laid on the Table the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into assaults on women.

asked the Minister whether the evidence taken before the Commission would be accessible to members of the House.

said that the evidence was most voluminous, but he did not think it would be advisable to print it. Any member who wished to could see it.

Copy of proceedings of the inquiry held by Assistant Magistrate Graham Cross into complaints by convicts at the Central Prison, Pretoria, as to medical treatment in connection with the death of convict Jessop; Inquest proceedings held by the Visiting Magistrate H. Rose-Innes as to the death of convict Jessop; Minutes of proceedings of inquiry held by the Magistrate, Mr. H. Rose-Innes, into the circumstances connected with the escape at the Central Prison, Pretoria, on the 16th February, 1913; Copy of proceedings before the Magistrate against Head Warder Pirie, Trades Warder Whitworth, and Warders Swanepoel and Roodt, charged in connection with the escape from the Central Prison, Pretoria, on the 16th February, 1913.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) When the Government ceased to insure their property against loss by fire; and (2) what is the total amount of loss suffered by the Government in respect of property destroyed or damaged by fire since then?

replied: (1) 1st July, 1911. (2) As the honourable member’s question does not mention provincial buildings, the figure I have obtained only applies to buildings occupied by the Union Government. It is £2,643.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) When the Administration ceased to insure their property against loss by fire; and (2) what is the total amount of loss suffered by the Administration in respect of property destroyed by fire since then?

replied: (1) The Administration ceased to insure against fire with outside companies on the 1st July, 1911, its property from that date being insured in the Departmental Insurance Fund. (2) The total loss by fire from that date to the 31st March, 1913, was £6,958 8s. 9d., this amount being recoverable from the Insurance Fund, in which losses were fully covered. (3) It may, however, be stated that it has recently been decided to place certain fire risks with insurance companies, and steps are being taken to admit of effect being given to this decision at the earliest practicable date.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) What was the average total number of natives in the Mine Compounds on the Rand in April last; (2) what was the average number incapacitated through sickness at any one time; (3) what was the number of medical officers attending the natives in the Mine Compounds and Hospitals; and (4) what was the total number of hours daily devoted by medical officers to looking after the natives in Compounds and Hospitals?

replied: (1) 212,637. (2) The daily average was 3,144. (3) 56 (4) 130.67 hours daily, i.e., an average of 2.33 hours per diem for each medical officer. The Minister added that the return did not give adequate information, and he had, therefore, instructed the Director of Native Labour to go carefully into these matters, and he wished to lay before the House that officer’s reply, which was as follows: “With regard to the answers to question (3), it will be noticed that in some cases the same medical officer is cited as attending to several native compound hospitals. With regard to the answers to question (4), you will readily realise the difficulty in giving information of a precise nature. Most of the answers are based on the personal statements of the medical officers concerned, while in other cases it is represented that no data are available and that medical officers attend whenever required. In these latter cases an estimate is shown based on the experience and opinion of Inspectors of the Department, who regularly visit the native hospitals. It is probably unnecessary for me to state that the information, as given, is practically valueless. In the case of certain of the larger mines, a fair and honest estimate of one hour’s attendance daily is given, while in the case of other mines employing a far smaller number of natives, the estimates vary from three to four hours and are, in the light of my experience and opinion, excessive. As a general rule, it may be held that the attendance of mine medical officers at native hospitals approximates one hour daily. In connection with this subject, I would again emphasise the necessity of steps being taken by the Government to secure the employment of whole time medical officers by all mining companies, when required to do so by this Department. I share the opinion held by experienced officers of this department that the attention given to-day to native labourers by most mine medical officers is shockingly inadequate; the doctors usually visiting hospitals early in the day and, as a rule, paying no evening or night visits, no matter how serious may be the condition of their native patients. It is true that many of the European attendants are well qualified men, but a study of the schedule will show that the number of such attendants is in many cases quite inadequate to enable proper day and night attention to be given to native patients. When it is considered how large a proportion of the total mortality from disease among native labourers is due to pneumonia —a disease which, in its course, admittedly requires the most careful watching and nursing—surely it is only reasonable to assume that increased individual medical attention might be anticipated to lower the case mortality from that disease and so do much to bring about a diminished death-rate. In justice to certain medical officers it is right to state that in isolated instances they have devoted themselves day and night to the care of their native patients and the close study of their diseases; moreover, in such cases their labours invariably have been reflected in the comparatively low rates of mortality obtaining in the hospitals under their supervision. I again urge the appointment of a well selected whole-time Government Medical Officer to act with this department and advise in all matters appertaining to the health of native labourers, and, inter alia, to advise me in connection with the assessment of compensation payable to native labourers and their dependents in respect of accidents on mines and under the Miners’ Phthisis Act, No. 19, of 1912. When improved and adequate medical supervision, exercised directly by the mining industry through its own medical officers, and indirectly by the Government through this department, acting on the advice of a Government Medical Officer, has been secured, much will have been done in the direction of a practical step towards confining the death-rate among native labourers to within reasonable proportions.”

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether clause 343 of the Railway and Harbour Staff Regulations prohibits those citizens who are railway and harbour employees from taking part in any public meeting of a political character, such meeting not being held for the purpose of promoting or preventing the return of any particular candidate to Parliament or a Provincial Council?

Clause 343 of the Staff Regulations is designed to prevent employees from taking an active part in electioneering of any form, either by public speaking or writing. Employees are not, however, thereby prohibited from attending public meetings of this nature and recording their votes thereat. It is impossible for the Administration to lay down any hard and fast rule concerning the nature of political meetings other than as provided in the regulation, which appears to be free from ambiguity.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether he is aware that the intention of the New Kleinfontein Gold Company to revert to the hours of working for mechanics underground obtaining before the strike has not yet been communicated by that company to the men’s elected representatives, known as “The Strike Committee”; (2) is it a fact that such communication was made to the Deputy-Mayor of Benoni; (3) whether two Government officials were authorised to conclude an agreement on behalf of the Kleinfontein Company; (4) whether the two officials were instructed to interview the company’s representatives, and if so, with what result; (5) is he in a position to state whether the New Kleinfontein Gold Mining Company is prepared to enter into a written agreement with the men on strike guaranteeing (a) the reinstatement of every man who came out on strike or was discharged in connection with the dispute and (b) that the working hours shall be from 7 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. daily for five days. —Monday to Friday inclusive—and 7 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on Saturdays; and (6) whether in view of the fact that the company began the dispute, he will bring pressure to bear upon the company so that such agreement shall be arranged?

(1) I understand that the Kleinfontein Company has not communicated with the Strike Committee as such; but has notified its intention to revert to the hours of working for mechanics underground obtaining before the strike to its employees, by means of a notice dated Friday, the 6th June, and signed by the manager and posted on the property, which notice also deals with the paying-off of the men and an offer of reinstatement on Wednesday next. (2) I understand that a communication, dated the 28th May, to the above effect was made to the Deputy-Mayor of Benoni in an open letter. (3) and (4) In reply to questions (3) and (4), the Undersecretary for Mines and the Inspector of White Labour, acting on my instructions, interviewed the company’s representatives, and the result of that interview was that the company agreed to give way on the original points of the dispute, and to revert to the previous hours of work. These officials subsequently interviewed the Strike Committee, on my instructions, to inform them of the company’s intention to revert to the hours of labour which existed prior to the strike, but they had no power to conclude any agreement, nor did they act on behalf of the company. (5) From the notice above referred to, issued by the company, it appears that the company is prepared to guarantee to its employees: (a) Reinstatement of every man who came out on strike or was discharged in connection with the dispute; (b) That the original working hours shall be reverted to. (6) As the strike was brought about by the initial action of the company, I pressed the company to give way on the points at issue, with the result that the company has issued the notice referred to. A meeting between the representatives of the company and its employees was held last night, and I am hopeful that a settlement will be come to.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours on how many and on what occasions during the past financial year have the wives of Ministers been carried free on the railways of the Union, and what is the loss involved to the Administration thereby?

replied: Particulars are not readily available showing the rail journeys undertaken by Minister’s wives during the period in question, but it may be stated that a Minister’s wife when travelling in the ordinary way pays for her ticket; but when accompanying her husband on journeys undertaken in the public interest, when journeying by herself to perform a public duty, or when travelling between Pretoria and Cape Town at the commencement and close of the Parliamentary session, the cost of the service is paid to the Administration from the votes of the various departments concerned.

asked the Minister of Justice when the Government intends to introduce a liquor law for the Union?

said he hoped the hon. member would give him some indication of what sort of law he wanted.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that the stationmaster at Roodepoort Station, Transvaal: (a) discharged white labourers who were receiving 3s. 4d. per day and engaged others at 2s. 6d. per day; (b) caused one of these men to work for several weeks in April and May from 5 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. (19½ hours per day) with no extra pay; (c) ordered the shunter to report for duty on Union Day and other public holidays, and then informed him that he was not required and sent him home without any pay; and (d) when the shunter was away, ordered the signalman to leave his box and attend to all the shunting; and (2) if so, whether he will take steps to put a stop to this abuse of power by a petty official?

