from D. Adams and 344 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the Cape Province, praying for the total prohibition of the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor, except medicinally or sacramentally, to any coloured person within the Union; similar petition from J. G. Rossouw and 33 others, adult coloured men and women resident in the town and district of Mossel Bay; similar petition from A. Klaassen and 109 others, adult coloured registered voters of Amalienstein; similar petition from H. W. Twynam and 28 others, adult coloured men and women inhabitants of Cape Town and suburbs; similar petition from R. Saul and 173 others, adult coloured men and women resident in Howwater, Britstown; similar petition from I. Jacobs and 56 others, adult coloured men and women resident in Pacaltsdorp; similar petition from H. Siljeur and 36 others, adult coloured residents in Claremont; similar petition from T. Karsten and 123 others, adult coloured residents in the town and district of O’okiep.

Return showing all contracts entered into between the Government on the one side and any party or parties on the other side in connection with the undermining of the Bewaarplaatsen, with particulars of such contracts; the registered owners upon which Bewaarplaatsen are situated; the estimated value of the undermining rights referred to in the Bewaarplaats Moneys Application Bill, distinguishing between the right to mine under Bewaarplaatsen in existence before the passing of the Transvaal Act No. 15 of 1908, and Acts subsequently enacted.

announced that the Governor-General, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the King, had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills, viz.:

Maclear and Elliot Districts Further Provision Act.

Second Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Act.

Dipping Tanks Further Provision Act.

Wine, Spirits and Vinegar Act.

stated that when progress was reported on Thursday night, clause 15 was under consideration, and the Minister of Native Affairs had 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

thought that power should be given to frame regulations with a view to preventing missionary societies selling or leasing land to natives without consulting the Government.

moved the insertion after “held ” of the words “at the commencement of this Act.”

presumed that the rights of the missionary societies would be respected in any regulations that might be framed.

supported the views expressed by Mr. Mentz.

said the Minister should follow the advice given by Mr. Mentz.

replying to a question, said nothing would be permitted to be done to prevent the carrying out of the policy sketched in the Bill.

The amendment was agreed to.

The new paragraph as amended was agreed to.

moved the insertion of new paragraph (h) as follows: “ (h) Prohibiting the acquisition by natives from any person whatever of land or interests in land in any township lawfully established prior to the commencement of this Act provided it is a condition of the acquisition that no land or interest in land in such township has at any time been or shall in future be, transferred except to a native or coloured person.” The mover explained that there were a couple of places like the Alexandra township which had been established with a view to being exclusively native townships, one of the conditions being that no land should be sold to other than natives.

said there was a very great deal of complaint about the establishment of the Alexandra township. Was it perfectly clear that no land in that township could be sold to other than natives?

This refers to townships established prior to the passing of this Act.

asked whether it was not the fault of the Government rather than of Johannesburg that the Alexandra township was allowed to be established. There was a very great danger in allowing the establishment of such townships.

The new paragraph was agreed to.

On sub-section 2, as follows:

Nothing in this Act contained which imposes restrictions upon the acquisition by any person of land or rights thereto, interests therein, or servitudes thereover, shall be in force in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, if and for so long as such person would, by such restrictions, be prevented from acquiring or holding a qualification where under he is or may become entitled to be registered as a voter at parliamentary elections in any electoral division in the said Province.

said that this sub-sections seemed to take the Cape Province completely out of the provisions of the Bill, and he viewed it with apprehension. Surely it would have been possible to put in a small sub-section safeguarding those who had the vote?

was understood to say that the franchise could not be taken away from the native in the Cape Province unless by a two-thirds majority. He had given this sub-section earnest consideration, and he did not see any other way out of the difficulty. The time would come when they would have uniformity, but the time had not come yet.

said that this was an unnecessary provision. He believed that in order that he might get the vote, the native must have a property qualification. Then what was there in this Bill to take away his franchise?

was understood to say that the native could now buy land and, therefore, they did deprive him of the right to vote. At present he could buy land anywhere, but now they were taking away that right, and the sub-section was going to get over the difficulty. He would support the sub-section as it stood; individual purchase would go on as before. They were only leaving the door open for two or three years.

pointed out that this was not a measure prescribing the qualifications for voters. That was a sort of law that would be made by a two-thirds majority of both Houses. The South Africa Act stated that “ no such law ” should disqualify them. This was not such a law. This law did not prevent a man from buying land; it only stated that there were certain areas where he might net do so. He did not see how that was an infringement of the South Africa Act. If struck him that the real fact was that they did not want this law in the Cape Province, they did not think it necessary, and therefore they found this way of exempting the Cape Province. This rather absurd subsection would have the effect of nullifying the Act in the Cape Province.

said that the civilised native in the Cape Province was prevented from buying land from the white man, but the barbarian could continue to do so. He thought that they were pandering to the uncivilised native.

was understood to say that he disagreed with the hon. member for Cape Town. He disagreed also with the hon. member for Fordsburg. The Minister made a mistake in drafting the clause in order to safeguard a few men who wanted to buy £75 of land.

said that this would not apply to white persons in this Province, because any white man could acquire property.

said that this Act aimed at bringing this law into harmony with the Act of Union, so that there should be no possibility of any rights being invalidated. He thought the clause should stand, because he did not know of anything better to propose in its place.

suggested the deletion of this clause, which he said was of a provincial nature. The subsection was not in its right place. After a native area bad been proclaimed as such, a white man would no longer be able to enter such area. Yet natives would be able to enter the Cape, and the evil of natives becoming landed proprietors in the Cape would become more and more serious. This inequality, which fell heavily on the white man, was not what it should be.

said that the whole of the Bill from beginning to end exhibited great differences. There were differences between the Free State, the Transvaal, and Natal. (Some Natal members: No! No!) Would any Natal member say that this law was going to operate in the same way as in the Transvaal? In reply to his hon. friends of the Free State, he would like to point out that they did not set aside the Transkei; part of it was conquered, but a great part came over by the people’s own wish. Were they going to break the agreement entered into? They always recognised in the Cape—and they hoped eventually that it would be recognised all over the Union—that natives who lifted themselves out of barbarism and put themselves in a state of civilisation should not he denied these rights because they had black skins. If they threw these men back into native areas they might become dangerous enemies. (Hear, hear.) How many natives had bought land in the Cape Colony, they could count them up in a small number indeed. They had legislated against natives setting up locations upon farms, but if natives were rich enough to buy farms themselves they came under the same category and laws as anyone else. He did beg the House not to disturb this clause as it was at present. He wished it had been possible to deal more suitably with some of the evils that occurred as they had dealt with them in the Cape Colony. They had dealt with some of these questions, but they had dealt with them because they had the inestimable privilege of local government. The locality was able to decide what was suitable for the locality. His hon. friend (Mr. Venter) had spoken of his district, but the real evil in that district was certain white locations, European locations, which set a bad example to the natives. He had the honour of representing that district at one time and he knew it. He knew that there were certain white locations that were of infinite harm to the whole country. It was not the individual native who was fortunate enough to have the means to buy a farm, he was not the man who did harm to the community; what did harm in this country was these white locations, where the people begged and, he was afraid, often did worse, and would not work. That was intimately bound up with this question; the two were interlaced. He trusted that they would be fair to these people. His hon. friend (Mr. Duncan) was refining and spinning words as to whether this was against the Act of Union. It was against the spirit of the Act of Union, as the spirit of the Act of Union was that every man, whatever his skin was, if he got the qualification should get the vote.

Is that the Cape in plain language?

said that his hon. friend was so fond of plain language. He had been against so many provisions in this Bill as they applied to the Transvaal, but when it came to the only part of the Bill he joined hands with his friends on the cross benches. The point was, was his idea of what the native was to become in the future a casual labourer pent up in locations. (“No.”)? That was what he seemed to be aiming at. He scattered and refined and spun words until they could not make out what he meant.

said that the right hon. gentleman had given a second reading speech on this Bill for the purpose of showing that the Bill should not apply to the Cape Colony. This clause in itself was unjustifiable. If they took section 37 of the Act of Union and applied it in this way there was hardly a Bill that had been passed since the Union started that should not have in it some provision excepting the Cape Colony. It was common knowledge that when a railway was carried through a district the price of land was raised, and that increase made it more difficult for natives to buy land. The right hon. gentleman, in that calm assumption that whatever he and his colleagues had done in the past was right, overlooked the fact that of all the Provinces in South Africa the Cape was the one that showed the most serious diminution of white population. He had taunted the hon. member for Fordsburg with joining hands with hon. members on the cross benches. They could taunt him for the mess he had made of things in the past. (A laugh.) Yes, he was vastly amused. History would write down the right hon. gentleman and his friends as having been amongst the greatest muddlers in South Africa. (Laughter.)

