I would ask the Minister if he knows there is a great deal of public concern about this Bill, and I would ask him to put it off to a later date. As far as I know, it has so far not been seen by anybody.

For the information of the hon. member I may say this is not the Bill to which he has referred; it is only a small measure, and I hardly think there is anything contentious in it, and for that reason I would suggest we take the second reading on Wednesday. If the hon. gentleman wishes to press his points I have no objection to putting it further on, but we are desirous of getting on with the work and with measures which are non-contentious.

I accept the Minister’s assurance that this is a non-contentious measure, and that we take it on Wednesday. If there is anything contentious which arises we may take it later.

Motion put and agreed to.

Is this one of the “sjambok” Bills? I should very much like to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to postpone this. Is there a likelihood of this. Bill being contentious ?

I would like to support the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) with regard to the postponement of this Bill to a date later than Wednesday. The Minister knows that the provisions of this Bill affect a very large population in such centres as Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban, and I ask him to put it down eight days later.

I wish to point out that the Bill has already been before a select committee of this House and before the country for a long time. Any new points brought into the Bill, as now placed before this House, have been put in at the suggestion of the big centres to which the hon. member has referred. I hope that any Objection to the Bill being taken on Wednesday will be removed, and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) need have no fears.

I am afraid you are getting like your hon. friend over there [Minister of Justice].

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to give effect to a resolution passed by Parliament in 1923. In 1925 Parliament passed a resolution by which certain areas in the Cape Province were to be set aside for the coloured population of Gordonia. The resolution was altered in 1926 to the effect that, so soon as sufficient provision is made for the coloured people of Gordonia, the areas could be used for the settlement of coloured persons coming from other parts of the Union. There are about 200 coloured families living in the Gordonia district who will primarily fall under the law. They live partly on Government ground, which is continually becoming less, because it is given out for settlement and is partly on private farms, where they are liable to be given notice to leave at any moment. We felt that something should be done for the people, and then have an area between the Aub and the Nosop in view. The people there own about 7,000 head of cattle, and 30,000 sheep and goats. It was decided in 1925 to lease the land to the coloured people on certain conditions. Some of them went in for irrigation, and 30 of them have been put there who will not fall under this Bill. They are provided for. The same resolution of Parliament also provided that the Minister of Lands should have an enquiry made about the area that had been made available, to see whether it was suitable. When I became Minister of Lands I appointed a commission consisting of the Chairman of the Land Board, Dr. du Toit (geologist in the Irrigation Department), and two coloured persons interested in the matter. The report of the commission was very disappointing, because the conclusion come to was that the area was quite unsuitable, inasmuch as the grass is loose there, and will be trodden up by the stock, and there was practically no possibility of getting water. At the same time they suggest that, as Minister of Lands, I should try to get hold of an area south of the Rietfontein Mission Station, which will be suitable for the purpose. I then requested the Chairman of the Land Board and the Under Secretary for Lands to enquire into it. They strongly recommend the area, and have obtained options over certain private farms, which ought to be obtained, more particularly for water-supply purposes. Most of the land, however, was already Government property. The matter was submitted to the Land Board, which bought the private farms, viz., 73,000 morgen for £13,000. That is the area which is proposed in this Bill for the use of coloured persons. The commission reports that water can easily be obtained along the river by pumping, and that there is satisfactory grazing, while, when it rains, the portions further away from the river will be very suitable. The area embraces about 50 farms, of which 30 are Crown land, and the whole settlement is about 450,000 morgen in size. The chief means of existence will be from cattle breeding, although a portion is also suitable for agriculture. There are already five farms adjoining the area, which belong to coloured persons, and it is proposed to include them in the coloured area. This area is easily separable from the farms occupied by Europeans. As for the history of this Bill, hon. members will understand that we are making an experiment, and must, therefore, be very careful. Provision is made in the Bill for the proclamation of further areas as coloured areas, after a corresponding resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. To have good control over the settlement, I suggest that a board of control should be appointed consisting of the magistrate and two Government servants, who will have the right under the Act to demarcate places for church, school and other purposes, and which will also have control over the occupation of persons. The intention is not to give the people ownership.

