I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to.

I did not intend speaking on this subject but it has really astonished me to hear some of the speeches delivered here on the 27th of February when the Bill was discussed. I wish to state in limine that I have deep sympathy with the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) with regard to the conditions prevailing in the Transvaal. We had the same experience in the Free State. The persons who were relations of the kaffir, fell under the Masters and Servants Act because the subsequent relative laws all stated that the chapter of that Act would be applicable. During the period of Crown Colony Government that chapter was however repealed and another law made. The chapter to which the other law thus referred was no longer there and the same amendment was accordingly there that the court caused in the Transvaal Statute. We then for years felt bitterly that the people who got ground to sow and veld for their cattle no longer fell under the Servants Act. Only in 1913 was the status quo reverted to. I was astonished to hear, e.g., from the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) what they think of the hon. members who support this Bill. He said that they speak of things of which they know nothing. The hon. member should put things exactly in the opposite way. He does not know what he is talking about. He does not know what is going on and what the facts are. But I rose to say this that nearly every member who has opposed the Bill has used the word slavery. This we, as Free Staters, dare not allow to pass so easily. They have alleged that the farmer wants to make a slave of the native. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and other hon. members on the cross benches have said this but it seems to me as if they want in practice to turn round and to say that the farmer should be the slave of the native. He must keep the old man-servant and the old maid-servant on his farm. He must give them veld and ground for cultivation. He must provide for everything and the two old people cannot work nor the grandchildren. Who is now the master? The farmer must keep the farm in order. He must pay all the interest. He is made the slave. Other members have said that we cannot farm with “under-paid and underfed servants.” I state that the most expensive labour which can be used is that which the farmer has on his farm. If we were to calculate for a moment …

They are your allies.

I am talking generally and in the interest of the country. If the farmer calculates the value of the ground on which he puts people then he pays through the nose for his labour. Now hon. members will again say: why does he not then send them away? He will do this if hon. members will see to it that he can get labour at the time he requires it. He cannot always get labour when he needs it and therefore he has to keep these people on the farms. That is the answer that I give to people who say that we work with “under-paid and under-fed servants.” Regarding “underfed” I give them the assurance that on the whole the native in the Free State is healthier and fatter than the people who live in England. They are shining and fat and healthier than hundreds of white people and children. I say this to point out to them that as regards health the little natives of the veld are healthier, freer and better off than hundreds of white children even in London. I have seen it myself. There are hundreds of children who would be very thankful if they could have the healthy and free life of the kaffirs on the farms. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) who forms a party by himself said that we want to introduce slavery and that it is a dangerous measure, as he said “most dangerous.” I would like to ask him to go to the head of the Native Affairs Department, Major Herbst, and ask him if there is any slavery amongst the natives who live with white people in the Free State in consequence of a similar law. He (Mr. Alexander) as a lawyer does not hear every day of that law. If it is the case that the Bill will cause slavery why then did it not occur in 1913 in the Free State. I should like to read something to him about segregation. It was in force in the old Free State in the same way as we now wish to apply it. Article 9 of chapter 34 reads as follows—

Now I come to the law itself about the same matter that the hon. member mentioned. If he will read the Free State Law book he will see that the old Free State said where that sort of people belonged. I read on—

What happened then is that in the time of the Crown Colony Government chapter three was repealed. The other Acts still remained but the Act referred to did not exist any longer and the natives were unattached. This was a terrible grievance in the Free State and what happened then? In 1913 the famous Act came into force of which so much has been spoken and of which I was the father. The matter was brought before Parliament as the result of a motion I proposed and a Bill was then drafted. There was a great deal of trouble about it for three or four months; they wanted to cut this out and cut that out but I insisted on the rights of the old Free State, and now I would, like to call the attention of the hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) to a matter. If they will refer to the Statute of 1913 they will find the following in section 7 of Act No. 27—

There you have the new masters and servants law. In 1913 Parliament accordingly decided that the whole family would again fall under the masters and servants law, and because I was afraid that subsequently other laws might come to take those rights away from us, I took special care to have the words inserted “or of any other Act hereafter to be passed ”. Parliament can pass any Act with reference to masters and servants, but it will not in that respect have any effect upon the Free State. If I sit here and hear hon. members speaking about slavery, then I think that anyone would say that we in the Free State, and I think also in the Transvaal, were busy making slaves of the natives and ruining them, yet I am assured by a highly-placed official that there are no complaints in the Free State. Members who make such a fuss here know nothing about the natives. They have only seen him in the street, and from those who have lived amongst them we do not hear such chatter. If we act like this in the House, then I don’t know where we shall end. The people who talk about “underfed and under-paid” natives do not know what is happening there. If the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will come to Ficksburg I will give him every opportunity of seeing what is going on, and I will prove to him that he is wrong. I hope that my hon. friend will succeed in having this Bill passed in order to put right what has been declared wrong by the court, and that we should also have Natal included. The people who know nothing about the native always talk differently to those who are acquainted with them. Persons who are not aware of the facts have spoken here of “dangerous laws.” They do not know that they have existed in the Free State since Toeka’s time, that through a mistake of the Crown Colony Government they were abolished but were re-enacted in 1913 with full force of law. Have there been any complaints in that time? No, I have not heard of any. I only wish to add that I hope the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee and that the Select Committee will do the right thing. If Natal could be included, it would be a very good thing. At the moment, I fully support the Bill, and I hope I have proved to other members that there is no danger connected with it.

I believe I shall be correct when I say that everyone in this House, irrespective of party, is prepared to do his utmost at all times to assist the farming community. I hope the opposition that has come from the Labour party benches of the principle contained in this innocent little Bill will in no way be taken by the farming community as being antagonistic to their interests. I think the Labour party has always clearly shown that it is prepared to give a square deal to the natives. I for one refuse to believe that a Bill of this kind will assist the farming community. I believe it will be detrimental to the farming community. I am not prepared to believe that our native is so ignorant as to bind himself with such conditions as those contained in this Bill. We know very well that it is not a matter of dealing with one or two children in the case of these native families, but that at times it means quite a large number. I would go further and say that if the native was so ignorant as to be bound by these conditions, it is the duty of this House to see that he is not made use of in that way by any employer. Again, we are told that this Bill is only applicable to minors up to the age of 18 years. If that is so, I contend that the farmer is looking for a heap of trouble in having to deal with minors between the ages of 14 and 18. We know very well that it is not an age of responsibility for them, but for the parents it is an age of anxiety and responsibility. We, on the Labour benches, do not pretend to understand the conditions as applicable to farmers, but we certainly look upon this Bill from the humane standpoint, and we believe that this Bill will be detrimental and not beneficial both to the farmer and to these young natives. So far as the actual principle of the Bill is concerned, it is one which should not be allowed to go through this House. I suggest that its application is a practical impossibility, and that the best assistance we can give the farmers is not to put a Bill of this description through the House.

