education and the property qualification would fail to register for the franchise. (Hear, hear.) If it was a fact that with increased education the native sank in earning power, what were they then to do? How could they get a sharper condemnation of the Cape system ? He put the question to the public, whether they would devote themselves heart and soul to the development of the native when his rapid increase was a threatening factor?. Never! He repeated, however, that day after day they (the white people) were dishonest towards the native. In their actions they were dishonest. To be really honest towards these people it was necessary for them to make an alteration in the present condition of the country. (Hear, hear.) In his opinion the real danger lay in the strong competition there was to-day and which there was going to be in the future between the native and the white man. The white man began to feel this more and more, and unless other measures were taken he would eventually, if the present state of affairs continued, be pressed out of South Africa or out of a large part of South Africa. No one could deny that as regards unskilled labour there was no room here at all for the white man. Nothing was clearer than that, because they had their proofs in front of them.

They might attribute that to laziness or to lack of skill, or to any other cause, but the fact remained that the native to-day was the unskilled labourer here, and there, where the white man was still the unskilled labourer in this country, it was where the native had not yet been sufficiently trained. Their foundation had been taken away from them, because the great foundation always lay in the unskilled labourers, and those closely related to them. In other countries, he believed the unskilled labourers constituted about two-thirds of the population. In these circumstances he emphatically declared that it was their duty, the duty of the white race to preserve themselves, to see that that pressure was not exercised any further. But, he asked, was it only in the interest of the white people that they should do so. It was just as much, if not more, in the interests of the natives. It would take the natives not another hundred or two hundred years, but at least five or six hundred years before they had attained the same stage of civilisation which the Europeans had attained to-day. And should they in that time allow the Europeans to sink down or be driven out of the country? They would have to admit that immediately the white man left these shores the native would go back immensely. Therefore, it was essential for them to take up a strong stand, and see to it that the white man kept his ground At the same time, however, they should let the native have his own ground where he could develop and progress without making any inroad on the development of the white man. There was only one thing for them to do, and that was to build on the basis suggested in this Bill. It was a basis which had been laid down here in the Cape, and which because it was a sound basis, had led to the progress of the natives in the Cape. Where had the native progressed best? Here in the Cape, in the vicinity of Cape Town, in the Malmesbury district, in the Colesberg district where no separate territory had been set apart for the native, or in the Transkei, where separate territory had been set aside? One could find no better example of the prosperity which the natives enjoyed than in the Transkei. But in this regard he must again point out where he differed. In the Transkei this land had been provided for the natives, and Europeans could only enter there under certain conditions. The natives, on the other hand, however, could spread over the whole of the Cape.

That was a one-sided sort of legislation, which might have been quite safe for the Cape in the past, and might perhaps continue to be so for another few years, but if they had to follow that system in the other Provinces of the Union, they7 would soon find that the white man, notwithstanding all that was said, would not long be able to resist the pressure of the natives. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the position in the Free State, he wished to point out that Basutoland, which was close to its borders, did not belong to the Union, and they in the Free State, he thought, should not be called upon to give land for the Basutos. One-third of the squatters in the Free State were Basutos, and he hoped it would not be asked of them to give locations in the Free State for these people who did not belong to the Union at all. Natal, General Hertzog went on, adjoined Portuguese territory. Even there, there was a great pressure of natives from Portuguese territory and that pressure would get worse unless steps were taken to stop it. The pressure would come from the outside into the Union. Let them turn their attention to the Transvaal. Shortly before the war one of the biggest tribes had crossed over the Limpopo, and the chief and his men would most likely never have returned had not the war broken out. Immediately the war was over, however, the tribe returned and that was probably the result of the great increase in the native population of that Province. (Hear, hear.) It was in the interest of the native himself that he should be segregated. Many people wanted the native to have the vote. He emphatically repeated what he had said before, that in years and years to come the native would not have more votes than he was allowed to-day under the Act of Union. (Hear, hear.) Why not? Simply because they must take into account the feelings of the people, and these feelings would not change. (Hear, hear.) Many people felt strongly on this matter. There was the hon. member for Tembuland, for instance. Many hon. members might agree with him that it was unjust that the vote was withheld from the natives, and that it was to be regretted that the position was so, hut, at the same time, ’they would point out that the interests of the white man must weigh heavily, and so heavily must these interests weigh, that they would say: “We are not going to give the vote to the natives.”

When they placed the native in a separate territory they gave him an opportunity of developing, and his position would become: stronger and stronger, and he would be table even to have a continually growing measure of self-government within that territory. When the Minister of Native Affairs spoke about this matter, it seemed to him (General Hertzog) that he was of opinion that everywhere in the Union they should establish small locations. If they did that, he held, the natives would have the greatest right to say, “you are doing us an injustice, because in these small locations it is impossible that we should ever be able to secure any substantial amount of self-government, whereas if we were placed in larger locations, we could have such self-government, as, for instance, the natives in the Transkei have.” Such a position would lead to satisfaction. They would not smart under any real or imaginary injustice as they did to-day. When a Commission was appointed, as proposed by the Minister, he hoped that Commission would demarcate large territories where the natives could go, and if that were not done they would never succeed in obtaining their object. Of course, if they had a certain amount of self-government, they would still stand under the control of this House. He (General Hertzog) wanted the European to feel that he was protected against a future danger, and that the native was placed in a position where he could help himself to a position with sufficient power and authority as would conduce to his advancement. Although he did not want, to go into any details as far the measure itself was concerned, he just wished to remark that, so far as the Free State was concerned, it was left exactly where it stood to-day. He was rather pleased that this was so, for it went to show that the legislation of the Free State had been of such a nature as was being aimed to achieve to-day for the Union. (Hear, hear.)

General Hertzog proceeded to deal with the position in regard to the natives in the Free State, pointing out that no right had been taken away from the natives in that Province. Natives had never been able to buy or lease land in the Free State. The only right they could have was to farm on shares, and that really was not a right, as that altogether depended upon the owner of the ground, and could be taken away from them at any time. It was not a right the natives could insist upon. He did not think that, for the sake of farming on shares, which the present Bill forbade, Free Staters would be prepared to give up their ground. A large proportion of the natives who to-day farmed in the Free State were not Free State natives at all. They had come from Basutoland. He hoped it would not be found essential to give up any ground in the Free State. In other Provinces they would be justified in allocating land to natives in place of what had been taken from them, but no land had been taken from them in the Free State. The only right that was taken away there was the right to farm on shares, and that right could be taken away at any time by the owner. There was nothing which had given him more pain than a declaration by the Prime Minister, when this matter was first brought before the House. The Prime Minister on that occasion had adopted a most provincial attitude, and he (General Hertzog) thought the people had the right to expect something different from the Prime Minister, of all people. He (the Prime Minister) had said, “Do you think that we in the Transvaal are going to provide for the natives of the Free State?” Neither he (General Hertzog) nor anyone else had ever suggested such a thing. These words from the Prime Minister, therefore, had greatly surprised him. This matter should not be treated as a provincial one. If, therefore, they had this example of the Prime Minister, and if anybody were going to follow the example, he foresaw great difficulties for the Minister of Native Affairs, and the Bill itself would be of very little use. In conclusion, General Hertzog said that the Minister would have to grapple with very great difficulties. Although he realised the questions with which the Minister had to contend, he regretted that a Bill should have been introduced in which an exception was made, as far as the Cape Province was concerned. Many of the difficulties could be attributed to the fact that this Bill had to be brought before the House in a great hurry, but something would have to be done in the matter of leasing and buying ground by natives. He felt, however, that they should take this Bill as the first instalment, and he was grateful that the Minister had, at any rate, done something in the interests of both whites and natives. In any case they must convince the natives that they were to be treated honestly. (Hear, hear.)

said his greatest regret was that he had not been able to follow word for word the speech they had just listened to. What he gathered from the speech was that the hon. member for Smithfield first commended the speech of his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West, as raising the tone of the debate, and then proceeded to express diametrically opposite views.