Why not ?

I have no objection to it, but it would not be in the people’s interests. We know from experience that they then lose the farms through Europeans buying them up. These very people nearly all had farms along the Orange River, and they admit that by easy credit, and the supply of drink, they have been ruined. The same took place in Carnarvon. The coloured people had land there, but it was bought up by Europeans years ago. We therefore want to protect them. The Board of Control will also be able to cancel the right of occupation if certain conditions are not fulfilled; if an occupier dies he loses his right of occupation, but the right is protected for the benefit of his successor, or, if he has no children, for dependents. Their rights practically amount to the same as if they owned the ground, but they cannot mortgage or sell it, and will get no transfer. The Board of Control will also have the rights, which it was proposed to grant them in 1926. Further, no one will be permitted to trade in the area without the department’s approval. My idea is that the right should only be given to coloured persons, and that no hawkers should come in from outside. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Liquor Act, no licence will be granted in the area, and it will fall under Sections 7 and 8 of the Liquor Act, so that no liquor can be imported into the area. I think that this is very necessary. Provision is also made for the election of a local committee of control by the coloured people from amongst themselves. That committee will supervise the general welfare, and advise the Board of Control. All these things cannot be laid down in the Bill, and hon. members must remember that it is an experiment, so that we do not know how it will work out exactly. If it succeeds, other areas can also be proclaimed by the Governor-General by virtue of the resolution of Parliament, and provision is also made that coloured persons from other areas can also apply to be included.

I have pleasure in supporting the Bill. I have one or two amendments to propose in committee, which I hope the hon. member will accept. This idea of placing these men on large areas is not anything new. As far back as 1922, while I was serving on a commission investigating and reporting on all the islands in the Orange River, we were also asked to investigate and report on this matter. We had several meetings with these people, who are known as what are called “Bastards” down there. In our report of the 14th November. 1922, we estimated that there were 270 agriculturists and about 200 stock farmers. These men possessed 7,000 large and 30,000 small stock, and some provision had to be made for these men who had been exploited on by unscrupulous dealers. They all had farms on the Orange River, and to-day there was only ore coloured owner left, a widow woman, who could not sell, and she had two large farms. We investigated several large areas and were accompanied by two “Bastards,” but nothing suitable was found for them. Eventually 1,000,000 morgen was reserved in the Kalahari, but on account of the heavy expenditure that would have been necessary to find water, the present Government did not go on with the scheme, and I think very rightly. About a year ago, I was asked by the present Minister of Lands to go again with the magistrate to inspect this particular area. The grazing here is a little inferior to the previous grazing, but there is certainly more water and can easily be found. The Minister approved of bur recommendation, and some five farms were purchased, and. I take it, the land is now being got ready for the “Bastards” to occupy. Whether they will occupy it or not is another question.; personally, I think very, slowly, and it is only the stock farmers who will go there. I see the committee has a right to recommend, that improvements can be made. There is an exceptionally fine position for a storage dam at a place called “Sannahs Poort,” a few miles north of Rietfontein. If the Government does that, I think the "Bastards” along the Orange River and on the islands might be induced to go there, as there is excellent land for them to cultivate. They have been unjustly treated and exploited, and we will thus get better control over them. I have much pleasure, in supporting this Bill, and hope that in committee, a few minor amendments I have to propose will be accepted.

