as Chairman, brought up the Second Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows:

Report considered and adopted; Bill to be read a second time on 16th March.

laid upon the Table:

Report of the Parliamentary Draftsman on the South African Association Incorporation Act, 1906 (Cape), Amendment (Private) Bill.

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the Report [Annexure No. 14—1924 (2nd Session)] was upon the Table.

Report referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the Report [ Annexure No. 24—1924 (2nd Session)] was upon the Table.

Report referred to Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

I move—

I will be very brief. Hon. members from the Transvaal know that our Masters and Servants Act is a very antiquated one. It is Act No. 13 of 1880 which is in use, and I shall not need to adduce many arguments in order to show that the requirements of the matter and altered conditions are such that it is only necessary to effect an amendment of the Act. Transvaal members know that the relations between masters and servants on Transvaal farms is in the rule, defined by Act No. 21 of 1895, that is to say, the relations existing between masters and servants is defined by the Squatters Act. In the case of Transvaal farms and towns we find that the relations between masters and servants exclusively governed by the Act of 1880. but, on the contrary, we find that such relations on the farms are almost exclusively governed by the Squatters Act. Transvaal members know also what the position is regarding the Squatters Act. A native approaches the owner of a farm and tells him that he and his family are coming to live on He wants the right to live there with his family; to graze his stock and to cultivate his bit of land. As a consideration the native gives the master his own services as well as those of his family. Some landowners plough for the natives, others pay their hut and other taxes for them. In other cases the native and members of his family give their services for three or six months, and for the remainder of the year they work for themselves; other owners again pay for the services of the native and his family. Transvaal members will also be aware that the Squatters Act does not make provision for the bringing before the court of cases in connection with complaints of and differences between masters and servants. We have seen that in the past the endeavour has been to legalize questions under the Squatters Act and the Masters and Servants Act. In the Transvaal in 1909 we passed a law, Act No. 27 of 1909, to fix the wages of native squatters. I say that we legalized the position and the Act provided that the rights which the native enjoyed should be considered as wages. It was stipulated that if a native had the right of occupation on a farm and could graze his flock there, this constituted wages. But we continued to have troubles, as there are difficulties arising for which the law makes no provision. My first intention was, by way of motion, to ask the Government to appoint a commission to go into the whole matter, as I think there can be no doubt or difference of opinion as to the necessity of so doing. Particularly in the Transvaal is it necessary that the relations between master and servant be once and for all definitely laid down. The Act has become a necessity—in my opinion an urgent necessity—for I consider that in view of the ruling of the High Court of 19th September, 1924, conditions in the Transvaal demand speedy measures. According to the judgment given by Justice Krause on the 19th September, 1924, the two laws cannot both be applied. He says, for example—

Now we know what section 7 of the Squatters Act of 1895 stipulates. If you take coloured persons on your farm you must give them permits. For the first year perhaps all goes well, but after the lapse of a few years the permit is lost and the native has no certificate, which is in fact not necessary. The judgment said further—

Now, the consequences of this judgment are that to-day neither master nor servant knows where he stands, for the only enlightenment that they can obtain is from the Squatters Act and the Masters and Servants Act. The ruling of the learned judge, however, has created a condition of still greater uncertainty than that which formerly prevailed. What I want to direct the attention of the hon. Prime Minister to is this: if the farmer in future is unable to obtain justice in this matter in the lower court—naturally the finding of the lower courts are affected by the ruling of the high court—I say, if the farmers cannot bring their servants before the courts, the consequence will be that within a few years the farmers will turn all the people off their farms. I am not talking only in the interests of the farmer. The hon. Prime Minister knows how difficult it is for the native to get a place on a farm, particularly after he has for a long while lived with another baas and possesses a considerable amount of stock. Thus I am able to say that I speak not only in the interests of the land-owner, but that I am moving in the interests of the native himself. It is true that I go a bit further than the old Act and the status quo. Section 1 of the Bill reads as follows—

Hon. members will observe that it says in the Bill: “and any member of his family ”. The intention of this is to bind the head of the family, and also to bring all members of his family with him within the contract. Possibly some one will now say: “You are going too far and asking too much.” Well, I do not want to force this point, but the hon. Prime Minister knows that recently when a deputation of natives came to the Government it pointed out how difficult it was to exercise control over the young natives; and I think it will be an excellent and favourable provision if we are able to bring the young natives before the court. This will help the parents and strengthen their hands in controlling young natives in their own interest. I acknowledge that this is going a bit further than the present position; but as far as concerns the rest of the Bill it is intended only to maintain things as they are. All that the Bill provides is that the position should be definitely laid down. I do not want to bring the Government into trouble. I realize the difficult position of the Government in this connection. I know it is a difficult matter, and for this reason I first wanted to propose the nomination of a commission to investigate the position. In view, however, of the urgent nature of the matter as a consequence of the ruling of the court, namely, that magistrates will not take up cases of this nature against a native, I have resolved to bring in a Bill at once. I have myself had a case before the court and therefore know what it means. The farmers will perhaps lose their workpeople; but the natives will also suffer as a result. I consider that the natives who live on farms in this manner are probably the happiest of their race. The Bill is, I think, in the interests of the progress both of the farmer and the native, and I think it will be unwise of the House if it does not end the present state of affairs. I move the second reading of the Bill, and hope the hon. Prime Minister will give it his blessing.

I think I may at once say a few words, so that the House may know the attitude I take. Let me say at once that I consider that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is quite right when he says that it is desirable that something be done: especially in view of the ruling of the court that has been given. I am also acquainted with the position which will be controlled by his proposal and I know it is highly desirable that we do something of this nature. So far as concerns my department, I wish to say that this is one of the matters which I hope will be taken in hand and properly regulated by law. This I hope will happen at the next sitting. This, however, is one of the subordinate aspects of the great native question, with which is implicated four or five different problems of great intrinsic importance but which are practically all related to and involved with each other. For this reason I felt, at any rate so far as the Government is concerned, that we would not bring such measures before the House, seeing that other questions are also affected; and it would be better to wait until we are in a position to solve the various questions simultaneously. The Native Commission has recently again made the round of Natal and the Transvaal, and has given particular attention to this question. I want to add that the commission received special instructions from me to investigate the question of squatters and everything in connection therewith and to make recommendations accordingly. As a result of their observations in the Transvaal and Natal they find it desirable to leave legislation as it is, in order that after further investigation other and perhaps better measures can be taken. I can well understand the views of the commission, but I must at the same time say that I am not prepared on the strength of them to oppose the Bill now before the House, for I hold that if better measures can be discovered, we can, when we hope to revise the whole Act next year, arrange the matter and there will be no difficulty then in amending the proposal now before the House so long as the object which this Bill has in view is attained and preserved. I do not want to oppose the Bill, and I say that I feel it necessary that something of this sort be done. Under the circumstances I leave the matter altogether in the hands of the House. I find nothing in the measure which in any way prejudices the native. As the proposer has said, it is a question of preserving the relations between master and servant which unfortunately are now thrown into great confusion through the recent ruling of the court; but I must also say that previous to that time I have also been urged, I think from Natal, to effect an alteration. The confusion prevailing is such that some farmers have come to me with an interpretation of the law which caused me to laugh; but which none the less is almost universally held amongst the kaffirs and also amongst many of the farmers. I have even been assured that it is shared by one of the magistrates. I will not enter into details here, but it was really most original, and this interpretation has taken root. I do not want to propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but I should just like to suggest to my hon. friend the mover that he allow a little time so that perhaps the provisions of the Bill can be made to apply to other provinces, particularly to Natal. I take it that Natal is interested and that the same applies to the Transvaal. So far as the Cape is concerned there are of course provisions in the law we have here. With that I propose to leave the matter in the hands of the House.

I am very glad to ascertain from the hon. Prime Minister in connection with this Bill that the Native Commission is investigating the matter of stray kaffirs in the Free State, Transvaal and Natal. The hon. Prime Minister is quite right in saying that the matter causes many difficulties, especially in Natal. I have had the opportunity of experiencing such in Natal. One difficulty is this. Previously the landowner has entered into an agreement with the head-man of the kraal or of the family which comes to live on the farm. This contract has embraced every one: the whole family with the head-man would come to live on the farm. Unfortunately the matter was tested in court in 1921, and as a result of the ruling the whole position is chaotic. A contract between a farmer and the head of the kraal is declared invalid, it being as the judge said, contrary to public morality and statesmanship and possessing the elements of forced labour. The bottom has therefore tumbled out of the old system and no farmer knows to-day what his position is with regard to the head-man and these stray kaffirs. No contract such as existed for years between master and servant is any longer acknowledged. The position is that the kaffir can now simply go away and roam about where he likes, and there is no hope of bringing him up and obtaining convictions for vagrancy. The Bill should be made to apply also to the other provinces besides the Transvaal. This Bill only makes provision from the alteration of the Transvaal law, but it possesses no power so far as the Cape and Free State are concerned, while it ought particularly to apply to Natal. So far in the Free State we have had no test case, but the pass regulations have been declared ultra vires. In Natal, on the other hand, a contract entered into between a baas and a head-man of a kraal or family who are going to work for a farmer is declared to be unlawful as being immoral, contrary to national policy, and to be looked upon as forced labour. As a result of this all the agreements concerning the hiring of work-people and their residence on the land of farmers on condition that they serve the farmer: the whole system, in fact, has had the bottom knocked out of it. I do not want to say anything against the judgment, but its consequences are that the principle which made a contract between masters and servants binding has been overthrown. So long ago as the time of Shepstone it was the case that the farmer made the contract with the kraal head. In the kraals themselves there was a good system of government because the head had the power to keep the young people in check. This power is also abrogated by the judgment, and the natives to-day do not know how they stand. The natives are used to the contract being made for them by the head-man. They are used to being subject to the headman, and now that his authority has been taken away they do not know their position, neither does the farmer who has made the contract with them. The result is that Natal people have experienced great difficulties, and I hope the hon. Prime Minister will do what a private member is unable to do to put the matter right. That cannot be done by this one short Bill. I shall be glad to have an opportunity to extend the preamble of the Bill so that it will include also the Free State and Natal. As that will alter the preamble the matter will have to be referred to a Select Committee.