He did not.

said that that was what he gathered. If he was doing his hon. friend an injustice, then he would be glad to be corrected. From what he could gather the hon. member said that so far as the Free State was concerned they had no natives worth considering at all. If they took up the same attitude in other Provinces then 4½ million natives would be entitled to no home whatever. It was an altogether* impossible position. He understood the hon. member to say that so far as the Free State was concerned they would not give up any of the land for the natives to live on. It was just possible it would be found in dealing with this question that the land in the Free State was so valuable and was so intensely cultivated and occupied that so far as the natives in the Free State were concerned land would have to be found somewhere else. The hon. member treated the question in a way which the right hon. the member for Victoria West had warned them against, and he agreed that it was not possible to lay down any basis of relationship in an Act. In this country the whites were in a small minority. There were 4½ million black people, and they had rights. The idea of the hon. member for Smithfield was politically to say: “I am a just man; leave it to me.” That was the effect of his policy, not clothed in the eloquent language of his hon. friend. Well, that was a policy which he believed would be fraught with disaster for this country, if anyone attempted to carry it out. He felt they were drifting somewhat away from the question itself in dealing with the final relations, especially political relations, between the white man and the black man in this country. He thought there was a great deal of force in what the hon. member had said as to the future relations, from a political point of view, between the two races. He thought that the system which had been started, and which was tentatively being practised in the Cape Province, might not prove the ultimate solution. It might prove to be too liberal to be acted upon in South Africa.

Of course, they knew it would be necessary, ultimately, to have uniform laws in regard to the franchise throughout South Africa. Well, when that time came he thought it was probable they would find that they would have to extend the right of the white man in the Cape Province, rather than that they would be able to take away any right to vote on the part of those in the other Provinces to whom the franchise had been given on a higher basis. When that time came it would, of course, be impossible to extend the franchise to the natives in the Cape Colony on the basis of manhood suffrage, because that would conduce to a state of things neither acceptable nor right. He thought it might be said that the white man in South Africa intended to rule, and he thought that he would rule with the consent of the black man as long as he ruled justly. Therefore, under those circumstances, he thought if the time came and they had to extend the vote in the Cape Province to the status in the Free State and the Transvaal, it would not be possible to extend that franchise to the natives in the Cape Province. He thought time would bring a solution, and they would find a system by which the white man would rule, and would rule with the consent of the native population. The coloured man, of course, was in another position altogether, and he would not go into his position to-day, because that question was really not before them. Now, he (the hon. member) had been connected for the last three years with the Native Affairs Select Committee, and he had learned a great deal of wisdom, he hoped, on this question in the course of the discussions that had taken place in that committee; and the more one realised the problem, the more one came face to face with the various aspects of the native problem, the more one realised that one must go steadily and slowly, and that by no possible sweeping resolution would they produce a settlement that would endure for any time in this country. This Bill he looked upon as a step in the right direction; but he was not sure that the Minister had taken that step in the best possible way. This Bill, they were told, resulted from discussions that had taken place in the committee-room. But he did not think anyone was prepared for a measure of this sort being launched upon the House with the request to take the second reading at once, while a great many people interested in the matter had had no opportunity of expressing their opinion on it.

He believed that the present Minister of Native Affairs enjoyed, in a unique degree, the confidence of the native population in South Africa; and he said that with some foundation, because he got it from persons in authority in connection with Missionary Societies, who were in touch with the principal native people in this country, and they told him that the bare fact of this measure having been introduced by the present Minister of Native Affairs had avoided a tremendous outbreak of violent speeches and opposition to the Bill. One other point in that connection was this, that from most of the speeches made in the House, he thought the native population would realise that whatever sentiment a certain section might have, this Union Parliament would not pass any measure which involved injustice to the native population. (Cheers.)In spite of any view of a small section of the House, the native population might rest assured that the House would not pass a measure which would injuriously affect their position in this country. But why should a Bill of this sort be brought before them now? The Government in the past had not been bashful in the appointing of Commissions, and one question he would ask was why, in this important matter, the Government had not appointed a Commission to take all the evidence that still had to be taken, and then come to the House with a measure which the House would have to approve of. Instead of that, by bringing this Bill upon the Statute Book to-day, they were cancelling the rights they had in South Africa, and they were creating a very awkward hiatus between the time the Commission would be appointed and the time the Commission could define the area which would be regarded as white areas and the areas which would be regarded as native areas. That was the one serious blot upon this measure.

He could see no justification, except that the hon. Minister, yielding to pressure from a certain section on that side of the House, had hastily brought on this measure; and there he was wrong. The aims of the measure he thought they could all subscribe to. He thought from the speeches made in the House it was the consensus of opinion that natives should not have farms in areas that were essentially white, just as it was desirable that white men should not be found in areas essentially native. And especially when they told the native population that they were taking away from them a right they had to-day, and they were going to substitute that right by appointing a Commission, they were giving them very little justification for being satisfied with this measure. He did not think they were going to gain anything by putting the cart before the horse He did not know if the hon. member for Tembuland was accurate, but he told them that, roughly, in the Transvaal, where the matter was most acute, the native population had bought something like 12,000 or 15,000 morgen of land in twelve years. That, he thought, showed there was no extreme urgency for the measure. To that extent he agreed entirely with the hon. member, and he believed the Minister would be well advised not to propose a second reading of this Bill at once, but to send it to a Select Committee, so that many of the details, which were extremely complicated and difficult, might be thrashed out in that atmosphere, rather than on the floor of the House. (Opposition cheers.) He still thought the Minister would find, when he came to the vote, that this was not going to be made a party question. He did appeal to the Minister again to take that aspect of the matter into consideration, and, if possible, and if he could see his way to do so, to take that measure to the committee rooms upstairs, before he took the second reading. Nothing would be more unsatisfactory than that the clauses of a complicated measure of that kind should be thrashed out on the floor of the House, because the result would be that there would be second reading speeches on these clauses.