(1) (a) The reply is in the negative. (b) The reply to this question is also a negative one; but it may be stated that in one solitary instance a white labourer worked continuously from 7.30 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. (17 hours). He was asked whether he would be prepared to work a double shift and he agreed, being given time off in lieu of extra time worked, (c) Work being light on Union Day and other public holidays shunters were not required to report for duty, but the implication that the shunters were required to report and then sent home is not founded on fact, (d) This is not so. When shunters are not on duty signalmen do occasionally assist with shunting operations, but they do so entirely of their own free will, as performance of shunting operations in the absence of shunters devolves upon the guards. (2) There is no question of abuse of power, so that this question falls to the ground.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) What was the amount of rebate granted in each of the last five years (a) on South African exports to, and (b) on South African imports from, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, respectively; (2) whether any preference is given in regard to Government articles; (3) whether the Government will provide for the regular publication of statistics showing the amount of rebate granted under preferential tariffs in respect of South African trade; and (4) whether the Government has arrived at an opinion as to the desirability of continuing the preferential clauses in the South African tariff?

laid the following return on the Table: (1) The statistics of exports from this country to the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, for the last five years, (a) are, I regret to say, not available, but the following figures, taken from the Australian Year Book, show the amount of rebate granted on South African exports during the years 1908-1910 (the last Year Books available): 1908, £8,957; 1909. £6,015; 1910, £1,628. (b) The amount of rebate granted on imports to South Africa from the following countries was: 1908: United Kingdom, £354,249; Canada, £9,207; Australia, £41,427; New Zealand, £1,838— total, £406,721. 1909: United Kingdom, £413,490; Canada, £11,300; Australia, £37,209; New Zealand, £2,366—total, £464,365. 1910: United Kingdom, £539,405; Canada, £15,462; Australia, £38,051; New Zealand, £1,379—total, £594,297. 1911: United Kingdom, £538,033; Canada, £16,256; Australia, £45,918; New Zealand, £919—total, £601,126. 1912: United Kingdom, £548,909; Canada, £16,708; Australia, £35,599; New Zealand, £1,762—total, £602,978. (2) Articles which are solely for the use of Government departments are imported free of Customs duty. (3) The information contained in the various publications of the Customs administration would seem to satisfy all present requirements. (4) The Government does not see any occasion at present for disturbing existing arrangements.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether he is aware that, under the modus vivendi with Portugal, (a) tobacco grown in Portuguese East Africa enters the Transvaal Province duty free, whereas the Cape Province has to pay 3s. per lb. duty on it, (b) Transvaal grown tobacco enters Portuguese East Africa duty free, whereas tobacco grown in the other Provinces is subject to duty; (c) Transvaal cigarettes, cigars, and tobacco manufactured in the Transvaal enter Portuguese East Africa duty free, whereas similar articles manufactured in the other Provinces are subject to duty, even if made from Transvaal tobacco; and (2) whether he will take steps to open negotiations with Portugal, with a view to all the Provinces in the Union being treated alike in this matter?

(1) The reply to (a), (b), and (c) is in the affirmative. (2) The reciprocal agreement between the Transvaal and the Portuguese Province of Mozambique has not led to any considerable interchange of tobacco, manufactured or unmanufactured and there does not seem to be any substantial reason on that ground for extending these facilities to the rest of the Union. On the other hand, there are strong reasons, which I should have thought the hon. member would have perceived, for resisting any suggestion of an extension of existing arrangements to the whole Union.

asked the Minister of Education whether the Government will arrange for supplying members of Parliament with the reports and other publications of the Provincial Education Departments?

said the reply was in the affirmative.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the alleged unsatisfactory condition of things in connection with the judicial and legal business of the Magistrate’s Court at Cofimvaba, in the Transkei; and (2) whether he will cause an investigation of the facts to be made, with the object of remedying the matters complained of, if found to exist?

My attention has not been drawn to this, except by the hon. member, but I will look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the regulations defining the conditions of service under the Administration have been published and distributed to the men in Dutch as well as English; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that Dutch-speaking servants of the Administration be given the opportunity of obtaining copies of the regulations, in Dutch?

replied: Copies of the “Union Gazette,” embodying in English and Dutch the staff regulations defining the conditions of service of all servants of the Administration, including watchmen (the designation of employees formerly known as “Railway Police ”), were distributed to all centres and stations, and were available for distribution to any member of the staff desirous of obtaining same. A number of copies of the regulations have also been supplied in Dutch in book form and have been supplied to members of the staff.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether it is the intention of the Government, when the Railway Construction Bill has become law and the line has been opened to Idutywa, to utilise the machinery for construction already employed on the Butterworth-Idutywa section by at once employing it on the Idutywa-Umtata extension?

It will not be practicable to give effect to this suggestion, as when the Construction Bill becomes law the line Idutywa to Umtata has to be surveyed and staked out before actual construction work can be commenced. It is not anticipated that any difficulty will be experienced in providing the necessary staff and plant for this line when required.

moved as an unopposed motion that Order No. 1 stand over until Order No. 2 had been disposed of.

Any objection?

Yes, I—

The Clerk will read the first Order of the day.

moved, before clause one, to omit the heading “Restrictions upon transactions in land between natives and other persons pending further inquiry.”

Agreed to.

On clause 1,

moved the deletion of sub-section 1. There seemed, he said, to be a great confusion of thought about this matter. They could not come to a correct conclusion on this matter unless they remembered that the vital object of the Bill, in the words of the Minister, was to provide that the bulk of the natives should live separately from the whites, and that the interim restriction of purchase in sub-section (1) of clause one was a very different arrangement for it proposed that in the whole country, except the scheduled areas, a native should only buy from a native and a European from a European. It was quite possible to vote against sub-section (1), and still be in favour of the appointment of a commission, with the object of getting the bulk of the natives to live separately from the white people. The hon. member for Rustenburg and his brigades had brought pressure to bear on the Government, with the view to putting a stop to the purchase of land by natives in the Transvaal; he did not know that they cared about the rest of the country. Then the hon. member for Ficksburg—he (Mr. Schreiner) did not know whether the hon. member was a dictator—(laughter) wanted to do away with the farming on the halves, in order that the natives might become paid servants at a minimum wage. (Laughter.) The Government being attacked in this manner, thought it wise to capitulate. Still, he admired the Minister of Native Affairs for his courage and bravery in attempting to satisfy these demands, while trying to be fair and just to the native in other directions. The House had to decide whether the purchase of ground should cease immediately. It had been argued that this was fair and just, because the restriction applied to whites as well as to natives. But he said it was entirely unfair, although at first sight it did seem fair. If they remembered that the native did not buy land from the natives but from the European, and that the European did not buy land from the native, they would see that a restriction of this kind destroyed the market for the sale and purchase of land by natives, although the market for the white man was not being appreciably injured.

The two things were not on an equality at all. According to the Minister’s figures, there were four millions of natives in the Union, who had between them over 11 million morgen of land; while there were 1,250,000 whites, who had between them 131 million morgen. In other words, the natives had an average of 2¾ morgen per head; but the whites had an average of 120 morgen a-piece. Nobody need be surprised if, under such circumstances, the natives were eager to buy land, and surely that was no sin on their part. Was it to be wondered at that the natives regarded the sudden stoppage of the right to purchase land as a great grievance and injustice? That was the bedrock fact of the natives’ opposition to the measure. This restriction, however, did not practically touch the European at all, and therefore he hoped that no more would be heard of the subterfuge about the same measure being meted out to the white man as to the black. It was nothing of the kind—it was deprivation and injustice to the native, but nothing to the white man. The natives and their friends did not object to the appointment of a commission, or to the idea that the bulk of the natives should live separately from the Europeans; but what the natives did disapprove of was the summary prohibition taking away their right to purchase land. The House might have a legal, but not a moral, right to take away this right from people who had never abused it. Don’ t stop the purchase of land until the commission had reported— that was still the feeling of the natives, the native newspapers and the missionaries. During the past five years only 27,000 morgen of ground in the Cape had been purchased by natives from Europeans. Was that sufficient to justify prohibitory legislation? No, there was no call for drastic legislation. As he had said already, and he was obliged to repeat it, he would remind the House that the imposition of these restrictions would not help forward the final solution that they were all aiming at, but would lay an embargo upon it. If the free right to purchase and sell which at present existed were allowed to continue in the interim a native would be able to buy land from white men in these parts of the country that would finally be declared native areas, and a European would be able to buy land from the natives in those parts of the country which would finally be declared a non-native area. By the time that the commission reported, a great deal of land would have changed hands, exactly as the Minister and the House seemed to wish. These were the reasons which he thought ought to operate in the minds of hon. members to support him in this motion. He felt bound to divide the House upon this subject, so that the public would know what members were in favour of the right of purchase and who were not. He would ask hon. members to consider the arguments that had been brought forward. It was of the highest importance that Parliament’s decisions on native affairs should receive the approval of the natives of the country. He hoped hon. members would seriously consider this question.

It was said from the beginning that this should not be a party question, and he hoped that the Government would allow their followers to vote just as they thought right. (Ministerial laughter.)

said that the other day it had been decided by a large majority to reject a similar proposal. If the House thought fit to reject a proposal of this sort, then he thought there was much less reason for accepting it to-day. He hoped that the House would not accept the amendment.

put the question that the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland be agreed to, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

declared the amendment negatived.

moved in line 19, after “purchase,” to insert “or the,” and after “acquisition” to insert “for a longer period than 12 months”; in line 24, after “purchase, ” to insert “or the,” and in line 25, after “acquisition,” to insert “for a longer period than 12 months.” The mover stated that this was merely to make a temporary provision until the Commission had reported. He suggested that instead of absolutely preventing they should limit the hiring to twelve months. The idea was to give natives an opportunity to get ground in other places, instead of being compelled to vacate their land without getting any land in return. The Minister had not been able to tell them where these people could go and rest their heads, so to speak. They could not hire ground, although they could hire out their own labour. Thousands of these people were probably under notice to-day, and the Minister had not told them where they were to go. He had a mandate from an influential Farmers’ Association in Natal who opposed this Rill throughout.

