from Gertrude K. W. Burwash, a teacher in the Ngqeleni Public School, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

I. Your committee begs to report that it has had under consideration the papers and correspondence referred to it, as well as certain matters referred back for further consideration, and recommends the grants, etc., of land as set forth in the accompanying schedule, viz.:

1. (1) Grant, for agricultural industrial school, Cradock.
2. (2) Lease of “Craig’s Store,” Woodstock.
3. (3) Grant of lots to Village Management Board, Frankfort.
4. (4) Grant, for labour colony, of farm “Oliphant’s Hoek,” Knysna Division.
5. (5) Reservation, for recreation purposes, at Hout Bay.
6. (6) Grant, to Village Management Board, at Windsorton.
7. (7) Grant, for public library, at Brand-Lei.
8. (8) Grant, for public hall, at Hanover.
9. (9) Grant of vacant lots to Village Management Board, Bizana.
10. (10) Grant, to Village Management Board, at Amalinda.
11. (11) Grant, for public school, at Postmasburg, Hay.
12. (12) Grant, for recreation ground, at Mossel Bay.
13. (13) Excision of portion of Uitvlugt Forest Reserve.
14. (14) Issue of titles to natives in Tonyella’s location.
15. (15) Lease to Kalk Bay Fisheries, Ltd., at Port Elizabeth.

II. Your committee is unable to make any recommendation with reference to the papers relating to:

1. (1) Lease of Crown land at Camp’s Bay.
2. (2) Letting of vacant harbour lands, Cape Town.
3. (3) Lease, for fishing and residential purposes, division of Malmesbury.

It was agreed that the report be printed and considered in Committee to-morrow.

urged that more time should be allowed, so that the people in Natal might have an opportunity of seeing the Bill. He suggested that the second reading should be taken next week.

The motion was agreed to.

said that he wished to ask the Prime Minister a question on a matter of considerable public importance. There had been cables from London appearing in the papers, in which it was rumoured that negotiations were taking place between the Imperial Government and the German Government in connection with the cession of Walfish Bay. Perhaps it would allay all unrest if the Prime Minister would tell the House that Walfish Bay was an integral portion of the Union, and that no cession could take place without the knowledge and authority of the Union Government. These rumours were going about, and many people did not know the condition of affairs.

replied: I only wish to tell my hon. friend that Walfish Bay is the property of the Union, and, although I have read the rumours about such negotiations, I do not know anything about the matter. Walfish Bay, I repeat, belongs to the Union.

in moving the second reading of the Unauthorised Expenditure (1911-12) Bill, said that the Bill was necessary in order to cover any excesses of votes for 1911-12. The votes had been examined by the Auditor-General, and reported upon by the Public Accounts Committee, and were now brought up in this Bill.

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

Before you put clause 1, Mr. Chairman, might I be allowed to take this opportunity of asking my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to make a statement in connection with certain cabled reports that cattle would not be allowed to be exported, on account of the fear of spreading sleeping sickness? (Laughter.)

replied that he had seen the statements referred to in the newspapers, and he had laughed heartily at them, because a more ridiculous thing he had never heard of. He had at once taken steps to ascertain whether these were not newspaper rumours only, and his department was at present investigating the matter. He wished to emphasise that this country had a clean bill of health as regarded the matter referred to, and, at any rate, he thought there was no truth in the rumours. (Hear, hear.)

The clauses were severally considered and agreed to.

pointed out that in the schedule there was an error in the Dutch version.

said there was nothing under consideration.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

complained that more than one Bill had been passed through the House without hearing what was being done. With reference to the present Bill, they knew nothing about it.

pointed out that the hon. member could not raise anything now that the Bill had been reported.

pointed out that there were errors in the Dutch version; in fact, the figures were all wrong.

said this was only a printer’s error. The printers had been working at great pressure, and this was probably the reason. The error had been noted and would be remedied.

said they were entitled in that part of the House, as in other parts, to know what was going on and what they were passing. They knew nothing at all of what was being done.

pointed out that the hon. member should have called the Chairman’s attention to the point.

said the hon. member wanted to call the Chairman’s attention, but was told that the proper time was when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.

said he regretted if this had been told the hon. member, but he could not allow the point.

said he regretted the remarks of the right hon. the member for Victoria West as applied to himself. What he did say was that the Bill had already passed through the committee. He regretted that the hon. member had not heard the question put.

The third reading was set down for tomorrow.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Unauthorised Expenditure (1911-12) Bill.

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

asked whether the Minister would explain, to prevent misunderstanding, why the new amendments proposed were different from the original draft.

said it might not be necessary everywhere to add additional native territories. As the clause would stand under the amended proposal, it would be compulsory to add further territory, and therefore he suggested the addition of the words “if any.”

moved the deletion of sub-sections (a) and (b) of clause 2.

Agreed to.

moved to insert the following new sub-sections: (a) What areas should be set apart as areas within which natives shall not be permitted to acquire or hire land or interests in land; (b) What areas should, be added to the native scheduled areas.

said that he did not like the new wording of the clause as well as the old. Until the Commission reported they would have to call a halt, and he thought it better to leave the wording as the original amendment had it. Was it advisable to tie the hands of the Commission? He thought that the old words of the clause would give the Commission rather fuller scope.

pointed out in the chapters that had been omitted there were precise definitions of the character of these areas. There should be a definition in this part of the Bill. In the omitted chapters of the Bill discretionary powers were vested in the Governor-General. Therefore he would move that after the word “permitted” in each of the sub-sections the following words should be added, “ except with the approval of the Governor-General.”

was understood to say that he thought that that point was covered, and that the hon. member had brought up a point that was really not a point. He had gone to the trouble of making alterations, and he said that now hon. members should not become suspicious. He thought that the clause as it originally stood was very much better. He hoped that the committee would negative his proposals, so that he might move it in as it stood. (Laughter.)

thought that the word “additional” should be inserted before “ areas” in subsection “(b).”

wished to know whether it was regarded as part of the Commission’s duty to divide the whole of the Union into native and non-native areas? It was not quite clear as to what the Commission was expected to do.

said that he thought that his amendments were necessary.

pointed out that sub-section (a) was only operative until such time as the Commission had reported. He was understood to support the insertion of the words moved by the hon. member for Tembuland.

said that while he was not sure that the words were required, he would not, in order to prevent any doubt arising, object to the insertion of the words.

suggested that the two sub-sections were entirely different.

said the Commission which had the right under that clause to recommend the alteration of certain districts, and Parliament would afterwards take a resolution on the subject.

The amendment of Mr. Schreiner was negatived, and those of the Minister of Native Affairs were withdrawn.

moved: That the following be a new sub-section (b), viz.: “ (b) what areas should be set apart as areas within which persons other than natives shall not be permitted to acquire or hire land or interests in land.”