He thought that everyone in South Africa who had thought of that question at all was most anxious that the social relations between the black man and the white man should not be increased at that stage. What the future held out to them, they did not know. Dealing with what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Nicholson) had said, he said that he had made out as good a case as was possible for his side; but there was another serious side to that question, which he (the speaker) would not touch upon, because it might create feeling, and he did not want to do that. But he thought his hon. friend had been mistaken in patting himself on the back for the way in which the native had been treated in the Transvaal. Dealing with squatters in the Transvaal, the hon. member said that the great majority of them had been settled there for ages. The Minister, in his Bill, intended that these natives should be justly dealt with. If it was necessary to expropriate land in the Transvaal—whether it was land belonging to the land companies or belonging to individuals—he stood for expropriation, if necessary—expropriation at reasonable prices. There was an idea amongst a certain small section of the Transvaal that the “Plakkers Wet” should be enforced. That law had been passed by the pressure of a section of the population, and with the idea that if it were in force, it would give a greater portion of labour to the farmer and others in the Transvaal. But, to enforce that law, they would have had to resort to police, if not more serious, force, and that had been recognised in the Transvaal. A number of these farms, on which these labourers were located—illegally, he admitted—might be purchased, and turned into native locations. But, if they moved them, they must move them with their consent, and must realise that their rights were being respected and their interests safeguarded. With regard to the Commission, they knew that they had a Minister of Native Affairs to-day who enjoyed the confidence of the natives; but they might not always have a Minister like that, or one who was sympathetic with the natives, and therefore it was of the highest importance that the Commission which they were going to appoint would enjoy the confidence of the native population, as well as the white population. The names of the Commissioners should, in his opinion, be laid before that House, so that it, and the country, would know into whose hands that immense power was to be given. That House was going to be very much guided by the report of that Commission, and legislation would follow upon the Commission’s report, and therefore it was of vital importance that the members of that Commission should enjoy the confidence of the white population and the natives, and be above all questions of political interests. Dealing with the Bill itself, the hon. member referred to clause 1, sub-section (2), and said that, under it, everyone in the Transvaal with natives upon his farm, at the moment that Bill was passed, became liable to certain heavy fines and penalties, and he did not want such a clause passed while the committee was investigating. They were holding a man liable to pains and penalties which, by inference, they acknowledged they could not apply under the “Plakkers Wet.” Another very serious question which would arise was this: most of the land acquired by land companies was of second quality as regards farming, and that land had been acquired for its supposed mineral wealth. If they were going to expropriate that land, were they going to leave the mineral rights to the owner or not? Further consideration of that question should take place in the Select Committee to which he hoped the Bill would be referred. Again, if a native occupied land somewhere and he was going to be removed, surely there ought to be some provision in the Bill that if the native had effected certain improvements to that land, he should receive compensation for those improvements. Then there was another question, which was what was the position going to be of the European in a native area, part of which had been expropriated for the natives? There were other points in the Bill, but he should wait until it was either sent to Select Committee or it reached the committee stage in this House. No Bill of this kind should be regarded as a really satisfactory measure to the Union, which excluded the largest Province, and had so many curious provisions in it with regard to the other Provinces.

It seemed to him that they ought to endeavour to get a Bill which would be perfectly straightforward in its application and significance. For anyone to imagine that by any Bill they could introduce into that House they were going to settle for all time the relations between the white man and the black, all he could say was that they were deceiving themselves. In considering the various suggestions for the solution of this problem they must confine themselves to practical politics. It had been suggested that the qualifications should be raised for the vote, but one very great objection to that was, that a large section of the white population would be disfranchised, and it seemed to him that in these democratic days the tendency would be rather towards an increase of the rights to vote in this Province than limiting the right to vote in other Provinces. They heard people say that they must not draw a colour line. He thought a good deal of misapprehension existed in regard to what was called a colour line. He did not think anybody wanted to draw a colour line purely and simply because of the colour of the skin, but the real point was that colour stood, as it were, for another type of civilisation. He was not at all sure that they could take education as a test of civilisation, or that they could take the mere mode of life as an example of civilisation. It was necessary to walk warily in this matter. He thought they might proceed by advancing the natives as much as they could and giving them as much self-government as they were fit for in territories set aside for them. If the white race were going to maintain their superiority in this country, it was because they demonstrated themselves as superior in every sense. The basis of ascendancy in this country was not going to be force. He was certain that if we could not adopt those steps which would lead to absolute equality of rights between the white man and black in this country—and he did not think it was possible to do so—we could at least go upon the road, and we should have in view not only fair treatment and just treatment of the native, but a recognition of the native population in this country as a valuable section of the inhabitants who had rights just in the same way as the white people had. (Cheers.)

said he had been brought up politically with the idea that the only way to solve any question was to deal with it practically as it arose. He had been listening that afternoon to a long harangue from the hon. member for Smithfield, and he was very much reminded of the story of a dramatist in the 17th century, Dennis, a great writer of plays, plays that were not popular, but he had the good luck to invent a new way of producing thunder in the theatre. It so happened that the theatrical managers all over London, while they would not do anything with his plays, copied his way of producing thunder in the course of the play, and he said “You won’t take my plays, but you steal my thunder.” So he would say in regard to the hon. member for Smithfield, “ You won’t take my policy, and you won’t take myself, but you steal my thunder.” The hon. member had delivered himself of some very extraordinary sentiments about natives, theoretical views. He understood him to say that if they educated the native the best thing they could do with him was to push him back amongst the uneducated.

That was a most extraordinary attitude, and it very much interfered with the liberty of the subject. We all tried to better ourselves, and a very good thing too, so why should not the black man have the opportunity of uplifting himself? It had been said that the education test in the Cape had proved a failure, but people who said that lost sight of the fact that when the voters’ rolls were framed in the first instance all sorts of persons were put on it who ought not to have been there, there being no education test. But after the illiterate natives died their places were taken by the educated. The Cape had a good deal to be satisfied with in the fact that its native voters’ roll had not diminished and that the education test had not failed. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) had given the House a very doleful picture of what was going to happen in this country in the future. The hon. member ought to know that if there were mulattos in this country the white man was as much to blame for that as the black woman, and it little became any member of this House to make a reflection of that character. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Sir Bisset Berry said that he was very much interested in the able and earnest speech of the right hon. member for Victoria West. He was old enough to remember the agitation that took place in the Cape between 1875 and 1888, and the introduction in the Cape House in 1879 of the first real Locations Bill. The Bill was introduced by Sir Pieter Faure, and he (Sir Bisset) was sorry that that gentleman was not now a member of the House. (Hear, hear.) Victoria East at that time was represented by a crank who said that he dissented from the principle of the Bill, believing that it was a vicious one. This gentleman was opposed to collecting natives by themselves in locations and so removing them from all civilising influences; it was far better to scatter them throughout the length and breadth of the land. Sir Pieter Faure said the proposals in the Bill would be very beneficial in many ways. Sir Bisset went on to say the views now being expressed could be divided into the same category as those expressed during the debate to which he had referred. At that time there was a great man in the Cape Assembly—Mr. Saul Solomon. (Hear, hear.) No man in this country, not even excepting the Minister of Native Affairs, took a greater interest or a broader view of matters than did Mr. Saul Solomon, who voted for the Bill.

Continuing, Sir Bisset said he thought that on the whole if they spoke fairly most of them would come to the conclusion that it was a desirable thing to segregate the natives territorially All locations in the Cape had been attended with the best results, and he thought the proposal in the Bill, so far as that was concerned, was one they might very cordially accept. (Cheers.) Unfortunately, while conditions in the Cape favoured the establishment of locations, conditions in the other Provinces were not in favour of the establishment of locations. In the far east of the Cape there was an enormous tract of country inhabited almost entirely by natives, and in addition the Cape had large locations populated almost exclusively by natives. In the division he represented, a movement was made by the Government in 1876 to establish what was called individual tenure in the comparatively large locations at Oxkraal and Kamastone, in extent about 1,000 square miles. Up to that time the people had been living communistically. He took very great interest in the movement, and as far as he knew that method of dealing with natives in locations had proved in the very highest degree to their advantage. It had been so arranged in other parts of the Cape Province as well. But the Minister of Native Affairs found that he could not carry out his Bill in the same way in other parts of the Union. The misfortune was that in the Transvaal nothing of that kind was ever done. Evidence had been given before the Native Affairs Committee showing the conditions of things in the far north of the Transvaal. He alluded to the matter not because he wished to charge the Transvaal with want of humanity, but he could not acquit it of some want of forethought in allowing to congregate in the Zoutpansberg close upon 400,000 semi-civilised and semi-barbarous natives. Nothing had ever been done for these people. They had been allowed to squat where they could, and no land that they could call their own had been reserved for them, with the result that the Minister had to ask for authority to expropriate land on which he could locate them. That was a very unfortunate state of affairs. It seemed to him that the only possible way in which this matter could be dealt with in a reasonable and satisfactory manner was by expropriating as much of that land as would be necessary to locate some hundreds of thousands of natives. (Cheers.)