I am glad that the hon. member acknowledges that he knows nothing about the circumstances of farm life. I shall also be glad if he in the future will use his knowledge for the good of the country. I can give the House the assurance at the people on the farms are anxious to-day to have such an Act as what is now proposed. If there were to be a referendum amongst the natives whether they are for or against the Bill, the result would be that the large majority would be in favour. This has clearly been seen during the last year. They often came to me to ask if it was not possible for the Government to make a law to keep their children on the farms. The children go away early from the paternal home and the parents have no right to prevent the children going to the large towns and villages, where they learn all kinds of vices, and the people on the farms are in favour of an Act compelling the children to remain on the farms. And what is the aim of the Bill now before us? The Bill lays down that in the future the old native shall have the right of prohibiting his children from leaving the farm, but when they have attained the age of 16, 17 or 18, i.e., as soon as they pay their own poll tax, then the contract lapses in so far as the native child is concerned. No, the workpeople on the farms are in favour of the law, and the man who has to control the workpeople on the farm will be much helped in his task by this provision. I cannot see how any objection to this Bill can arise. I can still remember the time when the Apprenticeship Bill was introduced and how people opposed it and how the self same rule was laid down. Because what is the position on the farms to-day? Today the young natives on the farms are educated with a view to agriculture. We provide in this way for more development of the native and to put him in the position of later being independent as a portion of the people to make his living at agriculture. If the young natives are allowed to disappear from the farms, then it surely cannot be expected that they can he educated in agriculture. This is exactly the same view as is taken in the Apprenticeship Act, namely, that a contract is made for a number of years so that the young lads can perfect themselves in one or other trade. And if he does not wish to stop, then it is on the interest of the apprentice that he should not be allowed to run away. We compel the white child to train himself for the future and this Bill training the young native in the direction that we want the workpeople to go, namely, in the direction of agriculture in the future. A farmer would surely rather have in his service a native who is trained than one that comes raw from the mines. I feel that the members who oppose the law are out to plunge the country into misfortune. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) seems to me an authority in this department. He says that if we go on like this we may as well stop, that as far as the future of South Africa is concerned we can chuck up the sponge. I say that we have here useful legislation so far as the education of the natives is concerned. I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister has approved of this Bill, and I am convinced of it that the provisions made here will bear fruit in the future, not only in the interest of the farmer, but in the interest of the native himself, so that the native can keep his children on the farm and the children, together with the children of the farmers, can get a proper education.

I hope the Minister of Native Affairs will agree to extend the application of this Bill to the province of Natal, because the conditions there render it necessary that the native kraal-heads who live under the tribal system should maintain their control over the inmates of their kraal. Under the present system when the minors of the kraal set at defiance the kraal-head it almost inevitably results in the kraal-head being given notice to leave, and that often entails great hardship whereas he is comfortably off if he remains on the farm, rendering service and receiving wages. I hope the hon. Minister will agree to amend the Masters and Servants law in Natal, in the way indicated by the Bill.

It is desirable that anyone opposed to the Bill should give expression to the antagonism they feel to it before its principle is registered as the decision of the House. I am particularly surprised at the support this Bill is securing from hon. members on the Opposition side of the House, more especially seeing that when any question is discussed regarding the native population or the colour bar, they made the rafters ring with protests against taking away the rights of the natives, and riot giving them an opportunity to rise in the scale of civilization. In the same breath these hon. members say “We are so fond of these natives that in order to raise them in the scale of civilization we propose to enforce the slavery which used to exist in the United States of America.” After all, what principle is laid down in the Bill apart from all questions of economic interest? It simply provides machinery under which if a human being breaks the contract of his service, instead of the master going to the civil court and claiming damages for the breach of contract, the thing is made into a crime for which the offender can be fined and in the event of his being unable to pay the fine he can be sent to prison. When he comes cut of gaol, if he refuses to carry out the contract, he can again be brought before the court. This is only making criminals. From an economic point of view, people may say that it is necessary to enforce the law in order that natives shall not only have before them the fear of unemployment or the risk of being sued civilly for damages, but if they break their contract they can be sent to gaol for it. There is this further aspect to be considered, I do not think the natives know very much about the terms of these contracts. Under this Bill we go further and say not only shall the native be imprisoned, but his children shall be liable, even though they are against the contract, and do not want to become the employees of the other party to the contract. The fact that the head of the kraal has entered into a contract binds these children and if they refuse to perform the work which is offered to them, they also become criminals. Surely living as we do in the twentieth century, no one will seriously suggest that —leaving out the economic question—we should extend the law of slavery to children. South Africa contributes very considerably to the League of Nations, but I wonder what the League would say, if this Bill were brought to its notice. The Bill is wrong in principle and theory, and is a discredit to the country. I now wish to deal with the Bill from an economic point of view, leaving out the question of how it affects the white worker. A colour bar is being forced upon us by legislation of this kind. If the white man had the opportunity of free competition, then there would be very little need for a colour bar, but it is because you have legislation continuously being put on the Statute Book, by which facilities or encouragement are given for the employment of the cheapest possible labour and for the importation of natives from other parts of Africa that a colour bar is considered necessary. Encouragement is given to an employer by a law of this kind to engage native labour, for the Bill gives him such a hold on his employee, that if the latter breakes the contract he can be put into gaol. I now want to look at the matter from the point of view of the farming population. The Nationalists are with us in our desire to encourage civilized labour in industry, but do they not realize that by lending themselves to this Bill they are taking away any arguments that they may use against our opponents, for the latter will ask “Why have civilized labour alone in industries, or on the mines, and why not apply the Masters and Servants Act to those industries.” If the principle of this is applied as far as native labour on the farms is concerned it logically follows that it is bound to be right as far as native employment in industry is concerned. But where is this driving us to? Will you apply the Masters and Servants Act to white employees? I don’t think hon. members will have the courage to come forward and say they are in favour of it. Therefore I say that from that point of view I appeal to my hon. friends on the other side of the House not to place themselves in the position of being unable to stand up afterwards against fallacious arguments on the question of civilized labour. It is not the best protection they can get if they want to make agriculture pay to introduce slavery on the farms. I want to give them some official figures which I expect the hon. members of the South African party will accept. Hon. members may have read the bulletin in connection with the production of maize in South Africa. The bulletin deals with the position in 1921-’22 and comparison, after a wage inquiry, is made in connection with the cost of production of maize in South Africa and the United States of America. These are the figures. For 1921-’22 the cost of manual labour, European and native on the farms engaged in the production of maize was as follows: Orange Free State the proportion was 23 per cent., Transvaal 29 per cent., and Natal 32 per cent. I believe I am right in saying that there is less native labour employed on the farms in the Free State than in any other province, and there the proportion of the cost of production is less than in the other two provinces. The Government statistician makes another comparison. He shows the average cost. Taking the three provinces the average proportion of cost is 28.7 per cent. In the United States of America for the same year the proportion of cost for white labour, and well paid labour, was 20.4 per cent. These are not our figures. They are figures and facts produced by an official of the Government paid by the Government to investigate the matter and on investigation he finds that in America, where they use white labour only and pay high wages, the proportion of cost is only 20.4 per cent, against 28 per cent, in the three provinces in South Africa. That shows—although people think that because natives only get so much the native labour is cheap—in reality that cheap labour is very expensive labour. I want to put in another figure to the hon. members. At the South African Agricultural Congress held in Durban on the 14th October, 1924, the chairman gave the following figures. He showed that out of £73,000,000 spent on produce by the wholesalers of this country only £55,000,000 went to the farmers and £18,000,000 went to intermediate sources. Then they look to the farmers and say if you want to protect yourselves employ servile labour. I venture to say that if legislation can be introduced to stop that £18,000,000 from going into the wrong pockets the farmers will be better off than under the present circumstances, or under the Bill which is before us. There are other methods being advocated to-day by people who realize that they must organize on a better basis. Mr. Baldwin has advocated in the House of Commons that the best protection you can get for the producer in the Dominions and for the consumers in England is to make arrangements for the produce in the Dominions to be cleared through the Dominion Governments and then through the Government in England to the consumer. Thereby you would save a huge intermediate sum of money with which to protect the farmers to a much greater extent than by servile labour. Let my friends consider rather this method of saving money and protecting their industry. Let them explore these methods instead of the method advocated by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins).

The last member, like other members on the cross-benches in discussing this matter, only revealed his ignorance as regards farming conditions in South Africa. If the hon. member returned again to Russia he would find conditions there are nearer to slavery than in South Africa. He read out a list of figures on the proportion of cost of production in South Africa, and in quoting the four provinces he showed the highest quotation was in that province where he said cheap coolie labour was employed, where the percentage was 32 per cent. There is not a single Indian in Natal engaged in the production of maize. The value of the hon. member’s remarks therefore is nil. This Bill is for the protection of the natives. If control is lost, the head of the kraal is turned off and the farm is derelict. Every farmer in Africa is a missionary and a civilizing influence; this Bill is in the interest of the natives.

