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

Forest Act.

Railways and Harbours Unauthorised Expenditure (1911-12) Act.

Transvaal Precious and Base Metals Act Amendment Act.

Copies of Proclamations Nos. 104, 111, and 119 of 1913, and of Government Notices Nos. 800, 801, and 833 of 1913.

Statements showing results of working of the South African Railways and Harbours year ended 31st March, 1913.

moved that Orders of the Day Nos. 1 to 3 for today, stand over until after Order No. 4 has been disposed of.

said, if the Government were prepared to allow him to have another date, with the same position on the Order paper for his motion—the amendment of the Miners’ Phthisis Act—he would be quite willing.

This fourth Order is purely formal.

That may be, but any member may bring up the most controversial matters on that motion. I don’ t want to stand in the way of business, and if the Government will guarantee us another day, I shall be only too delighted.

The motion was carried.

then moved the second reading of the Appropriation (1913-14) Bill.

said it was three months since the Minister of Finance delivered his Budget speech, and since then there had been considerable changes. The Minister had budgeted for a deficit of £194,000; but the sum of £35,000, representing unpaid interest by School Boards and school authorities, would have to be deducted from his revenue. The Minister had also given an additional £95,000 to the Provincial Councils. The surplus for 1910-11, which the Minister put down at £770,000, produced, only £665,000, because there had been taken away £110,000, which belonged to the Free State for bursaries. Taking the expenditure at £16,419,264, that would leave him with a deficit of something like £419,000; and, as the estimated deficit on the railways was £84,000, it showed that we were budgeting for a deficit of something like £500,000. That was not a very satisfactory state of affairs, and the Minister should give some explanation of what he was going to do. There was a net deficit on his average revenue for the first two months of the current financial year of £279,000, but there was a surplus of £52,000 on the Customs. The prospects did not seem too bright.

mentioned that the Estimates of the Union revenue for this year amounted to £15,389,000, which, of course, included all bewaarplaatsen receipts for this year, amounting to £177,000. Half of this amount—£88,500—would have to be deducted, and members would see that they were left with £15,305,000, and that was the Union revenue, as estimated for the current year. On the other hand, the Appropriation Bill provided for an expenditure of £16,419,264. Members would, therefore, see that, on the current revenue and expenditure for the year, the deficit would be apparently £1,118,764. To meet the deficit they had the £770,000 surplus of the period 1910-1911. Part of that surplus had been reported upon by the Public Accounts Committee, and that report would have to be taken into consideration. With regard to the bewaarplaatsen, they had to deduct £100,000, which was set aside last year for miners’ phthisis, leaving £61,000 for appropriation under this Bill. Adding this to the £770,000. they had £831,000. If that amount were deducted from the deficit he had mentioned, members would see that they were left with £287,000, which would be the deficit for this year. It was not very satisfactory to look forward in the current year to this deficit of almost £300,000, but he did not agree that the revenue was showing so badly, and he thought it was quite possible that, at the end of this year, it would be found that very little would be left of this anticipated deficit of £287,000.

said he wished to make a few remarks in regard to the attitude taken up by the High Commissioner in London in respect of certain matters concerning this country. He wished to direct the attention of the Government to a telegram appearing in the newspapers in which it was reported that the High Commissioner had expressed the opinion that this Parliament talked too much. He was further reported to have said that the so-called two streams’ policy was a detrimental policy for South Africa. Well, he (Mr. Grobler) did not wish to go into the merits or demerits of this statement. The High Commissioner naturally must have made this last remark in connection with a quarrel in the South African party and undoubtedly by his remark wished to reflect upon the hon. member for Smithfield. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Grobler) would leave that there. The point he wished to make was that the High Commissioner was purely and simply an official of the Union, who had no right to take any part in the domestic policy of this country. For years past the High Commissioner had been advocating that there should be immigration into his, country on a large scale, and he (Sir Richard Solomon) had especially urged such a policy before a certain league, whose aims and ambitions were to bring large numbers of British women into this country, as if they here were in the same position as Roma before the abduction of the Sabine virgins, and as if the people in this country were all looking forward for some women they could get married to. (Laughter.)Instead of mixing himself up in politics, the High Commissioner should look after the commercial interests of this country. It was not so very long ago that the Prime Minister himself here in this House had had to repudiate a statement made by Sir Richard Solomon. Mr. Grobler proceeded to point out that Sir Richard Solomon had made a speech in regard to South Africa’s naval contribution, and that the Prime Minister, in dealing with the matter in the House, had declared that in that speech Sir Richard Solomon had expressed his personal views and not those of the Government. At any rate, Mr. Grobler said, it was wrong that the High Commissioner should take part in politics and make statements which he knew a large number of the people of this country were opposed to. (Hear, hear.) Naturally, it would now be said that he (Mr. Grobler) should not attack anyone who was not able to defend himself, but if, as an official, Sir Richard Solomon was entitled to protection he had no right to hide himself behind that protection by making statements of this nature. (Hear, hear.) A letter had recently appeared in the “Volkstem” from an Africander, who complained that during a recent visit to London he had not been treated at all well by the High Commissioner. Last year, during a debate in this House, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had’ complained that there was not sufficient sympathy in the office of the High Commissioner with the interests of this country. Several of the speaker’s friends agreed to what was said by the hon. member for Caledon, and said they had been treated with coldness and indifference when in London. There were only three or four Africanders in that office who knew anything at all about the Union. Let them look at Canada and Australia Both these countries employed only natives of Canada and Australia in the offices of their High Commissioner. Quite a number of people had complained of the scant courtesy with which they were treated in the office of the High Commissioner, and of the 95 officials in that office—including the messengers—there was only one who spoke Dutch, and that was the Trades Commissioner. No other official there could speak the Dutch language, and that was in an office which represented the Union, of which 60 per cent, of the population was Dutch-speaking. They all knew the Trades Commissioner did his best in the interests of the Union. Generally, however, the whole position was unsound. He (Mr. Grobler) wished to draw the Minister’s attention to these matters, and he hoped the Minister would draw the attention of the High Commissioner to his duty, and that he would point out to the High Commissioner that it was not his duty to poke his nose into matters which did not concern him. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to endorse the remarks which had just fallen from the hon. member for Rustenburg. He would not have spoken on this matter at all, but he thought it was essential that they should make the High Commissioner understand that the protest of the hon. member for Rustenburg was not an isolated protest. Generally, it had been felt that the remarks made by the High Commissioner were improper as coming from an official of the Union. He (General Hertzog) did not want to pose as a champion of the rights and dignity of this House, and he did not think it necessary that he should do so, but he wished to emphasise that he strongly objected to the High Commissioner’s remarks in regard to this House. It was not the place of the High Commissioner to make such remarks, and this House had the right to insist that if the High Commissioner wished to mix himself up in politics, he should occupy a different position in the community and should no longer continue to be the highest official the Union had. He (General Hertzog) considered that, by his conduct in this matter, the High Commissioner had set a bad example to the other officials of the Union. (Hear, hear.) This House had last year made regulations to restrain officials in regard to their political attitude, and yet they found that their highest official, a man who drew £4,000 per year, dare criticise the Legislative Assembly, the body to whom he owed the position he occupied. (Hear, hear.) A question had recently been asked of the Prime Minister in regard to the opinion expressed by Sir Richard Solomon in connection with South Africa’s contribution to the Navy. The Prime Minister, in reply to that question, had said that he did not propose giving any instructions to Sir Richard Solomon in regard to the matter raised. But here they found that in his last speech Sir Richard Solomon had taken up a certain attitude in regard to the greatest political question of the day, a question which had caused more feeling than any other question. He (Sir Richard Solomon) had expressed his views in regard to immigration, and now again in regard to the two streams policy. One would really say that this great official in London was better acquainted with matters in regard to this question in South Africa than even the Prime Minister himself. (Hear, hear.) On account of his high position he (General Hertzog) was prepared to respect that official, but really if the High Commissioner went so far as to express his opinion on matters political in this country, then he must excuse him (General Hertzog) when he said that it would be much wiser for him to remain silent, and, furthermore, that if he wished to take up a political position he should give up his present position and come out here. Sir Richard Solomon should also remember that there were other views besides his own which should be respected. He (General Hertzog) also took exception to the attitude of Sir Richard Solomon, as High Commissioner, because, whereas he was expected to take up an impartial attitude as an official of the Union, he had undoubtedly taken part in certain matters, which was clear from the speeches made by him.

Proceeding, General Hertzog said: “And I ask how it can be expected, if matters were to change in South Africa, and if the other side (the Opposition) came at the head of affairs, that he (Sir Richard Solomon) would represent the country in an impartial way as is required by the interests of the Union?” He (General Hertzog) strongly deprecated remarks by which people outside this country should be influenced in regard to the politics of this country. They did not want an official who was sitting in London in environments strange to this country, to tell this country what its policy should be and where it was right and where it was wrong. If the official wanted to do that, then his place was here, but for the present he should only look after the interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) He (General Hertzog) wanted to make it clear that Sir Richard Solomon’s remarks had been taken exception to, and that if he wanted to make these remarks, he should be here in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member proceeded to refer to a matter he had tried to deal with the previous night, when Mr. Chairman ruled him out of order, namely, the policy of the Lands Department in regard to small settlers, not of the very poor class. Owing to the many changes that have been made in the Cabinet it seemed that Ministers did not exactly know where they stood. He pointed out what had been done under the Land Bank Act and the Land Settlement Act for the fairly well-to-do people and the very poor people. He referred, however, to the people who were not prepared to be placed on small pieces of ground of six to ten morgen. The people he referred to were poor men with aspirations and ambitions, people who were by no means hopeless. These people had not yet been provided for. In the Transvaal and Free State these people were dealt with in the past by means of special regulations. In the Transvaal several hundred thousand pounds had been set aside in order to help these people to get some cattle and a little money. The money advanced had to be repaid in small instalments. Now, however, this had been stopped since Union, because it was feared that these people would incur debt which they would never be able to repay. The Land Bank Act in the Free State had been cancelled, and the system which prevailed in the Transvaal had been put an end to. The results had shown that the Transvaal policy had been extremely successful. He considered the time had come for the Government to do something more. The functions of the Department of Lands were of a dual character—administrative and constructive —and it had struck him forcibly that in regard to its constructive function the department was unsuccessful. Insufficient provision had been made for that function, and he expressed the opinion that in order to deal properly with the constructive duties of the department, officials should be appointed who should make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the wants, requirements, and general condition of the rural districts. The administration was good and the officials most Capable, but they were not, and could not, at present be acquainted with conditions as they existed in country districts. An official should be appointed who was well acquainted with affairs, who knew the country and the people, who would be allowed to travel about and then say to the Minister: This and that is the position of affairs, and so and so ought to be done to put it right. He hoped the Government would open their ears for the appeals which were daily being made to them, and that the constructive as well as the administrative functions of the Department of Lands would be given attention. Everywhere they heard complaints that the Government gave no attention to appeals and complaints, and the Department should try to grasp the fact that something had got to be done in order to help these people. (Hear, hear.)