I am truly pleased to hear the answer of the hon. Prime Minister. The Masters and Servants Act of 1880, which is to-day still in force in the Transvaal, is practically a literal copy of the Masters and Servants Act of the Cape Colony. If we read the Act of the Cape Colony of 1856, with its amendments of 1873, we shall find identically the same Act, word for word and line for line, as the Act passed in the Transvaal in 1880 at the time of the annexation, and promulgated by the Administrator. It is fairly comprehensive. It makes provision for all possible offences which might be committed on farms by natives in the service of masters. Penalties are divided into two classes —lighter penalties for less serious offences from fines of £1 and one month’s imprisonment, and further penalties of fines of £3 and two months’ imprisonment. The Act of 1880 deals with all offences which can be committed by native servants. It was in force amongst the farming population, and few complaints were brought in until, about 1907 and 1908, when the Department of Justice gave a different ruling, particularly concerning the contract. In this law it is said that a servant is a person who works for wages or for payment of any kind whatsoever, but the then Department of Justice considered that the right to live on a farm, to cultivate land and to run stock was not payment within the meaning of the law. The police therefore refused under the Act of 1880 to prosecute. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) that in 1909 a slight amendment was made to the effect that living on and using a farm constituted payment, and under the provision of that amendment of 1909 the Master and Servants Act had been applied until six years ago. Then difficulties arose, particularly owing to the judgment of the court, and at present neither farmer nor native knows where he stands. The relations between a farmer on his farm and the kaffirs who work for him under the Squatters Act are chaotic, and nobody knows what the position is. When a kaffir refuses to work or commits other offences, or when children abscond, the master naturally goes to the police, but the police refuse to prosecute. As a result of the judgment of the court the police are afraid to do anything for which they may possibly be called over the coals. It is in order to effect an alteration in these conditions that the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has been made, and I understand the hon. Prime Minister is willing to agree to it. But the hon. Prime Minister has said that there are still so many other problems in connection with native affairs which require to be referred, or have already been referred, to the permanent Commission of Native Affairs that it will perhaps be as well if all these matters are treated simultaneously. I hope he will not do this, for the relations between the farmer and the native who lives on his land must be regulated as speedily as possible. They cannot wait until there is a chance to solve the other native problems. I can give the hon. Prime Minister the assurance that the position grows worse and worse. In my district the squatter system is still much in vogue for the reason that it is impossible to obtain labourers to do the work. I think that 80 per cent of the farmers, if the question were put to them whether they would rather work with labourers or with squatters, would prefer labourers, but we cannot get them and therefore have to be satisfied with the kaffirs on our farms. Labourers are not to be had. They go to the mines, and my constituency is open for the recruiting of kaffirs for the mines. I can give the House the assurance that great loss is occurring on the farms as a result of the prevailing conditions and that those farming on a big scale with agriculture and cotton would have to give up their farming were it not for the squatters— for the natives residing on their farms. It is therefore an urgent matter, and it is necessary to put an end to such conditions by means of an amendment to the Masters and Servants Act or in some other way. Should one go the round of the farms in my district one will find that every owner of a farm, at any rate each “farming farmer” (boerende boer), has at least three, four, or five kaffirs, living there. Small jobs, such as herding oxen and cleaning stables and gardens, are done by young kaffirs. They are indispensable, but under present conditions this assistance is being taken away. They go to Johannesburg, to Witbank or wherever else it is, and their parents do not know where their children are. Should the farmer turn to the police, the answer is that the young kaffirs are not included in the contract. What contract ? The contract naturally referred to by the Masters and Servants Act. But this contract is not necessarily a written one. The definition of contract says that it is a contract which is either oral or written, “whether expressed or implied.” Thus it is not necessarily written. If you look at chapter 11, section 18 which defines the position of young natives, we find that when a father of a family enters into a contract with a master or farmer of a farm, that his wife or wives and children are included thereunder. But all the names of the persons must be mentioned in the contract, and the women must actually sign it themselves. This is what the law prescribes, but every farmer knows that it is an impossible condition. It is impossible to take the whole family—wives and children—to the magistrate’s court and thus make a joint family contract. As the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) has said, it would be sufficient if a contract signed by the head of a family or tribe embraced the whole family; but to require the contract to be signed by every member is an impossible condition. This is a point that must necessarily be altered. I only wish to point out to the hon. Minister of Native Affairs how serious and impossible the conditions are amongst the farming population of the Transvaal, and it is urgently necessary to bring about the improvement of the position in one way or another.

I also want to support the Bill, and I am glad that the hon. Prime Minister has agreed that it will not be necessary to hold it over and that it will perhaps not be necessary to refer it to a Select Committee, although he hopes that a little time will be allowed for consideration. I can give him the assurance that something must be done immediately to help the farmer. It appears to me one of the strangest things in the country that we have there in the north the biggest native population, but that farmers there are compelled to obtain servants from the Cape Province, namely, from Queenstown. But matters have become worse. As a consequence of the ruling of the court, as quoted by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) the natives are under the impression that they are not subject to any law or necessity of obedience. This is an impossible state of affairs; and it is therefore urgently necessary that the position be defined. If the Bill is adopted, the farmer will know what his position is, and the native will know what his obligations are towards the farmer. I welcome the Bill and hope it will be adopted this session. The hon. Prime Minister has recommended that the introducer shall allow a little time in order to give opportunity for consideration by and consultation with the other provinces. I trust this will be found possible, but if not I hope we shall adopt the Bill because we badly need it in the Transvaal. There we are encouraged to go in for cotton farming, but the farmers are at their wits’ end because they can get no one to do the work. While I am speaking on this matter, I just want to quote a few instances of matters which occasion us trouble, and it is unfortunate that the hon. Prime Minister has already made answer, as I would much have liked to ascertain his views. In Pietersburg, Lydenburg and other places in the Transvaal, we find that the great land companies take no notice of the law. As soon as a kaffir leaves the land of a farmer where he has lived, he goes to the company’s farm and there pays again for a house. This is contrary to the law, and the farmers experience great difficulties, but unfortunately they have no redress. It is becoming impossible for the farmer to continue his activities. I have asked that the Native Commissioners give their consideration to the matter, and give instructions that where a native lives now here, and then again with a land company within a year, he may be brought before the court. They will then know that the native pays for his house and that he is punishable. This now goes on, and the officials simply wink at it. There is something else that I want to suggest. We know that at the time a circular was issued by way of concession, and to this an incorrect interpretation was given. The circular was to the effect that in places where a kaffir was employed in working for a farmer for money to pay his tax, the police must not worry him too much; but the interpretation given of the circular was that the native is not obliged to show his pass. The hon. Minister has assured me that this was not the intention, and the circular was then withdrawn. But the kaffirs are still under the impression that they do not need to carry passes, and that they may go were they like. A condition of uncertainty prevails both on the part of the farmers and of the natives, and this Bill will put an end to that uncertainty. I trust, therefore, that it will not be delayed.