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing the debate, said that he made a slight slip in mentioning the name of his friend Sir Pieter Faure as Secretary for Native Affairs. The Secretary for Native Affairs at that time was another distinguished man—Mr. William Ayliff. He said, when they suspended business, that he thought it was a regrettable matter that the late Crown Colony of the Transvaal, and perhaps the Republican Government, had not shown a little more forethought in their dealings with the natives. Now, the hon. Minister seemed to have yielded a little to the feeling of alarm which was created in the Transvaal and also in the Orange Free State, by the allegation that the natives were buying land in these two Provinces. His hon. friend (Mr. Schreiner) exposed the fallacy of that in his striking speech delivered the other evening, when he showed that instead of 160,000 morgen of land being transferred to the natives, only some 53,000 morgen—about 16 farms, he believed—had been transferred. In three years, therefore, only some 16 farms had been transferred. The remarkable thing about this transfer was that these farms were not transferred to natives who were prepared to hold them individually, but they were transferred to natives for the purpose of being occupied communally. That was an interesting factor in the present circumstances, and one that they should not lose sight of. He perfectly agreed that there was a danger in that respect, and one that they should consider. The reason was that the law in which they prohibited natives from obtaining land in the Transvaal, as they were now prohibited from obtaining land in the Orange Free State, was by some—let him say—unfortunate accident repealed during the Crown Colony Government, probably through an oversight of someone. That law was repealed during the last 10 or 12 years, and it was in consequence of that repeal that natives were able to obtain land. Thus they might take it that it was only in the last 12 years that natives could obtain land either as individuals or for communal tenure. He did not see, however, that any alarm was justified even under the present circumstances. The fact that only 16 farms had been transferred was in itself sufficient to disarm this fear. He rather approved of the principle of territorial separation of the natives in this country, as he thought it was a good thing. Communal tenure, he did not think, was a thing that they ought to encourage; it was a relict of barbarism, and it was out of keeping with present-day conditions that the land should be held in that way. He believed that his friends on the cross benches were rather in favour of communal tenure, but he did not think they would be, if they had seen a little more of chieftainship and how it worked. (Hear, hear.) In his knowledge of the district of Glen Grey, which was under chieftainship, when the land was given out individually, the results had been of the most remarkable character. (Hear, hear.)

He mentioned the Glen Grey district because he thought it was an object lesson. Unfortunately the two chiefs went into rebellion and forfeited their rights as chiefs. There were some 45,000 souls in that district That land was under communal tenure until 1894, when Rhodes brought in his celebrated Bill to give these people land under individual tenure. A great deal had been said about the Act, but it had been of consummate value to this country. There seemed to be some misconception with regard to the attitude of the right hon. the member for Victoria West and his hon. friend the Minister, when that Bill was passing through the House. One of the leading papers in this country had an article on it, and he thought censured his right hon. friend too much. He remembered the occasion. They objected to that celebrated Bill, not because it proposed to give individual tenure, not that it was going to set up a District Council, or give the native location government, but they objected to it because of an unfortunate labour clause that the hon. gentleman who brought in the measure insisted upon having in the Bill. That was a provision which, in the opinion of his right hon. friend and himself, vitiated the Bill to a great extent, and they did their best to have that provision eliminated from the Bill. He thought they were justified in so doing, because within two or three years that clause of the Bill had to be repealed. There was no peace until it was eliminated from the Act. He thought it only right that he should recall these matters, because although they sat on opposite sides of the House they had not always done so, and he did not like to see one of his friends misrepresented when he did not deserve it. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend the Minister in the course of his remarks said that some 200,000 or 300,000 natives in the Transvaal were in the illegal occupation of land. He also said that an equal number of natives were in legal occupation in Natal. What made the one legal and the other illegal? In the Transvaal there had been an Act on the Statute-book for ten or fifteen years which had never been put into force.

I said so.

continuing, said that the Act was not put into force, and he thought it was rather straining words to say that all these people were in illegal occupation, as compared with the Natal natives, who would have been in the same position if the Natal Parliament had passed a similar Bill and allowed it to remain dormant. There was nothing very dreadful about the matter after all.

The Minister very properly said that if they were going to deal with the Transvaal it would be necessary to expropriate very large pieces of land. The necessity for expropriation arose from the fact that the old Government in the Transvaal—he did not know which Government—showed a want of forethought in allowing this state of affairs to begin, and having allowed it to start, allowed it to go on. It now remained for them to put the matter right. He thought that the Minister might have given a little explanation of how he would work the expropriation clause in the Bill. He had been trying to work a trial sum, and he would like to put it before the House, because it was interesting know that it was possible to expropriate land without incurring the dangers alluded to by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. He thought that hon. member said that the question of expropriating land was unthinkable, because the cost would be so tremendous that it would swamp the finances of the Union Government. The speaker went on to refer to evidence given before the Select Committee on Native Affairs by the secretary of the Transvaal Landowners’ Association. That gentleman said that the association owned ten million acres of land in the Transvaal. He told the committee that in the Zoutpansberg district the association owned 419 farms. He understood from the evidence that these farms were pretty close together, and were occupied at present by 45,000 natives. The association controlled something like 2,230 farms, and the average net rent was £8 3s. per farm per annum. He mentioned the rent because it had been said in that House that the association was in the habit of exacting rack-rents from the natives.

They get £2 per native per annum.

That is another matter. I am only quoting the evidence that was given before the committee. Continuing, he said that if they were going to expropriate, a twenty years’ purchase would be a fair return to these owners. The Minister was taking power to expropriate, but was he aware that the Transvaal law gave him power to expropriate land for native locations? If they took a twenty years’ purchase, they got a sum of £68,440; and if they were going to borrow at 6 per cent., which was a fair amount for such a sum, that would give them £4,100. Now, if they took the 45,000 natives, and brought them into families, there would be about 9,000 families, and they would be responsible for the interest on that money. Supposing they charged each of the 9,000 families a quitrent of 15s., that would give £7,500; while an annual charge of £2 would bring in an amount of £18,000. It did not seem on these figures an extravagant proposal to give the Government power to expropriate land for these natives. The scheme seemed to him, though he was not an adept at figures, fairly sound, financially. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Ficksburg thought that would be taking the white man’s land away from him, but by what law of principle or common-sense could they say it was white man’s land? It had always been black man’s land. He agreed in the main with the root principle of the Bill, but he thought his hon. friend went too far. He would go with him at once if he were to prohibit, absolutely and irrevocably, the communal tenure of land, whether in the Transvaal or anywhere else, and he would have no objection to the Bill if it contained a prohibition of that kind. He would be quite willing, even, that his hon. friend should put a clause in the Bill prohibiting the purchase of land by natives outside scheduled areas, and by whites inside the scheduled areas. But he would like also to be put into the Bill a suspensory clause, with reference to that division, and he would say that it should remain, so long as it could be shown that the natives were not buying land wholesale for individual purposes throughout the Union. It did not seem to him to be right that they should lay down in any Act of Parliament that the natives should be prohibited from acquiring land outside the scheduled areas. It was that that was making the natives so alarmed about the Bill. Why then should they put it in? Was there any cause for it? Was it not panic legislation, on the part of some hon. members in that House? Was there anything to justify it? And was there anything which had occurred by which they could say to the natives that they must do as it was proposed to do in that Bill? He did not think that sufficient cause had been shown. With regard to the Commission, he thought that the Commission ought to be appointed before that particular clause in the Bill became operative. Let the Commission make its report, and tell the House where land was to be found, and the terms upon which it could be got for settling the natives. Let them remember the natives were there through their forefathers, and because they considered that they had a natural right to be there, and so it was in regard to the purchases of land by the natives. Until it could be shown that there was a great departure in that behalf, they should not legislate in advance. In the Cape there had never been any provision preventing natives from purchasing land in the open market, but, in spite of that, the quantity of land purchased by natives was altogether a negligible point. He hoped the hon. Minister would consent to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and have some of the objectionable clauses eliminated.