Agreed to.

moved in sub-section (1), after the new paragraph (b) by the Minister of Native Affairs, to insert the following new paragraph, viz.: “ (c) What areas should be set apart as areas within which both natives and Europeans shall be permitted to acquire or hire land or interests in land from each other.” The mover said he felt convinced that there would be insuperable difficulties in the way of the Commission unless they realised that there were parts of the country the conditions of which were such as it would be impossible for the Commission to say that they were either European or native areas, because the races were so mixed up together. What was to be done in the case of Queen’s Town, King William’s Town, Peddie, and Victoria East districts, where they had large numbers of European and native farmers.

said that apart altogether from the locations, there were in his district natives who owned large farms. In some instances their fathers were granted these farms in 1852, in consideration of services rendered to the State. He did not see how it would be possible for the Commission to say that a single farm should be a native area.

said the Commission was being set a task which it could never carry out. The committee was trying to shirk its responsibilities in rather an unfair manner. If there were a separate Commission for each Province, the task would be big enough; but to have only one Commission for the whole of the Union would mean that its members would be occupied with their work for the rest of their days. In Natal he had never heard any demand for this separation of districts. At whose instance was all this matter being brought up? When some hon. members marched into Zululand and founded the New Republic, was there any talk as to which district was to be European and which native? The matter was going on in a way to be strongly deprecated, and he entirely agreed with the hon. member for Tembuland. He was strongly opposed to the whole matter of locking up Europeans and natives in different districts. When it was to the interest of the white man to enter the natives’ country, there was no such contention. He was sorry to see the Minister of Native Affairs occupying the invidious position he was today.

said he did not think it was possible to divide the whole country and say that this portion should be occupied by natives and the other by Europeans. In Natal it was quite impossible to split the country up in that way.

said that he could not allow the remarks of the last two speakers to pass unchallenged. He felt certain that they were not expressing the views of the majority of the population of Natal. The question was really serious in some of the districts. If the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland were accepted, they might as well tear up the whole Bill.

said he really did not see how they were going to tear up the Bill, because they adopted this clause. There were in South Africa areas in which they could not separate the white man and the native. There could be no possible harm if the Minister accepted this clause.

said it was only proposed to schedule certain areas as native areas, and certain areas as European areas, and there would be certain areas that would be left open.

said he thought the proposal of the hon. member for Tembuland gave quite a different aspect to the Bill. He preferred the wording as it was in the clause.

said it was proposed that the Commission should say which areas were to be native areas, and which should be European areas. Those were areas which would be mainly occupied by Europeans in the one case, and by natives in the other.

said that one-half of the native population in Natal were on private lands. What were they going to do with these people?

That is not the question now.

said that under this Bill, certain portions were to be native areas and certain portions European areas. It appeared to him that, under this clause, the Commission would have power to define the whole country into two classes of areas: one native and the other European.

said that, bit by bit, they were getting to the point. Of course, if the Minister gave them an assurance that he did not intend that the whole country should be divided up into non-native and native areas, that would simplify the position a good deal.

said he objected to the amendment.

said he thought the hon. member for Tembuland would be well advised if he withdrew his amendment. He thought it was quite clear that the whole of the Union could not possibly be cut up in this sort of way.

said that, after the statement made by the Minister, he would withdraw his amendment.

said he hoped that the Minister’s statement did not mean that the reference to the Commission was going to be of the character simply to ask them to appoint certain areas as native areas and certain areas as nonnative.

said he could not see why the Minister should delete sub-section (2). The provision was a good one.

moved: On page 4, to omit all the words in lines 3 to 8, inclusive; in lines 11 and 12, to omit “ and of the boundaries which it proposes should be so fixed or altered ”; in line 16, to omit “ with all expedition ” and to substitute “within two years after the commencement of this Act ”; in line 17, after “recommendations:” to insert “ Provided that Parliament may by resolution extend (if necessary) the time for the completion of the Commission’s inquiry.” Replying to Mr. Mentz he said there was a sort of feeling abroad that it was the intention to make a raid on the areas reserved for natives, and he, therefore, thought it was better to take out these words, but that did not preclude the Commission from considering whether it would not be possible to round off the areas here and there, and they would be instructed accordingly.

moved, as an amendment to the amendment, to omit “ two ” for the purpose of inserting “ one.”

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to, and Dr. Watkins’ amendment was negatived.

Clause 2, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3, Membership of the Commission,

moved to omit the word “ five ” for the purpose of inserting the word “seven.”

said that he could not allow the amendment, as it meant increased expenditure.

explained that every fair-minded person believed that the success of the Bill depended upon the composition of the Commission. Although the Chairman ruled that he could not put this amendment because it meant extra expenditure, still that did not prevent him from moving his other amendment, which was to add, after the word “persons,” the words “one at least of whom shall be a native.” Seeing that this measure was to affect the natives, and seeing that there were natives who were on the same level as themselves as regarded education and abilities, and who took the deepest welfare in their people, he thought that it would be wise for at least one of the members of the Commission to be a native. If the Government sees their way to increase the number of the Commission to seven persons instead of five, there would be room for perhaps two natives, but he did not see that it was possible to have a native on the Commission with only five members. Two native members, he thought, would be better than one, because there was considerable difference of opinion between the natives. A man of the attainments and abilities of Mr. Tengo Jabavu represented one section of native opinion, but it would not perhaps be wise to appoint him alone as entirely representative of the native opinion. If another was also appointed, who represented the other side, the whole of native opinion, he thought, would be represented, and satisfaction as to the composition of the Commission would be given.

said, as the clause stood, it was quite competent to appoint a native or two natives upon the Commission, because the native was also a person. He quite admitted that the views of natives must be fully and fairly represented upon this Commission, but to achieve that he did not think it was necessary to have natives upon it. There might be some reasons—he did not say there were—which would not make such an appointment desirable. Therefore he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the amendment. There were natives and natives, and it did not follow that they all accepted the views of his hon. friend. There was nothing to prevent the appointment of more than five members, because the clause said “not less than five.”

asked the hon. member not to press his amendment.

withdrew his amendment.

Clause 3 was agreed to.

Clause 4 was negatived.

moved: On page 4, line 54, to omit the word “chapter II.”; and in line 55 to omit “ Acquisition of land in nonnative areas ”.

Agreed to.

Clause 5 was negatived.

moved, on page 6, line 39, to omit the word “chapter III.”: and to omit all the words in lines 40 and 41.

Agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 were negatived.

moved: On page 8, line 7, to omit the word “ chapter IV.”; in line 8, to omit “ Expropriation of land for the purposes of the Act.”

Agreed to.

On clause 8.

moved the deletion of clause 8, Expropriation of private land occupied at commencement of Act and setting a part of the same on terms and conditions to be prescribed.

considered that this was the best section in the whole Bill, and therefore objected to its deletion. In conclusion, he said he would be failing in his duty if he did not draw attention to the omission of this clause.

said that the principle was not involved in this clause; the real principle would be found in the following clause.

pointed out that in sub-section 3 provision was made for the repayment of the money, and that was the course which he favoured. Now they were dropping that.

spoke, but was inaudible.

No. When we expropriate land we will deal with the matter.

I think the principle a very good one.

So do I.

Clause 8 was omitted.

On clause 9, Expropriation of private land for the establishment of a non-native on an additional native area.

said that he could not support that clause. He was afraid that it would be more far reaching in its effects than the Minister imagined. The Minister wanted to expropriate land not only in native areas but in nonnative areas.

said that he had heard many statements from the hon. member but not as unworthy as the one just made by the hon. member for Umvoti. If some of these unfortunate people had not legal rights they had moral rights, and yet the hon. member would not agree to expropriation in order to do these people justice. He said that the statement of the hon. member was most unworthy.

It does not worry me in the slightest degree that the hon. member thinks the statement I made unworthy.

moved to omit the words “ this Act a non-native area or additional native area ” for the purpose of substituting “ any such area as is described in section 2.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved the deletion of chapter 5.

asked whether the Bill would forbid communal ownership.

said: The hon. member asks whether persons would be prohibited from purchasing communally? Of course, outside the scheduled areas.

was understood to say that individual tenure would come very slowly, and that they were not ready for it at the present time. The deletion of the chapter was agreed to

Clause 10 was negatived.

moved the deletion of the words “Chapter Six,” “General and Miscellaneous.”

This was agreed to Clause 11 was negatived.