I am sorry to have to introduce an apple of discord into this debate. But I cannot in any way agree with the mutual congratulations which have been exchanged. I am sorry that when the Prime Minister said this was a matter of far-reaching character and would perhaps have been better dealt with on a later occasion, he did not advise the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to get up and withdraw this Bill. I know perfectly well that there are in the various provinces Masters and Servants Acts drawn up in the light of conditions which existed in times past but to which we should not agree at the present time. When Acts of this kind which practically extend the system of indentured labour in this country and make breaches of contract on the part nit workpeople, crimes have been brought forward, I have opposed them and I shall continue to oppose such legislation. The law which the hon. member seeks to amend has been in existence for 50 years. It was passed by the old Republic in the Transvaal. It is called the Squatters’ Law. I disagree with the hon. member when he says there is no remedy given to the farmer under the Act of 1895. There is a penalty under the Squatters’ Law The hon. member now wants to introduce all the criminal provisions and penalties relating to masters and servants in Act 13 of 1880 into the farms where a chief or a man with a family has squatted on that farm. The hon. member wants us to lay down that when a native settles on a farm that every member of that man’s family, every man, woman and child who is with him, ipso facto becomes a party under this Bill to the contract which he may never have seen. Every man, woman and child may be brought up under the criminal provisions of the Law of 1880 for any breach of contract which may have taken place. A serious principle is involved. If it is to be a crime for a native to break a contract, why should it not equally be a crime for a clerk employed in a bank, or other persons who enter into contracts, to break them ? Why limit this to the native ? One hon. member said that these people go away from a farm and seek work elsewhere. Well, perhaps the native is perfectly within his rights in doing so. Why make it a crime ? Then the hon. member says the natives will not leave in some cases, but again, why make that a crime ? There is a law of ejectment. If you are making a different law for the native from that for others, we come to precisely the same position we came to the other day. This Bill is dead against the principles enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. If anything is going to be a slap in the face for the native, here it is. Here the natives are to be told that the law of 1895 is not drastic enough and they must be dealt with under the Act of 1880. Section 8 of the 1895 Act lays it down that coloured persons may only depart from the farms after they have given three months’ notice to do so, except where a special agreement exists. That law remains. The hon. member does not think that is drastic enough. The hon. member wants to bring in another law, the law of 1880. Then again under this Act of 1895 no native is allowed to live on a farm unless he has permission of the white owner of the farm to remain there. So I do not see how the native can live there without the owner’s consent. There are penalties already in that law. Now the hon. member wants to make Chapter 5 of the 1880 law apply to all persons who squat upon a farm as well as to agricultural servants. The late Transvaal Republic drew a distinction between the squatter and the ordinary agricultural or farm servant. That distinction has been in existence since 1895. Now the hon. member wants to sweep away that distinction and make all the squatters farm servants. It is a far-reaching and drastic provision. When a man has a particular servant in the ordinary course he would take persons who could give their services continuously. Take the case of women. There are times when it is quite impossible for them to obey any commands to work. Under this. Act of 1880 it is provided that it is an offence to refuse to obey any commands of the master. You cannot just lump all these things together and say all the criminal code applying to farm servants must apply to these people. It may be said that as I do not represent a constituency in the Transvaal this matter does not concern me, but I feel that it is the duty of hon. members, whatever their constituency who feel strongly upon these matters to speak out. Here the hon. member is trying to introduce a system of industrial slavery for every member of the native’s family who happens to come on to a farm. How is this going to help the civilized workmen of this country ? We hear of opportunities being given to civilized labour—I prefer to call it civilized rather than white labour because there are non-white persons who have reached a civilized standard. I ask those members who talk about reserving work for the white man—I prefer to say the civilized man—if it will help by introducing wholesale slavery ? This is committing us to a very dangerous principle. We see what we are letting ourselves in for if we agree without a strong protest to this measure. The hon. member read from a judgment where a particular state of affairs was not allowed by the court because it amounted to a system of forced labour. If there is going to be forced labour and a system of industrial slavery, let us have it brought in directly by law and we shall know where we stand. This Bill makes every member of the family whether he or she has seen the contract or not, subject to the penalties for a criminal offence on account of a breach of contract. Under these circumstances I regret I cannot join in the happy congratulations that have been passing about this Bill. I shall have to introduce an apple of discord. I think this Bill is a dangerous one and I therefore move as an amendment—

I wish to second this amendment for the following reason: I believe this little Bill, although it seems a very simple one, touches on a very great principle, and that is, whether we wish to have slavery in South Africa or not. Under this Bill it would be to the interests of masters in general to encourage, as far as possible, large native families squatting on farms, because it will mean cheap labour; for, after all, this Bill lays down the principle that it shall be binding upon all the children, and if that is so, then I can think it is nothing else than—to call it by its proper name—the re-introduction in piece-meal of slavery in South Africa, and therefore I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander).

I want to acknowledge that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is a clever advocate. It is not my intention to explain laws, but the hon. member has made himself ridiculous by talking about things of which he knows nothing. I think I can conscientiously support the motion. I should like to see what the hon. member is going to do when all the thousands of kaffirs cannot any longer live on our farms. Will he provide them with dwelling places? I should like to see whether the kaffirs will be grateful for what he has done for them if he is going to have them here. I am pleased with what the hon. Prime Minister has said to-day, and I think the whole country will be grateful to him now that we may expect something to be done. The mover aims at making a change in the impossible position regarding the Masters and Servants Act; and seeing that the more important alterations to which the hon. Prime Minister has referred will mean some delay, I want heartily to support the motion now before the House, though I would like to see it brought a little further and made applicable to the Free State and Natal. Conditions there are identical. Allow me to say that there is a section here who disapprove of our attitude and say that we want to introduce slavery; but let me tell them that the kaffirs who live on our farms are much happier than those who live in Basutoland, etc. The necessity for legislation is not altogether realized by many hon. members. I think that those opposing the motion know little of the actual conditions. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) has already said that farmers would rather employ labourers than have kaffirs on the squatter system—ten times rather. I can give hon. members the assurance that if I were able to obtain labourers there would not be a single squatter on my farm, and the consequence would be that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) would have to find somewhere for them to live. People do not understand the position. The native comes to you, and the first thing you ask him is, how much stock he has and how many wives and children there are prepared to work. Then the native says that he and his two boys will work for you. Next you decide whether you will give him a place. He has possibly 100 head of cattle and a few hundred sheep. The ground required for this stock is now worth £10 per morgen. All our land is fenced, and the native gets the advantage of it. The native is no longer required to herd the stock. He is practically a fellow-farmer on the farm. I know from experience the working of the system and what the conditions are to day. The hon. member, in spite of his abilities, does not know the facts. The Bill does not apply merely to the party on the one side, but the native also is protected. Conditions to-day are impossible; and it is unfortunate that people who know nothing about them do not give others who do a chance to speak. It is an serious matter, and I am glad it is to be thoroughly investigated, but meanwhile we shall be in difficulties, and I therefore heartily support the motion before the House. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has said he feels they have gone too far, but I consider that they have not gone far enough. It may sound strange to some, but the father of a native family—the old kaffir—will also be thankful for the Bill. He is now able to come on a farm with his children. His child stays with him until he has reached a certain age. As soon as the boy pays his own tax the farmer considers him a free man. Up till this time he is subject to his father. It often happens that a kaffir obtains a place on a farm and promises that two boys shall also work. In this way the old kaffir obtains a dwelling place and land for his stock. But the consequence often is that when he has been hardly two months there the two young kaffirs abscond, and the farmer has no chance of getting them back, and the parent has no right to do anything. The employer says the contract is broken because the two young kaffirs are no longer there to work, and so the old native has to go and seek some other dwelling place. Many of the kaffirs would be glad if this position were put right. There is no intention amongst farmers to institute slavery. One thing, however, is certain; if hon. members would just come to my district for a bit, they will find out that the natives there are much happier than in Basutoland, with all its thousands of people. I hope that the motion will be extended so as to apply to other parts—particularly to Natal.

I must admit on fading the draft Bill as it stands that there seems to be considerable ground for the criticisms of the honourable member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). For at the first blush it seems that the head of a family can bind his whole family, irrespective of age, the breach of which engagement is to be made punishable by the criminal law. I have spoken to the hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill and he informs me that it is the intention that it should apply only to the minor children of the man who enters into the contract, and that he does not intend it to apply after the children have become majors. But difficulty is experienced because even minor children refuse to obey the terms of the contract made between the native squatter and the owner of the farm in virtue of which the family is allowed to be on the farm. If the hon. member will confirm the assurance that it is only meant to apply to the younger members of the family, I do not think that any of the criticisms of the hon. member for Hanover Street are justified. I think, subject to that assurance, that the Bill might be accepted. As to what is a major member of the native’s family, I suggest to the hon. member in charge of the Bill that he might follow the precedent of the native taxation law of the Transvaal, which makes a native pay poll tax from the age of 18. A native is then regarded an a major, at any rate to the extent that he must pay poll tax, and it is right that he should be the master of his own destiny, and not bound by any contracts his father may make, and—

And go where he likes.

Yes. If in committee this Bill is so amended that it does not apply to any native over the age of 18, as a member of his father’s family, I do not see any reason why we should raise the cry of slavery. We have passed the Apprenticeship Bill which recognizes that a father may contract on behalf of his minor son and it is only the same principle which is being followed in regard to this Bill.

