from J. Gleeson, who entered the service of the Natal Government Railways in 1878, and was retired as medically unfit in 1912, praying for the consideration of his circumstances and for relief.

from G. W. Crawford, of Johannesburg, who entered the Transvaal Civil Service in 1900, at a salary of £500 per annum, which was reduced in 1904 to £440, and who was retired in 1912, praying that for the period 1904-1912 he may be granted the difference between his original salary and that to which he was reduced, or for other relief.

Report on mission to attend Army Manoeuvres and Military Institutions in Switzerland, France, Germany, and England, by Genl. the Hon. C. F. Beyers (Commandant-General of the Citizen Force).

Report and financial statement of the University of the Cape of Good Hope, 1912.

brought up the second, third, fourth and fifth reports of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

The reports were ordered to be printed, and were set down for consideration on Monday next.

moved that order. No. 2, as follows, be discharged: Report of the Select Committee on the petition of the Transvalia Land, Exploration and Mining Co.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that order No. 1—the third reading of the Railways Construction Bill —be taken after order No. 4—the adjourned debate on the motion for the House to go into Committee on the Natives Land Bill.

I object to it.

I thought it was arranged with my hon. friend.

No.

then moved the third reading of the Railways Construction Bill.

said he wished to save time, and for that purpose he had given the Minister a note of a suggestion he wished to put before the House, and which could be discussed on the third reading. The suggestion was that the Government be instructed to obtain from the Railway Board, and to lay upon the Table of the House at the opening of Parliament in the session of 1914, a full report upon the railway position in South Africa, showing: (a) The capacity of the several systems taken over by the Union and their adequacy or otherwise to meet the requirements of the Union in regard to through and local traffic, (b) To what extent the building of new lines since Union has tended to coordinate the three systems then taken over into one efficient whole. (c) The development and changes which should be effected by the construction of main and branch and connecting lines, as far as can be foreseen, in order to place the railway development of the Union upon the soundest basis. Continuing, Sir Percy said that if hon. members would take a railway map, they would realise the difficulty the House had been placed in in being called upon to vote sections of lines upon principles they did not understand. Under the many headings of this Bill, some hon. members—in fact, the vast majority of that House— had been obliged to ask for information. The constant complaint had been, not criticism of development, but of the want of information. (Hear, hear.) Take the first one put forward—the Calvinia line. In the course of the discussion on that, it became clear that the Calvinia line could not stop where it was—that there was to be some eventual development north and north-east. Take the Schweizer Renecke line. They asked whether this line was going to be carried through to Kuruman, and eventually to, say, Kenhardt and the north-western parts of the Cape Province. They were asked to vote in sections, and individual members got up and explained that, although this looked unnecessary, and it looked on the report of the Railway Board to be unjustifiable, because it would not pay, still they must bear in mind that that was only a portion of a greater scheme, which would eventually be carried through by the Union. Let them take the Zululand line. The Minister explained to them that that line was intended to go to Eshowe. The hon. member who represented that district told them that it was a small section of line, which was going to be carried much further on. His proposal did not mean any infringement of the right of the Government, which was secured to them by the Act of Union.

Many and many a time had he said they did not ask to get more powers for the Railway Board, and that they did not ask to make the Railway Board omnipotent; but they did ask to make use of the experience they had got in the course of their three years’ work, and let them put before the House a business-like report. If they got that report the Government would be able to exercise absolutely and unimpaired these powers which were reserved to them under the Act of Union as interpreted by the Minister. He was not even now questioning the Minister’s interpretation. Suppose they accepted that the Government’s powers were absolutely unimpaired, with such a report before Parliament, the Government could say to the Railway Board “ report on these particular lines.” They (the Government) had the power; no one could stop them. The Government could bring the measures into Parliament with the authority of the Governor-General, and they knew that the rules of this House would not allow an individual member to deviate from the line. The rule had been given that they were not allowed to substitute one line for another or even deviate from it, because it was laid down there that the money was proposed to be voted on a warrant of the Governor-General. What they were asking for was in no sense a departure from the Act of Union. It was simply a statement, a report which would enable them intelligently to deal with the programme put before the House by the Government of the day. He could not conceive how anyone could ask the House to continue in the way they had been asked to deal with matters now. (Hear, hear.) Well, let them look at another line. What was the connection between the Calvinia line and the Schweizer Renecke line? None, so far as the House was concerned. But still it was perfectly clear if they looked at the map that some time this country would have to carry the line through the north-west of the Cape through the Calvinia district perhaps, or via Prieska across the Orange River. There had to be some development, and why should not they, the members of this House, know what that development was to be? No man in his own private business would start any undertaking on such scanty information Here they had dealt with three millions of money—next year there might be more. He was not now criticising the Government’s attitude in their interpretation of the Union Act, nor was he criticising the lines which had been passed. He was making this plea on behalf of others feeling with him, and he knew that among members on the other (the Government) side there were many who felt with him, and before having to vote next year on railway development they should be supplied with information enabling them to. deal intelligently with it. (Hear, hear.)

There must be, or there Ought to be, at any rate, some broad scheme of development for this country. At the date of Union they took over at any rate three different systems. These systems had been established for what he might call a cutthroat purpose, as rival systems. They were not part of a co-ordinated whole, and he could say that they had been established to damage each other. It was a cut-throat competitive system. Now, under the Act of Union, they had suddenly been thrown into partnership. How was that partnership working? How were these lines, built to compete with each other, working to help each other? What connections did they require? A report such as he proposed given by the Railway Board would no doubt deal with the districts and with the possible projects which they would not see dealt with perhaps ten or twenty years hence. Any report worth having would show what in the opinion of the Board was the ultimate development of South Africa. It would include a number of lines which could not be built for ten or twenty years, perhaps, and why should they not know where they were going to? Why should they not have that guide which they should have in any well thought out scheme upon which development was to be carried out? (Hear, hear.) Let them look at another important line, the Bethal-Wakkerstroom line. Those people who knew the country would not deny that it would be very difficult to carry the line from Wakkerstroom over the berg into Natal. If they started from Carolina they would, anyhow, have to go through Johannesburg and turn to Bethal and get right back to Volksrust. They had three or possibly four lines running from west to east. Was that a right scheme of development? He believed that, on general lines, unless there were some special geographical or physical reasons, they must have, besides lines running east and west, something running north and south. They did not see how these sections of railway were going to fit in with a well thought out scheme which was going to develop the whole country. He put this amendment to the Minister to consider it. So far as verbal arrangements were altered, so far as meeting the Government in any way so that it would not be something like a vote of censure or embarrassing, he was quite willing to make any alteration. Those whose opinions he voiced at the present moment were perfectly willing to accept the assurance of the Minister that such report would be forthcoming in order to get the information which they required to deal intelligently with this question. (Hear, hear.)

said that he wished in a few words to express his adhesion to a great deal that had fallen from the hon. members opposite. There was no doubt it would be of great assistance to this House if they could have a report, as stated by the hon. member for Pretoria, East. In the opinion of himself and several others to whom he had spoken, it would be of material assistance if, in future proposals for railway construction, the Railway Board would give them a great deal more information than they had done hitherto. He believed a great deal in the Railway Board, and he would like to see them a real live body. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to say that he was glad to hear the expressions of appreciation not only from one side of the House as to the efforts made by the Railway Board in regard to railway construction. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, said that they did not complain of lines or the development of the country, but the lack of information, though the principal line of attack in regard to these proposals was that these lines were of a political character. He was glad to see that there was a change.

: No change at all.

said that, of course, this Bill had been criticised from beginning to end on the ground that these lines were political lines, and that the Government was simply doling out a certain amount to each of the Provinces. Let them take the Calvinia line. He explained to the House as carefully as it was possible for him to do what the Board had done and, right or wrong, the advice of the Board was very carefully considered, and yet there was no line more criticised than the Calvinia line. There was a lot of human nature left in members of Parliament, and he had come to the conclusion that no matter what body reported or how good that advice might be, a line that did not find favour was going to be attacked. But he appreciated the attitude that had been adopted, and he had the faint hope that the Board would be a living body, but from the attitude that had been adopted he did not know that the right course, was being adopted to secure that end. With regard to the first proposal that had been made by the hon. member for Pretoria, East, he did not see that there was any objection to the Board reporting in the direction desired.

The Second proposal was that the Board should report to Parliament to what extent the building of new lines since Union had tended to co-ordinate the three systems that were taken over at the date of Union. He would very much like to know what this second proposal actually meant. The word co-ordination was a blessed word; the word efficiency was also a blessed word. The hon. member wanted the Railway Board to present to Parliament a criticism in regard to railways, and say whether the schemes of the Government that had been passed were good or bad. The Board would simply be criticising its own work and advice. He knew very well the meaning of the hon. member. He could see no result from the carrying out of this proposal, except a certain amount of criticism of the Government. The last proposal of the hon. member was that the Board should present a report on the development and changes that would be effected by the construction of main, branch, and connecting lines in order to place the railway development of the Union on a sound basis. The object of this was, that the Railway Board should place before Parliament a scheme for the construction of railways in South Africa in the far future. The hon. member wanted co-ordination, and he wanted him (the Minister) to give the House the assurance that he would have laid before Parliament these schemes of railway development. It might be a good thing. He should hope that, if such a thing were adopted, it would receive rather more consideration than schemes of this sort had hitherto received. This might be a good way of going about their business. But, if the Government proposed a scheme which did not figure on this railway map of the Union, any member of any particular section of the House could say, “ This won’t do; this is not on the scheme.” Desirable as such a proposal might be—he did not say that it was desirable or otherwise —that they should have a scheme of this sort drawn up by any body of experts going into the future—mapping, as it were, the railway future of the country—

Splendid!

said that this was not in accordance with the Act of Union. Whether right or wrong, the spirit of the Act of Union, even though it did not lay it down to the exact letter, was that the initiation of railway schemes should not rest with the Railway Board. That bound every scheme. Apart from that, they might have the best of schemes. But the conditions in South Africa changed very rapidly, and, perhaps, in five years they would have to alter the whole thing. Speaking on behalf of his colleagues and himself with regard to the second and third proposals, they did not see that there was any good ground for them; and he could not give the hon. member the assurance he required that the Railway Board would report upon these matters. With regard to the matter of the Board’s position with regard to its duties and functions and status generally, he would like to say that he was not aware, until the matter was raised in the House the other day, that his hon. friend who had held the portfolio had assured the House last session that he would legislate in that direction this session. He had since ascertained that such an assurance had been given. That being so, he could give the House the assurance that, during the recess, he would go into the matter, with a view of introducing legislation next session. But further than that, and the first proposal of the hon. member for Pretoria East, he could not go.

said that he would like to make some remarks with regard to the statement that had just been made by the Minister. What they expressed was a condemnation of the absolute want of information. No, they had not for one moment withdrawn anything that they had said, in fact, they had re-affirmed their statements. Their position with regard to the Railway Board was this, and it was expressed very well by the hon. member for Pretoria, East, that the Railway Board was knee-haltered. Proceeding, the hon. member said that his hon. friend ignored the fact that the Railway Board had actually no choice. Would his hon. friend not admit that if the Railway Board had had an opportunity of reporting upon the railways of the country, they would have adopted other lines? Did his hon. friend the Minister not admit that the Railway Board had had no freedom of action in this matter? If the Government had left them a perfectly free option, certain of the lines upon the schedule would not have been there. The reports were only one-sided reports. They were not fully the expression of opinion as the House had a right to expect from such a highly-qualified company of experts as the Railway Board.

said the Minister did not appear to deal with this matter from the purely business point of view, which his friend the hon. member for Pretoria, East, had desired.

If the railways in the country had been private railways instead of State railways, they would have had a policy. This policy would have been dictated by the needs of the country and they would have instructed their advisers to lay down such a policy. This scheme would not have been laid down like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which could not be departed from. He was perfectly ready to believe that any scheme laid down might not be followed absolutely to the letter, but there was a vast difference between laying a policy and not laying down one at all. He had no doubt that all the railway lines in the schedule were required, but there were other railways required in South Africa. What they wanted was a general line of policy. They did not ask the Government to put the Railway Board above their heads, but the Act of Union contemplated a body of railway experts who would advise them upon railway matters. They thought that the intention of the Act of Union was that this expert body should devote its whole time to the consideration of these high questions of how this railway construction was to go on. The Railway Board was not established for the purpose of interfering with small railway management. It was there for higher work and to be an advisory body to the House.

That is not what the Constitution says.