said the native question was the greatest issue which could engage the attention of the House. He hoped hon. members would not avail themselves of this debate to deliver political speeches, because the making of such speeches could do no one any good; they could do the natives no good and could do the white men no good. Personally, he would do his utmost to deal with the subject itself. They had here a United South Africa, and it behoved them to tackle this great question in the proper spirit. They were often told about solutions and about people who could so easily solve the problem, but when men of experience and of intellect went into the matter they invariably came to the conclusion that the question was an extremely intricate and difficult one. It was impossible to solve the question, he held, by one stroke of the pen or by the introduction of a short measure. They would find that all the Provinces had in the past put laws on their Statute-books to try and find a solution, the one tending in this direction and the other going in some other direction, but in his opinion none of these attempts had been satisfactory. And why did this matter remain such a difficult one? Simply because the native had just as much right in the country as the white man. (Hear, hear.) The white man had a right here, but so had the native, though in a different way. And these two sections must remain in this country. Some people thought the solution of the native question meant the finding of sufficient labour for their requirements. He wished to tell these people at once that they could not supply their labour by means of legislation. The Government might introduce legislation to facilitate the obtaining of labour, that was all. Every man would have to look out for his own labourers. Well, a number of laws had already been passed to deal with squatting, but if they looked through various parts of the Union they would see that in many of these parts these laws could not be applied at all. And even in the parts they were applied they could not be applied properly. In these circumstances he wanted the white man to treat the matter with the greatest caution. If they introduced laws they should introduce that kind which would have the effect of developing these people, and above all their laws must be fair and equitable. (Hear, hear.)

The Prime Minister, proceeding, said he could not agree to give equality to natives and the white people of South Africa would never agree to do so while the native himself did not wish to have equality. If there was one thing the European must keep before him it was the improvement and development of these people. Let the native people keep their traditions and let them build themselves up along those lines. On that ground they must not try and make white men of these people, which would be a mistake. It would not be good for the white man, and it would not be good for the native. He (General Botha) felt that the Bill as introduced, did not contain the solution’ of the native question. The time was not ripe for that by a long way. And he had said before they could not solve this question before they had amongst other things only one government in South Africa, and that they had not yet. Still, the existing condition of things could not be allowed to continue unchanged. This Bill was only a first step, but it was a step in the right direction. It was their duty so to develop the natives that both they and the white people could live in friendship in one country. It was not the easiest thing to introduce a measure that would solve the whole question. People who thought that could be done did not appreciate the difficulties of the subject. They had a great native population which must be dealt with carefully. The responsibility rested with the white men as trustees for and guardians of the native races, and they must see they were treated with justness and fairness. He (General Botha) had the greatest confidence in the justness and fairness of the white man in this country. He thought he would do nothing wrong and would do nothing to oppress the natives. In the Union there was no room for oppression. There was only room for justice and good honest legislation.

He hoped that the House would not deal with this subject in a party spirit. If they (the white men) were going to make a party question of this, a solution would be absolutely impossible, and things would become so unsatisfactory and the result would be so far-reaching, that the white man would not deserve to stand at the head of affairs here. He was convinced that if they proceeded gradually and tried to rectify things that were wrong to-day, they would be doing what was right as between black and white. One often heard that in the interior there was a feeling that those residing there wished to oppress and annihilate the native. He (General Botha) wished to contradict that. He had lived for many years in the interior, could speak nearly all the native languages, bad known the natives from his childhood days, and wanted to say emphatically that the people who were under the impression to which he had just referred did not know the people of the interior. If there had ever been a people who had been animated by Christian feelings towards the natives it was the voortrekkers and the pioneers. These voortrekkers had had great difficulties, and had come through some gruesome times, though they were rare exceptions, and gruesome happenings had also taken place in modern wars. In the war of ten years ago things happened which they never thought would have happened. In war such things took place; they regretted the fact, but it could not be helped. The impression existed that the voortrekkers had exterminated the natives. It was true that there had been wars, but the places where they settled were places where there were no natives at all. On the other hand he knew large parts of the Transvaal which had originally never been inhabited by the natives, which to-day had a thick native population. These had sprung up under the protection of the white people, who had also afforded protection to natives who had flown from the despotism of powerful tribes. The Zulus, Basutos and other tribes had ruled with great severity, and death was the only punishment. And the result? If a Kafir, captain became well-to-do he became in the eyes of the chief captain an “undesirable,” and resort was had to witchery and other things. The captain was “smelt out,” and his cattle taken, and such people often found it necessary to flee. Such natives had been happy under the Boers. General Botha assured the House that large numbers of farms in the Transvaal were given out before the natives were there. In most cases very few of the tribe escaped to Boer protection, but if they had not escaped they would have been all murdered. The descendants of these people now formed big tribes, and that showed they had been well treated. The Swazies were descendants of another race, who had been employed by whites and protected, and had multiplied their numbers. There were many kafirs on the high veld, though 25 years ago’ they only lived on its boundaries. The whites had taken no farms from the natives.

While the natives had suffered occasionally, they had always received a large amount of protection. In the Transvaal and Free State there were large numbers of native tribes, and it would be impossible to set apart one large area for all of them and throw them together, for it would simply load to wars and troubles among them. The various tribes differed very considerably from each other in their religion and other customs. They could not live together. If the white man made one mistake in the past it was that they did not extend their protection far enough. Let them take the history of Zululand. Personally, he had the greatest respect for the manliness and the character of the Zulu, who was a warlike man, in which regard they could respect him none the less. Everyone had had wars with the Zulus, the Boers and the British Government, but what he said was they had never given these natives sufficient protection. What had happened—the country was cut up and small captains were appointed as chiefs of small tribes, which attacked and practically annihilated each other, and this should have been prevented. It would be impossible to put all the tribes together. They all had to be dealt with patiently according to their traditions and customs, and not mixed up with each other. The Prime Minister proceeded to say that he was quite in accord with the principle of the Bill, but he would not say that the measure was a solution of the difficulty. The Commission would have to go very carefully into the whole question. When it came to demarcating the land the whites would say “You must not take my land.” But the fact was they would have to take some of that ground, for they could not allow the present conditions to continue. The worst thing they could do would be to allow the present state of affairs to continue, because feeling might run high and one did not know how it would end. They had a united South Africa, and he hoped they would continue their legislation in that direction, so as to give contentment not only to the white but also to the native, and to see to it that the relations between the two were not those of friction but relations of contentment. He realised that the Commission would have a very difficult task, but there was no problem so great that it could not be solved if they tackled it in the right manner. He had confidence in the white man that he would treat all sections of the population with justice and fairness, and would not be afraid to tackle the question. If they once got scared of the problem, they would have a very unsatisfactory state of things. The natives to-day were engaged in buying up land in parts of the country where in the past there were no natives settled. Those natives formed companies, and in the centre of large populated areas right in the midst of the farmers they now had a large native population.