It is a privilege to work on this Bill. I have only one objection with reference to the object for the introduction of the Bill. That object is not clear, and I do not know exactly whom it is intended to help here. In his speech, the Minister said that he wants to assist the Gordonia coloured people. But the words “coloured persons” are so ambiguous, but I should be glad to have further information from the Minister about the object, of the measure. Is the intention only in connection with the coloured persons of Gordonia mentioned, or all coloured persons? If all are intended, then I am thankful that the rights, of the coloured community are being acknowledged in this respect. A considerable amount has already been done for European settlement, and we are thankful for it. Something has already been done for the native, and it is pretty generally supported. Now it is also proposed to do something for the coloured person, and we feel that it is not only right towards those of Gordonia, but towards the whole coloured community in the country. Moreover, in Gordonia there are also other coloured communities, and I am, therefore, glad that the Minister said that the Bill would not merely apply to Gordonia. I think the Griquas, who were also land owners, and lived tribally on a considerable scale, have quite a history behind them. They lost their land and their tribal conditions, and a part of the people feel that we could do more than right if we again enabled the Griquas to become land owners. I do not say that we should again institute and cultivate tribal conditions and racial feeling, because we already have enough of that in the country, but they have a past which compels us, if we are impartial and honourable people in the House, to make provision for the Griquas. I do not want to go into details now. I feel, however, that there will be objection to the undertaking, and they will arise in future, so that I am very glad that the Minister has reserved the right of making regulations. The history of South Africa in connection with the bringing together of the coloured people is certainly very unhappy, and even to-day leaves a nasty taste in our mouths. Therefore, it must not be the intention here to demarcate a kind of Tom Tiddler’s ground for the coloured persons. We must do justice to that section of the population, but we must also guarantee against undesirable consequences, and I am glad the Minister is to make regulations. Secondly, I feel that the Minister will probably come into conflict with a portion of his own people. The Bill deals with a problem, namely, the labour problem, which is fairly acute in the north-western areas. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, while seeing that no injustice is done to this section of the population, will also be careful as to how his undertaking affects the labour problem. I do not want any section of the community to be unjustly treated. Thirdly, I think that a difference of opinion will arise as to whether the Minister is going too fast or too slow in this undertaking. Therefore, I am glad that he has made provision in the Bill that both houses of Parliament should concur when he intends to take the matter further. The white population can, therefore, feel certain that their interests will be protected, and the coloured persons that no injustice will be done to them.

With the details of this Bill, I think every member of this House will be in agreement. It is the outcome of resolutions passed in the House in 1923, and, after seven years of enquiry and negotiation, we are now seeing the consummation of those resolutions. As far as I can see, the provisions of the Bill are very wisely drawn. A board of officials is to be appointed to superintend this settlement, and that is, no doubt, the best machinery, in the circumstances, that can be devised. I also think the nature of the tenure, which is not to be permanent in any case, is probably also wise. It is in the nature of an experiment. But when one has said that, one must point out that this Bill ushers into the Union an entirely new departure in our legislation in regard to land settlement. Hitherto, there has been no difference whatsoever between Europeans and non-Europeans under our Land Settlement Act. When that Act was passed in 1912, there was no difference made between any colour of any of the inhabitants of the Union. The passing of the Native Land Act brought about a division of the land in the Union into black areas and white areas, which of course takes the native population outside of the limits of the Land Settlement Bill. Here, in this Bill, we are establishing segregation for coloured people. I am not quarrelling with the principle; I am just remarking that we are establishing the policy of segregation for coloured people, and by implication under this Bill we are providing that no European may be settled in this coloured area. I do not know how far that policy will extend. So far, they are applying it only to the Cape, but we are taking power under this Bill, by simple resolution of this Parliament to set up coloured areas all over the Cape. Of course, a resolution of Parliament is very easily obtained. It will be obtained in this case by sending a resolution to the standing Select Committee on Crown Lands, and when it comes before this House it is very easily passed. We have been very careful in other cases to insist upon an Act in order to effect our purpose. In such a question as the proclaiming of land to be riparian we insist upon legislation. We are here taking power to set aside coloured areas all over the Cape by a mere resolution. It may be a good principle, or it may be a bad principle, but it is certainly a new departure, and it may profoundly affect the policy of the future. Our idea in regard to colour is bound to extend. If we go in for coloured land segregation in the Cape to-day we may apply it to other coloured people in Natal to-morrow. So I think it would be wise for the Minister to state what the new policy may lead to in the future, and whether that position has been frankly faced by the Government.

