When the committee adjourned last night I was just proceeding to answer the points put to me by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). Now, the first question that was put by him was as to my visit to the native areas of the Transkei and Cis-kei. As far as that is concerned I can only say that I hope to visit these territories as soon as possible after the House has risen. The next question put to me by him was as to land segregation, and he asked where the sufficiency of land was available for natives to which the hon. Minister of Mines had referred. Well, I think the hon. member is not quite posted as to what the existing law to-day is as to natives and their rights to acquire land in the Cape. The natives in the Cape, notwithstanding the law of 1913, can buy land anywhere in the Cape, so that as far as that is concerned the natives certainly have no reason to complain that there is not plenty of land to be obtained. They are exactly on the same footing as the Europeans. At the same time I may say this, that the Department has been following the rule of acquiring land for natives in the native areas, land belonging to Europeans. I think during the last few months of last year one or two farms were bought up for the natives in these territories. There is, I believe, a very large sum on the Estimates for this year again for buying farms belonging to Europeans, surrounded by natives, for the natives. A rather large sum, something over £100,000, is set down for that purpose. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because it appears to me there is a wrong impression among hon. members, namely, that the Government have decided to buy land everywhere for natives and to supply them with as much land as they may require or may desire. Now, this has certainly never been the policy of any previous Government, and I may say at once that so far it is certainly not the policy of the present Government. Hon. members can very well see it would be an impossibility for any Government to undertake to acquire land for any class or section of the community ad libitum; but what has been done so far, apart from the Cape, is that the Government has always been prepared as far as possible, according to the funds at its disposal, to buy land for natives in native areas. For the rest, the natives, if they want to buy within any native area—I am now speaking of other provinces beyond the Cape—well, of course, it is for them to do so; it will depend upon whether they have the money or not. I know there has been, and is, a fairly strong feeling that the Government should undertake to acquire all the lands included within the native areas and retain these lands for native purpose, but, of course, hon. gentlemen can see at once what this would mean; it would mean millions of pounds, and millions of pounds to a large extent wasted, because, as I have already said, much of the ground within these native areas would not be occupied by the natives for a very long time. As far as these provinces are concerned, therefore, there has not been a single instance of any lack of grounds for the native to acquire. They have always been able to be supplied with, or to get, the ground if they wanted to buy, or if the Government were prepared to buy for them, so my colleague is perfectly right when he says that so far there has been plenty of ground for the natives to acquire everywhere in the Union. That is to say everywhere in the various provinces, because in the other provinces these places are restricted to demarcated areas. Then the hon. member asked me whether there has been any attempt to teach the natives to develop their ground. As far as that is concerned I may say that there is an attempt that has been going on for years and, of course, is being continued, and the extent to which that attempt will be continued in the future will depend very much upon what is going to be realized through the taxation measure—the native taxation measure—which will later on be introduced: upon the way in which this House acts upon that measure is dependent the sum that will be realized for the purpose of native development in their territories. At the present moment we have in the Transkei, I believe, two institutions where the natives are taught agriculture. They also have an institution where, I believe, stud stock is kept, and there we have demonstrators to teach the natives how to farm and cultivate the ground. This has been extended to the Ziskei, but I wish to say here, at once, that all this has really not been on the scale upon which this ought to be carried on. I think there is vast room for improvement, and that is why I am very anxious, and I think we all are, that the taxation measure which is to come before Parliament will go through, because that will put the native in a position to have the wherewithal to cultivate, and have the necessary instruction within his territory. So far, I need hardly say, the department could not go beyond the means at its disposal, and these were certainly not at all to the extent which one does think necessary for these territories. Then I come to the hon. member for King William’s Town (Maj. Ballantine). He asked me what had become of the investigation held there in connection with the drought and distress there. I will here repeat what I have already stated to another hon. member, that we sent Mr. du Toit (I said Mr. Joubert, but it should have been Mr. du Toit) to go and hold enquiries and report. He has reported, although his final report is not out, because unfortunately he took ill, but he has given a resumé, and that comes down to this and nothing else, that there is no necessity for coming to the assistance of the natives by distributing alms or rations. But there is a necessity for sending seed for winter crops and for buying wheat. That has been complied with. In regard to the congestion—to which the hon. member drew attention—in those native territories, from what I understand there must be very great congestion, but the misfortune is, so far as that by itself is concerned, that I am afraid this is what we must expect in time all over, and it is a question simply of getting work for the majority of these natives. As I have stated, I do not think any Government will ever adopt the policy of indiscriminate buying of ground for natives, which is an impossibility, just as it is impossible for the Government to do it for the white man. To a certain extent the relief is being sought by farms, especially within the demarcated areas; but for the rest, these natives must try and go to industrial places or go and seek work elsewhere. I may say, at the same time, that there certainly is a very great demand for native labour, and there has been during the last six months and more, from almost everywhere all over the Union, and even from South-West, and I think Mr. du Toit, among others, found that really, so far as that is concerned, the natives are in the position of being supplied with the necessary means of finding a livelihood.

*The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has asked me whether the son of Andries Waterboer will also be among those who get a Government grant. No; the grants are not meant for persons of that kind. Those who get grants—I think there are about 1,667 of the chiefs—are practically men who in the course of events received some grant or other because they acted as a sort of help to the State or as a Government servant in the various districts. I wish here to state for the information of the hon. member that the policy of the Cape Government from time immemorial was different to that in the northern provinces, because there it was the custom to break up and undo all chieftainships and tribal relationships or rather attachments to relations, and the consequence was that the Government of the day usually took the step of abolishing such chieftainships and to substitute two, three, ten or twenty under-captains to rule over the various branches of the native city (stat). In this way has come about the large number that have received grants, and they still render certain services.

I may, perhaps, just read this from the report of Mr. du Toit—

As already stated, that has been complied with. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) asked whether the Government is considering the purchase of ground adjoining native areas. Well, here again the Government has not adopted any fixed rule of buying land adjoining native areas, and only within certain bounds have lands been bought by the Government for native purposes. This was only where these grounds are situated within a demarcated area, which in practice has been adopted as an area for native reserve. Then the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) again returned to the charge of not supplying him with information as to the contents of the report of the Native Affairs Commission, made after their return from Natal. With regard to this I must say again that I am not prepared to have any report given by the Native Affairs Commission made public upon request by an hon. member upon any matter, and hon. members will immediately see why not; because they would certainly not feel themselves free to express to me views which they might hold, but which after investigation they might find they would not like to have published. Now, fortunately, in this case, I am acting solely on principle, because I may say this—there is absolutely nothing in that report that they have given me that could not be made public, or which I could not let the hon. member see, but I am not going to do it for the simple reason that when I asked the commission to enquire into matters and report for my information, they must know that that information is to serve only me, and not to be made public. The hon. member is evidently mistaking something quite different. Where the Commission makes recommendations on any subject concerning native affairs, then I must lay the recommendations on the Table of the House and act accordingly, but in this case they have made no recommendation, and I have made no refusal.

Did they express any opinion?

I hope so, I sent them to express an opinion and they did. I don’t know whether there is anything to be accepted in what they laid before me.

Let us have a look at it.

The hon. members for Natal are so jealous and so suspicious of what may be the evil intentions of the Government over against Natal.

We have lost too much land so far.

Surely not at the instance of this Government? They say the hon. member at whose expense they have lost much land is the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He has asked me to raise the embargoes which he laid on Natal farms. Well, well, from Natal too, and from that hon. member who, after the Beaumont Commission, was specially appointed to re-enquire into the report and the recommendations of that commission, and he, therefore, went again carefully over the whole field. He came forward as the chairman of the commission with definite recommendations.

Mr. Mackenzie was the chairman.

Then I am wrong so far as this is concerned. At any rate as one of the members he approved of the recommendations which I take it are the cause of the evil which he now wants me to do away with, namely, the embargo which I must remove from the farms.

The commission reported seven years ago.

In the meanwhile the demands and necessities on the part of the natives have increased to such an extent that we ought to give more—that is what you hear to-day—not only in Natal but everywhere. Must I understand that they have decreased in Natal.

Yes.

Well I am glad to hear it.

No, they are increasing, they are coming in from the Free State.

Really, I would like to know how many Free State natives there are in Natal. I will tell you that they are from Basutoland, and not from the Free State. But that is not the question. To come back to the question of raising the embargo on land, I must say I am not going to do anything of the kind. As I told the hon. member last night, he must wait some time before the Government will come forward with its native policy.

When?

That does not matter. When that time comes it will be time enough for the Government to say what it is going to do in this respect, as in other respects, and he can certainly not expect this Government to go and undo the work with the object of segregation—the work done by his Government with his aid—before we are prepared to say whether that is necessary or not necessary. It is my intention that as far as that demarcation, whatever that may be worth, as far as it stands there, will be retained until the Government finds that some other course should be pursued. It is here the same as with what my hon. friend asked me yesterday in connection with the so-called colour bar. There again I said. “No, it is not my first instalment of segregation.” We are merely restoring the work of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), in the line of segregation. I think it fits in very well, or will fit in very well, with the Government policy, and the same with regard to the demarcation of those areas, that will stand until such time as Parliament decides otherwise.

Why did the Minister of Mines say it was the first instalment of the segregation policy?

I think what he said was this: “You can call it the first instalment.” Very well, if you want to Call it that, why not? The only thing I want to bring out is that we are not going back on any step which the previous Government, or Governments, have taken in the direction of segregation.

Why did you send the commission?

Poor Natal is really so anxious that I ought to relieve their minds. The only reason I sent that commission was that I had ascertained that people were not quite satisfied with the demarcation of that second Committee of which the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was a member. I wanted to make sure what the feeling of the people really was. I think I found out. I think they told me the truth, and especially after the letter written by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) to the press I am perfectly sure they told me the whole truth. There are some people in Natal who would not leave one inch of ground to the natives if they could help it. There are others more reasonable.

On a point of explanation I wish to emphasize that the letter I wrote said not one single acre more. We had already given 25 per cent. of the entire area of Natal, and I said not one single acre more until other provinces have given a like amount.