I would like to say that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) seems to have gone completely off the track in regard to what is at the bottom of this Bill. He and others on his side have been objecting to the principle involved and alleging that it amounts to slavery, but I would ask him and other hon. members whether they do not realize that for hundreds of years a system of apprenticeship, which is the same as the principle involved in this Bill, has been in operation in Europe. You send your children to schools, you apprentice them to a trade, you do not ask them whether they wish to stay there or not. It is probably not within the cognizance of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Kentridge) that there is growing up in the Transvaal a regular crowd of boys and girls who leave their parents without their consent, who go into the towns and who cannot be fetched back. I am speaking of native boys and girls. They are subjected in the towns to all sorts of evil influences and there is a great deal of debauchery going on in some of these places. It is no doubt from this class that such organizations as the Amalita gang are recruited. I will just quote one instance here for the information of my hon. friends on the Labour benches. These people are living on the farms on condition that they and their children, not their grown-up sons, but their minor children, shall give a certain return in the way of work. That is not slavery. A man need not go, nor stay there if he does not like it. Now in the case I wish to quote, a boy of 16 ran away from the farm where his parents were living. His father got him back and gave him a flogging.

Why did he run away?

The reason was that he was enticed by the attractions of the bioscope, and so on, and he did not want to stay on the farm. There was no question of slavery in this case, He ran away to join one of those gangs of boys who roam about the towns. Having been brought back, his father gave him a flogging. He lodged a complaint against his father for assault, his father was run in before the magistrate and, according to our laws, which the natives do not wholly understand, the father was fined for “assault” on his son. The result is that to-day the father has lost entire control over the whole of his family. The point am getting at is this. We have heard much from the Labour benches about the “rights” of natives, and the hon. member for Troyeville has talked about slavery. We South African farmers, except in very few instances, are known to be the friends of the natives, and, as they themselves call us, their fathers, and the farmers are a strong civilizing influence over the natives. We do not maltreat them, they are in no sense slaves, and I say that the native of South Africa generally gets as fair and honest treatment from his employer as any other servant in the world. The effect of this Bill would be that the parent would have control over his children, with the help of his white master. That is at the bottom of it. Underlying this Bill is the principle that these boys should undergo a sort of apprenticeship on the farm. I maintain that no man, whatever the colour of his skin, should be barred from being a civilized man and entitled to be employed on civilized labour. On the one hand hon. members on the Labour benches want to shut the native out from “civilized labour,” which, I take it from their speeches, means labour in the towns. And yet here they are trying to drive these young natives from the farms into the towns and objecting to their being practically apprenticed to farm labour, inconsistency of this sort ought to be exposed. On the one hand, you want to have what you call a horizontal line; on the other hand here you are wishing to enable these youths to leave the farms at an age when they are not capable of judging for themselves as to their proper welfare, and falling under evil influences in the towns. I know that the attractions of the farm to many who may be engaged there are not so great that the attractions of the city will not entice them to leave. The point is in regard to this that the parents have lost control. We have broken down the tribunal system. Let us not undermine the family system by breaking down the authority of the head of the family. I hope my hon. friend who has charge of this measure will be prepared to make it perfectly clear that it is not intended to deal with all members of the head-man’s family after they have reached their majority. It is only meant to include minor children. I wish to enter my protest against the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), which we in this House can understand and make allowance for, but a speech which, if used, as it might be used, amongst the native population of this country, can only make for mischief and do absolutely no good, and will not help us in our position here of an intellectual minority controlling, guiding and helping these vast masses of uncivilized people in the country. Speeches like that are not helping us in the very least. As a farmer, and as a man whom I do not think anyone can accuse of unkindness to his servants, as one who understands something about the problem of the native, I give my wholehearted support to this measure on the understanding that it deals only with the minor children involved.

I wish to move, as a further amendment—

It may be, as stated by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), that the members of the Labour party have not very much experience of farming matters, but they certainly have far more experience of humanitarian feelings than has been suggested by the hon. member. It seems to us that this Bill is actuated by a, desire to perpetuate a system of slavery and that it goes in the direction of making the squatting evil even more pronounced. If this Bill were sent to a Select Committee, as suggested in my amendment, evidence could be taken and tested and a working arrangement might be come to. I could never be a party to allowing this Bill to go through in its present form.

seconded.

I hope the hon. member will accept this amendment, because while I appreciate what has been said by various members as regards coming in on a matter that particularly affects the farmers, I do not think the members in favour of the Bill realize what the objections are. It is objected to on a point of principle, and the principle is this, that breach of contract should not be made a crime, and that persons who come and live on a farm, as well as persons who come and live in the towns, should have the opportunity of the ordinary citizen to offer their labour freely and not be forced to offer it if they do not want to offer it, and should not be able to pledge the services of the whole of their family for that particular labour. In other words, we want to recognize in the Act that a contract is an individual matter and not a matter of the head of the family pledging the rest, and that it is a civil and not a criminal matter. The hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) drew my attention to the fact that there were existing laws on the Statute Book in various provinces, but I am aware of that. That is no answer, however. Because Acts already on the Statute Book are objectionable, that is no reason to sit quiet when an attempt is made to extend this very objectionable and dangerous principle which many members of this House strongly detest. The hon. member who has moved the Bill has now been invited by various members to extend the principle to other provinces. The Bill as at present introduced relates to the Transvaal, but there have been requests from Natal to extend it to that province, and from the hon. member for Ficksburg to extend it to the Free State, so that it is quite clear that if this Bill goes to a Select Committee after the second reading, it will be putting members into a very extraordinary position, because we are asked to affirm an extension to the Transvaal of a principle that will be extended later to other provinces. I think the hon. member should accept the amendment. If there is a chance of the wholesale extension to the other provinces, we should not agree to the second reading until a Select Committee has fully reported upon it, and therefore I think the amendment which has been moved is the logical outcome of the debate, because the whole matter will have to be thoroughly thrashed out in Select Committee and evidence taken from the various provinces. And I hope the opportunity will also be taken to allow the natives and native organizations to put their case before the committee. We have heard a great deal in the past about the necessity for consultation with the natives when a matter comes forward concerning their interests. What consultation has there been in connection with this Bill? The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) said there had been no consultation. If the House passes the amendment, perhaps an opportunity will be given for such consultation. Some hon. members over there suggested that the natives are asking for this Bill. I should like to see some evidence of that. Some hon. members have said, what a fine time the natives have, If you read the debates that preceded the Civil War in America you will find the same kind of speeches, and there is no doubt some of those people who were slaves in America were having a happy time. In some cases the breaking-up of the system no doubt led to some hardships on the part of the people in the South. But no matter how well the slaves were being treated, there was the principle of slavery, whether you had a kind master or an unkind one, and the principle is one that will always be objected to, and it is drawing a red herring across the path to say that the natives are happy upon the farms. If you are going to recognize the principle of treating the breaking of a contract as a crime, why single out one kind of breach of contract? Would the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) be prepared to extend the principle to a clerk in his constituency, so that if he breaks a contract he will be put in gaol? I do not suppose the hon. member would be prepared to do that; or to agree to a breach of contract between a farmer and a produce-broker being treated as a crime. But that would be the same principle as is in the Bill. If you cannot get rid of these natives you have the law of ejectment. You can go to the magistrate’s court and get such an order, and the native will have to obey the order of the court. It is quite unnecessary to overload our Statute Book with criminal offences in the way this Bill proposes to do, and even though it has been the law practised in the past, it does not alter the fact that Parliament is being asked to put the seal of the Union on this legislation. It seems to me a Bill of this kind requires very careful consideration, and we should not allow a principle of this kind to be applied to the native races which is not to be imposed on other sections of the people. Far-reaching principles are being handled in this Bill, and yet it is brought forward by a private member, not by the Government, or by the Leader of the Opposition, but a private member is sponsoring it. I appeal to the hon. member to let this amendment go through. Do not let him force the second reading upon us, but let the second reading be postponed in the way suggested, and let the whole matter go to a Select Committee for thorough inquiry on all sides. When that is done, I venture to say we will have a different measure put before us; but in any case full opportunity will then have been given to every section of the people to have a say before the second reading is taken. For these reasons I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin).