He resented the continual assumption of the right hon. gentleman that he was the friend of the natives, and that they on those benches were entirely callous to native interests. He had a very curious way of expressing his friendship for the natives in other matters where native interests were at stake, but it was mainly the idea of the employer. It was the merest cant. It was not a thing they could accuse him of in other spheres, but when he came to talk of the interests of natives, he was blind to the shocking cant that he talked. He saw no reason why Cape Province should be exempted from the operation of this Act—an Act the principle of which, as they understood on the second reading, was the demarcation of areas in which whites should be able to buy land, and the demarcation of other areas in which natives should be able to buy land. He moved the deletion of the clause.

The hon. member can vote against it.

said that the white locations mentioned by the right hon. member for Victoria West were erven on which poor whites had been placed. The places were now well populated. He had not referred to the locations, but to cases where natives possessed a number of small farms in European areas. They wanted to prevent natives from buying land amongst the white people. Why was the Cape exempted from the provisions of the Bill?

said he would like the Minister to make it quite plain whether this provision was to last until the Commission reported, or if it were his intention that this should obtain always in the Cape Province ?

said he thought it was right that he should remove the impression with regard to the facility with which natives could buy land. In the wisdom of the Cape Parliament, when the Glen Grey Act was introduced, it was laid down that the ground granted to natives should be considered as held on communal tenure, as far as franchise qualifications were concerned. He would remind the House that the increase of native voters in the Cape, if any, was absolutely infinitesimal, and that this provision applied just as much to the white man as to the native. It was in accord, he thought, with the Act of Union. If the provisions of the Bill in any way touched the franchise qualifications of the natives in the Cape, it had to be reserved for the Royal assent.

said he could not agree with the last speaker. Such recommendations would not help them.

said that, with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppe, he hoped that he was at least as honest as the hon. member was—he (Mr. Sauer) knew that was saying a very great deal. (Laughter.) He hoped they would be able to continue the debate without talking about honesty and subterfuge. He did not know whether this was exactly the place to talk about the law: the hon. member for Jeppe was always cocksure about his law. (Laughter.) When he first considered the Bill, he (Mr. Sauer) thought it would be a good thing if a departure were introduced that we should, as far as possible, make it applicable to the whole of the Union. Then, when he looked into the laws of the various Provinces, he found that the difficulty was very much greater than he had anticipated. One of the first matters he considered was the entrenchment of the political rights of the natives under the South Africa Act. He gave it consideration of the very closest kind, and he afterwards consulted eminent lawyers, and asked them to submit to him in writing their views on the matter. He was obliged to take these views.

Is the hon. Minister entitled to talk about this without laying the document on the Table?

This opinion was given in writing.

I must press this point of order. Mr. Speaker gave a ruling on this last session. Is the Minister in order to quote from a document without laying it on the Table?

The Minister is not quoting.

said this opinion was given in writing that this Bill could not be applied to the Cape unless we proceeded in the manner prescribed in the Act of Union. The sub-section had been inserted because the Government had been advised by its law officers and others that it was necessary under the South Africa Act. The hon. member for Fordsburg had given his opinion rather hastily, and it was not wise to give an opinion in the offhand manner in which the hon. member had done. However, he (Mr. Sauer) was not going to discuss the legal question. In reply to the hon. member for the Border, he would say that the Commission could report in regard to the position at the Cape and in other ways the Cape would come under the operation of the Bill. He could conceive of the Commission making recommendations which, if adopted by Parliament, would bring the Cape under the operation of this law. The hon. member for Albany had stated that a native could buy land in any native area as a matter of course. But a native could not cross the Kei and buy land. No one could buy land in certain areas without the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council. If it were a perfectly open market then the position would be somewhat different, but it was not so. Therefore, he said it would depend very much on the recommendations of the Commission and what action was taken on them, whether the Act would be made applicable to the Cape. The subsection had not been put in simply with a view to exclude the Cape from the provisions of the Bill. As to the legal opinion of the hon. member for Fordsburg, he (Mr. Sauer) valued it almost as much as he did that of the hon. member for Jeppe. (Laughter.)

You say it is wrong?

I have been advised what you say is wrong. I am quite willing to let you see the opinions. After all special provision has been made in the Bill to meet the circumstances of the Transvaal, and special provision can be made to meet the circumstances of the Free State, and I do not think we can be called illogical for recognising the position of the Cape. But I look forward to the time when we shall have a uniform native policy throughout South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

said that without desiring to take rights away from any one he would like to know what the clause involved. He suggested that the Minister should allow the clause to stand over so that it might be drafted in a clearer form, so that everybody in the House would clearly know what they were doing.

asked the Minister if he understood him to say that on the legal advice he had received if this sub-section were not placed in the Act it would be in conflict with Article 37 of the Constitution?

Without altering the South Africa Act we would be doing something that would be unconstitutional and illegal.

said he thought he was right in saying that the House was not guided in the conduct of its business by any legal authority. There was only one authority who could rule that there was any infringement, and that was Mr. Speaker. (Cries of: “No.”) Well, he was sorry that he had gone so far, but when there was any point to be decided as to whether any legalisation was in conflict with the Act of Union they either took the ruling of the Chairman or Mr. Speaker. Article 37 of the Constitution laid it down that any law which took away or restricted the rights of the natives could only be passed by a majority of both Houses sitting together. It seemed to him that in this case that if the Minister was sure of his ground he would merely have asked for the ruling of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman as to whether the committee was competent to deal with this Bill or discuss the deletion of the clause which, if deleted, would leave the Bill such a measure as could not be passed by that House sitting alone. If this was correct, then he presumed that the Minister would be bound to ask Mr. Speaker whether the committee could proceed with the consideration of the measure.

said he thought that it was a rather dangerous doctrine to lay down in that House that Mr. Speaker was not only to preside over their deliberations, but was also in the position of having to give legal interpretations of clauses which they had before them. He thought that that would be a very serious position. It was difficult enough to get a legal interpretation of a carefully drawn up legal document, let alone a rather ambiguous clause in a Bill. He proceeded to refer to a ease in England in which the decision of the Court and a similar decision by the Court of Appeal had been reversed by the House of Lords and it, therefore, behoved them in framing Acts of Parliament to use the clearest language. What did this clause really mean? Some people had the idea that this subsection meant that this law could not be applied to the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. Other people seemed to have the idea that it would prevent the native from exercising the right in purchasing land. The main provision of this Bill, if his interpretation was right, was that until the Commission had reported and until Parliament had otherwise decided the European should not purchase in a native area, and the native should not purchase in a European area. The argument which justified such a course was that it was inadvisable in the interests of both races. Now the interpretation placed on this was that in the Cape Province they could not prevent the acquisition of land in a European area by a native. If that was the case, then he would say that, practically, the Bill did not apply. Then they were faced with a very serious position. They were discussing that day a measure of great importance. They had reversed the judgment of the late Chief Justice of the Transvaal in connection with his judgment that a native could buy land in any part of the Transvaal. The Bill reversed that judgment. It cleared up any doubt in the Orange Free State with regard to the interpretation to be put on chapter 34 of the Orange Free State Law No. 4 and Law No. 4 of 1895, and further, the Bill did not do very much except to refer certain matters to a Commission, a course that could be carried out without passing an Act of Parliament. It further did, if his interpretation was correct, and it was a thing that he viewed with seriousness—this: The Province of the Cape was the one Province in the Union where the native could acquire land in a European area Surely that was putting a premium on those who having acquired money in other Provinces who, though they were barred in those Provinces, being British subjects, would be forced to come to the Province of the Cape where they would be allowed, if his interpretation were correct, to purchase land and, therefore, he said that they would be putting a premium on these people coming to the Cape Province. (Labour cheers.) If that was the position, then he would say to the House and to his hon. friend: Was it worth while legislating before the Commission had reported? If his was a fair interpretation to put upon the position, it was very serious so far as the Province of the Cape of Good Hope was concerned. It only showed how carefully they should be in dealing with matters of this sort. Would it not be better for his hon. friend to re-consider the whole position, because after all, he was only meeting the idiosyncracies of the Orange Free State. Would it not be better to withdraw the whole Bill, appoint a Commission, and when the Commission had reported, bring in a Bill dealing with the matter as it affected the whole of the Union ?

said that they had only heard argument relating to the Cape. But there was the case of Natal. He would move in line 54, after the words “Cape of Good Hope,” that the words “or Natal” should be inserted. In Natal they had no trouble about votes and the natives, but he did not see why they should make this law applicable to one coloured man and not to another. He was not going to see the black man protected in the Cape Province and the white man sat upon in Natal.

said that the construction of the sentences did not seem by any means clear. He was quite prepared to accept the opinions given to him that the clause as it stood would be in conflict with the Act of Union. What he wanted to say was this, that if they wanted to exempt the whole Cape Province, it was a very serious matter. He thought it was worth while taking more time over the matter.

said that, supposing this special sub section were excluded, and the native wanted to buy land in Cape Colony, he could come along to the courts and demand transfer. If they desired to interfere with registered voters, they must pass an Act by three-fourths majority; but if they could not do so, they could not prevent a native from buying land.

said if the clause was agreed to now, he would meet the hon. member for Fordsburg and discuss the matter, and see if it could not be improved.

moved that the clause stand over.

said he hoped that the Minister would understand that this question of indiscriminate occupation was bad in the interests of the Europeans and natives. If the Minister would let the clause stand over, it would give hon. members time to go into the various points.

appealed to the Minister to reconsider the position. He supported the suggestion.