Well, the Constitution has given rise to a great deal of different interpretation. The interpretation that my hon. friends puts upon it is not the interpretation that I put upon it. The intention of the Constitution was perfectly clear. If it were not the intention of the Constitution that the Railway Board should take these functions, then, as far as he understood it, the Railway Board were merely the servants of the Ministry in power. (Ministerial cries of No! No!) Would anyone tell him that it was the intention of the Constitution to subordinate the powers of the Railway Board in this way. Surely no fair-minded person would say so. The intention of the Act of Union was that the construction of their railways should be entirely eliminated from party politics.

You can’t do so.

Yes, you can, in a great measure, if you had an expert body studying the interests of the country and studying it in such a way that they could lay down a proper programme justified by the necessities of the country. Under these conditions it would be a very hard thing to build political lines. Continuing, the hon. member said if they would take, the opinion of the Supreme Court whether the Railway Board should be told two days before the session to go and inspect a line, he was perfectly certain that the Court would say that this was not the intention of the Act. It was within the last few weeks, before the session began, that the Railway Board were rushing round the country inspecting lines.

It was in March.

Yes, I know, it was before the session and during the session also that the Railway Board was rushing round the country inspecting lines. If this were a private company, the business would have been managed differently. Proceeding, the hon. member said that they had no guarantee that the same course of procedure would not be followed in future years, and it was against that that his hon. friend, the member for Pretoria, East, protested. This was not a question of making political capital. The point was merely raised for the purpose of getting these railways run upon business lines. This would come back upon Ministers’ own heads. Unless they separated this from party polities they were violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the Act of Union. He asked the Minister during the recess to consider this question seriously, and try and find some basis so that the Railway Board could frame some definite railway policy. As matters stood to-day, what was to prevent persons in any part of the House agreeing with another section that they would support a line of railways this year, if the other section would support their scheme of railways next year.

said there was no member who was so disappointed as he was. The line to Calvinia was not a political line, as for eight years past they had wished to extend the line to Carnarvon. He very much regretted that it was not competent for a member to move an amendment to the list of lines proposed. If they had anything to say against a line that was proposed they were referred to the Railway Board, which appeared to have great power in the country.

He regretted very much that the part of the country which he represented was so badly served with railways, but notwithstanding their repeated requests, not the smallest notice had been taken of them. If they took a glance at the railway map they saw the great north-western districts were totally without a railway connection, whilst in other parts of the country nearly every village had its line. Neither the Minister nor the Board ever came to those districts, and to the requests of the people for a railway no answer was given. That was very much to be regretted. What sort of answer was he to give to his constituents? He could only say that the Government had done nothing, had promised nothing, and that they had no ear for complaints from the north-western parts of the country. Although disappointed, he would not withhold his support from the Bill.

said if the hon. member for Pretoria East had been serious, he would have moved his proposals in a resolution.

I shall do so, if you wish it.

You cannot, by the rules of the House.

Oh, yes, I can. I have advice on that point.

I would advise the hon. member to try. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said the hon. member was merely discharging blank cartridges. If his suggestions were carried, in a year or two they would have a dispute as to their exact meaning. If the hon. member wanted anything definite, he should have moved some resolution; and if he had moved as indicated by his speech, it would have been subjected to very severe criticism. He (Mr. Sauer) defied anyone to tell him what the suggestions meant. When the hon. member talked about co-ordination, he (Mr. Sauer) would very much like to see the Railway Board do anything to give effect to it. For the past few days hon. members opposite had been busy belittling the reports —(Ministerial cheers)—furnished by the very Board they now said they wanted a report from. What did the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, do, simply because he did not get the line he wanted?

: No.

said, so soon as hon. members found that they were not to get what they wanted, the House can be sure that the reports of the Railway Board would be considered unsatisfactory. It was most ludicrous—hon. members having spoken in the most disrespectful manner of the Board, now said they wanted reports from it. If the Board gave the House a comprehensive scheme, was it to be submitted to the House for its approval? Before the House would approve of a comprehensive scheme, they would have to have a special session, because everybody whose line was not included in the scheme would object to the scheme. Not only would they have to satisfy everybody by putting their line in, but they would have to put their line in first. It was a fantastic proposal, suitable for a debating society, but not for Parliament. The hon. member for Yeoville had said that, if this were a company matter, the railways would be built on business principles. That meant that there would be no developing lines, but that railways would only be run from one large centre to another. He (Mr. Sauer) was very glad the Minister of Railways took up the position he did.

The hon. member for Yeoville was incorrect when he said that the chief duty of the Railway Board was to report on new railways. The chief duty of the Board, according to the South Africa Act, was to control and manage the railways; the other was a secondary duty, but a very important one. This Parliament would never consent to putting the Board in such a position that it could defy Parliament.

Who asked you?

That is the meaning of the speech, and it has been the object of the hon. gentleman himself, when he strongly advocated that the Board should act without being subject to the authority of the Governor-General-in-Council.

Never in my life.

I say this Parliament will never consent to give the Board or any officials such powers that they can defy Government and Parliament. What has been the history of the whole business of the Board? When the Board and I acted together most amicably—(Opposition laughter)—who was criticised? The Board or I? Not a word was said about the difficulties of the Board, but the Minister had to bear the whole of the burden. (Laughter.) Those gentlemen who said the Board should be above party took every opportunity to attack the Minister. It shows that as long as we have a Government which has any say at all the eventual responsibility must rest with the Ministry for the time being—rightly so —and Parliament will always take care, if anything goes wrong, to fix the responsibility on the Ministry. It is idle to say that the Board must have these large powers and act independently. If we do give them the powers they will not retain them very long. I hope that the system under which we work now will be continued. If the Board were given larger powers it would be in contravention of the South Africa Act. Let us understand once and for all, that so far as the reports of the Board go, they have had ample opportunity—the Board is perfectly free to express its opinion absolutely freely in regard to the matters submitted to it. In conclusion, Mr. Sauer said the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) objected to the report of the Board because he wanted another line.

said it was very interesting to see the kindly and sympathetic way in which the Minister of Justice outweighed his judgment and came to the assistance of the Minister of Railways. It was the manner in which his hon. friend flouted the Railway Board which brought about the serious crisis in the administration of this country. He should have thought that in these circumstances his hon. friend would have been very careful about rushing into a discussion of this character. The Minister of Justice always tried to raise a false issue in a discussion when it was advantageous to the Government to have the real issue before them. The hon. member for Prieska had raised the real point in this matter when he said that it was unfair to ask members of the House to vote for a detailed railway scheme without having got full detailed information before them. There was nothing to prevent this being brought forward as a substantive motion, if the Government would give them a day for discussion. Why they had not brought forward the question of defining the powers of the Railway Board at an earlier period of the session was due to the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville came to him and spoke to him of his intention of bringing in this motion again this session, and his (Sir Thomas’s) answer was that there was no necessity for them to do that, as they had the solemn assurance from the Government that this year they would come forward with a Bill detailing and defining the powers of the Railway Board. (Opposition cheers.) They had at least thought that they would get the definite promise given by the then Minister of Railways in the most solemn manner to this House carried out. He could hardly congratulate the Minister of Railways on his interpretation of the Constitution.

Oh, you know better.

Decidedly, I know a great deal more of the intention of the Act of Union and the intention of the Convention than the Minister knows, and I think that my version as to the intention will be borne out by the members of this House who happened to be members of the Convention. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways shelter themselves by the fact that this House is supreme. Nobody has ever denied it. Nobody has asked for one moment that the Railway Board should be set up as an authority above Parliament.

Proceeding, Sir Thomas said that they should have in that House a map showing the development of the country. When the Government for political or other reasons departed from that scheme they should come to that House and assure them that it was not from political considerations that they had been led to depart from the scheme, but that it was in the best interests of the country. As regarded the Bill, the Government had not treated the House fairly, and they had not had an opportunity of knowing what was the reasoned opinion of the Board. One of the lines, the Amersfoort line, was only reported upon by the Board two months after Parliament had met. Was it wonderful that people should say why did this extraordinary haste take place in regard to individual lines of railway two months after Parliament had met ? As to the Calvinia line, he had always been in favour of opening up the north-western districts, but if there were any thing that he regretted it was the attitude of his hon. friend opposite. He made a suggestion to his hon. friend, but it was not possible for him to move that suggestion, but he felt so certain about it that he was convinced that if full investigation had been made in the general interests of developing the north-western districts he was prepared to see an amendment of the Bill whereby that line should start from a point between Victoria West and Carnarvon. He was extremely sorry that the Minister should not have come down to the House with the necessary power to the House to place that amendment in the Bill. They wanted coordination of the three systems of railway in this country. There were lines included in the Bill which were not the lines most necessary at this particular time. He believed those lines would be necessary in the future, but he did say that when they were spending three millions of money they should have the fullest information and the Government should instruct the Railway Board to supply that information in the fullest possible manner.

said that there was one remark in the speech which had just been given to which he took the strongest exception. The hon. member had stated that it was desirable that they should have a map in that House in order that, when the Government departed from that map for political considerations, they should be obliged to come down to that House and assure them that political considerations had not entered into it.

said he would like to explain that he had not said that; at any rate that was not what he intended to convey. What he said was that if there was a scheme of that sort and the Government departed from it they should have to come and assure this House that it was not political considerations but the general interests of the country that had induced them to depart from it.

said that, after all, this was not a material point. Everybody knew that if the Minister brought down anything of the sort it would be impossible for him to allege any other reasons. It was true that hon. members had urged the point that there was not enough information before them for them to say that the lines that were laid before the House were lines that would be the most useful to the country. But the Minister did not suggest that the reason of the great amount of confusion that existed at the present time—which enabled the agile Minister of Justice to turn points upon his critics—was the fact that the Board as at present constituted was a hybrid institution. The hon. member had talked of the necessity of having a Board that would be independent of political influence. How could a Railway Board, of which the Minister of Railways and Harbours was Chairman and held a casting vote, be divorced from political considerations. They, on those benches, were not in love with the Railway Board, or what was really a sort of hedge to hide behind. They believed that primarily the Ministry was responsible for the construction of railways. They could not get away from that responsibility, and thus the Board was really a sort of hedge behind which the Minister could hide and which enabled the Minister, with the ability which had gained for him a position in the Cabinet of this country, to exercise a great deal of influence on the Railway Board. In saying that, he was casting no reflection on the members of the Railway Board or the Minister in charge of the department. It was merely the result of having a Railway Board of which the Minister was chairman and held the casting vote. He must exercise a certain amount of influence on the Railway Board, because, as a Minister supported by a certain political party, it was impossible for him when he was inside to divorce himself from the opinions which he held outside the Railway Board. He agreed with the criticisms that had been levelled against the scheme that was proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria, East, because they might map out lines that would be found unnecessary and useless in ten years’ time. He suggested to the Minister, if he wished the Board to be of any use to him, his plan should be to divorce the Board from executive functions. Let all that work rest on the Minister and his general supporters—the General Manager of Railways, and so on. Let the Board stand in the same relation to Parliament as the Controller and Auditor-General. He would repeat the opinion held by members of both sides of the House that these reports were valueless to members in determining whether money should be spent in the way suggested unless they knew whether other propositions had been submitted to the Board, and that the Board would have chosen this particular line out of all the schemes that were submitted. The Minister, he thought, might give some thought to this suggestion when he was considering legislation during the recess. Let the Board be the first to sift out the projects. Let the Government, when it made up its mind, to go in for a railway programme, submit what schemes they thought best—a certain number of schemes—and then let the Board report not on the scheme they thought best for a particular district alone, but upon all the schemes that had been submitted to them.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved that the report be considered.