On clause 12, “ “ Penalties and Legal Proceedings,”

moved the deletion of sub-section (3) for the purpose of substituting the following new sub-section: “ (3) A prosecution for the offence of hiring or leasing in contravention of this Act shall not be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General of the Province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

said the new sub-section was open to very serious objection. It had been stated on a previous occasion that the Executive could exert no influence on an Attorney-General in the matter of instituting prosecutions. If the Attorney-General did not institute prosecutions under the Bill, the only check against abuse was the right of private individuals to prosecute. If that right were removed there would be very grave objections, and the law might be flagrantly violated, and should an Attorney-General refuse to act there would be no possibility of setting the law in force. He preferred the original sub-section.

said it would all depend now on the Attorney-General to allow or disallow such leasing of ground to natives, which might create an unsound state of affairs. He protested against that.

suggested that the law should be left as it was, so that if the Attorney-General did not prosecute there would be a possibility of a private prosecution taking place. The Minister should withdraw his amendment.

in supporting the contention of the hon. member for Jeppe, remarked that the squatters’ law in the Free State was a dead letter.

said he had no objection to the omission of the section. It was within the discretion of an Attorney-General to prosecute or not, and it did not matter whether it was this excellent Government—(laughter)—or any other Government, it would have no right to interfere.

said he favoured the amended clause.

maintained that the right to institute proceedings should be left to the public. (Hear, hear.)

said it must not be forgotten that there were hundreds of thousands of natives living unlawfully in certain areas, and unless the Minister was prepared to protect these persons, what protection was to be given them?

pointed out that provision for that could be made in clause 15.

suggested that the old clause should be retained, and the new one inserted.

said the amendment in sub-section (3) was unnecessary.

observed that if a breach of the law were committed, it was for the Attorney-General to decide whether to prosecute.

The omission of the old sub-section (3) was agreed to.

The new sub-section (3) was negatived. The clause, as amended, was agreed to. On clause 13, Application of Act,

moved: At the beginning of the clause to insert (1), and to add at the end: (2) The number of natives who may be in occupation of any such land in the Transvaal shall be restricted to such as are in the bona fide, though not necessarily continuous, service of the owner or lessee of such land for at least four months in every year.

suggested that instead of omitting the whole of the old clause they should simply leave out the following: “ Provided that nothing in any such law or in this Act contained shall be Construed as restricting the number of natives who may be in occupation of any such land if they are in fact in the continuous employment of the owner or lessee thereof.” Was it not necessary to have something definite at the end of the new clause similar to the following words in the old clause: “ In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any such law, the provisions of this Act shall, save as is specially provided therein, prevail.” He moved accordingly.

said the new clause was in conflict with the Squatters Act of the Transvaal.

said he would like to know what was meant by the omission of old clause 13, because it clearly said that in the event of a conflict the provisions of this Act, save as specially provided, should prevail.

said that this clause did not repeal the Squatters Law. Under the Squatters Law the number was fixed, but under this new clause there was no limitation of the number. He did not see that it was to the prejudice of the native.

The existing law remains in force.

said he supposed that where an express provision was made they could keep a larger number. There was a very serious difference, because in the one it said “continuous” and in the other “four months.” The custom in the Transvaal was for the natives to work for a certain number of months. There was no other change effected by that than that a larger number of persons, if they were in occupation for at least four months, could reside there.

said he would ask the Minister whether he could not see his way not to press the second clause. It was very undesirable to interfere in this rather haphazard way with the existing Squatters. Law with all its defects. Here was an invitation to anyone who wanted to start an industrial establishment to lease land on which natives resided, and then not only lease the land, but the natives also. If there were one thing that it was necessary for the native to obtain a certain degree of liberty it was the fact that his right to live in a place should not depend upon his rendering so many months’ service to the person who owned the ground. It was a very bad principle.

said he could not see if this word “ continuous ” were taken out and land-owners were allowed to have natives on the land by merely employing them on and off for four months of the year, any attempt to put a stop to squatting would be helped. He thought that clause 13 went as far as they could go in regard to squatting, if there was to be any real attempt to stop squatting.

said he thought the point mentioned by the hon. member for Fordsburg was provided for in sub sec. (3). He thought if there were one thing which would have been open-heartedly accepted by the hon. members opposite it would be this. They were now providing a third alternative for the natives, and he did not see any danger in inserting the new clause. The fact of the onus of proof lying on the man who had natives on his land was he thought, quite sufficient.

said he had always thought that the hon. member opposite was the great champion of enforcing the Squatters Law in the Transvaal. Now he was going to allow any number of squatters, as long as the owner of the land could prove that for a period of four months in the year they had rendered him service. Whether that was in the best interests of the natives or not was an open question.

said that he pointed out at the second reading that this particular Bill did not deal with squatting at all. They could not deal with squatting, because what were they going to do with these people? The Bill did not interfere with squatting, but whether a man could have as many natives as he liked, that was a different matter. A separate Bill would be required to deal with squatting.

said he quite understood the hon. member’s contention that the object of the Bill was to leave matters in statu quo until the Commission had reported. That was fairly just, but the question was: what were they going to do now? They came in a sort of half-hearted way, and professed that they were against squatting. Now they were going to turn these squatters into something like Russian serfs. What was this idea of serfs? It was a man who lived upon the land and had to give service in return. They were going to wink also at this labour tenancy. If there was one thing that kept this country back, it was labour tenancy. (Hear, hear.) He had heard the Prime Minister declaim against the slovenly way in which these farms were worked by the labour tenants. A man, instead of working his land like a European, hired a lot of families to squat upon it and work it. And they were going to legitimise this. For four months in the year these natives were going to scratch up a man’s ground. Nominally they were in a man’s employment, but actually they were in the position of Russian serfs. A more degrading class of farming could scarcely be imagined, and the whole object of the Bill should be to do away with it.

pointed out that the principle was exactly the same in the Cape to-day. A man could have as many bona-fide servants upon his farm as he liked, with this difference: that the labour must be continued. This was not a new system introduced into the Transvaal, and the only difference now was the difference between the word “continuous ” and the words “four months.” Then, when they came to labour tenants, it was practically the same in the Cape. In his innocence, he (the Minister) had called the Bill a Squatters’ Bill, because he thought it would make things easier for natives who wished to remain. But this must be remembered, that the Government could give permission, and they tacitly allowed it. He was allowing things to continue as they stood to-day.

The difference is that you legalise it.

Yes, I know I do. I realise that it is the existing state of things, and if I disturb it, it might entail hardship and inconvenience.

raised an objection to sub-sections 2 and 3 of the new clause. No civilised Government could carry out the removal of people in the possession of land, unless they had some place to give them. One of the reasons that the Squatters’ Law could not be carried out was, that they could not carry it out in one place, without carrying it out in another. This Bill had been framed principally to deal with this position. His objections to sub-sections 2 and 3 were that practically the Government was setting out to legalise the perpetuity of the existing state of things. Owners of farms could make some arrangement by which they could easily say that these men were in their employment four months in the year. In his opinion, these two sub-sections were opening the door for very grievous abuses.

said that the view he took, that it was their duty to do all they possibly could to protect the large number of natives, whom they were told existed in certain portions of the country, and especially in the Zoutpansberg district, against laws which, if put into operation, would prove these people to be in illegal possession; but that matter could be dealt with in clause (15). It was the duty of that House to prevent those people from being turned out. But they should not protect them by giving people practically what was forced labour. A man placed in that position could not negotiate with regard to his labour, as he had the proper right to do. Let them withdraw the word “lawfully ” which occurred in clause (15), but they should not do anything in the direction of compelling these people to give their labour. Whether Europeans or natives, they ought to be paid a proper wage.

skid there always seemed to be a sort of suspicion on the part of the Opposition against the rural population. He held that the present provision protected the native, as it placed him in a position of not having to work all the year through. The new clause was a protection to the native, as it only called for four months work. If they wanted to make a native work year in and year out, they would not be able to keep him.

opposed the new clause.

said that when they came to clause 15, the hon. Minister intended to protect those people who were there now.