said he would like to draw attention to the point that had been referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The hon. member had pointed out that they were working for a deficit of £200.000, and the Minister, who made the total £280,000, mentioned that he did not think that this was a very alarming state of affairs and that the state of affairs was not as bad as it was made out to be. If this sum of £280,000 was the difference between their anticipated revenue and their anticipated expenditure it might not be so very serious, but this was not the case. This deficit was the balance of a very much larger sum, and the position was really much more serious than the Minister tried to make them believe. They had this deficit after applying a sum of £600,000, which was a pure windfall, and to which the Minister had no right at all. It should have been paid into the sinking fund some time ago. That was not the only sum that he had appropriated in order to reduce the deficit. He had also taken into consideration the bewaarplaatsen receipts, not only those which would come to him if the Bill before the House was passed, but the bewaarplaatsen receipts for past years which had come into the Treasury and which should have been paid to the Public Debt Commissioners in accordance with the Act. These were things that they had to bear in mind when they tried to ascertain their financial position and were told that the deficit was only a matter of some £200,000. They had a deficit of a million, and that was the position which they would have to face when the House met next session. This surplus of 1910-11 had been kept lying by by the Minister of Finance and his predecessor as a nest egg upon which he could fall back. He thought that the House should insist that this financial year would be the last when this old surplus would appear on their accounts. It should be dealt with now and finally, and if the Minister had any surplus after squaring his accounts this year it should be paid to the Public Debt Commissioners. That was recommended by the Public Accounts Committee in its eighth report, and he hoped that members would give their attention to the recommendation of the committee, which was as follows: Your committee would draw attention to the fact that this 1910-11 balance has remained in the Exchequer for two years, and submits, for the consideration of Government, that Parliamentary sanction be sought for its appropriation towards expenditure in 1913-14 in such manner as will secure that any balance remaining at the end of that year shall be paid over to the Public Debt Commissioners for the extinction of debt or for the cancellation of Union Stock at time of issue.

said he would like to say one word in regard to the reflections which had been made upon the High Commissioner. He did not pretend to go into the merits of the case, but what he did plead for was that they should wait before they charged him with anything until they knew what he really said—{hear, hear)—for, let him (Mr. Merriman) assure his hon. friend, it was a most dangerous thing to found any accusation or any opinion upon a cablegram. (Hear, hear.)’ He himself had been a sufferer in that direction. He made some sharp remarks upon an English Minister in regard to some observations he was cabled as having made, and, although he did not withdraw those remarks afterwards, at the same time the Minister was very much hurt and the remarks cabled out were not exactly what he had said.

I said, “if correctly reported.”

said that any hon. member who took up Reuter’s press cablegrams which were sent to England would see what sort of a travesty it presented of what went on in that House. What his hon. friend had said about the Department of Lands would, he hoped, lead the Government to take some notice of it. They had already alluded to it in their report on European employment, where it was suggested that a man who was acquainted with the conditions of the country should be appointed to push on the settlement of lands. In regard to the matter at issue, the finances of the country, it was an unwise thing, and they were transgressing all the rules upon which our finance was founded, which was that the services of the year should be provided for by the revenue of the year. (Hear, hear.) In other words, they should cut their coat according to their cloth. There was no need to find any more cloth; they had got cloth enough in this country, but what they had got to do was to fit their needs and requirements to the revenue they had got. Instead of that, they had gone and done a most unheard-of thing. They had budgeted for a deficiency of £1,100,000. That was a most unsound precedent to lay down. The idea originally was that this surplus of 1910-11 should be used in case of some unforeseen emergency, instead of issuing deficiency Bills. If they were to use up this nest-egg they had got, the only thing was to say now in the Bill that £770,000 should be applied to the services of this year and there would be an end of it. (Hear, hear.)

said he regretted that attacks should have been made in this House upon a person who was unable to come and defend himself in this House. He quite agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that one could not attack a person on the contents of cabled reports, and the hon. members for Smithfield and Rustenburg especially should know this. After all, if they had to get up and make speeches about everything that appeared wrongly in the newspapers, he wondered where they would end. (Hear, hear.) At the present moment he was not in a position to judge as to what had actually been said by Sir Richard Solomon, and, not being in a position to judge, he could not condemn. (Hear, hear.) So far as he knew, he could only say that he was sure that up to the present Sir Richard Solomon had represented the Union in an extremely worthy and dignified manner. (Hear, hear.) It was not right to compare Sir Richard Solomon’s position to that of an ordinary official. His position was not like that of the ordinary official. If hon. members looked into these matters they had referred to, they would find that the representatives of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada in London often discussed these questions. He (the Prime Minister) did not wish to say that this must also be done by their High Commissioner, but he wished to point out that the immigration question was continually under discussion by all the representatives of the various dominions. (Hear, hear.) He thought it would be better if this was not done in the circumstances until the Government had announced its views. Hon. members should, however, not say that Sir Richard Solomon was an official in the ordinary sense of the word. The position of South Africa’s representative in London embraced more than that of the ordinary official. He (the Prime Minister) was aware of the fact that there were people who, on coming back from England, wrote letters to the papers about the High Commissioner’s office, but he thought that if the hon. member for Rustenburg had referred the matter he had mentioned to him (the Prime Minister), instead of mentioning it here in the House, a better purpose would have been served. He could have looked into it and got to the bottom of it. So far as he (General Botha) knew, the country’s representative was always prepared to help and do anything possible in the interests of the Union and the people of the Union. The hon. member for Rustenburg had further said that the office of the High Commissioner had only one man who could speak Dutch, and by saying that he created a wrong impression in the minds of the public. That was an incorrect statement. It should be remembered that a large number of the officials in the office of the High Commissioner were sent to London from the Transvaal; they were officials in the service of the Transvaal. Even if they were unilingual, it should not be forgotten that, if they had not been sent to London, they would have had to be kept in the service of the Transvaal. By sending them, however, they had been able to keep more bilingual Civil Servants here, and he thought that, by doing so, the requirements of the country were best served. The sooner they could get all sons of South Africa into that office, the better, and they were gradually going in that direction. (Hear, hear.)

Proceeding, General Botha referred to the other matter raised by the hon. member for Smithfield, and expressed his regret that General Hertzog should have raised this question while Mr. Fischer was dealing with an important Bill in the Senate. The hon. member could have raised this question on the Budget debate, or when the motion for the reduction ofthe salary of the Minister of the Interior was being discussed. The hon. member for Smithfield was not present on the occasion. The hon. member could not discuss the general question on a minor item, as that was forbidden by the Standing Orders. General Botha proceeded to point to the provisions made in the Land Settlement. Act in regard to smaller settlements, and referred to the difficulties experienced by the Government in the convening of the various Land Boards. The House itself had laid down the rule that everything had, to pass through the hands of the Land Board, and that tied the Minister’s hands. As soon as these reports of the Land Boards were received, they would be acted upon. It would have been very useful if the hon. member for Smithfield had made it clear to the House in what way he proposed dealing with the people he had referred to. What did he really mean by giving help in money and cattle? Where was the money to come from? It was easy to start a veld fire, but unless they had the means to extinguish the fire, they would only do a lot of harm, and it was the same here. It was easy to raise the hopes of the people the hon. member had referred to, but, as he (the Premier) did not wish to mislead them, he was not going to make any definite promise at the present juncture. It was better to speak the truth and say frankly that there were no funds available. With regard to the scheme which had been tried in the Transvaal, an inquiry was being held in order to ascertain whether it was as successful as the hon. member had made it out to be. The machinery under which the smaller settlements at Potchefstroom and Koppies had been started had not been repealed, and the people referred to would be dealt with under that machinery. The Minister of Lands had a Bill ready to deal with the whole matter, but, owing to the shortness of time, and as the matter was not one of great urgency, these people would be dealt with under the existing machinery. If hon. members would be willing to continue the session the Bill could be taken at once, as it was already drafted. On the Estimates yesterday they had approved the salary of ah official whose duty it would be to get the poor whites back on to the land. The Government had repeatedly tried to get a man who had a thorough knowledge of the big settlements, but had not succeeded in getting him. There had, perhaps, been a little delay, but that would soon be remedied. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought it was rather a pity that hon. members, on the meagre information before them, should have gone out of their way to attack an officer holding a very high position in England.

Hear, hear.

said he believed that anybody who had an opportunity of judging the manner in which the various countries were represented in England would recognise that the representative of South Africa held a very distinguished position. He did not agree with the right hon. member for Victoria West, that the cabled reports were of garbled character, and considering the necessity there was for condensation, the cabled reports gave a very fair exposition of the situation. Unless one was prepared to spend very large sums of money in having speeches cabled in full, it would be very difficult to get a fairer summary. There were in the House many hon. members— the majority of whom sat on the Government side—who must recognise, from their own personal association with the High Commissioner in London during the Coronation, that this official took great trouble to see that visitors from South Africa obtained every possible consideration. This was done irrespective of persons or the influence they exercised in this country. The remarks that had been made were not fair to an officer who was discharging his duties in a most satisfactory manner, so far as the interests of the Union were concerned. Officers of this description must be allowed far more liberty of opinion than those occupying positions in the Civil Service. The former expressed their own personal views, and were not in any way expressing those of the Government. Continuing, Sir Thomas said he was rather interested in the way in which the Minister of Finance said he was going to meet his deficit. According to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the amount was £665,000 In the account given by the Minister of Finance there was a sum of £110,000, which really the Minister had no right to appropriate for this purpose. (Hear, hear.) In the Free State Act, 34 of 1909, there was a reference to the £110,000, of the amount which the Minister had taken credit for

I have gone into that.

But that cannot alter the statute. Continuing, Sir Thomas said his hon. friend might very fairly say that provision for even a larger sum was made in the Estimates, but the only guarantee for that going on in perpetuity would be for that £110,000 to be handed over to the Public Debt Commissioners for the reduction of public debt, and the interest on the money to be set aside for the purpose intended by the Free State Parliament. There was no doubt that the Minister would soon have to raise a loan, and under those circumstances the Minister should clear up our position. The bewaarplaatsen money had been appropriated. The Minister should state what his intentions were in connection with that money and with the Cape perpetual annuities. (Hear, hear.)

said the right hon. member for Victoria West had mentioned the possibility of revenue being affected by certain eventualities. In reading the daily Press of the last few days, hon. members, he thought, would agree that the news from the Rand was very disquieting. The Government, he thought, ought to be convinced that the position was becoming serious. He had occasion to draw the attention of the Government to the question a few days ago, and he would again impress upon the Government the importance of recognising the position in the East Rand. According to the papers they found that there was a possibility of this strike spreading. He could not say how far this was true, as he had only the same information as hon. members had obtained from the daily Press. He, however, viewed the circumstances with extreme alarm. The Government had it in their power to bring in an amendment to the Mines Act, providing for an eight hours’ day from bank to bank, otherwise than an eight hours’ day from face to face. If this were done it would mean, he believed, the settlement of the dispute. If the Government would not do that then he warned them of the consequences. If this were not done it was very probable that this movement would spread in such a way that those in charge, of the movement would be unable to hold it back. Hon. members from the Transvaal would have a recollection of what happened from very small beginnings. That dispute cost the Government £10,000 for the employment of Imperial troops.

What did it cost the men.