In supporting this motion I wish to associate myself to some extent with the remarks made by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers). I do not go the length of saying that it is a pity that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) dealt with the matter at all because I do think that when the Union Legislative Assembly passes an Act it is not only the privilege but the duty of every member of the House to make himself heard when the House is dealing with a Bill of general importance such as this Bill is. But I do associate myself with his remarks insofar that it is next to impossible for the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), living in Cape Town, to appreciate the difficulties which we, especially in the Northern Transvaal, have to contend with so far as natives are concerned. In my own constituency we have probably a quarter of a million natives. Next to that or rather in the same district we have hundreds of thousands of acres of ground available for cotton and other cultivation, and unless the relationship between the squatter and the owner of the farm, unless the masters and servants are placed on a proper footing in this connection, it will be very difficult indeed to go in for that development which is called for. As a matter of fact, I do not think I am overstating the case when I say the whole farming system in the north is built up on the principles of the Masters and Servants Act, which principles in the past have always been applied to squatters. What the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) entirely loses sight of is that whatever the theoretical, legal position may have been in the past, and is at present by virtue of the Supreme Court decision, in practice the squatter has always been dealt with under the Masters and Servants Act. It is not a question of introducing a new principle which has been entirely foreign to the practice in the Transvaal, it is simply legalizing a position which has been dealt with on a certain basis, which basis has now been declared illegal by the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) emphasized, it really only became necessary to introduce this measure— but, on the other hand, that makes it an urgent measure—when the decision had been given by the Supreme Court upsetting the existing practice, and causing a state of confusion and chaos in the relationship between master and squatter, which only those can appreciate who are interested in farming operations in the north, or who are associated with such operations by virtue of representing some particular constituency. The idea of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is perfectly sound when applied to Cape Town, to conditions which exist in towns, but, with submission, those ideas are absolutely unsound when applied to districts in some of which a breach of contract can take place not only through a voluntary act of a native, but by virtue of a native being bagged by a lion or crocodile. That indicates how totally different the state of affairs is in the Transvaal, especially in the northern constituencies, as compared with the state of affairs here in Cape Town. The hon. member suggests that there is always a civil remedy open. He will probably be surprised to hear that in some cases the unfortunate farmer taking civil action against a native might have to go 150 miles to instruct his attorney, and ride the same number of miles again in order to get a judgment for ejection, and so on until his claim is eventually disposed of. There is no hardship in imposing criminal sanction to a breach of contract. The squatters know the position quite well. The sanction has always in the past been applied to breaches by the squatter under the terms of the Masters and Servants Act. The hon. member also appears to have lost sight of this; that this measure will result in a great deal of good to the native himself. There are portions of the Transvaal where it has become increasingly difficult for the native to obtain ground on which to squat; especially after this Supreme Court decision there are farmers who are extremely reluctant to take natives on their ground. That difficulty will be removed if the practice which existed heretofore is now confirmed by this Act. I agree with the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) when he states that so far as the heads of families are concerned they will welcome this amending Act, because indirectly it will give them a measure of control over the minors of the household; this they will find useful, and it is a matter which has caused great unrest amongst the native population. Finally, there is this to be said, there is no necessity for any native to submit to this sanction unless he freely and voluntarily desires to do so, there is no necessity for him to come under this law unless he wants to do so. The hon. member mentioned in connection with the duties which might be imposed upon native squatters who fall under the amending Act that they will be called upon to “obey any command.” This has already been interpreted to mean any reasonable command. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the Act does not apply to majors belonging to a particular household, the head of which has made a contract with the owner of a farm, but under the Act as administered in the past I do not think there was any difficulty in that, as the minors of a particular household were also dealt with under the Masters and Servants Act, at any rate, upto a few years ago. If this is made clear in committee, by necessary amendments, it seems to me that all opposition to the Bill, unless based on the question of alleged slavery or alleged forced labour should really fall to the ground. I hope, with the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will do his best to see that the Act goes on the Statute Book at as early a date as possible because farming in the Transvaal under the present state of affairs—a state of chaos which has come about by reason of the Supreme Court decision —is impossible; farming conditions in the Transvaal to-day are absolutely impossible, and unless this Act is put into operation at the earliest possible date, a great deal of damage will be done to the farmers. The farmers of the Transvaal, not only in regard to their present operations, but in regard also to extensions for the future, are entitled to the protection that this Act will give them.

I am glad that this Bill is to-day before the House. I am able to speak here as a farmer. I have squatters myself and those who are acquainted with conditions and circumstances in the Transvaal will know the difficulties against which the farmer has to contend. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) is correct in saying that we prefer labourers for our work on the farm, as the squatters home to work as late as they like, sometimes when, the sun is already high in the heavens. They come at about 12 o’clock and leave again early in the afternoon. I am therefore glad that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has introduced this Bill, so that we may know where we stand. I will mention briefly the difficulties we often have on the farm. In June we are busy harvesting the mealies, and the contract as, it stands offers so many difficulties that we are not then able to get the kaffirs. The young kaffirs are only due to work for us for three months, and this is a Lime when the mealies have to be harvested. That just the time when the young kaffir is absent. The parent has no control over him and the farmer has no power to enforce the carrying out of his obligations. Neither hon. members nor the farmers of these parts understand the difficulties of the farmer on the one hand and on the other hand how easily the squatters take it. The native comes with more than one wife, and a certain amount of ground has to be given for each wife. Well, if I have to give a native ground to cultivate for each wife have I not the right to demand that the children of that wife come and work for me ? I have a squatter with me who has several wives I am obliged to allow them ground to cultivate. Have I not the right to demand that some of his children shall serve me in return? Hon. members will understand that we do not put contracts in writing. The native comes to us and says: I have so many sheep, so many other stock, and so many wives for which I require so much ground for pasture and cultivation. He says also that his wife is unable to work, but her place will be taken by a young native. But when the time comes for the young native to begin work he does not turn up; and the father who entered into the contract is unable to get hold of him. These are our troubles. We do not wish to make slaves of the natives. They have a nice time on our farms. We only want to make sure that they are obliged to carry out their obligations under the contract. I am glad the Prime Minister said that the Native Affairs Commission is going to investigate this matter. Then there is a difficulty which has been referred to by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé), that a circular has been issued to which a wrong interpretation has been given, and as a result the kaffirs have been allowed to go about without passes. The position was, therefore, that the kaffirs wandered all around, and people were at a loss to know what to do. I went immediately to the police, but they told me they were unable to do anything in view of the circular which they had received. A deal of trouble was occasioned, and I am glad the circular was withdrawn. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said the Bill ought only to refer to young natives, that is, to natives not over 18 years of age. I can give him the assurance that contracts were only applicable to the young natives of the family. As soon as the native reached the age of 18 and had to pay his tax, then he became his own master. Then he comes to you and he says he has this year paid his tax and is row a full-grown man. That is the position. We who work with the natives know them. I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) was ever in the hut of a raw native, and if he knows what goes on there ? We know his morals and his habits and we know we must take measures accordingly. The rule amongst the kaffirs is that the oldest member of the family is baas, and he can order any member to go out to work. This is a custom with them. We have understood it, and have acted accordingly. The native in the Transvaal knows more about this motion than the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). The old native desires us to adopt this measure so that he will be able to maintain discipline over his children. I have myself a case of a young native who is in Johannesburg. Neither I nor his parents can get hold of him. I hope the Bill will be adopted.

I cannot associate myself for one solitary moment with the proposal of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). I want to say that at this stage in our development here in South Africa I am surprised to find that a member of this House is prepared to introduce a measure of this character. My hon. friend the member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) referred to this as slavery. That sounds almost too strong, but it is by no means too strong. I am inclined to think that a very large number of members here do not really know what they are discussing. They do not understand what is going to be the effect of this little, innocent amending Bill introduced by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). With regard to what was said by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) I can only say it passes my comprehension how you can make it apply in Zoutpansberg and not in Cape Town.

You have not the system in the Cape.

That is not the point. The propriety of the thing does not depend on where you have the system, and as the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) himself said, owing to a Supreme Court judgment the thing is inapplicable, and that is the reason for this Bill—to institute a system, which has been declared to be illegal, legal. If we in practice have to defend the employment of slave labour we have reached a very parlous condition indeed, and I can only express my unbounded astonishment at any individual member who suggests we should introduce or perpetuate such a system. I can understand a far-sighted member suggesting we should move the laws in the direction of removing this slavery, but for a member in this House to suggest that we should tighten the bonds passes my comprehension. Do members realize what it means ? It means that any farmer can have five families on each of the farms he may happen to own, and he can aggregate as it were families in respect of each farm he owns on one farm up to twenty five families. It has been taken that the average of a family is five; so he can aggregate 125 natives, who are bound hand and foot to serve in every direction that a farmer may indicate, and may require.

Sheer nonsense.

Well, my hon. friend had better read the law. It is one of the interjections which shows how necessary it is for hon. members to be acquainted with the law.

What law are you speaking about ?

I am speaking about the Squatters’ Law.

Are you going to vote for the colour bar ?

No, my hon. friend is perfectly safe.

What has that to do with it?

Nothing at all, any more than my hon. friend’s interjection. One arises from the other. I am quoting fact from the Squatters’ Law which my hon. friend knows to be correct. It is to impose upon the whole 125 natives by a farmer owning five farms or over, and they are brought within the scope of the Master and Servants Law in the Transvaal. And what does that provide? That is only one provision; there are a host of others. We are now dealing with individual natives, and I want to know what difference it makes whether a native is over or under eighteen. He is an individual and you are imposing on youths conditions and penalties by reason of the fact that they happen to be in the family of their father who has entered into a contract.

That is according to native law and custom.

That is a very pernicious custom, and I object to it. I consider it to be unsound, and it is going to eat into the life of this country, weakening its moral condition and its responsibility. I want to emphasize that point—that not one of these natives will have to be asked whether he wants the conditions, whether he wants to work.

They can stay away.

They cannot. The father binds the family. That is another instance of the ignorance of fact of the members of this House, and it only shows how necessary it is for members to give study to a question before they give their views on what may be a dangerous issue in this House. The hon. gentleman and his supporters propose to compel individuals to carry out a contract which they themselves have nothing to do with.

What about a father apprenticing his son ?

That again requires some consideration. When a white farmer apprentices his son he is actuated by one motive—his anxiety to do the very best he can for the future of that son.

The kaffir wants to provide for the future of his son.

I ask any hon. member is he prepared to include himself under the Bill that the hon. gentleman proposes this afternoon ?

What about the boasted freedom in the colour bar ?

What about the colour bar? Now that that is the position the hon. gentleman takes up. I think he will be perfectly frank. Members on that side of the House have taken up that position quite frankly. They propose that farming operations may be carried on successfully to bind the natives hand and foot. These unfortunate natives can be made to obey an order which may be eminently unjust, but quite legal. If he refuses he will be made a criminal, and subject to fine and imprisonment. And that is not all. Supposing he is a lad—possibly just eighteen —after he has served his term and he still refuses to obey an order and does not work for that employer he can be given another month and so on ad infinitum for the whole period of that poor unfortunate native’s natural life. And every month he does is added to his term of apprenticeship. The whole thing is conceived in injustice. I am satisfied members have not realized how unjust they are likely to be if they pass this Bill.

It is an original custom; originated with the natives.

Yes, but the time has arrived not to tighten up, but to loosen, and depart from that custom.