Very well. I did not specifically refer to my hon. friend, but from the tone I saw in that letter and from the meetings held in Natal it left the impression that there are people who, if they could, would not give one inch of ground. I am very glad if that is not so, but I think my hon. friend will admit those meetings were of a very decisive character. The next question asked was whether I am a party to the attempt to do away with the native High Court. I hope to ease the minds of my hon. friends by saying “No.” In fact it is the first time I have heard of any such thing. The last question was with regard to the ’Ndabeni location, as to why half the cost is borne by the State in the Estimates. That is because we could not know when the Cape would take over the ’Ndabeni location, and the result was we had to provide on the Estimates a sum for at least six months. This ceased from the 31st of May. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) wants more demonstrators for the territory. I agree with him that we should have them, but because we have not got the funds this has not been done as yet. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will excuse me if I pass over this question till later on. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has asked whether this Government is going to take over native education. That is a very big question and one that has exercised the minds of previous Governments and I am afraid will exercise the minds of future Governments for some time. In the first place you have the question of money, and in the second place the question of opposition which is sure to occur. The question is one that will have to exercise the attention of Governments because of its great importance. At present no decision has been come to. Then he suggests native secondary education should be undenominational. On that, I believe, if I am correctly informed, there is a considerable movement amongst the natives to have that, but I think it would be very unwise if that were to happen, because you may be very assured your secondary education will be State education, and if State education is to take place over the native territories the costs are going to be very high. The hon. member knows the difficulties we recently had with provincial councils and how we complained of extravagance. There is another respect in which I think education would suffer, because there is no doubt missionaries and churches have been doing excellent work so far as native education is concerned. They may not always have been on the right lines, but they have seen the error of their ways and have come to the conclusion that more attention must be paid to industrial and agricultural education and not so much attention to ordinary book learning. If you take it away from the ecclesiastical authorities, who look upon it as one of their main duties, I am afraid native education will not gain by it. It may be later on that the natives are prepared to undertake expense of that kind, but at the present moment I am afraid it is not the right thing. Then as to the status of native chiefs. The hon. member wants to know whether we should not reinstate native chiefs. I think the hon. member can take it that is an impossibility. Think for a moment of what would be the result. In the meantime these chieftainships having been abolished, the tribes have been scattered and have been put under other petty chiefs or heads. If you appoint a chief to these you will have numbers of these headsmen who will not submit. I am speaking now on the question of policy. It is a disputed question as to whether the Cape policy is not to be preferred to that of other provinces. In my opinion, I think it is not, but there are many others who think it is. On the question of furniture removing, that is a matter for the public service. It has been put before the Public Service Commission and they consistently refuse to entertain it. At the same time there are hardships. You take men from the native department from the Cis-kei and place them here in the south-western district, you take men from the Transvaal and place them in the Transkei for six or more months. In such cases I admit these people should be met. That is a question with which the Public Service Commission should deal. Then the hon. member complained that the Native Affairs Commission are not sufficiently known to the natives, that they ought to go about more. I may remind hon. members that the real functions of that commission are not administrative, and, of course, you must be very careful lot to put them in a position which will lead your natives to the impression that the men who are really administering and governing them are not the local authorities, the magistrates and commissioners, but the members of the Native Affairs Commission. I think I should also point out that these men have had their hands full and they have been about almost constantly. I do not think it will be possible to get them to go out amongst the natives much more than they have done, on the average, I mean, during the last eight or nine months The first point raised by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) was that native education should be vested in the Central Government. That is a very important question and one which, of course, will rank with the question that I referred to a few minutes ago, about which to-day I cannot give any assurance. Then the hon. member alluded to the case of the Griquas. He says they are in an anomalous position—they don’t know whether they are native or coloured. That is so, I know. But he wants me to say what, or which, of the two they are. I think I am not going to do that; I may be over-ruled to-morrow by a court. Then he says that I should by proclamation forbid liquor to all coloured people alike in the native territories. I may here say that I fully agree with him, and really I hope, as soon as possible, to take that step and have it done. I hope the hon. members from Griqualand and the native territories will assist me there. Now I wish to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I was very pleased to hear what the hon. member said on the subject of the Urban Areas Act. I fully share with him what he said here yesterday, that it is, if not the most important, one of the most important measures, as far as segregation is concerned, ever taken by this House, and I fully agree with him that it is a measure that should be enforced. He wants to know what has been done. This measure, as he knows, only came into force a short while ago, and immediately after taking office I decided for the first year that no compulsion should issue from the Government, because, in the first place, it was right to leave it to the free-will of those concerned to see what they are going to do, and, in the second place, you had to do so because, my hon. friend knows, it means large sums of money, and these various municipalities had, of course, to take steps to get the necessary monies. Again, they had to build these locations. So that for the first year, as I said, I decided not to take any compulsory step under that Act. In the meantime almost all the greater cities and towns Have adopted this measure and numbers of the smaller places have also asked that it be applied to them, and I think, as far as that is concerned, that it is really very satisfactory. I feel convinced that the spirit in which this measure is being received throughout the Union is most favourable. Cape Town, as one of the bigger cities, is the one that is the most behind. The Cape Town location will not be ready for the next year, so that for the next 12 months probably we shall not be able to take all the steps necessary or which the Government can take under this Act. They are, however, busy. As far as Johannesburg is concerned, they are also building the location, but, of course, with the large number of natives that they have, it will also take a considerable time. So far, they have built 300 or 400 houses.

Six hundred.

Well, 600, and we have been removing natives from Vrededorp and those places to this part, but I must say that until the locations are completed it will be very difficult, for instance, to apply the provision which says that stock shall be taken of the natives in a city or town, and that those who have no means of subsistence there, or who have not got work there should be sent out, because, as hon. members can see, until the locations are completed, these people will be moving all about, and you put the native out of one door to-day and to-morrow he is back again at another. That is what we experienced in Johannesburg. However, the progress which is being made in Johannesburg may, I think, be called quite satisfactory, although I know there are some who do not feel that it is going on at a sufficiently fast rate, especially of those who live in the neighbourhood of Vrede-dorp and those places.

They are pushing on in Cape Town, though it is a bit slow.

Yes; for the rest I may say that the Government is fully determined to see that that law shall be carried out, but I think hon. members will agree that we should not be over-hasty. We may, by over-haste, cause exactly what we do not want—instead of a willing compliance with and an acceptance of the Act, reactions in the smaller places.

In common, I think, with a good many members on this side of the House, I listened with some surprise to the attack which the Prime Minister made last night upon members sitting on this side, and also upon certain newspapers which are generally supposed to support the policy of the South African party in connection with the attitude assumed with special reference to the question of what is known as the colour-bar Bill. The Prime Minister practically accused us of using the incident of this colour-bar Bill as a means of sowing suspicion of the Government among the natives purely for the sake of getting the native vote. I venture to think that is unworthy of the Prime Minister. There is no question of getting votes. There is merely the question of securing justice, and if the Prime Minister is anxious we should not say anything which could be interpreted as implying suspicion of the justice of his actions, the remedy lies in his own hands. He can so regulate his actions in dealing with native matters as to give no ground for suspicion.

So as to conform to your own ideas.

The Prime Minister made a lengthy attack on hon. members on this side of the House for their desire to see natives represented at the bar of the House. He also attacked—I understood him to do so—some of the newspapers. The newspapers can look after themselves very well, and I think, perhaps, it is some evidence that they can do so that the Prime Minister winces as much as he does at some of their thrusts. As regards ourselves, I would like to ask who, on this side of the House, expressed any disapproval of the decision arrived at by the Prime Minister not to give permission to these people to appear at the bar of the House. I, myself, said I had no objection to the decision taken in that matter, therefore, I think that in dealing with the matter in the way he did last night he was merely setting up a bogey for the express pleasure of knocking it down again. If he really wishes to know what we do complain of, I will do my best to explain it to him in a few words. First of all, we complain that the Prime Minister did not accept the invitation of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to refer the subject-matter of the Bill to a select committee before the second reading. That would not have interfered in the question as to the principle of the Bill being decided, and it would have allowed natives, employers and the Native Affairs Commission a full opportunity of expressing their views. That was not done. The natives having been told in the first instance that they could come and express their views before the select committee, were told, after the second reading of the Bill and after the select committee had been constituted, that they could only come and give evidence which did not affect the principle of the Bill. I do not know exactly what words were used in the communication to them, but it Is obvious they interpreted that reply as meaning it was not worth their while to come and give evidence at all. That is where our real complaint against the Government comes in; it is not in dispute, and nobody can possibly deny, that once the second reading of the Bill had been passed, and the Bill had been referred to a select committee, which committee had the power to take evidence and report, it was open to that committee to take evidence and discuss and investigate and report on the question as to how and to what extent the principle of the Bill should be put into operation. That is the point. For the sake of argument, I will assume that it would not have been possible to call evidence dealing with the principle of the Bill, though I understand that is by no means an undisputed point; but I do say that it is beyond dispute that the committee had power to investigate and report on the question as to how and to what extent the principle of the Bill should be put into operation, and for that purpose they were empowered—

That is a most important matter. I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that if natives and other representative institutions had been told that they could come to the select committee and give evidence on this point, the invitation would have been responded to, and this question of the neglect of native interests would not have arisen. It cannot be denied that it was within the power of the committee to call evidence on these points. The committee, of course, did not do so, and our charge against the Prime Minister is this: That, having told the natives they should have an opportunity of expressing their views, when this opportunity was open to the committee to give them the chance to come and give evidence, they were not informed they could do so, and they were merely told they could not give any evidence opposed to the principle of the Bill.

What were they told?

They were told they could not give evidence which was in conflict with the principle of the Bill, and they were told that in such a way that they determined it was not worth their while to come down. I say they should have been told they could come and give evidence on the points to which I have referred. There is no question about it. The committee was entitled to have evidence on these points. If such evidence had been led, I submit it would have been to the advantage of the whole community of this country. We should have been able to hear the views of natives and of employers, because this is not a matter which affects the natives alone; it affects every employer whose conditions of labour are to be regulated under the terms of this Bill. It would have enabled the committee to have heard evidence from the Native Affairs Commission, as to where it would be expedient to apply the terms of the Bill, to this province or that province, this area or that area, this or that class of work.

I must ask the hon. member not to go too deeply into a discussion of that Bill. Another opportunity will be given.

I was just finishing, Mr. Chairman. I say that is the real charge which we have against the Prime Minister. I say that the action of the Prime Minister, and of the Minister responsible for this committee, or rather their inaction, is just ground for the criticism we have passed upon them, and I think it is not, perhaps, surprising that the Prime Minister has not given a better answer, because, in my opinion, no answer is possible.

I think we had better treat this point at once. I am very glad to hear the charge now formulated by the hon. member, and I am prepared to meet that charge, and to show what a frivolous charge it is. I may say here, I am rather sorry that the hon. member, while he says that it is what I said last night as to the conduct of hon. members on this point, and of some outside the House, that he should say this is unworthy. But he is very careful not to say that the insinuations in these charges, namely, which I said were contained in some of those charges and were explicitly made, were not so, namely, that I have cheated the natives; that I have broken faith with the natives. That is the imputation.

You have given the native cause for thinking that he is not being fairly treated.

It has been stated most explicitly in the papers I have referred to as being cheating or a breach of faith with the natives, and I am certain that in this House the clear inference from what more than one hon. member has said, was the same, and I deprecate the fact that hon. members on frivolous grounds should come, either in this House or outside, or that any European should go and draw inferences from such frivolous grounds of such a nature and then publish those accusations in the manner in which they have been published outside this House. I do not think anybody can but resent, or should otherwise but resent, anything of that kind happening. It is bad enough if it is done as between European and European, but it is infinitely worse when it is done by Europeans as over against natives. Now let me first read the telegrams which passed, or which I sent. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) says he can take no exception to my deciding that the natives cannot be supported in their request to be heard at the bar of the House. I sent them this wire on the 1st May—

They had asked for three. Well, on the 19th I got the following wire from the chief magistrate. He repeats the wire that was sent to him—

On what?

On any point not affecting general principles of Bill.

And the magistrate’s wire goes on—

I wired—

And I advised my hon. friend. Here we have it that the wire that was sent to the native council in reply to theirs was that they can send now witnesses to give evidence on any point not affecting general principles of Bill. The hon. member says what he complains of, and where the breach of faith comes in, is that the natives were told that they could not give evidence on those points raised by him, with regard to the province, with regard to the areas, and with regard to the extent of the Bill. Will he please tell me where, in this telegram, any limitation of that kind is contained?

Speak up.

No, not a single limitation, and what is more, the Speaker ruled that these points were not points affecting the general principle, and they could be considered, so your natives could have come and have given evidence with regard to every single point in that.

Can we have that Speaker’s ruling read now?

I have not got it.

The Speaker’s ruling has not been published.

I was under the impression that the papers had been printed, but I find that is not so, only notice has been given. At any rate, it is clear that these things could all have been considered after they had come, but they wired to me or, rather, the magistrate, on behalf of the natives, wired that he did not propose taking further action. What complaint has the hon. member? What is wrong in all that? Let me ask the hon. member something more. Could the natives have come and given evidence on the general principle? He knows as well as anybody in this House that they could not.

Of course they could.

Surely!

Nothing that would really disturb the general principle of the Bill.

Absolutely.

Why not?

Your select committee cannot upset the general principle when that has been adopted by the House. The measure is sent after the second reading and the general principle is affirmed by this whole House, and that Bill has to be considered by the select committee subject to that general principle. Of course, if I had accepted the motion of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), then it would have been something different, and that is exactly why I did not accept it. For what other reasons are Bills sent before the second reading to select committees? At any rate, that is the position. The select committee has no right to go outside the general principle of that Bill as laid down, but the whole ground is cut away from the feet of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) when he says that what the natives should have been allowed to do was to come here and give evidence with regard to these points raised by him, not one of which they could have given evidence upon if they so desired. What is really riling these hon. gentlemen is not the message sent by me to these natives. Oh, no; it is that in select committee afterwards the majority of the committee rejected, or rather, took a resolution that its investigations were to be confined within a certain narrow area excluding these points. What had my communication to the Native Council to do with that? Again, that is why I say that it is a frivolous manner in which hon. members and others from time to time take advantage of petty things in order to raise suspicion and to make political capital out of it. When a thing like that is done with a view to raising suspicion with the native, and in the native, that is something which we cannot strongly enough deprecate.