I have gone through every clause in this Bill, and I am quite prepared to admit that it is in the nature of an experiment. It is very difficult to circumscribe an Act of Parliament when you embark upon a new venture. The Minister takes upon himself enormous powers under Clause 11. The whole control is vested in the Minister by regulation. It is often said that this Parliament has given tremendous powers from time to time to the Government to govern by regulation. But if you look at this particular measure, you will see that there are certain aspects of our public life which, if you desire to carry into effect, you cannot do otherwise than carry such a policy through by regulation. The Minister may be asked to define the class of settler that he intends to settle on the land. I quite agree with the Minister that it is almost impossible to define it. You get different applicants who come forward as settlers, and it is extremely difficult for the Minister to define what class of coloured people he is going to allow to reside there, even by regulation. He must lay down who is to occupy these proposed lands. There is another very important part of this Bill, and that is the protection which the Minister affords to settlers once they are settled. Now these regulations are very stringent; they are all in favour of the settler. I have been considering the control which the Minister gets into his hands with regard to the occupation rights; even the property rights and goods are vested in the Minister. I think the goods are in the control of the Minister. We should realize that these poor people are often at the mercy of unscrupulous people, and let me say that I cannot agree with the Minister that the occupation rights of these people should be protected in the way proposed. I hope, in the course of time, when this Bill has been in operation, that there will be a possibility of the occupier obtaining title. I hope, in the course of time, that people settled down there will be considered as owners, and that we shall be able to come forward in this House and take steps to give people the title to their land. The Minister, as I have said, controls the loose assets. There is no provision in the Act by which the Minister can give advances to these people. They have got to depend upon their own resources. If the Minister controls all the loose assets, then they are not executable or attachable by any creditor. The question is: are these people going to get credit anywhere in order to commence their operations once they become settlers? It is extreme power to be taken by the Minister, and it can only be justified by experience. In regard to the board of management, the Minister has now, I think, taken the wise precaution to establish an advisory committee to advise the board in regard to their management of the settlers, but also here I hope that in course of time settlers may be allowed to become members of the board. Later on I hope we may see our way clear for settlers to be represented on the board. As to the Gordonia settlement, the people there owned the land in days gone by, but through no fault of their own they lost the title to their land.

I welcome the Bill as a further step towards self-government. Europeans are amply provided for as far as local self-government is concerned, and the principle has worked well for the natives in the Missions Stations Act; but I am rather disappointed that the Minister has not taken his courage in both hands and allowed the coloured inhabitants to be represented on the board to be appointed under the Bill. The inhabitants should be allowed to elect two of their own people to sit on the board. I am supported in that proposal by the commission which inquired into the question of suitable ground for the purposes of this settlement. When people are represented on the controlling authority, they take much more interest in their own affairs and realize their responsibilities more fully than if they were unrepresented, while the board itself would do much better work if it included representatives of the people than if it were merely a nominated body. I am afraid that so far as communal grazing rights and the use of water are concerned, very soon serious trouble will arise. The Bill provides for the Government obtaining money for supplying water and erecting dipping tanks and fencing, but, unfortunately, no provision is made for housing the people, although that is a most important matter. As it is the people will erect wattle and daub huts, structures made out of paraffin tins, and so on, so that their living places will present a most disgraceful appearance, and will become an eyesore. Really, they should be encouraged to take a pride in their surroundings, and a pleasant dwelling place is a very important factor in the uplift of the people. The very fact that the people will have no fixity of tenure may lead them to refrain from spending any of their own money in the erection of decent dwelling houses. The Government should come to their assistance, especially seeing that under certain circumstances the Government will have the right to resume possession of the land without the payment of compensation. I most strongly support the clauses preventing spirituous liquors being introduced into the settlement, as undoubtedly drink has been the cause of the downfall of a large section of the coloured people. I also most heartily support the clause which renders the possessions of the settlers non-executable for debt, as that being so, they will not be able to incur debts for things they cannot afford. When the Bill gets into committee, I hope the Minister will accept reasonable amendments.

With reference to the objection by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) about, the double sense of the words “coloured person,” I may say that it will be cleared up by legislation.