You are not going to tighten it up by tightening up the colour bar.

It is rather a serious subject, and I think that if we take this step it is likely to redound to our discredit.

I am astounded by the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). My reply to the hon. member is that he is talking about a subject he knows nothing about. If he confined himself to trades unionism we might listen to him, but when he makes an oration to the House on native customs and the requirements of the natives, we cannot look to him for any well considered statement on that subject. The position with regard to the native is this: Ever since the European entered into Natal and elsewhere the custom has existed of the kraal head making contracts on behalf of the inmates of his kraal. That custom has arisen from the fact that the native kraal head is in the same position as a paterfamilias was under the old Roman law. In Natal we have codified the native laws and customs. The native kraal head has absolute power over all the inmates of his kraal. Allow me to read some of the portions of the code in Natal. The code is based on native law and custom as it existed from time immemorial before the European occupation. The following will give the House some idea of the kraal head’s authority—

The position of the kraal head in Natal is very clearly defined in the code, and that code is based, as I have said, on the native law and custom as it existed before the Europeans occupied the country. The result of the judgment given by the Supreme Court has been to upset the whole of the family arrangement as between the kraal heads and the inmates. It has been disastrous as far as the kraal heads are concerned and has interfered with the control of kraal heads who hitherto made the necessary contract with the landlord, whereby, in return for the use, occupation, cultivation and grazing of the landlord’s property, he bound himself and the inmates of his kraal to render service to the landlord for a stipulated period, usually six months in each year. Having lost control, the inmates refuse to work with the result that these natives are now leaving the private farms and going into native locations. I can assure the hon. members on the cross benches that there are no happier people in South Africa than those natives who have been living on these farms for generations. The result of these judgments has been to upset the whole of the control which the kraal head had under the Code. The inmates of the kraals are now leaving the kraal head and distributing themselves in the towns of South Africa. The kraal heads are suffering under the position as it is at present and it is most desirable in the interests of, and the happiness of, the natives themselves that a law, applicable to all four provinces, similar to the present Bill should be passed. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has spoken about the form of slavery which exists as between the squatter and the owner of the farm, but I can assure him that, if he had had the experience of many members of this House, who live in the hinterland of South Africa, he would realize that there are no happier people than these same natives who, he tells us, are practically living under a form of slavery.

Why do you want this law ?

Because the unfortunate kraal head is placed in this position, that he is losing control of his children, he is losing control of the inmates of his kraal. The inmates of the kraal are leaving and going into the towns and they are becoming what we know in Natal as “Sgbengas.” The consequence is that the unfortunate kraal head is turned off the farm because the inmates refuse to work and at the present moment there are numerous natives in Natal who are suffering because of the effect of the judgments which have recently been given by the courts. It is most desirable in the interests of the natives themselves that the authority of the kraal head should remain and be maintained as it was before and that those rights should be entrenched in accordance with native law and native principles. Immediately you do away with the kraal head’s authority you are going to break the fabric which exists between the kraal head and the inmates of his kraal. I may mention that, so far as Natal is concerned, we are in exactly the same position as the Transvaal in regard to the Masters and Servants Act and it is most desirable that some alteration should be made and made soon so as to meet the requirements of the Natal farmer and the kraal head. I hope that the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee and its title so widened that the needs of the other Provinces may be considered and the necessary alterations made so that all the Provinces can come under the same law. I do not want in any way to block my hon. friend’s Bill, but I feel that all the Provinces should have the same privilege now of altering the law. The farmers are suffering to the extent, that the present position is really clogging their progress. The kraal head says that the authority which he has had for generations has been taken away under the judgments which have been given. I hope the mover will agree to the Bill being sent to a Select Committee and to the widening of the title, so that provision may be made for an alteration of the Masters and Servants Act in the other Provinces as well.

I welcome the Bill, but as other hon. members have said, hold that it does not go far enough, and I hope that before the second reading it will be referred to a Select Committee, as many alterations are required in the Masters and Servants Act. Some hon. members on the cross-benches say we want to make slaves of the natives. I can give them the assurance that under the same Act in the days of the old Republics the kaffirs were very happy. They were then liable for service, and one was able to put the law into effect. Now, however, another interpretation has been given to the law, owing to the fact that many of the Native Commissioners and magistrates have no sympathy for the farmer, and they always endeavour in the case of complaints and differences between masters and servants on the farms to interpret the law in favour of the servants. This is the reason why natives have now become so unmanageable. The young natives, and even the full-grown natives, leave the farm and stay away for perhaps a few years. In my constituency, which is in the neighbourhood of large towns, the people are much troubled by kaffirs going away without passes; and if a new Act is going to be drafted, or if the matter is going to a Select Committee, I want it to be made plain that no kaffir or native may leave the farm without having a pass from the owner, and that any person employing such a native without a pass shall be punishable. In my constituency we have great difficulties with the workpeople. They trek off and leave the farmer in the lurch. I am glad that the hon. Prime Minister intends making changes in this respect. The position now is that the owners of farms are unable to obtain the labour they require. I know cases where the owner did not require his workpeople in the first three or six months, but when he wanted them later he could not obtain them. The employer brought a case against them, and the magistrate said he ought to have called on the people to work during the first three months, although he did not require them. Then he gave the kaffir notice to leave but was unable to turn him out until the kaffir had harvested his crops. There are many cases such as this The kaffir has the use of the land and treks off without having done a bit of work for the employer. The old law has become invalid, and it is high time that the Government go into the matter and bring in a proper law which will protect the native as well as the farmer. To-day neither the native nor employer knows how he stands. I hope we shall go further than the hon. member proposes to-day and that a proper law will be made to govern the relations between masters and servants. The adult kaffirs who live on the farms —the squatters—will have the satisfaction of knowing that under such a law the young natives must stay on the farms and will not be able to go away without passes. Then the father will be able to bring up his son properly. It is necessary that adequate provision be made, and I hope we shall not listen to our friends on the cross-benches, as they know just as little about a kaffir as the kaffir knows of them. They have no sympathy with the farmer on the veld. I hope the motion or the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will lead to our getting a satisfactory law.

It is very difficult for those of us who are not very well acquainted with the Transvaal law to be able to gauge the effect and extent to which an Act of this sort really will go, but, as far as I understand the law, the position is this. At the present time there is a Masters and Servants Act in the Transvaal and there is a Squatters’ Law, and the intention of this Bill is to make anybody who is squatting or living on a farm under the Squatters’ Law amenable as if the contract under which he lived there was one of master and servant, in which case the squatter would become liable to penalties for contravention of the law just as if he were under the Masters and Servants Act, which at present he is not. It is very difficult to gauge the extent to which that would go, but I have listened to some criticisms of the measure from the cross-benches, from the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and others, and I for one am prepared to vote for the second reading of this Bill, provided that it goes to a Select Committee—if the mover will agree to that course—while reserving to myself the right to reconsider the position after the Bill has emerged from Select Committee, should any substantial change have been made. With regard to some of the criticisms which have been advanced this afternoon —that this Bill would create a position of slavery, and so on—I think that some of those who have spoken have probably not quite appreciated the actual effect of the Bill, because what the Bill provides is that the contracts of persons who have contracted under the Squatters’ Law of 1905 would be deemed to be contracts amenable to chapter V. of the Masters and Servants Act. That means exposing the parties to that contract to criminal penalties for breach of that contract. In effect that is the object of the Bill, to make those breaches of contract liable to penalties. If this Bill imposed penalties on the squatters, I should be one of the first to agree that the Bill should not be allowed, but I find on looking through chapter V. of this Act that it is not merely a question of imposing penalties on the servants. There are penalties also for the master. While it is true that the bulk of the criminal offences are directed towards actions or inactions of the servants, there are some provisions which would be most useful for the person who is on a farm under a squatter’s contract. In clause 14 it is provided that contracts may be cancelled if the master brings an unfair charge against the servants. Then there are other important provisions. One which I should imagine is of considerable importance is that under section 22 of the Act whereby a master is made criminally liable if he unlawfully detains any of the servant’s cattle on the land. At present there is no penalty for the master who does that, so I understand, and yet if ever there is likely to be an offence by the master which would seriously affect the servant it would be that offence of unlawful detention. There is one provision which gives the servant ample protection should he desire to lodge a reasonable complaint against the master with the responsible authority and bona fide leave the farm for the purpose. Under the Squatter’s Law I believe the servant has not that right If that is the law, that a servant is not able to go to the proper authority for the purpose of lodging his complaint, then I say if that had been the original provision in the law, I should have voted against it, because if there is anything which approximates to slavery it is that provision which would enable a master to detain a servant against his will on a farm. I think the Bill will require some special amendment and one should be in the direction of making this Bill applicable only to persons who are dealt with by chapter V. of the Masters and Servants Act, that is, people bound by the contract, the man himself, his wife and children under 16. That is an essential feature. I should like also to point out as a matter of drafting, it seems open to considerable doubt whether the Bill as it stands covers anything at all, because this refers to contracts under the Squatting Law, and the Squatting Law says nothing at all about contracts. I suggest to my hon. friend that he considers that point in committee. Then if he is dealing with contracts, might I ask him to consider that the contracts should be those drawn up before an assistant commissioner or some commissioner of natives ? As far as I can see there is no provision for protection for the native who enters into those contracts. The result is that the natives may in their ignorance enter into an ill-considered contract and be liable for penalties while they do not appreciate the position. The contract should be in writing and the copy deposited with the assistant commissioner. With those safeguards I find myself able to support the Bill.