Do you wish to withdraw your own amendment?

No; I take it that as in the case of the Liquor Option Bill the two amendments will be put.

I wish to move as a further amendment—

On a point of order, that motion should be put down later on.

I withdraw it for the present and will move it later.

On a point of order, the hon. member stood up and said he moved this amendment. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, asked the hon. member to bring his amendment up. He then brought it up, but he had distinctly moved it and I want you to tell us whether we are in order in objecting?

I should have asked for a seconder. No one has seconded, therefore the motion is not before the House.

I should have thought so many Natalians having expressed an ernest desire that this Bill should go through and be extended to Natal, that the hon. member would have stood by his amendment. I am very sorry he did not. I am going to ask the mover of the Bill to allow it to go to Select Committee so that the thing can be thoroughly investigated. Even with all his knowledge and even although he has drafted the Bill I venture to assert the hon. member himself does not know all the surrounding circumstances and ramifications of this matter. We have indicated one aspect of the matter which the hon. member has not even considered. We do not claim to be Pooh-Bahs” of knowledge and we are prepared to learn. If the matter goes to a Select Committee, representative of all sides of the House, we can thrash out our differences, rub the corners off the Bill, and perhaps come to the conclusion in the end that it is a desirable measure. I doubt it for myself, but we may. It is the more necessary this should go before a Select Committee because of the various concrete cases which have come to light Does the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that the Masters and Servants Act under which he proposes to bring these natives—

I spoke about the minor children.

Yes, it is the minor children he wants to bring in and make criminals of with his civilizing influence. We want to know what is to be looked upon as the minority of the natives, and what is the majority. I should like the hon. member to tell us that. It is not at all clear. I remember that a Select Committee upon which I sat tried to decide that question, but could get no further than saying that the majority age for a native was when he was apparently” over 16 years of age. This is a serious matter. We do not know yet what is a minor child of a native. Before we set our seal to a measure which deliberately manufactures criminals, we want to know how old they have to be before they can be criminals and how old they must be when they leave off being criminal8; If you bring these lads under the Masters and Servants Act up to a certain age of majority —a moveable feast, so we understand—they are criminals, if they offend in an ordinary civil Sense. One of the reasons I am keen upon a Select Committee in the calm chambers up above is because of the many concrete examples that have come to my notice which have shown the danger of placing these people under the Masters and Servants Act. I happened to be closely associated—as the hon. Prime Minister will remember, as it was when he was Minister of Justice in the first Union Government—with a printers’ strike in Cape Town, and in the course of our experience the employers, in order to defeat those who were striking for better conditions started to import men from England Australia. China, America and anywhere where they could get them. These men were brought here and caused to sign an agreement before they were allowed to land, and the friends of those who were on strike were not allowed to go on the boats to explain the position. These men were taken direct to the printing offices, where they lived and slept. A few who, realizing the justice of the men’s claims, ventured to come out on strike were brought before the magistrate, as were also other men, working for the firms, who had taken advantage of an offer of the employers and obtained loans from them; and these men were convicted as criminals. These were white men, and not natives. I want to bring home to the House the extraordinary danger we are running of making natives and whites criminals in South Africa. I know there has been growing up a certain habit of looking upon the citizens of South Africa as potential criminals. We assume a man is guilty of an offence and, contrary to the fundamentals of British justice a man has to prove that he is innocent. The same applies here. I know who is going to be the deciding factor as to whether one of these young minor natives has committed a heinous offence which can be called a crime— the hon. member himself.

The magistrate.

I put it to hon. members, what hope has a native of convincing the magistrate when he is unable to express himself secondly, when he does not understand the terms of his contract, and, thirdly, when he did not make the contract, but his father made it. He is pitted against a man of the mental calibre of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). What hope has a native of fourteen of fifteen years of age in a case like that? It is only necessary for him to be charged with this or that delinquency, and he is convicted before he comes into court. I am not casting any aspersions on the magistrate who has to judge on the evidence brought before him. My point is that owing to the native’s restricted mental capacity, the magistrate is unable to realize that the native may be innocent, because he is unable to demonstrate to the magistrate that he is innocent. Therefore he is actually proved guilty before he comes into court. Ought we not to have that matter brought before a Select Committee, when considering so drastic a change, which means turning more law abiding natives into criminals? I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) as to the natives being afforded an opportunity of giving evidence, and with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that it is regrettable that the natives have not been consulted. The natives are becoming rapidly educated, and we have natives of a high intellectual standard and training, who are able to express themselves and to size up the consequences to men of their own race and to argue their views on equal terms with the best of us. I was on a Select Committee before which certain natives came to argue on the question of native taxation. I never heard more brilliant argument than was put forward by these natives. I endeavoured to cross-examine one of them on land taxation. He said “yes I am quite prepared to admit that the very best form of taxation is the taxation of the unimproved land values” (which he understood thoroughly) but it should not be for natives alone. That taxation should be imposed generally on all the land owners of the country, white and black.” Have not those men the right if they wish to come before a Select Committee? I was on another Select Committee, the Lands Committee, to which an application was made by a certain Church for the transfer of certain church-owned land to another Church. We were informed by the people interested that the coloured people concerned were perfectly satisfied with the proposed change. But we had men on the Select Committee who, unlike our Natal friends were not content to hear only one side of a question, and they insisted that spokesmen of the coloured people concerned should be called before the Committee. That was done, and despite the fact that they were woefully ignorant, it very rapidly emerged that although they did not understand all the details of the transaction, yet they felt in their bones that there was something wrong and they were very far from being satisfied. The Select Committee there upon made a change. This only shows that before you make any such drastic change as is contemplated in this measure, the native should have an opportunity of studying the Bill and then appear before the Select Committee and explain their point of view. You dare not make this change—a change turning our vast rural population into potential criminals without giving the natives an opportunity of expressing themselves. How often have we heard the party of which the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is such a shining star, declare how much they are prepared to defend the interests of the natives. Let them translate their theories into practice now ! Who are the real enemies of the natives in this country? Those people who by their efforts to get this miserable legislation placed on the statute book and thus placing a blot on our legislation, they are proving themselves the real enemies of the natives. What the House has to decide is whether it is without further investigation going to send it forth to the world that in our estimation our whole native population is potentially criminal, and we are going to follow the misguided and unfair principle and practice in deciding that natives shall become criminals without giving the fullest investigation to the subject.

I only want to say a few words on the amendment. The amendment that proposes that this Bill should be taken off the Order Paper and referred to a Select Committee. As my hon. friend the member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) knows, the object of this Bill is to regulate the relationship between the farmer and his servants on the farm. I entirely agree that a necessity therefor exists, and it is only for us to try to attain it in the most effective manner without giving unnecessary offence to the natives or to anyone else. Now I wish the hon. member to consider if it is not best to accept the amendment, because I understand the hon. members on the cross-benches object to a principle which is not only not their principle but one which is generally accepted throughout the whole civilized world, namely, that breach of contract shall not be considered a crime. This is of course also the reason, the principle, why with reference to decisions in the courts the courts have always pushed the Free State and Transvaal laws on one side, because in them the old principle is still contained, while now throughout the civilized world a breach of contracts not considered as a crime. I think that this is the view taken by the Labour party. They have always very strongly maintained that principle, that breach of contract should not be made a crime, and we can understand that the Labour party who represent that portion of the population, with whom it has always been a great problem, do not want that an encroachment should be made thereon. I think thus, that it is something which affects them deeply. As hon. members will remember, I referred when last I spoke here about the matter to the necessity of doing something to regulate the relation between the farmer and the native workmen on the farm, under a system that would lay down that the owner of a farm shall have a say over his workpeople. I think that the need of that is generally felt, and that is what we are after. I did not then have in mind the Transvaal Act, No. 13 of 1880. After the discussion, I asked the Native Affairs Commission, and it is much concerned about the matter. At least two of the members thereof are much concerned to simply make applicable the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1880, chapter 5, for exactly the same reason that is here given by the members of the Labour party, namely, the breach of contract will be regarded as a crime. If we just look at section 3 of the chapter of the Transvaal Act, then we shall find that of the eight acts which are there mentioned as punishable—

What chapter is it?