The first portion of the amendment was negatived.

On the second portion of the amendment,

said the statement that the effect of the Bill would be to turn large numbers of these natives adrift was incorrect. What the Bill did was to legalise the occupation of hundreds of thousands of natives who were not in legal occupation to-day. As to the Farmers’ Association, one could quite understand the Farmers’ Association. Anybody must have a very imperfect acquaintance with matters they were dealing with if he were not aware of this fact, that it was not the farmers who were going to turn the people off the land. He did not say it was altogether from altruistic motives that they so acted. The difficulty in carrying out the squatters law had been that it was the farmers who wanted these people on the farms. The complaint of the Farmers’ Association was that they were afraid that the natives would be moved, not that they would not be moved. He had a provision to safeguard that.

said that the circumstances were different in Natal from those of the Transvaal. The natives were not yearly tenants in the Transvaal. If the evidence put before the House were correct, there was a system of yearly leases in Natal.

They can renew them.

That is just the difficulty.

said that natives who had notice to leave on June 30 would, under the Bill as it stood, probably not be able to go to another farm as tenants. The insertion of the two lines moved by his hon. friend (Mr. Meyler) would do no harm to the Bill.

The second amendment in line 19 was then put, and declared to be negatived.

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

Ayes—20.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Boy dell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Smartt, Thomas William

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

J. Hewat and C. L. Botha, tellers.

Noes—72.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Long, Basil Kellett

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaac Johannes

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe. Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The amendment was, therefore, negatived.

The remaining amendments were negatived

moved, in line 48, to omit “thereon” and substitute “thereover”.

Agreed to.

moved to insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (2), viz.: “(3) A statement showing the number of approvals granted by the Governor-General under subsections (1) and (2) of this section and giving the names and addresses of the persons to whom such approvals were granted, the reasons for granting the same, and the situation of the lands in respect of which they were granted, shall, within six weeks after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament.

The sub-section was agreed to.

The amended amendments to clause 1 were agreed to.

On clause 6 (old clause 13),

moved to omit sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), and to substitute the following: “Provided that—(a) nothing in any such law or in this Act shall be construed as restricting the number of natives who, as farm labourers, may reside on any farm in the Transvaal; (b) in any proceedings for a contravention of this Act the burden of proving that a native is a farm labourer shall be upon the accused; (c) until Parliament, acting upon the report of the said commission, has made other provision, no native resident on any farm in the Transvaal or Natal shall be liable to penalties or to be removed from such farm under any law, if at the commencement of this Act he or the head of his family is registered for taxation or other purposes in the department of Native Affairs as being resident on such farm; but nothing herein contained shall affect any right, possessed by law by an owner or lessee of a farm, to remove any native therefrom.”

This was agreed to.

The amended amendments were agreed to.

On new clause 7 (old clause 14), Status and legal position of certain persons under Article 20 of Law No. 4 of 1895, and Chapter 34 of the O.F.S. Law,

moved in sub-section (1), line 22, after “provided,” to omit all the words to the end of the sub-section. The mover said there was no reason for exempting the Free State from a provision which he considered was one of the best in the Bill, namely, that agreements and arrangements for hiring or working land on shares by natives which are at present in existence shall be allowed to continue till Parliament, acting on report of Commission, shall have made other provision. The other day the Minister said he was only putting back the law to what it once was, but he (the speaker) had diligently searched the law books of the Orange Free State, but he could not find anything to lend colour to that statement. Of course, he was open to correction, but as the result of his inquiries he thought that the argument of the Minister fell to the ground. In the only law that had any bearing on the position it allowed a farmer to have five, or, with the permission of the Landdrost, 15 native families on his farm, but it did not state what families on a farm were supposed to do, and they were clearly up to the present time lawfully allowed to cultivate the ground on shares, for the Bill of 1908 of the Free State forbidding this never became law. For what reason in justice could the Free State be exempted from the operation of this particular provision. Their farmer friends in fact did not want these people removed from the Free State.

If the Bill was passed the natives would be told that they must become the farmers’ servants. The natives would be compelled to work for the very lowest figure, for there was no other land in the Free State to which they could go. Then what about their stock? If they wanted to move they would be offered a quarter of the value of their stock. In fact, it would not only be eviction, but it would also be spoliation. Then the natives are by the provision of this section placed under the Masters’ and Servants’ Act, and thus would be liable to be dismissed at any time. Why could not the Free State be put in the same position as the other parts of the Union? He did not see why the Free State should be singled out for preferential treatment, and the Minister did not see it either when he introduced the Bill. It was unfair and unjust.

who seconded, said that the clause was the biggest blot in the Bill. It enacted that the Free State laws—the harshest laws in the Union with regard to the natives—should continue in force. At the same time it was differential legislation. Under the clause the natives in the Free State would be turned from tenants into servants. Why should there be this difference so far as the Free State was concerned? It was nothing but a fraud, and a wagon and oxen could be driven through the clause.

in supporting the amendment, said the differentiation in the measure could not be justified or defended. The Free State members had evidently got the Ministry by the ears, and could make it do what they pleased.

said they had protested strongly against subsection 2 in Committee, because evidently the idea was to supply farmers with labour at the cheapest possible rate.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central had spoken of the clause as a fraud, but he (Mr. Sauer) thought that was rather strong language. The hon. member for Tembuland evidently did not quite appreciate that the clause put the Free State law back to what it was prior to a decision of the Court.

The Court could not alter the statute.

It is the reading of the law. It is quite another matter as to whether it is a liberal or an illiberal law. I am not discussing that. Although in a way it is a material alteration of the law as it exists to-day, it brings the law back to what it was. Proceeding, Mr. Sauer said they were doing in the Transvaal exactly the same thing. They were bringing the law back to the condition prior to the decision of the Court. He was not going to discuss the question whether the Free State laws were different. He did not think they were. It was stated that this would be very unfair to the natives. That was an argument that he could understand. He did not believe that the natives wanted to go away. He hoped that when the Commission reported, to go into those matters.

said he understood that they had altered the law in the Free State.

put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the new sub-section (1), and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—59.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—30.

Andrews, William Henry

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Morris Alexander and J. Hewat, tellers

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment negatived.

On clause 14,

then moved “to omit the whole of new sub-section one,” and argued that there was no valid reason for the Union Parliament being asked to endorse, entrench and fortify the drastic laws of the Free State with regard to natives.

The new sub-clause (1) was agreed to.

moved to insert the following new subsection, to follow sub-section (3): “(4) The titles to land in Moroko Ward, which are held by natives at present, shall from the commencement of this Act be released from the reservation by which such land may be sold to Europeans only.” He said that in the eighties, he believed, the Free State had to interfere, because of the fighting that was going on between the two sons of Moroko. There was a settlement arrived at, and the natives were allowed to hold the land, to a large extent, in communal tenure or as farms for in the case of leading men. According to the grant, it was given to these people, and nothing was said as to whom they might sell, except to descendants, etc. If he were rightly informed, in the title issued to these people, there was a provision put in that they could only sell to Europeans. That had been a great grievance amongst these people. He thought, especially at this time, it was an important matter to direct the attention of the House to, because this provision in these titles was in exactly opposite direction to the provisions of this Bill. They had already, in clause 1, adopted the principle that, outside the scheduled areas, the natives should only sell to a native or buy from a native, and a white man from a white man. These titles were held by natives, and they could only sell to Europeans. He thought that Parliament was competent to say, under all the circumstances, that that reservation in the title should be removed. He was referring only to titles still held by natives. The cry of the natives in the Free State was that the land could not be sold to themselves, but only to white men. They were ready to buy some of this ground, but they could not, because the title said it should be sold to Europeans.

said that that was the law, and the restriction was in the title. He did not think they could alter it. The matter was surely one for the Commission to report on. They could not go and create additional areas in this House. He regretted, therefore, that he could not accept the amendment.

said that, no doubt, it was the law to-day that these natives could not sell, except to a European, but when this Act came into force, they would not be allowed to sell to a European, except with the consent of the Governor-General. It seemed to him that this was putting a tremendous power into the hands of the would-be European who wanted to get land from the natives, because he would be able to get it practically on his own terms. They first of all forbade these natives to sell to anybody except Europeans, and then forbade them to sell to natives.

The proposed new sub-section was negatived.

On clause 15,

moved in new paragraph (a), after “renewal,” to insert “under similar terms.” He said that the House had finally decided to prevent any new hiring agreement whatever. It would now be possible for an unscrupulous owner to say to a native tenant “Now, you cannot find anywhere else to go unless you go to forced labour, therefore I put up your rent to an extra £1 per hut.” He could charge any rent he liked and rack-rent and bully the natives to any extent.

How can you propose that now?