Agreed to.

read the report.

said that he would endeavour to be as brief as possible in speaking to this report, because he knew there was a great deal of work before the House, and because he appreciated the way in which the Government had given him a place on the paper in order to bring forward what he considered was a most important question. He was sorry that the report of the committee was not more satisfactory. They had difficulties to overcome. At the outset, the difficulty was that hon. gentlemen opposite refused to collaborate with them, and, therefore, they were thrown back on the poor bucolic brains of that side of the House, and had to struggle along as best they could. He did not think that it was possible to over-estimate the importance of the subject with which the committee had dealt, because it was one affecting the future of this country. The subject of unemployment among Europeans was like a cancer of the body politic in this country —eating into it. They might go on with their grandiose schemes of railways and so forth, and think that they were laying the foundations of a sound European State; but, so long as they had a large portion of the population sinking into hopeless indigence, and sinking below the level of the natives, who were gradually rising, so long would there be great danger to the body politic. How far it had spread, and what possible means they could find to check it, was the subject which he wished to bring to the notice of the House in the imperfect manner in which they had been able to do it in that report. In this country, it would be seen—it was no new thing, because it was familiar to every civilised country—that when a country became wealthy, they had marching side by side with that wealth this question of unemployment, indigence, and poverty. It had formed the subject of investigation in most European countries—in Germany, Holland, France, Denmark it had received the attention of the authorities, and had been dealt with in a more or less systematic way. It was strange to say that in England and America, the two countries with which they had most to do, were the two countries that were most indifferent to the question, which was assuming enormous proportions. In England, it was calculated, from the sad story of the workhouses, that there were 70,000 people who tramped up and down the country, and formed a huge problem. They levied a tax upon the industrious in Great Britain, by begging and by criminal courses, and so, side by side with great wealth, marched this big problem, and little was being done to cope with it. So far back as 1904 a Bill was presented to the House of Commons—so much had the evil forced itself upon the notice of the people of the country—owing largely to the efforts of the Salvation Army drawing attention to the submerged tenth, and forcing it upon the attention of the people. The Bill was backed up by Sir John Gorst, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Sir John Legg, and others. Exactly the same course was adopted if the Bill had been introduced into that House. They shelved it. A Departmental Committee was appointed—the usual remedy. After two years a report was brought in, which recommended the scheme, with slight modifications; but the Government were not to be put out. They resolved to wait till the Poor Law Commission had reported. And they were waiting still, and so nothing at all was done to deal with the matter upon the lines recommended.

He did not know if America had done anything in this way. In America they were called “hoboes,” tramps, “Weary Willies.” They tramped about the country, living on charity. They had associations, he believed, and, in fact, they had their own laws. They could not afford to have this state of things in this country, because the men who reflected upon this, would see that the sinking of a large portion of the white population into vagrancy and indigency was a source of danger to the country. What would the self-respecting natives who went to Johannesburg think when they saw a large number of Europeans living upon alms and doles? whilst they were earning their living by honest industry? An example of this nature diminished the respect which the European race ought to be held in by the native races of the country. (Hear, hear.) Two courses they could adopt. One was prevention and the other was the cure. One was the attempt to find out the cause and the other was to find out whether it was possible to cure it. A great many of these causes were purely South African. They were largely an inheritance. They were largely an inheritance from the poison of the old slave days, when it was thought that labour was degrading, and that it should be done by coloured people only. That was peculiar to South Africa and the Southern States of America, but in this country it was far more detrimental than it was in the United States. There they had a population of 80 millions of white people surrounding eight millions of a black population. It was exactly the reverse here. Here it was the white people that were in danger of being submerged, and it was therefore necessary that they should grapple with this problem. Proceeding, the right hon. gentleman went on to describe the various reasons that had given rise to poverty and indigence, among other reasons quoted being the decadence of transport riding, the gambling spirit, the war, and the high prices now paid for land. There was a great difference between poverty and indigence. A man might be poor and yet might be a very dignified member of society. (Hear, hear.) He might be poor and he might be a good citizen, and could take his share with the best in the country; but if they took the indigent man, the man who lived particularly by charity and doles, and who would probably drift into criminal courses, that was an established disease, of which they had to try and find a cure. There was no lack of employment in this country. There might be a disinclination to take employment. The drift into the towns was incalculable. Every day they were trying as far as they could to induce these people to go back to work. When his right hon. friend (the Prime Minister), or perhaps it was when the Crown Colony Government was in the Transvaal, money was given to settle people upon the land, but they were at the same time manufacturing a large number of people who drifted into Johannesburg. When these poor creatures got there they found there was no occupation for them, and they took to living on charity. A great many of these people got into the clutches of the law. At present there were 650 people in gaol for illicit liquor selling. The question was how to stop all this?

The great thing was to try to stop the drift into the towns, and to put the poor population in the towns in the way to earn a living. That was not to be done by legislation—there was no royal road to mend a thing like that. (Hear, hear.) By no act of Parliament could they make a man industrious. Government was not always the best agency to deal with these things, because it must work in what appeared to be a harsh way. They must work through the agency of churches and philanthropic bodies. He would now run very briefly into some of the recommendations which the committee thought would supply—not cures—but hints and directions on which the Administration might proceed. First of all, as to the woodcutters, they were not a hopeless body by any manner of means. They earned their bread and they were improvable people, but the mass of them lived in an uncommonly thriftless way. It was a sort of scandal that we should have a community living in that way, and we did nothing to help them. The whole of the country in which they lived was absolutely shut off, and it was no use telling people to cultivate and produce if they could not get at a market. (Cheers.) One of the primary necessities of that part of the country was communication. (Cheers.) It would be a good thing if the railway from Port Elizabeth to Humansdorp could be extended along the coast to Knysna. There had been a general awakening since the 2 ft. line had been opened to Humansdorp, and it had worked wonders. The farmers had become more active, and undivided farms— the curse of the country—were being cut up. Communal tenure was all very well in theory, but in practice was a very detrimental thing, and it was an effectual stop to improvement. (Cheers.) Schools should be started through private agency, but with the assistance of the Government, on the lines of the excellent industrial school at Uitenhage, inaugurated by the Dutch Reformed Church, for the purpose of teaching people to turn their natural product—wood—to some useful purposes. There was a very large demand for furniture of old-fashioned patterns, and this demand these people could meet.

As to land settlement, the difficulty in the past had been that, although there was land available, the people were not allowed to get at it, but that had been redressed by law, but the administration was slow. Nothing could stop the drift to the towns more than helping these people to get on to the land. The land should be sold them at a fair rate, and the laws were in existence—Act 40 of 1885, and the Land Settlement Act of last session. He pointed to the interesting information furnished to the committee by Mr. Liebenberg, who showed how the Kalahari might be opened up to settlement. The committee, proceeded Mr. Merriman, thought there should be an officer connected with the Lands Department, whose duty it should be to push on this matter of settlement. (Hear, hear.) A man who sat in an office could not go round the country finding out the spots suitable for settlement. The country wanted settlement now, but to do that it must be pushed on individually on the spot. The appointment of a settlement officer would be one way of stopping this drift off the land. There was another aspect of the problem. Government could not force a man to employ white servants, who very often, he was sorry to say, were very troublesome; but there were people in the House—all honour to them! —who had made the effort, and they had managed to settle large numbers of families on their farms as occupiers under them. Again, in one part of the country, whites were ousting coloured labour on farms, but a great deal depended on the farmers themselves. (Hear, hear.) The committee desired to enlist the sympathies of the farmers in this matter. If every farmer would employ one or two white families, they would very soon stop the drift from the land, and they would get these poor people into a condition when eventually they would be able to shift for themselves. An employment officer should be appointed like Mr. Naude, who had done such excellent work on the railways, for the purpose of bringing farmers who wanted labour into contact with the people who were anxious to get back to the land with their families. Something more human than labour bureaux was required to bring the two sets of people together. (Hear, hear.) The evidence as to the good work done by the Railway Department in employing poor whites was worth studying. The most gratifying feature of that was that the people so employed improved very rapidly, and in a few months they were able to form small gangs, take on small contracts, and earn from 8s. to 10s. a day. Some of them bought stock and settled on the land. (Cheers.) That should be fostered in every possible way. He thought that everybody who read the evidence would be gratified by the work done in that direction by Mr. Naude. Then there was an excellent example set by Mr. Groenewald, who had about 25 of these people settled down as tenants under him.

Another thing was the question of education in this country. He thought there was a general feeling in this, as in other countries, that the education given to the town boy did not always suit the country boy. We were always bound down by these wretched examinations. He thought some reform should be made in that direction. There should be some means provided for giving the people who were disposed in that direction more advanced education in agricultural pursuits. To that end the Government could at once, through the Administration, assist Kakamas by sending an agricultural instructor, so that the children there would learn what they might call, not the scientific, but the higher practical working of agriculture. One of the great difficulties of Kakamas was to know what they were going to do with the people they had got there. They might take these people and train them up so that they might become overseers. They had it on the evidence of Mr. Kanthack, who had shown a most sympathetic feeling towards these poor white persons, that they could be put as overseers on the irrigated farms which were opening up now nearly all over the country. There was a great demand for these men. The people in Cradock were anxious to start an institution where this sort of education could be given. While he thought they should let the people help themselves, some assistance should be given by the Government.

The committee also examined into the large project of replacing native labour in the mines by white men. They came to the conclusion that, on the whole, that would not be advisable. First of all, they had not got a supply to keep up the labour supply. Secondly, the condition of the mines from the point of view of health, was not suitable to continuous employment. To send what was commonly known as a poor white, what he would rather call an indigent, to send him down into the mines to do unskilled work at a rate of wages which he could not, at any rate, take many holidays upon, would be really a cruel kindness to him. They would get rid of him, but nobody wanted to get rid of him in that sort of way. The committee also came to the conclusion that there was room for the employment of those people on the surface of the mines. If the mines were as sympathetic as the railways, and showed the same energy in getting these people, as had been shown by the railways, he thought there should be room for employment of a considerable number of them on the surface. As to whether if they could be economically employed on the surface in a large centre like Johannesburg, that was just the best thing for this class of people, he did not think it was. He thought every effort should be taken, first of all, to get these people into employment on the land. The committee looked into the question of domestic service. One of the most deplorable things about this question was the condition of the women of this class. (Hear, hear.) It was dreadful to think of some of the occupations by which some of these women lived.

As in other countries, they found a disinclination for domestic service. That was a great misfortune. (Hear, hear.) In America and, Australia they found the same thing. There were institutions trying to combat this disinclination. He thought they should have the greatest possible assistance. He could not too strongly emphasise the fact that in only dealing with men they were dealing very imperfectly with this question. The indigent woman was ten times worse than the indigent man. He would like to direct the earnest attention of the House to the evidence they had as to the effect of the alluvial diamond diggings upon this question of indigency. From all parts of the country, people were induced or induced themselves to sell their little plots of ground or their few cattle, and go and try their fortunes at these dry diggings. They went there by hundreds and thousands, and were living there in a state of indescribable misery. The young men were brought into bad ways. Nobody could say that the country people of this country, as a rule, were drunkards, but there they became drunkards, and as a last resource they drifted into Johannesburg. If his hon. friend the Minister of Mines were in the House, he would ask him to be very careful indeed about this opening of new diamond diggings. The little gain they got from these places in the way of trade or revenue to the State was an ill recompense for the number of poor whites who were manufactured at these diggings. (Hear, hear.) They also devoted great attention to the question of how they were going to deal with those who would not go out, people who were living upon odd jobs, say trades and the benevolence of the charitably-disposed of Johannesburg. He thought that legislation and administration could be applied very beneficially to these people. This problem had been dealt with very effectually on the Continent by the institution of Labour Colonies. Denmark had practically abolished the tramping system. He did advocate that we should try the labour colony system here and sharpen up our vagrancy laws to deal with this question. Those people must be made to work in the labour colonies, and should be paid a small wage. The cost of their maintenance was surprisingly small. They were dealing in that way with criminals at the present time, and some of the results had been very happy. Some had not, for Government management was always Government management, costly and expensive. With regard to the cost of such things, there was Porterville Reformatory School with 196 boys, which worked out at a net cost of 6d. a day; and at the Breakwater they had European adult boys at a net cost of 2s. 6d. a day. At the Central Prison, at Pretoria, and that was one of the most encouraging examples he had seen for a long time, there were 890 prisoners, and the net cost was 10d. a day. The right hon. gentleman paid a tribute to the admirable work done in this connection by Mr. J. de Villiers Roos, the Secretary for Justice. Labour colonies would have to be run on a different basis. They would have to pay the people a small wage, and make their food and luxuries depend upon the amount of work they did. That had been found to work extremely well in other countries where it had been tried, and the cost had worked out at a surprisingly small scale. Too often had those people been called hopeless, but no man was hopeless; he had always found that very few were hopeless. Certainly those people were not. They were living in bad surroundings and leading miserable lives. They had sunk and had to be pulled to the top again, and Parliament could only do that by the means he had suggested. He hoped the Government would take seriously into consideration that question of labour colonies, and try and work through some institutions. They had taken the evidence of the Salvation Army, who had done a tremendous amount of good, not only in this country, but all over the world. He did not confine himself to the Salvation Army, but they were prepared to give their sympathy and the benefit of their experience. They all knew what the Dutch Reformed Church had done. The thing should be made into a commercial success. He did not like to mention names, but they had an excellent man in Dr. Marchand. They should interest a man like that, who was no sentimentalist; neither he nor the Salvation Army. They both had gone through the mill too much to be sentimental, and they were practical people.