The House did not concern itself a great deal about what it cost the men. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he brought this matter up simply that hon. members might have a chance of speaking upon it. This was a critical time in the affairs of the men. They found that even married men were to be turned out of their quarters if they did not accept the terms. That was one of the advantages of the power which the employers had over the men. They were able not only to give a man the “sack” but they could also turn him out of his house. He felt sure that the Government should take the matter into consideration. If they did not do so then he would tell them plainly what the men would do. They would bring about a general strike. What would that mean? It would mean that the surface men, if they came out would want an eight ‘hours’ day as well as the underground men. Although they were nearing the end of the session, the Government had an opportunity of preventing the Witwatersrand from being thrown into an industrial dispute which nobody wanted to see and for which not one single member on these benches was responsible.

You are encouraging it.

The hon. member is making statements that are not founded on fact. In conclusion, the hon. member said he would make one more appeal to the Government to prevent this strike spreading.

congratulated the hon. member for Rustenburg on his courage in bringing forward this question, and regretted that the Prime Minister should have shown heat in replying to it and should have reproached the hon. member for Rustenburg for not going to him (the Prime Minister) first. The speaker said he had brought forward the question of the High Commissioner’s speech on the Navy contribution in February last, and had asked the Prime Minister whether he would give a warning to Sir Richard Solomon not to deliver such speeches in future. But he had received no satisfactory reply. He had put a question to the Prime Minister because it appeared to him that the High Commissioner had assumed the position of a plenipotentiary or an ambassador. Since the occasion of his question to the Prime Minister, the High Commissioner had made another speech in which he criticised members of that House for speaking too much. Who he meant, the speaker did not know. Nor did it matter very much. But he had no right to speak in that manner, and the speaker agreed with the hon. member for Rustenburg that his majesty in London, Sir Richard Solomon, should be told to take his instructions from South Africa. It would be a very sad day for South Africa when members of Parliament had to speak according to the wishes of this plenipotentiary. He hoped the Prime Minister would inform His Highness of the opinion expressed in Parliament. Proceeding to deal with the Free State Bursary Fund of £110,000, he said it appeared from the published correspondence that the fund was not established. In his opinion it was established and later diverted to other uses, and said he feared that not all of the papers had been laid on the Table. He regretted that the Prime Minister had characterised General Hertzog’s remarks as an attack on the Minister of Lands. The speech of the hon. member for Smithfield was intended simply to bring before the notice of the House the position of the people of the bijwoner class, who might have been assisted by the old Free State Law, which he thought should be re-enacted.

said he agreed fully with what had been said by the hon. member for Rustenburg. That was not the first occasion on which the High Commissioner had made a political speech, and the fact that he was, as the Prime Minister had stated, no ordinary official, made no difference. As a matter of fact, that was all the more reason why he should be more careful not to take sides in politics. He did not care to express an opinion on the manner in which visitors were treated at the office of the High Commissioner, because, apparently, there were two opinions on the subject expressed in the House. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said he was a most polite official, but the hon. member for Caledon had last year suggested another view. He regretted that the Prime Minister had treated the remarks of the hon. member for Smith field as an attack on the Minister of Lands, and that he could not tolerate a suggestion from the hon. member. There was too great a tendency to criticise speeches of the hon. member rather violently. On the present occasion he had spoken simply in the interests of the poor whites. The speaker had pointed out last year that the Land Bank Bill closed the door in the face of the poor whites who had no ground, but he had been satisfied to accept the assurance that those people would be provided for in the Settlement Bill. All that the hon. member for Smithfield demanded was that an official should be appointed to inquire into the conditions of the poorer population and to report on the subject, and also to see whether any of these poor people could not be placed on the millions of morgen of Crown land. He brought this matter forward in a most friendly spirit, as he was sure the hon. member for Smith field had done so. Proceeding to deal with the Free State Bursary Fund, he said that the information given in the papers laid on the Table was by no means sufficient. The fund of £110,000 should have been established according to a law that was passed by the Orange River Colony Government, and he explained that the object of the fund was to provide bursaries to Free State students, pensions to widows and orphans, and loans to municipalities. He could not understand how it could be said that when there was a law on the Statute Book allocating the money, that the fund could be diverted into the general exchequer. He wanted all the papers in connection with the matter placed on the Table. They wanted to have all the correspondence which passed between the Government and the old Land Bank of the Free State. The whole subject had to be cleared up before they could consider it closed.

said he was glad to have the Prime Minister’s explanation regarding the indigent people, but regretted that the Bill dealing with the subject was not to be introduced during the present session. The poor white problem was a most important one. The speaker had recently had an interview with the Inspector of White Labour, and had learnt from it that the position was a most serious one. There were in the big towns thousands of these poor people, and only too many of them found their way into the prisons. It was an excellent thing that they issued cattle in the Transvaal to poor people in order to help them upwards, and the Prime Minister should adopt and apply the same system throughout the whole Union.

said that, in the course of this debate, very little interest seemed to have been shown in the financial position; but more interest had been displayed in other matters. He thought it was undesirable that it should go forth to the country, and outside the country, that the position of the finances was so bad as had been sketched by some of his hon. friends on both sides of the House. He thought it ought to have been mentioned that the revenue was in a bounding and prosperous condition. The figures showed that the Estimates were being surpassed in the matter of revenue every month. The railway accounts just placed in their hands were far beyond the result anticipated even by the Minister when he spoke. It must be seen what a conservative basis the Government had gone upon in regard to finances. For the past year the Government had a surplus of railway revenue of nearly £1,300,000. In the coming year they anticipated a surplus of about £1,000,000. He wished to draw attention to the astonishing figures in regard to the harbours. The Minister had estimated his deficit on the harbours at £337,000, and in the past year the deficit was only £247,000. The figures which had been published impressed him (Mr. Fremantle) with the fact that the Estimates had been unduly cautious. He thought that his hon. friend the Minister of Finance had no reason to take his estimated deficit of £280,000 too seriously. The proposal to use for the third time the balance from 1910 was an unusual one, but then they had to face the question of whether they would or would not tax this year, and he thought there was a good deal to be said for making an exception in the particular circumstances of this case. He hoped the Minister would not take those parts of the surplus of 1910-1911 which ought really to go to the extinction of debt. He trusted that the suggestion of his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) would be carried out, and that the Minister would agree to deal definitely with the balances in the present year from 1910-11. With regard to the bewaarplaats, if there were one thing clear about that question, it was that none of that money ought to go to the ordinary services of the year. It was plain that, all through, it had been intended—and rightly so, from a financial point of view—that the bewaarplaats money should go to the extinction of debt. There were difficulties ahead of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He hoped that he would take a large view of the position in regard to the finances of the Provinces. They had a danger of a land tax being imposed in at least three Provinces of the Union, and he did not think it was fair, considering the favourable circumstances under which the Union commenced its financial career, to compel the Provinces to impose a land tax at this early period.

Mr. Fremantle proceeded to say that he wished to draw attention to the extraordinary arrangement as to our preferential tariff. We were paying £603,000 for preferential duties, and all we got in return was about £10,000. That was not in the interests of South Africa, and it was impossible to justify it.

It saves the taxpayer of the country.

We certainly don’ t save the taxpayer. How do we help the taxpayer?

He pays less in duty.

You mean the consumer. Nobody can maintain that the consumer gets the full benefit of that £603,000.

Certainly.

No doubt part of it is given to the consumer, but the majority of it goes to the people across the water in raised prices. I hope that such pressure will be brought to bear that the arrangement will be altered. All the more because the arrangement was forced upon the people when the threat was made that if they did not accept they would come under the ban of my hon. friend opposite, and that they would be accused of not being sufficiently loyal. (Opposition laughter.) The Transvaal in those days was represented by nominees. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said immigration was not a disputed point in Australia, but it was quite different with the High Commissioner to make a speech about emigration, which was one of the burning questions in South Africa. A crisis was brought about in the Cabinet very recently largely owing to what was said about the immigration question. It was highly improper for the Union’s representative in London to make a speech on the subject and to express opinions on the matter. Then the High Commissioner’s speech on the Navy question ought not to have been made the cabled reports of what he said on that matter were very fair indeed. He hoped the Government would make it clear that they did not approve of the High Commissioner speaking about questions which were in dispute in this country. The Prime Minister was unfair in saying that a mistake was made yesterday by the hon. member for Smithfield bringing up the question of land settlement on the vote for the Minister of Lands. The Prime Minister said that his hon. friend should have raised the question on the Minister’s salary, but this was impossible, because the Minister drew his salary as Minister for the Interior, and on that vote it would not have been in order to discuss land settlement. It was regrettable that the Prime Minister should raise points of this kind instead of dealing with the important question raised by his hon. friend. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Smithfield and by the committee over which the right hon. member for Victoria West presided was most seriously needed. There was great need for officials who would be brought more and more into touch with the people. He (Mr. Fremantle) hoped something would be done on the white labour question, because the Government should be brought into direct personal contact with the people they were desiring to help.

In conclusion, Mt. Fremantle remarked that in view of the circumstances of the country and of the probability of the Minister of Finance having to go on the money market in the near future, he did not think it would be wise to discuss the position of our capital account. But it was desirable to call attention to the fact that the business of the country was increasing, that private enterprise was going ahead in the most remarkable way, that the revenue was expanding, and that there was no excuse for the somewhat pessimistic views put forward by some hon. gentlemen.

said he could not understand why the Prime Minister should take exception to the question of the administration of land being raised. As to the High Commissioner in London, it had been said that he was not a Civil Servant, but he drew £4,000 a year, so he, Mr. Fichardt, did not think he was an ordinary Civil Servant. As Sir Richard Solomon drew money from South Africa he must take his instructions from the people of this country, and he should be very much more careful than apparently he was. The Prime Minister attacked the hon. member for Rustenburg and said he should have brought this matter to his notice privately.

Only the one question.

I understand that on one occasion he did bring a question before the Prime Minister without getting satisfaction, and the only thing left to him is to bring it before the House. But apart from that I should think the Prime Minister would be the last man to have private and secret negotiations, for our efforts in the past have not been very successful. The Prime Minister should get to know whether the remarks of the High Commissioner, as reported in the papers, were correct or not, and, if they were not, then he should take the opportunity of denying them, and if he was correctly reported, then it should be the duty of the Government to make representations to the High Commissioner that he should not make these remarks.

The High Commissioner had made a statement that it was not necessary to have a knowledge of the two languages. He would like to know what would be the feeling in Canada or Australia if they found that their officials in the London office were talking to Canadians or Australians in a foreign language. It seemed to him, from the remarks which had been made, that they should not criticise this London Office, but that it should be allowed to run upon its own lines. Proceeding, the hon. member complained of the little that was being done in the Free State in regard to the irrigation development schemes. They were told that an Under Secretary was going to be appointed to help the farmers in the Free State. When this gentleman was asked about the matter he said he knew nothing about it. Another point that he would like to refer to was the dissatisfaction which prevailed in the Civil Service regarding appointments. He would like to know who was responsible for this ridiculous matter that he wanted to lay before the House. Who was responsible for the appointment of the Chief Conservator of Forests? A gentleman had been appointed who, although he was a most agreeable gentleman, did not seem to have a proper claim for such an appointment. The gentleman he referred to was Mr. C. Legat. He wanted to know whether this gentleman was specially qualified for the work, whether he was a man who had taken any degrees or whether he was the man next in order of precedence. From information he had obtained, he found that he had not taken any degree and he was not the next in order of precedence, and he was not South African born.