The select committee repudiated your telegram, and when you had an opportunity by the motion of the House to correct that, you and your party voted against it.

When did they reject it?

On the motion of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin).

Was that done on May 14th, or before that date? No of course it was not. The hon. member is trying to persist in instilling suspicion into the native mind—that is the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt).

I am trying to get the Prime Minister to abide by a solemn promise.

Don’t get excited.

What I am trying to point out to the hon. member, which he would very soon see if he were not so very much interested in this question, is that what I undertook I have done. I told the natives that this Bill is going to select committee and that when the Bill is in select committee I would let them know, and they could come and give evidence. I did both, except that I did this in addition in order to raise no disappointment of their coming here thinking that they could give evidence upon the general principles and have the general principle interfered with while the general principle had already been accepted by this House. I say that as far as that is concerned, I did what is absolutely right, and what was my duty to do over against these natives. In any case, I would certainly not, whatever they might have said, I would certainly not have gone back on this Bill. As I said yesterday, this Bill we have taken in hand after the matter had been laid before the public during the election and even before the election, and we hold that that measure should at the time when it was being put aside have received the support of the Minister and the Ministry of the day, and especially the Prime Minister, and it did not. When we come to look at all this I say that hon. members have been set about making the accusations they did on the grounds they did, were not justified and really have deserved every word I have given them in reprimand.

I would not have risen to speak on this question were it not for the extraordinary doctrine of parliamentary practice laid down by the Prime Minister and the leader of the House. I presume that on this vote we cannot discuss the principle of the colour bar Bill and the relative report in connection with that Bill. We are greatly hampered by the fact that that report is not before us, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister referred to a ruling by Mr. Speaker, of the effect of which we are entirely ignorant, I wish he had told us what was the cause of Mr. Speaker’s ruling, for we are still in the dark on that point.

You should have a little patience to wait until that stage is reached.

I am not going to be deflected from my argument by the Minister of Mines, who has assumed a most autocratic manner right through in regard to this measure. We are fully entitled to know what passed between the Prime Minister and the Native Council in regard to the telegrams, for they are outside the Bill and outside the select committee. In regard to the statement of the Prime Minister in connection with the rights of the people of this country, both black and white, in approaching Parliament through the machinery established by Parliament, namely, select committees, duly appointed by the House on matters of vital principle, I say that if we, as members of Parliament, do not challenge the statement of the Prime Minister on matters of such far-reaching importance, we shall be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. Apparently two telegrams passed or were sent by the Prime Minister or at his instigation. The first telegram has been laid upon the Table, and the second telegram has now been disclosed by the Prime Minister. The first telegram was a reply to the Native Council in which it asked for permission to appear at the bar of the House. In the reply the Prime Minister very properly said that according to our practice these natives could not be allowed to appear at the bar. He had said to them—

What is the natural conclusion of any person receiving that reply? Surely it is that these natives would have the right to come to the select committee to discuss that Bill fully in its principles and in its details before the select committee in the same way as they would have done had they the right to come to the bar of the House and present their case on the Bill. The Prime Minister last night said that we criticized his conduct in refusing these natives to appear at the bar, and he called our conduct most reprehensible conduct. I spoke on the behalf of this side of the House a few days ago and I then clearly stated that the Prime Minister was in order in advising the natives, according to practice, that they could not appear before the bar. The charge laid against us of reprehensible conduct, coming from the leader of the House, is bad enough, but when it is made unjustifiably on the facts it is an unpardonable offence against members. What we complained of was that the Prime Minister promised the natives they could come and give evidence before the select committee and then the Prime Minister subsequently advised them they could not come if they came with the idea of giving evidence on the principles of this measure, because Parliament had agreed to the principle. I would like the Prime Minister to produce a single Parliamentary authority preventing a select committee, to which a Bill has been referred after the second reading, to show that a witness, coming before a select committee, has not the right to give full, ample and frank evidence on the question of the principle of the measure. If that interpretation of the Prime Minister and leader of the House is correct, then I say we are making an attempt to destroy one of the foundations of the liberty of the people of this country to approach Parliament with their grievances and lay them before a select committee. The functions of a select committee are clear. A select committee, after taking full evidence on every clause, and the principle contained in every clause, the committee have a perfect right to veto every clause and to send the Bill back to the House emasculated and with the principle gone. The select committee on a Bill that has passed the second reading has the same right that a Committee of the Whole House has on that Bill. How is it possible for any select committee, dealing with a Bill referred to it after a second reading, to veto the clauses or the principle until after it has heard evidence. It is a recognized principle of Parliament which we members, irrespective of party, should stand up and defend. To-day it concerns the native: to-morrow it may concern the white. I say openly, regardless of the fact that the Prime Minister may charge me with standing on a high moral pinnacle and may charge me with reprehensible conduct, I say deliberately, through the conduct of that committee, fortified by the Prime Minister, an injustice has been done to the natives of this country, and in conclusion I say, even after the points raised by the Prime Minister this afternoon, that these natives have the right to come and give evidence on the application, the general clauses and the areas to which the Bill was to be applied. No such evidence was given. Why was it not given? (Time limit.)

It seems to me the Prime Minister has developed an unreasonable frame of mind towards the native question. We have in the country about 6,000,000 natives, and their presence among us and their future development is the most important problem we have to deal with, yet the moment, inside or outside the House, anyone of us dares to discuss the native question the Prime Minister throws out the charge that we are instilling suspicion in the native mind and stirring up-agitation. Where are we going to arrive if we are to be charged with stirring up agitation every time we discuss this all-important topic? It is not by adopting an ostrich-like attitude and refusing discussion that you are going to prevent agitation. It is by passing unjust laws and suppressing discussion that you are going to stir up agitation and instil suspicion in the minds of the natives. I hope we shall have no more of this sort of accusation from the Prime Minister. Three weeks ago we heard him for one-and-a-half hours making a bitter personal attack on the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) based on this very charge, that the hon. member for Standerton was stirring up the natives, and that for so doing he was not a fit son of South Africa. Last night we had the same charge, and it is on the same level as the accusation levelled by the Minister of Defence whenever we discuss in all seriousness, temperately, quietly and in moderation the native question. I think that it is an undignified attitude for the Prime Minister of this country to launch a charge of that sort against us. We are going to discuss the native problem from every angle here, and as often as we can, and we shall certainly not be deterred by charges of reprehensible conduct by the Prime Minister. I hope this is the last time we shall hear of this charge. I hope the Prime Minister will mend his ways, and that he will no longer charge us with agitation and stirring up suspicion because we are doing our duty in discussing what is the most important problem in South Africa.

I am very sorry that the time limit has been applied to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), because we were hoping that he would give us an explanation of this matter. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) proposed that the Bill should be sent to a select committee before the second reading. Why then did he not suggest its reference after the second reading? If what the hon. member for Caledon says is right, what then is the difference, and why did the hon. member for Standerton waste the time of the House? Or is that his idea of “lots of fun” in the House? Why did he introduce his motion? I shall be very glad if the hon. member for Caledon will explain that to us. That hon. member has always told us what the procedure in the House should be, but when he gets up here he has to be called to order more than I. I always understood that when the second reading of a Bill had passed, then the principle of a Bill was adopted. I do not see what right I should have had in select committee to state that the principle of the Bill ought to be altered. The Government has a majority on every select committee to see that the principle of a Bill referred to it shall not be inter-ferred with For this reason the Prime Minster refused to refer the Bill to a select committee before the second reading. He wanted the principle first of all to be approved by the House. I am a member of the select committee in question, and if the Prime Minister had known that I was opposed to the principle of the Bill I should not have been on that select committee. The report of the committee will be laid before the House and then we shall hear what hon. members do not like to come out. I have been a member of Parliament for 10 years, and it appears that I still know just as little of the procedure as the hon. member for Caledon. I should like to know from him what the difference is between the reference of a Bill to a select committee before or after the second reading.

I am glad that the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) has asked the question because it is, of course, of importance. If a Bill is sent to a select committee before the second reading then for practical purposes there is no Bill before the committee. The subject of the Bill is then before the committee.

The principle.

There is then no Bill before the committee. The subject-matter is before the committee, and the committee can take evidence about the subject-matter of the Bill. The committee can make a report and also draft a Bill, but after the second reading has been passed the principle is adopted, and if then the Bill is referred to a select committee then the committee can take evidence about every section and every principle in the Bill, and the committee has the right to delete every section, or to so amend it that it amounts to deletion. But it has not the right of not returning the Bill to the House. The committee then send the Bill back in the amended form showing the sections which have been taken out. Thereafter the committee of the whole House can replace or leave out the section, but the select committee must send back the Bill in the amended form. Let me go further: The select committee cannot introduce a section in conflict with the title of the Bill unless they first come to the House and ask for power to introduce a section in conflict with the principle of the Bill. But the great point which hon. members must not forget is that we are considering here whether the committee has the right to take evidence on any principle in the Bill. I think it is a point on which we are wasting unnecessary time, unless we want to make a great encroachment on the existing practice and lay down that a select committee shall not have the right to call for evidence upon the principle, in which case the select committee would be absolutely useless, because in a Bill the matter of chief importance is the principle. If that practice is not followed, then the select committee becomes useless not only to the House, but also to the people. Therefore, I protest against the point of view that a select committee has not the right to take evidence on any principle or any point in the Bill.

When lone sits in this House and hears the speeches about this great and important subject, and one sees what goes on here and outside, that grown-up people should behave in this manner, one is dumbfounded. They do not know it, but they are playing with fire. We are trying to solve this great problem by talking and in a theoretical way that we have read about in books. That is impossible, because outside in practice exactly the opposite results are seen. We are engaged here and outside prominent men are going about, who think that they know everything about the matter, and they publish all sorts of things to the public. They mislead the people, especially the newcomers, to do things which have exactly the opposite effect to what they expected. The sooner we put an end to that sort of thing the better. It is hopeless to think that we can solve the matter by talking. There is only one way to put it right, and that is to look circumstances in the face, and to keep the experience of the past in one’s mind and to act honestly and justly and fearlessly. We must take the bull by the horns and be honest towards the natives as well as towards the white man. The Prime Minister was quite right when he stated last night that speeches were made here which stirred up the natives. That did not only happen yesterday. Older members will remember that we often gave a warning that we should one day find ourselves in the position we are in to-day, as a result of our own actions in making these venomous speeches.

The hon. member may not use the word venomous.

I may not use the word venomous, I will say inflammatory speeches. But outside venomous speeches are made. I go further and say that not alone are bitter speeches made outside, but criminal speeches. The sooner a stop is put to it the better it will be for the country. We must not assist people in fabricating grievances. There is clearly a kind of factory to-day for making grievances which never really exist in reality. People are taught to make a noise and then they want to come with their grievances here before the House. The late Prime Minister, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), declares that the Prime Minister did not keep faith with the natives and that he made them a promise about the taking of evidence which he did not keep. The Prime Minister has cleared up that matter, and I do not wish to enlarge on it, but I want to advise my hon. friend not to throw stones when he lives in a glass house. He surely remembers section 28 of the Native Urban Areas Act, and if he recollects what happened in connection with that then he will even to-day still feel hurt. I am certain that he will never again talk about such a matter if he thinks about that. He wanted last night that the Prime Minister should immediately proceed to carry out that Act. He himself tried to explain only one section and he twice became confused. What is the native then to do? He said that a native got a pass to go and look for work for a certain time. He then got frightened and said it was a document. That too was incorrect. He was afraid to say a certificate of registration. That is what we do. We will not speak frankly. We will not call a spade a spade. In these days it is regarded as an offence to talk about a pass, but when we talk about it then everybody knows, including every native, what it is. If we talk about a certificate then the native thinks we are talking about the moon. It is nothing else than cowardice. Now just one word more.