It is chapter 5. section 3, sub-section (a). Then we shall find that out of the eight, not less than three acts are made punishable which have nothing to do with breach of contract. We shall certainly find that our friends of the Labour party will make no objection to those acts being punishable, and the Native Affairs Commission also can have no objection. We should remember that we have to do with a delicate subject, and it is one in which we should make the natives feel that we are not introducing special legislation where it is not necessary. Now it appears to me that if we should come together in a committee and we call in the members of the Native Affairs Commission, and if necessary others as well, that we can then get everything that is necessary to give the master on his farm the necessary authority over his servant, without making an encroachment on the fundamental principle which is just as fundamental for us as for anybody else, viz., that a breach of contract shall not be regarded as a crime. If we just refer to sub-section 3, 7 and 8, we shall see that acts are there mentioned which have nothing to do with breach of contract. Section 3 provides that if the servant renders himself unfit during working hours to carry out the proper execution of his work by being in a drunken state, he can be punished by a fine of £1. Here is something which has nothing to do with breach of contract. The reason why this is not applied to ordinary industrial workers is, as I understand, because on a farm the master, the owner, already ought to have the right to prevent his farm from being overrun by drunken people. Section 7 deals with “provoking disputes on farms.” This has also nothing to do with breach of contract. It can also be made punishable without violating the principle that breach of contract should not be regarded as a crime. Section 8 deals with the use of bad language, forbids the native to swear. This also has nothing to do with breach of contract. We can obtain all this without touching the aforesaid principle. Now I come to the question as to how far we shall be able to do this. It seems to me that this is something that the Select Committee can go into. They can take evidence from the Native Affairs Commission and if necessary from others. For this reason I want to suggest to my hon. friends to accept the amendment. It does not help to disregard this matter of the principle. If the generally acknowledged principles as we know them are encroached upon, then we must see if it is not possible to obtain in another way what we want. Therefore I will support the proposal of a Select Committee. We feel that something must be done, but that the matter must be carefully inquired into. The fact that hon. members from the Transvaal and Natal express the desirability to extend this legislation to the Transvaal and even Natal, is one reason the more for accepting the amendment to remove the motion from the Order Paper and refer it to a Select Committee. I hope thus that my hon. friend the member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will accept it.

I intend to support this Bill and I congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo for introducing it because it is a Bill that will fill a long-felt want.

The hon. member can only speak to the amendment. He has already spoken once on the Bill.

I ask the hon. member in charge of the Bill to agree to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). I am informed, this afternoon, I don’t know whether it is correct, that the Native Affairs Commission were consulted in connection with this Bill. If it goes to a Select Committee we shall be able to have the facts put before us as given by the Native Affairs Commission. The statement is that the Native Affairs Commission have reported against this Bill. If this is so hon. members who may be tempted to vote in favour of the measure, after the matter is referred to a Select Committee and the whole matter gone into thoroughly and the arguments which the Native Affairs Commission put forward as to the reasons which weighed with them in coming to a decision against this measure, may find these matters have considerable weight and influence. After it has been discussed in Select Committee they may come back with an entirely different measure which may accomplish the object the founders have in view, and may, at the same time, meet the wishes and the objections of hon. members in this House who, whilst they wish to assist the farmers, realizing that they are the backbone of the country, do not wish to assist them to do anything to place the clock of white civilization back in South Africa. If the Native Affairs Commission have reported in favour of the Bill, then the arguments that they can advance, or the reasons which have acutated them in coming to that decision may educate and convert the members of this House who, today are opposed to this measure. May I say to the hon. member in charge of the Bill that, unless he agrees to its reference to a Select Committee and accepts this amendment, we shall continue in the committee stage to bring a great deal of argument against it? He knows the difficult position in which an hon. member is placed unless legislation of this description is going to receive the whole-hearted support of every member of this House. He knows that the time at the disposal of private members is very limited. When it comes to committee stage there are two clauses in this Bill which may evoke weeks of discussion and the Bill, as a result, may be wrecked. I submit that another reason why we should refer this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading is passed, is that there has not been sufficient thought devoted to the principles which it embodies by members of this House. Hon. members’ attention has been taken up by big debates on other questions, and they have not had time to get a thorough grip of the fundamental principles contained in this Bill and of understanding where this Bill is treading. Again there is a good deal of misunderstanding as to what the Bill means and what it does not mean. Another reason why the hon. member should accept the amendment is that the people who are most concerned with this type of legislation have not been heard on the matter at all. Those people should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the merits of demerits of this Bill before it is passed as a principle by this House. There is another ground on which I would appeal to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). Looking back at the spirit which actuated this House when we have been discussing the segregation policy and other matters affecting the natives of this country, we had the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) agreeing to the appeal of the Prime Minister to discuss all these questions affecting the relationship between white and black on a non-party basis. I think I am speaking with absolute knowledge of the facts when I say that there are hon. members on this side and on that side who are afraid to get up and express their opinions on this measure for fear that their views may be used in a party sense in the country. In the atmosphere of a Select Committee we should be able to meet together and express ourselves quite frankly, freely and fearlessly without the matter being used for party purposes. I would suggest to the hon. member that he should meet us and that we should have in Select Committee a full and frank discussion, just as we had in connection with the Stock Thefts Bill, when we agreed that the Stock Thefts Bill should be sent to a Select Committee and all parties had an opportunity of putting forward their views and the natives were consulted.

You first took the second reading of that Bill and then sent it to Select Committee. That is what I am willing to do.

That was very unfortunate, but we do not want to make the same mistake again, and I may say that had it not been for the hon. member in charge of that Bill agreeing to this process, his Bill would not have been on the Statute Book yet; also that if it had not been for the obstinacy of the hon. member in charge of the Bill, it would have been on the Statute Book a year before it was. In emphasizing this fourth reason why this Bill should go to a select Committee, I wish to point out that every hon. member will then be absolutely free to express his views without their being used from the party point of view. I hope that in all questions such as bilingualism and questions affecting the relationship between blacks and whites, all hon. members will sink all party considerations, because although we may think we are scoring party advantage, we are only storing up trouble, especially for the children of this country, who will reap what we are sowing to-day. Then the Select Committee will prove or disprove whether the natives have been asking for the Bill and will remove all misunderstanding on the question of major and minor children raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). That point has given rise to a great deal of misunderstanding, because—

I am afraid the hon. member is getting away from the amendment.

What I was going to say was that the misunderstanding which has evidently arisen between what the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) said and what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) put forward and what is actually contained in the Bill—which does not agree with either of them —that that could be cleared up in Select Committee. But if it does not go to Select Committee first, those two hon. members will be voting under a misconception of what the Bill actually means. I hope the hon. member when he replies—

You want to oppose it and keep it going.

Do not waste time.

I was going to ask the hon. member in charge of the Bill, before he starts to make his reply, to signify to the House whether he is prepared to accept the amendment by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). We would then know exactly what to do. I do hope, after what the Prime Minister has said, and in view of the very weighty reasons which I submit we have advanced why this Bill should not pass the second reading without a Select Committee, that the hon. member will accept the amendment.

I rise to make a personal explanation. After the appeal made by the Prime Minister, I want to make it quite clear that I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if the hon. member in charge of the Bill will agree to the suggestion of the Prime Minister and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin).

I only wish to say a few words about the amendment. I am very sorry that the Prime Minister is not here, because I wish to ask him whether he would agree to the Bill coming on again. If we have this assurance I would appeal to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. I think that the Bill then would have a much better chance of becoming law. I had this experience in the Stock Theft Act. I fought for that, and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) fought it hard, but in the Select Committee he gave us every assistance to get the Bill accepted. I will not vote against the Bill, but the Bill stands no chance if there is obstruction. I am very sorry that the Prime Minister is not here, because if the Bill can come up again I will press the hon. member to agree to the request of the Prime Minister, but he, of course, has his rights. I think that he will get it through more easily if he grants the request.