Ah. (Laughter.)

said he would like to point out that there were three gentlemen in order of precedence before Mr. Legat. The first, he believed, had resigned, the second had some private disqualification, the third was appointed in 1888, was South African born, and was thoroughly qualified. Mr. Legat’s promotion during the last ten years had been meteoric. His salary during that period had increased in a most extraordinary rapid fashion, and now he was appointed Chief Conservator of Forests. He had never studied in Europe, he had come out to South Africa for the benefit of his health, and he believed that he (Mr. Legat) was in indifferent health now. An appointment of this kind was not very encouraging to young South Africans, to men who had taken upon themselves the obligation of getting properly qualified. Mr. Legat had strong recommendations from the former Conservator of Forests, and, in view of their relationship, it was most unfortunate that these recommendations should have been made. Proceeding, the hon. member said that, in dealing with this question of the Civil Service, he would like to call attention to another matter with reference to a communication he had received from a Civil Servant in the Free State. This gentleman had a grievance, and he desired the Minister to grant him an interview, but was met with a refusal. Surely, if a man had a good grievance, the Minister should allow him to put the matter before him. There was another point he wished to raise. He wished to ask the Minister of the Interior why there was a delay in fixing the date for the Barberton election. The hon. member resigned on the 2nd May, and now it was well into June, and there was no suggestion of a date being fixed. Were they to wait until Parliament had risen?

said a number of points had been raised which he did not wish to go into fully at the present stage; but with respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand, as to why the date for the Barberton election had not been fixed, his hon. colleague was not there, but he (the speaker) had asked the Minister only that very morning, and, therefore, was in a position to give a reply to the hon. member. That morning a despatch arrived from the Governor General in reference to the fixing of that election, and in view of the arrival of the despatch, he could assure the hon. member that the date of the election would be fixed almost immediately. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Legat as Chief Conservator of Forests, as to whether he was qualified, whether he was promoted in order of precedence, whether he was South African-born, and on several other questions tending to throw a doubt on his qualifications, he would explain that on the retirement of Mr. Lister as Conservator of Forests, the officers to be considered were: Mr. Hayward, who stood first in order of seniority, and Mr. C. T. Legat, who stood second. Then there were several second-grade conservators and some others, so that the House would see that with the exception of Mr. Hayward, in the matter of seniority, Mr. Legat was the best man for the post. Mr. Hayward was nearly at the age of retirement, and in view of that, declined to be put forward as a candidate. From that point of view, therefore, the Government had to fall back upon Mr. Legat. As to whether he was properly qualified, he was a B.Sc. of Edinburgh University.

That will be useful for forestry.

said that Mr. Legat went through the forestry course, and was as well qualified as any conservator in the Union. In 1902, when the Transvaal Government wanted a conservator of forests, they sent to the Cape, and Mr. Legat was chosen. From that to 1910 he was the Chief Conservator in the Transvaal, and, so far as he (the Minister) was aware, had carried out the duties in a satisfactory manner. He was not South African-born, but they had not considered that. He was entitled in the matter of seniority—he spoke Dutch quite well —and the matter of where officers were born did not arise so long as they had the qualifications to discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner. In regard to Mr. Henckel, he was a good capable officer, and there was not a word to be said against him, but hon. members would see that from the point of seniority he was not entitled to the promotion, and secondly, he would point out that when Mr. Legat was sent to the Transvaal as Chief Conservator, Mr. Henckel was sent to qualify-His studies were completed in 1905, not until after three years, during which Mr. Legat had been gaining practical experience as conservator in the Transvaal. With regard to the question of the Free State bursaries, he said that responsibility did not, in the first place, rest on his shoulders. In 1909 the Act was passed in the Free State, and during 1909 to the date of Union the Treasurer continued to receive payments into the fund and to pay pensions to certain persons. After Union, £110,000 was carried into the general revenue fund, and in 1911-12 the matter came under the review of the Public Accounts Committee, who recommended the money should be used for redemption of public debt.

Repeal the law.

The hon. member for Ladybrand was a member of that committee. Continuing, he said that he did not blame anybody in connection with this matter. This year the question had again been under review by the Public Accounts Committee. Their attention had been drawn to the matter in a pointed way, and their recommendation was that, if this amount was paid to public debt, the Act of 1909 should be repealed. So far as he was concerned, he was perfectly impartial with regard to the matter. If there was any mistake, it had been made unwittingly. He would be the last to do any act that might interfere with arrangements that had been made in regard to the Free State. Whatever had been done in regard to this matter, nobody had suffered—so far as pensioners being entitled to receive this amount, they had received far more. (Hear, hear.) The members of the Free State would have to consider which of the two courses would be best in their own interests—whether to leave the matter to be dealt with by Parliament on an equal basis, or to keep the law in force and reconstitute the fund. With regard to the question of the poor, the point was to consider the question of policy. He hoped that the Government would be able to carry out a substantial portion of the recommendations of the Select Committee, of which his right hon. friend was a member.

The hon. member for Georgetown had referred to the gravity of the situation on the East Rand. He agreed that the position was one of extreme gravity, and he was sorry that it had become so grave, because things were tending in an entirely different direction, and he hoped that hon. members on the cross-benches would use their influence to keep the dispute within its original limits. Some wrong step was taken by the management of the mine, and when the mistake was pointed out to them, they rescinded the notice they issued, and tried to get back to the status quo ante. Then a new position was taken up by the men, who raised a question of the gravest importance—the question of eight hours bank to bank. He thought that this was a question that required the closest survey J before any action was taken. When the Mines and Machinery Act was under consideration, pressure was brought to bear on the Government by hon. members on the cross-benches that there should be an eight-hour day bank to bank, instead of face to face. But the matter was not fought strenuously—(Labour laughter)—and the matter was not then as important as it had become since. He submitted that the question required far closer consideration than they had hitherto given to it, and he hoped that the miners would not precipitate a conflict on a question upon which the Government and the Legislature was not sufficiently informed. It would be far better that there should be a close examination, in order to see how far the Government and the Legislature might take action. He hoped that hon. members on the cross-benches would use their influence in this direction. They knew that the House looked upon this question of underground work in the most serious way, and he thought that, if sufficient time was given, the result would be far more satisfactory than if some conflict were precipitated now. He hoped that they would be able to solve this question in a better atmosphere than one of strife.

said they had been told that they did not represent the workers. Yet now that there was a time of strife, the Minister hoped sincerely that hon. members on the cross benches would use their influence, so that the men would be prevented from striking. The time for influence of any sort had gone past. They on those benches could not influence those men one way or the other. The Minister had said they had wanted time for inquiry, and all that sort of thing. Well, it was just that sort of talk that had led to the present position of affairs on the East Rand. But when the Minister said that the New Kleinfontein mine management was prepared to revert to the original condition, the Minister was misinformed. He had received information that afternoon that the men on the Witwatersrand were prepared, in spite of the Industrial Disputes Act and all this talk, to act for themselves.

No discipline.

said it would be found that the discipline of the men was exceedingly good, when it came to a question of their achieving their own objects. The whole thing depended upon the Government. The Government could settle this matter, if they wished, by adopting the suggestion of the hon. member for Georgetown, and bringing about by law a state of affairs whereby these men would be really working eight hours, instead of anything up to 16, by the alteration of one word in the Mines Regulation Act. The whole and sole responsibility rested upon the Government, sitting on those benches at the present time. He was informed that the Kleinfontein Company had two shift bosses down No. 1 shaft in charge of 250 boys. What was the Mines Department going to do in regard to that matter? Would this House believe that at the present time, according to the information he had, the natives were living and sleeping down below at the Apex Mine, and that their food was being lowered to them by the engineer?

The Minister knew full well the necessity for a real limited eight hours day on those mines, and that the only way to bring it about was an eight hours bank to bank. He wanted to know from the Minister if the position the mining company had taken up in regard to requiring the men to vacate their houses and quarters at a moment’s notice was legal. He hoped the Minister would do his best to bring about a termination of the dispute on the lines he had indicated.

said he thought this debate was a well-organised plan to deliver election speeches just before the prorogation. It was a great pity that such important matters should have been raised at this late stage, and had not been raised before. He thought it was a great pity, too, that many members had fired off their ammunition and then left the Chamber. A great deal of feeling had been aroused on the poor white question, but, if they looked at the fact, they would see that three classes of people had been provided for. The very poor could be placed in labour colonies, the class slightly better off could be assisted under the Land Settlement Act and the better off could be assisted by the Land Bank. A very prominent member of the old O.R.C. Government had on one occasion said, in reply to a demand for money and cattle to be given to poor whites, that the Government should not be made a charitable institution, and that they were in office as trustees of the public, and had no business to squander money. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Smithfield in that opinion, but the hon. member should not come to the House now and make demands for assistance. He hoped every member would see that they were now near the end of the session, and that they could hardly deal with such important subjects at this stage.

said he was one of those who felt that something ought to be done for the poor whites. He had always regretted that the poor whites had not been put back on the land, which he had hoped would have been done under the Land Act, as the Government had Crown Lands in its possession. Somebody should be appointed to look after the Crown lands and the poor whites. There was a screw loose somewhere. At the same time, he did not want Crown lands to be given away, or the Land Banks to lend money without proper security.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and was at once considered in committee.

said the clause contradicted the provisions of clause 2, which laid it down that the money appropriated by the Act should be appropriated as Parliament directed and to no other purpose. Clause 3, however, stated that where savings under any particular heading were effected the Minister of Finance might utilise them for any other purpose. He (Mr. Nathan) had objected year after year, to the Minister utilising money for any other purpose than that for which Parliament had voted it. He hoped the committee would support him in deleting clause 3.

The clause was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendment.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

It is a very wrong thing to take three stages of a financial measure in one day.

The Senate is waiting for it.

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

moved the third reading of the Natives Land Bill.

said he thought the Minister would have given the House some idea as to what conclusion he had come to on points which yesterday he said would receive his close attention. (Hear, hear.) He hoped they were not to take the silence of his hon. friend as meaning that the Minister had made up his mind not to meet what he (Sir Thomas) considered were the very fair and reasonable requests put forward by the Opposition. After all, the measure was one of the most important that this or any other parliament had been called to decide. So far as part 1 of the Bill was concerned it might be said that it applied both to the European and the native, but any one acquainted with the circumstances of the country must know that it applied far more to the native than to the European—that was the clause dealing with the prohibition of the purchase of land by Europeans in native areas and by natives in European areas. It was because many of them on both sides of the House thought that this Bill would apply very hardly upon the natives that he pleaded strongly with his hon. friend to make some exemptions in the case of those natives who had adopted a civilised mode of life and had raised themselves above their fellows. He believed that it was the idea that the Minister would have taken this matter into consideration, and would have informed them what decision he had come to. There was another matter of extraordinary importance, and that was the matter of laying down a time limit, and he thought they should have had some intimation from the Minister before the Bill went to another place. (Hear, hear.) He did not think that there were sufficient guarantees to allay suspicion in the native mind, that in taking away these rights it would only be for a time until Parliament brought the whole matter into review. An impression had been given to many members on that side of the House that the supporters of his hon. friend were determined to refuse even the most moderate amendments, and the impression was forced upon them that there must be other reasons which caused hon. members to take up this attitude towards this amendment of a time limit. He believed that if his hon. friend had been allowed to speak freely, he would have supported this time limit. The amendment of his hon. friend was that the report of the committee should be laid on the Table of the House, but there was nothing in the Bill to say that when that report was laid on the Table, the House would deal with it. True, they took away the opportunity of purchasing land both from Europeans and natives, but this would hit the native harder, and he thought to allay suspicion the amendment should be adopted. Why did not the Minister come boldly down to the House, knowing the views that he held, and say that he was prepared to accept this amendment?