The hon. member cannot say another word because his time has elapsed.

I think this discussion raises a constitutional question of the very first importance. It is this. If a Bill is to be passed in this House which adversely affects the rights of any section of the community in South Africa, and that Bill passes the second reading and is then referred to a select committee, whether the chairman of the select committee is right if he should rule that no evidence can be taken whatever against the principle of the Bill itself. If that was so, it would have very grave consequences indeed.

Who says so?

My hon. friend seems to have come in from a long walk. We have, by tacit consent, abolished any other form of approach to this House. The practice of appearing at the bar of the House has become practically obsolete, and it was recognized that the Prime Minister was quite right in telling those natives that they could not do so. Then what other means is there of approach to this House than through a select committee? Ever since I have been in the House that has been the accustomed mode of giving any section of the community its right of expressing its views on a particular question, and that has been done time and again. I am going to ask the Prime Minister, who last evening told the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that he did not know the rudiments of his own rules, and the Minister of Mines and Industries, who said he did not need to be told that two and two make four, whether they have any authority whatever for the proposition they have advanced

Are you again challenging authorities?

I will ask the Minister of Mines another question. Did he give a ruling and was that ruling upheld by Mr. Speaker or not, and has he taken advice on this matter—seeing that he is so cocksure?

I will answer, if I am allowed to do so.

I do not profess to be any authority on a question of procedure of the House, but I have taken the trouble to read up, as far as I can find, what the procedure is, and as far as May puts it, there is no doubt that the Minister of Mines and Industries and the Prime Minister were wrong and that the hon. member for Tembuland was right, and that any ruling that persons adversely affected by the proposed operations of a Bill may not appear before the select committee on the Bill and give evidence against the proposals, was wrong, and that the people in this country have the right, when the proposed operation of a Bill will adversely affect them, to go before the select committee dealing with that Bill and put their case. I hope it will never be otherwise, because in the special conditions of South Africa, seeing that we are a white assembly elected by a minority of the population and we have occasionally to pass laws which might be thought adversely to affect sections of the population, and if we should lay it down as a rule for future guidance, that such sections are to be entirely inarticulate, that they may not elect representatives, nor appear before a, select committee, the gravest consequence will flow. If the Minister of Mines wants authority let me refer him to the latest edition of May—

But if, in the ordinary course, a select committee may take evidence on that Bill, any ruling given by a chairman that they may not take evidence on the principle of the Bill was wrong. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) interrupts me. He may be an authority on poor whites, but certainly he is not an authority on the procedure of this House.

Does May say you can take evidence to contest the main principle of the Bill?

He says it can take evidence on the Bill, which surely includes the principle of the Bill. Have you any authority to the contrary?

No.

Coming to the merits of this question, I want to say, quite plainly, that I do not think there is any justification for the Prime Minister’s saying that he is charged by us with a deliberate breach of faith towards these natives. I do not believe he is guilty of that, but I do say he has been guilty of a gross piece of mismanagement of this Bill. A great statesman of this country once said that in dealing with natives you have to observe this principle—

That was the present Prime Minister speaking while in Opposition. I agree with him. One must be careful in the extreme to avoid giving the natives any semblance of a chance of saying they have been unjustly treated. What happened here? The natives sent a respectful wire asking to be heard at the bar of the House to give evidence against the Bill, and the speakers at the congress emphasized that they desired to avoid the methods of agitators elsewhere and to present their case in a constitutional manner, and the magistrate recommended their request for favourable consideration. The Prime Minister wired back, “You cannot appear at the bar of the House, but you can put your views before the select committee.” And after that having been settled in that way, when the select committee does sit, what happens? The chairman apparently rules that these people cannot be heard on the principles of the Bill. That was all they wanted to be heard on, and when they are told they cannot be heard they say: What use is there in our coming? And they were quite right, too. But put yourself in the position of one of those natives. He is told to wait for the select committee and then, after the Bill is referred to the select committee, he is told he cannot come and speak on the principles of the Bill. The word principles (plural) is used.

Where is the plural used?

In your very wire to the natives which referred to the “general principles of the Bill.”

That is an error in the copy.

How can that be? I am reading what the Prime Minister has just given me.

Order. The hon. member’s time has expired.

Hon. members on the Opposition side assume an air of simplicity and resentment over the charge which has been made against them of creating resentment in the minds of the native population over the colour-bar Bill. Anyone who listened to the speeches made this afternoon could come to no other conclusion than that the result of the hon. member’s speeches must be to have a most disturbing effect on the minds of the natives. The Opposition has put forward two accusations; one that Parliament has not dealt justly with the natives, and the other that the attitude of the Prime Minister has been to mislead the natives. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to inflame the minds of the natives than two such charges. I have no doubt whatever that in the course of the next few days when we reach the vote of the Minister of Justice there will be a clamour from the Opposition that he should be more severe in dealing with Bolshevik propaganda amongst natives. If there is such a propaganda it is feeble and ineffective in comparison with the propaganda of the South African party. When hon. members talk about natives not being allowed to give evidence before the select committee they get away from the fact that opportunity was given to these natives to be heard, but not on the principle of the Bill, which has been accepted by Parliament, but on the general details of the Bill, and the natives decided not to come. It does not lie with the Opposition to talk about that being an unjust action, for when the original principle was accepted many years ago by this Parliament, were the natives called upon to give evidence?

They were not discriminated against in that Bill.

Because the South African party thought the best way was to deal with the natives in a deceptive manner, not openly in the Bill, but in the regulations. What steps did they take to ascertain the views of the natives when the regulations under the Mines and Works Act were framed? I do not think they took any evidence or ascertained from the natives in any way whether they were in favour of the regulations. The principle of the Bill has been accepted for many years; the principle being that industries should be organized in such a way that one section of the population should work in one portion of the industry and the other section of the population in another part of the industry. That principle has been accepted by the white population, which has been subjected to a legal and economic colour bar, but to say that the principle has been exploited so as to allocate all the work on the mines to Europeans is absurd and unjust. After listening to three discussions of the matter, I am satisfied that the object of this debate is not to express resentment at anything that has been done with regard to the natives, but the real object was given away by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), who said that not only the natives have been prevented from giving evidence, but also the employers. That is the reason for this discussion—that the mining industry has been prevented from giving evidence. Hon. members may laugh, but that has been the object of delaying the Bill, and the justice they claim for the natives is not really justice for the natives, but the desire to retain the opportunity of exploiting the native so as to secure the cheapest possible labour for the mines.

It is clear that the main objection of the hon. member who has just sat down to the giving of evidence before the select committee was that he did not want the evidence of the employers taken. Well, from the hon. member I can understand that attitude, but that it should have been applauded by hon. members opposite seems to me a very great fall. Why should not the employers be heard; have we come to the point that when a law is passed the employers should not be heard? But I rose for another purpose. I take a very grave view of the issue that has been raised. The Prime Minister accused us of having levelled a very serious charge against him and the Government. We certainly admit that he has levelled a charge against us, and I am in this difficulty. We are trying to argue very important and far-reaching points without the full evidence before us.

You persisted in bringing it up.

We have not before us the report of the select committee, nor have we the ruling which Mr. Speaker gave. Both these matters seem to me to be matters of very great importance, which we should have before us. As far as I am concerned, I do not wish to commit myself personally on this very important question until I have before me the report of the select committee, and that ruling which Mr. Speaker is said to have given, and which may throw a very important light on the whole matter. I would, therefore, suggest that we do not continue this discussion at this stage, but wait until Wednesday next, when the order comes up for the House to go into committee on the Mines and Works Act Amendment Bill. The Prime Minister has put a perfectly plain categorical question to us which, I think, ought to be answered, and it may be much easier to answer that when we have the report of the select committee before us. He has asked us why did the representatives of the General Council not come and give evidence on the points raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). My hon. friend wanted evidence to be given on certain specific points, and the Prime Minister put the question to us—

I think that the Opposition are taking up a very unreasonable attitude towards the action of the Prime Minister with reference to the telegram and the non-attendance of the natives before the select committee. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said quite rightly, I think, that he would rather wait until the report of the select committee was out before expressing his views. As regards the action of the Prime Minister, I only wish to say that he merely informed the natives that they could appear before the select committee but not at the bar of the House, i.e., the select committee which was appointed by the House and in whose power it lay, apart from what the Prime Minister did, to accept or reject evidence. The members of the select committee decided that point. With all respect to the position of the hon. the Prime Minister, he still has no authority over the select committee. If, then, any blame has to be cast, then it is on the members of the select committee, and I, as one of them, am quite prepared to take my share of the responsibility with regard to its action in this matter. All I wish to say is that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the acts of the select committee. When the report of the select committee is before the House we shall be entitled, and in a position, to express our opinion about the action of the committee, and to say whether it acted wisely or the reverse, but I think that the hon. member for Standerton has pointed out the correct course by saying that he wishes to do nothing in this matter until he has seen the report. We may not say what happened in the select committee, otherwise we should be able in a few words to completely exonerate the hon. the Prime Minister from the imputations which have been made against him.

To what I have already said, I just want to add that I am very glad that the hon. the Prime Minister emphasized last night the matter of vote catching. It is getting worse and worse, instead of decreasing. We can do nothing or the question of votes is taken into account. People calculate: If I do that, then I must think about such and such a vote, and if I do something else, then I shall lose that vote. This must stop. It is a curse to the country. I hope that we all, on all sides, have drawn a lesson from what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. Let us stop this vote catching, and do what is right towards our people.

Now the poison gas attack has died away and the leader of the Opposition has sounded the retreat and himself led the way, perhaps we may turn our attention to one or two things in regard to real native affairs. One realizes the pity of it that upon the shoulders of a supposed injustice to the natives an attack oh the Prime Minister should be developed. The Chamber of Mines representatives probably urged the appearance of these natives before the select committee. I think the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) accepted the statement—of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—that he represented the Chamber of Mines, and we may take it he does so. At any rate Chamber of Mines’ interests are certainly well supported in the House, and the natives are also well represented, because 16 members on the other side depend for their seats on the native vote or a balance of native votes. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) would surely not deny that.

I do deny it.

Just because they want the colour bar refused the South African party use the natives in this House. It is a pitiable exhibition of their lack of perspective and lack of appreciation of the whole position in the country. Let them find something other than the natives with which to launch forth an attack on Ministers. In every case they have had the worst of the encounter, and now they use the native as a stalking horse, but they are so defeated that the leader of the Opposition says “Leave it alone now.” and sounds the retreat. I think it is the very best thing he could have done. The question has come up in this debate of the Urban Areas Act. We, who have had to study it, know the weaknesses in regard to it. There was the delay of the last Government in that they had not prepared the regulations and months passed without the regulations necessary to the Act being made. Then they had to make proclamations of areas, and we waited for that to be done, until at last the Johannesburg area was proclaimed. The Urban Areas Act, good as it is, I think has been over-praised. The great difficulty is with regard to the manner in which towns are being overrun with natives from the country districts, and that difficulty was brought before the previous Government time after time. We had deputations to Mr. Malan, then Minister for Native Affairs, and he said he could not stop the natives coming in. He was begged to stop magistrates from issuing passes to natives in such numbers, but he replied that he had not the power to stop the issuing of passes. We pointed out that if the Government had not the power they alone could get it by legislation. We had a deputation to the Minister of Justice and asked him not to put criminals from prisons into the towns as he was doing, but to send then back to their locations. He said—

At all events, the Government went on year after year, we pleading with them to turn off the tap and they simply pouring the natives in on us. In Johannesburg we did not know what to do. As fast as the natives were provided for, others poured in. Johannesburg has 132,000 natives within its municipal area. It spent over a quarter of a million in providing accommodation for them. It provides suitable accommodation for the thousands employed by the municipality itself; we have a location with 7,000 of them; we have built about 700 cottages out of 900 planned, and we are putting up barracks now for 1,500. We have done everything we could but it is useless. Until the Government absolutely turns the tap off, until it takes charge of all natives who are looking for work, no Urban Areas Act, nor any similar Act, will do any real good. We are looking again to the Government to turn off the tap, so that we shall not have these natives swarming into the town. We beg this Government not to perpetrate the errors of the previous Government in that respect, but to give some assistance to the towns in dealing with the influx of natives. Unless we get that assistance from the present Government, then any attempt to deal adequately with the native question is absolutely hopeless. The more we provide for these natives the more they will swarm in, and it is perfectly natural. We give them a cottage of two rooms and a small kitchen, with sanitation and water, for £1 5s. a month; accommodation that many white people would jump at, and, of course, that is only encouraging them. We can have nearly all the native people in our towns, the whole 5,000,000 of them would be delighted to come in with the encouragement which is now given them, and it is all due to this insatiable desire to have cheap labour.