This state of affairs he was afraid of, and was a position in conflict with the true interests of the native himself. He did not object to the native buying the ground, but let him buy it in those parts demarcated by Parliament. In such a division, where the Government had expropriated land, the natives could again purchase it from the Government. It was a grievous wrong to see native settlements where white men should be. In the vicinity of Johannesburg they saw large settlements of natives. Let them look in the direction of Springs. Before the war there were no natives there, but to-day farms where whites should be living were covered with natives. The methods of farming of the white and the native were in conflict. A man leased his land to natives, and left the place, and the result was that if he (the speaker) was his neighbour he was also forced to give up his land, as conditions were made unbearable to him. This sort of farming should cease. A man who was prepared to give up his farm to other people and did not care how his land was cultivated or how it was spoilt, was not worthy the name of farmer. Natives living in certain parts of the Union were not tribes. Some of them were Shangaans, who came from Portuguese territory, people who had run away from their own tribes. No matter whether these people were in occupation of companies’ farms or those of private owners, they should be made to give up this kind of farming. There was another cause of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. Farmers, as soon as they got natives settled on their holdings, put up the rent and continued this process, which caused the natives to be dissatisfied and generally added to the difficulties. He (General Botha) had two farms on which large numbers of natives lived, but he refused on principle to accept a penny from them—he would sooner see them going to work for other people. This leasing of ground was a pernicious principle, and would have the effect eventually that the natives would be in possession of the farms and the white men would be in the towns.

The Prime Minister proceeded to deal with the question of segregation, and pointed out that four or five years ago he had made a speech on the subject, when he had expressed the view that there was only one solution of the question, and that solution was separation. (Hear, heard.) Segregation, in the full sense of the word, he thought, could not be put into effect. There could be no doubt that it was equally in the interest of the native as well as of the white race, to have the two apart. But when he had said that, he wished to say, at the same time, and say it most emphatically, that there could be no question of equality. He was quite in favour of a policy under which the natives, when separated from the whites, should have a measure of self-government under white supervision. They would be able to tax themselves, and govern themselves under the control of the white man. If that was done, he did not doubt but that satisfaction would ensue. (Hear, hear.) The native wanted to be trusted. Let them look at the state of affairs in the Transkei. It was better there than anywhere else. That was where the white man trusted the native. Let them turn their attention to Basutoland. Could they object to the government of that country in any way? Basutoland was a small country, but with a very large population. They were industrious and ambitious, and kept on improving their position. (Hear, hear.) All this went to show to him that, if they trusted the native, and gave him a chance, he would improve himself. But they could not make a white man of him—that should be borne in mind. Let them look at the Swazis. Were these people not better there in their own territory than spread all over the country? He was opposed to equality, but in favour of them treating the native as fairly and justly as possible—as fairly and justly as he would like to be treated himself. Because, even though they were black, they had every right to live. (Cheers.) As regarded the educational system practised among the natives, he was bound to say that he considered it a wrong system, because, in his opinion, they should be taught to do manual work, and not so much to read and write. Book learning, he thought, was not the right thing for the native at present. (Cheers.)

Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) had this afternoon made certain remarks to which he would like to draw attention. In the first place the hon. member had said that he (the Prime Minister) had made certain remarks to the effect that the Transvaal could not be expected to provide for the Free State. The House knew that he (the Prime Minister) had never said that at all. What he had said was something altogether different, and if the hon. member looked it up he would see it. (Hear, hear.) But then another statement had been made by the hon. member, namely that there was no place here for unskilled white labourers. That was not right, and he (the Prime Minister) emphatically denied it. It was true that there were many white men in South Africa who did not know how to work, but they could be trained to something better, and if they were led in the right direction, very capable labourers could be made of them. (Hear, hear.) They had very good material here. At present they had some five thousand of these people working on the railways, and these people were gradually improving themselves and going ahead. Let them look at the history of other countries, however. Not all the people in these countries were rich. Let them look at England and the Continental countries. In these countries there were no natives. There was no other nation to come and take the place of the native. People of a certain status there were labourers. They had never had these people here. But eventually they would find some of that sort of people here. They wanted to develop the people here, and he said there was room, and more than room, for them here. (Hear, hear.) It was a pity that they had not about twenty or thirty thousand people here who could do that work, because if there was one difficulty it was the labour question. The native went on, and might become independent, and then the white man would have to help himself. Therefore, they must help the poor man to develop, and the children must be put into the schools. They should go further than Standard IV., and be taught to be able to make their living by the sweat of their brow. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he referred to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. He could not agree with this suggestion, and thought they should do their utmost to get the Bill through the second reading, because if there was one measure which was necessary it was this one. It was essential that they should put a stop to a state of affairs which might lead to serious dissatisfaction. Therefore, he hoped the Bill would have a speedy passage. (Cheers.)

said that he had no practical experience of this native question, but he had studied it very deeply for some years, and had taken great interest in it, and though his constituency was a town one, and he had no Kafirs or natives resident in it, still he had some knowledge of the subject. He would not have risen at all if it were not for the fact that only one member from Natal, the member for Umlazi, had taken part in this debate. They had several Natal members who had had very great experience of natives. (Hear, hear.) One was an ex-Minister of Native Affairs, and they naturally expected that he would have something to say on the matter. (Hear, hear.) They had also the son-in-law of another ex-Minister of Native Affairs in Natal, and, considering that there were nearly a million natives in Natal, it was only right that something should be said upon their behalf, and he trusted that his hon. friends on the other side would accept the invitation and let them hear their views. (Hear, hear.) In connection with this Bill, the first objection was that it had been sprung upon the country, and he would like the Minister to listen to this. This was an important Bill, perhaps the most important that had so far been introduced into the Union Parliament. It was published first in a “Gazette Extraordinary” on May 5. Now, as they knew, a “Gazette” took days to reach the uttermost parts of the Union, and it took a great many days for natives to get the information, yet within four days after its publication, the Bill was introduced into the House and read a second time. At least a month was required to get the opinions of the country upon a question of this kind, and it was impossible for members in outlying parts of the country to get these opinions. He strongly protested against this method of bringing in Bills in such a short time. He would say this that the natives themselves were very indignant at the treatment they were receiving in connection with this matter. They said that the former Minister of Native Affairs gave them ample time to consider the Bill that he brought in, but the present Minister, whom they looked upon as their friend, gave them Hardly any time at all. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the only Province which was not consulted before the Bill was submitted was the Province of Natal. (An hon. member: Rats!) A great deal of irrelevant matter had been imported into this discussion. He thought they ought to confine themselves as far as possible to the terms of the Bill itself. One of his objections to the Bill was that it did not discriminate between what they termed a civilised and uncivilised native, which was most unfair, even cruel, to the natives who had raised themselves in the social scale. There was another thing in connection with the Bill. When natives were removed to new lands they would be charged up to 20s. per male per annum, with interest, to refund the cost of the land to the Government. It seemed to him to be unjust that natives who had been on land for a considerable time and were put on new land should have to pay. They did not ask for the land. Another thing was that they were only going to get 15 years to pay for this land. Some of the Bills passed in connection with white people allowed 40 years, and yet these natives were only allowed 15 years. Was this payment to be in addition to the ordinary taxation which they were now paying? If so, it was most unfair on the natives that they should have to pay this amount in addition. They would be put in a worse position than natives who were allowed to stay on the land. Another thing that the natives could not understand was why white men were allowed to combine to purchase land and they were not. This, he thought, would have to be explained to them. He thought the Bill was a step towards the separation of black and white, and he was convinced that this was best for the future of both races. He admitted, however, that it was impossible to carry out the full separation policy at once. He thought the Government were on the right lines in keeping white and black separated territorially so far as that could be done. If they drifted along in their present line of inaction there was one of two things bound to happen, there was going to be a fusion of the two races or else the white man would have to give way to the black. The natives should have a fair chance of advancement and the Government should have a well-considered policy so that the natives could work out their own salvation, with a view to raising themselves and governing themselves, and they would be able to feel there was a future to which they could look forward with hope. It seemed to him that the Government would not be well advised to press through the second reading of the Bill. There had not been time yet for the people to understand the Bill in order to enable them to express their opinions upon it. If they did press the Bill through, the trouble would come later, and he would strongly advise the Government to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London to send the Bill to a Select Committee before its second reading, but if the hon. Minister could not see his way to do that, he (Mr. Henderson) would strongly urge the Government to pass only the first chapter of the Bill. It provided for all that was really required at the present time. That would allow them to stop the sale of land that was going on at present, and the rest of the Bill should be allowed to lie over until the Commission had reported. That Commission would be a most important one; it was one of the most important that had yet been appointed in this country, and he hoped the hon. Minister would see that the best men in each Province should be put upon it, and they should have a free hand.