Proceeding, the hon. member emphasised that it was the duty of this House to allay any suspicion that might have arisen in the native mind, and, knowing the opinions held by the Minister, he could not understand why he should not introduce the proposed amendment when the Bill was brought up in another place. (Opposition cheers.) They on his ride of the House had treated the Minister with every possible consideration in dealing with this matter, although they could have objected against a matter of this kind being rushed on the country, but they wanted to smooth the Minister’s way and induce him to accept reasonable amendments introduced in good faith. (Hear, hear.) After all, for all practical purposes the Bill did not apply to the Cape, and it could also be said to legalise the illegal position under which certain natives, more than 200,000 in number at present domiciled in the Transvaal, were placed. Was that, after all, a great safeguard that the matter would be brought up again. Had not the Minister himself declared last year that it would be impossible to take away the domicile of these people until they had made adequate provision for them somewhere else. Was it really necessary to legislate in that direction? In regard to the Free State, one might really describe this measure as a Bill defining the position of the natives in the Free State. Why should that special legislation be introduced on behalf of the Free State? Why should not the position at present existing in the Free State be allowed to continue until the Commission had reported. Surely that provision had not been introduced in the interest of the natives of the Free State. At present they were really doing something almost unheard of—they were legislating in advance of the report of a Commission. (Hear, hear.) Was it a wonder that he should be nervous, seeing the manner in which a number of hon. members on the Government side of the House had objected to the acceptance of a perfectly reasonable amendment? Furthermore, let them look at the resolutions passed at a Congress of the “Boerenbond,” in the Free State—a non-political body. That Congress had requested the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the following points: (a) Prohibiting natives to sow on shares. (An Hon. Member: Quite right.) Yes, quite right, but they could not take something away from these people without giving them something in return. The points upon which the Government were asked to legislate by that resolution included prohibiting the natives to sow on shares, as well as the purchase of land by natives in the European parts of the Union, and amongst other suggestions was one that the old Free State Pass Law should be placed into operation again. As a matter of fact, practically all the regulations suggested were embodied in the Bill. Under the circumstances it was all the more necessary that they should show by their moderation of some of the clauses that they were only introducing the measure because they honestly and conscientiously believed that it was in the interests of the natives as well as the Europeans that indiscriminate purchase of land should not take place in native areas by Europeans and by natives in European areas.

The majority in that House had come to that conclusion, but could not that policy be carried out by their accepting the amendment whereby civilised natives would be exempt, as they were at present exempt, owing to the fact that they were civilised? At the present time a native in the Transvaal could buy land if he was a civilised native, and under the amendment so carefully prepared by the hon. member for Tembuland these men could be exempted. Otherwise where were they to go? It had been their proud boast that they had advanced the native as far as he was advanced at the present time, and they ought to be careful not to raise suspicion in the minds of the civilised native that they wished to press him back into the ranks. He hoped his hon. friend would reconsider the question before the Bill went to another place, so that there the amendment might be adopted. In conclusion, he said it was impossible for the Opposition, not having what they considered adequate amendments, to accept responsibility.

said he took the extraordinary course of opposing the third reading of that Bill. When the hon. Minister assured them on the second reading that he would carefully consider the suggestion that they should pass the first chapter of the Bill only and wait for the report of the Commission before there was further legislation, he (the speaker) allowed the second reading to go through on that understanding. But the hon. Minister had met the suggestion by turning the whole Bill into the first chapter and doing away with the other chapters. The first chapter contained the principle of the separation of the black and white areas; that was a principle which he approved and which he believed was universally approved by all those who lived in constant contact with the natives. It was a principle universally admitted to be in the interests of both races in this country and one in which, could they get native feeling on the matter, they would find that the natives themselves believed it was a good principle to apply. The hon. member for Smithfield thought that the two-stream theory should apply to the white people of this country, but while he (the speaker) repudiated that as applying to white people, he thought that was the proper theory to put into practice with regard to the white and black races in this country. One had only to look around in this Peninsula to see the evil effect of the running together of those two streams. It would, in his opinion, have been a wise thing to pass chapter one of the Bill and have appointed a Commission to inquire into the rest of the Provisions of the original Bill. That would have given the country time to consider the other provisions, and more particularly it would have given the native population time to think of what could be accomplished by the Bill; but the Government appeared to have put the cart before the horse by legislating first and appointing a commission afterwards. Why should they appoint a commission if they were going to legislate fully in the matter first? Personally, he thought, when the discussion about Union was raging throughout South Africa, that the attitude of the people of Natal was the right one; that the Provinces were not quite fit for Union, and that they should have federation. The advantage of that had been shown, to his mind, by almost every Bill that had been before the House. The main principle underlying that Bill—for the separation of black from white areas—was that they in that House should deal justly, even generously, with the native people in gaining that object; but it seemed to him that the Minister, in the provisions relating to the Cape Province, had gone altogether too far. That Bill, so far as the Cape Province was concerned, did not affect the acquisition of land by natives in European areas. It was urged that, if they stopped that in the Cape Province, it would interfere with the franchise right of the natives. If that held good before the Commission had reported, he did not see how the Commission could take away that right, and, as a result, it would be impossible in the Cape Province to separate the white and black, and there would be encroachment by the black people upon the white areas in that Province. There was nothing in that Bill to prevent the natives in the Cape Province encroaching into the territory of the white man. With regard to the submission of the hon. member for Tembuland that the right of the native to buy land should not be interfered with before the Commission had reported, he would point out that the white men would not be likely to buy land in the native territories in the meantime; but, on the other hand, there would be a gradual encroachment of the black people into the white man’s territory.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, said that at the Convention before Union the Cape delegates were unanimous in insisting upon the franchise rights of the Cape Province, and they had behind them the whole of the Legislature of the Cape in their demand. The position was this, that unless the rights of the natives had been retained, there would have been no Union. The hon. member for Tembuland, by his amendment, proposed that, when the native reached a certain stage of civilisation, he should be allowed into the white areas. It seemed a curious thing that, directly the native got civilised, he was supposed to be too high a class of man to mix up with his uncivilised brethren. It seemed to him that the object of missionary effort in this country had been to Christianise and educate the black man, in order that he might set the example amongst and influence his uncivilised brethren. The Minister refused to accept the amendment, because he said that, under the Bill, the Governor General had the right to make certain exemptions.

If the mere civilisation of a native were to be a sufficient excuse for allowing him into a white area, and with the franchise rights preserved, it appeared to him (Mr. Blaine) that they might as well give up the attempt to separate the native from the white territory in the Cape Province. He feared that one result might be that they would have an agitation for the abrogration of the franchise rights of the natives. They had been congratulating themselves that at least, amongst the evils, they were getting rid of was that of community of tenure. He greatly feared that their confidence would be misplaced. There was nothing to prevent a native, if he bought a farm in the Cape Province, from letting portions of that farm to other natives. In view of the fact that no alienation of land to black men was to be permitted in the other Provinces of the Union, while it was to be permitted in the Cape on all sorts of excuses, the whole tendency would be for those natives who wished to acquire land in their own right to flock into the Cape Province. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that, though the danger might be extremely remote, the tendency would be to make the Province of the Capo of Good Hope a native reserve. He gave place to no one in his feeling of friendship for the native, but it grieved him to see the native spolit by contact with white civilisation. (Hear, hear.) He hated to see the native demoralised, and that was what was taking place at the present time. He did not want to see the native turned into a mongrel. That was the objection to what they saw in the Peninsula, and it was that which caused him to plead for a separate area for the white man and a separate area for the black man. He felt alarmed at the prospect of the Cape Province becoming the dumping ground of the civilised natives from other Provinces, and their acquiring land under the excuse that they wished to qualify themselves for the franchise in the Cape. He was in favour of the rejection of the third reading, because he hoped that, while the provisions of the Bill would be preserved so far as the other Provinces were concerned, they would have in the Cape of Good Hope a white area and a black area.

said that if they were going to raise natives above the status of their uncivilised and unchristianised brethren, they must, in common justice, give to them the privileges which accrued to them to-day by being civilised. They had, in the church to which he belonged, many natives of high moral character and intellectual standing, who were fitted to take their place with the ordinary white men in this country.

During the second reading of the Bill and through the committee stage he took no part at all in the debates. He wanted to form a judgment of the Minister’s motives for bringing this Bill forward—as to whether those motives were really for the good of the people for whom this Bill was presumably drawn up, or whether he was giving way to the retrogressive and backward faction who sat behind him (the Minister); and he had no hesitation in saying that the Bill told its own story, and the story the Bill told was that it was not giving justice to the people it was intended for. He held that this Bill must be only a stepping stone, and that other Bills must follow which would, in time, bring about a law and condition of things in this country whereby the natives could live under conditions which were acceptable to them and other people. No single Bill could ever do that, and he recognised that this Bill was only a stepping stone. But he wanted to ask the House whether the Bill had had due deliberation, either in this House, in the country, or amongst the people concerned. Had it had that consideration which a momentous measure like this should be given? They could not, at the end of a session, give proper consideration to this matter, which affected five millions of their people. He wanted to point out that the Minister, who was presumably a Minister favourably disposed towards the natives, might not always hold that office. Other Ministers might come and he would not be here to apply the terms of the Bill in a year or two. One reason for what he would call the undue precipitancy, the almost immoral haste, with regard to this Bill, had been given as that while they were deliberating the natives would club together and buy ground in those Provinces where they could do so. He did not think that would be the case. He knew the natives, and he knew it was not practical politics to talk of those people in the next two years buying any great tract of country. That was not possible. The Minister, in his attempt to placate the reactionary forces, who were, he regretted to say, not entirely behind him (the Minister) had divorced himself from long years of the advocacy of native rights and privileges. He could no longer stand before the people as the champion of native rights and privileges. His day, like the ash, was dead and done with.

said perhaps he might be permitted to say that he had seldom heard a more convincing speech than that which fell from the hon. member for Border. (Hear, hear.) Well, it had convinced him that he would be doing wrong if he voted against the third reading of this Bill, because he could see quite well that if this Bill were thrown out now they might have a ten times worse one brought in next year. His hon. friend, the member for Border, for whom he entertained the greatest regard, surprised him. How could he talk about separate areas for whites and blacks, and propose segregation when he lived in a district where 90 per cent. of the people were black? Was he going to move all those people for the sake of the ten per cent. of white people? Let him take the district of Peddie, where there was a mere handful of white people, and which he (Mr. Blaine) knew very well indeed. In that district there were 18,000 or 19,000 blacks. Was he going to take those people away, or the white people away? The fact was that it was too late to talk now about separate areas, except in some cases. He remembered that he was a great advocate, where it was possible, for keeping the Transkei as a separate area. Who opposed it then most heartily? Sir Thomas Upington. He said it was the best thing in the whole world to mix white and black together in order that the whites, by their excellent example and their admirable character, might influence the black people. It was carried against him (Mr. Merriman), and a number of white farmers were put down there. Another point he would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member. He said “For Heaven’s sake don’t vote for this Bill, because if you do the natives will come in and buy the white man out.” Had they shown any inclination to do that in the past? No. He was not now talking about the Transvaal, but of his own colony. They were not doing so. The natives no more liked living amongst white people than white people liked living amongst the blacks. What had happened was that landowners, for the greed of gain, had gone and let their farms, in defiance of the law, to natives. Segregation might have a different meaning. One person might mean one thing by it and another, another thing by it.