†These people for whom provision is made here were originally the owners of the land. The scope of the Bill can be extended to other parts of the Cape Province. My hon. friend says a resolution of Parliament is easily obtained; that is so if it is a matter of no great importance, but I can assure him if I were to start a coloured settlement in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, or even in some parts of the Cape, the thing would be very carefully scrutinized. My hon. friend need not be afraid that Parliament will easily pass such a resolution. I do not expect any further settlements of this nature will be established even in the Cape for a long time to come—not in my time as Minister of Lands. That is a matter for the future. We are here making provision for special circumstances. It is true in a resolution passed by Parliament in 1926 amending the resolution of 1923 provision was made that after provision had been made for these people, other coloured people could also apply. Naturally, why should we not keep it open? But we need not be afraid that the new departure will be extended all over the country. I have to take very great powers to see that the settlement is a success. As far as trading rights are concerned, it is my intention not to allow white people to go in there and start businesses. Then there is the question of advances. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has also alluded to that. It is a difficult matter. The Hon. member and the hon. leader of the Opposition will see that it is not like an ordinary settlement. It is not that the price of the holdings is fixed. They have only to pay rent, and that will have to be fixed by the board and is one of the difficulties, but I assume that it will be fixed according to the number of stock that these people have. If a coloured man has 500 small stock which he wishes to graze on this land, naturally, he will have to pay more than one who has 200. If you make advances for houses it will be a very difficult matter; we do not do so for white settlers except in special circumstances, and they have to build their houses themselves. I know if we give them advances we will have great difficulty in getting the money in. The rental will not amount to much. As long as they are comfortable in their houses that is sufficient, and they need not have elaborate houses. It has been asked: why do you not give these people representation on this board? I do not see that I should extend greater rights to these people than to the white people, who have no representation on the board. A member of the Land Board is selected in the first instance because of his knowledge which is necessary of land values, and because of his independence, and, as a rule, we have always studiously avoided appointing a man on the board who is a settler. These people get the right which white settlers get—they get a committee of management. There is another point which the hon. member mentioned—the possible conflict between committees. It is only when an area is so large that one committee cannot look after it that there would be another committee—where one committee could not supervise the whole. I do not think that difficulty will arise. I think I have answered the points which have been raised, and I would like to say that if any amendments are to be made in committee, I hope hon. members will put them on the paper in good time, so that I can study them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 30th January.

We quite appreciate that the Minister has very good reasons for introducing this amending Bill, but I would like to know whether it is being introduced at the request of the League of Nations; whether the League has seen these amendments, and whether they have signified their agreement with them. If not, what is the object of these amendments? If they have not agreed to the amendments, and if they should object to them, we should then have further amendments. Some definite information should be given us.

Perhaps I may reply to that. Let me say at once that this Bill is the result of the proposal made by, or, rather, criticizm, made by the Mandates Commission about the use of the word “Sovereignty” in Clause 3. paragraph 1. The Mandates Commission asked the question whether it could actually be said that “sovereignty” was included in the terms of reference, and the grant to us of the mandate, and whether the word “Sovereignty” does not encroach upon the nature of the mandate itself. I have not the slightest doubt that that is not the case, certainly because it was never so intended, but now it is a fact that the law itself makes no mention of the mandate, and I think it is safer to mention it in Clause 1. That has, unfortunately, not been done, and the impression is possibly created that we are giving ourselves the ownership of something which otherwise was not intended as mandate property. It is quite clear to me that, it is property to which the mandate, which was granted to us, applies. As I said, it was not, in my opinion, necessary to mention it specially, because South West was transferred, and given to us under a mandate, and I feel that any rights in South West fall under the mandate. To make it clear now this Bill has been introduced, and it says nothing more than that, notwithstanding the Act of 1922, or any other law, the railways and harbours of South West Africa are transferred and vested in the Union under the mandate, and that all authority exercised by us is exercised under the mandate. Although, therefore, it was possibly not necessary, we wanted to meet the objection which was felt by the Mandates Commission, where there is a difference amongst people as to the meaning of words, and I have always been ready to meet them. This does not mean that we subject ourselves to them. I think the position is that we possess certain rights, and we will not permit our rights to be subject to anyone else, not even the Mandates Commission. The Bill, therefore, intends merely to insert the word which says that we hold the railways under the mandate. Hon. members will possibly think that it is unnecessary. Of course, but it is a technical alteration which makes no difference in the position. If we did not meet their objections, it might look as if there were something behind it.