I am not quite clear as to the position. I would naturally like to reply to the debate. The hon. member wants me to say yes or no, if I accept it. I am willing to say what I will do if I am allowed to speak to the amendment.

The hon. member may speak to the amendment only and afterwards he may reply to the debate.

I am the last man who would like to dragoon a Bill through the House. I have had enough experience to know I cannot do it, but I am certainly not going to run away from the Bill, as it seems to me the Prime Minister wants me to do. I know if the Bill goes to Select Committee before it passes the second reading, it will be as dead as the Dodo and I am not willing to accept the responsibility. I am quite willing, indeed anxious, to send the Bill to Select Committee after the second reading. I do not care if the Select Committee is a special one or a Select Committee of Native Affairs, but as I have explained, there is urgency about the Bill, otherwise I would not have brought it forward. The farmers want to know what the position is and if the Bill does not go through we shall not know where we are. I really cannot see what the difficulty is in accepting the second reading of the Bill and then sending it to Select Committee. After all, the principle is not a new one. It is in force to-day in the towns where all domestic servants and all hired farm servants come under it. I am going to stand or fall by the vote of the House on this matter. If the House thinks fit to vote against the second reading, that is a matter for the House.

I want to make a further appeal to the hon. member in charge of the Bill. He has just stated that there is no essential difference between sending this Bill to a Select Committee before or after the second reading. But there is a very essential difference and the hon. member knows that perfectly well. I want to say I am very surprised to find Cape members supporting this Bill. They are going back on the best traditions of the Cape in regard to the treatment of natives generally and the records of the Cape Parliament will prove the truth of my statement.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he cannot speak on the principle of the Bill. He must speak to the amendment.

I was saying there is a big difference between sending this Bill to Select Committee before or after the second reading especially in view of the fact that some Cape and Natal members wish to extend the provisions of this Bill to their Provinces. If the Bill goes to Select Committee before the second reading, then we shall know where we are when it comes out. We do not wish to do anything antagonistic to the farmers of the Transvaal but this House is supposed to represent not one section but the whole of the community, and to guard the interests of all irrespective of race, colour or creed.

I want to support the amendment that the subject-matter be sent to a Select Committee. The only argument against it I have heard is that this is a matter of urgency. Well, the Masters and Servants Act was passed in 1880, forty-five years ago, and it seems to me a matter which has not been urgent for forty-five years can very well wait one year longer. There are a lot of things in connection with this Bill which should be dealt with by a Select Committee and can be better dealt with by a Select Committee than by this House. I think it would be much more possible to arrive at some compromise in Select Committee which would satisfy the hon. mover of this Bill, there are a lot of facts which could be brought up which cannot be brought up here. If for instance, we could show the Select Committee what the effect of such a principle as this would have been in other countries. We also want to know whether some of the arguments put forward in favour of the Bill are facts or rumours. Then I think we should have evidence from representatives of the natives as to what their attitude towards the Bill is. We are told they welcome it, but frankly, I doubt it. I think the Select Committee could well take evidence as to whether they really want this Bill. The Committee could have before them representatives of the Native Affairs Commission, Native Administrators, and the chief magistrate of the Transkei, and we could accept their statements as facts. We might also have evidence as to how the Labour organizations of this country would view such a Bill, and whether they would fear that, although there is a colour bar in it, its principle may not be further extended to white labour. I think the point of view of the trades unions will be very useful. I distrust entirely the statements made on behalf of natives by the employers of natives. I do not think they have a right to speak for their employees, and if the natives themselves should come before the Select Committee we should be able to obtain their actual views. We have been told there has been no consultation with the natives, and I understand that it has always been one of the cardinal principles of Cape legislation that the natives should be consulted. We are told there is unrest among the natives, though not amongst the native servants, and I would suggest that this lack of consultation may be one of the causes. We are passing legislation at the call of a private member without any consultation. I support the amendment.

An atmosphere regarding natives has been created which warrants us asking for a Select Committee before the second reading of this Bill, rather than after its principle has been passed. It is to allay that spirit of unrest in the native mind which has been alluded to recently that we urge this step. There is no doubt whatever that natives would be more satisfied if we could get this Bill to Select Committee than by any other process, and would restore confidence in the native mind. It is the principle” of consultation which is paramount in the native mind to-day—not so much the question as to whether he should have a vote. He is laying very great stress on the claim that he should be consulted before Parliament comes to any decision on matters which greatly affect him, and this proposed family servitude is a matter which affects him most closely. If this Bill goes to Select Committee he can send his delegates and they can thresh out the principles at stake. He is entitled to be heard as to how the Bill affects his family life, his conditions of living, and his “place in the sun.” The Select Committee would deal with the question as to whether the principle of this Bill should be extended to his whole family, and what the native would probably bring before the Select Committee is the very different aspect of a family’s economic value in the future as compared to what it has been in the past. Unless we get a Select Committee, we may adopt the principle that we are going to have a family under pledge and transfer by the parents. If we once adopt that principle what is the use of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) saying that he would then be prepared to agree then to accept a Select Committee? I am glad that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is now present. This is one of those questions which affect the “links of Empire,” and as he represents a native constituency we should be glad to hear him discuss the matter as regards local and Imperial points of view. I hope he will join us in the appeal for a Select Committee and ask the hon. member for Ermelo to accede to our request. I should like to read an extract from a recent issue of a native paper, the “Umteteli wa Bantu” of March 7th which, I think, will have weight with hon. members opposite, seeing that it is assisted by their friends. It is entirely on the side of the principle of consultation first. It reads as follows—

Native consciousness and opinion should have much weight in this legislature, and natives would have opportunity to put forward their views, and every principle of this measure be considered. They could advance the whole question of the economic value of the family as apart from the individual. If cotton is to be a great success—as I believe it will be—it must be largely a family industry, especially in picking, and even children will become wage earners of importance.

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering away from the amendment.

The whole thing hangs together, and the Select Committee would naturally go into the question of family occupation. How delightful it would be if we could say that we had not decided the question without giving natives an opportunity of being heard. I appeal to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to meet the desires of those who wish to establish a feeling of confidence between Europeans and natives. It is because of the great concern we feel for the “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” who, after all, are of more value than mere cattle, that we press for this measure to go before a Select Committee. It would indeed be a happy day for the natives to know that the Select Committee had been appointed. I wish to put it beyond the power of any native paper to say what “Umteteli wa Bantu” has said. Let us show the natives that they have friends on both sides of the House, friends who recognize the inalienable right of the natives to be heard before any decision affecting their vital interests is arrived at. I hope gentlemen, such as the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) and for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and a number of others, who owe their return to this House to the native vote, will recognize the obligation they are under to their native friends and constituents, and that they will be able to say to them: “We warmly supported the whole question being referred to a Select Committee, rather than it should be decided over your heads.”

I think that the object of the Bill of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is most desirable, and especially for the portions of the Transvaal north of his constituency than for his own. If I remember well, natives in his constituency have to work 180 days per year, while those in Pretoria, Waterberg and other districts only work 90 days. In Bethal and Ermelo the time is longer.

No, 90 days.

Then my information is wrong. With us it is only 90 days and, as the Bill indicates, the wife and the children are entirely free to do as they please, the consequence is that in some parts the position arises which has been so strongly deprecated in the House, namely, ascendancy by the natives. There exists an economic ascendancy by the native, and I think that the tendency that is laid down by this Bill is to make an end of that for the benefit of the whites, but also for the benefit of the native himself, because the position is that the native must always come under necessary guidance. The economic discipline that the native requires is neglected at the moment. Another matter in connection with this matter is that in this matter we must also act unitedly. The Prime Minister said emphatically a few days ago, and rightly, that united action was necessary in connection with native affairs, and if we want to attain this in this instance, then the amendment to refer the matter to a Select Committee is worthy of recommendation. If I heard alright, then the Natal members are also entirely in favour of this Bill. If we now can have it referred to a Select Committee, Natal will also get its wish and we shall attain to united action. It therefore appears necessary to me that we should refer this Bill to a Select Committee.