He wanted to talk to them about segregation. When they had got 250,000 people living in a white area—for one thing they had some thousands in Port Elizabeth. They had them all over the country and on every farm. The whole farming industry of the Colony—they might say South Africa—would stop if they carried out segregation. It must be a gradual process, no doubt, but they would have to provide some places where they were going to segregate these people, and that would be an extremely difficult thing to do.

That is in the Bill.

Yes, and I am going to vote for the Bill, because my hon. friend wants this present condition of things to go on. Proceeding, he said they had the hon. member for Umvoti saying, “No, no. Dispossess the native if you like, but dispossess the white man—never.” Well, that was another difficulty they had got to face, and altogether the thing was very difficult. To say that one liked this Bill or voted for it without reluctance would be untrue. First of all, his objection to the Bill was that they had not got enough information. They were legislating first and enquiring after—a very bad thing to do. They had not got information enough. His hon. friend the Minister, when he (the hon. member) put that, said in reply, in his very moving speech, “Information? Why, what information do you want?” Well, surely the progress of the discussion had shown whether they had information enough, because nearly every speech from those who know brought out some fresh point in regard to the natives. The thing aimed at was a uniform native policy. Had they got it in this Bill? A separate provision for each Province. Unavoidable. They could not dream of bringing people in different stages of civilisation under a uniform policy. Now, there were two principles in this Bill. The one was the suspension for the time being of the purchase of land by natives from whites—

interjected a remark.

My hon. friend is right. He says that that does not operate in the Cape. I do not think that the provision in the Bill will bring about any great revolution, because I do not think that you will find many natives in the Cape have been buying land from white men. We are already protected, and there is no doubt that the suspension of the Act, as applied to us, does not do any harm. Proceeding, the hon. member said, however, when they came to the Transvaal, they had an entirely different condition of affairs. There, there were natives who had clubbed together and who had bought land in white areas, and had established locations. Well, whatever their views on native policy, he thought that was not a good thing, and it should be prevented. So, therefore, that part of the Bill which was most important, to his mind, was, he was afraid, necessary. And they had protected themselves in the Cape.

Well, the other part of the Bill dealt with the rights of natives who were now on farms illegally—squatting there in some cases, and in some cases there in excess of the law, and entirely opposed to the law’ and the numerous and interesting codes of legislation called the “plakkers wetten.” He did not know whether hon. members had studied them, but all of them had been broken, and not one of them had been carried out. There they had the state of affairs that they had to deal with, and until the Commission had reported, they could not go into the matter more thoroughly than by some form of protection for the native, and some protection for the landlord, too, he supposed, because he (the landlord) was subject to tremendous penalties, if they enforced the law. Then they bad the Free State law imposed upon them. That law was going to damage the farmer. He was the man who was really going to suffer under it. Who got the native there? The farmer. Why? Because he had induced the native to come there. “Believe me,” said the right hon. member, “the system will go on the same as at present, if hon. members want that.” Continuing, he said that he did not think it was a good system, and the present system of squatting and the letting of land to natives struck a blow, not at the rich farmer, but at the poor farmer, who was shut out, and therefore sank, sank, sank. He must say that his hon. friend the Minister had taken the sting out of the Bill by subsection 2 of clause 6, which gave natives a considerable amount of protection. The Minister had met his views, to some extent, because he (Mr. Merriman) did not like the Bill, as it was legislating before they had information. He would rather fall into the tender hands of the Minister of Native Affairs than he would into the tender hands of his hon. friend (Mr. Blaine) after this speech, because he (the hon. member) would try the wildest experiments, which would plunge the country into ruin. Having referred to the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Rockey) with entirely different views, “having his arms round the neck of the hon. member for the Border” (Mr. Blaine) in regard to the Bill, the right hon. member, in conclusion, said that, as far as he could make out, in certain quarters of the House, but not the whole of it—and the discussion had been conducted with an amount of moderation, because they all felt the responsibility which lay upon them—it was taken that the spirit of that Bill was to depress and keep the black man down, however they did it. He did not think that could be denied. He wanted to say that he did not agree with that spirit himself, because he thought that, if they depressed the black man, infallibly they were going to pull the superior race down too. They could not tell him that the superior race was going to keep itself afloat by depressing the inferior race. What he did want to say was, that they could have spent their time better in considering some measures for lifting up the white men. (Hear, hear.) No one could read the Assaults on Women Commission’s report without coming to that conclusion, and that it was their bounden duty to lift the European up from the slough into which he had fallen. When they read of the vice into which some Europeans in Johannesburg and elsewhere had fallen, and when they considered that, in that Parliament, they had done nothing, and had not even found time to discuss the very important point before them or the report with regard to European labour, with a view to adopting it, it made them feel ashamed; the only word of encouragement had been from the Minister of Finance, who had promised that the Government would pay some attention to that matter. He could not cope with it without legislation, and without a vagrancy law, to put idle Europeans of both sexes into labour. Was it possible for any European to read, without being moved, to what depths some of their female European population had sunk? They had put it to one side, while they were spending days in discussing the natives. They would not be doing their duty if they did not discuss and try to find some remedy for that cancer in their midst. (Hear, hear.)

said that with much of what the right hon. gentleman had said they could thoroughly agree, but how was it that the hon. member failed to see the importance, not of the separation of the races, but of bringing the points of contact of the white and black community to the lowest possible number? He thought that the hon. member for the Border (Mr. Blaine) might lay that consolation to his heart, that if his speech had made the right hon. member for Victoria West vote for the Bill, others might shiver in their shoes. As the Minister was so fond of reminding him, his capacity for interpreting the laws was very limited, he stated that he had exempted in sub-section 2, clause 7, the natives of Cape Province, but he (Mr. Creswell) understood that that clause was only to apply to those natives who, being able to fulfil every other qualification for the franchise, were debarred by that law. It would not apply to natives who could not fulfil the education test. In the course of the discussion in committee much more had appeared than at the second reading. He had the strongest grounds for supposing that one of the principal objects of the Bill was not so much to arrest the progress of that Kafir body as to place Kafirs in the white area where they would be practically at the mercy of the white men on whose farms they were—(dissent)—and transform them into a state of serfdom—practically serfs of the men on whose farms they were.

They, on those benches, found it difficult to gauge the real value of an opposition when it came from hon. members who supported the native labour agreement and regulations. The purport of the Bill was that the Government recognised that this squatting evil had grown to such dimensions, and it was so undesirable that the Government recognised that at last the whole question must be dealt with. They proposed to appoint a Commission, but this measure went further and purported to say that, pending the report of the Commission, the Government was not going to allow the squatting evil to increase. They had grave doubts, after the discussion in Committee, whether one clause in the Bill did not place it within the power of the owner of land to turn the native squatting on his land into serfs, and force them to render labour or go off into the wide world. However, they might be in favour of the principle of separation of the two races, they as members of the Labour Party must refuse to support any measure which, under the guise of separating the two races, was going to act as a lever for the extension of the system of forced labour. They wanted an assurance from the Minister on one point. So far as they could see, the position was this: The owner of land on which a native was squatting could say: “Your lease terminates at the end of this month, or at the end of three months, or it shall terminate within that period, and if you will not work for me for four months you will have to leave.” At present the native, if the farmer terminated his lease, could simply go to another farmer. When the Bill passed, the position of the native would be entirely changed. The Minister the other day resented his interpretation that compulsory labour was one of the principles of the Bill. He would suggest a simple way whereby the Minister could put things right and give the Minister and those who supported the Bill an opportunity of showing that this was not one of the principles of the Bill. The Bill said that a farmer could renew the lease of a native squatter, but did not say that the native could do so if the farmer did not want him. He asked the Minister if he would undertake to introduce into the Bill a provision whereby the native who was at present on the land could renew the lease on the same terms until such time as Parliament decided what should be done. It was that one provision in the Bill as it stood at present that gave rise to the idea that one of the principles was to supply the landowner with practically forced labour. If the Minister should chide them in the course of his reply—as he sometimes did—with being suspicious, he would only say that if they did entertain any deep-rooted suspicion with regard to the measure the Minister had himself to thank for that. The Bill, while on the one hand, was a step in what they thought was the right direction, on the other seemed to place natives in such a position as to be more and more exploited by the white landowner. In these circumstances the members of the Labour Party were not able to share the responsibility of furthering such a measure.

said that he was delighted with the first debate that took place on this question, and while everyone seemed animated with a desire to do what was right and just to the natives, there was a feeling that certain of the details of the measure required amendment. He was more than pleased when the Minister closed the debate by a speech in which he seemed to be willing to meet the wishes of those in the House who thought that amendment was required. He could not have imagined that the Bill would develop into the shape into which it had developed, and had he known that so great an alteration would take place in the general effect of the measure from what was foreshadowed by the hon. Minister when he had made that interesting speech on the second reading he, the speaker, could not have conscientiously voted for the second reading. He would have been better pleased had a resolution been taken not to bring in a Bill until the Commission had reported. That was the position he had taken up all through and he would much rather now that the matter should be dealt with in that way. If, however, the Bill was to be pressed through there should be guarantees in it which should allay all suspicion. Anything affecting the native people required to be done gradually and should be placed before them a long time before the change actually took place. He hoped there would yet be some steps taken to give them a greater sense of security. To give some idea in the feeling of the minds of the natives he read a letter from a gentleman in Natal, largely interested in the natives, which had expressed the opinion that the natives stood uncompromisingly against any change in their present status until the Commission had reported. He hoped the hon. Minister would even yet endeavour to do something to meet their views.