Lias the Minister accepted the question that the clause stand over?

I can’t accept or reject it; I am going to vote against it.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that, if required, he would assist the motion that the Bill be re-committed to discuss that clause?

If the clause is agreed to, I am prepared to discuss it with the hon. member for Fordsburg.

put the question that the clause stand over, and declared that the “ Noes ” had it.

said he would move the following: “That this Act shall not operate so as to prevent any person from acquiring or holding qualifications where under he may become or is entitled to be registered as a voter in Parliamentary elections in any electoral division.” This would embrace the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weenen.

said he would like the Minister’s opinion on the matter and his reasons for enforcing this law as far as the white voter was concerned, while he exempted the native voter in the Cape.

was about to put the amendment, when

again rose and said that the Minister knew he had got a bad case. He would not answer. He (Mr. Meyler) was not going to see the white man in Natal sat upon in this way for the benefit of the native voter in the Cape.

said that since the Minister refused to allow the clause to stand down, he should be compelled to vote against it. He thought the Act of Union contemplated the reserving to the natives of the Cape Province of the rights they had under the Cape Constitution, but he did not think it contemplated the possibility of all the natives of the other Provinces who qualified themselves to vote coming into the Cape Province and getting a vote here. He could get no assurance from the Minister that this was only going to last until the Commission reported.

said that the Minister did not understand the position as far as Natal was concerned. The Natal native, if this were passed, would only have to sell out and come to the Cape Colony to get a vote. The white man in Natal might not be able to acquire the franchise unless he could buy or lease land from a native under the ownership or leaseholder’s franchise. Therefore, he was going to be barred to that extent.

’s amendment was negatived.

then put sub-section (2), and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

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

Ayes—55.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Piet Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

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

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—28.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Oliver, Henry Alfred,

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Venter, Jan Abraham

H. M. Meyler and P. G. Kuhn, tellers.

The sub-section was, therefore, adopted.

moved the following new subsection (3): “(3) The Governor-General may make regulations for preventing the overcrowding of huts and other dwellings in the stadts, native villages, and settlements, and other places in which natives are congregated, for the sanitation of such places, and for the maintenance of the health of the inhabitants thereof.”

asked the Minister whether he would not make it clear that this did not include municipal areas? He suggested that, after “regulations,” they should insert, “in areas not under local authorities.”

acquiesced.

moved, after “congregated,” to insert, “in areas not under the jurisdiction of any local authority.”

The amendment was agreed to.

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

moved as a new sub-section (4) “The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the Province of Natal.” The mover said he had all along opposed the Bill as far as Natal was concerned. Since the Bill had been in Committee, and new provisions had been introduced, the position, as far as Natal was concerned, had been made far worse. For instance, a provision had been inserted by which native renters could not change their quarters. The great danger he saw was, at the end of this month, a great many Natal natives would be wanting to change from one part of the Province to another. If only 1 per cent. of them desired to change, 4,000 natives would be stranded on the veld, because they could not lease from a white man, and the locations were full. The only way they would be able to get on to a white man’s land was by contracting to give four months’ service, which was a system of forced labour. Another grave trouble he saw under the Bill was that it upset the whole financial position in regard to farms owned by natives. Many of these farms had been mortgaged to Europeans, and if the mortgagees had to foreclose, they could not sell the land to other than natives, and consequently they would be compelled to accept a very low price. It was a most dangerous Bill to force on Natal at the present time. If it dealt solely with the purchase of land, he would not object to it so much; but when it tampered with the squatting system, it became exceedingly dangerous. Natal did not require such a Bill until after the Commission had reported. The natives in Natal had suffered so severely through buying land that there was no risk of their doing so again. The native population of Natal, he would remind the House, was a dangerous one, and the whites were few in number in the outlying districts of Natal.

in supporting the new sub-section, said he did not see any call for the Bill, so far as Natal was concerned. In his opinion, the whole of the Bill should have been confined to the Transvaal.

who also supported the new sub-section, said special provisions had been made for Natal and the Free State, and a very special provision had been made for the Cape, contracting it entirely out of the Bill. The only special provision that should be made with regard to Natal was that the Bill should not apply to it at all. Who was going to turn the natives off the farms? Police operations would ensue, and it was quite on the board, with the thousands of natives there were in Natal, that very large police operations would be required. The only way to get the natives off the farms was to burn their huts, and that had caused bitter feeling in the past. He did not know what such police operations might entail in the long run. They might end in bloodshed. The natives were in a state of rebellion a few years ago because of a similar matter. It was all very well for Parliament to stir up rancour, animosity, and ill-feeling in Natal, but who was going to bear the brunt of it? The Natal farmers were surrounded in many instances by thousands of natives, and if such police operations were started as might be necessary under the Bill he wanted to know where it was going to end. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg had referred to private companies owning land in the Transvaal, but from whom did they buy it? From the Europeans. Did the Europeans buy it or did they take it from the natives? He was rather surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Railways and Harbours in supporting the Bill, seeing that when the hon. gentleman was Minister of Native Affairs he wiped out forced labour in Natal with one stroke of his pen. That system of forced labour certainly made the natives work, but it made those work who would not otherwise work, and it guaranteed a fair wage, but under the Bill before the House the natives that were to be got were those who would work. It introduced forced labour of a very much worse kind than the kind they had before. The Cabinet had changed their views and he considered that the Minister of Railways ought to resign. He should not support a Government which acted contrary to his views. Natal, the hon. member went on to say, had been held up as a universal oppressor of the natives, but after what had been said by the hon. member for Queen’s Town and the hon. member for Tembuland, it had been seen that the representatives for Natal had been the men who had stood up for the natives. He represented 70,000 natives in Natal, not one of whom, so far as he knew, had a vote. He thought that the white men who represented the natives in that house should be the ones, just because the natives did not have a vote, to stand up for the rights of the natives all the more. From the Natal point of view it was a good thing that it forced the natives to work, but he could not approve of enforced labour where it had not existed before, and he would support the amendment.

was understood to say that in regard to special legislation, from the hon. member’s point of view, Natal had had more special legislation than any other Province.

proceeded to point out some of the provisions of the Act referred to by the hon. member for Umlazi, and said provided the native was there illegally the Magistrate must cause him to be instantly removed. If there be an agreement he must have the opportunity of removing his props, but it was lawful to cause the natives to be summarily removed, and their huts and buildings pulled down. That was a very drastic law, but it had been frequently put into force. Those people had no places to go to and had to rely for a time on the charity of their friends, but under the law before the House it would be much worse, for those who had been paying rent would have nowhere to go in the whole country. The hon. Minister could not explain where those people could find some place to rest their heads. They could not have them trekking about the country, and they must be provided with some land, but if that Bill was going to be put into force they would not be provided with any in Natal until the Commission had reported.

said that if they excused Natal from the operation of that Act, the natives would be deprived of the benefits arising from subsection (4) of clause 9, which had already been passed.

maintained that there would be no place for the native to go to, or at least the only place he could go to was to where he had to give four months labour, and that was forcing him to labour. It was the natives on locations whom the Government was protecting. Under that Act, if a renter was turned off, he could not go and rent anywhere else. He would be forced to give his labour. There would be the usual migration of thousands at the end of June every year, and if that Bill was passed this month they would not be able to find another home unless they were willing to go and sell themselves as labourers to a farmer.

put the new sub-section moved by the hon. member for Weenen, and declared that the “Noes ” had it.

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

moved the deletion of the words “South of the Equator” wherever they appeared in the clause.

Agreed to.

moved to add at the end of the definition of “native” the following proviso: “provided that the provisions of this Act which restrict the purchase and sale of land by natives shall not apply to a native, who, under the provisions of any law in force in any Province at the commencement of this Act, or which may hereafter be enacted, is exempted or entitled to be exempted from the operation of the provisions of any law specially applicable to natives.” He said that no provision had been made for the recognition of natives who had raised themselves to the European level, and in almost every Province such persons were recognised. He alluded to the exemptions under existing laws in the various Provinces, and asked whether it was wise for them, in passing legislation of this character, not to differentiate so far as certain of these people were concerned who were already exempted from specific native legislation and taxation? He thought that the passing of such a provision as he proposed would have a very good effect. It had been said that people who were exempted at the present time from special native legislation would ipso facto be exempted from the provisions of this Act, but personally he did not think that such was the case. He did not wish to interfere with the legislation of any of the Provinces or anything of the sort, but he thought it was necessary that some such provision as he had proposed should be included in the measure.

said the idea of exempting civilised natives of the Cape Province originated in the great hero of the Africander people—the great Onze Jan―Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr. He stood up in the Cape Parliament and advocated the principle that all civilised natives should be exempted from all disturbing laws. His hon. friend was only seeking to carry this out, that was to exempt civilised natives from this clause. Proceeding, the hon. member said that if they were going to accept this sort of thing it would be a very good country to get out of. He thought his hon. friend’s proviso a very excellent one.