I think that the course suggested by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is one that should appeal to this House. It seems to me, and I thought so from the start, that the discussion which has taken place in connection with this particular matter has been rather premature, and that the House, not having the full facts before it, cannot formulate a fair judgment. I, therefore, think that the suggestion should be accepted on this side of the House. I do not quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Gilson) that a proclamation should be issued dealing with the question of the sale of liquor to what he styles the coloured people in the native territories. I would remind the Prime Minister that the power of issuing a proclamation is a very great power. Last night, you, Mt. Chairman, ruled practically that a proclamation, although we are not entitled to suggest matters which would necessitate new laws, is a matter that we may discuss. That shows that a proclamation is a matter that is in the hands of one man, and proclamations are issued in the native territories without any reference in many cases to the Europeans. If the Prime Minister is going to issue a proclamation or follow the suggestion of my hon. friend here (Mr. Gilson) in saying that liquor shall not be supplied to any coloured man in the Transkei, I would point out to the Prime Minister that there are men up there who occupy very high positions, men who have one-quarter native blood, or possibly octoroons. I, therefore, hope that the Prime Minister, before he consents to issue such a proclamation in the territories, will give the matter very careful thought, although I may say that we find in the territories that the natives obtain liquor through these people very largely, and I am in favour of the strongest step being taken against the procuration of liquor to be supplied to natives. Another point I would like to deal with is this matter of the divorce courts in the native territories. There are 1,000,000 natives up there, many of whom are very poor and many of them, with the advance in civilization, are married according to Christian rites. Until quite recently the chief magistrate, travelling through the territories, had jurisdiction to grant divorces. He has a lot of work to do, and he cannot face the position. You are placing these unfortunate natives—in many cases the husbands or wives go to the Rand and never return—in a difficult position. If they desire to procure a divorce, they have either to go to the Eastern District Court or to the Supreme Court in Cape Town, which means very considerable expense. I know that the missionaries themselves hope that the Minister of Native Affairs will evolve some scheme by which the divorces of natives can be facilitated so far as expense is concerned. I would like to hear the views of the Minister on that subject.

I am not going to prolong the dispute which has taken place this afternoon, but I do wish to make one or two observations upon matters that have not hitherto been dealt with. I notice an item “Presents and Rations to Chiefs, Headmen and Messengers,” £1,200. With regard to the headmen, I would like to know what their average pay is per annum, and generally under what conditions they retain office. There is a very general and authoritative opinion in my part of the district that a great deal more use might be made of headmen than is being made at present. On several occasions suggestions have been made that headmen should have greater responsibilities put upon them and that they should have better pay, because they are undoubtedly an underpaid class of people. They do not receive anything like adequate remuneration for the work they are expected to do. The farmers’ point of view is this, knowing that the headmen have opportunities of detecting crime within their areas, no better people could be employed to check thieving and disorders of any kind than the headmen. If the headmen set their faces against disorders of this kind it would go a long way towards reducing the abnormal thieving that takes place along the borders. The headmen can do it infinitely better than the native policeman, and yet they have only half the pay of the ordinary native policeman. It would be an economy to the administration if instead of putting the native policemen along our borders they interested the headmen in the things I have mentioned. The emancipation of our natives should be a natural growth. We are trying to push things too fast, we are depriving the headmen and chiefs of the authority which they once exercised, while on the other hand we do not realize that the native has not advanced sufficiently with our more modern ideas. Another matter I should like to mention is in regard to native interpreters. My own experience in my own district has been quite a revelation. Few men have the capacity for interpretation that these men have. I have never met even a European who is so good in this way as several of the natives in my district. I also think it is important that the magistrates in native areas should be conversant with the language. We want magistrates who are in touch with the natives, who can understand their language, their customs and ideas. If that was generally the case a great improvement would take place, but unfortunately we find it is not always so, and men are appointed to these posts who have not the necessary experience, and this is as unfair to the magistrate as it is to the native population.

I do not think we can allow to pass unchallenged the reply which the Prime Minister gave yesterday to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) when he asked him when he was going to tell us what the policy of the Government was in regard to segregation. The reply was “wait and see,” and apparently that has been his attitude for some years past. The Prime Minister is not new to South African politics. He was leader of the Opposition for nearly 10 years, and he has now been Prime Minister for twelve months. I suggest to him that the time has come when this atmosphere of mystery which apparently surrounds his intentions regarding the future of the native population should be allowed to disappear, that he should draw aside the veil, and tell us what is really behind the word “segregation.” what he really means to do, and what his intentions are in the future. The evils which flow from an uncertainty on the part of the native population and the European population as to what that policy will contain in the future were eloquently illustrated by the Prime Minister himself in a speech in 1921 on the native question. He then took the Government of that day to task in very strong language for not giving out more definitely what its policy was in regard to the native, and it might be interesting if I recall to his memory what he said on that occasion. He said—

If that was not emphatic enough, he returned to the charge next day and said—

We have come forward with a perfectly clear and legitimate demand that he will tell us what he really does intend in regard to this so-called segregation polity. He has denied what the Minister of Mines told us plainly, namely, that this colour-bar Bill was the first instalment of the segregation policy. Let me remind him of what the Minister of Mines did say—

There can be no doubt about that, but can the Prime Minister tell us what practical steps he does propose to take, and what the native population may expect as the development of the Government’s policy in this regard. Let him dissipate this air of mystery and secrecy, and tell us and the natives what really is to be expected.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what his policy is in connection with the limited number of coloured people in Natal who have applied for registration as voters under the old Natal Act of 1865. The Prime Minister knows that the children of a white man and native woman, where they have not been married according to European law, are regarded as natives, and take the status of their mother. In many instances these coloured people have obtained exemption from the operation of the native law, and are property owners, and are living a civilized life. In some cases, they are the owners of farms and conduct farming operations, and they have made application, under the law referred to, to be granted the franchise, and they have qualified to obtain the consent of the Governor-General for registration as electors. I would like to know what the attitude and policy of the Government is in respect of these people. There is another point which has arisen in connection with the administration under the Native Lands Act. In Newcastle there is a district described as No 4, under the Beaumont Commission. The local committee report suggested that this district should be regarded as neutral, failing which, certain farms should be demarcated as native and certain as European. Since that commission sat, certain farms owned by natives have been forced into the market, under supreme court judgments, and sold in execution, and Government have consented to these farms being purchased and transferred to Europeans. No less than ten of such farms have passed from native to European ownership with the consent of the Governor-General, but recently, in respect of one of the farms called “Dorset,” which had been allotted to certain natives under certain of the allotments of the Government in 1896, the natives had not complied with the conditions of sale and were in arrear with the payment of their instalments, and in this particular instance the Government, instead of putting the farm up to auction, made an arrangement with the Lands Department to allot the farm to the Natal Native Trust at the original upset price of 15s. 6d., at which it was allotted in 1896, and, naturally, the adjoining European farmers take very strong exception to the action of the Government in regard to this farm. Instead of allowing the farm to come into the open market, the Native Affairs Department approached the Lands Department and got them to allot the farm to the Natal Native Trust. I want to know whether that is the policy of the Government in regard to any other farms in District No. 4, which are held by natives under certificate of allotment, where they fail to comply with that certificate; or whether the Government is going to allow such farms to be put up to auction. In this particular instance, an injustice has been done to the natives to whom the farm had been originally allotted; because, instead of getting the current price in the district, which is from £2 to £2 5s. per acre, and out of such price paying arrear instalments that were due, and accounting for the difference to the original allottees, the arrangement referred to was come to, whereby the farm was actually re-allotted at 15s. 6d. only, and the original allottees have thereby suffered heavy financial loss.

The Prime Minister has consistently refused to let us know what is in the report of the Native Affairs Commission which visited Natal recently, and so long as the contents of that report are suppressed, so long will the public be convinced that the report he received, and the decision which the Prime Minister came to in respect thereof were in conflict. I should like to say that the attitude of Natal is consistent and straightforward. The position they have always adopted is that they have set aside, for native purposes, either by means of locations or mission reserves, a greater proportion of land, according to the size of the province, than any other province, and they maintain that so long as the land set aside for natives is utilized in the manner in which it is to-day—that is to say, very largely wasted and neglected—it would be folly to take away from the very limited areas that remain, and set aside further lands for native purposes. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was present at the view of a bioscope film to which we were invited in connection with the development of native work in the Transkeian territories; but certainly those who were present must have been very much impressed with what the natives can do under wise guidance. In discussing this very subject with natives of intelligence in Natal, one of the things that they always complained of was that the Government has never done anything to assist them or advise them in developing their lands, in the native locations. If that advice and help were given, there is not the slightest doubt that it would be found that quite sufficient ground has already been allotted to the natives in Natal for their purposes and for a great many years to come. They go on cultivating to-day a piece of land until it will not respond no longer; the ground is worked out, and the only alternative is to take up a fresh bit of land and work on that until it in its turn succumbs. It is a very wasteful and disastrous policy to follow. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister, whether it would not be possible in view of what can be, and has been done in the native territories, to institute, in Natal, some form of native agricultural advisory board. I am sure it would be appreciated, and instead of this clamouring for more land by the natives, it would be found that the locations and the reserves are ample for years to come, if properly used. This is the attitude of the people that, whilst those lands, which have already been set aside, are occupied in a wasteful and harmful manner, it is folly to talk of setting aside further areas for native occupation.

I do not want to resume the discussion on the advisability of the Union Government taking control of native education, but in view of the Prime Minister’s statement that it is a question of money, I would like to point out that the total amount spent on native education in the four provinces is £347,000, of which the Union contributes £300,000, so practically we have now financial responsibility with no control whatever over native education. More attention should be paid to the control of native labour in the territories. The recruiters of native labour for the gold mines in Pondoland are protected, the native being compelled to fulfil his contract, and at the same time when he arrives on the Rand he receives every attention so far as his health and comfortable quarters are concerned. Of late years there has been a very big demand for natives on the sugar estates, and there are many bitter complaints from the natives as to the conditions on those estates, many of which are situated in malarial districts where the mortality is very high, and there is practically little or no hospital accommodation for the natives; further, their quarters leave a lot to be desired. The labour recruiters have asked the Government to give them the same protection in regard to natives recruited for the sugar estates as those recruited for the gold mines. The department is willing to do this, provided that proper accommodation is supplied for the natives on the sugar estates. The sugar planters, however, have evidenced a certain disinclination to fall in with this request, but the Government is trying to secure an amicable settlement. I hope the Native Affairs Department will not allow the matter to drift, but will see that proper protection is afforded to both parties, as is done in the case of native labour recruited for the gold mines. There is another matter which is the subject of a certain amount of feeling on the part of the natives. The Prime Minister has stated that the Native Affairs Commission is only an advisory body. The natives are asking why they should not have some representation on that commission. The natives have a right to sit in the Cape Provincial Council, and therefore it is not going too far to ask that some representation be given to the natives on the Native Affairs Commission. We are discarding the native policy of the past, and although I am not going to say we are taking rights away from the natives, we are closing avenues of advancement to which they formerly looked as a reward of advancing in the scale of civilization. If they were given representation on the commission they would feel that they had a channel for communicating their views to the Government. With regard to compensation for natives employed on the mines, the maximum which can be paid to relatives of a native who is killed on the mines is £50, and for permanent disablement £25. These are very small sums, and the awards might well be doubled. I hope the Prime Minister will try to induce the gold-mining industry to increase the compensation.