The last thing to which he wanted to draw notice was the necessity of the Government having some proper statistics of those things. They did not know the extent of the indigency. He did not know that there was greater European indigency here than in other countries, but it was certainly a far more important matter here than in European countries. But they had not got statistics. They ought to be collected. Nobody had any idea that there were so many institutions run by criminals, and they wanted the statistics to be up-to-date. What they wanted was mere bold facts with regard to those institutions. They did not know the directions in which the Government was striving to do good. Those methods were all, more or less, costly, but they should know what was being done and what was the effect of them. All their actions were nothing unless they could stir up public opinion on those questions. The question of European indigency was one of the things that was striking at the future of South Africa, and he felt certain that it would be long before the thing was done with. Certain institutions had done their duty. The churches, on the whole, had done their duty. They all knew what the Dutch Reformed Church had done, and the English Church was doing its duty, but if they went on saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper” to the end of time, they could depend upon it that, sooner or later, their brother would let them know they were not looking after him. That was the great question which was before the country. The great question before any country was the condition of the people of the country. The welfare of the people of this country, both white and black, ought to be the highest object of any Government or any Parliament which did its duty. In saving the people they were doing the greatest work, although it might not be a very showy one, that any Government or Parliament could possibly do. He was reminded of a time when he was in London with his hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, and of hearing Elliot’s impressive hymn, which began:

In conclusion, he said it was in the hope that some such suggestion as they had made might be some help towards the proper solution of that great question that he moved that the report be adopted, and referred to the Government for its consideration.

seconded the motion.

said he thought there had been a misconception of the facts with regard to alluvial diamond diggings being a source of impoverishment. He thought that if the committee had pursued their investigations in the other direction they would have been nearer the mark. Thriftlessness was created in towns, and people went to the river diggings because they could eke out an honest living there. They were not paupers as they so often were in the towns. Applying for public charity was extremely rare on the river diggings, and until the Government found some more remunerative employment for such white men there should always be places like those to where these men could go. It was when employment was bad in the towns, when Kimberley for instance had to close down its mining operations, that there was a great exodus to the river diggings. Those diggings had been there for forty years, and would be there for another forty years, and it was not by giving less ground that they were going to make matters any better. When those people were starved out of the river diggings what else was there for them? Recognising that they were there, the Government—he was speaking of the Barkly river diggings, he knew but little of those in the Transvaal—it was the duty of the Government to try and make their conditions of life as good as they possibly could.

They had been told that the children there grew up in ignorance, and it should be their duty to bring education to them. He did wish to show that there was another side to the question, which he was afraid that that committee did not see. Then the right hon. gentleman had alluded to drink. Might he tell his hon. friend that there was another aspect in regard to that? There was, unfortunately, a large number of men who were squeezed out of employment because they had an unfortunate habit of breaking out from time to time. They were not habitual drunkards, but men who had this weakness of breaking out. These men still found a reasonable way of earning their living by going down to the river diggings. He felt it was a great thing that there should be such a place to which these men could turn.

suggested that the right hon. the member for Victoria West should modify his motion to read that the report be referred to the Government for consideration, and not that the House should adopt the proposals, seeing that there were a large number of recommendations.

agreed.

said that the committee did go very carefully into the question of the river diggings, and that the hon. member should refer to the evidence of Mr. Schroeder, who had had a great deal to do with the poor white problem. Then there were the returns that were presented by Mr. Lloyd, which would be found among the appendices. The committee went very carefully into the question, and the conclusion arrived at was that the diggings in the Transvaal were, in the words of one witness, a manufactory of poor whites. He thought that it was unfair to criticise the committee for not having gone into the question. They came to the conclusion that the gambling spirit was detrimental to the welfare of the people, and they suggested that the Government should see that men were not enticed to these diggings, to eventually join the ranks of the poor whites.

said he thought that his colleague was quite right to point out that the statements which had been made with regard to the diggings did not apply to the river diggings on the Vaal River. He had been down to the diggings frequently during the last forty years, and he could speak from personal knowledge. Taking the men on the river diggings as a class, he did not think that the strictures that had been passed upon them were deserved. He thought that there were more men of the steady class to be found on the river diggings of the Vaal River than on the diggings in the Transvaal.

said he thought that this report was one of the most valuable documents that had been placed before the House. He had read carefully through the report, and he had come to the conclusion that many of the suggestions were wise in the extreme, and he hoped they would act as an inspiration to some practical and definite action before long. It most emphatically supported the view which he had expressed last year when discussing the question of unemployment. He did not, however, express these views as emphatically as the report which was before the House that afternoon. The fact that they had recognised the existence of the disease was a great step in advance. The disease was as widespread as civilisation, and he was afraid that the cause in one country was the same as the cause in other countries. He was glad the report recognised that it was the duty of the State to do something, and do something as soon as it was possible. The employed soon became the employable, and he had seen a great deal of that in this country. So far, they had spoken of remedy, but remedy was no cure. It did not touch the cause. The real question was: Unemployment as a national evil: The cause, and what is, if there is one, the cure? They had a duty, and they should see that that duty was discharged. Unemployment was the direct result of the system of industry under which they lived. Unless they dealt with the cause in a radical, thorough, and rational way, then all their time would be wasted, since they had not got the moral courage, the grip of the question, or the knowledge to deal with the results of a system which they did so much to increase and extend. How was it caused ? One cause of unemployment in this country was profit. There was an enormous amount of work to be done, but when an employer engaged a man he did not ask whether the man could do the work and whether work was good for the men, or idleness an evil to the State: the question was, could the employer make a profit? He excepted the right hon. gentleman, whom he knew had often employed men even at a loss to himself. (Hear, hear.) But the question which the employer put to himself was this: Can I make a profit out of that man? If an employer could not make a profit out of a man, he would not employ him. A man had told him that he could live on sixpence a day, but he could not live upon 2s. 6d. per day wages because he had other expenses to meet when at work Such an authority as Mr. Shanks told them that the great lack of employment in Johannesburg was caused because the wages paid were so low. The causes of unemployment, and here he differed from the right hon. gentleman, were not peculiar to South Africa. Let them recognise that the unemployed very soon become unemployable—a menace and a burden to those who were employed.

This was like a cancer, and the only cure for cancer was by the reconstruction of the system, and the cure for unemployment was the reorganisation of society. (Labour cheers.) Let them begin by recognising that men and women must be treated as human beings. The evil was not in the fact that they had too much population in South Africa, it lay in the fact that there was too much population for the opportunities available. What their cousins had done in Canada and Australia they could do here. Proceeding, the hon. member said that what the Government should do was to take a leaf out of the book of another country. Settle them upon the land, provide them with seed, stock, and market their produce. Some schemes that had been tried were failures. Why was that? Because they were never meant to succeed. (Labour cheers.) What he asked from the Government was to provide the brain, the inspiration and the help these people wanted, and they would soon make the Union places glad, and the desert places to blossom like the rose.

said he had listened with a considerable amount of interest to what the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West had had to say. He gave them a lot of interesting information, some of it new— some of it otherwise, and he told them what he considered was the cause of the evil. He had given also what purported to be one or two solutions, but the whole impression left upon his (Mr. Andrew’s) mind was one of disappointment. No lead seemed to be given to the House in this Majority Report. The suggestions were inadequate entirely to deal with this important problem. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to certain clauses in the report, and went on to say that the speech of the right hon. gentleman seemed simply to advocate a policy of despair. Nothing must be done to upset the present system, and they must still rely upon indentured labour. A policy of that kind seemed to be like putting sticking plaster on a man’s throat with his jugular vein severed. It was stated that a possible remedy would be a better means of communication. Great Britain and Germany were covered with networks of railways, good roads and canals, but that did not solve the problem. He did not agree with the statement that Germany and Belgium had dealt with the question effectively. They had to grapple with the problem there just as much as they had in America or in Great Britain, and he did not think that employment was less in these countries than in those which spoke the English tongue. Another remedy suggested was more opportunities for technical education. But how often had it been pointed out that skilled artisans were not able to find employment. How often had it been pointed out that skilled artisans were leaving the country because they could not find employment. Afforestation was also suggested. Granted. Afforestation was a method for the employment of labour.

As to putting people on the land it would be no us© doing that unless they were located at points close to markets. But that could not be done on reasonable terms, because favoured individuals owned the land near the towns. Naturally, these people were hanging on to the land like grim death, and if they were not on a line of railway they were trying to get one as quickly as possible. Not until some general scheme was adopted of freeing the land from the incubus which now had it in its grip would people be able to be put on the land with any chance of success. The more people were attracted to a given spot the more the landlord put up their price, and he did not blame them, for it was the fault of our present social system. There must be a tax on the unimproved value of all land—a tax sufficiently high to throw the land not in use into the hands of those people who would work it. Although he recognised that the efforts of churches might be valuable object lessons as to how or how not to do it, it was idle to expect any church, or the Salvation Army, to undertake the task. If the work were to be done it must be done by the State. (Hear, hear.) Government should not give a few doles to philanthropic institutions and then go to sleep with the idea that the churches or the Salvation Army would attend to what was the duty of the State. For these bodies had not done anything material to solve the unemployed problem. On the contrary, people had read of the ways of certain enterprises conducted by so-called religious bodies which would disgrace the biggest sweater who ever lived. Continuing, Mr. Andrews said it was extraordinary to see the bias of the right hon. gentleman against the river diggings. He (Mr. Andrews) expected that the life on the river diggings was not an ideal one, but the people there were at least working for a living and enjoying a certain measure of independence. (Labour cheers.) There were some men who would rather adopt this rough and ready but free life rather than submit to the restrictions of regular employment. For instance, miners on the Rand sometimes went to the river diggings for a few months and worked as diggers, regarding the change as a holiday. Parliament should not discourage men from trying to dig a living out of the earth by honest labour. There were 4,365 white men working on the river diggings, or only 300 less than the total number of which men employed by the whole of the diamond companies in the Union. If the whole of the diamonds were obtained by individual workers as they were on the river diggings it would be one solution of the unemployed problem. Attention was drawn in the Majority Report of the Commission to the evidence given by the Government Mining Engineer and the Klerksdorp Mining Inspector, but it was strange that attention was not drawn to other witnesses who gave information from the point of view of the worker. There was nothing new, either, in the evidence given before the Commission or the Commission’s solution of the difficulty, and the Majority Report of the Transvaal Mining Industry Commission would help more towards solution of the question. Mr. Andrews then referred to the attitude of mind of the right hon. member as to the working classes, who were considered useful when they were wanted, but were regarded as a beastly nuisance when they were not wanted. That was the attitude of the employing class. He thought the hon. member for Yeoville had on one occasion mentioned the desirability of maintaining a reservoir of labour; a reservoir—a very nice word—to dip into when they wanted extra workmen, and a place to throw them back into when you had finished with them, forgetting that they were co-partners and fellow citizens. (Hear, hear.)

They had no right to look upon the worker as a means of production, as if his whole duty was to produce, to be effective, to be trained up to be a consistent, docile worker. Any man’s first duty was to himself, not to his employer. (Ministerial dissent.) Was there anyone who could deny that?