You have proposed a good many things this afternoon that, I dare say, you will be sorry for before many months are over.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to omit “the next succeeding section” for the purpose of inserting “this Act.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, in paragraph (b), to omit all words from “the registered ” in line 59 to “such bond” in line 62, and to substitute “any person from purchasing at any sale held by order of a competent Court any land which was hypothecated by a mortgage bond passed before the commencement of this Act.” He said that as the Bill read, if there were a registered bond to-day, where a European had lent money to a native on mortgage—and there were many instances where Europeans had lent large sums to native syndicates on mortgage— these people stood a chance of losing the whole of their security, because if a European had lent money to a native in Natal and the Bill was carried in its present form, only two things could happen, either he must buy it himself or else it could be sold to another native. The major portion of the land held by natives was held by large syndicates, 300 and 400 people many of them, and they had got large farms, and, if this land were put up to auction under forced sale, they would not get a single bid from a native. All he asked was that in regard to any land mortgaged prior to the commencement of this Act, if it were submitted under a forced sale by order of Court, any person, whether black or white, should have the opportunity of buying in. He knew in one office in Natal that had got £30,000 or £40,000 on mortgage in this way.

accepted the amendment, which was agreed to.

moved, in sub-section (1) to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (f), viz.: (g) applying to land within the limits in which a municipal council, town council, town board, village management board or health committee or other local authority exercises a jurisdiction; or”

Agreed to.

moved on page 14, in line 27, after “may ” to insert “after the commencement of this Act ”; in lines 28 and 29, to omit “out of public moneys for specific purposes mentioned in such law.” He said that he was moving this amendment in connection with these mortgages. He took it that the Minister did not want to stop the advance of money to natives by Europeans, and he suggested that if this was allowed it should be limited in accordance with this law. There was no provision made for the advancement of money after the commencement of the Act.

said he did not understand the amendment at first, but now he understood it. However, if the hon. member would see him on the subject he would look into the suggestion.

The amendments were negatived.

On sub-section (2),

moved the deletion of the words “in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope,” for the purpose of making the sub-section applicable to those parts of the Union where there was a property qualification—the Cape and Natal. Now that Union had come about, he failed to see why there should be one law for the Cape and another law for Natal. If they were going to safeguard the interests of the natives in the Cape, they should safeguard the interests of the white man in Natal.

The amendment was negatived.

New clause 9,

moved, on page 14, that sub-section (3), be made a new clause nine.

Agreed to.

The amendments in clause 15, as amended, were agreed to.

On clause 9 (old clause 16),

moved to add at the end of the definition of “native,” the following proviso: “provided that the provision of sub-section (1) of section 1 of this Act which restrict the purchase and sale of land by natives shall not apply in any Province to a native to whom the exemption provision of the following law or laws in such Province apply, namely: in the Transvaal Proclamation No. 35 of 1901, in the Orange Free State Ordinance No. 2 of 1903, in Natal Acts Nos. 11 of 1865, 28 of 1865, and in the Province of the Cape of Good. Hope, Act No. 39 of 1887.” The mover said that this was not exactly the same amendment as he moved in Committee the other day. He had gone carefully into the laws of the four Provinces which gave exemptions, and especially those in the Free State and the Transvaal, and the people who were exempted by the laws mentioned were ministers of religion, certificated teachers and persons carrying on a profession or trade. With regard to Natal, the laws referred to allowed natives, under very severe conditions, to be exempted from native law and to be Parliamentary voters, and he was informed that there were not ten registered voters. The Cape Act was that known as the Hofmeyr Act, which released registered voters from the operation of certain laws. Now that he had modified his amendment, he hoped that it would be accepted by the hon. Minister and the House.

said he hoped the hon. Minister would seriously consider the request of the hon. member for Tembuland. When the earlier amendment was moved some of them made representations that it was far too wide in its scope, but now it provided that only those exempted at present should be exempted from that special provision of the law.

said he hoped also that the hon. Minister would accept the amendment. That Bill, as it stood at the present, and as it would stand until Parliament altered it, practically laid down that outside the existing native reserve no natives could acquire or lease land except by the consent of the Government. In the Transvaal the effect would be that no native, however civilised he may be, would be able to hire a house except by consent of the Governor-General-in-Council. If that law was going to effect absolute separation, then there would be some reason for saying that even the most civilised of the natives must go with the others, but by common consent such a segregation was absolutely impossible. The day had gone past for that, and therefore the hon. Minister ought to consider the position of those men who attained to civilisation, and had been restricted from other laws, or they would be driven back into the reserves.

said that he thought the amendment was one of such a fair character that it had met all the objections that the hon. Minister of Native Affairs had raised upon the amendment in that direction, which was previously before the House, and he thought it should commend itself to the House, and even to the hon. member for Ficksburg, whom he recognised represented the extreme section in that House on that particular question. Surely the least they might do was to embody in the Bill some provision whereby they would remove from the minds of the civilised natives a great deal of the suspicion with which their minds were filled at the present time. The whole trend of civilisation in South Africa had been to encourage those people to come out from their barbarism, and when some did stand out from the mass of the people, it was, to his mind, the duty of that House to do all they could to encourage them. But it was proposed by that Bill to take away rights that these people already possessed. He hoped that the hon. Minister would recognise the gravity of the position and the justice of the request of the hon. member for Tembuland, and help the amendment to go through.

admitted that it was a very important matter, and required consideration, but he could not accept the amendment at the present time. If the Bill passed he would promise to consider the matter when it came before the House at some future time.

said it would not come before the House again.

How can it come before the House again?

said they could not move any amendment on the third reading.

was understood to say that he could do no more now.

The amendment was put, and declared negatived. A division was called for.

subsequently withdrew the demand for a division, in view of the fact that the hon. Minister said he would give the matter consideration.

moved on page 16, line 4, after the definition of “Minister” to add the following new definition: “Farm labourer” shall mean a native who resides on a farm and is bona fide, but not necessarily continuously, employed by the owner or lessee thereof in domestic service or in farming operations: Provided that—(a) if such native re side on one farm and is employed on another farm of the same owner or lessee he shall be deemed to have resided, and to have been employed, on one and the same farm; (b) such native shall not be deemed to be bona fide employed unless he renders ninety days’ service at least in one calendar year on the farm occupied by the owner or lessee or on another farm of the owner or lessee and no rent is paid or valuable-consideration of any kind, other than service, is given by him to the owner or lessee in respect of residence on such farm or farms.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 10 (old clause 17),

moved to add at the end of the clause “and shall cease to be in force at the expiration of two years from its commencement.” The mover said the amendment did not strike at any principle in the Bill, and therefore the Minister could easily accept it. The key-note of the whole question was the report of the Commission. The measure was only of a temporary nature, but there was nothing to force Parliament to reconsider the matter after the Commission had reported, and consequently the Bill might remain as a blot on the Statute Book. If it were the intention of the framers of the Bill that the matter should be reconsidered after the Commission had reported, he could not see that there could be the least reason why there should be any objection whatever to stating that the measure was only a temporary one. The restriction of the operation of the Bill to two years would show that Parliament did not intend by any side issue to get certain things done but that it did intend that the matter should again receive its consideration.

said that the suggestion was very reasonable.

Ministerial cries of “No.”

Then there are reasons in this Bill different from those given by the Minister. Continuing, Sir Thomas said the only protection which existed was a statement that the reports of the Commission should be laid as soon as possible after their receipt before both Houses of Parliament. That was good as far as it went. But hon. members opposite who objected to the amendment knew full well that it was not laid down definitely that Parliament would deal with the matter after the report of the Commission had been laid before it. There was no guarantee that Parliament would deal with it in a fair and just manner. It was only a matter of absolute justice that Government should make a reasonable concession. Even if a majority of members were conscientiously convinced that it was in the interests of both Europeans and natives that there should be different areas of occupation, it was reasonable to ask that the Bill should terminate in two years, for when one took away rights from people, in justice, something should be given them in return. (Hear, hear.) He would expect his hon. friend to accept the amendment at once, because he did not believe that the Minister had any intention to take away rights from people in an indirect manner. Parliament had been asked to legislate in a manner entirely foreign to its usual procedure. It was reasonable to ask that the Act should not remain in force more than two years. The action the Opposition would adopt on the future stages of the Bill would largely be actuated by the attitude of the Government on this point. (Opposition cheers.)

said he wished it had been explained how, if the Commission had not reported within the time specified, a very grave injustice would be done to large numbers of people. He knew what the hon. member was aiming at—the provision taking away the right of purchase from civilised natives was as distasteful to him as it was to his hon. friend, but they must consider security of tenure given to natives to be where they had no right to be. While trying to avoid one wrong, they might create another one equally grave. They might turn a lot of natives off the land, on which they would be secured by this Bill. He (Mr. Merriman) would hesitate very much about putting a legal term to the Act.

said he could not take the view that any protection given to the natives by the Bill constituted any reason for making an objection to the amendment. The only natives to whom the Bill gave protection were those of the Zoutpansberg. (An hon. member: And Natal!) What had been their treatment in the past? No Government could move them without finding somewhere else to put them. No Government would face a native war for the purpose of chasing the natives off the farms without making provision for them. That might be relied on to keep the natives where they were, pending a report of the Commission. The Opposition asked that this restriction should not be indicated as a permanent restriction, but only pending the report of the Commission. If the Commission did not report within two years, then it would be for Parliament to re-enact the Act; but it should not remain in force by mere inertia. (Hear, hear.) Parliament, it was said, must deal with the matter again; but they all knew how Parliaments and Governments refrained from dealing with thorny subjects. It was only fair, however, that they should say that Parliament would deal with this matter in two years. If the Commission did not report, then Parliament should review the matter again.

replied that this matter had really been discussed when this Bill was in Committee, and he thought the whole subject had been disposed of. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Fordsburg was wrong when he said that if this Act came into operation no native would be able to buy land outside native areas. There was a provision in the Bill under which leasing and purchasing could be effected. (Hear, hear.) He (the Minister) was now being held up by some hon. members as a sort of enemy of the natives. The hon. member for Fordsburg said that this matter should come up for re-consideration, and that as matters stood at present matters could remain as they were, and that there was no compulsion for further action to be taken. He (the Minister) must confess that he could not understand how anyone who had knowledge of the subject could make a statement like that.