With regard to the points raised by the last speaker, almost all those questions have been engaging the attention of the department. As to recruiting, I think that is a matter which the department has very seriously considered, and I believe a Bill dealing with it was once taken in hand, but unfortunately it has not been found feasible to proceed with it. The native labour regulations could very well be extended to cover almost everything that the hon. member wants as far as that is concerned. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has raised the question of native divorce, but I am not going to give my views on that to-day. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has asked about the pay of native headmen. Their pay varies from £4 to several hundreds, but really the ordinary headman gets £6 per annum on first appointment, £9 after five years, and £12 after 10 years’ service. Perhaps it is true that the pay is too small, but it is a question of getting over the Treasury. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is very dissatisfied with my answer given to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), when I said, as far as the native policy is concerned, you had better wait and see. I am thankful to the hon. member for reading a speech I made some years ago, every word of which I approve to-day.

And which you are not practising now you are Prime Minister.

I am sorry the hon. member expects me to do in a year’s time something which he and his Government could not do in 14 years. I want to remind the hon. member a little further, that at the election, and previous to the election, and after the election, I said this is a question which will occupy the present Government at least two and probably four years. If he thinks I am going to rush in where angels, in the shape of the previous Government, feared to tread, he is mistaken. I am not going to rush into committing myself until I have explored everything. You had 14 years and could not do anything. The hon. member repeated what the Minister of Mines said with regard to the so-called colour bar Bill, that this question is connected with the segregation policy. Exactly. I don’t think anybody denied it. It was so connected with it that it was the first step in the segregation policy of the leader of the Opposition. All the more I regret it that he did not give it the support which it merited.

You said last night it had nothing to do with the segregation policy.

I said it was not my first instalment. As I said this morning, I am merely restoring the work of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and I said it was undoubtedly segregation but that it was not my first instalment.

When may we expect that?

I am not going to do anything to undo any measure taken by the previous Government in the line of segregation, and simply because it was something lying on the road to segregation, we came to the House and said, “Let us restore it before it is too late.” The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) asked what we were going to do with certain coloured people there. It is a question upon which we have been approached and we have it under consideration. A petition has been sent to the Government, and that has been sent to the chief magistrate for his views and report. So far we have not received his views. With regard to the farms he mentioned, that is a question for the Minister of Lands. With regard to the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), he asked about the contents of the Native Affairs Commission report—Oh, again this Native Affairs Commission report. I thought I said what it contained.

No.

It contained nothing more than this, that the people of Natal, like the people of Zoutpansberg, are averse to having their territories demarcated or set aside for native purposes. That is the long and short of it. With regard to native agricultural advisers, I appreciate that, and so does the whole of the department. It is one of the things which we shall have to see that the natives have in future. But it is all a question of money again. We will have to wait upon the results of the taxation measure which is coming before Parliament this year and which I hope will be passed.

There are a variety of subjects I should like some further information upon. The inclusion of Swaziland in the Union is a matter that has received the attention of the Prime Minister during the recess. The Prime Minister was approached by a deputation from Swaziland, and there were further representations made to him, within the last four weeks, by the advisory council of Swaziland, on the subject of the inclusion of that territory in the Union.

I am afraid that has nothing to do with native affairs.

The schedule to the Act of Union specifies that that area shall be administered by the Prime Minister with an advisory council on native affairs, and it has been generally assumed that the advisory council is the present Native Affairs Commission. It is provided under the Act of Union that the territory specified shall be administered as a native territory, and there is a strong feeling in Swaziland that this territory should not be so administered, but should be given a different character in view of the fact that two-thirds of the area of Swaziland is in the possession of Europeans. I should be glad if the Prime Minister will let us know his views in regard to that matter. It is a subject of great importance.

I may point out that, although the remarks have to do with native affairs, the hon. member is urging a matter which requires legislation.

Preference to the schedule of the Act of Union will show that that schedule already provides for the inclusion of this territory within the Union, so that no further legislation is necessary. There was a valuable report of a commission some considerable time ago which recommended certain improvements in the native pass regulations, and I should be glad if the Prime Minister would say whether he is in favour of these improvements being undertaken. The idea was to render uniform all pass regulations as far as possible in the various provinces, and provide for a system of identification of natives, and the proper registration of natives. That commission was a very important one on which most of the leading authorities of the Native Affairs Department in South Africa served. We had on it the chief magistrate of the Transkei, and though he put in a minority report on certain aspects of the question, the evidence given before that commission and the report of the commission itself constitute documents of a first-class public character, and I should be glad if the Prime Minister could give us his opinion as to whether anything is likely to eventuate as the result of the recommendations of that commission. I think, perhaps, it is not out of place at this stage to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us the causes of the recent Bloemfontein riot. There was an unfortunate disturbance there, and we understood that the matter was being inquired into by the magistrate, and that a report would be placed in the hands either of the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister on this subject. It would certainly be a good thing if the Prime Minister could give us the root causes of that happening, because it is a happening that we should like to avoid the recurrence of, and it seems to many of us that it has been due to insufficient attention being given to the provisions of the Natives Urban Areas Act. That Act, as hon. members know, provided for the better government of the natives in urban areas, and the better regulation of supply and consumption of native beer in those areas. Personally, I am of the belief that the riots at Bloemfontein have a great deal to do with the unlimited supply of native beer which the occupants of the location there are at liberty to have under the existing regulations and that, if more attention were given to the better administration of the location from the point of view of, the beer control, we should never have had the unfortunate happening that took place there recently. There is another matter, and that is the position of the natives in the Transvaal in regard to the non-recognition of native marriages. The present law of 1885, which has been the subject of a good deal of praise by Dr. Brookes in his book on native policy, is, or has been, held by the courts to be defective in a very important respect, in that it fails to recognize native marriages, with the result that a very large class of people in the Transvaal, who imagined that the old native marriage is of full force and effect, find that by the decision of the courts their children are bastardized and they, themselves, are not regarded as people who are living in wedlock of any sort. That is a cause of a good deal of feeling amongst the natives, and for some years there has been a desire on their part that the matter should be put right. I hope the Prime Minister will give some consideration to this very reasonable feeling, and that some steps will be taken to adjust that acute cause of discontent. I was glad to see a very able document which had been prepared by Mr. Garthorne of the Native Affairs Department on the application of native law in the Transvaal, dealing very comprehensively with the whole of this subject, and I feel sure that a perusal of that pamphlet will enable the Minister to see the force of what I am saying in regard to the position of natives whose marriages have not the recognition of law under present conditions. The Prime Minister has been approached in regard to the subject of native education and the desirability of its being brought under the control of the Union Government. It seems to me that the provision the Minister of Finance has made in the provincial subsidies measure will admit of the Prime Minister in any case defining the kind of education that should be imparted to the native. The section of the law reads: “Grants in respect of the maintenance, extension and improvement of educational facilities among natives” shall be made from the Native Development Fund, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (Time expired.)

I would like, in replying to the statements made by the Prime Minister, in connection with secondary education, to point out the position in the Transkei. At present primary education is controlled by the missionaries. There is a suggestion now which has been before the provincial council for some time past to start one or two secondary schools in the Transkei for the native population. I want to suggest—and I know that this is supported by many missionaries—that such institutions should be started and that missionary bodies should be allowed to have hostels in the particular areas where secondary schools are established. These should he run on undenominational lines, and attached to these schools should he instructors for industrial and agricultural purposes. In the past, the Government has not taken the interest in educational control that they should have taken; it has been left to the sole discretion of the missionaries. The missionaries have done the work for nothing. I feel, in connection with secondary education, that we might well take the matter in hand and say that at any rate it should be under undenominational control. I am quite confident it would not cost Parliament anything. The natives themselves will be prepared to support an institution of that nature and pay for it themselves. A native council, which would contribute to an undenominational institution, would not be prepared to subscribe to a denominational one. I hope that when it comes before the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Native Affairs, he will give this matter very careful consideration, and, at any rate, communicate with the Superintendent-General of Education and collaborate with him and try to build up institutions on the same lines as such institutions are run in America, dealing with higher education. It seems to me the native must be taught to support education along these lines, that education in the past has been too theoretical, too much in the direction of book-learning, and has not been in the true interests of the natives. I hope the Prime Minister will go into the matter very carefully. We certainly want one or two such schools in the Transkei, and possibly in the cis-Kei.

There is one question on the point of education which I wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, and in doing so, I should like to mention that the author of the book recently published, “Education in East Africa,” Dr. Thomas Jesse Jones, recently met a number of members of this House with the object of impressing upon them the very great importance of the kind of education that should be imparted to the natives of this country, and I may remark that Dr. Jesse Jones paid a great tribute to the Prime Minister’s thoughtful consideration of this subject, and I hope the Prime Minister will make good the opinion of this high authority, by endeavouring to translate into action some of the recommendations which are made in this book. There is no doubt that native education in the past has gone right away from the idea which should have been constantly held in view, when we set out to give the natives education with the idea of improving their condition. The education has been altogether too “bookish,” and has not contributed sufficiently to the promotion of their usefulness in their own communities. The author of this book, I think, puts it very tersely here when he says—

This, I think, serves to impress upon those of us, who think about the matter at all, the desirability of the Union Government taking control of the curriculum of native education, and I am glad to see, under the provisions of the Minister of Finance in his new Bill, that it would be possible for the Prime Minister to lay down the conditions under which native education grants to the provinces can in future be issued. In the course of the work on a recent select committee on which I served, it was made evident to all of us who were serving on that committee, that there is an urgent necessity for the Masters and Servants Act of the various provinces to be overhauled and placed on a better basis, and I should like to know whether the Prime Minister will not consider the advisability of appointing a commission to meet during the coming recess, with the object of preparing a Bill for introduction during the next session of Parliament, to deal with this important subject.

I hope the Prime Minister will reply to the question put him by my hon. friend regarding the Government’s policy on the Pass Laws. We have been trying for many years past to thrash out legislation regarding them. The native labour legislation was passed by the various Parliaments in South Africa many years ago, when conditions were entirely different and when the native was in an entirely different process of evolution. The time has come for the Government to make up its mind whether the pass laws are to be allowed to fall into disuse, or brought up to date. Our labour legislation and pass laws are in such a nebulous state at the present time that we do not know where we are. If the Government is going to abandon all pass law legislation, which the Minister of Labour desires to see ended, the country ought to, know it. The present unsatisfactory state of, the pass law is leading to dissatisfaction everywhere, and is good neither, for the native nor the European. I quite realize the, difficulty; I know the opposite wing of the Pact is adverse under any circumstances to doing anything with regard to pass laws. The Minister of Labour shakes his head.

I was merely shaking my head at your inaccuracy.

Possibly the Minister has forgotten all the speeches he made before he became a Minister, when he was always making the rafters ring about the existence of the native labour laws. Perhaps now he is beginning to see things in quite a different light. When the late Government brought in the Urban Areas Bill, it introduced at the same time a Registration Bill which would have gone far to bring matters up to-day. The Prime Minister was one of the greatest opponents of the measure, and as a consequence the Bill had to be dropped. It would ease the situation considerably if we knew how the Government stood in the matter.

I hope the Prime Minister will show us the courtesy of replying. I have always endeavoured to treat him with the greatest courtesy and have no intention of departing from that rule, but I am certainly not going to be ignored. The Prime Minister has seen fit to maintain a stony silence on subjects which are important to the country. He saw fit yesterday to wax very wrath because certain questions had been asked him, and he seemed to attribute to me a design to catch votes. I have not a native voter in my constituency, and have never addressed a meeting of native voters in my life, and have never shown myself in favour of natives voting. Every public utterance of mine will show I have maintained an aloofness from the question of native politics, which the Prime Minister does not share. When I questioned the Prime Minister yesterday with regard to his telegram to the Transkeian General Council I did not impute to him any double intention in his communications to these people. The most that could be attached to any of my remarks was that I imputed to him a want of judgment in stating at the outset that these natives could be heard before the Select Committee when apparently his view at the time was that they could only be heard on a circumscribed number of subjects. It was with a view to clarity that I brought the subject up and there was no understanding with any other member of this side of the House. It seemed to me communications has gone on about which I knew nothing until they were referred to in this House. I was surprised to hear that the telegram sent to the natives was intended to convey to them that they could give evidence on any point not affecting the general principles of the Bill. I should like the Prime Minister to tell me whether he intended to convey that the natives were to be allowed to give evidence on the various points mentioned by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). If so, I will leave it at that until the report of the committee shows us which version of the matter is correct. I ask the Prime Minister to give me some information on the subjects I have brought forward as I think they are proper subjects for discussion on this vote and about which the committee is entitled to information.