Yes.

said that his first duty was to himself and to the people immediately dependent upon him, and not to his employers. He thought it would do hon. members good if they read, some of Ruskin’s books. Ruskin preached this, amongst other things, that the production of souls was a good thing. He said it would be found in the course of time that the production of men and women was the business of the State. In that House they were treated to lectures, day after day and month after month, as to whether the workers of this country were as efficient as the workers in other countries. It was refreshing, after criticising this report a good deal, to find in it, at the end of clause 52, a statement with which he thoroughly agreed. It was to this effect: “ While the existing land laws, if administered with vigour, afford many facilities for agricultural settlement, it is undoubtedly true that the absorption of large tracts of undeveloped land in the hands of speculative companies and others constitutes a stumbling-block to development, and should be discouraged.” But that did not show how the development was to be effected, and it only mentioned companies, and said nothing about private individuals. It was conceivable that sometimes a company might be financed, and settle a number of people on the land, even if the object was the profit of the company. Broadly speaking, he could not agree with the resolution of the right hon. gentleman. It did not tackle the question, and go to the root of the matter, or examine the question from the point of view of economics. It was simply a superficial discussion of the problem. The conclusion and the suggested solution were hopelessly inadequate to the problem before them. The only solution of this problem was that those who worked should get the full produce of their labour—(hear, hear)—a very simple proposition to express, but, as hon. members would agree, a difficult one to carry into effect. This would be carried into effect only so soon as the great majority of the people saw that it was a reasonable proposition. Professors, teachers, writers, and others tried to find a solution of this problem without hurting the rich. (Hear, hear.) No solution could be found unless the rich could be made to disgorge a great deal of their ill-gotten gains. (Ministerial laughter.) Hon. members laughed. That was a House consisting largely of the rich. They would continue to laugh until the poor knocked at the gates, demanding what they were entitled to have. They must not forget that the rich had got to give up something, if they were going to solve this problem, not in charity, but a bit of their dividend, if not all their dividend, their rent, and their profit. There was nothing in this report that he had any admiration for. (Hear, hear.) He could have wished that more consideration had been given by the committee to the report of the hon. member for Jeppe. In that report there was a little meat, a little statesmanship—(laughter)—and this would be recognised by people outside the House, if it were not recognised inside. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought that, in courtesy to the right hon. gentleman who had taken so much trouble in framing this report, a few words from that side might be said. The member for Yeoville and himself (Sir Percy) had declined to sit on the Select Committee, and it was represented that it was because they had not been asked beforehand That was mentioned as a regrettable fact, but it was clearly said that they did not think this way of dealing with the question was going to lead to any practical result at all. A Select Committee was not the right body to deal with it, and they had said that by the time the report could come forward the House would be so overcharged with work, and it would be so late in the session that it would be practically impossible to do anything on it. Therefore, the right way was to appoint a small commission, and to get the best non-political and non-party men to deal with this problem. There was no reason from their point of view to alter the opinion they held at that time. The first direct acknowledgment that of the soundness of their contention was in the fact that the right hon. gentleman excluded himself originally from serving on the committee, because he had too much to do, and they knew that. In the circumstances, all the more did they appreciate the amount of time he had given to this work. He hoped it would not be taken as ungracious if he said a few simple words in endorsement of what they originally held was right. He had been through the report, and he found that, with the exception of the reference to the woodcutters, there was absolutely nothing in the suggestions made in the way of a solution which he did not mention in introducing the original proposal. They were not original on his side, because he was only reciting things that so many other people had said. In that House there were certain differences of opinion on fundamental questions of policy, and unless they were faced by a commission and thrust upon the Government, there would be no solution. The two things that were necessary were not in the Majority report. But there was a little bit which did appear in the evidence. He entirely endorsed what the right hon. gentleman had said in his earnest appeal to the Government to take this up seriously and try and educate public opinion as to the gravity of the position throughout the country, and the necessity of doing something real to deal with it. The hon. member quoted a portion of the evidence in the report which expressed the opinion that the Government should have the right to expropriate in certain cases. That, he said, was one of the suggestions he found dealing with expropriation, but throughout they had the complaint that there was not a demand for labour. The percentage of unemployed, he contended, was highest where there were the fewest people. There was a steady production of indigents going on; young people were growing up of both sexes. Too little attention had been given to one side. He did not see any recommendations dealing with the women’s side of the question, but that was the most serious question of all. He did not want to dogmatise, and he would not say that their solution was the complete solution, but they on that side of the House did not seek any other. They must have the pressure of taxation of unused land to bring it into the market, and they must have some power of expropriation by which the Government could acquire land which might be beneficially occupied, so that the land should not be locked up while people were starving. To do otherwise was fooling with the matter. Unless they had a report which would make people think it, the report was not worth the £562 that had been spent on it.

Why did you not help ?

If the right hon. gentleman had cared to listen he would have heard the explanation why he (the speaker) did not go on that committee.

Oh, was that the explanation?

Yes, that it would result in this, and it could not result in anything else. He proceeded, and said that he appreciated the self-sacrifice of the right hon. gentleman in the matter, but the right hon. gentleman could not work a miracle. By six o’clock that matter would go. Government business would have to go on; it would be adjourned, and that would be the end of the report. Unless they went to the root of the matter and released the land that was locked up they would get no solution at all.

pointed out that he was not recorded as having voted against the majority, and he wanted to call attention to that. From the outset he considered that that majority report vindicated his conviction that the majority of the Committee set themselves about the same task that the hon. member’s commission set itself about, the task of trying to set before the House some really scientific plan of making an omelet without breaking any eggs. It was better to spend £562 than thousands of pounds on the same project, The hon. member who had last spoken knew that they could not deal with that subject without coming into conflict with powerful interests. The hon. member’s career in that matter had been one of trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, a course of conduct in which, apparently, the hon. member was going to follow in the future. It was no use the House saying they were going to deal with that subject or going to achieve any permanent good so long as they were in the belief that it must be done without inconveniencing those to whom the present state of things was satisfactory in the main. With the eloquent remarks of the right hon. gentleman regarding slavery he agreed, but in what respect did the position of the Kafir on the mines differ from that of the slave? It was a great deal worse. They took more care of their slaves than they did of the natives on the mines. He believed that one of the evils of slavery was the limitation of personal liberty of the slave, but here in this country in the present year a system was winked at which disallowed the natives at the Premier Mine, and he believed at Kimberley also, from going out of the compound when they liked. It being five minutes to six o’clock p.m., Mr. SPEAKER, stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted by the House on the 28th March, he would now adjourn the debate.

The debate was adjourned until tomorrow.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he would like to know why the Minister had run away from the Bill that had passed the second reading, and now tabled another Bill in the shape of many amendments. It was understood on his (Sir W. B. Berry’s) side of the House that the Minister was either going to content himself with the first chapter of that Bill or that he was going to send the Bill to a Select Committee. One would naturally complain that, seeing that they had in that House a Native Affairs Committee, a non-party committee, specially chosen to consider all matters relating to native affairs, that Bill, which was a most important matter and dealt with native affairs from A to Z, should have been referred to that committee. The same thing happened last session in reference to a Bill the Minister of Native Affairs kept on the paper until nearly the end of the session, and the House had to take the very unusual step almost on the last day of moving that committee proceedings on that Bill be taken that day six months. He (Sir W. B. Berry) proposed to move a similar amendment to the motion now before the House. In the remarks he addressed when the Bill came up for second reading he had ventured to say that there was no call for a bill of that nature at all; there was no need for a Bill revolutionising the attitude of the Union with respect to the natives generally. The only clue they could get to the reason why the Bill was introduced was that a few die-hards on the other side of the House had given the Minister to understand that unless he brought in a Bill of that kind, or of a similarly drastic nature, the position of the Government was in danger. He hoped some of these die-hards would come forward that evening and tell them plainly and bluntly why they wanted that Bill, why they were going to thrust it on the country without any notice, and why they were calling on the House to revolutionise the whole tenour and the whole order of things in regard to land matters as far as the natives were concerned. Proceeding, the hon. member said the only justification that had been offered for this Bill was that a large amount of land had been transferred from Europeans to natives. An analysis of the return, however, showed that only sixteen farms in the Transvaal had been so transferred during the last three years. Surely that was not any justification why the European people of the Union should get into a panic and why the administration of the day were seeking to place on the Statute book this most drastic legislation. Another reason why he objected to this Bill was that it purported to appoint a Commission to investigate to what extent and in what parts and in what time land should be selected by the Commission for the purpose of being reserved as additional native areas within the Union. They were not given any guarantee that the Commission was going to be appointed nor any guarantee that it would ever report, but at the same time whilst these indefinite assurances were attempted to be given to the House there was no getting over this fact, that there was no time limit in the Bill by which the real enacting clause in the Bill was to have any cessation. When he spoke on this Bill before he supported it only on the understanding that a time limit was to be put in, or that it should be an annual Bill. He said unhesitatingly that the whole tendency of the Bill, as it stood at the second reading, and more especially as it stood with the amendments by the Minister on the notice paper, was to drive the native peasant off the land. The only refuge that that native had was the town, but even if he took the wings of the morning and flew into town the aeroplane of the Governor-General was going to be after him to see that even there he was not left in peace, because they found that the Minister had so altered his Bill that he was going to get a grip of the natives even in the town. Hitherto the local authorities had always had power to regulate the manner in which natives were to occupy land in municipalities.

The Bill proposed to take that right away from the municipalities, and he objected to that very strongly. It interfered with the prerogative of municipalities, and that could not be justified, for the municipalities always had had that right, and they had never abused it. The country had not been prepared in any way for a Bill of this kind. A cry had been heard throughout the land against the iniquities proposed in the Bill. If it had been found absolutely necessary that legislation of this kind should be introduced, the least that could be expected was that ample time should be given to the natives to thoroughly acquire a knowledge of the contents of the measure. That opportunity had not been given them, and in this respect there was a very serious grievance. For the good order and peace of the Union there was a very great danger ahead. He had understood from those well versed in native affairs that one of the greatest dangers that could threaten us was to give the natives anything in the shape of a common grievance. Divide and rule had been a wise precaution in the government of the natives. When a common grievance was found by four or five million people one could understand how great that grievance must be. One amendment, the Minister had put on the paper must give serious pause. The late Minister of Native Affairs issued to members last session a Squatters Bill. The greatest objection to that measure, and one which he thought led to its withdrawal, was that it proposed to remove thousands upon thousands of natives from land which they had been in the occupation of for scores of years. It was in consequence of the disturbance which that Bill caused throughout the Union that it was withdrawn. In one of the amendments on the paper the present Minister of Native Affairs brought back in a somewhat clandestine manner the most objectionable feature of the Bill that was withdrawn.

The amendment is not yet before the House.

What Bill is it then that is to go into Committee? (Hear, hear.) Is it the Bill which was read a second time or the Bill comprised in the Minister’s amendments? Last session, proceeded Sir Bisset, the House had a similar escapade on the part of the Minister of Mines, now the Minister of Defence, who brought in a Bill dealing with miners’ phthisis. He then put a number of amendments on the paper and it was ruled that he must get the instructions of the House on the matter. The amendments to the present Bill were so numerous and so important that one might reasonably ask whether it was the same Bill. The time had not arrived when the House should go into committee on this Bill. He moved that the House go into committee on the Bill this day six months. (Ministerial laughter.)

in seconding the amendment, said that when he raised his voice against the second reading it was not because he did not agree with the foundation principle of the Bill, which he understood to be—in the words of the Minister himself— that areas should be set aside within which natives should not be allowed to acquire land, and that other areas should be set aside in which persons other than natives should not be allowed to acquire land —in other words, that there should be as far as possible a separation of Europeans and natives. Sufficient notice had not been given of the provisions of the Bill, although the natives, thanks to the time which had elapsed since the second reading, were better acquainted with the measure than they were a little while ago, although no thanks were due to the Government for that. So many new amendments, however, had been put on the paper—

These amendments are not before the House.

It is in effect a new Bill.

The amendments have not been moved yet.

proceeded to quote opinions from native newspapers on the Bill. The “Tsala ea Batho,” of Kimberly, said: “We are standing on the brink of the precipice. We appealed to certain members of Parliament against the suspension clause in Mr. Sauer’s Land Bill, and the result of our appeal has been an agreement between Sir Thomas Smartt and the Minister to the effect that the first part of the Bill only be proceeded with. The effect of this agreement is infinitely worse than the whole Bill. In its entirety, there were certain saving clauses, one of them practically excluding the Cape Province from the operation of the Bill. Under the present agreement, all these clauses are dropped, and section 1 of the Bill, which prohibits the sale of land between Europeans and natives (pending the report of a future Commission) is applicable to all parts of the Union, including the Cape Province. Now, then, if this suspension clause becomes law, what is going to happen? It is simply this: That the whole land policy of the Union of South Africa is the land policy of the Orange Free State, and it will be as difficult to abrogate that suspension as it is difficult to recall a bullet, once fired through someone’s head, and resuscitate the victim. Our object then should be to prevent the pistol being fired off, as prevention is infinitely better than cure.” One paper that he was quoting from was (Mr. Schreiner went on to say) pleased, because it believed that this Bill was going to Select Committee. There was another native paper, published in Natal, which acknowledged the efforts which the missionaries had made on behalf of the natives in regard to this Bill. There was a native paper, published at Dundee, which said that, if the Bill were in the interests of the natives, and the Government were actuated by a sincere regard for them, they would not have hesitated to publish it broadcast, instead of being in such haste to push the matter through the House. Then he came to “Imvo.” “Imvo” had the utmost confidence in the present Minister of Native Affairs, and he (Mr. Schreiner) also had confidence in him. He had said before, and he said again, that if he could be assured that the present Minister of Native Affairs were always going to administer these laws, he should be very largely appeased with that, but that did not follow. “Imvo” had expressed itself so confident in the present Minister of Native Affairs that it trusted him altogether. The paper reported a meeting held at King William’s Town in regard to the Bill. It was stated that the main proposals of the Bill were generally considered desirable, and certain safeguards were recommended. Two of the leading speakers desired the decision to be that the Bill was unacceptable, but it was decided to compromise, by expressing no opinion as to whether the Bill was good or bad. Mr. Schreiner went on to say that they could easily understand that, when these papers saw the amendments which had been put on the paper, they would say that a change had been made, and that they had got an entirely new Bill.