There seemed to be an immense amount of suspicion, and motives of a not very creditable kind were being imputed—he did not say by hon. members, but the fact was that that impression was created. They in this House were being painted as a set of villains subtly trying to take away the rights of the natives.

Not subtly.

How could anyone, understanding the position, make remarks like that? How was it possible to carry out the policy of this Bill to have separate native policy as long as they did not make secure those people who had squatters on their land to-day? (Hear, hear.) It was an absolute impossibility. He knew a number of hon. members here who were far more concerned about the squatting than about the purchasing. (Hear, hear.) Parliament had to deal with this question again, because there were hundreds and thousands of squatters who at present had to remain. And then hon. members said that no protection was left to the natives. He had tried to put the native mind perfectly at ease, and had put in a clause safeguarding them, and yet the hon. member for Fordsburg came here and said that that was worth nothing. He (the Minister) did not think that was quite the way in which to deal with a matter of this kind, or otherwise the hon. member did not see the administrative effect of the clause. It was not possible to give effect to that policy now. If they did that, they would prevent a few natives from making purchases, but they would leave thousands legally in occupation of private property. (Hear, hear.) It was not conceivable to suppose that they could sit still after what they had done. He had wanted to put the native mind at rest. It was impossible to take the first part of the Bill and then do no more. If they did not go on with the rest of the Bill, he did not think that the natives would have much reason to complain, because they would have large areas given to them to occupy, and not in the worst parts. It was not practical to carry out one part and not the other, and in the circumstances he could not accept the amendment. He had heard a great deal about hardships being imposed on the natives. In the Cape Province matters remained as they were, and in the Transvaal they had legalised the positions of a large number who could have been turned off, but now could not until further provision was made. This action in regard to the new proposed amendment should have been taken much earlier. He could have understood if hon. members had argued that they should have nothing but a Commission for the time being, but he could not understand how after having passed the principles contained in the Bill without a division, how after having passed the second reading hon. members could now bring up these points. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that hon. members would realise that there really was no danger at all. He (the Minister) was as concerned as anyone about the welfare of the natives. He was quite prepared to take full responsibility for the position created by this Act. He would assure the House most emphatically that this matter would come up for reconsideration. It was impossible and more than impossible to think that only one part of the Act would be put into operation and that the rest of the Act would be ignored.

There was a time limit understanding when the second reading was passed.

That might be so, but a lot had happened since the second reading was passed. He could not accept the amendment and he hoped hon. members would realise the fairness of his attitude. (Ministerial cheers.)

said they discussed this subject very fully in committee. The hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) proposed this two years’ time limit, but it was pointed out that two years might give rise to inconvenience. There was a very strong feeling that the provisions of this law would tend less to the separation of the races than they would tend to the supplying of cheap native labour to the farmers. For that reason, although he was bound to say that he still thought that a two years’ limit was somewhat short, he was certainly going to vote for this amendment, because it was absolutely necessary, in his opinion, to have some security that this matter would be dealt with again at a very early stage. This was one of the most important Bills Parliament had passed since the commencement of Union, a Bill brought in at the very fag end of the session, and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he did not think they could be satisfied with the Minister’s assurance that the subject would be dealt with at a very early date. He did not wish to imply for a moment that he doubted the sincerity of the Minister’s assurance, but they all knew that the life of Parliaments was uncertain, and they none of them had any guarantee how the next Parliament might be constituted.

The amendment was then put, and declared to be negatived.

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

Ayes—32.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Morris Alexander and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—57.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

My burgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl. Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

H. Mentz and G. A. Louw, tellers.

The amendment was therefore negatived.

In the schedule.

moved in page 18, after “schedule,” to insert “of Native Areas.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, on page 20, King William’s Town District, after the item “Lungcwini as surveyed,” to add the following item: “Balasi Native Location as defined by survey.”

Agreed to.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

I just want to say to the Minister, in regard to scheduled areas

No, there is nothing before the House now.

The Bill was set down for third reading to-morrow.

said he wished the clause deleted. This was a most important matter.

The hon. member can vote against.

also objected. He said he would not mind if the period of entail were limited to the third, fourth, or fifth generation, but, as it stood, the clause was dangerous. Hon. members had not, he thought, properly reflected on the subject, and the clause was of too far-reaching a character. He could never justify it to his, constituents, though, if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was accepted, it would be more acceptable than at present. Who knew better what to do with a property, the testator or a court of justice?

also protested against the clause, as it introduced an entirely new principle. If he made a will, he wanted its terms carried out to the fullest extent. (Hear, hear.)

interrupted.

Keep quiet; you talked about it all day yesterday. (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that if a will had to be changed, it was only right that the people concerned should come to the highest body in the country. It must not be made possible for a court of justice, with attorneys and advocates, to change the terms of a will. If that were agreed to, the properties would pass into the possession of the lawyers. The existing system, whereby only Parliament itself could vary the terms of a will was a good one, and the new clause should be rejected.

said that for the last speaker to say that they were attacking a sacred principle was all nonsense. This did not go further than the law of to-day allowed heirs to go. They would never stop people going to court by legislation. Continuing, he said that any lawyer who advised heirs to come to Parliament, instead of the Court, would be misleading his clients. The hon. member proceeded to quote a case which was heard in court that day, which he thought was pertinent to the discussion. It concerned a farm of 36 morgen in the district of Uniondale.

Oh!

This is exactly the class of place about which there is so much trouble. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, the petitioner had stated that he had no right, according to the will, to bequeath or mortgage the place, which had become too small, and the petitioner’s father, who had a life interest, was quite prepared to agree and to give transfer. There were eight children. The petitioner asked leave to mortgage for a sum to be approved of by the Master, and to give as security a larger property, which he proposed to purchase with the money. That application was made to a one-judge court, sitting in Cape Town, and notwithstanding legal opinion, the order was granted; now, with three-judge courts, hon. members say that it meant unheard-of interference. The Law Courts were dealing with the matter at the present time, and that was sufficient ground for hon. members to tell their constituents that, after all, it was only a question of improving the position. In the circumstances, he thought that three-judge courts should have the right to consider these applications.

said he wanted to correct one or two wrong impressions which appeared to be in the mind of the hon. member for Prieska. If the hon. member went back to his constituents and told them that Parliament had done away with their right of making a will, he would be telling them something that was wrong. An impression of that sort should not go out. Not many years ago the right of making a will was restricted in this Colony under the old Roman law. Did the hon. member think that a man should have the right to leave his property in such a way as to damage the public? If so, property could be left in a disgusting state of disrepair in the middle of a town, because it said so in the will made by a man who might have mouldered away. Those little properties did infinite damage to their neighbours, and it was only abuses that it was desired to correct. They could be corrected by Act of Parliament, but a Court, to his mind, was a much better tribunal to go to than Parliament,

said he did not think it was fair for the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to quote the case he had done, for, in his opinion, it had no bearing on the subject. (Hear, hear.) When it was a matter of entail from generation to generation, did the hon. member mean to tell the House that the Supreme Court had a right to interfere? Such a contention was absurd. No Superior Court in the country had the right to set aside an entail. Proceeding, he said that they were not in a position to deal with the whole question in all its phases. Not only was property entailed, but also large sums of money, and the question of money entail was not touched at all. That clause raised a matter of great importance, and it should stand over, to be introduced in a Government measure. To bring in a clause in that Bill dealing with the administration of estates was not right. The mass of the people of this country attached a great deal of weight to their testaments, and knowing how they felt on the subject, he claimed his right to ask that the matter should not go through until he had consulted his constituents. He doubted whether all the judges were agreed in regard to the matter; to his mind, it was better for Parliament to say whether the rights of the people should be taken away, and he would not vote for that clause before he had consulted his constituents.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved the substitution of the word “and ” in the clause by “or,” holding that it would be very difficult for a man to prove that the alteration of an entail would be in the interest of the applicant as well as in the interest of the public. If the amendment were accepted, they would recover the terms contained in the original text. As it stood at present, the clause required proof that both public and private interest would be injured if a change were not made, and that would be proved in only a few cases. The Select Committee had found that the public interest might be concerned in such cases, but if the heir had to prove both that it and the private interests were at stake, any change in the terms of the will would be impossible to bring about. Replying to the remarks of the hon. member for Caledon, he denied that this clause would have such a far-reaching effect as the hon. member thought. The hon. member had urged that a Bill should have been introduced dealing with the whole question. What chance, he asked, would a private member have had to have got such a Bill through the House. The provisions contained in the present clause would be sufficient to protect all the interests concerned. It sometimes happened that an inheritance led to loss instead of gain, because its undivided ownership led to a decrease in value. Money was in quite a different position, and they need not trouble about that. Parliament was not a fit body to deal with the settlement of questions concerning wills and the rights of inheritors. The Court was a suitable tribunal for that purpose, and they ought to be able to trust the Court in a matter of that sort.

said he was really surprised to find that members were treating this matter in so light a fashion, especially members of the legal profession, who had gone so far as to accuse those who differed from them of being foolish. Here we had a very old custom which had worked well, and yet, by means of a single clause in the Bill, it was sought to make drastic alterations. That was most unreasonable and unfair. The Select Committee on Fidei-Commissary bequests took important evidence. One of the witnesses was Mr. A. G. Syfret.