I did not say that.

said that if the hon. Minister would tell the Committee what he did propose to do to protect those people, they would be put on safer ground. Squatting was undesirable, and a thing they could not allow was to bring in a new statute which would adversely affect those people or which would make their position worse than it was at the present time. They could not carry out the Squatters Bill, and now they proposed to penalise the white people, who were going to be fined. The result would be that these people would have to be removed in a most unjust manner. There should be some assurance from the hon. Minister that that would be rectified. It was not sufficient for the hon. Minister to say that the Government would not do anything that would press hardly. They should protect those people until the Commission could report, otherwise they would be driven on to the open veld or they would be forced to seek labour on the surrounding farms. That clause went in the direction of making those people into serfs, and he hoped that would never be the intention of the Government. All the Government had to do was to protect the position of those who were there to-day until such time as Parliament could act on the report of the Commission.

appealed to hon. members not to talk about serfs. He sympathised with the views of the hon. member, but as he had said repeatedly, these people would not be in a worse position than they were to-day. Under the existing law they could touch the natives, but they could not touch the man who put them there; but he did not want to go into that.

Let us go into that.

Well, the hon. member would not get the best of it. Proceeding, he said that they could not move those people who were illegally in occupation. They could not possibly turn a large number of people off. He never contemplated doing so, law or no law. It had been urged that his successor might hold the same views, and he appreciated the compliment. What he was going to propose would prove an ample safeguard. He would move the following as a new sub-clause 4: “Until Parliament, acting upon the report of the said Commission, has made other provision, no native shall be liable to any penalties or be removed from any farm in Natal or the Transvaal if at the commencement of this Act they are registered at the Department of Native Affairs as being resident on the farm.” Continuing, he said that this was no new principle. It might assist the farmer to get a little more labour, and why should he not, poor chap! (Laughter.) There was a great deal of competition for labour against him.

asked how the Minister reconciled this sub-clause with the one that had just been passed?

It is in accordance with that. If a man chooses to become a servant, we can’t stop him. I don’t think that it is possible for us to go further.

said he did not see how this would work with sub-section 2. Suppose the man refused to go into service?

He can’t.

said he thought that this was as complex as the other.

regretted to notice that some hon. members still upheld the fallacy that the farmer was lazy. The hon. members for Fort Beaufort, Jeppe and Victoria West, who had described the conditions of these farm labourers as those of serfs did not know what they were talking about. These natives in the Transvaal were the most free and most independent in the country. What farmer, he asked, with regard to an argument used by some hon. members, would have so many natives on his farm that he would hamper himself, and have to maintain more than he really required? There was no question of any oppression whatever, and it was pure nonsense to talk about slaves.

said that this would lighten the situation in the Transvaal. He was glad that the Minister had done something towards ameliorating the conditions. He was in favour of recognising the four months as giving the native the right to remain on a farm. But under section 2 the number was restricted. He thought that some amendment—for instance the words “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in subsection 2”—was necessary.

said that he was not afraid of penalties. The Minister in this amendment protected the Kafir, but provided certain penalties for people contravening the Act. Everybody knew that in the Transvaal, according to the Squatters Law, certain owners of farms had more Kafirs than they were allowed. Now the Minister proposed not to move them, but imposed penalties on people who had those Kafirs there. It would be quite right to bring it into force when the Commission had reported, but now the natives could not be moved, and the owner was liable. He thought that some amendment was necessary.

was understood to say that the difficulty would be met.

said the hon. member for Fort Beaufort appeared to have lost his understanding. A landowner was entitled to have labourers on his farm. Many farms were now exclusively occupied by natives, whilst the owners of good farms were unable to get labour. He supported the new clause.

said if the clause were passed with sub-section (2) the effect would be to legalise the state of things now existing in the Transvaal, where the Squatters Law was practically a dead letter. Why should the Parliament step in now and say that this state of affairs was legal ? Why not leave the matter alone until the House was prepared to deal with it in a final way?

said there was another point to be considered-native farming on the shares. Many poor unfortunate Kafirs had settled on farms, but under this Bill a farmer might say to them that he was not allowed to retain them as squatters, and that the only way in which they could remain was to become labour tenants. Then the earnings of the natives would be reduced. That would be a nice little arrangement altogether. The whole object of the Bill was to make what was already cheap labour for) the farmers cheaper still. The natives were to be pinned on to the land hand and foot, and were to get no results from their toil.

thought the clause was overriding a clause in the Transvaal law, and there was a risk of this creating difficulties should a case come before the Court.

At 5.10 p.m.,

suggested that progress should be reported, adding that there was plenty of other work on the paper.

said it had been contended that he was putting the natives who were in an illegal position in a worse position still, but nothing of the sort. He thought the committee ought to proceed, but if a good reason were given for reporting progress he would agree to it. Under the Bill the natives would not be worse off than they were to-day.

suggested that it might be possible to meet the greatest objection by inserting the words “ until otherwise ordered by Parliament.”

wished to know why it was necessary to legislate for anything in the nature of forced labour. Why should the committee go out of its way in sub-section (2) to legalise a position which was not legal at the present moment? He suggested that only the last sub-section should be taken and not sub-section (2).

said he was prepared to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. member for Victoria West.

said he would move at the beginning of the clause to insert “ until Parliament otherwise provides.”

said he would move to delete the proviso. The Minister had rightly said that he had endeavoured to meet objections which had been raised from any part of the House. He (Mr. Creswell) wanted to call the committee’s attention to the difference between his attitude on this and on other matters. He had stated a little while ago, why should not the farmers have labour? Hon. members on the Ministerial benches might think this was an admirable and desirable thing, but he hoped they would not shed crocodile tears any more over the growth of the poor white in this country.

Mr. Creswell’s amendment was agreed to, and the proviso was deleted accordingly.

said it was his desire that the remaining portion of old clause 13 should stand, and to that extent he withdrew his amendment.

said that the remaining portion of old clause 13 would become sub-section (1).

said that in regard to the proviso which had been moved by the Minister, he felt that sub-section (2) would be unnecessary.

said that in the present position of affairs he did not think they could possibly do away with sub-section (2).

said that, in reply to the hon. member for Queen’s Town, he would ask in the first place what good was the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West “until Parliament otherwise provides”? Naturally, it must remain until Parliament otherwise provided. Secondly, it was laid down that natives who had been settled on the land for a considerable time, and who had come to think that they owned the land, were going to be converted into labour tenants.

Not in this provision.

Then what is the good of this clause? One is contrary to the other, unless it is for this purpose. These natives will be bound down still more severely. They have got to work on that land on a four months’ tenancy, and if they don’t they can be cleared.

said that his amendment was a clear warning that Parliament was going to deal with this. If there had been time, he should have hoped that the Select Committee would have taken and compared the Cape legislation with the state of affairs in the Transvaal, and have adapted the two, but he recognised that they could not disturb these things at once, and that all they could do was to indicate that they were going to deal with them. He thought his hon. friend went a little far when he said that they were going to turn these people into something they were not before, because he must surely know that these people were not on the proprietor’s land without doing something for him. (Hear, hear.)

said if they were unable to deal with this matter, don’t let them touch it, don’t legalise it.

It is legal now.

said it was legal if they allowed it to go on, but do not give it the effect of law. Let the Squatter’s Law remain as it was now. Personally, he did not agree with covering up their tracks in this way.

said his hon. friend spoke about legalising things. A great number of natives were in legal occupation, and he was legalising that. Let them think of that.

asked why they should put in this four months’ clause.

said they were creating a vested interest.

said the proviso which was deleted provided entirely for continuous service. His hon. friend says that they can stay there for four months. He felt that the native did not get a fair remuneration for his services.

The amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West was agreed to.

put the question that the sub-section, as amended, be agreed to, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—60.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christiaan

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

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 Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—31.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

J. Hewat and Morris Alexander, tellers.

The sub-section, as amended, was agreed to.

moved the following new sub-section (3): “ In any proceedings for contravention of this Act, the onus of proof that any native is exempted by reason of his being in such service, as is described in sub-section (2), shall lie upon the accused.”