The hon. member cannot discuss amendments.

referred to the resolution passed by the Natal Missionary Conference, and the views expressed by the chairman of the Transvaal Missionary Conference in opposition to the Bill. He mentioned that it had been decided in Johannesburg to call a meeting of missionary societies throughout the Union, to determine what action could be taken in case clause 1 was proceeded with. He had also received a telegram from the Witwatersrand Church Council, stating that a telegram had been sent to the Minister strongly protesting against section 1 being enacted before the proposed Commission had thoroughly investigated the whole question of alternative areas. Mr. Schreiner urged that, if they proceeded with this Bill, and passed clause 1 of the old Bill, and appointed a commission, these restrictions with regard to purchase and sale, which the natives had feared, and which the missionaries, on behalf of the natives, feared and protested against, would become a fact. For that reason, he said they should rather put off the Bill. He did not do so from a desire to wreck the principle of the Bill, but because he felt, as he had said on the second reading debate, if it were put off for a whole year, it would be all the better for the Ministry, for the House, and for the whole country.

He was not going to deal at any length with the unsatisfactory character of the returns which had been issued, in regard to lands registered in the names of natives in the Transvaal. When his hon. friend, the member for Queen’s Town, and he investigated the matter, they found that a great mistake had been made. He did not put the responsibility upon the Minister of Native Affairs, because this return was prepared in the Department of Lands. He was not accusing the Government of putting forward false returns or saying that these were sales which took place during those years. These pieces of land were transferred but most of them had been granted 15, 20, or more years to the native chiefs by the old Transvaal Republic, etc. The Minister, in his speech on the second reading, had said that 162,000 morgen of land had been purchased in the Union by natives within the last three years. He (Mr. Schreiner) had asked for further information.

That was not within three years.

said that according to the return which had been furnished there was purchased in the Cape in the four years 1909-12 27,500 morgen from Europeans and 41,000 morgen from natives, making a total of 68,500. Taking the figure of 27,500 morgen purchased from Europeans, they had 7,000 morgen per year purchased in the Cape Province. With regard to the Transvaal, the return did not say anything about purchases from Europeans, but it said that there were 89,000 morgen registered in the names of natives and in trust for natives. Even if that had been from Europeans, it was not a very large amount. In Natal there was no discrimination made, but it was stated that 62,700 morgen had been purchased in the four years. In a footnote it was added that it was impossible without extraordinary labour to compile returns to show whether registration included purchases or acquisition in any other manner (that was by inheritance) or the date of purchase. He had said enough to show that those returns were valueless. After all, why did the white men sell? People sometimes talked of these matters as though the white man were forced to sell. A great many did as a matter of fact refuse to sell. There was no cause for that legislation, he proceeded. The natives wanted to wait until the Commission had reported; so far as he knew there was no objection to the appointment of a Commission, but it was hoped that the Commission would be carefully appointed. Very few natives were opposed to the foundation principle of the Bill that there should be areas set apart for natives and other areas set apart lot Europeans. But they were opposed to the summary stopping of their rights to sell and purchase land which existed at the present time. That right was being taken away and there was nothing in exchange. And they must not touch the Free State; one reason why the Bill should be put off until next year was that before next session a change might have come over the spirit of the dream. (Laughter.) In the near future they might find that pressure exerted in 1913 in forcing the hands of the Government would not be so efficacious, perhaps, in 1914; and it would be of great benefit to the whole country if that should be the case. Proceeding, he said he wanted to put the view to the House that if they left things as they were at the present time except to appoint a Commission and the Government could do that without a Bill, by giving a free hand and leaving things in status quo where there was a free purchase of or sale of land permitted now to natives or Europeans they should let it remain so until the Commission had reported, in his opinion that would help forward the final solution of the question, that solution of partial segregation. If they now limited the purchase in outside areas to natives from natives and to white people from white people they were putting up an embargo which would hinder the final solution. The hon. member proceeded to give concrete instances in support of his argument. If they allowed the free sale and purchase to the natives and the right as they had now, and to the white man the right to buy and sell, that would be helping forward the solution of the question without the Government having to go to the trouble of expropriation of that land, and by the time the Commission reported there would be a partial solution of the question. The continuance of free purchase and sale would allow of the European buying such land as natives might be holding in that which would finally be a non-native area, and allow at the same time of a native buying land that is now held by Europeans in that which will finally be declared a native area. They were proposing to hinder that at present. He maintained that it would be helping to forward the proper solution of the question by leaving the right of purchase and sale just as it was at the present time. If they did that they would remove all the agitation of the natives throughout the country at one stroke. He supposed the objection to that was that it would still allow the natives to purchase ground, but that would be a benefit to all concerned rather than otherwise. He hoped the hon. Minister would agree to put off the whole matter until next session. Surely their friends in the Free State could wait until then, for their rights were not touched. Many hon. members disagreed with Parliament entrenching and fortifying permanently the laws of the Free State just as they were at the present time, while the rest of the country were willing to change their laws. It was far better to leave this till the recess, when the matter could be gone into to the fullest extent. The ruling of Mr. Speaker prevented him from indicating any differences that existed in the Bill, but he would ask hon. members who were aiming at a proper solution to agree with the hon. member for Queen’s Town and himself, that it was better that the matter should be put off. This was the last week of the session. Everyone was feeling the pressure of their legislative duties. Was this the time, therefore, for passing a measure of such a far-reaching character, and where every clause demanded the most careful consideration and scrutiny? Was it the right thing because he had a majority at his back for the Minister to say that they must get this Bill through this session? He held that this was not right. It was not fair to the committee, nor to those who had the solution of the question at heart. (Cheers.)

said he entirely supported the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. He had a telegram from a mass meeting of natives held in Port Elizabeth, in which they hoped that the House would postpone decision on this question until the Commission had sat and reported. That seemed to him an entirely reasonable request, and it seemed all the more necessary that this should be done on account of the very large alterations that it had been found necessary to make in the Bill.

They had native protests from all parts of South Africa against this measure, and when one saw what was proposed in this Act, they could not wonder at these protests. (Hear, hear.) He knew that the Minister sympathised with the natives in this question. He knew his sincerity, and that he was absolutely sincere in his endeavour to do justice to the natives. Therefore he put it that these protests by the natives against having legislation sprung upon them without due notice, should receive fair consideration from members on all sides of the House. Legislation of this kind was unfortunate from the point of view of the natives, because they remembered that the hon. member for Smithfield, when he was acting as Minister of Native Affairs, made some suggestions with regard to his opinion on the native policy of South Africa. This he did not put forward as legislation. The ideas that he put forward were his own, and not made on behalf of the Government. He said that this question was looming up in South Africa, and his idea of its solution was in segregation, but he was not prepared to say that this was going to be the policy of the Government. At the same time, these views had a disturbing effect upon the native mind in South Africa. Though this Parliament must take upon itself the duty and responsibility of deciding what was the native policy in South Africa, they must approach that duty with the full sense of their responsibility, and he was sure that every member of the House felt that they must not do any injustice, because a member must realise that he owed a duty to a higher power, and a knowledge of that responsibility would make him deal justly with natives. No member would be willing to enact anything that might be regarded as an act of injustice by the natives, and the more intelligent of the natives in this country were asking for time. They said: “You are putting this thing upon us, give us time to consider it. Allow this Commission to get to work, allow this Commission to put before us the provisions you are going to make for us, and when this is done we will submit to anything that is fair.” No man, and the native was just a man like the rest of us, liked the old arrangements to be disturbed, because it upset him, and the native might oppose it, because he was frightened. He believed that natives, after full consideration, would willingly and voluntarily accept the principle of divided areas in which the white men and the natives could be settled. Would it not be a great mistake on the part of Parliament to rush any legislation like this through the House? (Hear, hear.) They must admit that they had not given the native leaders and chiefs an opportunity to come down to Cape Town and give their views. It was unfortunate that this measure had been more or less rushed. There was no mention of it in the Governor-General’s speech, and therefore the natives were not prepared for the consideration of the question. His hon. friend the Minister would realise how beneficial the evidence of the native chiefs would have been, because these people would have gone back to their kraal and told the people there that they had discussed the matter with the members of Parliament. They would describe the measure to them, and tell them that they had resolved to accept it. Do let hon. members remember another thing. The native mind worked slowly in these matters. It was not a trained mind. They had not come from generations of educated people, whose minds were accustomed to work quickly. Surely, when they considered these things, they should not hurry or rush this through, but take their time over it and make the natives understand that they were determined to do right to them. (Hear, hear.) It was a fact that they had no direct native representatives in that House. The only member who could claim to such representation was the member for Tembuland. He did not want to be misunderstood, because he believed that members realised their responsibilities to the natives. This was not a party measure. They all realised that they had to look after the children, and that they had to stand together as white men, and when he said that the natives were not represented, he meant that they had no direct representation by members whose duty it would be to urge their case. He knew, however, that every member had a sense of this duty. He entirely agreed with the principle which the Minister for Native Affairs put forward, as to stopping natives squatting, and perhaps this was the best way of dealing with it. In the Cape they had their own way of dealing with it, a way which they had found very successful, but perhaps the time had not come to apply that principle to the whole of South Africa. But as far as the principle was concerned, they had to stop this by some means such as those put forward by the Minister. He also agreed with the desire to put a stop to communal tenure. He felt that he had to do this if they were to lead the natives into civilisation.

Hon. members on the cross benches wanted us to get back to a state of barbarism, and return to communal tenure. He wished they would give us some practical illustration of that. They quoted Australia. Well, Australia established a socialistic colony, and if the hon. members instead of making speeches read the history of that venture it would do them an immense amount of good. He entirely supported the principle of the Bill so far as it affected communal tenure. We did not want to unduly disturb the native system, but we had to keep before us the principle that if we were going to raise the natives out of their barbaric ideas we must lift them out of communal to individual tenure. In a question of this kind we should go slowly rather than rush it, and have trouble. By going slowly we should have a Native Commission appointed, allow the native leaders to put their opinions before it, and in that way deprive native agitators of any ground of complaint. Then the whole of the white people could say to the natives: “You must accept this settlement because it is best in your interests, and best in the interests of the whole of South Africa.” (Hear, hear.)

said the impression made on his mind when the Bill was read a second time was that the first portion of the measure would be accepted, and that a Commission would be appointed, or else that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee. He had received a letter from the Natal Missionary Conference, stating that “Sir Thomas Smartt’s suggestion would greatly minimise the objections to the first chapter of the Bill.” To-day he had received a telegram from the secretary of the American Missionary Society, which had operated in South Africa for 80 years, stating “ while not opposing the principle of the Bill, the Society is deeply concerned about the clause which deprives the natives of their existing right to purchase land. This provision is deprecated. Clause 1 would constitute an injustice of far-reaching consequences. This opinion is shared by missionaries generally.” Sir David added that the suggestion he made on the second reading that the Bill should be withdrawn, and a Commission be appointed was, he still believed, the right course to adopt. (Hear, hear.)

said he was still of opinion that a very dangerous principle was introduced in the Bill, especially so far as the Cape was concerned. In the speech delivered by the Governor-General at the opening of the session there was not the slightest reference to the present measure, which apparently had been brought in as an afterthought, and something must have occurred after the Governor-General’s speech was delivered, otherwise one could not conceive of such an important Bill being omitted from the speech. As it was the Bill would simply hang things up until the Commission reported, and now the House would be legislating in the dark. The vast majority of natives had declared themselves to be against the Bill. He had had no desire whatever that party capital should be made out of the measure—(hear, hear)—but he desired to see a measure which would bear the mark of statesmanship, and not a panic and hurry. Would it be possible to get, a measure like that before the House, a measure with so many contentious clauses, through in the remaining days of the session? Their Commission could report before next session, and then in the early stages of the session a Bill could be introduced and be adopted on its merits. In the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the natives, and in the interests of just legislation let the Government withdraw the Bill, and appoint a Commission, and then justice and not injustice would be done. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to urge that this matter should not be taken that evening. The Administration of Estates Bill was before the House in the first session of Parliament and a large number of members devoted a great deal of time to the study of the subject, but the second reading stage was not reached. Last year the Bill was introduced in another place, passed there, and sent down to this House.

That is not the question before the House. (Ministerial cheers.) The matter before the House is not the Administration of Estates Bill, but the Natives Land Bill.