Vote put and agreed to.

On vote 25, “Mines and Industries,” £317,480.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I want to call the attention of the Minister to one or two things. In the first place, in reference to the trade commissioner to the United States of America, I would ask if he has made that appointment. As a matter of fact, I have some doubts as to whether it is worth paying £4,000 for that, because, if you work up a trade with America, as we did some little time since in the export of fresh fruit, as soon as it began to show anything like respectable proportions down came the American Government and stopped it. They simply gave orders that all fruit coming into the States must be quarantined for a month. The consequence has been that we are doing no fruit trade there now. I see from this evening’s paper that they have been trying to send butter from New Zealand to the States, and the States are now thinking of increasing the duty on fresh butter. In my opinion, this £4,000 is to a large extent, if not entirely, a waste of public money. I would like to ask the Minister also in reference to the trade commissioner to Kenya, £2,712. I know there is a trade commissioner there in a sort of honorary position. I am not so averse to that, because I think it may lead to further trade.

I do not wish to impoverish the Minister, but I move—

In order to voice my dissatisfaction at the Government’s mining policy. The public long since abandoned any hope that the last Government would accomplish anything in the way of progress as far as mining was concerned, and, even allowing for the brief tenure of office of the present Government, I must say that I think—and I believe a lot of the public think with me—that we have reason to be disappointed that the Government is not doing more than it is to develop the mineral resources of this country. We on these benches consider that this question is one of the greatest importance, it is so necessary for the employment of our people and especially the youths who are growing up. It is rather distasteful to me to have to move to reduce the Minister’s salary, for the reason that I know that he has personally done his utmost to bring about cohesion in his department and get into touch with things that matter, but I think he has been handicapped in coming into a highly technical department when the heads of that department are really out of touch with public sympathy in these matters. These heads of departments for 14 years have been pledged to certain principles. For instance, they have been pledged to oppose the question of State mines, and it is not to be expected that any man who has steadily for 14 years opposed a certain principle would be able to turn round and favour it just because there was a change of Government. When there is a change of Government, and it is to be assumed that there is a change of policy, it seems to me to follow that, if the intentions of the electorate are not going to be thwarted, then there must be a change of officials. I know that on the Rand many votes were cast for the present Government in order to try and bring about reforms in mining policy, but, in my view, it is impossible for the Minister to bring about those reforms when he depends upon officials whose minds have already been made up. I am not one who would advocate the “spoils system” as it prevails in America, nor would I be unfair to the officials, but I think it would be far cheaper to retire and compensate these officials than to allow them to continue in office and keep the country back. What I complain of is the persistence in the old policy of merely drifting along without any constructive policy, and without a policy which is going to exploit our mineral wealth, as I think it should be done. But not only have we got inaction as far as our undeveloped areas are concerned, but we Have mines which are by no means exhausted being allowed to close down and no action taken by the Government to compel the owners to work them or allow others to do so. I would like to quote the case of the Cinderella Mine, which has become almost historic. This mine is situated in my constituency, and it has been closed down now for 13 years, and, as far as one can see, there is no more chance of its being opened to-day than there was a month after it was closed down. When the mine was originally started one shaft was considered adequate, but subsequently owing to changes in the regulations owing to attempts to alleviate phthisis it became necessary to have two shafts. Meanwhile work continued under very unfavourable conditions, but before the second shaft was completed the cash reserves were exhausted and the mine was closed down. Some 350 men were thrown on the streets and the company was said to be going to get fresh capital to resume operations. It may be asked why they did not get more capital immediately? The answer is very simple. The Cinderella Mine was allied to a group supported by German capital. No doubt in those days, 1912, war was looming and the Berlin financiers would not contribute to foreign enterprises. Since the war has terminated we know the condition of German finances, and we know that nothing can be expected from that quarter until the finances of Europe are stabilized. This is no doubt very unfortunate for those connected with the mine, but no reason why one of our mines should be closed indefinitely. It has never been suggested that there is anything wrong with the mine; apart from financial considerations it is considered to be excellent. Two years after the mine was closed down the chairman said at a meeting of shareholders—

The Cinderella Mine, during its lifetime, produced gold to the value on 1¼ millions, and on actual working expenditure showed a profit of £179,000. High working costs were responsible for the comparatively low profit of 14 per cent. That the prospects were good is proved by the fact that the directors, who were in a position to know the worth of the mine two years before they closed down, paid £300,000 for extra ground. They were so greedy that they bonded the whole property to get this purchase money, and by so doing drove the first nail in the coffin of the company. Sir George Albu told me that if he had thought the amount raised (£500,000) would not have been sufficient to complete the construction programme, the prospects were so good that he could have raised whatever extra money was required. When, however, he found the amount raised was not sufficient, the European money market was disturbed and nothing could be done owing to this under estimation of how much money was required we find the country paying for it in having the mine idle. In 1918, Mr. George Denny, who was for a number of years the consulting engineer for the Albu group visited South Africa and advantage was taken of his visit to get him to inspect the mine. He spent five months on the work with a staff and brought up a really exhaustive report, which I have here. He said the closing of the mine was brought about by the unfavourable working conditions, but these conditions would be obviated when the second shaft was sunk. He pointed out also that the management in their working had missed the best portion of the mine and, in fact, the mine was much better than previously anticipated. Some of the results of his assays were so rich that they compared more than favourably with our richest mines. He was asked to say whether the outlook of the mine warranted re-opening. In conversation with the Government mining engineer, Sir Robert Kotze told me that the essence of an engineer’s report was whether he advocated the expenditure of money. Judged on this basis, Mr. Denny’s report was emphatically in favour of re-opening. Mr. Denny reported—

Commenting on this report the chairman of directors told his shareholders—

That was nine years ago, and the debenture interest in the meantime has piled up to £247,000, and the mine has become considerably more difficult to re-open by reason of water and decay of timbers. Even since the mine closed down there has been agitation for its re-opening. In 1922 a deputation from the Boksburg Town Council waited on the Government, and as the result of that deputation the company was called upon to work its mine, but again the same old excuse was trotted out—

The legal position was investigated, and it was found there was some vagueness, and the Government went so far as to suggest an amendment of the law to cover that vagueness, but owing to various side issues that never passed the suggestion stage. However, the Government about that time appointed a commission to endeavour to bring about a scheme of amalgamation with the E.R.P.M., which was the adjoining mine. The commission was to investigate the matter and endeavour to arrive at an equitable arrangement between the two companies. The commission comprised the Government mining engineer and Messrs. Webber and Hudson, mine directors, the public being entirely unrepresented. As was to be expected, these gentlemen did not hurry the companies, but let them go their own sweet way. When the present Government came into power the commission was still in existence and the Minister no doubt, on the advice of his officials, has allowed it to continue up to the present time. The fact is that the two boards of directors are bargaining, each trying to do its best for its shareholders. You cannot blame them for that, but I certainly do blame the Government for allowing the mine to remain closed. Many of my constituents who, on account of the presence of the mine, invested their life’s savings in property in the vicinity have been ruined, and they have also been deprived of the employment which they had the right to expect if the Government had compelled the mine to fulfills legal obligations to work its claims. The mine has been closed down for thirteen years; and the town of Boksberg, which was a prosperous and happy community, is now a series of empty shops and houses, all brought about by the closing of the mine. Members who are not au fait with mining conditions may say that it is hard lines if because the shareholders cannot find the money required they should be dispossessed of their property. They should be told, however, that the small shareholders have long since abandoned any hope of return from the mine, that the promoters loaded the dice against them when they took 500,000 shares for nothing at the time of flotation, and the robbery was completed when the directors mortgaged the property to themselves and the Government allowed the mine to remain idle and £300,000 of interest to accumulate. The promoters, or the parent group, had the 500.000 shares to gamble with, and as the shares were for years quoted at about £3, those who know anything about market manipulations need not be told that even if the promoters now lost all their interests, including the debenture interest, they would have lost little, if anything, by the Cinderella. The position of the Cinderella involves an important question of public policy as to how far the Government is justified in interfering. All the opinions upon the mine quoted by me have been expressed by the mine’s own experts, and they all agree that a very valuable property is being held up. If that is the case it is in the interest of the State that the mine should be worked and it is the duty of the Government to see that that is done. A very important point emerges from this, that before a mine closes down the Government Mining Engineer, or some official appointed by him, should be set aside to inspect, such mine in order to give an impartial report. The long negotiations which have been carried on over the mine in question prove to my mind that this mine is valuable, if not as a unit, at any rate in amalgamation with the E.R.P.M. My advice to the Minister, if I may be allowed to give it, is that he should immediately cancel the commission which has been in existence for so long and deal direct with the company. I am quite satisfied from my conversation with the chairman of directors that he would be only too pleased to deal direct with the Government, and if the Government put up any money to assist, the company would give ample security. If that could not be done then I think the law ought to be brought in to compel working. If the law, as at present, cannot control the position, then I think it is certainly the duty of the Government to alter the law to enable this to be done. If the company is not prepared to work its ground then the area should be thrown open to the public and I am sure it would be taken up. It is a matter of indifference as far as employment is concerned whether the Government assists the company or takes the mine over, but in the public interest it should certainly be worked and that without delay. I ask the Minister to take a firm stand and no longer be put off with promises. I would like to leave the Cinderella and deal with the larger question of State mining. At the outset I would say that although the Cinderella has been a disappointment as a private enterprise mine, as a State mine it would have been eminently satisfactory, for if the money represented by the 500,000 shares taken by the promoters had been later available, the shortage of capital would not have occurred. The House continually hears of shortage of funds for various necessary purposes. In the House, yesterday, it was commented upon that the vote for public health was deplorably small, and members know the necessity for housing and old age pensions, but all these things have to stand aside because we have not the necessary capital. Yet, according to the testimony of our mining engineer, we have stretches of the East Rand belonging to the State, and containing immense treasures only waiting to be worked if a natural policy were evolved. I base my remarks on this head on the report of the Government mining engineer, and though I questioned the policy of that official, and his was of vision, I do not question his competence, nor apparently does the Minister, as he still retains him in his position. So when I quote the statement, it will, no doubt, be given a good deal of credence by the House. In a memorandum of 1916, Sir Robert Kotze, in speaking of the far East Rand said—

And in another part of his report he admitted that this was a conservative estimate. Accepting this as a very low estimate, and if you also take a low estimate of the basis of profits it will be found that the probable profits from those areas belonging to the State would be about £50,000,000, and work would be provided for thousands of Europeans, for forty years. This question of State mining is not a new question in the House. In 1917 there was a State mining commission, which presented majority and minority reports. The commission consisted of Mr. P. Ross Frames (chairman of De Beers), Mr. John Taylor (an Unionist politician), Mr. J. L. van Eyssen (a mine manager), Mr. T. J. Roos (the present Minister of Justice) and Mr. R. H. Miller. It is not surprising that the majority reported against State mining for the simple reason that they were looking after the interests of their employers. Their report showed bias, one of the reasons they gave for deciding that State mining was not in the interests of the country, beings—