I am pleased with the motion and support it heartily. I consider this Bill should long ago have been adopted. The relations between the kaffir and the farmer in the country are almost unbearable. It has been said by some hon. members that the farmers want to make slaves of the kaffirs; but I say that the farmer is more of a slave than the kaffir. It is often the case that when the sweat is dripping from the farmer the kaffir comes along at his ease, and one has no means of exercising discipline. I think there ought to be a law to protect the farmer as well as the kaffir. I consider that there should be a proper scale of wages for kaffirs living on farms. The one landowner puts the other at a disadvantage, and this is particularly the case with the great land companies, where they take kaffirs who pay £5 per year for rent and they are then free to farm just as they like. This is often the occasion of the farmers in the district being without labour. Seeing that hon. members have said we want to enslave the kaffirs, I want to quote something which will show how free the kaffir is. Near my place are a few farms belonging to land companies, or to rich farmers, and a kaffir has for years past lived there free except that he has to render service to the owner. It happened that a white man approached the same owner and wanted to be allowed to live there on payment of rent; but the owner preferred to have the kaffir living there because he provided someone to work for him. I think it necessary that the position should be definitely laid down.

I would like to draw this aspect of the matter to the attention of the Government. In 1920 this House passed an Act dealing with native affairs, and provision was made in that Act that natives should be consulted in the case of all measures affecting themselves. The natives have valued that pledge and they like to be consulted. Now we have a Bill introduced entirely by a private member, a Bill very seriously affecting the natives of this country. I am sure many of the natives know nothing about it. The native will feel that if private members have the right to bring in measures affecting natives without the natives being consulted his position is not so secure as he imagined. I would suggest this Bill is sufficiently important to have been brought in by the Government. I have noticed that all Government Bills affecting the natives are published in advance so that the natives can study them. I think if private members have Bills affecting the natives they should put them up to the Government to introduce. With regard to this Bill, I think the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and others who have asked what is the difference between Cape Town and the interior, why should there be different laws? are asking an absurd question. It is quite obvious that conditions affecting natives in the country must necessarily be different from the towns. On the whole I think the Bill is a fair one, but I think the Government should put it before the natives—possibly get a report upon it from the Native Affairs Commission— but at any rate should give the natives an opportunity to discuss it and give evidence on it before the Select Committee.

I am glad the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has brought this Bill before the House as there is need for it. A great deal has been said in its favour, and I do not think its importance can be overstated. Our friends who oppose the Bill allege that it promotes slavery. This is the great argument which is to-day brought in against it. I am unable to see where the slavery comes in. If I make a contract with my neighbour it is not slavery; and neither is a contract which I make with a native head of a household. A kaffir will not sign a contract without knowing what he is about, and there is therefore no danger of slavery. The point is that the kaffir should be allowed to investigate the conditions of the contract before signing it. We know that in the Transvaal great difficulties exist and that the position is unsatisfactory both for farmers and for kaffirs. The kaffirs trek off, to the great disadvantage of the farmers.

I am altogether opposed to the idea underlying this proposed measure. It is curiously reminiscent to me of the talk that used to take place in the United States Congress before the Civil War of 1861. A great deal was said then, as it has been this afternoon, to the effect that slaves on the masters’ estates were the happiest in the world. I do not like the term “slave” as applied to the native servants in South Africa because I think it is too strong, but it seems to me that what this Bill proposes to do is to legalize a condition of servitude, and I join myself with those who protest against a measure of the importance of this one being flung upon the native people without due opportunity for considering their feelings and desires in so great a matter. The native people are very suspicious and sometimes are seething with discontent because they have the idea that they are being trodden under foot by those who own the land, and that they are not to have a fair chance in life. We must guard against that feeling by consulting representative natives in the matter.

I am rather surprised that this measure has been brought forward by the hon. gentleman who has introduced it, because we heard a great deal the other day about the colour bar from that side of the House, and after listening to the right hon. member for Standerton (General Smuts) the other day. I would like to know what he thinks about this particular Bill. How can a vote in favour of this measure be reconciled with the speech made by the right hon. gentleman the other day on the question of the colour bar. I want to put this to the farming community of South Africa that if anything is going to be done in this country to provide openings in one of the most healthy spheres of life in South Africa—that is in agriculture— you have got to get right away from this idea of master and servant so far as the natives are concerned. So long as we continue to tolerate this system of serfdom in regard to the native population of this country, and keep them in this position of servitude in the interests of the agricultural community, the mining industry, the manufacturing industry, or any other section of the community, we are rapidly travelling along the road that is going to close the door to the white generations in South Africa in the future. We cannot possibly take up this attitude in this House that we agree that a colour bar in one direction is unjust, and iniquituous, and in the next breath, when it suits our own financial and material interests and material outlook and considerations, say we believe the colour bar justified. Will any member of this House attempt to introduce a measure of this kind that will apply equally to native and white people of South Africa? Will anyone suggest that we should place on the Statute Book of this country a measure to the effect that in the event of a white man entering into a contract with an employer, that the whole of that man’s family are to become slaves of the individual with whom he is entering into the contract? I take it that not one member of this House would attempt to do that.

It is coming.

Well, let us take this question of the white man and his contracts from the point of view of the employee. If a white man goes to work for any employer in this country, whether he signs a contract or not, except in the case of imported labour— that is the conclusion from the recent deportation of those waiters that went on strike at the Mount Nelson Hotel—if any white citizen of South Africa enters into a contract and breaks the terms of his contract, the employer has to take civil action against him. It is not a criminal offence. And yet hon. members will stand up in this House find wax eloquent about the inequalities of the colour bar, and the injustice to the coloured races. But it is quite different when it comes to a measure which gives the employing class a better hold on the employee because he happens to be black— the poor natives who are employed by the mines or the farmers. If he agrees to work for twelve months, and attempts to leave his employer to take up another job, even at increased wages, or it may be that that particular employer is not treating him as he ought to be treated, even though he is doing his work well; if that unfortunate native leaves his service and goes to someone else, the power of the State is applied to bring the native back to continue his work with his original employer. All the employer has to do is to inform the police and the offence becomes a criminal one. Here we have to be taxed to keep a force to see that the employing class are kept supplied with servants. That is altogether apart from the moral side of the question. In the eyes of the law we make a distinction between the white man and the native. We often hear in this House, and outside of it, about artificial measures that may tend to bolster up the white race, but you do not hear that point raised against artificial measures continually placed on the Statute Book in order to provide an economic advantage of the employer over the native, and thus place the native in a better position than the white worker. The white worker will not be able to hold his own so long as this kind of thing is tolerated by the legislative body of the country, and I would say to the farmers, who after all are the backbone of the country, that if they are going to provide a self-contained white community in this country, and build up a great South African nation, painful as it may appear to them to do it to-day, they have got to take the long view, and make up their minds that they are going to do away with this system of servile labour. Leaving the moral consideration of the question on one side, I take it that every hon. member of this House who is going to support this measure will be absolutely at one when it comes to the question of the colour bar. I take up this attitude in regard to this particular type of legislation that you have to deal with the natives from a just point of view while you prevent the white race being annihilated. It is no use tinkering with the question on the lines of legislation such as this, and at the same time carry on a policy in this country which is not going to provide a future for the white community. And if all members will say we are going to cast moral consideration to one side, and institute the colour bar to keep the natives as hewers of wood and drawers of water, and keep them in white communities to provide cheap labour for the employing class, we shall know where we are, but if they wish to retain the native as a hewer of wood and drawer of water, we say the colour bar to do this is inconsistent as well as immoral. There should not be the slightest chance of legislation of this kind passing through this House, because you cannot even plead That it is brought forward with a view to the preservation of the white race. The most you can claim is that it is going to give a greater grip to a larger number of people in order that they shall carry on certain work to their own profit. Instead of being in the nature of a measure for the self-preservation of the white community it is going to help to eliminate the whites. I take it that as far as this particular brand of legislation is concerned, in the mind of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) we have gone a very long way past this particular measure and we should be looking at the question from an entirely different point of view from the point of view we should have adopted ten or twenty years ago. No country has ever been made great on the basis of slavery or ever can become great on that basis. Hon. members may say it is not slavery. When you find the whole of a family, according to the laws of the country, put under a contract entered into by the father and the whole family is thus at the beck and call of that particular employer, it is nothing less than slavery. They can call it by any other name they like, but every child of that particular individual is at the beck and call of the farmer or other employer, as the case may be. I hope hon. members will give this measure very careful consideration before they pass legislation of this kind.