What was the special reason for putting the onus of proof upon accused?

If you don’t do that you might not have any proof.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved: to add at the end the following new sub-section: “ (4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-section (2) of this section until Parliament acting upon the report of the said Commission has made other provision, no native shall, unless at the instance of the owner or lessee, be liable to penalties or to be removed from any farm in Natal or in the Transvaal if at the commencement of this Act he or the head of his family is registered for taxation or other purposes in the Department of Native Affairs as being resident on such farm.”

moved an amendment to delete the words “ unless at the instance of the owner or lessee.”

said that people who had been on the land for centuries could be told to clear off if they would not work, that was the position. It was making serfs of them. It had been said that they had the system in the Cape, but that was an abuse of words. In the Cape those labour tenants were practically free natives.

referring to a remark by the hon. member for Fordsburg asked what more could he do to protect the natives.

said it would have been best to have taken out that clause 2.

urged the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to use his influence with the hon. Minister. In the hon. member’s own district where there were a great many farms, the hon. Minister had in his mind small scattered farms, but with regard to those thickly populated tracts they would be able to say to the Kafirs who had been there for generations, “You must work four months for us or we shall turn you out.”

pointed out that the owner of land in the Transvaal had the right to remove anyone from his farm.

was understood to say that if these people could not be turned off the land it would deprive the owners of their right to rent that had not been paid.

said he could not see that anything better could be done than had been suggested.

said the hon. Minister was introducing a measure which he had not had time to study. They should exempt both owners and natives from portions of that Act until the conditions had been reported upon. They knew that it was the Minister’s intention to protect both natives and owners, but with regard to the penalties provided for in clause 12 owners would be obliged to take labour instead of rent.

Where are the natives to work? (An hon. member: On the mines.) (Laughter.) Putting humour aside, proceeded the hon. member, where was the native to be compelled to work? On the farm on which he lived, or could he be ordered where by the owner? The position seemed to be that the owner could turn him off if he did not work. If the hon. Minister considered the matter as a joke one wondered why the Bill was brought in at all.

said the clause did not prevent those people from being practically compelled to labour, and they could be farmed out. That applied to the clause under discussion, and it said in effect that they should work anywhere it was desired they should work, and not necessarily on the land. He did not think the committee realised how far they had gone in those ill considered amendments.

said his hon. friend was trying to do two things, one to provide for the labour tenant; that was in operation now, and he wanted to keep it in operation until he could provide otherwise. He was also trying to provide for those masses of people who were on large farms. By taking the two sections together they might be doing an injustice to those who were settled on the land as illegal tenants. They might be able to say: “We cannot take rent from you, you must work four months for us.” They might go along and do their four months’ work in some place close by; it would be a gentle stimulant. He would suggest that some method should be sought for safeguarding these people.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that the Government was easing the situation in the Transvaal. There was a Squatter’s Law that could not be carried out. Some day they would have a Squatter’s Law that could be carried out, and now they were paving the way. This law would put the Transvaal native in the same position as those in Natal. He thought, however, that the wording of sub-section (2) was not what it should be.

In reply to Sir W. B. BERRY (Queen’s Town),

said that the words which the hon. member had helped to get inserted would have the effect of placing a large number of natives in the grip of owners of farms, who would say: “You must give me four months’ labour or you will be turned away.”

said that the clause the hon. member was referring to had already been passed.

said he was merely pointing out what the effect would be.

said there was no provision in any law to say that a man was obliged to give four months’ labour. The point was that if these natives went before the Commission reported, there was no place for them to go to.

said that the amendment moved before the House adjourned for dinner had considerably improved the clause. He asked the Minister to give the committee a clear idea of the effect of the clause.

said that in the Transvaal there were a large number of native squatters. They could, under the existing law, be compelled to leave, but for administrative reasons the law was not applied. This safeguard placed them in a better position than they were at present. To-day they were in an illegal position, but their position by this Bill was legalised.

So far as the sub-clause is concerned, the native can remain on these properties, and it is not necessary that he should comply with sub-section (2)—give his labour.

No, it is not necessary.

made some remarks which were inaudible.

said that any employer could tell his clerks that they must go. They could not take away the rights of the owner; he did not suppose any Parliament could take them away. He had put in a clause for which hon. members had been pleading. Further than that, it was impossible for any Parliament to go.

said that the people who were legally occupying ground at the present moment would have to move under the Bill. By passing sub-section (2), a farmer could say to the natives on his farm, “I will receive no more rent from you, and you must either go away or work for me for four months out of the twelve.”

He can say that to-day.

Not legally.

He can say, “Unless you work for so many months a year, you must go ”

said no doubt the farmer could say that, but the native could reply, “I will hire land from someone else.” But, as soon as the Bill was passed, the native would not be able to hire or to acquire land. The Transvaal Squatters’ Law was a dead letter, and the Bill said to the owner, “You shall not lease to the native until the Commission had reported and Parliament had further legislated.” The position now was that the owner of a farm could say to a native, “You shall work for me for four months in the year ”; but if the native went to any other land owner, these were the only terms on which he could get land. The Committee had taken away the native’s rights, and in order to safeguard the native, it had to take a considerable lump off the owner’s right.

said they all appreciated the motive with which the clause was moved by the Minister (hear, hear)—but they felt uneasy, because of the effect of sub-section (2). Under the Bill a farmer could have a thousand families on his farm, so long as they worked for him.

Nobody will be able to have more families on his farm than he can have to-day.

Yes, he will.

said the native on the farm was protected, but it was made illegal under the Bill to introduce any more natives. This was a temporary arrangement, to tide over until the Commission reported. The natives would certainly be far better off under the Bill than they were now. The idea of the clause was to prevent any wholesale moving of these people.

said he did not agree with the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to the effect of the sub-section. However, he agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that, whereas under the existing Squatters’ Law of the Transvaal a limited number of families was allowed to each farmer, under the second clause a farmer could have as many of these natives as he chose, so long as they were servants. The only object of the sub-section was to make it clear that one could have as many servants as one liked.

The point where he differed with the hon. member for Fordsburg was in his objection to this. He agreed with him that this was the effect, but he failed to see the objection. In all their Cape legislation, they had specially exempted servants. If they had bona-fide servants, they could have as many as 10,000 upon a farm.

In continuous service.

Exactly, I am coming to that directly. Continuing, the Minister said, when a man was paid continuous wages, any number could be employed on a farm. If they were going to apply this position to the Transvaal, upon what basis were they going to do it? There was no such thing as bona-fide servants in the Transvaal.

No doubt there ought to be.

I quite agree with him in principle, but it will take some time to introduce it. Continuing, the Minister said, in the Transvaal and Natal, they had no such system which corresponded to a bona-fide servant, except the man that did his three months’ work in a year. That was the reason why this was put in. He agreed with the hon. member for Queen’s Town in regarding this as being in favour of the natives. It made their position in the Transvaal much better.

Why?

Because they were dealing with this upon this basis, that they were allowing a man to employ as many as he wanted, and their contracts were voluntary, and so were their services. It seemed to him, therefore, that, under the circumstances, it was a provision distinctly in favour of the natives themselves. The hon. member for Fordsburg tried to make a distinction between this sub-section (2) and the other. The other sub-section he would not say a word about; this was put in merely to meet the criticisms of certain hon. members. He would have thought that the hon. member for Fordsburg would have welcomed sub-section (2), and this one as well, and would have described this as a more liberal measure than existed at present. It seemed to him that there had been confusion of thought between the rights of the natives, the owners and the State. Hon. members must understand that the Squatters’ Law had nothing to do with the owner or the lessee of land. These had got their rights just as much under common law as before. They had a right to say to anyone, “ Go off my farm.” At present all natives on the company’s farm were subject to be dismissed at a moment’s notice unless the contract prevented it. They were liable at a moment’s notice to dismissal by the State’s order.

said that the Minister had not realised this point, that certain men were not wage earners. Scarcely a farmer paid any wages. The usual contract was that the man worked for three months, and the rest of the year they were employed in the cultivation of their own ground. There were other tenants, however, who did not give this three months’ work to the farmers, but paid rent. They went away to the mines and earned the money to pay the rent. The labour tenant was protected in this Bill, but the squatter was put into a much worse position. At one stroke of the pen they were turning these rent paying tenants into servants, and in his opinion they should not act under that law until the Commission had reported. The Bill should only have been for one year. It would hardly be worth while for one year for a landlord to say to his native tenant, “You must be our servant or we will turn you off,” but seeing that that Bill would be in force for two or three years before a new Bill came, they were putting those people in the position of having to become servants whether they wanted to or not.

said if the contention of the hon. member was right that these people could not go anywhere else

Am I not right?