With due respect, Sir, am I not entitled to show reasons why —

The hon. member is not entitled to refer to a matter which is on the next Order.

said that in their desire to avoid any semblance of party in this matter, he was afraid that there was a little danger in their desire to carry legislation of doing something which afterwards they might disapprove of. On the second reading debate he urged that legislation should be limited to the minimum necessary for a temporary measure. They felt then that there was a tacit understanding that the Minister would refer this Bill, if he were not prepared to accept a purely temporary measure, to a Select Committee. During the three years of the Union Parliament every matter practically dealing with natives had been brought before the Select Committee on Native Affairs and their opinion had been asked. For some reason, which it was difficult for him to understand, the Minister had not seen fit to carry out that course. Sixteen days had elapsed since the second reading of this Bill was taken on which the Select Committee could have sat morning after morning and dealt with the Bill. The Financial Relations Bill was dealt with by a Select Committee, which presented its report within fourteen days. The Minister himself was to blame if there was any semblance of opposition where no opposition should exist. He did not say that he should vote for the motion of the hon. member for Queen’s Town, but personally he could only help this Bill to go through on the limitation which he laid down when he spoke on the second reading.

The necessity of passing only a temporary measure instead of appearing to pass a measure which would permanently deal with this question, was more evident tonight than when they took the second reading. He could not refer to notices which appeared on the Order Paper, but there were facts within the knowledge of this House which showed clearly that the Minister himself had found, after looking more carefully into the matter, that endless alterations would have to be made. If the Minister would accept a measure which prevented the sale of land for one year, the Commission then appointed would have time to report, and if they had not time to report in full, they would at least have time to send in such a report that the House, guided by the wider experience of that Commission, would know whether it was wise to pass the Bill for a further year, or whether it should be amended. Again, they were asked to pass a Bill which applied with unequal force, and in a different way, to various Provinces. If natives were prohibited from purchasing land in the Transvaal, it was possible that they might be driven into crossing into Bechuanaland and buying land there. Natives in the Free State, in the same way, might cross into the Cape Province in order to buy land. The Minister himself must know and admit that it was more than likely that very large modifications would take place during the next twelve months.

said that he would support the motion of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. He thought it would be a great injustice to the natives, and especially the natives of Natal, who really knew nothing of this measure, to force it through now. Since the second reading, his attention had been drawn to certain provisions in this Bill, which made it more dangerous still to hurry legislation, because he found that, although there was an exemption in the Bill as regarded agreements lawfully entered into, the vast majority of the agreements at present in force amongst the natives of Natal were not strictly lawful, according to their Statute law. As they had no less than 380,000 natives squatting on private lands in Natal, according to the Minister’s own figures, it would be a fatal mistake to do anything to upset these people, until they had something ready to provide for them instead. The difficulty was that under the Natal law no oral contract was binding for more than twelve months, and many of those squatters had not got oral contracts, but were more or loss on sufferance on the farms. It would be a great danger to pass legislation which would lead to the moving of a large portion of these people before they got an inch of land provided for their use. Not only the natives, but the European people of Natal would be up in arms against that. The squatters were not under legal agreements, and they were very nervous with regard to that point. The hon. member went on to read a letter from an educated native in Natal which stated that the desire of the educated natives was that they should have the chance of meeting their Parliamentary representatives. There were two opinions amongst the natives: the educated natives disapproved of the Bill, but the uncivilised and uneducated natives welcomed it, not realising that it did not deal with the squatting question at present. He objected to legislation being brought forward too hurriedly, and when they had got 4½ millions of natives, only an infinitesimal portion of whom could possibly know the nature of the Bill, and seeing that it affected them as well as the white population, they had a perfect right to have it explained to them by the Government officials and let their members of Parliament for the divisions in which they lived give their opinions on the question. That would take months, and it was impossible to get a proper opinion of the natives until hon. members had been away from the House for some time. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister admitted they should stand as the guardians of the natives, and admitted that they should go slowly, and he hoped the hon. Minister would be willing to re-consider the Bill and allow it to be put off, and let them have an interim report, at any rate, from the Commission before they were asked to pass legislation in that matter.

said he did not think anybody could object to the length of the debate which had taken place upon that question, because, as he said on the second reading of the Bill, no matter of greater importance, not alone to the natives, but to the European inhabitants of the country, could possibly come under consideration than the measure which was then before the House. It was unfortunate that that question could not have been placed for some considerable time before the country so that hon. members could have had an opportunity of discussing it with their constituents, and, above all, that the natives could have had an opportunity of discussing it amongst themselves. No solution could possibly be satisfactory that did not commend itself to the natives as well as to the Europeans. One could not help being impressed by the fact, if one looked round the House, that in one direction or another there was a desire to legislate on that question, and, such being the position, when one had to speak with any degree of responsibility, the position one had to put before one’s self was, what attitude should one adopt which would have a tendency to allay a suspicion that they were not doing their best to protect the legitimate interests of the native population in the country. He entirely endorsed the opinions of the hon. member for Queen’s Town, but was there any possibility of carrying an amendment of that sort into committee? There was no chance of that, and he believed that by waiting until the committee had reported there would be, no danger of a critical character. He believed that the division of areas as suggested was right, but he understood that in the minds of the natives, until they had before them the report of the Commission, there must be a great deal of unrest and suspicion, and he would say that in order to allay that they should simply take Part I. of the Bill with such amendments as would be necessary, and carry that part of the Bill into operation, and also lay down unmistakably a time limit in connection with that Part I.

He felt that so strongly, because he thought it was only fair to the natives— if the House was going to pass legislation to take away the rights of the natives without giving them other rights in exchange—they should not take away those rights for an indefinite period of time. And his objection was that if the Bill was not altered in that direction they would take away from the native races rights which they at present possessed without making it absolutely certain when the Commission reported to Parliament that the Legislature of the country would make the necessary sacrifice for the expropriation of land for the purpose of carrying out that policy of treating the natives in a liberal, just, and generous manner. That was one of the reasons which was causing a great deal of anxiety, because the natives did not know what was going to take place, and he would suggest a compromise, not because he liked it, but because it was the best thing in the interests of the natives themselves that they should take Part I. of the Bill for a time limit of one or two years, and if at the end of that time, if the Commission had reported and Parliament did not adopt their recommendations, the rights should ipso facto return to the natives without any legislation whatever. It was absolutely certain that that Bill was going into committee, and they should do nothing that might in any way increase the suspicions which existed in the minds of the native population at the present moment. That was why he was so anxious to avoid a division, which there seemed to be a possibility of carrying in that House. He would like to appeal to the Minister to abide by the promise that he entered into the other day, that he would take Part I. of the Bill with the necessary amendments, and that he would add to the Bill the charter of the native areas, and that a Commission would be appointed which would be acceptable not only to Europeans, but also to the natives themselves. He believed that although he had differed with the Minister on many occasions, it was the Minister’s earnest desire to further the interests of the natives, and when he asked that there should be a time limit, he realised that his hon. friend was not always going to remain as Minister of Native Affairs, and another Minister might be appointed who would be much less sympathetic. Under these circumstances, he thought he had a right to appeal to his hon. friend to recognise his enormous responsibilities and recognise the necessity of passing no legislation which they could not prove was absolutely and entirely necessary. Surely it was not necessary to go further at the present moment than to agree to limit the right of Europeans to purchase land in the native area, and of the natives to purchase land in the European area. It was not necessary to go further than that until the Commission had reported and until Parliament had had an opportunity of reviewing the whole of the situation. Proceeding, the hon. member said that both sides of the House recognised the extraordinary position in which the natives in the Transvaal and the Zoutpansberg district were placed. People were occupying the land there by every moral right; occupying the land after successive generations, and he thought no member of the House would be prepared to say that that occupation was illegal until the State was prepared to provide other land for them. A greater responsibility rested upon the Europeans in this country of dealing with these natives, and he thought he could assure them that no single native would be removed until other land was provided for him. If the Government were not prepared to let the Bill stand over, then he would urge them in the strongest possible manner only to take part 1, and then appoint a commission, and allow the House to deal in a fair and impartial manner with one of the most important questions that had ever been laid before the country.

said he wished to associate himself with the hon. gentleman who had expressed the view that this was one of the most important Bills ever introduced into this House, and he was very glad to find that the natives had the friends in the House which they have. (Hear, hear.) It was needless for him to say now that he was convinced, and he hoped he had shown in the past that it was necessary for the welfare of South Africa that they should treat the natives of this country well, and he hoped he would not do anything consciously which, in his opinion, would be detrimental to the best interests of the different races in South Africa, (Hear, hear.) First of all, he wished to say that he would endeavour, as hon. members opposite had done, to say what he had to say on the matter in a manner which would help to maintain the tone in which this subject had been discussed up to now. He must Say, however, that he was a little surprised at the hon. member, his good friend who had stood by his side, as he (the Minister) had often stood by his (Sir W. B. Berry’s) side, in defending what they thought the rights of the subject race of this country. He was a little surprised when that hon. member moved his resolution. In the first place it was unusual to move such a resolution at this stage, and in the second place the principles of the Bill had been agreed to when the second reading was passed with the consent of every member of this House with the exception of one. He had naturally concluded that the next stage of the discussion would arise when they were in committee. He was quite aware that the suggestion was thrown out that they should have a Select Committee, or accept the first part of the Bill with a time limit. As regarded going to a Select Committee, so far as the principles of the Bill was concerned, he could not see what a Select Committee could say. (Ministerial cheers.) He did not know of a single member who spoke who did not express his adherence to the principle of having separate areas. (Ministerial cheers.) When it came to the mere question of giving application to a principle which everybody approved of, he could not see much use in going to a Select Committee. The same in regard to the statement that this was sprung on the people. It was not so. The matter had been before the public and the native mind ever since the Native Affairs Commission sat in 1903. He did not want to pursue that, because he did not wish to arouse anything controversial. He thought he had met the leader of the Opposition almost entirely. (Ministerial cheers.)

Hon. members said there were amendments, but they were consequential amendments, and were absolutely necessary. (Ministerial cheers.)

They are more than consequential.

The Free State amendment is not consequential, but the bulk of the amendments are. I am quite prepared to leave all these amendments and go on with the Bill as it is, and I am prepared to do that now. We cannot have it both ways, and you cannot say you disapprove of the Bill as it is now and as it was originally. It has been said that there are some principles which are not regarded as being as friendly to the natives as they were before, but when I explain that, it will be seen that it is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If he had simply taken chapter 1, without any conditions, he would have omitted to protect the greatest interest of all—the scheduled areas. He did not want to speak too much of that, but everybody who had to do with the administration of native affairs knew what that meant.

It is in section 1.

It is necessary to have a special clause, which I have put in. Having the schedules in, is a very great advantage indeed. The Bill, as proposed to be amended (proceeded Mr. Sauer) still left the natives with a very great benefit over what they enjoyed at present, and that was, that the native areas defined in the schedule would be permanently protected. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) had also said that the portion of the Bill relating to expropriation, which he (the hon. member) valued highly, was not in the Bill now. That was very true, but he was prepared to put it in immediately, without the slightest hesitation. He was anxious to have it in. (Ministerial cheers.) Whether it was in or not, it was his intention to give instructions to the Commission to report upon it. He would be sorry, indeed, if the idea got abroad that it was left out on purpose. It was left out to limit the Bill as far as possible, in conformity with the promise he had given his hon. friend.

Now they came to the question of the time limit.

If he thought that the Parliament of the Union was going to take this Bill as it now is and continue the restriction upon natives with regard to the buying and leasing of land—well, he could not conceive such a position. He could not conceive that Parliament would agree to continue to restrict natives buying and leasing land with a Bill like this making provision for the appointment of a Commission to report within two years, and that certain people who were on the land should remain until that report had been brought up and until it had been acted on by Parliament—it was inconceivable, without acting in the sense contemplated by the Bill. If Parliament was prepared to take and give nothing in return, then even the provision that his hon. friend desired would not help. They could not bind Parliament even if it were prepared to commit an act which, he thought, would be a disgrace to them. Even then it could not stop a little Bill being brought in repealing the provision limiting the operation of this Bill to two years, and then they would be exactly where they were now. That was really the only difference between his hon. friend and himself. He felt that there could be no greater safeguard by taking the proposal made by his hon. friend, except that, if he might say so, he thought his own proposal was more scientific or Parliamentary, and did not show a want of confidence in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He, as fully as his hon. friend, appreciated that it would be wrong, that it would be an act that would shake confidence in Parliament for ever in the native mind if they were to pass a Bill like this and stop there and content themselves with the restrictive provisions applied to natives. It was impossible for him to conceive such a thing.

He could not understand the hon. member for Queen’s Town, when he talked about taking away the rights of municipalities. He thought in his innocence, when he put that in the Bill, that it was a protection to the native, and that was why he put it there. The municipalities, since Union, had had no right to deal with the occupation of land in the way suggested by his hon. friends. That was a right which now belonged to the Union Government, where they came to differentiate between the European and the coloured man.