said that the hon. member for Queenstown had spoken quite truely when he said that the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr had introduced a famous Bill which exempted natives from the operation of certain Acts, if they maintained a certain standard of civilisation. So far as Cape Colony was concerned, their rights were not interfered with. In the Bill this principle was recognised, because it said that the Governor-General might give his consent to the purchase or leasing of land, and if a man arrived at a certain stage of civilisation he would have equal rights. The principle was recognised that the Governor-General had that power in clause 1. He was in favour of that principle, which had been applied at the Cape for years, and that principle was recognised in the Bill. That was one of the matters upon which the Commission ought to report, and it seemed to him that, as time went on, they would have to deal with that matter. He hoped, however, that his hon. friend would not press his amendment at the present moment.

said he did not think that this matter would be dealt with by Parliament. It was an important question that had been raised because there was common cause to make a deliberate and sustained attempt to raise and improve the natives. Facilities were given to educate the native and civilise him, but he was more concerned immediately with the future of the white race, and some of these clauses disturbed him very much indeed. They had got tins Bill into a condition of patchwork. It was not a Bill for the Union at all. The only justification for this Bill was complete segregation. If the late Minister of Native Affairs had been in power, would the interpretation be the same as that of the present Minister? Was it the intention to break down the idea of separation, he would not say segregation, as soon as they achieved the object of civilising the natives?

said that this would only exempt the Cape Province. If this law was passed without amendments it would mean that they were going to group these people together solely because of the colour of their skins.

said his recollection went back to what was said before. Were there not 14,000 native voters in the Cape Colony?

Including coloured, there are 22,000.

Are all these exempted?

Yes, they are now.

But all those who attained to civilisation in other Provinces would be excluded.

said this was not so much to protect the people in Cape Colony, but people in other Provinces. He had not moved to protect all civilised people, but people who were exempted by the laws of any Province. He would be very glad if the Minister would simply accept this amendment and let it pass and affirm the principle. It was not affirming that, in the other Colonies the Cape native policy was to be followed. He urged that the people whom they exempted or might exempt under the existing laws should be exempted from the provisions of this Bill.

said he took it that the hon. member for Tembuland wanted to make civilisation the test for these exemptions. If that were so, it would be interesting to know what would be the scale of civilisation. He rather thought it would be the possession of a certain amount of this world’s goods. Then they should not lose sight of the fact that wealthy whites under this Bill would be debarred from leasing and hiring land in a native area. But the hon. member went further. He included artisans, traders, missioners and others. It was only necessary for a native to put a few bricks on top of each other in a native area and he could claim to be an artisan. The amendment from that point of view was too dangerous. The hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) did not want separation, but he wanted to mingle the races.

Not a bit.

proceeding, said that if this committee were sufficiently misguided to accept this amendment they were going to do contrary to what they had intended to do in this Bill, that was to separate the native and white races. “You cannot,”added Mr. Madeley, “keep the races apart, if you allow them to mingle.” (Laughter.)

said he must take exception to the remarks which had just been made. He had no wish to mingle the races. Never a word had fallen from him to that effect. More than once in that House he had said that the only proper rule to act up to was to keep the races pure. He was in favour of a partial segregation such as existed at the present time in the Transkeian Territories, but not in favour of absolute and complete segregation. Nothing that he had said, and nothing in his amendment indicated that he wanted the facilities for exemption extended. He would, if the Minister agreed, like to insert in his amendment, after “apply” “in any Province,” and instead of “any Province ” later in the amendment to insert “such Province.”

said that the hon. member for Tembuland had entirely misunderstood him. He did not mean that the hon. member was in favour of intermingling the races by marriage and so on, but that he was willing that, and wanted, the natives and white races to live side by side and cheek by jowl. The result of this was an intermixture of the two races. He did not say that the hon. member desired that, but that particular result came about. If the two races existed side by side, the ultimate result was intermixing, and they raised up a race which was neither one thing nor the other.

said he hoped the Minister would not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland. After all, these disabilities and restrictions applied equally to the whites as they did to the natives. If they accepted the hon. member’s proposal, they must go a step further, and say that such natives as he described should be debarred by this Bill from purchasing land in native areas, otherwise they put them in the position of being able to buy land in both native and non-native areas, while the white man could not buy land in native areas.

said that there was no bar over a white man if he got the consent of the Governor-General, and he could buy in the native areas. With the black man it was very different. As to the mass of them, nobody in that House wished to grant them any facility for buying a piece of land in a white man’s area, but there were a few who deserved to be exempted from the general rule. That was the great difference.

said he could not vote for his hon. friend’s proposal, but he was much concerned, and much more disturbed, by the interpretation of the security given by the Minister. The reserved power of the Governor-General meant that it could be altered now either way, and if they were to have the two races grow up clean and pure separately, and not intermingle, they must give up any attempt to civilise the natives, or they must withdraw this power. The Minister had informed the hon. member for Tembuland that he need not bring this forward, because the Governor-General had got the power to do this, and do it in all the four Provinces. It might be exercised in the Free State, Transvaal, and Natal, just as it could in the Cape.

said that one understood, when this was passed, that this leave of the Governor-General was going to be given only in very exceptional circumstances. Now, as explained by the Minister, it might have very much wider application. He submitted that, after all, this Bill was a patchwork concern, and it would only last until the Commission had reported. It was merely a pious affirmation of the principle of the separation of the races, but he wished to make it a little less pious and a little more practical, and at the next stage he would move, at the end of clause 2, a proviso that a list of exemptions should be laid upon the Table of Parliament at each session, so that they might have some sort of check on the way in which the Minister was using the Governor-General’s power.

said he would be willing to omit the words “or which may hereafter be enacted.”

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment, because it only protected vested rights.

moved the omission of the words, “or which may hereafter be enacted.” The few natives, he said, who would come under the proviso had raised themselves in the scale of civilisation, and they should not be compelled to return to a state of life from which they had lifted themselves. The House had heard the opinions of people who might sit in the Minister’s place, and there was no guarantee that they would carry out what were the intentions of his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer). The proviso would remove a great deal of dissatisfaction, and it would be nothing else but justice.

moved the omission from the proviso of the words “in any Province.”

said they only asked that the civilised native should continue in the enjoyment of his present rights until the Commission reported.

said the Minister had remarked that the principle of the amendment was embodied in the Bill, because it contained a provision by which the Governor-General-in Council might make an exception. They were dealing with a few natives who had raised themselves in the scale of civilisation, and under the Bill they would be told: “We put you back among the barbarians, but you can appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council.” Some of these natives had won for themselves a position in the face of enormous difficulties, and efforts such as those should be encouraged.

objected to the amendments, pointing out that provision was made for the setting apart of native areas, solely for natives. If the amendment was accepted natives exempted under this amendment would be able to purchase ground in a European area, whereas a European could never purchase land in a native area. A couple of years hence, when a Bill was introduced to deal with this subject, they would be referred to the present Bill, and the same exemption would be pleaded for.

said if there ever was an argument in favour of the necessity of adopting the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland it was the argument of the hon. member for Rustenburg. The argument of the Minister of Native Affairs was that naturally these cases would be excepted by the prerogative of the Governor-General-in-Council. But the argument of the hon. member who had just spoken showed that any Minister who had a large number of supporters holding the view of the hon. member for Rustenburg would be afraid of using the prerogative because it, would not meet with the approval of his party.

said there was not a single native location in the Union from which white men were excluded—some of them were there for teaching and trading purposes. What was the difference between a civilised white and a civilised black man? It was only a difference of colour. If the civilised natives were told that they must return to a state of barbarism the occupation of the Europeans was gone—we might just as well be out of the country. He was astonished at hearing such an argument as that advanced by the hon. member for Rustenburg. The extent of the area reserved for natives was only one-tenth of the size of the area occupied by Europeans, yet it contained five times the white population.

The amendments moved by Mr. Van der Riet and Sir T. W. Smartt were agreed to.

The proviso was then put, and

declared the “Noes ” had it.

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

Ayes.—28.

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Morris Alexander and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes.—58.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

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

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

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

moved, in line 23, sub-section (b), to insert after “person,” the words “who owns but does not occupy land.”