If the introducer of this Bill had given the consideration to it which he ought to have done he would welcome the amendment that it be referred to a Select Committee before it comes to the House for a second reading. A Bill of this nature really involves a principle which we on the cross-benches cannot accept without a protest. It is not a protest by way of obstruction, but a genuine protest, because we think that the principles involved mark the initial step in a new departure in our legislation. The whole question of the relationship, not only with natives in our own territory, but also with those in neighbouring territories, makes it impossible to accept the principle of this Bill without having more consideration. I am surprised we have not the members representing constituencies where it would apply most commonly getting on their feet and supporting this amendment. It is their duty to get up and support it. By accepting this measure we shall have initiated into the Union of South Africa a system of legalized slavery. Before this House, and the country, is committed, it must realize that the Union of South Africa would be accepting a principle that one individual could contract a whole family into servitude. I look upon that as a retrograde step. I hope that the House itself, if it is called upon to vote on the matter, will support the amendment and thus secure that this Bill goes to a Select Committee before it is accepted.

I regret very much indeed that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has not accepted the amendment that it be referred to a Select Committee. The probability is he may accept, as a further amendment—

The reason for moving this is that it is evident the question is too involved and the principles concerned in the Bill too great to be dealt with by a Private Member’s Bill. No question should come in this way before Parliament that is so complicated and difficult to deal with as the question of the native problem and every day that we live this question is becoming more complicated. If we pile up legislation—and we in the Government and the Opposition are concerned about this native question—if we pile up legislation concerning the native when the greater problems of the native question are being considered, and an endeavour is being made to solve them, we are going to add to the difficulties of the Government who are trying to solve the problem. The hon. member has shown some stubbornness. The chances are he may lose his Bill altogether if he does not agree to an amendment of this kind. This Bill is introducing a new thing to the legislation of the country. It may have been the practice of the Transvaal but it has obviously not been the practice of the Free State and the Cape Colony. This principle may at any time be extended to include these colonies, and if the principle is once established there is no reason why it should not be extended to include the white people as well. Therefore I hope the hon. member will accept this amendment.

I am afraid I must rule the amendment out of order. It is not in the form amendments can be moved in this House.

Can I ask for a ruling? Would it be in order for an hon. member to move that the Bill be referred to the Government?

That amounts to the same thing. An hon. member can move an amendment giving a motive and asking the Government to enquire further into the subject matter of the Bill, but not merely refer to the Government. If the hon. member brings up an amendment in another form I will consider it.

If an hon. member were to move that the Government conduct an enquiry into the question—

I am afraid I cannot give a ruling on a hypothetical question. If an amendment is moved I will give my ruling.

When this Bill was first brought before the House I had some difficulty in coming to a decision at all about this question. I felt, in the first instance, as I was not in touch with the conditions prevailing in the other province, I had no right to interfere one way or the other, with the course that things were taking in this House; but at the same time, I felt that we are here dealing with the principle which involves very much for South Africa. It has been pointed out from all sides of the House—fortunately this is not a party question —that if the principle were applied to other sections of the community as well, it would certainly lead us into complications and difficulties which we cannot foresee to-day. When an amendment is brought forward in this House that the Bill be first of all referred to Select Committee, it meets my difficulties and, consequently, I wish to support the amendment that the Bill be referred to Select Committee before the second reading. The effect of the Bill is much wider and more extensive than one would judge from the length of the Bill itself. We in the Cape Province, being used to conditions of labour and conditions of contract where things are different perhaps because the circumstances are different, naturally think that with the ordinary conditions prevailing and the advanced standard of civilization, we should not agree to this important and extensive principle being applied throughout. We must remember that, when once a principle is accepted in one province, it may be the thin edge of the wedge in so far as its application to the other provinces is concerned. This Bill applies to people of a certain colour and, after recent declarations in this House as to the magnitude of a question of this character, we cannot be too careful about taking a leap in the dark. We must go step by step. I think for safety’s sake and to show that we possess due regard for the magnitude of the problems of South Africa, we can only do justice to ourselves and the future by referring the subject-matter of this Bill to a Select Committee for thorough investigation, so that this House, after full discussion, may take the necessary step with all the facts before it for consideration.

It is very clear to me now that we can never expect any help for the farmers from the Labour party, but I cannot understand hon. members who represent the farming constituency and who cannot vote for a little Bill which is only meant for the Transvaal, because in the Free State the provisions already exist. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) is also not prepared to help the farmers in the Transvaal. It is clear to me that the object of hon. members on the cross-benches is to throw the Bill, which is in the general interest of the farmers of the Transvaal, out of the House. Therefore I can never trust the Labour party regarding the interests of the farmers, and I think that the only way there is for the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is to stand by his motion. He will certainly find all the farmers in the House on his side. But it is very remarkable to me that the hon. the Prime Minister gave his blessing the other day to the Bill. Then he was entirely satisfied, and I am really astonished that this afternoon, after the comrades there on the cross-benches have spoken, he this afternoon takes up the attitude that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. But what is also so surprising is that hon. members who represent the farming population are also not prepared to help us to protect the interests of farmers and farming, and that they also are in favour of the Bill first going to a Select Committee. Why is the principle not accepted? It is only a matter that concerns the Transvaal. The intention is to keep the young natives on the farm who now run around the big towns and acquire bad habits, and the parents of these young natives want control over them. They will be thankful for this legislation. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) intended only to introduce a simple little Bill to help the farmer, and the hon. the Prime Minister gave his blessing to it the other day, but this afternoon, when the Labour party opposes it, the hon. the Prime Minister gets up and blesses them over there. I am glad that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) said that he would not accept the amendment. It is necessary for us to-day to vote on the principle of the Bill. I hope that the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), who pleaded so strongly for the Bill, and other hon. members opposite who represent our farmers, will stand by us, and that we shall come to a vote and accept the principle, then the Bill can be sent to a Select Committee and the small points which may require it may be put right. I see no danger in this, and I hope we shall agree to vote on the motion and that we shall adopt it.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has represented that the hon. the Prime Minister is against the Bill.

The other day he was in favour of it.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) makes out that the hon. the Prime Minister is against the Bill. He has appealed to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to agree that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. This does not mean that he is against it. He is anxious to get it through the House and to bring about unanimity. The hon. member has referred to the Stock Theft Act. He knows very well that the same method was followed at that time to get the Bill adopted. I am a farmer, and I feel strongly about the Bill. I know that it is in the interest of the farmer and also in the interest of the native in the north. I know from experience that the old natives there have the greatest difficulty with the young natives. I live not far from Johannesburg, near the mines, and it often happens that the young natives run away to Johannesburg and remain there without any control over them. I am sorry that members who have spoken against the Bill are not farmers. They are town dwellers. Take the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), for whom I have the highest respect. But what does he know about the conditions in the north? There are also other members who have spoken who know nothing about them. Slavery has been mentioned. I know that the natives in the north have a good time. They go from the farms to Johannesburg to work for higher wages, but they soon return, because they prefer farm life. I would also appeal to the hon. member for Ermelo that he should accept the amendment in order to have the Bill adopted. I want to support him fully. I am in favour of the Bill, but for the very reason that he should see that the Bill is passed he should accent the amendment. If he does not do this he will not get the measure through. For this reason the Prime Minister made an appeal to him. I also do it. If he is honest, why doesn’t he accent the suggestion? Why does he wish to wreck the measure? He is not serious in the matter. If he refuses to accent the amendment he will wreck the measure. I therefore appeal to him.

I do not intend to go into the whole matter again but only want to say that the hon. member for Ermelo must stand firm and not give way to the appeal which has been made.

To wreck the Bill in this way?