said that from the point of those who had worked successfully in turning the uncivilised man into the civilised man the Bill was bound to be a failure. It was necessary not only to have legislation theoretically just, but also practically right and good. But there were many who felt that so far from the effect of that Bill being good it would be disastrous to a very large extent. The great sin which they had been committing was that they had always been legislating ahead of the people, and there had not been sufficient preparation for the changes which were proposed in that Bill; the natives were not ready for it. The hon. member for Victoria West had said that there was a disposition in certain directions to repress the natives. He (the speaker) believed that there was a feeling that white men had some divine right to the labour of the black, that the black people were to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and he wanted to say that while men were obsessed with that feeling they would never be able to legislate fairly. They had no more divine right to the labour of the black people than they had to the labour of the white. Proceeding, he said a constant change was something the natives did not understand, and if there was one feeling which gave them strength it was a feeling of security, but that Bill had given them a feeling of insecurity. Proceeding, he urged that they could not segregate, definitely, conclusively or successfully on the lines laid down. What did it matter if they placed white and black in separate areas if they did not separate them industrially? For this they were not prepared. To his mind the great point was, should their policy be one of repression or a policy of inspiration They had inspired the natives to a certain extent, but no sooner had they created an appetite than they had told the natives they should go no further. Their policy was the policy of Tantalus. That Bill would create a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the natives. There were those who said that if the natives would not submit to dictation they should be wiped out. But that should not be their policy. They must cease the policy of repression and let it be one of wide inspiration. Let them give up the policy of encouraging the natives to mimic the white man, rather should they endeavour to make them into good black men, and see what they could make of them, not what they could make out of them. They should put aside the policy of the past, and he hoped the better feeling of the Minister would still inspire the Bill. There should be more humanity and less of the lawyer and they would have a better Bill.

said their best thanks were due to the hon. Minister for what he had done in regard to that Bill, for, to his mind, it had been modified very much for the better, and they were not without hope that he would go further. The hon. member referred to the remarks of the right hon. member for Victoria West with regard to the report to which the right hon. gentleman called attention. Many of them had read that report from quite a different view to the right hon. gentleman. The land which had been bought up in the Transvaal had been bought by the natives, who were alarmed at the state of things their fellow-men were undergoing in Johannesburg, and the only remedy they saw was in buying back some of the land which belonged to their ancestors to put their own people upon. That was the motive which induced those intelligent men to buy back the land in the Transvaal. The right hon. gentleman had said nothing about that side of the question.

said the Bill was not improved, though there was a clause which eased the situation in the Transvaal, but that was only a by-question. The bed-rock of the opposition of the natives was the debarring of their right to purchase which they now had. There were forces at the back of the Government. They knew the genesis of the Bill. It was not initiated by the Government. Notices were put on the paper by the hon. member for Ficksburg, and there was the amendment by the hon. member for Rustenburg; in those they saw the beginning of the whole thing, along with the misleading report which had been laid on the Table as to the amount of land which had been transferred within the last three years. He would say advisedly that the large majority of the European people who clamoured, clamoured not because they wished separate areas for white and native people, but to stop the purchase by natives. He believed those people were backed up by a tremendous amount of public opinion in the country, as had been stated, but that did not make it more just. No doubt the present Minister would do what was right and just, but even he had yielded to pressure already, and what guarantee was there that that pressure would not be exerted in a different way after the law was passed. It might be impossible for the Minister to carry out what he intended to do. The original Bill was a whole Bill, although there might have been discrepancies, but now many provisions had dropped out, and it was a patchwork Bill, it was a blank cheque in the hands of the Minister, and while the present Minister could be trusted to fill in that blank cheque, he would not always hold that position. It might be held by someone with very different ideas. While he (Mr. Schreiner) believed in the foundation principle of the Bill, and welcomed the appointment of the Commission, he regretted that some of the amendments proposed had not been accepted.

He regretted most of all that exception had been made with regard to the Orange Free State, and their illiberal law had not only been fortified, but had been added to. Ft gave the people on the farms in the Free State the power to say to the independent or semi-independent natives who have for years worked the farmers’ ground for them, “You must either serve me for the wage I determine Upon or you must go.” That was the great blot on the Bill, and he would not be doing his duty if he did not protest against it on every opportunity. He thought the Minister ought to use his endeavours that when the Bill came back from another place it would be purified from that blot. What that provision amounted to was to put those people in the position of serfs. If they removed that right of the purchase of land which the natives had at present, it would never be put back. If Parliament considered the question in two years time, that Parliament that now determined that the purchase should be stopped would determine that the prohibition of the purchase should continue. That was his great objection. If it passed now the right would pass away for ever, and it was therefore scarcely possible for him to vote for the third reading.

expressed surprise at some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition that afternoon, and that some of his friends opposite were suspicious of almost everything that came from his (the Minister’s) side of the House. He could assure them that on the principle of the Bill and the provisions of the Bill as it stood there he had the support of all the experienced native Administrators with whom he had been able to put himself in communication. (Ministerial cheers.) It was one thing to read the bald provisions of the Bill, and another thing to be acquainted with the circumstances and the conditions under which the natives lived, and in connection with the Bill matters which had been described as terrible things amounted in reality to very little. The hon. member for Tembuland had expressed satisfaction with the Bill provided that he (the Minister) would always be in charge of Native Affairs, which God forbid. The chief objection the hon. member had to the Bill was that of preventing the indiscriminate purchase of land. He (the hon. Minister) had been in favour of that ever since he took any interest in native affairs. He had always been in favour as far as possible of keeping native areas and European areas separate, and no pressure was necessary to convince him of the good effect of legislation in that direction.

Hon. members must know that the effect upon Europeans, wherever they mixed with natives upon anything like equality—it was damnation for the Europeans—not the man who stood aside and who went there as a teacher, or preacher, or as an official, or, he would even say, a trader to some extent. He only received a communication yesterday from a man who he did not think was unfriendly to the natives, in which he stated the danger to the white man was this close association with the native. It did not do the native any harm, but it too often led to the detriment of the white man. It prejudicially affected the white man. He had long been aware of it, so he did not care whether people said pressure had been put upon him. And he was now endeavouring, as far as circumstances would permit, to give effect to the principle of separation. He could not understand the attitude of some hon. members this afternoon. The hon. member for Langlaagte gave them a little moral lecture which really had little to do with the provisions of the Bill. He said what had also been said by the hon. member for Tembuland, that at this stage sufficient time had not elapsed. Well, it was a little late to say that now. They had voted for the second reading of the Bill, and should rather now get to the merits of it. The hon. member for Tembuland had dealt with the Bill as it now stood, in rather a general way. But he wanted to ask the House if they were in favour of separation as far as possible, because those who thought they could have absolute separation were very little informed. But if they wanted to try and get it as far as possible then he wanted to know what else they could do but what he had done. There was this difference between his hon. friend and some other gentlemen. He did not want a time limit. He said they must not accept the restrictive principle on purchase at all, whereas the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said, “Give us a time limit.”

If you enact it at all.

Ah! No, you do not say that. You say “Give us a time limit.” Proceeding, the Minister said that he instanced that to show the difficulty of meeting the the two points of view. He said they must pass a Bill which would be acceptable to everyone. Well, on this occasion a genius from Heaven could not do it.

Really, when he heard some say they must have a uniform Bill—it was not possible. And if they had it, they might have to do the grossest injustice to a large section of the natives. They must recognise the different conditions, the different stages of civilisation, and the different laws and customs and rights in different Provinces. If they did not do that, they would be entering a sea of troubles. Therefore it was foolish to talk about uniformity. It was almost as great a word in this House as was Mesopotamia to the old lady. The speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort came down to this, stripped of its eloquence, because the hon. gentleman was always eloquent: he had two points. One was the recognition of the right of the civilised natives—the exemption of civilised natives. Well, he (the Minister) made a statement yesterday, and that he could take no further; and by taking it further in this House would make no difference to the Bill. As regarded the other point, the hon. gentleman said there should be a time limit. Now he had already pointed out that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Tembuland did not agree. The latter gentleman did not want it enacted at all. He said they must begin with the Commission. The objection he (the Minister) had to this—it was a real objection, and it was not an objection which originated with him, but was brought home to him by those who were more immediately concerned with the management of the natives—they pointed out that, it they did not enact the clause immediately restricting purchase, they would have the natives purchase, where otherwise they would not have. They would buy land and would pay off the instalments, and they would buy lands in parts that would be expropriated later on, and they would therefore lose.

The hon. member had said that the purchasers of land in the Transvaal were not so very large. He (the Minister) entirely agreed with him. But his view was that, whether the purchases were recent or remote, whether large or small, so far as the principle was concerned, that did not affect the situation. That was a mere incident, and it did not really touch the question; except that if they did not act now it would make it more difficult to do so later on. And, with regard to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said, he had to confess he could not follow him. Surely he (the hon. member) knew as well as he (the Minister) did that it was not necessary to say literally that they shall do a certain thing, when they made provisions which had exactly the same effect. Let him put it again, because he wanted to make it clear. In the first place the Bill said that certain things could go on. They could renew leases till the Commission has brought up its report and Parliament had acted.

Not in the Free State.

We will get to the Free State later on. Let us take now where the Bill will be in operation. It will be in operation in the Transvaal and Natal. Proceeding, the hon. Minister repeated that certain things could go on, the renewing of leases, and so on—that was a very important thing —until Parliament had made other provisions, acting upon the report of the Commission; and it said the Commission must report in two years. He wanted to say, in the first place—and he thought if his hon. friend were freed from that feeling of suspicion which he evinced this afternoon, he would agree—that he did not believe Parliament could be content with taking only the first section of this Act and no more. He thought the honour of Parliament, the conscience of the country, and public opinion would not be satisfied to take section 1 and no more.

Continuing, the Minister was understood to say that what they did now was to put certain people in a legal position, and without it, if Parliament had been so disposed, they could take the proposed time limit out and make impossible what is now easy of achievement. If Parliament did not act on the report of this Commission it would amount to this: that while you prevented a few people from purchasing, you would allow hundreds and thousands of people to sit still who had the best title of all—Parliamentary title—to remain there, because it said that until Parliament decided otherwise, these people—these squatters—would remain. Some of the members who had supported him were just as anxious—if not more anxious —to have that question of squatters settled than those on the other side. (Hear, hear.) If his hon. friends opposite would get rid of their suspicion, they would find that there were some hon. members on his side who were just as anxious to see that justice and fair play were done as those on the other side, and that being the case, he could not, for the life of him, see what they were quarrelling about. It was like tweedledum and tweedledee, but with this difference: as the hon. member had said, it would be easy to bring in a little Bill and repeal the time limit. They could not carry out their policy unless they dealt with hundreds of thousands of squatters, for the simple reason that those people were on land which he hoped would be, or would become, a European area or a native area— or partly of each—but they could not have those people dispersed all over the country. Then there was one other point he wanted to say a few words on. It was a matter raised by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) who had made rather an acrimonious speech, and before going on with this point he wished to remark that that hon. member had never yet ascribed a good motive to anyone. He was indiscriminate in blame. He seemed to act on the principle that one must give nothing and take everything. He would just like to tell the hon. member that generosity and magnanimity paid sometimes. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member should not think that he possessed all the virtues, and that those who did not agree with him possessed only the vices. (Cheers.) Well, to deal with the remarks of the hon. member where he had said that one sub-section of the Bill compelled the natives to work whether they like it or not, he would just refer the hon. member to the law of the Cape. At the Cape no native who was the sole lessee of a portion of “such private property” where the remainder of such private property was occupied by the owner thereof could hire the remainder of that farm, if the owner was on it, but had to pay not less than £36 per annum, and must have his lease registered. If he became the sole lessee it was provided that he paid not less than 8 per cent. on the Divisional valuation of the property, and every other lessee must get the consent of the Governor-General or the Divisional Council, or he was dealt with as a squatter. The right hon. member for Victoria West was perfectly right when he said that the white man did not drive the native off his land. What did the farmers from both sides of that House do? They wanted to keep the native on their land, and that was why all the squatting had arisen. The clause in the Bill secured people who were illegally squatting, and it legalised what existed to-day. It recognised the position, and allowed these people who were there to-day to continue their present relations with the farmers. But one had only to speak of serfdom and every Englishman was off. He was up in arms—and it was rather to his credit. But, after all, they must recognise facts. (Hear, hear.) He quoted from the Cape law to show that under that law they had a stronger machinery to compel the natives to work than they had under the proposed provisions of that Bill, yet one never heard of serfdom in the Cape. As a matter of fact, the proprietors of the land did not want the squatters turned off. The people who wanted that were those who required labour elsewhere and those who were in favour of separation. (Hear, hear.) He wished to conclude by saying this: They had heard that the natives in some respects were restricted in the rights which they had before, and he admitted that. He would not say that the object of the Bill was to restrict them of those rights, but it was part of a policy which they had thought best for the Europeans and for the natives; and if they wanted to carry out a policy which he believed everyone in this House wanted, then they could not do otherwise than to some extent restrict the rights, not only of the natives, but of the Europeans as well. They could not carry out this policy without doing so. He admitted that on the one hand they had restricted rights, but on the other hand they had extended rights and secured rights as regarded land in occupation and ownership.