The amendment was negatived, and clause 16 as amended was then agreed to.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved that the sections A and B be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On items under A,

moved the following amendments, which were agreed to: Under the heading “Humansdorp District, Cape Province,” in the item “Doriskraal Fingo Reserve held under deed of reservation, dated 30th October, 1859,” to omit “1859” and to substitute “1858.” Under the heading “King William’s Town District”: (a) To omit the item “Farm A, called Umzana (granted to I. W. Kama),” and to substitute “Farm A, called Umzenana (granted to J. W. Kama)”; (b) to omit the item “Lot A, Lot C, Lots, 25, 30, 29, 35, 34, 33, granted to the Superintendent of Lovedale Seminary”; (c) in the item “Lots A and B (granted to J. Maclean, in trust for Emma Sandilli),” after “Emma,” to insert “and G.”; (d) after the item “Siwani’s Location, unsurveyed,” to add the following items. (i) Maxoli’s Location, unsurveyed; (ii) Mongolwane’s Location, unsurveyed; (iii) Mkanyelwa’s Location, unsurveyed; (iv) Tonyella’s Location, as defined by Commission in 1906; (5) Jali’s Location unsurveyed; (vi) Toise’s Location, unsurveyed; (vii) Lot 2, near Middledrift, granted on the 4th November, 1865, to Robert Cumming; (viii) Lot A, near Middledrift, granted on the 12th October, 1897. to Daniel Dwanya. Under the heading “Taung District,” to add the item “Kaukwe Native Reserve, as defined by survey.” Under the heading Vryburg District: (1) To omit the item “Kaukwe Native Reserve, as defined by survey”; (2) To add the item “Jackalsdraai Native Reserve, as defined by survey,” after the item “Linopen Native Reserve, as defined by survey.”

said that the committee was passing these items without hearing a word of explanation.

said that these points had been very carefully considered. The Lands Department, the Survey Department, and all the experts had compiled the schedule, and he was satisfied that it was in order.

What rather shakes our confidence is the fact that since the Bill was laid before us the Minister has brought up a long string of amendments.

The amendments were agreed to.

On items under B

moved: On page 20, paragraph 1, after item “17. Willowvale” to insert the following new items, viz.: “18. Qumbu ” and “19. Tsolo ”.

said that what struck him was that the whole of some other districts in Griqualand East might have been included, in the schedule.

Will somebody tell us why you omit four districts and then insert them immediately afterwards?

said it was to amend the numbers. The very greatest pains had been taken to ensure accuracy, and it was found that two districts had been omitted.

asked why Pondoland was not included.

said the House had been asked to vote upon a schedule of which they knew absolutely nothing. They had only the word of the Minister that those districts should be included.

said there was a point of order involved. They were asked to omit four districts, and in the same resolution they were asked to put them back. He was not sure that that was in accordance with the rules of the House.

It is a rearrangement.

thought that what should be done was that the numbering should be altered. He also would ask if it were competent for them to omit districts and then re-insert them. He did not think that could be done.

said he would agree to the suggestion. He withdrew the amendment and moved in its place to add Qumbu and Tsolo to the schedule.

The motion was agreed to.

moved on page 20, to omit paragraph 7, Qumbu district and to omit paragraph 8, Tsolo district.

The motion was agreed to.

moved, on page 22, after “Est-court, Drakensberg No. 2, 40,500” to insert “Estcourt, Putili Trust, 13,054”; after “Polela, Maguswana, 3,000”, to insert “Ngotshe B. of Mooiplaats, 1,838”; in the item “Alexandra, Ifafa,” to omit “6,109” and to substitute “6,209”; and in item “Lower Tugela, Umvoti (Charlottadale) about ”, to omit “4,300 ” and to substitute “9,086.” District of Ixopo, St. Michael’s Mission Reserve: To omit “6,309 acres” and to substitute “6,300 acres. On page 24. Zoutpansberg district, line 1, Chibase Farm: To omit the item “31,134 morgen, 576 sq. rds.” and to substitute “31,104 morgen, 576 sq. rds.”. On page 26, Motiba’s Location: To omit the item “353” and to substitute “253”. Mphatlele’s Location: To omit “24,057 morgen, 97 sq. rds.” and to substitute “24,047 morgen, 97 sq. rds.”. Pafuri’s Location: To omit “Mpapuli” and substitute “Mapapuli ”. Segop’s Location: To omit “Segop ” and to substitute “Segip ”. Bakeberg Masiba’s Location: To omit “Masiba ” and to substitute “Masibi”. On page 28, Valtyn Makapan’s Location: Item “Portion Sandsloot ”, after “Portion”, to insert “of” and to omit “1,526” and to substitute “1,626”; under the heading total area, to omit “14,277 morgen ” and to substitute “16.977 morgen ”. Middelberg District, Sequati’s Location: Under the heading area of farm, “Mooifontein,” to omit “3,777 morgen ” and to substitute “3,677 morgen ”. On page 30, Lichtenburg District, Macabi’s Location: Under the heading Farm, “Rietschraal,” to omit “229” and to substitute “299”. Lichtenburg District, Putfontein Location: Under the heading total area, to omit “4,642 morgen” and to substitute “4,632 morgen”. Rustenburg District. August Mokhatla’s Location: To omit “30,354 morgen, 29 sq rds.” and “32.410 morgen, 351 sq. rds.” and to substitute as total area “62.764 morgen, 380 sq. rds.” On page 32, Pella’s Location: Before “Pagskraal ” to insert “Portion.” Pretoria District: (a) Under the heading “Zwartbooi’s Location ”: To omit “(Makoersgrond) ” and to substitute “(Makaesigrond)”; (b) To omit all items furnished in respect of Mamagalie’s Location and to substitute the following:

Moamise’s Location: To omit “Kaffirskraal ” and to substitute “Kafferskraal ” and as its area to omit “153 sq. rds.” and to substitute “53 sq. rds.”; to omit “Portion ” before “Wildebeest Hoek ” and in Total Area of Location: To omit “481 sq. rds. ” and to substitute “381 sq. rds.”. (d) Mabane’s Location: To omit “Moepi” and to substitute “Maepi ”; in Total Area of Location: To omit “19,031 morgen, 126 sq. rds.” and to substitute “19,836 morgen, 21 sq. rds.”

asked if the whole of the lands in the Natal Native Trust were included in this schedule.

Yes.

said that he noticed some small areas. Were they private native farms of native trust lands?

replied that they were Natal native trust lands.

said he wished to call attention to the extraordinary spelling of “Zoeloeland ” in the Dutch version. He urged that they ought to have the spelling the same, and pointed out that he had never before seen Zululand spelt in this way.

said that they had not got a universal form of spelling, and that, if the hon. member went to France and talked about London, he would find that it was spelt, not “London.” but “Londres.” He could quite understand the objection of his hon. friend, but, if they had Dutch spelling, why should not they have it spelt in the Dutch way?

said that he found another injustice, inasmuch as Table Mountain was spelt “Table Mountain ” in the Dutch version.

said he was very much indebted to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, for his elucidation of this point. He was aware how to spell “Londres” in French just as well as the hon. member was (Laughter.) His only wish was to make this plain to everybody. He had lived near Zululand for nearly 30 years, and he had never seen it spelt in this way before.

The amendments were agreed to.

Items under B, as amended, were agreed to.

On section 4 of the schedule, Orange Free State,

said he would like to ask the Minister why Maroko’s Ward—Thaba’ Nchu—was not included? The natives there rendered great service to the voortrekkers when they went into that country, and ever since their descendants had been in occupation of these lands. He understood that some 91 farms were held by these people at the present time. The whole of the areas held by the natives in the Free State was under 70,000 morgen. He would like to know whether it would not be necessary to include Maroko’s Ward, because, if anybody deserved consideration, it was the descendants of these people.

was understood to say that all the Provinces were in exactly the same position, and whatever was reserved to-day in the Free State for native occupation was included in this schedule.

said he understood that some of those 91 farms were still held for the descendants of Maroko, and something should be done in the schedule to reserve those farms. It was their duty to see that the rights of those people were really protected, or he supposed that all their ground would go away from them by degrees.

said it was a question which he had no doubt the Commission would take into consideration.

appealed to the hon. Minister to give an assurance that he would specially draw the attention of the Commission to that, if the law did not allow this to come into the schedule, because it was not a proper scheduled area. If there was a case where justice should be done, it should be done in that case. Referring to an interjection by the Prime Minister, he said that, if the right hon. gentleman would consult with the Minister of Native Affairs, he would find it was not included in the schedule.

I said it was not included.

The Prime Minister says it is. Proceeding, he said they must be careful with regard to those schedules. If it could not be included in the schedule, he took it that the direct attention of the Commission would be called to inquire into the matter.

said it had been decided in clause one of this Bill that in the areas outside the scheduled area natives should only buy from the natives and white men from white men, so that the natives on those 91 farms would not be allowed to sell to natives. Although those people were punished by Chapter 34 of the Orange Free State Law they were originally promised the land for themselves, and although they might hold the land, and it had passed to their descendants they could only sell to Europeans. Now this Bill prevented them from doing what their title provided for. Justice and equity required that those lands should be recognised as belonging to the natives. There would be a great difficulty in the Orange Free State in getting the land for those who would perhaps have to be removed, and many Barrolongs wished to go to another part of the country, i.e., Rhodesia, where the son of their old chief, Moroka, had secured lands for them, but the Government had put obstacles in their way. He hoped that the difficulties raised in the past about their leaving the Free State would be removed, and that would be one way of helping forward the object they aimed at in that Bill.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that Monday next be set down for the consideration of the amendments.

raised an objection that the reprints could not be out by Monday, and they would not be able to put down the amendments then on the paper. He suggested Tuesday.

suggested they could get the reprints the following day.

hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not press his objection. Some of them had to catch steamers. If they could have the amendments they would have between then and Monday. They did not want to spend an extra week in Cape Town.

said it was very important legislation, and he protested strongly.

appealed to the Minister to make it Tuesday.

asked how members were to give notice of amendments.

said it could not be taken on Monday. When the amendments were printed and the Bill was in the hands of hon. members they had the right to give notice of amendment.

suggested that no member could move an amendment when the Bill was in the Committee of the whole House, save that he had put the amendment on the paper before the House rose on Saturday. They must put their amendment on the paper before Monday, otherwise the House could not consider it.

said that he wished to say again that he did not want to rush that Bill, and he thought it would be better, under the circumstances, to take it on Tuesday. (Hear, hear.)