There is an idea in the House at the moment and it has been expressed by the hon. member who has just finished sneaking that if the Bill is wrecked it will be our fault.

Yes, why do we not refer it to a Select Committee?

The Labour party have raised a lot of dust and now the hon. members opposite say that it will be our fault if the Bill is wrecked but to send it first to a Select Committee is wrong.

What about the Stock Theft Act?

It is unfair to blame us if the Bill is wrecked. The matter is of the greatest importance to the population of the Transvaal. I hope the Bill will be put through. I was glad to hear the other day from the Prime Minister that he was in favour of the Bill but now he is in favour of the amendment. What I Have felt very much to-day is that as soon as we have to deal with agricultural matters then the hon. members on the cross benches oppose the matter tooth and nail. If a Bill is introduced which is in the interest of the Labour party do we do the same thing? No, we act fairly in the matter. They go and contest a matter which is in the interest of the farming population. They are going to ruin the farming population. They can talk out the Bill till 6 o’clock but we shall have another opportunity and the farming representatives in the House must stand together and then we cannot lose.

I am very sorry indeed that I have to take part in the discussion on this Bill and I do so reluctantly. I am neither in favour of the principle of the Bill nor of the amendment, but of course I shall have to vote for the amendment. The reason why I am opposed to the principle of the Bill is that I am concerned to know, first of all, whether the natives who will be affected are aware of this proposed legislation and whether they favour legislation of a kind which will be detrimental to them and not to their advantage. The native is presumed to have entered into an arrangement to cultivate a portion of a farm. The farmer is not his employer—not his master —but he does that work under certain conditions. It is proposed by this Bill that where a native has an agreement and fails to carry out any portion of his agreement he can get punished in a criminal manner as if he had entered into a contract under the Master and Servants Act. It would be different if a corresponding advantage were given to the native, so that if the employer did not carry out his part of the agreement, the native could bring him before the magistrate to get his wages— but there are no wages under this agreement; it is simply how much he can get out of cultivating the land. How is the native to be advantaged by this law? You say if the native does not carry out the agreement you want to have him punished in the same manner as a servant under the Masters and Servants Act. That is as I understand it. I felt I could not give a vote in this case without putting my views before the House, and I have felt rather strongly as the debate developed. I do not wish to talk it out but I hope the hon. member in charge of the Bill will show me if I am wrong. This Bill is only going to advantage the farmer. I consider it manifestly unjust and therefore I am voicing my views on the subject.

I am surprised that so many members speak on this matter, who know nothing about it. If hon. members here will give themselves a little trouble and look round to see what the conditions are, they will find out that the natives on the farms Jive entirely in favourable circumstances, that they have a much pleasanter existence than thousands of whites. Some poor whites have indeed gone so far as to say they wish they were kaffirs, because then they would be able to live gratis on the farms of the farmers. Slavery has been mentioned. But the natives are not bound. If they are dissatisfied with their treatment then they give notice and leave. If the farmer is not protected he will find himself in a difficult position. The natives are much attached to their cattle, but if the young kaffirs and girls are permitted to go away whenever they wish so that the master has no benefit, then he will be obliged to give them notice. They will then have no place for their cattle. Many farmers have old natives on their farms who can no longer work and whom they allow to live there because they have been a long time in their service. If the farmer can get no benefit from the young natives he will be obliged later on to send away the parents. I am just as anxious as any member to have the Bill passed, but if the amendment is not accepted it will not go through, and the farmers require it very badly.

I do not rise to go into the Bill. Enough has already been said, but I wish to advise my friends opposite to accept the amendment in order to save the Bill I wish to emphasize that I do not approve of the way in which hon. members have carried On the debate. I am very sorry that it has been carried on in this way, and I wish to tell hon. friends there that they must not go to work in this way because they prove thereby that they do not feel for the farmer as we do. They must co-operate to bring the young natives under the Bill. I am certain that the old natives on the farms will welcome this Bill and in order to retain the Bill I would again ask my hon. friend opposite to accept the amendment. Otherwise we shall lose the chance of passing this Bill, and we cannot lose if the farmers stand by each other.

I would like to make a final appeal to the hon. member to accept this amendment. I think the very fact that this has been moved from these benches is sufficient to show that we do not want to do anything which may be construed as hostile to any section of the community. We do not want to thwart the matter, but we wish to see the fullest inquiry made. I am very disappointed at the attitude taken up by the hon. member over there. An appeal has been made to him, not only from these benches but by the Prime Minister himself and other members, who have asked him to accept the amendment which does not hurt him in any way, but which will only enable us to go into the subject more fully He does not accept it, and I am beginning to wonder whether he wants this Bill to be passed or whether he has only introduced it for political purposes. An appeal was made the other day by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asking that we should not deal with the native problem from a party point of view: that we should try and come together and discuss the matter from every aspect, and arrive at a solution which would meet with general approval. We do not want to drag the matter into the arena of party politics and if the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) adopted the advice of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that we should endeavour to do what is best in the interests of the country and that of the native population, he would accede to the proposal to refer the matter to a Select Committee but he does not do that, and I am waiting for the hon. member for Standerton to make an appeal to him. The whole attitude of the hon. member suggests that he is attempting to make political capital … [Interruptions] I want to say this, that if this is the attitude he takes up we can only draw one conclusion—that he does not care about the farmers or about the passing of this Bill, but is concerned about putting a wedge into the Pact and trying to make political capital. I regret I have to say it, but I very often find that when I speak I am met with jeers and gibes. I am not concerned with jeers and gibes. Earlier in the day when I happened to advocate certain principles, the rights of freedom, which were formerly supported very enthusiastically by the Unionist party. I immediately heard from the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) a reference to the fact that I happened to have been born in a particular part of the world. May I say to the hon. member for Umvoti, that like other members of the House I am not responsible for the place where I happened to be born?

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering from the discussion.

I wish to say, in reply to the hon. member for Umvoti that I am nor responsible for the place where I was born. [Interruptions] I am giving this as a reason for hoping that what I say shall be accepted as earnestly and honestly put forward in the interest of the country, and not as being actuated by the policy connected with the part of the world where I was born. It would be just as unreasonable for me to suggest that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who I believe was born in Ireland is every time he gets up to speak, actuated by Fenianism. It is imperative that the House should view this matter from every point of view, and not indulge in jeers and gibes. May I say that in anything I have now said or said before in connection with this matter there has not been the slightest desire or intention to arouse native feeling? I am told that my speech is likely to do a great deal of harm, but I am certain it can do no more harm than the native newspaper which is supported by the Chamber of Mines, or the address in which we are told by the right hon. member for Standerton that “Yellow Asia is standing behind Black Africa.” Just as we accept that statement as being honestly and sincerely made, surely I have the right to urge that when I express my views earnestly and honestly, they are entitled to a like consideration.

I think it has been recognised that the opposition to the Bill from these benches is purely one of principle. We have for many years taken up this line, and have ERRATA.

Minister of Justice, col. 1281, line 23.—“ He actually paid £6,300,000 …” to read. “He actually paid £6,300 odd …”

fought such views before, both by day and by night. I hope the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will allow this debate to be adjourned so that we can discuss the matter again later. There is no doubt that there is a great feeling amongst the natives against this Bill. Not long ago the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that before any legislation affecting natives was introduced, the natives themselves should be consulted. Why not consult them in this case? We have this law in the Free State.

The principle is accepted there?

But to-day that law is a dead letter. If the Transvaal thinks that by the passing of this Bill the farmers there will obtain more native labour, it is making a mistake. We are told that only the South African party looks after the interests of natives. The hon. member for Ermelo would not have dared to introduce this Bill if there was a general election on the horizon.

You do not know the Transvaal.

The hon. member is a hybrid. He has one eye on heaven and the other on his farm. We have to oppose this Bill even if it keeps us here all night. I would like to move the adjournment of this debate because I have a speech of forty minutes in my pocket. I want to argue my reasons before a Select Committee and we have seven amendments which we want to bring before the House if we do not go to a Select Committee. I now move—