I am assuming the hon. member is right. All he wanted to say was that it would be the same whether they had the sub-section or not.

said it was quite true what the Minister had suggested might be done by simultaneous agreement on the part of all owners. That would produce the same result without subsection (2), but by passing sub-section (2) it would save the owner the trouble. He quoted from the evidence of the Select Committee which sat in 1910 to show that the natives should be allowed to go on the neighbouring farms as free agents. That was the point, but under the operation of that sub-section they would not be able to do that. The owner of the farm would be in a position with a large number of natives on his farm practically to farm their labour out. The essential difference made by sub-section (2) was that they would place all owners under the same cast-iron rule.

said that according to the hon. Minister the effect of the Bill was that every tenant could be forced to be a labourer at the will of the farmer. Those men were absolutely in the hands of the farmer if the Bill passed they could not go anywhere else and must accept service. When compulsory service was to be the effect of the Bill he did not think that hon. members on either side of the House would agree.

I did not say that the effect of this clause was to enforce that, but he did say that, however they might criticise the proposal of his hon. friend it made no difference, the position remained the same as before.

said he agreed with the hon. member for Barkly. It was placing those natives in a worse position than they were to-day. If a man refused to become a servant he had nowhere else to go.

said that hon. members should understand that there was at the present moment a Squatters law in operation. (An hon. member: Not in operation.) It was on the Statute Book and the Government could place it in operation at any moment. Under that law every native in excess could be made to go off the land. It was no business of the farmer or the landowner at the present moment to say where those natives had to live. They were trying to ease the situation and to deal with some of the difficulties in which the natives were placed under the heel of the State under the Squatters Law, and they did that by saying that a man who gave four months’ labour should not be removable by the law. They said by section (4) also that a man who paid taxation should also be removed from the heel of the State so far as the Squatters Law was concerned. From that point of view they should defend the subsection. It was in the interests of the natives and would make the whole situation easier for them.

was understood to say that it would ease the situation if the Minister would alter sub-section (2) at a later stage into simply providing that a native who was in bona fide service for four months should be regarded as being in lawful occupation, but he hoped that the hon. Minister would consider the matter.

said it was absolutely certain that that sub-section was so worded as to restrict and not to extend. The Squatters’ Law was extended by the section.

refering to the speech of the hon. member for Queen’s Town, said that they were taking the natives from under the heel of the Squatters’ Law, which they did not feel, because the Minister admitted it could not be enforced, into the hands of the individual owner. If that were not so, then he would withdraw his opposition, but up to the present he had heard nothing definite on the subject. At the present time a native paying rent could be moved by the farmer. Now they were introducing a Bill expressly preventing him from getting a piece of land. So that the man who owned land had a monopoly of the land. The native could now leave the farm without going into service. If he could be assured that this was not going to make for compulsory service, then he would withdraw his opposition. He did not know whether his hon. friend on his right understood it now.

No. (Laughter.)

thought that the consideration of this clause might be deferred. He thought that hon. members would see the point if they slept on it that night.

wanted to know the position of the labour tenant who held a piece of land.

He is protected.

How is he protected?

Who. (Laughter.)

The rent paying tenants? The agreements are verbal. There is no lease or security. The owner can say you must go or give four months’ labour for nothing. What protection is there then?

What protection is there now?

said that at present when an owner terminated a lease, a native could go to another owner and get a piece of land on other terms. What protection was there? None.

If you know, why ask? The hon. member gets up and asks questions, and generally answers them himself before he sits down.

said that it was permissible to infer, when a question was persistently asked and no answer was returned, that there was no answer. He supposed Ministers had an answer. What was their answer ?

said that the hon. gentleman generally answered all the questions that he asked.

Is my answer correct?

made a statement in answer to the hon. member for Jeppe, but his remarks were quite inaudible in the Press Gallery.

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

said that the Minister’s reply to his question put an entirely different complexion on the question, and showed that there was need for carefully scrutinising the provisions of the Bill. When he voted for the second reading of the measure he thought that he was voting for the principle of the separation of the races, but, he was understood to say, that the Minister’s object was now one of establishing a system of forced labour. What was the effect of this new clause 14? Would it take away—it was no use the Prime Minister being petulant—

said that the Committee was considering sub-section 4 of the clause.

Oh, well, that makes it all the easier in discussing the matter. Continuing, he wanted, he said, to point out to the Committee how serious an admission the Minister had made. The natives, he was understood to say, were placed in a worse position—

said that the hon. member must confine himself to the subsection.

I am, sir. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that in sub-section 4 lay the real principle of the Bill—the real principle of the Bill was to place the native in the position of a forced labourer to the owners of the land.

said that he had been misrepresented by the hon. member. All he had said was that provision was made that there should be areas for natives and areas for Europeans.

hoped that the Minister would re-consider the wording of the clause before the measure reached another stage.

: The last remark of the Minister is, to say the least of it—

I told you what I meant.

You have gone a great deal further than that. (Daughter.) Here a new clause is put in that was not in the original Bill. I think that the Minister has forgotten his original intention of placing the native in no worse position. He did not see how they could get away from the fact that, under the Bill, the native who hired land would be in a worse position than he was at the present moment. The native was to be delivered over into the hands of the employer. What was to become of the native who had been farming on the halves, and who refused to work on the four months’ system? There was no place for him to go.

said he was perhaps the only person in the House who did not bless the Bill when it was introduced. His hon. friends opposite blessed it unanimously. (Opposition cries of “ No.”) Oh, yes you did!

The hon. member must confine himself to sub-section (4).

I am coming to that. Proceeding, Mr. Merriman said he did not think very much change was going to be made. Farmers would not turn away natives wholesale, for they were only too glad to get them. (Ministerial cheers.) Farming on the halves did no harm to the natives, but to the Europeans, who were being demoralised. The native was rather happy—in a way he was in the position of our forefathers, who were villeins. What the hon. member for Jeppe apparently wanted to do was to drive the honest fellow off the farm, put him in a location, and let him go out as a casual labourer. The native’s lot was much happier as a villein than as a labourer. If they asked him (Mr. Merriman) what was going to take place under the Bill, he would say things would go on exactly as before. The law was broken now, and it would be broken for the next three or four years.

said that, seeing there was so much suspicion, it would settle the question if it were laid down that no person who was at present hiring a native illegally should have the right to convert that into a legal system.

asked the Minister to explain what would be the position of a native who was paying rent if the owner said to him “You Shall not continue as a tenant, but must take service?” How could a native escape from that position?

said that a number of native squatters in Natal would be under notice to quit at the end of June. Where were those natives to go when the Bill became law?

I cannot give the hon. member any other answer than that given by my hon. friend.

I am surely entitled to have an explanation. Is there any suspicion of compulsory service to-day?

I don’t admit that it is compulsory.

What is the alternative ?

Suppose the Bill had never been introduced—the owner could give the native notice.

The native could go elsewhere.

Yes.

And under the Bill?

He can go elsewhere too.