I must say that the position is not yet clear to me. At the time that the Bill was passed in 1922, there were two classes of assets affected by it. The one was the German railway system as it stood, and, in addition to that, there must have been land acquired by the Railway Administration. There were also two lines of railway which have been constructed with Union money on ground which has not been expropriated, and which was probably merely appropriated without title. In one comprehensive sweep by this Act of 1922, the dominium and ownership in the pre-existing railway system, in all the movable assets and rolling stock belonging to it, and those added to it subsequently, and the ownership of the two lines of railway to which I have referred were declared vested in the Government of the Union. The Act required that that system should be administered thereafter as an integral part of the Railway Administration of the Union. Since 1922, there must have been many additions in the form of immovable property or of movable property, and all those assets by the Bill are in future to be treated in the same way as the mandated territory is to be treated, i.e., as assets at the disposal of the Council of the League of Nations. At any future date these assets and the territory might be dealt with in a manner to which we cannot refuse our consent, and I feel that this bold declaration in the Bill before the committee is far too wide. I think the Administration can hardly have considered these points’ of detail. There is another point. From the time this Act of 1922 was passed, the Permanent Mandates Commission has been asserting that the Government had acted illegally in appropriating the railway assets that had come into its possession. They claimed that the mandatory stood in a position analogous to that of a trustee. Its only right was to administer in the interests of the beneficiaries concerned, with no right to use any part of the trust funds for its own benefit. Having declared by the Act of 1922 that these assets were owned absolutely by the Union, we now are asked to acknowledge that we are wrong. Without reservation at the moment we are asked to declare that this is the correct view. We have, nevertheless, expended considerable sums of money, and will hereafter spend further sums without doubt. I think, on simple business principles, that some definite reservation of our rights should be made. It is not sufficient as suggested to make it in the form of a debit. This Bill, when passed, will be transmitted to the Mandates Commission as an acceptance of its contentions and no reservation, unless expressed in the Bill, will have any effect. I move—

This amendment shows how much my old friend (Mr. Coulter) is out, because there cannot be the least doubt that it follows, without it being put in the wording. Suppose, for instance, that in the meantime the Government has bought ground for railway or other purposes. Does that mean that the South West can be debited with the cost of that? It can be debited with everything we incur, not only in respect to railways, and South West will be debited with these things, and should be so debited. We have no reasonable doubt as to the future of South West Africa. If South Africa were situated where I have not the least doubt we would take good care that all these things were debited. It is situated next door to the Union; it is mandated to the Union, with the explicit terms that it would be administered as an integral part of the Union, and there cannot, to my mind, be the least doubt that the ultimate destination of South West will be the Union. I do not think anyone in this House has any doubt in respect of giving every consideration that is required under the mandate. True, eventually the last word will rest with the people of the South West themselves. Has there ever been any doubt about this inside this House or outside it? I have always maintained that not only will South West be administered by the Union, but will be a part of the Union, directly incorporated with it in some way; brought into closer political contact with the Union apart from the mandate. The time must come when the mandate will have to cease. The nature of its connection may be altered, although I would say that it is highly inexpedient to have that, because I should not like to have even the Mandates Commission think that we in South Africa have any doubt as to the ultimate destination of South West Africa, and this has been the main consideration with the railways, that really to go and keep closed books with respect to a province, the future of which will be so intimately connected with us as it is to-day, and perhaps more intimately, would only be a waste of time. I hope the time will come for us to say to South West Africa: you have now reached the state of manhood, and you must decide for yourself. What we have done for you in the past has not been done with a view to getting money out of you. What you have you can keep. That is the view we must take of South West Africa. I think by taking this view we shall make the people feel that even in our relations to-day we are careful to treat South West Africa as a territory which is not foreign to us. Take, for instance, the question of importation of goods. I have always said that South West stands in a totally different position compared with Rhodesia, because South West has been administered by us as an integral portion of the Union, and, further, the destination of South West is to be linked with the Union. I think, so far as we are concerned, the question is really one of expediency as to whether the railways have been given, and will, in future, be given. The future of South West is our future, and for that reason I think that anything that is achieved for it is achieved for us. At the time when we came into power there was something like a million deficit in connection with the administration. There was a deficit in connection with the administration of £1,500,000 or £1,000,000. The previous Government adopted the same view that we have adopted, namely, that we, as South Africans, associate ourselves with South West Africa, but not by annexation. I will say this, that, if people do not want to come into the Union, we do not want to have them in the Union. I do not care who they are. That is a fixed principle of the party which I have the honour to represent to-day. All along we have declared, and will continue to declare, that we do not want them to come into the Union if they do not want to come in. Ultimately, of course, South West Africa must decide for itself.