It was agreed that the amendments should be considered on Tuesday.

was understood to ask when the Townships Commission reports would be ready.

said that he had urged strongly upon the Commissioners that they must get their reports in early this year, but unforeseen circumstances had prevented them from carrying out that instruction. He was informed that the reports had now been completed, but there was no possible opportunity of dealing with that question that session, and therefore he had not pressed the Commission unduly. As soon as the report was in his hands he would have it printed and circulated amongst members during the recess.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head C, Mining titles and townships branch, £17,335,

was understood to ask whether they were going to push the bewaarplaatsen matter through.

was understood to reply that he was going to push it on.

said that in the Mines Department the inspectors and engineers were graded lower than inspectors of other departments. He did not understand why men with qualifications of the same kind, who did the same amount of work—or rather he would say that the work in the Mines Department was more arduous and there was more travelling to do—were not graded like the others. These inspectors dealt very largely with human life and were in a very responsible position which those in other departments were not, and yet they were graded lower than the others. They hoped the Minister would redress these grievances, because a serious inequality existed.

The MINISTER OF MINES said that his attention had been drawn to that matter, and he had made some inquiries. He did not profess to have any technical knowledge whether what the hon. member had said was actually the case, but he had been informed that the grading was based on the scale fixed by the Civil Service Commission.

who agreed with Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick, said that the work of these people was of a most responsible nature. Before the war these inspectors in the Transvaal were paid £750, and he thought the attention of the Public Service Commission should again be drawn to the matter. He could not see why these people should only get £400 and £450 now. Their authority was as great and their status equal to that of the inspectors in other departments.

asked whether the Minister had any report from his Department in regard to electric blasting.

replied that he had been in communication with the Government Mining Engineer, and had given him instructions to deal with the matter, and he was dealing with the matter. The difficulty was that the men liked to inspect the “face ” of the mine, and if they blasted by electricity from the surface they prevented that.

said that, if he might say so, he wanted the Minister not to be too finicky in considering that subject. Proceeding, the hon. member dealt with the gangers, and said that a ganger had been convicted and fined when he was in bed, and had not even gone down to the mine when the natives belonging to him had gone down the mine. Another point was the limitation of a ganger’s responsibility. If he must have the responsibility for the safety of the natives under his charge, he must not have too large a gang, or he must not have several separate gangs distributed over the mine, over whom he had no control. Another point that the miners were rather keen on was that the Minister had power to grant a suspension in regard to Sunday work, and they wanted regulations that notice should be given, up to a certain time before which such application was going, to be made.

said that the hon. member was quite correct in saying that amended mining regulations were being considered. These were drawn up some time ago, and circulated among the parties interested. These parties had made certain representations, and he had received a report on the subject. Both as regards engineers and miners there were a few outstanding and important questions, and he intended to see the parties before he came to a settlement. He hoped the hon. member would take the assurance that the outstanding points would be adequately considered.

asked the Minister whether in considering these new regulations he contemplated altering that portion dealing with inspectors going down when they liked. Under the present system, when an inspector went down he generally did not find what he ought to find. He pointed out that there were only 24 inspectors for the whole of the Union, and he thought the staff should be increased, because it should be as effective as possible.

also pointed out that 24 inspectors were not sufficient for the Union.

said he could inform the hon. member that a definite number of surprise visits were made every month in each of the districts, and special reports were furnished. Since last year three important changes had been made which he considered rendered the staff more effective. A chief inspector, who devoted his time to supervision, had been appointed. Then four assistant inspectors had been taken on temporarily, and as the results of their work had been very satisfactory, he thought they would be placed on the permanent staff. The third alteration had been to give the inspectors the use of motors, thus avoiding the delay that used to take place.

said that while the staff would be adequate in an ordinary mining district, the Minister had a great problem to tackle, and he had hoped that the Minister would have given them dust terminated results in order that they might have noted the progress made. If the Minister was going to tackle that point adequately he must be severe. In regard to these surprise visits, they feared that while for a period all went well, there was a considerable time when portions of the system were out of order. He would not rely upon the regulation unless the Minister had a larger staff and closer inspections were made. He also questioned the Minister regarding the complaints of the Miners’ Association at the Sunday Law being broken. It had been said that if the miners brought affidavits prosecutions would take place. He said that the department must not rely on information from this quarter, because men who gave information were liable to be blacklisted. He thought the department should get its own evidence and rely upon it. The main point he made was that he did not believe the Minister’s anticipations regarding the regulations would be realised unless he had a very considerable staff, far larger than his present staff, and a very close inspection was carried out.

was pleased to hear that provision was made for surprise visits, which were extremely necessary. He noticed that as a result of one of such surprise visits a man had been fined under the Mining Regulations. Up to the present the mine managers had known too well when a visit would be paid by inspectors, and he thought this new provision would have beneficial results.

said the question of mine inspections came very prominently before the Miners’ Phthisis Commission, and it was strongly urged that closer inspections were necessary. They were very pleased indeed to hear that the Minister had promulgated amended regulations, but what they wanted to see was that the regulations were carried out. They had it in evidence that the inspection of mines took place only about once a year in respect of each mine. He was informed that the inspections at present were a perfect farce, because everyone in the mines knew when they would take place. That was bad for the mining companies, bad for the men, and bad for the Government. If there was going to be an inspection it should be without warning. They had 250,000 men at work in those mines, and they were dependent upon those regulations for their lives. They had over 400 inspectors in this country to look after dumb animals, and £115,000 was down on the Estimates for the inspection of scabby sheep. It almost seemed as if the contention of some hon. members was correct, that the Government thought more of animal life than of human life. Not long ago the Minister told them it was not the policy of the Government to inspect these mines. The policy of the Government was to leave it to the mine owners or mine managers, and they contended that they should be made to do their duty and see that the regulations were carried out. That was throwing the responsibility on somebody else, and he believed that the Government itself should take that responsibility. The condition of affairs with regard to inspection was very serious indeed. The hon. member proceeded to quote the evidence of a miner, who said that phthisis was largely due to a want of inspection which should be carried out in an independent way by Government officials. A mine manager who gave evidence before the Commission also urged that they should have more efficient inspection. He said “You cannot expect one manager to pry upon another.” That, thought the hon. member, was the reply to the Minister when he wanted to shift the responsibility on to the mine managers. Mr. Schumacher, in his evidence, expressed the opinion that if they had proper Government inspection phthisis would have been tackled long ago.

said he thought the House was indebted to the hon. member (Mr. Runciman) for the remarks he had made. He wanted to emphasise the need of more adequate inspection. The Minister rather plumed himself on having organised “surprise visits.” The Minister knew that he could not organise efficient “surprise visits,” for the simple reason that the inspector could not go down below until he had got the manager’s permission. He would ask the Minister whether he would give consideration to the possibility of inspecting down the mines, appointing practical men who were on the spot as Government-protected officials, men who could receive complaints from their fellow-workers and who could not be discharged. He thought the Miners’ Association should be allowed to have some say in the appointment of inspectors. The hon. member was referring to the dangers of black-listing, when

interposing, said: Don’ t make charges unless you are prepared to prove them.

The Minister knows, from the very nature of these particular cases; that it is impossible to prove them. You have got to bring the men themselves. Proceeding, the hon. member urged that attention should be paid to the better ventilation of the mines, and referred to the need of dealing with the system of imposing fines for plugging holes when the men had not proper appliances.

said he had listened with some amazement to all the unfounded charges laid against this unfortunate industry. Not a single day of the session had passed hitherto without an overt or covert attempt being made to blacken that industry by the gentlemen on the cross-benches.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

said that the criticism of the method of inspection of mines, especially coming from the hon. member for Jeppe, was particularly interesting, because he gathered from his remarks that, in his opinion, everybody who had anything to do practically with the working of the mines was a scoundrel.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

said he wanted to controvert some of the statements made by the hon. member for Jeppe, whose contention was that there was not sufficient inspection, and that the inspectors did not know how to perform their duties, because they were always under the suspicion that they were subservient to what the managers told them.

Who said so?

said that there was always this accusation, that these unfortunate inspectors came on the mines and could not go underground without the sanction of the manager.