Where can he go elsewhere as a tenant? He can only go as a servant.

I think the Minister might give a reply to my question. I take it that the Minister cannot answer us. There is no place for the natives to go, although they can go as forced labourers. I hope members will do their best to prevent the Bill from becoming law, seeing that we have such conditions in it, quite different to what the Bill was when it was introduced.

The new sub-section was adopted, and the clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 14, Status and legal position of certain persons under article 20, of Law No. 4 of 1895, and Chapter XXXIV. of the Orange Free State laws,

moved before sub-section (1) to insert the following new sub-section: “ (1) Chapter XXXIV. of the Orange Free State Law Book and Law No. 4 of 1895 of the Orange Free State shall remain of full force and effect, subject to the modifications and interpretations in this section provided, and sub-section (1) (a) of the next succeeding section shall not apply to the Orange Free State.”

asked why they should take the trouble to reenact Law No. 4 of 1895 of the Orange Free State, which stated that no railway tickets should be issued to any native unless he produced a pass properly stamped by a Government official.

said that he was not surprised to find that they wanted to keep these Free State laws on the Statute Book, because they were most interesting. He was not sure that the South African Museum would not be the better place, however, to preserve them than the Statute Book of the Union. He noticed one particularly interesting interpretation, namely, that the term coloured woman as stated in the previous article should be taken to mean a coloured person of the female sex. (Laughter.)

said that he did not approve of all the laws affecting natives in the Free State. If the matter rested with him he would have had these laws altered. What had been done, however, was to leave the laws in the Free State as they were. He found that if they wanted to do anything for the natives they had to respect the susceptibilities of people in the different Provinces. Unless they did that they were much less likely to get a hearing. The Free State people thought that their laws were such as to suit their special requirements. What happened in the Free State was this, the laws referred to here were in force for a large number of years, and some legislation took place within the Crown Colony Government, and the result of that was that a portion of their laws was by some indirect means or other modified. It was held so by the Court.

: That was with regard to hiring.

said that he was told that it was the result of an oversight that the law had been altered. During the time that the Free State had responsible Government, following Crown Colony Government, the Volksraad brought in a Bill to restore this law, but the Crown refused to sanction it, because they said that as the Free State was just entering Union it was better that they should let the Union Legislature deal with it. What was done here was simply to put the law back to what it was before.

pointed out that in chapter (34) the chief provision of that chapter allowed a coloured person—that was a person born of a white parent and a native parent—to hold land. There was a second clause in that law which dealt with the people commonly called bastards. When the term “coloured person” appeared in the Free State Ordinances it did not mean what it meant at the Cape. It meant a native. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to what he called the most important part of the chapter, that part which applied to the Moroka Ward. He complained that certain rights given to the people after the Moroka War were not there to-day. He had received a document signed by the President of the Free State Native Association, which stated among other matters that the Free State natives were unfairly treated. They were not allowed to sell land to one another, whereas chapter 34 certainly said that they could sell land to one another. In the Bill before the House they had no hope that their position would be improved. They complained that the Bill proposed to respect the present Free State law dealing with land tenure, and they were not certain, when the Bill became law, whether natives would be able to sell land to natives or not. It was not clear to them either that there would be additional areas for those not resident in scheduled areas, and, if so, would they be permitted to buy land on individual tenure or would they be debarred, as under the Free State law? The hon. Minister did not approve of all the provisions; but only clause 20 of law 4 of 1895, then why should the whole be in operation in connection with that Native Land Bill? Proceeding, he dealt with the last part of the clause, which said that subsection 1 (a) of the succeeding section should not apply to the Orange Free State. That was the crux of the whole matter. There was no end to the demands of the Orange Free State. They were not content with chapter 34. They were not content with clause 20, law 4, of the Act of 1895. They were not content without being legislated out of the Bill altogether. The other Provinces had agreed to try and have one law in that matter, and the Cape Colony had given up to a certain extent. But the Orange Free State said they must have exactly what they had before, and the Government gave way. The Orange Free State was to be put into the position of putting a stop to working on halves as soon as the Act came into operation. They would be able to say to the people who were sowing on halves: “ The law is against you, and you must stop.” That was such a change from the Bill as introduced, for originally there could be sowing on halves under a proper agreement, and that was to be continued until such times as the Commission had reported, and land had been provided to which natives could remove, but now the Free State was to be exempted from it. These people who had been sowing in halves would have to be servants. They would have nowhere to go and would have to wait until land was provided for them, but not in the Free State.

Continuing, he said that this was an entire change from the Bill when it was first introduced. As the Free State members seemed satisfied with the Bill at the second reading, he did not see any reason for this extraordinary change in favour of the extreme section of that Province. It was the backward part of the Union so far as the natives were concerned. It was hampering them always, and that was not right. At least, let the House drop the latter part of the clause, and he would move that all the words after “ provided ” be deleted.

put the question.

Surely the Minister is going to say something? This was not in the Bill when it first came before the House, and surely the House has a right to know why this additional exemption was put in?

said that it was not through want of courtesy that he had not answered the hon. gentleman. He explained the whole matter so soon as they reached that clause. He showed how the old law in the Free State, the law which the bulk of these people knew, was through an oversight or misapprehension altered. It was nothing new, so far as the bulk of the people was concerned. All he had done was to put the law back to where it had been. They had made exceptions in the Cape, and he had not heard anybody say that the Cape was being treated otherwise than in the past, and otherwise than they desired their natives should be managed.

asked whether it was not the case in the Free State that the law exempted the coloured man who had got occupation, and who could, under certain certificate, be the owner of land in certain parts of the Free State? Would that be taken away? It would be maintained?

Exactly.

said a coloured man, no matter how civilised he was, could not occupy or hold land in the Free State.

That is the law to-day.

This Bill is an attempt to introduce a new policy into native affairs, but it leaves all the illiberal provisions of the old law absolutely untouched.

said that last night he asked the Minister why he was repealing section (2) of clause (1), and the Minister promised he would bring in exactly the same provision on clause (15). But the new sub-section did not follow that out.

said the natives in the Free State, who had been sowing on the halves, were liable to have a stop put to that at once, but for all the rest of the Union arrangements were being made for the thing to continue until some other arrangement was concluded. In 1908 a law was passed in the Free State to put a stop to sowing on the halves, but the measure never received the Royal sanction. But the new clause would give authority to that law. For what reason should the Free State be unwilling to fall into line with the rest of the Union?

said he could not understand why it was necessary to say that nothing in the Bill was to be in substitution of any existing law, and then to say that certain specific laws should continue to be in force. What was the object?

said it meant that, so far as the Free State was concerned, certain provisions of the Bill should not apply to that Province, even if they were lawful at the present time. Why should they alter the law in any one of the Provinces? The clause under consideration at the present moment was that this section should not apply to the Orange Free State. If it was unlawful to hire or lease in the Orange Free State, then there was no necessity for this provision; but if they were going to appoint a Commission, then it was not right that they should exempt any particular Province and not exempt the others. What they proceeded to do was to take away from the natives in one particular Province the rights they already held.

pointed out that this was a consolidating Bill and to show the method of consolidation peculiar to the Government they would find in section (14) exemptions with regard to the Orange Free State and also with regard to the Cape. (Laughter.)

said that the idea at the conference was that until they had been some time in Union they should try to respect the prejudices and susceptibilities of each particular Province. What they were doing was to leave matters as they were until they got reports from the Commission, until people got educated to the Free State point of view or the Free State had been educated to other people’s point of view. The law that the hon. member for Tembuland had referred to had not been vetoed by the Imperial Government at all. The Free State was merely told to wait until they got into Union.

sympathised sincerely with the tremendous difficulties which was before the Minister to try to put this Bill through. He thought the Minister in trying to please people had allowed himself to Be driven into a tortuous course from which there seemed no escape. It would be much better if he had boldly faced the position and fought these prejudices now. These prejudices were going to cost the country very dear. The Minister was surrendering to these prejudices in his anxiety to get something done. He was not only accomplishing nothing, but he was going to make it very much harder in the future for anybody to succeed.

said he would like some explanation on clause A. Did it mean that contracts which were legally in force at the present moment in the Free State would at once fall to the ground when as soon as it, the Bill, was passed, because there was an exception in the case of the Free State. One who read the Bill would think that was the intention.

was understood to say that the enactment was substituted by another having the same condition.

called attention to chapter 34 of the Free State law, clause 9, which said that any person selling to a coloured person shall be liable to a fine of a hundred pounds. That was intended to stop the hiring, even on halves. The Minister was going further than he did when he drafted the Bill, and he was sorry to see that he had not nothing in return. In conclusion, he said he was sorry his hon. friend had not been able to make the law less illiberal.

was proceeding to put the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland, when

asked whether the Commission would consider it was its duty to report upon these matters concerning the Free State.