Whatever we do in connection with this matter, we cannot get away from the fact that the mandate is there. What this Bill proposes to do is simply to say that, in future, our attitude shall be considered in terms of the mandate which, of course, we cannot get away from. That is an established fact. I quite agree with the Prime Minister, and I think he has shown in the past that he holds definite views in regard to the value of the mandate. In fact, I may go further. At any rate, I am quite prepared to abide by the terms of the mandate, that South West Africa should be administered as an integral portion of the Union. I am prepared to stand by that. I am afraid that my hon. friend (Mr. Coulter) wants to protect, if there is any danger at all, our financial position and our expenditure there. I am afraid that by doing that, if we agreed to his amendment, it may be construed, not perhaps by us, but by people who are critically watching us overseas, as being a belittling of the terms of the mandate. I will, therefore, ask my hon. friend not to press his amendment.

So far as I understand, the Prime Minister takes the view that the ultimate destiny of South West Africa is to be part of the Union. That is what dominates him at the moment. Naturally, that presupposes the consent of the people at present inhabiting the South West territory, and that those who may be added to the number in the future will also take that view. I think that is a foundation a little bit unstable upon which to build the theory. The population of South West Africa is very small indeed at the present time. A comparatively small amount of immigration from Germany might entirely alter the complexion of things. We know, too, that now Germany is a member of the League of Nations, and that a very strong effort will be made by Germany in her new position, to bring influence to bear to have some of her colonies returned to her. We also know that South-West Africa is the one territory in particular that she would like to have returned to her first of all. She may not achieve that, but those who watch the signs of the times and keep themselves conversant with what is going on, are certain that an attempt will be made in that direction. I do not think that the Prime Minister himself will deny that that is extremely probable. What the results of that will be I do not know, and I do not intend to make any forecast at present. Then, again, are we certain that the mandate will be continued over South West Africa? The Prime Minister thinks so. Personally, I have grave doubts indeed, and I can explain my doubts. The Prime Minister, no doubt, views with great satisfaction the fact that South Africa is now a member of the League of Nations. Is not that so?

That is what we all should do.

I want to make the point quite clear. In fact, I venture to think that I did a little bit towards it myself. So we agree on that point. I want to ask the Prime Minister—and it may be useful to him— to re-read Article 23 of the Treaty of Peace, in which it is agreed that all members of the League of Nations—and South Africa is one of the members—will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend. I am sure that the Prime Minister desires to do that. But I am not at all certain that the means by which he is endeavouring to secure those conditions are the same as obtain in other parts of the world. The Prime Minister must know that pointed questions have been directed by the League of Nations with regard to happenings in various parts of the world, which can only point to South Africa, and I do not think that we are entitled to assume, in existing conditions, and it must be borne in mind that some of our existing legislation and contemplated legislation with regard to backward races, will be viewed as favourably by the League of Nations as we should like. It seems to me that the Prime Minister is building up on uncertain grounds, and that the consent of the inhabitants of South West Africa will be directed towards incorporation in the Union. Personally, I hope so. Secondly, it is thought that the mandate at present exercised will be continued indefinitely. I hope so, too, until other events are accomplished. In the meantime, there is a grave doubt as to whether these two conditions will exist permanently or for any length of time to come.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause 1, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and the title, having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 27th January.