They had taken steps to secure the rights of natives—occupation and ownership— which he at first hesitated to put before that House now because he thought of what might likely happen. It was a sine qua non, so far as he was concerned, that the rights of the natives secured by this Bill should form part of the proposals. People who knew the natives valued that part above others. They secured their rights or rather their land. Let them take the Cape. Four-fifths of the land that was occupied by natives was technically Crown land. By prescription, by right, by every sense of justice, they were entitled to occupy that land, but when they talked about distrusting the body of men in that House, distrusting who might follow him, or that they might have a House composed otherwise than at present, then they must recognise the great advantage of giving the natives the legal right to the land. They should not let it go to the natives, as the speeches of some hon. members had done, that they were doing them a great injustice. It was wrong and it was misleading, and it made difficulties already great almost insuperable, and it made it almost impossible to carry out a policy which the majority of that House favoured. His hon. friend had talked about pressure being put on them, but he did not know that he would have altered one clause of the Bill excepting that part referring to the Free State, which he did not quite like. It would have been better to have left it there, but he recognised that he had to be fair. The Free State was in the same position as the Transvaal, and they said for the present, “Put us back where we were.” He believed this—

Not further?

No further than prior to the decision of the court. It had been said that they should start de novo. If they did so he did not believe that the Free State members would ask for all the provisions of their laws. In some respects he believed that some of the provisions would not have been insisted on. He wanted the House to understand that he was of opinion that in dealing with native matters they must try to carry the people of the Provinces with them, and if they did not do that they would make no progress. His predecessor found it so, and he had often discussed it with him. He found that the best way and the only way was to get the people of the different Provinces to go with the Minister for the time being. He did not pretend that this law or any legislative enactment which they might pass would solve this difficult problem. He had believed, and still believed, that they would never get anything like a workable arrangement between the European and native races unless the main principle actuating them was a sense of fair play and justice. He believed that there was nothing in the Bill contrary to that, and in taking some step to make less difficult a difficult problem, they must consider the interests of both sections of the community. He agreed that if the superior race only kept the other race as servants with no other outlook, and with the idea that they did not think they were worthy of receiving assistance, they would fail. The people of that country had not been illiberal as compared with other countries. When he looked at Australia he was proud to think that here the white—and that was the true test— and native races were on good terms to-day. That was a great deal due to the native policy that had been adopted in South Africa. It was only on these lines that they could succeed. He believed that it would be a great misfortune if they did not take steps to separate as far as possible the two races, because the evil influence from close communion between these two peoples was all too evident in South Africa.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

moved: In lines 5 and 6, to omit “or who will give such undertaking as aforesaid”; in line 8, to omit “a” and to substitute “such”; and in the same line, after “person”, to omit all the words down to “given” in line 13.

Agreed to.

On clause 22,

said he wished to move an amendment to sub-section (2).

objected.

I wish—

Under the rules of the House—

explained that, owing to the Bill being taken at such a late stage of the previous day’s sitting, he found it impossible to get his amendment placed on the paper.

The hon. member could have given notice of his amendment yesterday.

The Bill was not in Committee until after dinner.

The hon. member is out of order. He cannot move.

I think the Minister might have been a little more courteous.

On clause 59,

said he wished to move the rejection of the amendment agreed to in committee to delete sub-section (3), which dealt with the presence of Press representatives during the hearing of cases.

The hon. member can simply vote against it.

said he hoped the Minister would see the necessity for reverting to the original form. It was a very dangerous thing to allow proceedings to go on in camera without any possibility of daylight being thrown upon them. He thought they might rely upon the discretion of newspaper reporters.

said he was not quite so sure about some of the things which appeared in the papers, but still it was some kind of a safeguard that newspaper representatives should be present during the proceedings.

put the amendment as made in committee and declared that the “Noes” had it.

The remaining amendments were agreed to.

moved that heads 1 to 4 stand over until head 5 had been disposed of.

said he had no objection.

The motion was agreed to.

On head 5, General charges, £273,675,

said he would like to hear from the Minister with regard to the question which had been raised during this session as to the recommendations of the Grievances Commission having been overridden by the regulations. He wanted particularly to refer to the long period that apprentices had to emerge through before they became full-fledged journeymen workers and to ask whether the Minister and the Board had reconsidered the position as embodied in the regulations?

said he wished to raise a point in regard to the leave granted by the department to men in the Citizen Defence Force. He found they were only getting six days’ leave on full pay, and he thought they should be given full pay for the whole period of 12 days.

I think there is a mistake somewhere.

said he would ask the Minister to reconsider the policy of the Government in respect of certain measures dealing with the administration of the Railways and Harbours Department. First of all, would he reconsider the question of reverting to the system of weekly instead of monthly payment of wages? The Grievances Commission in their report condemned the system of “weekly subs.” in the Cape Province as unsatisfactory. The monthly payment system was, in reality, false economy. The saving to the department was not of a considerable amount, while the dissatisfaction to the men arising from the monthly system was very great. Not only the workers, but the merchants and the retailers, were in favour of the weekly payment of wages to the department’s employees. The total saving to the department was only a matter of about £1,300. He had within the past few minutes received a complaint in regard to the Administration. The Railways and Harbours Service Bill of last year laid down that temporary employment on the railways should be for a period of two years. He had just received information from a reliable authority that there were 3,750 certificates waiting to be issued to men who were entitled to be on the permanent staff. He hoped the Minister would direct that these certificates should be issued. The hon. member went on to complain that, in regard to the consolidated pay of 19s. given to men in the Transvaal, the allowance of 4s. for cost of living was not to hold good in regard to Sunday work. He claimed that the men were just as much entitled to the allowance on Sundays as any other day in the week. He also pointed out that 75 per cent. of the men in Pretoria had decided to retain their consolidated pay, even though it meant a present to the department of the extra five-and-a-half days’ holiday in the year, which they would otherwise be granted. He complained that these men were getting their piecework rates based on the 15s. rate, instead of the 19s. rate which had existed in the past. If they had their 19s. consolidated pay, it meant that on piecework they were entitled to earn time and a quarter, as laid down in the regulations. If those men preferred to have the consolidated pay, the department should be honest enough to say they would have their piecework pay calculated on their aggregate pay. He wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister certain grievances in connection with the Grievances Committee and its report. Some of the regulations which had been issued were directly in conflict with the recommendations of the Grievances Commission. That Commission seemed to be a waste of money, especially when they found the department ignoring its recommendations in the way it had. Proceeding, the hon. member instanced clause 140, which dealt with Sunday duty. Under it, he said, after working eight hours in the early part of the day certain men would have eight hours off, and they would have to go on duty again. The men had not a single Sunday off throughout the year. He would ask the Minister if he considered that fair. The Grievances Commission in dealing with that part considered the hours far too long, and recommended a change. Despite that recommendation the Department had instituted a system by which a man could not have a Sunday off. Then there was a point of even greater importance. Some weeks ago the Minister spoke to the apprentices at Salt River, and told them what they could do after they had served their time. He would ask of what use was that to the apprentices when they could not get any substantial pay for many years. It was recommended by Messrs. Hendrie, and Beattie and another, the old advisers of the Government, that the period of improvership should only be for one year. Yet here they had the regulations that the term should be for two years. The Grievances Commission Report, dealing with the maximum pay of apprentices, and the Minister’s own regulations or the regulations of the Minister’s own department were in conflict. He quite agreed with the Minister that young South Africans should educate themselves, but how were they encouraged? They were denied their increments. The hon. member quoted from the report of the Grievances Commission to bear that out, and that there were most glaring anomalies. The artisans, he said, did not get fair play as far as getting their maximum pay, or maximum increments, were concerned. He knew that first hand. Those in charge did not, he must say, generally encourage the apprentices to improve, or further educate themselves, and boys who had served their apprenticeship in a shop had, he knew, got no opportunity of getting a knowledge of the larger work of the Department. There were exceptional foremen, who let their apprentices do all possible kinds of work in their department, so that they got a good training and a thorough knowledge of the work of their department, but as he said, such foremen were exceptions. Continuing, he said he could go on dealing with grievances dealt with by the Commission. The point was that the principles recommended by the Commission had not been embodied in these rule books, and if the Government had wished to deal fairly with the men, it would have taken into consideration these principles. Despite the fact that the Minister had told them over and over again that men would not be detrimentally affected by the new regulations, he would point out that the standard rate of pay in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal had been reduced by 2s, and 1s. respectively. He would draw the Minister’s attention to clause 171 of the regulations, which says that any employee whose present rate is lower than the maximum laid down will be subject to that maximum, and he would point out that the position of men had been adversely affected in spite of the protestations of the Government. It was dishonest of the Minister to make statements of such a character, in view of the effect the regulations had had. The Minister would have a difficult question to answer when he went before the electors and they wanted to know why it was the Government had acted in violation of their own platform, which laid down in clause 6 that their policy, as far as the working man was concerned, was the improvement of the conditions of labour and the securing to white workers of a proper place in the industrial world of South Africa. He supposed that the Minister subscribed to that clause when he was before the electors—

I do now.

Does he consider that reducing the pay of the railway workers can be reconciled with the Government’s so-called policy of improving the conditions of labour? The Minister had extended an invitation to the private employer to reduce the standard rate of wages, and his party would have a very difficult task in trying to prove that they had not forfeited all claim to the confidence of the workmen in South Africa.

suggested that they should report progress at that stage, maintaining that it would be indecent to put the vote through at that time of the night. It involved expenditure of twelve millions of money. They could deal with the question of the coal combine, incidence of rates up-country, and inland industries and other phases connected with the question, and it was grotesque to put it forward as a business proposition at that late hour. He moved to report progress.

said he hoped the hon. member would not press his motion. He did not want the House to sit unreasonably late, but they ought to have made more progress than they had done during the evening.

supported the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, East.

expressed the same view.

agreed to the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was accordingly reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).