That is so.

said he would like the Minister to tell the House whether there had been any case brought to his notice, where an inspector had been obstructed in the performance of his duty by a mine manager. He thought it was high time that this kind of accusation should cease. He was surprised, more especially at the hon. member for Jeppe, because, from the whole tenour of his remarks, the only interpretation that a feeble-minded person like himself or any ordinary member of that House could put upon them was, that the people who were in charge of the mines as managers were deliberately trying to evade the Mining Regulations. He did not think it became the hon. member for Jeppe, who had himself been a mine manager, to speak as he invariably did in that House about those with whom he was formerly associated. He (Dr Macaulay) happened to know that there was a determined effort being made, as there had been for a considerable time, on the part of the Government and those concerned in the mines to put things right underground.

said he rose now for the purpose of preventing what might develop into a little personal discussion between the two hon. members opposite. He hoped they would honestly discuss the vote, and not spend their time on these useless wrangles. As to the question of the determination of the amount of dust underground, that was one of the matters specially referred to in the Miners’ Phthisis Investigation Commission, and he was expecting that their report would show definite results from their investigation. As regarded the ventilation of the mines, that also was being investigated by this Commission. The whole ventilation of the Witwatersrand, he dared say, was better than in other mines in any other part of the world. He would say that without fear of contradiction. (An hon. member: There are exceptions.) There was one, the Cinderella, which was not good, but that mine was under his special observation at the present moment. The Chief Inspector of Mines had been there repeatedly, and he (the Minister) was dealing with that mine drastically. Steps were taken whenever there was any reason for suspicion that there was anything wrong. With regard to the question of inspection, first of all he would say that it was their intention to put the responsibility on the mine managers. If the hon. member for South Peninsula went into the matter he would find that that was not what the mine manager or owners wanted. They wanted to shift the responsibility. They knew perfectly well it was impossible to police underground in every stope as they could on the surface. They could not have an inspector standing behind every man. You can do more than you are doing. Proceeding, the Minister said he did not want the hon. member to go to Johannesburg to go underground, for he had been there, and had got some information, which allowed him to speak with authority; but he (the Minister) could inform the House, from what he had seen himself, that it was impossible to appoint a policeman to stand behind every miner in every stope right through the Witwatersrand. To do that, they would want as many policemen as miners. They must throw the responsibility on the mine managers, and if it was found that the regulations were not being properly carried out, they should prosecute. The case had been quoted where a mine had been inspected only once in twelve months, but that was a particularly good mine. There was absolutely no suspicion, or they would not have found one inspection in twelve months. For the present, it was unnecessary to appoint more than four inspectors, with additional motor-cars, by means of which they would be able to do more work.

Representations were made repeatedly that the inspectors were too strict, and that the inspection was too severe; but he said to his inspectors that they should go abroad, and let the complaints come rather from that side—that it was too severe— than let it appear that the inspection was too lax. (Hear, hear.) That was the principle upon which he was going. Although he sometimes found it difficult to get a conviction from a magistrate who was not acquainted with underground conditions, and one also got criticised in the newspapers by those who also were not thoroughly conversant with the conditions, but he would rather be abused by the newspapers in that way than not carry out as strictly and severely as they could the interests of the industry. The hon. member for Springs had raised an important point respecting the appointment of some miners in their semi-official capacity, without there being exactly known to go underground to watch. He (the Minister) had investigated the matter, and had found out that there had been introduced into France a system of that kind. He had asked one of his officials who was on leave at present to go to France and investigate the matter, and if it was found that there was anything worthy of adoption, they would take steps to put it into operation. The matters referred to had been engaging their attention as closely as they possibly could, and he was informed that the conditions had very much improved lately. The report of the Government Mining Engineer for 1912, which would soon be in the hands of hon. members, drew attention to the fact that the regulations were more thoroughly carried out, and conditions, especially with regard to dust-laying and prevention of miners’ phthisis, had improved very much indeed.

said that the Minister was clearly alive to the necessity of a stern application of the mining regulations and full inspection. Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Denver, he said he would not like it to go forth that there was the faintest suspicion that he (Mr. Creswell) had accused mine inspectors of being corruptly in the hands of mine managers. Certainly no word of his could be construed to that effect. Referring to an interjection that he was not in order, he said that he should be allowed to reply to a personal attack which had been made upon him. Proceeding, he said that, however much the hon. Minister, through his mine inspection, might exert his efforts, the desire for profits in the long run would beat him. He (Mr. Creswell) wanted the inspections to be increased enormously. The objection was that the more rigid application of the rules, the more would profits be diminished, and the hon. Minister would bump up against influences he would feel very much. The only way to bring those mines into proper sanitation was to allow the State to take them over.

referred to the necessity of inspectors going round to inspect mining machinery, and pointed to rare occasions in which his district had been visited. Of course there was a serious objection to inspectors hanging about, but they must take into consideration that there were human lives at stake. Many men were engaged in driving machinery who were unqualified, and it was necessary in many cases that inspection should be carried out.

said his experience was contrary to that of the hon. member, for in his own district thorough investigations had been made, and the reports had been filed.

said that the idea he had got from the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe was that the inspectors were interfered with in the course of their duties, that they were incompetent, and that they were subjected to improper influences. He was glad to hear from the hon. member that he did not hold that the inspectors were incompetent or were subject to improper influences. They who represented outside taxpayers wanted to see that work properly, on behalf of the workers in the mines, although not directly interested. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear from the hon. member for Jeppe that he accepted the assurance of the Minister that these officials were doing their duty, There was more in that question of the inspection of outside machinery than met the eye. The Minister would find, now that irrigation works were being carried on in many parts of the country, that pumps of all kinds were put up in many places, and put in charge of all sorts of people. Some definite instructions should be given from the head office as to the working of these engines.

said that they were only responsible for what they said, and not for the hon. member’s comprehension of what they said.

said that these inspections should take place in the way bank inspections took place—the inspector walking into the office and saying, “Hand me over your keys.” Criticisms had been frequently made about mine managers and the staff, and the Government inspectors. Several of them were brothers and relatives of members of that House. When had they become inhuman brutes? Had they no human feelings? There was the deepest resentment amongst these men at the implications made against them, even by relatives.

Is this in order?

It was in order when you slandered them! Proceeding, he said that in the last selection they had all Colonial-born men.

And all good men, too.

Yes, and when did they change their character? They are as human and as humane as any men in this House. They are as fine a set of officials and as fine men as you can get in the whole world. (Hear, hear.) Of course, they make mistakes like other people.

said that he had no connection whatever with the mines, and had never been down the Witwatersrand Mines. He had no particular ambition to go down now, at his age. But he did have some experience with the administration of officials where the responsibility of human life was concerned, and any officer who had his own sense of responsibility in that connection would know how very heavily it pressed upon him. These gentlemen who were charged with the responsible carrying on of the mines were, in the first instance, the responsible men. He hoped that it would never be thought that the Government inspectors were the responsible men for the safe and efficient working of the mines. The men in charge were primarily responsible, and men who had such duties and heavy responsibility resting upon them ought to be well paid. (Hear, hear.)

said that whenever they came to the mines vote a lot of acrimonious discussion arose. He did not know why. His hon. friend, the member for Pretoria, East, had defended the mine manager; but he thought all the country knew that these men were selected on account of their high training, their excellent characters, and their fitness for positions of responsibility. He agreed that there was necessity for thorough inspection, because that was in the interests of everybody. He pointed out that many surprise visits could be paid mines without going down shafts, as in several cases the inspectors could walk through from one mine to another. If notice of the arrival of an inspector was telephoned down below, it was not done with the knowledge of those in authority, and in the half-inch pipe case that had been quoted, that could not be done away with in a short time. He thought that a thorough inspection was exceedingly desirable.

said he had some personal friends engaged in the industry. He had known them as boys, he had known them as men, and he was prepared to stand by their character.

Have I ever made imputations on their character?

Those imputations have been made.

No!

said that these statements had gone forth into the country and these men felt them. These imputations had not been supported by evidence. They had been general charges, and he said that it was not fair, right, or just. These men were as good as any in the world, and they would never shrink from their’ duties. He knew them.

So do I!

These imputations have been made, and they have been general charges. If these imputations are withdrawn, I have nothing more to say. The speeches of hon. members on the cross benches have been full of it. The Statements are cowardly, yes, cowardly.

It is untrue.

They are cowardly!

It is a lie!

appealed for order.

proceeded to describe the labour attacks as cowardly in the extreme, amid heated interruptions by members on the cross-benches, the words “It is a lie” and “Liar” being heard.

I say it is a cowardly statement.

It is a lie!

I say, too, it is a lie, and you are one.

again appealed for order, amid cries of “Withdraw, withdraw.”

We have sat here—

The hon. member must withdraw.

I will withdraw as soon as he has withdrawn that statement.

The hon. member must withdraw.

I want

The hon. member must

Does he withdraw those words?

The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

I will withdraw my statement if you ask him to withdraw his statement.

If that statement is withdrawn I have nothing more to say

Will the hon. member withdraw?

I withdraw my words, and I call upon the hon. member to withdraw his statement.

I am not going to withdraw here or elsewhere.

again appealed for order.

said that the imputations were cowardly.

You cur, you coward, you cowardly cur.

You are one yourself.

You are a cur and a coward.