Most certainly.

The amendment was negatived, and the new sub-section agreed to.

In sub-section (2),

moved: In sub-section (2), line 9, after “construed” to insert “as far as land unoccupied by its owner is concerned”, the object of which, he was understood to say, was to limit the definition to farms unoccupied by their owners.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit the words “other than his own labour or services or the labour or services of any of his family.”

The amendment was negatived.

The clause as amended was agreed to. On clause 15, Savings,

moved that the paragraphs under sub-section (1) be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

moved the deletion of paragraph (a).

The amendment was agreed to.

moved the substitution of the following paragraph: “ (a) preventing the continuation or renewal (until Parliament acting upon the report of the said Commission has made other provision) of any agreement or arrangement lawfully entered into and in existence at the commencement of this Act which is a hiring or leasing of land as defined in the next succeeding section.”

asked what clauses were to be covered? Evidently not those in the Free State or the Transvaal. He would like to know what this was intended to cover.

said it was clear that before they moved these people they must find some other place for them, but the Minister put in “ until Parliament had made other provision. That might mean until Parliament had passed another law. Why had the Minister moved out the words, “ until the Governor-General had set aside an additional area ” and put these vague words “other provision” in.

was understood to say that they did not want to legalise any impropriety or illegality.

moved to add after the word “ provision ” the words “of land.”

The amendment was negatived.

protested against the word “ lawfully” being expunged. He did not see how subsection (4) of clause 13 legalised that.

The reply of the hon. member was inaudible in the gallery.

New paragraph (a) was agreed to.

on par. (b), moved, in lines 23 and 24, to omit “ any purchase or lease of land lawfully completed, or”; and in line 27, after the word “Act” to insert the following: “or as prohibiting the registered holder of a mortgage bond passed before the commencement of this Act from purchasing any land which was hypothecated by such bond.”

The amendments were agreed to.

In reply to Dr. A. H. WATKINS (Barkly),

was understood to say that it was the intention that the Governor-General should give the right for the sale of land to Europeans.

Paragraph (b) as amended was adopted.

asked the Minister whether, if the clause did not already do so, he would make it clear that the rights of native diggers would not be interfered with.

If my hon. friend will remind me I will —

It is difficult to catch the Minister, but perhaps somebody up above will make a note of it. (Laughter.)

moved the following: After paragraph (f) to insert the following new paragraphs: “(g) Applying to land within the limits in which a municipal council, town council, town, board, village management board or health committee or other local authority exercises jurisdiction, unless and until such council, board, committee, or other local authority has, under the powers conferred upon it by law, established within those limits a native location and provision has been made by regulation made under this Act, for natives acquiring land or the right to occupy land in such location, or unless and until, where no such locations have been established, regulations have been so made as to the ownership or occupation by natives of land elsewhere within the limits aforesaid; or ”.

said that the Councils were now brought in here, and they wanted a clear understanding on this point. The Free State was to be protected in every possible way—(hear, hear)—but when they came to the poor old Cape Province the Government was to be given power to alter municipal regulations. What had that to do with the Bill? It would cause a lot of disturbance and interference with vested interests.

said, unless something of this kind were inserted, no native could purchase or hire land in any municipality. That would be going too far. The paragraph was entirely in the interest of the native. The clause would apply everywhere, and municipalities could not make regulations prescribing conditions subject to which natives could own land. He was the very last one to interefere with local bodies, but the South Africa Act laid it down that Parliament was the only body which could deal with differentiations.

said the clause only exempted localities which had no regulations. He would move to leave all the words out after the word “jurisdiction,” in the third line.

said that when the Bill came into the House, there was no mention of this at all. Would the Minister tell them what caused him to bring in these regulations, which were so drastic. In a couple of years the Commission would report whether these natives should remain in the towns or not. That would be a guidance for the House. In the meantime, he thought it best to leave things as they were.

said he was surprised to hear from the Minister that the South Africa Act had invalidated all the Acts relating to municipalities and natives. Why did the Government go inside the municipal areas and make regulations for the occupation of land by natives, in place of permissible regulations?

said it applied unless locations had been established. There were particular municipalities and he was not referring to such places as Cape Town, Fordsburg or Johannesburg, but there were municipalities where these matters were in a chaotic condition, and where people did not do their duty at all towards the native. It was intended that municipalities of that kind should not have the matter in their own hands. If they established locations there suitable for native occupation, then that would not come into force, but where they had municipalities who would do nothing, it would be hard on the natives if there were no powers to compel.

wanted to know what jurisdiction would the Minister have with reference to municipalities. They came under the Provincial Council.

said that would only deal with the conditions under which they could acquire land.

The hon. Minister took all sorts of powers.

said that in the Transvaal this was no new thing at all. All the regulations were made by the Governor-General and nobody else.

To-day?

They are made by the Governor-General-in-Council, and nobody else. It is no new thing there.

: It’s a new thing here.

did not agree with the wording of the clause with regard to regulations, and said he thought that where these had been made by other authorities they should stand. He moved that the words “regulations … made under this Act” should be deleted for the purpose of substituting the words “provision lawfully made.”

said if the Transvaal were satisfied to have its municipal regulations framed for them in Pretoria that would not satisfy the Cape. The paragraph was a serious infringement of the rights of municipalities.

said the paragraph was touching on dangerous ground, and he supported the view of the last speaker. The clause would deprive municipalities of the right to maintain native locations or dealing with locations at all.

said that seven municipalities in the Cape had the right to make regulations regarding the obtaining and hiring of ground by natives. It worked very well.

said all municipal regulations that affected the natives must be approved of by the Governor-General-in-Council. That was the position to-day. He did not want to invade the rights of municipalities, but he did want to see that natives had somewhere to lay their head, and there were some municipalities that would not allow them to do that. It was not likely that the Governor-General would interfere with municipalities’ vested rights, but there were some municipalities which had not set aside land for natives, and this clause was for the purpose of putting pressure upon them to do this.

said that the new paragraph in conjunction with paragraph (a) was impracticable.

said he would not object to applying this to any municipality where there was no provision, but it would apply to municipalities which had already locations for natives.

said he would move some amendments at a later stage, and he would withdraw paragraph (g).

amendment was also withdrawn.

moved: That the following be a new paragraph to follow paragraph (f), viz.: (g) applying to land held by any society carrying on with the approval of the Governor-General educational or missionary work amongst natives; or

asked if there was to be no limitation with regard to the missionary societies? Were they going to give them free scope for extension in non-native areas?

argued that the missionary societies should not be entirely excluded, and suggested that paragraph (h) be allowed to stand over.

said it was only right that bona fide missionary societies should be protected. On that account, he put in the words, “ subject to the consent of the Governor-General,” otherwise he was afraid that they would have a number of societies of a rather curious character. As the clause would lead to a great deal of discussion, he would move that progress be reported.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit on the following day.