It is difficult for me to follow the mentality of certain hon. members. One day they stand up and want to withhold from the native certain rights in connection with industrial affairs. Next day they stand up and want to give them the same rights in connection with agricultural affairs. When the farmer objects to this, they say that the farmers want to make slaves of the native and of his children. So far as I understand the speeches of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), and Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), they say that the farmer is the owner of the land and that he must allow the native to live there on certain conditions; but that he must not require the kaffir to work as rent. What difference does it make for the native whether he pays the farmer in hard cash or whether the farmer receives payment from him in the form of a certain amount of work? If the native has to pay a tax, it simply means that he will have to go to the towns to work in order to get the money. He works with the farmer, and in this manner pays him. If we consider the value of the farm and that the farmer has a certain amount of money invested in it, and that he gives the native the right to live there, he has surely the right to expect rent for it. The ground which is given for cultivation and for grazing is considered as nothing; hon. members call it a device for getting cheap labour. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has talked to us about slaves, and says there is no choice left for the children of the natives. He knows nothing about kaffirs. A kaffir never takes such an important step without having first consulted his wives and children. This they do thoroughly, and then decide whether it is in their interest to enter into such a contract. The kaffir has to live somewhere. We hope that there are going to be native territories, but not all natives will be able to live there. A certain number will have to live on the land of the farmers. At present crowds of them live on Crown land, on farms, on the ground of big companies, and it is in respect of the last-mentioned that great abuses exist, with the result that the farmer is never certain of his labour. As employers of labour we want to know when and under what conditions we can employ our labour. For this reason I welcome the Bill. I speak on behalf of Barberton, where there are many natives on the land of the big companies and on Crown land. What is the condition there in respect of the native on Crown land ? There is no economic pressure obliging him to seek work with the farmer. Some of them in the Komati and Lomati districts possess over 1,000 head of cattle. Now, the farmers have natives living on their farms, but the young kaffirs roam about and do not work because nobody, not even their parents, can exercise control over them. The native family head will welcome the Bill if it will enable him to regain control over his children. When the kaffir has reached the age of sixteen the farmer has no right to his services, but still he is not under the law until he reaches the age of eighteen, with the result that between his sixteenth and eighteenth year no one has control over him. He can then go where he likes. In Barberton we have three agricultural societies, and one of them—the Low Veld Farmers Association—owing to the conditions in Barberton having changed so, has found it necessary to form a labour board, and in the past twelve months we have brought in from other districts no less than 900 kaffirs. Developments there are not the same as on the high veld. The high veld has for the past few years maintained an equilibrium, but in the low veld great development has taken place in respect of citrus, tobacco and cotton farming, the development has been such that the demand tor kaffir labour has increased pro rata. It must not be inferred for a minute that only kaffirs are employed. The more kaffirs employed, the more white men we are able to find work for. The proportion is about one white to ten kaffirs. In a district like this which is already overflowing with natives, the farmers have had to institute a labour board for the importation of kaffirs. The young natives are subject to no control. They roam round, and the police cannot their mouths to see whether they are under sixteen. It is thus to the advantage of the native Parent and of the farmer that the young native should again be obliged by law to work for the farmer. I give my hearty support to the Bill.

I am also going to vote against this Bill for to my mind any member who votes for this will be assisting in going back to a condition of things which I can only describe as chattel slavery. Some of the hon. members who have spoken in favour of this Bill have let the cat out of the bag. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) laid down the doctrine this afternoon that if this Bill did not apply to a native over eighteen he would vote in favour of it. That is to say slavery up to eighteen is quite reasonable, but after that it is not.

May not a father apprentice his son?

Yes, but when a father does that he is doing so in order to fit his son for the battle of life, but it is not the case that a native is assisting his son by keeping him on a farm under conditions of slavery. If a father apprentices his son, and the contract is broken that is purely a civil matter, but under this law they give the master the right to prosecute the offender under the criminal law.

Under the apprenticeship law the offender is liable to be punished criminally.

I did not know that applied to boys under eighteen. I have yet to learn that an apprentice can be sent to prison for breaking his contract in regard to apprenticeship. Then, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) went further. He said that in the Transvaal there were hundreds of thousands of acres of land on which cotton could be grown, and there were hundreds of thousands of natives available for that purpose, but the problem was to get the natives to work on the land. That is a labour problem pure and simple. His argument on that score is another instance of the cat being let out of the bag. With regard to this Squatters Law, the preamble states—

That was the original idea, and to provide a free supply of labour, but we have moved forward since then. I do not think any hon. member representing the Cape should support a measure of this sort. Two years ago a Bill was brought forward, to amend the Stock Theft Act, to make the penalties more drastic. We fought for hours to prevent that becoming law; we took exception to its being introduced by a private member and not as a Government measure. Now we have the same thing over again. Here is a Bill which makes a drastic alteration in the law and it is being introduced by a private member on the opposite side. If it is necessary to amend this law in the direction indicated by this Bill, then I say the Government should take the responsibility. Another hon. member, I cannot call to mind his constituency, said that the natives in his part of the country were the happiest people in the country. Of course it may be that a pig is perfectly happy in his sty; but it may be sometimes necessary to protect poor people against themselves. If this amending Bill goes through it seems to me that the conditions of employment of these people are not going to be improved. We are said to be making progress in the way of making better opportunities for people to go on the land in this country. If the land of this country cannot be developed on civilized lines by free voluntary labour it is time we shut up shop in this country so far as agriculture is concerned. We stand by that and I for one cannot support the principle contained in this Bill.

I also am going to vote against this for very much the same reasons as have been expressed by my colleagues. I am sure that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) was quite right when he said that this Bill meant an extension of the system of slavery which has prevailed in many parts of this country. We have been told of an instance of the working of the Masters and Servants Law where a contract entered into with the kraal head involved the whole of the people in that kraal. I believe the expression of opinion was that system was one which should be introduced and extended right through the rest of the country. That provided one reason why the hon. member was in favour of the Bill, but I am sure that no hon. member on these benches is likely to vote for a principle of that sort. We are supposed to have passed those days. Where are those who spoke the other day so eloquently in defence of native rights on the mines ? Their attitude to-day is an absolute negation of their attitude on that occasion. I would very much like to hear the opinion of the right hon. member for; Stander ton (Gen. Smuts) on this particular Bill. He pointed out in connection with the other matter which came before the House—

The hon. member must not discuss a previous debate.

Several matters have arisen in this country which, as it has been pointed out, affect the natives and on which the natives have not been consulted. I should like to know whether they were consulted on this Bill, either they or their responsible leaders ? I do not think they have been. I think members on both sides of the House will hold that no section of the population should have legislation passed affecting them without being consulted. I know that in the Natal Rebellion in 1907 one of the natives principal grievances—you will find it in the report of the Native Affairs Commission—is that they were not consulted. The first thing they knew was a notice in the magistrate’s office that a law had been passed and that they had broken it. I wonder what would happen if any member were to propose a similar system in regard to the white people of this country. Will the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) advocate a system whereby a labourer who entered into a contract should have the labour of his wife and family similarly bound. This Bill is going to bind the children of the natives upon the father’s job. There is a similar system in the United States where there are “company towns a system under which no man can live in these towns unless he is in the service of that particular mining company which owns every house and site in that town. Nobody can get a meal or a bed in these towns except with the permission of the mine company. The companies maintain guards on the streets, and no man can enter the towns without the permission of the mining company, and trade union leaders are all turned out by those guards. This Bill is something of the very same system. I thought we had got past that, and that the days when we hankered after slavery had gone by. I hope this measure will not become law.

I am not a great authority on native affairs in the other provinces, as are some other hon. members who have spoken to the motion. I have however lived there long enough, and have gone about enough to know something about it. I know enough to be surprised at what some hon. members have said. These hon. members have lived all the time in the towns, and know nothing about what goes on on the farms. They have given proof of this and they have astounded me. Hon. members talk of slavery, but the thing does not exist. There is no slavery, but there are contracts. The kaffirs are allowed to come on the land of a farmer. For this he has to pay rent, but instead of paying in hard cash he engages the services of himself and his household to the owner of the farm. This is the, system preferred by the kaffir. He wants to have ground. His riches consist in cattle, small stock and horses. When he is without these he feels himself to be a vagrant. His stock is the medium of exchange for wives, and with them he cultivates the ground. In order to exist the kaffir requires land for cultivation and grazing; and if the farmer refuses to hire ground then the kaffir does not know what he must do. Hon. members who appear as advocates for the kaffirs, and who talk of unjust treatment and wish to alter existing customs will succeed only in pauperising them. Their sympathy is altogether misplaced. There is another matter. To-day the kaffir experiences the same difficulty with his children as Europeans do. We have difficulty in keeping the children under parental control and kaffirs have the same difficulty. The children to-day roam about: they do no work, and go off to the big towns whilst the parents can do nothing. The parents are anxious to have this Bill so that they can regain their authority over their children. That is the position. We not only want to help the farmer, but we want to assist the kaffir to keep his house in order.

I understood the hon. member for Durban, Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) to say just now that when in Natal kraal heads engaged to supply labour in lieu of paying rent, a breach of the contract rendered the whole kraal civilly liable for damages. That is not the law in Natal as I understand it. In Natal where a native kraal-head engages to supply labour in lieu of paying rent to the landlord he can only be made liable civilly for any breach by himself of that contract, and a breach by any inmate of that kraal does not render the kraal-head liable in a civil action. So far as criminal liability is concerned, there is none. I may say that the law as it stands in Natal has been the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the farmers, and they are very desirous of getting some amendment of the law, providing that where a native kraal-head or any of the inmates breaks a contract to supply labour, the landlord shall have the right immediately to eject that native from his farm. As the law stands at present a native having planted his crops say in December and having broken his contract say in January cannot be ejected from the farm until he has reaped his crops about June. In the meantime he remains on the farm defying his landlord and setting a bad example to the other natives As regards the interpretation of Natal law by the hon. member for Durban, Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) so far as any breach of contract is concerned there is no criminal liability. A native having deserted may be charged criminally under the Master and Servants Act. So far as a breach, by the kraal-head, of the contract to supply labour is concerned there is no criminal liability whatsoever in Natal so far as my knowledge of Natal goes.