I will meet the hon. member anywhere, and—

Coward! Vote, vote, vote.

I will meet the hon. member anywhere, inside or outside this House.

You coward!

You cur!

I will meet you anywhere

You are a coward!

A lie!

Vote, vote, vote.

was understood to say that all sorts of imputations had been made by hon. members on the cross-benches, which they had not dealt with because it was not worth while. When they (the Labour members) challenged the character of men they (the Opposition) knew they would not stand it, and they would make them prove their words or withdraw.

Quote the specific charge?

Tell us the words.

Hon. members on the cross-benches seem to think that they are at liberty to cast about all sorts of imputations. They are always making all sorts of general charges and conveying innuendoes.

No.

We have not answered them because—

You are a coward.

We call upon them to back up their charges by evidence.

Produce evidence yourself.

Quote the words.

As they have withdrawn their imputations we are willing to accept that withdrawal.

Withdraw!

If they make these imputations again we shall take them up and deal with them as we have taken them up to-night. (Labour laughter.)

said that he first wished to say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had made a most cowardly statement; just like the hon. member who sat next to him—the hon. member for Pretoria, East. He had been accused of slandering the mine managers, and this he emphatically denied. He wished to say there that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had some friends among the managers he (Mr. Creswell) had also some friends among mine managers, and he would say that that friendship was as warm as it ever was. Seeing that he still retained the friendship of the men whom the hon. member for Port Elizabeth declared that he had made imputations against and slandered, he could not think that the statement made was correct. When he was a mine manager and there was a temporary lapse from the mine regulations on the one side and failure to send rock to the mill on the other he looked more severely on the failure to send rock to the mill than he did upon the lapse in the mining regulations. He did not believe that the circumstances under which a mine manager worked had changed very materially since then, and he believed that as long as these mines were run for profit, the mine manager was bound to see the regulations observed; but he would not be quite so angry at a temporary lapse in regard to the regulations as against a temporary lapse that resulted in failure to send rock to the mill. The outburst this evening came very strangely from hon. members on that side of the House. What was the fact of the matter? It was that the country, in view of the revelations of the past few weeks, was getting scandalised at the shocking state of the health conditions on the mines. The conduct of these mining operations has been convicted before the world as being carried on with far too great a loss of human life, and South Africa was scandalised by it. And what they said was that this outburst on that side of the House was simply an endeavour to try and draw a red herring across the trail, and to try and accuse hon. members on the cross benches, who had been trying to throw a lime light on the subject, to give a lime light lecture on it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member must confine himself to the question.

Quite so, sir; but I say this attack is merely an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail, and divert public opinion. We stand by everything we have said, and throw back in their teeth their cowardly charge.

thought there should be more care taken in the inspection of all classes of machinery throughout the Union. The number of inspectors in the country was far too small. He did not know if the Minister was satisfied that every kind of machinery calculated to prove a source of danger to the community was inspected. He would be rather surprised to hear that it was. He did not want to enter into what had been called an acrimonious discussion to any extent, but he wanted to back up what the hon. member for Jeppe had said. He wanted to say that while he had been a member of the House he had not heard the hon. member say anything derogatory to mine managers. He also recognised the fact that the hon. member for Pretoria, East, emphasised too sternly in committee, that many of these men were relatives of hon. members of this House. But that did not make them any different. They were still human beings. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, went on to say, “How long had they been inhuman brutes?” They (members of the Labour Party) had not said that they were inhuman brutes. They recognised it was not the individual, but it was the system that brought these brutal things about. He would wait with some interest to hear from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth the exact words which gave rise to that impassioned—he would not say speech— outburst, a few minutes ago. They wished he would quote from Hansard, or any report of their public speeches anything that would bear out those words.

said that, as to the remarks of the hon. member for Ladismith, before Union there was no inspection of machinery in the Cape Province. The system of inspection which had only been recently introduced in the Province of the Cape was not yet complete. He had provided for an additional inspector on the Estimates, and this gentleman would be stationed in the Cape Province. The farmers, now that they were getting acquainted with the advantages of an inspection, welcomed the inspector.

said that the hon. member for Jeppe had asked the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, to give chapter and verse for his statement.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

I am confining myself to these mine inspectors. The efficiency of these mine inspections has been called into question by the hon. gentlemen on the cross benches. They have said that the inspector is impeded in the execution of his duty in this fashion, that he is not allowed to make “surprise visits” to the mines. When he comes to a mine he is not allowed to go underground until a message is passed from the manager to those underground. If that is not an imputation against the character and integrity of the gentlemen concerned, I don’ t know what is.

A great publicist once said that truth is vulgar.

Yes, but the hon. member must confine himself to the vote. (Laughter.)

No such thing as has been stated was ever said from these benches. (“Oh!”) What I said was: that an inspector of mines could not go down below until he had got permission; and in the meanwhile telephonic communications were going on down below. That is a very different thing from saying he was prevented from going down until these telephonic communications had been made.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On vote (e), Geological survey, £11,421,

asked for information with regard to a report that the Government were getting out an expert to examine for oil.

said that that was the case. The gentleman in question had arrived on Tuesday last, and had proceeded to Port Elizabeth, and was making a tour right through the Union.

The sub-head was agreed to.

asked why it was that this department required an assistant inspector?

said he would like to know from the Minister what was the intention of the Government in regard to the Industrial Disputes Prevention Act, 1909 (Transvaal). That Act had not up to now had the desired effect. It had not satisfied, so far as he was aware, either of the parties concerned in the various disputes. Hon. members on that side of the House, judging by some of their remarks made that evening, would read into his remarks a great disgust of the employing class. Well, they were out for dividends and profits; the men had nothing to sell but their labour, and they had the right to get as much as they could for that. One way was through their industrial organisations, and no Government should take away their power to bargain collectively. If that power was taken away something should be given in its place. Was the Minister prepared next year to consider the question of Industrial Disputes? They had one at the present in the Transvaal. The men were convinced that the Act was to their detriment. There was always the danger of these disputes spreading, and it would be most lamentable if owing to a defective law in the Transvaal the men broke away and dislocated the whole of the industry of that Province and possibly the whole of South Africa. If anything could be done to modify that particular clause he hoped the hon. Minister would try to do so.

said that with regard to this assistant inspector that was a new appointment, which they had put in anticipation of the passing of a Factory Act, but as no such Act had been passed no such appointment would be made. In respect to clerical assistance, that was required at Port Elizabeth. There they had been depending largely on the Immigration Officer, but as a matter of fact he was very often away from the office, and there was nobody in charge to attend to the public. They were greatly extending that system of labour bureaux. They were working satisfactorily, and they were gradually having a network of exchanges of different parts of the country to deal with employment. The question of industrial disputes was a very important matter. They took the Act over, in principle at all events, from the Canadian law, and adapted it to the South African conditions. It had been in force since 1909, and they had gained experience under it. He did not say that defects had not shown themselves, for several defects had been brought to his notice. A number of the suggestions made by the Commission of which the hon. member was a member had been taken advantage of in connection with new regulations and the inquiry had had a good moral effect.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head G, Miners’ training school, £9,427,

referred to the item “Contribution to miners’ phthisis funds in respect of apprentices,” and called attention to the amount of £1,785 compensation fund. He wanted to know how that amount had been arrived at.

said that he did not have the particulars now before him, but the amount covered the arrear payments, too.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head H, Boring for minerals,

said the section ought to be abolished.

said it would cease within twelve months.

The sub-head was agreed to.

On sub-head J, General, £32,545,

asked a question which was inaudible.

replied that they could not help small mines better than by means of a road.

referred to the Government’s attitude with regard to the alluvial diggers. It had been reported that there would be more restrictions with regard to the giving out of land for these diggers. The Minister should give them all the assistance he could, and improve the conditions under which they were living, and he had power to earmark a sum every year for their assistance. He said that the Government should devote the whole of the revenue derived from their trade licences for the purpose of alleviating the conditions of these diggers. He would like to see a larger sum than £20,000 put down. That revenue should be used to counteract the evils they were bold had been brought about by the river diggings.

said that they had engaged the best oil expert in the world they could get, and he was making the rounds, and they proposed to take his travelling expenses, etc., out of that vote.

said the Minister could, and ought to, improve the conditions under which the diggers work.

said he wanted to take an opposite line to that taken by the hon. member for Barkly. He wanted to take exception to the £1,200 for sanitary provisions. Why should the State come to the assistance of the diggers to carry out ordinary sanitary provisions?

explained that the vote did not apply to the town of Bloemhof but to the whole of the district. He considered it very essential that the Government should make this provision.

said the diggers paid a high licence.

said he noticed that the salaries of the staff of the Miners’ Phthisis Board were increased by £925. Did that mean there were additions to the staff?

Yes.

said no doubt the Minister knew that there were continual delays because the staff was not large enough to cope with the applications that were received. He hoped the Minister would not hesitate to increase the staff considerably if necessary.

said the increase was partly due to an increase in salaries of the existing staff, and two new appointments that had already been made.

The sub-head was agreed to.

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