He is the only man against it.

He is a great authority. Proceeding, Mr. Wilcocks read the following extracts from Mr. Syfret’s evidence: “Are you, generally speaking, in favour of creating machinery whereby entailment on property could be removed?—No; on the contrary, I think it would be extremely dangerous. Why? It will be subversive of freedom of testamentary disposition. Formerly restrictions were imposed, and the freedom of testamentary disposition checked, but these have gradually been removed in the Cape Colony, and now any person can deal with his or her property by will as thought fit. Your proposals will interfere with such freedom, and on principle, I, and other members of the Council of the Law Society, think them very undesirable. You admit that property is sometimes be queathed in such a manner as to become a burden? It often happens that a testator has no confidence in his son, or more particularly in his daughter, or daughter’s husband, and restrictions are made, in order to secure to their descendants the benefit of the property. Again, a testator might consider that in time his property would become valuable, and he places restrictions accordingly, so that in after years his descendants may receive a ‘windfall.’ It is all very well to speak of principle, but property in South Africa is bequeathed in such a way that it becomes absolutely valueless, and in some cases, burdensome. I can mention a recent instance where a farm, through long entailment, had been broken up into so many small portions that it was useless?—That is a hard case, but it is said that hard cases make bad law. Would not an Act of Parliament be superior to your proposals? I also know of five such cases in the Transvaal, and others in the Colony, and the recent evidence of the Master of the Supreme Court, Cape Town, shows that they are pretty general. We propose, through the examination of Masters of Courts and Magistrates, to alter wills where it is found necessary?—You will find that such a course will produce friction and family differences, because the interests of many are concerned in a will. However, lawyers will benefit, as there will be much work connected with it.” In conclusion, Mr. Wilcocks said it was most undesirable to deal with bequests in one single clause in the Bill before the House, The only satisfactory way would be to introduce special legislation.

said that one could see that the hon. member for Fauresmith was quite in earnest. Since this question had been before the House the other day he had had an opportunity of interviewing a judge upon this subject. The learned judge said that if there was one thing that the judges were particular about it was the testator.

Following the hon. member for Caledon, who spoke in a state of great excitement—

Quite mistaken, I spoke in my usual voice.

Was there any hon. member that did not know that many farmers had been ruined by this entail. The circumstances when a will was made, say 80 years ago, would not be the same as they were to-day. The testator was not always the best judge of circumstances. The question that that House had to realise was, what was the best for the public good. If a case of the kind he alluded to, came before Parliament, what course would Parliament follow? Parliament would refer it to a Select Committee. But could a Select Committee bring to bear upon a case the same judgment, the same experience and knowledge that three judges would. He had moved in committee that there should be three judges constituting a full court to sit upon this. The hon. member for Fauresmith seemed to be under a misapprehension. Nobody must forget that the money did not go to the heirs, it went into the Master’s hands Much as they might respect the testator they ought to respect the living and the public good.

hoped the House would come to a decision now. He was sorry that this clause had been spatch-cocked into this Bill. It was inserted by the Select Committee almost against the wishes of the majority of the committee. He was absolutely indifferent whether this clause passed into law this session or not. If any more time was spent upon this clause a member of the Government would have to move the adjournment of the debate, and probably the Bill would be lost. This was a most important Bill, dealing as it did with estates. Every member who had studied this question knew that it was in the interests of the country that this measure should pass into law. It had been twice before another place, and they could not have the face to send it to another place for a third time.

amendment was agreed to.

put the question, that clause 116, as amended, be agreed to, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

moved that the Bill now be read a third time.

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

said that when progress was reported clause 19 was under consideration, and an amendment had been moved to omit “and compellable.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 23, Notice to be given by any person retaining or receiving any infant for maintenance.

moved in line 59 to omit “legal ” before “guardian.”

moved in line 54, after “infant ” to insert “if the place where such an infant is retained or received is within a municipal area, and within one week thereafter if such place is not within a municipal area,”.

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 24, Duties of magistrate in respect of protected infants, and power to order removal,

moved in line 10, after “shall ” to insert “through the police or otherwise as he may think fit.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 25,

moved, that the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (3), viz.: (4) A magistrate may at any time order the medical examination of any protected infant within his district, and upon such order being made the district surgeon, or any other qualified medical practitioner named therein shall have authority to make such examination.

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 29, Failure to give notice an offence,

moved in line 59 to omit “in a prepaid registered letter.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 32, Penalty for offence under this Chapter,

said he thought that the penalty was unduly harsh, viz., a fine of £100 or six months’ imprisonment. He moved to omit “£100” for the purpose of inserting “£50.”

The amendment was negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 34, Definition of “child” for the purpose of this chapter,

moved to omit the clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 36, Children liable to be sent to Government industrial schools or certified institutions.

moved in lines 60 and 61, after “Any” to omit “male” and after “child” to omit “under the age of sixteen years and any female child under the age of eighteen years”; on page 28, line 52, to omit “in the case of a male child”; and in lines 53 and 54, to omit “and in the case of a female child until she attains the age of twenty-one years”; on page 30, line 11, after “years” to insert “or may order such child to be boarded out and in such case the provisions of section 41 shall mutatis mutandis apply as if the Judge or Magistrate’s Court were the board of management mentioned in that section.”

moved on page 28, paragraph (h), to omit from “resort” in line 24 to “remuneration or” in line 30, and after “begging” to insert “(whether or not there is a pretence of street trading)”; in line 45, after “may” to insert “be taken by a policeman to a place of safety and,”; in line 61, after “detention” to insert “or committal”; and in lines 62 and 63, to omit “any other such school or institution to which it may be transferred by the Minister” and substitute “accordance with this chapter.” He said the effect of the amendment was that any child found in any public place or any place of public resort begging, whether there was any pretence of selling or not, would come under that section.

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

New clause 38,

moved, that the following be a new clause to follow clause 37, viz.: 38. The provisions of chapter VII of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, 1911, and of any regulations referred to therein relating to apprenticeship, punishment, and otherwise, so far as they are not in conflict with any provision of this Act, be applied mutatis mutandis to the pupils of a Government industrial school, or to any child whom the Court has ordered to be apprenticed under the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 36.

Agreed to.

On clause 40, Provisions relating to certified institutions,

moved on page 32, line 13, after “purpose” to insert “The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 13 of this Act as to the responsibility for the maintenance and care of children in the circumstances therein mentioned shall apply mutatis mutandis to the maintenance and care of children sent under this chapter to a certified institution.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 42, Child to remain in school or institution until age specified, save in certain cases; provision as to children who desert from school or institution,

moved, in line 39, to omit “in the case of a male child;” and in lines 40 and 41, to omit “and in the case of a female child until she attains the age of twenty-one years.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was then agreed to.

On clause 44, Placing out a child on licence,

moved, on page 34, line 2, after “live with,” to insert “or be apprenticed to”; and in line 4, after “him,” to insert “on such terms and for such period as may be agreed but not after the child has attained the age of twenty-one years.”

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was then agreed to.

On clause 45, Discharge and transfer of child,

moved to omit paragraph (c), an inmate of a juvenile reformatory to be transferred to a Government industrial school or to a certified institution.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was then agreed to.

On clause 46, Supervision of children after expiration of period of detention,

moved, in line 16, to omit all the words from “remain” to “female,” in line 17; and in line 47, to omit “When” and to substitute “So long as.”

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was then agreed to.

On clause 54, Licences for the performance of children in public,

In line 18, to omit “twelve ” and substitute “ten”; and in line 24, to omit “of the day”; and after line 46, to add the following new sub-clause (4): “Nothing in this section contained shall apply to any entertainment for church, school, or charitable purposes or to any entertainment in which no remuneration is given to the children taking part therein or to their parents, guardians, or relatives.”

moved, in paragraph (c), that proper provision has been made by the applicant for the licence for securing the health and kind treatment of all the children so taking part, to insert after “health” the word “education.”

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.

On clause 55, Detention of children awaiting trial,

moved, on page 42, line 7, to omit “his parent, guardian, or employer,” and substitute “any person”; and on page 40, line 59, to omit “unless”, and to insert “unless” after “(a)” and “(c)” respectively on page 42.

said that when the Bill was first before the House, clause 55 was quite different from the clause there. In fact, the clause had been left out altogether. It dealt with the movements of children in mines and factories and the restrictions of hours of employment. In view of the fact that throughout the Union many thousands of young children were being employed in factories, many of them of very tender years, some not more than ten years of age, it seemed very important that they should have a clause of that nature in the Bill. He would be glad if the Minister would give some reason why the clause had been left out and whether he would not attempt to put something in the Bill in its place.

was understood to say the matter would be dealt with in a Factory Act which was to be introduced before long.

Did the hon. Minister say next session?

Not this session.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.

On clause 56, Power of Governor-General to make regulations,

moved the insertion of new paragraph as follows: The boarding out of children under section 41 and the powers to be exercised by the board of management of a Government industrial school or the managers of a certified institution in respect of boarded-out children.