said he wanted to draw attention to a few practical difficulties which stood in the way of the acceptance of the Bill so far as Natal was concerned. With regard to the root principle of the Bill, if they were to admit segregation in its fullest meaning it would be not only impracticable but undesirable. If they could get the native population in the Union into one area and leave them to their own devices, and let their contact with civilisation be with the mining centres, their ideals and the morals which they gained from those centres would give rise to a serious state of affairs, bad for the natives, and eventually for the white people in the country. But that could not be. If they were to have segregation at all they must only have it to a certain extent. At the first glance the Bill seemed to provide for meeting the cry which had been raised in the northern part of Natal for some years for the cessation of the purchase of land by natives. A large number of natives made the farms hotbeds of lazinesss. They were a continual torment to their white neighbours. There had been a cry that that should be stopped. There were a good many difficulties to be overcome. Natal was in a unique position from various points of view. It was the Province which had laid aside for native occupation a larger portion of land than any other Province of South Africa.

In the Cape Province 7 per cent, of the whole area of the Province had been set aside as native reserves, and in Natal rather over 25 per cent. had been so set aside. In the Transvaal it was 2.7 per cent., and in the Orange Free State it was 4 per cent., so that in Natal they had made very much more provision for the native tribes living within their borders, in the way of native reserves, than the other Provinces. On account of the largeness of these native reserves in Natal, and so large a proportion of their land being set aside for the natives, there was considerable reluctance in setting aside further lands for native reserves in Nasal, and that was one of the difficulties in the form of public opinion «which the Minister came up against when he passed that part of the Bill. Continuing, the hon. member said that in Natal they had a greater squatting occupation, as the Minister called it (what he called tenant occupation) than in the rest of the Union. In Natal half of the native population was living either on private farms or on Grown lands. He thought the Minister would understand the disturbance of economic conditions which would take place when they pushed such a measure, as far as Natal was concerned.

was understood to say that they would not be displaced.

went on to say that in respect of Natal it was quite probable, and it was possible, according to the Bill, that in certain parts of the Province such a Commission as was to be appointed might find it advisable to recommend the setting aside of certain further areas for native occupation. These lands he had referred to were all occupied—for the most part by farmers and planters. The farms were of small area, and were worked to the best advantage of the farmers themselves and of the country, and if it were proposed to take any of these lands and turn them into native reserves, the Minister would he up against the second objection to that Bill. As regarded the question of communal tenure, he believed that all sections of the people in Natal would be in favour of restricting such tenure. These matters appeared to him to be serious things which had to be taken into consideration, and there was another aspect which had been touched upon once or twice, which was the point of view of the native. Some of these lands had been lived upon by the natives for two, three, or four generations. The hon. member went on to point out how in the early part of the 19th century, about the time of the voortrekkers, there were only 10,000 natives in Natal, and how, under British rule, the native population had greatly increased, through the causes which had been referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech. He asked the Minister to bear these practical difficulties he had alluded to in mind, and consider whether they should not exempt Natal from the Bill. They had exempted the Cape Province for one cause and should not Natal be exempted for another cause? He would like the Minister to see whether the system of individual tenure could not be extended, instead of proposing cutting up further land from European areas in order to establish native areas.

said he was surprised they had not heard more from Natal members. Every member of that House represented, in addition to the people who sent him there, 58,000 natives and coloured people. The largest number of natives in one constituency was 474,000, which was Griqualand; there were 460,000 in Tembuland. In four Natal constituencies alone there were 664,000 natives. This was an enormous burden for hon. members to bear on their shoulders, and it was increased by the fact that it was exceedingly difficult to get into touch with the natives on these matters. One of his chief objections to the measure coming forward in this form was that it had a tendency to inflame the natives and, unfortunately, to drive them all under one banner. Never before had we had the natives of South Africa banded together in one common cause, and that, he was afraid, would be the result of the Bill. We must be exceedingly careful how we gave the natives common cause, because we could appreciate the danger when we saw the numbers of natives alongside us. The danger was greater in Natal because there were no less than 10 natives to every white man in that Province. It had been interesting to observe that every speaker in that debate had recognised the responsibility of the European in this matter. He had hoped that under Union we should be able to take a wider and more sympathetic view of the native question, but his hopes had been shattered by this Bill. He felt that the Minister would be unable to force the measure through without having an inquiry by a Select Committee. He (Mr. Meyler) was in favour of a Commission, but they were told that they must have this Bill to prevent the transfer of land to natives before the Commission reported. But if the natives were in such a hurry, as some people supposed, to acquire land, they had had ample opportunities of doing so since the Bill was mooted about six weeks ago. In Natal the natives had got a little bit tired of buying land, because there were numerous cases of fraud by white men upon native purchasers of land. There was rather a boom in the purchase of land by natives in Natal at one time, but that had stopped now. It had been suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland that the Bill might be made to apply to the Transvaal only. In the Transvaal there were large areas occupied almost entirely by blacks, and other large areas populated almost exclusively by whites. But in Natal there was hardly a square mile in which natives did not reside. Yet the Natal natives managed to retain the purity of their race. The mixing of the white and the black races was the great danger confronting South Africa. The question of the Asiatic and coloured man was just as urgent as that of the poor native. The Bantus, went on Mr. Meyler, were a pastoral people and their heritage was to occupy the land, and it seemed very bard on them that we should limit their rights in this respect in this stage of their evolution. Their blood was on our heads when we forced them, into industrial centres where the mortality was high and where, perhaps, the natives deteriorated. The right place for these people was on the land, and we should endeavour to make better citizens of them, and in that direction there was a far greater field than was contained in any principle of the Bill. We should teach the natives to be better citizens as far as agricultural and pastoral pursuits were concerned. They might encourage the natives to supply their own wants.