We certainly look with some amount of alarm at this particular Bill and the principle which it involves. I suppose the curse of the Transvaal in regard to farming has been “kaffir farming,” and at the bottom of this measure we realize that there is the entrenchment of what is known as “kaffir farming,” the whole principle of which rests upon having people who are in serfdom at the disposal of the proprietor of the farm—the curse of Russia, the curse of every country that has had it. Only recently we spent £15,000—and spent it very wisely—in entertaining members of Parliament from other parts of the Dominions. We were very much interested in the impressions which this country would create in the minds of those visitors. We knew that they would come here with fresh eyes, with minds which had not been affected by the conditions of our country, and that we would have from them an honest, straight and valuable opinion in regard to this country in comparison with other countries. I was not interested in their public acclamations of our hospitality. That was only what one would expect in return for the courtesy extended to them. But we who joined them at various places were interested in finding out what was in their minds in regard to this country, and what did they tell us? They said: “We may envy you your mineral riches, we may envy you one or two other things that you possess, but there is one thing that you can keep for ever and which we do not want, and that is your cheap labour. It is useless to you, and you are 100 years behind the times, because your people are dependent upon that labour. If you were to send that labour to Australia, New Zealand or Canada, we would simply make you a present of it again.” They found that with their expensive labour they can beat us at every point. Take the sugar industry of Natal. What did they find in regard to that ? That in Queensland, men in the season make £2 to £3 a day—white labour—while in Natal with their wretched serf labour, mostly too imported from another country, they are afraid of the competition of Queensland sugar and they have to have antagonistic tariffs to keep it out.

You do not know anything about it.

Why? They have relied upon this cheap labour and have been growing the wrong class of sugar and burning 25 per cent, of sugar contents in the mills as fuel. Our farmers have the markets of the world within 6,000 miles of them, while other competing countries have to go double the distance, and yet our farmers cannot turn out the stuff that; will give them the advantage of those markets. Take our scrub cattle. We have about nine; millions of these poor class cattle and it all comes from relying on the nigger, because their cattle are not worth better looking after. Until we raise the quality of our farming we will! never make headway in the markets of the world. Here we have one more of these wretched attempts to place the whole of the natives in a state of servitude, as if that would help. But it does not help in the slightest degree. You are now asked to make contracts which will embrace a whole family—a man having perhaps three wives, grown-up sons, big families—and these are to come under this particular principle. How can we, with our ideas set on much greater, things for this country, accept a principle which belongs to previous ages ? Why, one would almost think we were back in the days when it was thought that a British factory could not be run, successfully unless you had the whole family to work in it, from the child of seven to the adult. The farmers are going to be faced, I am glad to say, with great difficulties in regard to the natives. Once they face that question, they will ask for efficient labour which is worth paying for. The cotton industry, of which so much has been heard, certainly promises to be a success. But do not think it is going to give farmers cheap labour. It is going to be an industry in which the natives will control: production of that article. You will not be able to pick cotton unless natives are paid a fair sum for doing it. I suppose it is thought that farmers will be able to inspan whole families cheaply for work in the cotton fields. You will have to make terms with those natives in the season, to give them the highest value for their labour in regard to that industry, and when they can have that, you will find that it will be idle to rest upon such a broken reed as this principle of contract inclusion of whole families. It is an absolutely broken reed on which they are depending, and it will not be of any use to the farmer to carry to the extreme this attempt to entrench kaffir farming, the curse of the Transvaal. The native will have a choice of occupations, and with successful cotton growing he may not care to accept word in the mines except on better terms for himself. I hope farmers will take the lesson from our recent visitors from other and more successful lands. Let us take into serious consideration the impossibility of trying to build up industries on an underfed, underpaid, system of servitude. So far as the Labour party is concerned we are glad this is a private Bill Me would be very sorry indeed if we were tied in any way to such a principle as this— it would be absolutely impossible. I hope the mover will see his Way to abandon the idea of getting cheap labour in this particular form. Let him ask for the highest possible efficiency, see that he gets it, arid pay fairly for it I hope this House will not listen to argument for ensuring cheap labour for any purpose whatsoever. Even those countries in which cheap labour is available have found out that it is not equivalent to the high-priced, efficient labour which you get, for instance, in Europe and America. It is no benefit to the farming industry to try to develop on the basis of the lowest grade of living. Industry will never benefit from measures of this nature.

It was with a great deal of surprise that I saw this Bill introduced into this House after the first quarter of the twentieth century has gone. We are going back a thousand years. This sort of legislation existed in Great Britain one thousand years ago, but we are getting on slowly, and to pass legislation of this kind to-day would set the clock back a thousand years. The Minister of Labour has introduced a measure dealing with white labour on the Rand. I think legislation of this nature will do a great deal to frustrate the efforts of the Minister. There is an ample supply of labour from the white population for all the purposes of the fanning industry of this country, with the exception perhaps of cotton-growing. No real attempt has been made yet to see what labour is available for cotton-growing, and until such an attempt is made we are not justified in going back to such reactionary measures as this. We were asked the other day to see that we had “plain dealing and justice as between man and man.” Those were the words of a responsible statesman, the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to see how anybody could reconcile those words with a measure of this kind. There is a divergence of opinion in this House, but it cannot be exploited, because we must be pretty well equally divided when the Leader of the Opposition took up the attitude he did the other day. Then there is no attempt whatever to solve the question of legislation of this nature as it applies to families. What will be the position when a man has become old and is physically unable to do his work, and yet receives a command to do it ? Is he still the chattel of his employer ? Then there is the other possibility, that is, that a family of half-a-dozen or nine people, say, may be indentured. For an offence one of that family may be haled off to prison, and yet the remainder must stay and continue to be exploited by the employer. Is that logical ? Is there any justice about that ? I know it is vain to expect the mover of this Bill to withdraw it, but I hope those who have refrained from speaking will see that there is a great deal to be said against the measure, and I hope hon. members will at least see that a measure of this kind is going seriously to embarrass native legislation in this country. This proposed measure has all the characteristics of permanency about it, and once placed upon the Statute Book it will be difficult to remove. I trust those who are not financially interested in this matter will vote against the Bill, and also those who are financially interested but can recognize that there is a higher claim upon them of justice and right as against self-interest.

I move—

I second.

Speaking on the point of the adjournment of the debate, I hope the hon. member will not press it. I think most of the members who wish to speak on the matter have done so. I may not use the word obstruction, but it certainly seems as if my hon. friends on the cross benches do wish to keep us from coming to a vote. I suggest that they should not do that. I do not wish to divide the House, but I do suggest to the hon. member that as it is my intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, that I hope he will agree to a vote being taken now.

The hon. member who has just sat down said he would not accuse us of obstruction. I might be frank enough to say that if I could kill this Bill by obstruction, I would do so, but there is an aspect to be considered in asking for the adjournment which may appeal to the hon. member. This Bill was brought on for the first time to-day and many of us had been given to understand that the Bill was going to be withdrawn.

No.

I do not know how that rumour came to be circulated this afternoon, but in consequence of it, many of us were not in the position to put up arguments against it as we would otherwise have been. But, apart from that, it is a very serious question, as I think every hon. member will agree, and it is equally as serious as the question that was raised the other day when the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said we should have ample time for considering a matter of this kind, and in view of the fact that many hon. members may on further consideration of the question, and on going thoroughly into it, decide that perhaps they will not vote in favour of this measure. The adjournment of the debate will give them an opportunity to think seriously on the matter before they vote—it is a vital question. We should have further time so that each member may know what he is doing when he comes to vote on the measure.

I hope the House will accept the motion for the adjournment. We have before us a Bill which is probably the most important measure which has come before the House, and it has certainly not received much publicity, so far as the public of South Africa is concerned. Here we have a Bill which deals with a very important principle; which is calculated to decide whether we are going to travel further in the direction of serfdom and serf labour, or whether we are going to give further opportunities to the people to build up a white civilization in South Africa. If this Bill was accepted—

I am mentioning a question of importance as a reason why the adjournment should be carried. If this motion is defeated there will be no further opportunity to discuss the Bill.

I venture to point out that if the motion for the adjournment is carried, it will mean the abandonment of this Bill certainly for this session and it seems to me, that in that case, we should be taking a very serious responsibility in agreeing to the adjournment when, as I understand, the Bill has been fully debated on both sides of the House, and I think a concensus of opinion in favour of this Bill has been pretty clearly arrived at. I hope hon. members will not be unreasonable in holding out for an adjournment at this stage. The Order Paper is very congested and it is most unlikely that facilities will be available for the passing of the Bill at a future date, if the adjournment is carried at this stage. We ask you to give us the same sort of consideration as you would expect under similar circumstances.

It is the very beginning of the session and there will be any number of opportunities to discuss the Bill further. And the member has said that he wants to refer it to a Select Committee, so that there is no hurry about it so far as he is concerned. The member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) deplored the fact that this Bill had not had the consideration of the natives, and that they knew nothing whatever about it. I should think that it would have been better for those both for and against the Bill, before we are forced to a division, to have a further opportunity of discussing it. It is 6 o’clock, the usual hour for adjournment, and I do not see why it is unreasonable that we should now adjourn the debate. Then the Bill that the hon. member seeks to amend has been on the Statute Book of the Transvaal for 30 years. In face of that we are told that we cannot possibly have an adjournment until another date. I hope that hon. members who are in favour of this measure will assist us to carry this adjournment, because whether they are for or against the motion, they surely do not wish to stifle the discussion, or have it said that a Bill, vitally affecting the natives, was rushed through without giving the natives an opportunity of considering the Bill.

I will only ask my hon. friend there (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to agree to the adjournment.

What is happening ? Are you going to accept?

I put the question that the debate be now adjourned.