The amendment was adopted.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 58,

moved, in line 52, to omit “sub-section (2) of ”.

Agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 59, Power to order Court to be cleared during taking of child’s evidence,

moved on page 44, line 5, after “held” to insert “and no person, other than the members and officers of the Court, the parties to the case, their legal advisers, and other persons directly concerned therein, shall, except by leave of the Court, be allowed to be present”; and to omit the whole of sub-section (3).

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 60, Presumption as to age,

moved in line 9, to omit “or indictment for” and substitute “of.”

The amendment was adopted.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On the first schedule,

moved, before the item “Act No. 28 of 1883” (Cape of Good Hope) to insert: “Cape of Good Hope, Act No. 15 of 1856, masters and servants, sections six to eleven inclusive of chapter III and so much of the Act as relates to the apprenticeship of destitute children”; and before the item “(Transvaal) Ordinance No. 32 of 1902” to insert: “Transvaal, Law No. 13 of 1880, The Master and Servants Law, 1880, sections six to eleven inclusive of chapters III and so much of the law as relates to the apprenticeship of destitute children”; and in the third column of the item “Act No. 13 of 1911 of the Union”, after “(5)” to insert “and (6)”.

Agreed to.

The first schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration tomorrow.

moved as an unopposed motion that the Chairman have leave to bring up the report to-day.

The motion was agreed to.

The House resumed in Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

said that in previous sessions he had raised queries as to the large amount spent by the Union on printing, and although he admitted there were some signs of cutting down he was still of opinion that the whole thing was on a wrong footing. For the year ending March 31, 1912, the Union’s printing and stationery bill was £250,182 and for the year following it was £232,823. This year there was a reduction, but even so the bill was a huge one. (Cheers.) The annual average based on the five years preceding Union showed that the printing bill of the four Provinces was £158,000. Let them contrast South Africa’s expenditure with Great Britain’s, and it would be seen that our expenditure on printing was exceedingly high considering the circumstances of the two countries. Last year Great Britain’s printing bill was £1,076,000. That was for a population of 44 million, here we had a population of 1¼ million whites and 6 or 7 million coloured people, who did not count very seriously in the printing bill. During the last ten years England’s printing bill had gone up largely because of the new services that had to be provided for, such as Old Age Pensions, National Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and Land Value taxation. For the different Provinces of the Union the annual average for the five years prior to Union was: the Cape £40,000, the Free State £13,000, and Natal £14,000, or together £67,000. But the Transvaal’s printing bill was £91,000. The Transvaal had always had its work done at a State-owned printing works—that appeared to him to be the explanation—(hear, hear)—and also the explanation of why to-day the Union, which was supposed to bring about economy, was now spending between £215,000 and £250,000 annually on its printing bill. The Union had simply adopted the Transvaal practice, and in this matter it had not followed the economical methods of the other three Provinces. It was a well-known fact that the State printing works existed under circumstances that did not make for economy. They existed in a centre where wages were the highest in the Union.

Another reason was that the whole of the business was founded upon unbusiness-like principles. Printing and stationery were put into the hands of a controller, and one would think that the essential principle for the Government to bear in mind with regard to that gentleman was that he should be absolutely free to look after the interests of the Union so as to see that the Union got the best value for its printing bill. He desired to say that he was not making any attack upon this gentleman, he was simply attacking the system. Now this gentleman was not only controller of the Stationery Department, he was also head of the Government Printing Works, and it was up to him to see that these works were made a success. The consequence of this was that the two duties of this gentleman were antagonistic. It was up to him to see that the Government got the best value for their money, and on the other hand, it was up to him to see that these printing works were made a success. The whole system was rotten. What they ought to do was to see that no Government official had any relation with any printing works. One was bound to say that the independence of this gentleman was absolutely warped. He (Mr. Baxter) had a newspaper report of a function that took place at the Government Printing Works, and instead of the controller of stationery holding the even balance of justice between the various centres of the Union and showing that it was the Union’s interest only that he was consulting, he was reported to have said “that they were not afraid of Cape Town; they had the staff and the plant, and they would show Cape Town what the Government Printing Staff would do.” Is that the sort of remark that they expected from one of their officials? He believed that the sooner the Controller of Stationery had no connection whatever with any printing works the better it would be. Australia had also had the same difficulty. Their printing was under a controller, but the work was put out on contract after tenders had been sent in. He was not asking any favour for one particular centre, all he was asking was that fair competition should prevail.

said that the figures of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, did not convince him. He (Mr. Baxter) started to compare the cost of printing in South Africa with the cost of printing in England. The comparison was unjust. In England there were local authorities which had quite as heavy a bill for printing as any department of State. Here many of the functions performed by local authorities in England were performed by the State. Here they had to make provision for their railway printing, but railways were not owned by the Government in England. When he compared the cost of printing in the various States before Union, he forgot to tell them that they were now printing everything in both languages, which added very greatly to the cost. It was not right to make a complaint of this nature without endeavouring to discover the reasons. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he noticed there had been a reduction of the staff by 32. That evidently was not due to any decrease in the volume of work, because the clerical staff was increased by three. But evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee proved that it was because much more of the work was being done in Cape Town. The Government Printer said that they gave as much as possible of the work to Cape Town, and the amount of work done in Cape Town had gone up 50 per cent. A serious part of the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee was that the departmental reports were now being printed in Cape Town. He contended that this was not fair to Pretoria. The members for Pretoria ought to complain about this, because Pretoria was not being treated at all fairly. They were told that the work was done in Cape Town because it could be done more cheaply. This was all very well for those cheap-jacks who advocated low wages. But it was not in accordance with the compromise arrived at by the National Convention.

It seemed to him that when they attacked this vote as a whole they overlooked many ways in which expenditure could be reduced. The Government Printer, in his evidence, had stated that he could save about £5,000 if they printed the “Government Gazette” in separate English and Dutch editions, and circulated it as people required. Then some cheaper form of registering sheep was recommended. As a printer, he (Mr. Sampson) was convinced that it would be a bad day’s work for this Union when it started to give out this enormous amount of work to private contract. The printing contract of the Johannesburg Town Council was formerly given out to private tender. Three or four firms who were in a position to take the contract formed a “ring,” cut up the work amongst them, and raised the prices some threefold. As a consequence, the Council had decided to instal its own machinery and put up its own plant. He was still of opinion that this work was done much more cheaply at the Government Printing Works than it would have been done by private contract. His own opinion was that a branch of the Government Printing Works should have been opened in Cape Town to deal with the legislative work, the prices changed for which were, as far as he could see, very excessive.

said he would like the Chairman’s ruling as to whether, in view of rule 113, an hon. member who was doing business with the Minister of the Interior, or with the department, was entitled to take part in a discussion under these votes?

read rule 113, and also perused a copy of the “Government Gazette,” dated May 6, produced by the hon. member for Roodepoort. He added that he failed to see what bearing this had on the vote now before the House.

said he wished to ask whether an hon. member doing business with the Department of the Interior was entitled to enter into discussion on a vote under that department?

The Printing and Stationery Vote is before the Committee now.

Last night I noticed that an hon. member took part in a discussion who has a contract with the Government under the Department of the Interior.

I cannot rule upon that.

said he supposed his hon. friend had been talking about people who were shareholders. He was not a shareholder. What the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, had contended for was simply that the whole thing amounted to this, that the Government printer at Pretoria was at the head of a Government Department, and he should be kept entirely in charge of the Printing Works and that alone, and put on practically the same footing as, for example, the General Manager of the “Cape Times” Printing Works. When printing had to be done, he should tender for it in the same way as any other printer, and not fix his own price. Then they could see whether they were being overcharged by the Printing Works or not. He said, frankly, there was something to be said for the State Printing Works, inasmuch as they otherwise ran the risk of a “ring” or monopoly. But then the other objection that he had mentioned also applied. The best way to meet that was, he thought, the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee to treat the Government Printing Works as a separate business department.

said that he held a report in his hand signed by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman). There was only a small portion of that that was really worth printing. The rest of it was unnecessary rubbish, which they did not want to read. (Laughter.) Hon. members in that House were flooded with literature which most of them never read and never looked at. What they wanted, instead of these voluminous reports, was a precis giving the points of the evidence led before the Committee.

said that, in regard to the reports of Commissions which were printed, the fact that they were simply supplied with a report of a Commission without evidence rendered that report comparatively valueless on a question which anybody took a keen interest in. A case in point was that of the Report of the Black Peril Commission presented that afternoon. It was quite impossible for them to test by reference to the evidence the immense number of suggestions the Commission made and the degree to which their recommendations were supported by the evidence.

said they had got the House as a whole in favour of the principle for economy and for a reduction of charges, but hon. members who took interest in particular cases wanted the matters fully printed, and expenses went up in that direction, and that made a conundrum difficult to solve. The question of tenders had not been overlooked, but it was the people who tendered who raised the difficulties. They refused to go into competition with the Government as tenderers. The manager of the Government Printing Works had not the least difficulty himself, and he was prepared to tender in competition with others. The expenses since Union had gone up and wages, of course, were higher in Pretoria, which had something to do with increasing the cost. And then there was the fact that they were dealing with a larger amount of work. There was a larger amount of printing required at the present time than by the four different Parliaments before Union, and they were compelled by circumstances to have a larger expenditure than formerly. If he could possibly get the work done at any place more economically than at any other place he would try to do so, because at Pretoria it would cost more, and the Department could not be expected to lay down the principle as laid down by the hon. members on the cross benches. Where time could be spared, and where hurry was not the essence of the matter, they should go throughout the Union and get the work where it could be as well done at the cheapest rate.