The white man had a world-wide market oversea, and they might even arrive at the time when the natives of South Africa were producing more than enough for their own wants, and could produce a surplus for export oversea. If every five natives in Natal were to produce one bag of mealies per annum, they would bring into the country the sum of £100,000 annually from oversea. Now, as far as the question of communal tenure was concerned, he thought that the Natal natives were not quite ready for its abolishment. They had been brought up on the tribal system, and it was a great mistake to break up this system, because it led to all sorts of irregularities. He knew instances in which certain natives bought a farm—he believed the total number was 247—certainly it was not less than that—and they were encouraged in this idea of having individual tenure on the farm by a firm of agents who took them in hand. The farm was cut up into 247 plots, and 247 declarations of sellers and deeds of sale, for all of which the native paid, were made out, but not one of these natives attempted to occupy his own particular plot, but they all went on the same communal system they had been used to. Even if they passed a law this session, it would have very little effect. If they tried to stop the evolutions of these people, they were just in the same position as King Canute, who tried to stop the waves from wetting his feet simply by ordering them to retire. There were men in Natal, like Mr. Maurice Evans, who could give valuable help in deciding what to do. Putting up only four speakers from Natal was an absolute injustice. They recognised that the Minister was perfectly genuine in his endeavours to meet this question. He was sorry that he could find no extenuating circumstances, however, to justify this Bill being taken in a hurry. The Bill, he thought, ought to be sent to a Select Committee.

said, when he thought of the complexity of the question, he hesitated to give any opinion, especially when he saw that the right hon. member for Victoria West had failed to give any suggestions. The hon. member for Liesbeek had dealt very efficiently and illuminatingly with this question, in drawing a distinction between the social and political side of the question. This was quite the biggest problem that South Africa had to face to-day. They were not in the position of America, which had 90,000,000 of a population, only 11,000,000 of which were black. In South Africa they had four millions of a coloured population, and only one and a quarter millions white. They had reached a stage when they had to stop tribal fights and factions. Although they heard about the danger of educating the black man in this country, they could not get away from the fact that the native was being educated, whether the white men liked it or not. Whether the native raised himself to the position of the white man, was a question of very grave doubt. Continuing, he said that experience had shown that the native was capable of high development, and this could not be disregarded, and it was on this account that they must realise that they could not lump all the coloured people together and treat them in the same way. It was a complex problem, but he did not think it was one impossible of solution. He proceeded to discuss the difference between India and South Africa, and said that in this country they had land suited for a large European population.

Except Cape Town.

Of course he comes from a place where the people are more barbaric and behave as I know people in Cape Town do not behave. These interruptions are not only rude but quite irrelevant. Continuing, he said that unless they settled this question as statesmen, it would not be settled simply by them but it might be settled by the natives against them in a way which they would dread. The hon. member for Ladybrand had talked about a mulatto race in South Africa as the ultimate result. His (Mr. Struben’s) mind was against that, and he did not think the remark was justified. In countries that had been colonised by Southern Europeans there had been a much greater mixture of the races than in countries colonised by Northern Europeans, and as South Africa was colonised by people of Dutch and British descent he thought that the picture drawn for them by the hon. member was a forced picture arid not true of this country. All over the world the tendency was the segregation of Europeans from the coloured people, and he hoped that would continue to be more and more the case. The position in the Cape Peninsula was a legacy not of to-day or yesterday, but of more than 150 years ago, and the coloured people felt their position very keenly. Proceeding, he said that the more he went about among the coloured people and amongst the respectable natives the more he recognised they desired to create a respect for themselves according to their state of civilisation and not to force themselves on an equality with Europeans, which was a thing they did not claim to-day. The idea of the mixture of the races was abhorrent to him. Personally, as a European, he felt it would be a disastrous day to South Africa when the stigma attached to the mixed marriages was done away with. After making inquiries among the people who were most vitally affected by that question, he found that was the position that they were taking up. In the Transvaal he knew that the natives there looked down with as much contempt upon a white man who married a native woman and went to live amongst them as they did upon a black woman who, went to live with a white man. When the report of the Black Peril Commission came out he prophesied that there would be facts which would startle the white people of South Africa. In his opinion the first step they should take in this country was to strengthen the European population, both men and women. Unless there was equipoise of the Europeon population, he did not see how they would get out of the difficulty for one day. To his mind, unless some method was found of getting the natives on the country more and more to go to parts of the Union where natives could live in comfort and where it was impossible for white people to thrive, they would be far from a solution of the question. It had been found in America that natives could subsist in health where it was quite impossible for white people to live, and they would find the same thing applied in South Africa. He asked hon. members to remember that in a country which depended to an enormous extent on the unskilled labour of the native, it was quite impossible to say that they must go into that area and by no means must they come out of it. As for the franchise existing at present in the Gape Province, they had always taken the stand there, that when a man got the right to vote they did not take that right away until it had been fairly demonstrated that he had forfeited that right by abusing the privilege of being a voter. As far as he could see personally, the coloured people and the natives of that Province had not abused their right to vote. Continuing, he said that he did not think they would find many people in the Cape Province who Objected to the qualifications for voters being raised, or for the qualifications being so arranged that there were different tests for the Europeans and natives or coloured persons, because the coloured people were sensible people, as a rule, and had a fine faculty for argument, and saw no injustice in having different tests for the Europeans, who had manufactured the machinery of Government, and the natives, who had been in contact with European civilisation for perhaps 100 or 200 years. In regard to the Bill before the House, seeing what was happening in the country, he thought it was time for the Union Parliament to be doing something in regard to that problem, which was of a most difficult nature; and they were simply experimenting with it to-day. He asked whether the Minister could not see his way to devising machinery to suspend matters, as they were at present, while preventing dealings in land between blacks and whites, and waiting for the further investigation of that Commission which was to report on that question, which would be relieving hon. members of a very great responsibility of pledging themselves more than necessary in advance, and smoothing the way for carrying a Bill, which he thought the whole country was asking for to-day.

said that one might feel some hesitation, and perhaps more diffidence in speaking on a question so profoundly and vitally important to the native and the white man as that question they were debating.

The Minister had been twitted with being premature in bringing forward that measure. At first sight that might appear to be so, but on reflection he (the speaker) had come to the conclusion that probably it was better to deal with the question as soon as possible, rather than to defer it. He represented more than 150,000 natives, who had no franchise, yet many of them were fairly well educated. A very large number of the natives were converted Christians. Many of the natives, who were more or less educated, had the great advantage of having circulated amongst them two newspapers, written in their own language—one by an educated native, and the other by a most able and conscientious missionary. When he thought over the condition of mind of these natives he was led to the conclusion that after all it would be best to deal with this question as soon as possible. The Zulus and the Natal natives on the whole were law-abiding, and if they felt that the white man was desirous of doing them justice they would willingly submit to the law and adapt themselves to the regulations. The question of segregation was an enormous and difficult one. He believed we could deal better with that and more sensibly now than if we deferred it to a later period. His experience was that as the native became better educated he expected more from the white man. In Natal the natives were constantly with the Europeans; the farmers needed their services more and more, and the natives were disinclined to leave their masters, with whom, on the whole, they had exceedingly good relations, while the natives were attached to the land on which they were born. These were difficulties which he hoped would be dealt with in committee. But he did hope if one step forward be taken in the solution of this problem, that the country should make up its mind what its policy was to be. Do not let them take a step in one direction and then in five, seven, or ten years have another Government which would follow another policy. The natives were dreading that kind of thing, and they wanted to have some guarantee of finality in these arrangements. They were perfectly willing to submit to regulations to-day, and if we were wise and just we should not have any great difficulty with them. But if we were going to change our policy in a few years we should be doing harm instead of good. With regard to segregation, it might be possible to send a very large number of natives to Zululand and Swaziland to live in parts of the country to which they were accustomed. He represented 150,000 natives, but he had had no opportunity of consulting with them, and he considered that any man who had any regard for the natives ought to have an opportunity of discussing a solution of the question with these men before anything very definite was done in a matter so greatly affecting their interests. He wound support the second reading of the Bill, but he hoped it would be amended and very considerably improved in committee.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said before Mr. Speaker put the question he would like to know what attitude his hon. friend would take up. The House had had a very hard week of work, and this question was one of the greatest importance that had ever come before them. The only member upon his side of the House that would speak upon the question was the hon. member for Durban, and he did not think he would take up the time of the House very long. His hon. friend would take a fair amount of time to reply, and therefore he would appeal to him to accept the motion for the adjournment.

said he fully realised the importance of the question, and gladly assented to the motion. He went as far as to say that it would be almost indecent to force this matter through the House. (Hear, hear.) He hoped, however, that the hon. member would not take up too much time on Monday.

The debate was adjourned till Monday.