They have vested rights now.

Yes, but we are talking of the future. I am quite prepared to say that it shall be done in consultation with the local authorities. (Hear, hear.) I can assure him I did not intend to make an onslaught on the municipalities. I did it, in the first instance, to save the natives from losing rights which otherwise they would have had. Proceeding, the Minister said he had given this matter the greatest consideration. When it was said there were important amendments moved, nearly all of them were consequential, and when they came into Committee there would be the place to discuss some of the matters raised now. He wished it to be clearly understood that he was not impatient in discussing this matter. It was altogether too important. He was not going, for the sake of party, to rush this Bill; he wanted the Bill to become law this session! (Hear, hear.) It had been said that if they delayed no harm would be done. In the first place, they were perfectly unanimous on the principle; it was remarkable the unanimity there was in that House, and very largely outside the House, on the question of separate areas. He had had more representations he supposed than anybody, and he gave them all consideration; but he also distinguished, and it was very interesting to find that a large number of the people who made representations, a considerable number, did not want the separation of the areas. They wanted them to continue as they were at present. These people could not be satisfied. It had been said, why not delay? He would say that if there was delay they were going to have agitation from one end of the country to the other. (Hear, hear.) He ventured to say that, as there was only a principle involved, and if they held that principle to be a good one, no good could come from delay. But there were other very important reasons. In the first place, he believed that if they delayed a considerable number of natives would buy land in an area which would probably become a European area—(hear, hear)—and he was sure of one thing—and he was advised by people who were in high positions in the Department of Native Affairs and others—that the effect of this would be that speculators would take advantage of delay and they would sell land to natives at high prices, telling them that now was their opportunity. (Hear, hear.) The time would come when they would have to expropriate some lands. Land was occasionally sold to natives on what was called the instalment system, which may result in loss to the native if he was not careful. He had not introduced this Bill without consulting with the most responsible persons he knew of, some in the Cape Province and some outside, people with great experience of native affairs. One gentleman who did not mind his name being mentioned—the present Chief Magistrate of the Transkei, to whom he had sent a copy of this Bill— said that he had long been of opinion that some legislation of this kind was necessary. He had shown the Bill to other men, administrators, not in the Cape Colony, but whose names he had no authority to mention, and who said the same thing. He had not met one man in the Native Affairs Department or outside who had had long experience who had not told him that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill. The Chief Magistrate of the Transkei was practically in favour of the whole of the Bill as it was. The vast majority of responsible people who had a knowledge of native affairs were in favour of the principle of the separation of the two races. Ever since he took an interest in native affairs he had been convinced that it was a good thing that they should not prohibit, but restrict, the areas in which natives and Europeans could be. With regard to expropriation it was impossible to deal with that question unless they expropriated some land to put the natives on, and he could not conceive that anybody thought he would be a party to a policy to turn men off who were only there technically, illegally, unless they made other provision. In conclusion, he said that under that Bill no man would be in a worse position when it was passed than what he was before. Indeed many would be in a better position, and he had even taken safeguards which would put a man now in illegal occupation into a better position. He hoped that under the circumstances the House would decide to go into Committee and discuss the clauses seriatim.

put the question that the word “ now ” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and declared that the Ayes had it.

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mr. Alexander, Sir Bisset Berry, Mr. Brown, Sir David Hunter, Dr. Macaulay, Messrs. Meyler, Rockey, and Schreiner) voted against the question,

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment, proposed by Sir Bisset Berry, dropped.

The motion to go into Committee was then agreed to.

moved to omit the words “Chapter 1.”

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 1, Restriction as to transactions relating to land between natives and other persons pending inquiry by a Commission,

moved to insert the words “during the two years.” Continuing, the hon. member said that he moved his amendment because he objected to this principle of the enacting clause being made a permanent enacting clause. Personally he would like to have this Bill an annual Bill, which would come up for review every year.

moved the following amendments in clause 1: In lines 9 to 11 to omit “such land has been declared under this Act to be an additional native area or a non-native area” and substitute “Parliament, acting upon the report of the Commission appointed under this Act, shall have made other provision,”; in lines 13 to 15 to omit “ as evidenced by a certified copy of a resolution of the Executive Council ”; in line 26 to omit all the words from and including “and” to “land” in line 40, and to add the following new sub-sections (2) and (3): “ (2) From and after the commencement of this Act no person other than a native shall purchase, hire or in any other manner whatever acquire any land in a scheduled native area or enter into any agreement or transaction for the purchase, hire, or other acquisition, direct or indirect, of any such land or of any right thereto or interest therein or servitude thereon except with the approval of the Governor-General. (3) Every agreement or any other transaction whatever entered into in contravention of this section shall be null and void ab initio.”

moved to omit sub-section (1). This was the one chief objection to the Bill. The natives had no objection to the restricting of areas, but they were opposed to the right of purchase of land being taken away from them. Here they were absolutely taking away the rights that belonged to the natives in the Cape Province, Natal, and the Transvaal. If this were done there would be agitation, but if this sub-section were deleted the agitation would cease. He did not believe that natives would buy land in a district which they knew was to be proclaimed a European area.

said he was sure the hon. member wished to do his best for the natives, but the hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) was misguided in this matter. The Bill was going to be passed. The natives were buying” very little land at present; therefore, if they were stopped from doing so for a year or two, very little ground would be affected. But if the hon. member’s amendment were adopted, a lot of unscrupulous people would go to the natives, and say to them, “Here is your chance; buy land, even at a high price now, because later on you will not be able to buy at all.” The result would be that the natives would buy at enormous prices land in European areas, which finally they would be dispossessed of. He (Sir Lionel) hoped, however, that the Minister was going to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town, which was of vital consequence. By limiting the operation of the clause to two years, the natives would know that Parliament was not going to hang the matter up indefinitely.

asked why the two last lines had been omitted from the clause?

said the natives were not fools, and would not buy land in districts which they knew were going to be proclaimed European areas. He honestly believed that that restriction proposed now would never be removed, and that it would be a permanent thing. The same arguments which were used now would be used then. Were they then going to throw the sale and purchase open to everybody, when they had been saving up their money? It would be much better to let the ordinary sale and purchase go on until the Commission reported. That was the universal wish and desire of all the natives, and the leading men and missionaries, who knew them best.

said that the hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) spoke as if the restriction only applied to natives. There was an equal restriction on Europeans.

said he wished to urge that they should now report progress. (Ministerial cries of “No.”)

said that if they took a vote on this he would move to report progress.

said he would appeal to the Minister to take the amendment moved by the hon. member for Queen’s Town.

said he would very much like to meet his hon. friend. He had stated his reasons why he thought the effect of his own amendment was exactly the same, but he thought it was in better form. He really did not think that the two years made one bit of difference.

said that if the amendment were accepted it would be an assurance to the natives that at the expiration of two years, if the report of the Commission were not submitted to Parliament, they would revert to the position in which they were before the Bill was passed. It was the duty of Parliament to do all they possibly could by reasonable suggestions to meet any anxiety that might exist in the minds of the natives. He hoped the amendment would be accepted and he would do all in his power co facilitate matters.

said he greatly appreciated the attitude taken up by the Opposition. He was well acquainted with the natives, and he thought that if a time limit was laid down in the Act it would create suspicion in the native mind. He had every confidence in the white people, who he knew would treat the natives fairly and justly. He hoped they would not divide the House on this matter. That would create a wrong impression. What was required was a definite attitude on the part of Parliament. They had a law in the Transvaal which would injure the native if it were carried out: yet no hon. member had pleaded for the application of that law, and that showed that Parliament could be trusted to do the fair thing. A good many people from the North would have nothing to do with the Bill if a time limit were to be affirmed, and then it would be impossible to come to a settlement. If they accepted this time limit it would create the impression of a trick, and it would make people suspicious that nothing further would be done after the time limit was up. Practically every hon. member would object if nothing further was done, and they would be forced to go further. What the Bill aimed at was to avoid friction. The hon. member for Tembuland should recognise that other members of this House as well as he (Mr. Schreiner) himself, wished to act with due regard to the native interest. (Hear, hear.) Let them trust Parliament and the white people. This was no solution of the question. The squatting evil would have to be solved, but could not be solved until the Commission had reported. The people of the Transvaal wanted the squatters’ law enforced and consequently it would at any rate be essential for the Act to come up again.

was understood to say that they who were pressing for a restriction of time were doing so because that Bill meant a restriction of the rights of the native people. It might be that they would not agree to the report of the Commission, and the majority might not be prepared to adopt it, and without their actually being willing the restrictions on the natives would be left in force, and hon. members would be inflicting an injustice by merely doing nothing. It was only reasonable to say that these restrictions would only be put in force for that time, so that Parliament might make other provisions if they chose. It was reasonable to the natives to say that the restrictions would come up for revision in two years, and Parliament would then decide whether they would be put in force for a longer period. It was not right that wholesale restrictions of this kind should be put upon the natives without being able to tell them that they were for a limited period, and that if they were to last longer the matter would come before Parliament.

pointed out that members from the Transvaal, strongly though they felt on the squatting evil, were prepared to let it go on for a little while longer, and until the Commission brought in its report. It must, however, be obvious that they would not be prepared to let it go on indefinitely, and in the circumstances he hoped hon. members would not insist upon the two years’ time limit.

said there was a good deal in what the hon. member for Fordsburg had said, but he would point out that the Commission would have a most difficult task. Other Commissions which had to deal with much less complicated matters had taken some considerable time, and two years was altogether too short.

Well, make it three years.

Well, three or four years. I am simply pointing out the difficulties. Continuing, the hon. member said that the House would remember how long the Native Affairs Commission took in their investigations. They sat continuously for two years. There was much to be said for a longer time, and he would be inclined to vote for a time limitation of four years.

said the great object was to remove any suspicion from the minds of the natives.

said it did not seem to him that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg was in order in bringing in the squatters’ question. Squatters did not buy land. The Prime Minister had said that the white people would not agree to two years. Perhaps, however, they would agree to three, four or five years. But he (Mr. Schreiner) thought they would oppose everything. This trouble had come upon us because we had departed from the path of justice. (Ministerial laughter.) He would point out to the hon. member for Jeppe that there were many districts in the Transvaal in which the white man would benefit, because he would be able to sell his land to the natives at higher price than Europeans or the Government would pay. He did plead for the two years because it would go a long way to cause the natives to feel that this was not finally settled.

asked whether the Minister would accept a proviso to add “ until Parliament shall further decide ” ?

moved after “Act” to insert “or such further period as Parliament may by resolution determine. ’’

said it was difficult for those of them who were not in touch with the native mind to understand how such a resolution as that would give them any feeling of more security. He advocated a longer period, otherwise they might unwittingly do an injustice to the natives.

was understood to say that they might continue the restriction for 25 years, and then nothing more, if the amendment was adopted. Whatever the views of the Secretary of Native Affairs, it was impossible to move those large numbers of squatters, who were there illegally, unless Parliament made provision. He would point cut to the leader of the Opposition that they must make those rights now safeguarding them as to their exclusive right to occupy scheduled areas, unlimited. If they wanted to have a time limit in regard to one, they must have it in regard to the other also.

said it would be undesirable to put in that proviso about extending the period. That would make the natives very uneasy. With regard to the two years’ suggestion, nobody wanted that matter to be an election cry. That would be very undesirable, and he was prepared to say four years, to carry it over the election time. What he wanted to say was: that there would be a considerable section who would interpret this as a permanency, and would want to make it a permanency. Pressure might be brought to bear upon the Government of the day to prevent them taking any action. Without doubting the sincerity of members of Parliament, let them consider the pressure that might be put upon them. If they were going to debar natives from occupying land, let them do it deliberately, but don’t let them do it in a shuffling manner. He moved, as an amendment to the amendment moved by Sir Bisset Berry to omit “ two ” and to substitute “ three.”

pointed out that under the Bill the leasing of ground to natives would be continued, but naturally great pressure would be exercised to have a stop put to this practice, and that was one of the reasons why the Government would have to deal with the matter. Even without a time limit, therefore, there was no danger of avoidable delay. What the Minister proposed was as good as the other amendment. If the one did not help, neither would the other.

asked if the time limit were to be a four years one, and was it to apply to native purchasers only, or to Europeans as well.

To both.

The amendment of Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

Ayes—18.

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan Emile

Phillips, Lionel

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Morris Alexander and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—54.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers. The amendment was therefore negatived.

Sir W. B. Berry’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment dropped.

moved to report pa-ogress. (Ministerial cries of “No.”)

said he thought they should take the rest of the clause.

The Minister’s amendments were agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland was negatived.

Clause one as amended was then agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.