Oh! Oh!

said he would repeat that. He was not going to waste the taxpayers’ money in having the work done at Pretoria, where they were fully employed, if he could get the work as well done in Cape Town or Maritzburg, or anywhere else, and there was no hurry about it. It would be false economy if their works were fully occupied.

said that in that connection the work could be done in Pietermaritzburg better than in any other part of the Union. The hon. member went on to refer to complaints which had been made that the Government favoured certain newspapers with regard to advertisements which supported the Government policy. He did not think that was true, but he would like to know if there was any ground for such complaints.

said he could give the hon. member the assurance that such statements were absolutely wrong. The hon. Minister was understood to say that the chief complaints were from these newspapers who were supporters of the Government.

said he thought the hon. Minister had made a mistake when he said that the people at the Government Printing Works at Pretoria were fully employed. They were dismissing 32, so they could not be fully employed. He urged that it was not good policy to get everything done at the cheapest place. In what way did they excuse having their Civil Servants in Pretoria. Pretoria had the right to expect that the work should be done there.

The vote was agreed to.

asked what had been done with regard to the settlement near Potchefstroom which had been taken over by the Land Board. It was laid out under conditions which did not enable the settlers to make a living on it, and he would like the assurance of the hon. Minister that the Government was going to do something.

also asked a question with reference to a land settlement at Potchefstroom, and said that people were simply living there as squatters. He did not think those people paid any rent and they were in a very unsatisfactory condition. He understood that they were to have leases, but nothing had materialised, and in his opinion those people would do no good until they had some sort of tenure to rely on.

in reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg, said the matter had been a very complicated one. The Land Board had made a report, but he had not been able to deal with it yet, and many points would require consideration before the report was adopted. He could assure the hon. member that the matter was receiving serious consideration and they would try what they could do to meet the position. In reply to the hon. member for Potchefstroom he said there had been difficulties in dealing with the settlements there. The men had always made difficulties in agreeing to the leases proposed, and that had delayed the matter. It was merely a matter of business. Those people could not expect to get their rights unless they were prepared also to meet their obligations.

said he had been asked to bring before the House the way in which the Government land was leased. Certain Government farms were leased at an upset price for 21 years, but if the Government considered it necessary in the public interests to re-occupy the land, it could do so on payment of reasonable compensation. At the expiration of 21 years, however, it was specially provided that, under no circumstances, should Government be responsible for the payment of compensations of any sort whatever. A friend of his was prepared to spend £900 or £1,000 on such a farm, but the question was, was he justified in doing that, when at the expiration of his lease he would receive no compensation? Under such terms as those, Government would only get tenants who would be no good to the country. (Ministerial cheers.)

who was barely audible, was understood to say that it was a serious grievance that the ground in the Gordonia district was not obtainable for settlement, and that his constituents were writing complaints to him on the subject. People wanted to pay for that land, but could not get it. The land was lying idle, and there was no reason why people should not obtain it, As they could not get the ground, they had to emigrate. There was too much delay in the matter of boring. He was bound to support the complaint which had been made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The people on the ground were like birds on a tree. They built no houses, and they were going away. He dared not visit his constituents. Two people who had been working there for 30 years were now working on the railway at a wage of 3s. per day. They wanted to buy the ground, but the Government kept them waiting. The Minister was doing his best, but there was a blunder somewhere, and the people wanted to know what was going to be done.

wished to know what it was intended to do with the ground in the Zoutpansberg district, which had been surveyed, and in regard to which contracts of lease had been drafted. He supported what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. As there was no encouragement to stay, the people were leaving the ground. The Department was doing too little. For some reason or other, the Government were sitting still, and although people were waiting to occupy the land, nothing had been done. He, furthermore, would like to know what was going to become of Tzaneen? Thousands of pounds had been spent on the land there on machinery and irrigation, but nothing was being done with it. He also urged that the Government should no more give out lease contracts for 21 years. It was much better to enable people to purchase the land outright. The Government retained the mineral rights. The people were not begging, and would be willing to pay reasonable prices.

urged that there was no necessity to disallow people to settle on land until boreholes had been made, if such people could build dams themselves. Mr. Grobler went on to urge the necessity of providing for the settlement of poor whites, and of the giving out of farms in Rustenburg. Since Union there had been a sudden stoppage of the sending of poor people to small settlements, such as was done before Union, though such small settlements were very promising. They were for the most part people who would gravitate to the towns and tend to sink deeper and deeper. The Government ought to give them more help, as the Minister had promised when the Bill was introduced. Something would now really have to be done.

said there was no department about which more serious or more general complaints were being made than about the Lands Department. Great things had been expected from this department, but nothing had been done. Last year a number of laws, such as the Land Bank Law and the Land Settlement Law, had been passed, making provision for the fairly well-to-do man and the very poor man. Nothing had been done, however, for the class of people who had been assisted in the Transvaal by advances on movable property. Up to the present the Union had done nothing for people of that sort, though there was great need for it.

ruled the hon. member out of order, pointing out that this question did not fall under the Lands Department.

said he did not think the Minister had satisfied the Committee with regard to the point raised in the Public Account Committees’ second report as to the item “Inspector of Land Settlements.” The opinion which the Committee had was that this amount of £800 for the Inspector of Land Settlements was put on the Estimates without the authority granted by the Treasury or the Public Service Commission. He should like to have the assurance of the Minister that the Public Service Commission had agreed now to the insertion of this higher sum. In paragraph 3 of the same Report the Committee dealt with the appointment of four additional inspectors of lands, and recommended that, “in view of the somewhat tentative character of the duties that will fall on these inspectors, they should not be placed on the fixed establishment meantime, but should merely be employed under contract.”

said that, in regard to the question put to him by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, he was in full sympathy with what the hon. member had stated. So far as the law allowed, they were abolishing the contracts in question and those who had the old contracts were being helped as much as possible in other ways. Replying to the member for Prieska, the Minister pointed out that all the matters referred to were being considered. In Zoutpansberg there was a good deal of ground available for cotton growing, and 54 farms had been surveyed, and others partly approved. It was, however, said that some were not suitable for cotton, and they had to foe careful not to give guarantees. It was no use putting people on ground on which they could not make a living, but every matter mentioned was receiving careful consideration. They had to be careful, too, in places where there was no water, as the people gave up their ground in dozens.

The vote was agreed to.

called attention to a matter which he said was of great interest to his constituents, and read a long resolution in Dutch regarding the Vaal and Harts River scheme. They wanted to know why the work was not being proceeded with? He would foe glad if the hon. Minister would give his views on the matter, and he hoped to have some assurance that the scheme was likely to mature.

said that extensive surveys were being made, and he was getting reports with regard to the various schemes.

said that the scheme he referred to was a very big one, which would put a large tract of country under irrigation when carried out.

assured the hon. member that he was devoting his attention to the matter.

asked a question about the progress of the Worcester-Robertson Breede River Canal scheme, and said that the people who were interested were disappointed that the matter had not been brought before the House last year.

said that since Union there were 64 instances in which Government irrigation officers had done work for municipalities. In only six of these cases was the full amount of the costs incurred by Government repaid by local authorities, in ten cases no payment whatever was made, and in 48 cases less than the cost was refunded The total cost came to over £1,400, and all that Government recovered was £899, so that Union was out of pocket to the extent of £550. Engineers in private practice complained that they could not get employment because Government did work which they maintained properly belonged to them. Small municipalities had their expert work done on the cheap by Government officials. Something might be said for Government officials investigating for small municipalities, but there was nothing to foe said for these foodies not paying the full cost incurred by the Government. The system was a bad one.

said that Government had endeavoured to recover the money where possible.

The vote was agreed to.

(to the Minister of Lands): You have had an easy night.

I will now proceed with the Supplementary Estimates.

We can’ t take these to-night. I move to report progress. If we had known we were going on to these we would have kept this going on much longer. (Laughter.) We sat here last night until twenty to twelve.

said it was all very well for hon. members to talk like that—he was near his home. (Laughter.)

said if the hon. member was in earnest he would be prepared to report progress, but he appealed to the hon. member to go on with the Supplementary Estimates.

moved the deletion of the item “Cooperation, £650.”

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether valuable stud animals at the agricultural colleges would be sent out to meet the needs of the district.

said great damage would be done to good work already done if the amendment were accepted. The inspectors helped the co-operative societies to do their business on business lines. They were not like the land bank inspectors. Good work was being done by the inspectors, and he hoped the point would not be pressed. Replying to Sir T. W. Smartt, the Prime Minister said the whole matter was under his consideration, and they intended to deal with it in a practical manner.

In reply to Dr. J. HEWAT (Woodstock).

said that he had given instructions for a report to be made on the cadets. It was his intention to assist them as much as he could.

The amendment was withdrawn.

complained of the high salary of the Inspector of Technical Education.

replied that the Minister of Education was busy co-ordinating technical education, and that fact would excuse the item.

The Supplementary Estimates were agreed to.

brought up the report on the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the Appropriation (1913-’ 14) Bill, in accordance with the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates as adopted by the House.

brought up the report of the Committee now appointed to draft and bring up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates as adopted, submitting a Bill.