The real reason, no doubt, why they reported in that way was, as I have said, that State mining was contrary to the interests of the employers. They therefore camouflaged their real reason, while the one given, I think, was a gratuitous reflection on the intelligence and honesty of the Government and Parliament. Our railways and postal department are bigger concerns than the running of a few mines, and as far as I am aware, no one has suggested that these are not being run on business principles. As a matter of fact we complain that in these departments the human touch is lacking. One witness before the commission said that the State could hire as good business and technical advice as anyone else, but added that the best men are not available for the State because the State will not pay attractive salaries. On the other hand, I find Sir William Hoy said that the railway staff is as good as any in the world, and the commission admitted that the Government officials who came before it were of a very high order. I think it will be agreed, therefore, that the reasons given by the commission in their opposition to State mining were very foolish indeed. But the majority of the witnesses admitted that there were times and circumstances when the State should indulge in State mining. The Government mining engineer said that if the companies agreed among themselves not to give the Government any more than the 10 per cent. now levied as profits tax, he thought that would be a very strong point in favour of the Government starting mining. Sir Evelyn Wallers, president of the Chamber of Mines, stated—

Sir W J. Dalrymple, also of the Chamber of Mines, said—

There were numerous witnesses in favour of State mining, but to prove my case I am simply quoting from those opposed to it. We know very well that for months or even years the Government has been inviting people to tender for the mining areas in the far East Rand, but the offers up to the present have been absolutely foolish. Meanwhile we have untold millions lying in the ground crying out for development and while people were crying out for employment not a thing was being done to commence the development so badly needed. I say the present is a very fine opportunity for the Government to make good, and I hope it will make use of it. It may be asked, why do the raining houses not tender? In my view they have everything to gain By delay. As the present mines are worked out you will find the public will clamour for State mines to be opened up at any price. The present mining houses are aware of that, and they say we will get these areas at our own price later on. But delay is not in the interests of the public. On the contrary it is a matter of urgency that these mines should be opened up at the first opportunity. The Government mining engineer has stated that in 1944 there will only be 11 of the present mines left working on the Witwatersrand, and it will be seen the position will be critical unless other mines are opened up. The most promising ground we have is the deep level ground, which will take about six years to reach production stage, and every year we lose now must be added to the six years later on. The mining houses are quite prepared to wait, for they are not so keen on actual mining as the chances of market manipulation, and the fact of the matter is that the public of South Africa to-day is rather wider awake than it was formerly and market manipulation is more difficult. For instance, the experience of the promoters of the Crown Mines cannot be repeated to-day. The original working capital of that mine was £50,000, which was not available to the public. The vendors, however, got 160,000 shares, and as in a few years the shares were quoted at £15, the promoters landed a paltry £2.400,000 for merely placing the shares on the market. The position of the companies was well summed up by the statement by the Labour party to the State Mines Commission: The statement showed that eight companies in the far East Rand area, with capitals aggregating £7.442.652 (a large proportion no doubt watered) at the time of the commission were standing in the market as valued at £30,591,877. The profit of 23 millions on these eight companies is very alluring. Need it cause any surprise that financiers strive by every possible means to possess themselves of all new and payable areas to the permanent loss of the people. More recent cases might be quoted. The Government areas and Brakpan Mines in which the State has an interest have made huge profits on working but more through premium and shares. At the present time the Government Area shares have increased in value from £1,400,000 to £10,000,000 and the Brakpan from £1,020,000 to £2,500,000. Numbers of other cases might be quoted to show it is the trafficking in shares which attracts the speculators. This trafficking, as I have said, becomes more difficult as our conditions become more settled, and that is the principal reason why we find capital produced by South African Mines being now invested in Mexico, Spain, and other places, as we know some of our leading companies have done. This is also a strong argument in favour of State mining. While according to the mining engineer we have on the one hand £450,000,000 worth of gold lying here, dormant capital from our mines which should be used to develop other mines is being spent in other countries because opportunities for speculation are greater in those countries. Other arguments in favour of State mines are that there is nowhere else in the world where the gold deposits are so rich and regular as on the Witwatersrand; there is no other country which through the great experience we have had has such good technical and mechanical workers; and another argument will be that State mines will enable the State to do its rightful part in developing the industry and allowing those dependent on that industry to lead happy lives and bring up their families in comfort and decency. Another point in favour of State mining which will probably appeal even to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was that raised by the Government Mining Engineer, who shows that a State enterprise might succeed even where private enterprise failed. The engineer in a printed statement said: “As has been pointed out, although a mine may not pay 20s. for every £ spent on it, it may still pay the State to work it, as the State has other enter-prizes and sources of revenue, such as railway rates and customs, which depend on the mines. So that out of every 20s. spent on mining a good few shillings return indirectly.” The financial commitment required for State mining is well within the power of this country. It will take six years to develop a mine and a million pounds per year will therefore develop six mines. Later on the profits from these could finance other mines. In every instance, to my knowledge, where mines have failed, it has been due to the capital being watered, or to some circumstance which does not give the mines a fair chance. I should prefer to see the State undertake the mining of the rich areas which it owns, but if the Government is too timid to embark on real State mining straight away I should advise it to retain the control, and offer the balance of the capital in shares to the public. In such an event I am confident the shares would be oversubscribed very considerably. I have no patience with those who say as an argument against State mining that we have not sufficient ability to employ good men. I can say this, however, if we have not sufficient intelligence to employ good staffs, then we have a very poor chance of coming out on the right side in bargaining with the shrewd men representing the Chamber of Mines. Regarding these mining leases. I am satisfied that State mining is not only practical but absolutely essential, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government will develop our mines for the good of South Africa. I hope other hon. members will also urge this course upon the Minister, for bearing in mind the immense wealth we have lying dormant, it is a scandalous thing that the country should be tied up as it is at present.

I should like to know to whom the bounty of £5,000 on superphosphates was paid, why it was paid, and the conditions of payment. I presume this vote means a bounty on the manufacture of superphosphates, and I do not see why this particular industry should be singled out for this high protection, for superphosphates are only a small part of the fertilizers manufactured in this country. I am told that although in 1922-23 there were 23 fertilizer factories in South Africa, only 17½ per cent. of their output was superphosphates. Some time ago an attempt was made to protect superphosphates by bringing in a freight dumping duty, and because the freight from Europe on superphosphates was only 12s. 6d. a ton, the Government imposed a freight dumping duty of 5s. a ton, the freight is now 17s. 6d. per ton and very soon the freight will be up to 22s. 6d. a ton, so that the manufacturers in South Africa will practically get a protection of 10s. a ton. It seems to me that this bounty has been paid quite unnecessarily. The manufacturers of superphosphates can manage very well without the bounty, and it is unfair to give one particular industry this assistance when it does not really require it. Nothing is shown in the estimates as having been paid out under this heading last year, but a sum of £4,000 was voted at the beginning of this session for this bounty, through the supplementary estimates.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether proper provision has now been made for, the road from Prieska to the diggings. Last year the divisional council had to provide for it, but it only had £1,000 at its disposal and that amount is altogether insufficient. The Minister promised to place such a sum on the estimates and I wrote to the hon. Minister to make provision to get money for the road, but I understand that proper provision has not been made as yet. I shall be glad to have some information about this from the hon. Minister. I notice under this head a vote “miscellaneous expenditure, £3,000,” and should like to know what that is intended for. Then on page 120 I notice £4,000 for grants for roads, drifts, etc., but I understand that £3,000 thereof is intended for the corundum mine. There therefore only remains £1,000. The position of our divisional council there is exceptional. The diggings are merely temporary and the roads to them are also merely temporary. The divisional council spends £1,089 on roads, and of that, £616 goes for the road to the diggings. The Government gets all the revenue from the diggings and it is very unjust and unfair that the divisional council of Prieska has to spend £616 annually for this purpose. It is argued that the provincial council should give a grant, but that is not fair either. The provincial council only takes control of proclaimed roads and the provincial council gets no revenue therefrom and has no money available therefor. The body that puts the revenue into its pocket should also maintain the roads. I notice that under the vote “labour” £300,000 is put down for unemployment. I should like to know from the Minister if it is not possible of that amount of £300,000 to make about £5,000 available for the construction of those roads. I must say that I feel hurt and indignant about the treatment of Prieska. The same is the case with divisions such as Hopetown and others. The divisional councils must pay for the maintenance of the road out of their own pockets. The present Minister is very sympathetic towards us, but that by itself does not assist us much. I hope that the hon. Minister will find a solution of this matter. Last year the divisional council spent the amount and got nothing from revenue, I hope that this year things will go differently. I hope that the hon. Minister will meet us.

On March 3 last the House unanimously passed the following resolution—

Have any steps been taken in connection with this matter? In the course of the debate on that motion the growing importance of the industry was emphasized. At present the production of fish amounts to nearly half-a-million, which it was pointed out could be doubled or trebled if a little more State sympathy were extended to it. Has an enquiry been made as to the suitable spots where better accommodation could be afforded to fishermen? The fishermen, especially on the Caledon coast, are very badly treated in regard to harbour accommodation. It was pointed out to the Minister that we have in the waters of the Union perhaps the most fertile fishing grounds in the world. At present there is a very fair amount of fish being exported from South Africa, but our exports of fish, both to Australia and South America, could be increased. Unless, however, our fishermen have better and safer shelters for their boats they cannot exploit the fishing grounds surrounding the coasts of the Union, for without harbours it is impossible for them to utilize bigger boats. The Agulhas Bank is a very fertile fishing spot, but it is only exploited by trawlers, and the inshore fishing is greatly hampered by the fact that there is no shelter for bigger boats, and the rowing boats from Hermanus cannot reach these grounds in one day. Unless steam fishing boats are used it will be impossible to reap the full benefit of this rich fishing ground, and the development of the industry is thereby handicapped. I think I pointed out in my speech on March 3 that if we spent £250,000 on the development of the fishing industry it would pay South Africa handsomely. This country, like other countries, has not displayed that interest in the fishing industry which its importance warrants. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to give the committee some information with regard to the unanimous desire of the House of Assembly expressed on the 3rd March.

I would like to say a word or two on the question of the mining areas in the Boksburg district, because it is a very important question. The whole question has been brought before the country and previous Governments many times. The Boksburg area depends entirely upon the mines being worked. The subject is brought to our notice whenever the white men are making a claim for wages or resisting reduction, and it is then stated that if they do not get the reductions it is going to affect the E.R.P.M., and this is being held up continually. It has been brought to the notice of the previous Government by a claim from that company for the Government to assist in their pumping operations in order to keep the mine dry. The Minister’s predecessor appointed a commission composed entirely of mining engineers, who went fully into the question of keeping the E.R.P.M. working. This commission issued a valuable report which was laid on the Table in May, 1921. In the course of this report they stated—

1. (1) That the Witwatersrand Deep, Limited, should lease the western section for a term of years, and should operate on a scale of 50,000 tons per month.
2. (2) That the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., operations should be mainly confined to the area represented by a consolidation of the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., eastern section, with the Cinderella Consolidated Gold Mines, Limited, and should operate on a basis of from 70,000 to 80,000 tons per month.
3. (3) That each of these two establishments should purchase its water from the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., main pumping station, at the rate of 1s. 6d. a thousand gallons (Rand Water Board rate), and that the cost of pumping, after being credited with these sales and any others which might be effected, should be borne between them pro rata to the milling tonnage. In examining this proposal your committee has not felt itself called upon to discuss the financial adjustments involved between the owners concerned as it conceived these to be a matter for the principals themselves. Your committee has confined itself to the question: Would such a reconstitution of the district hold out a reasonable probability of sufficiently profitable mining operations being carried on to keep the district alive and the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., unwatered for, at all events, a few years, which would keen open the opportunity for the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Ltd., to resume operations on a larger and more permanent scale.

That report was in the hands of the previous Government and has been in the hands of this Government ever since it came into office. The commission made the suggestion that the position was urgent in the interests of that long line of reef in the Boksburg area. The water position was so great that the mines would have been flooded out and other mines along the Reef would have been brought to a standstill. No steps, so far as I know, have been taken to bring about these amalgamations and adjustments on that reef. I ask the Minister if he has taken any steps, and if so, will he take the House into his confidence as to what he intends to do to carry out the recommendations of this commission composed of mining engineers who understand their business. I should also like to mention the matter of the leasehold townships of the Witwatersrand. Between Krugersdorp and Boksburg there are 104 leasehold townships, and many of the leases have been drawn up very loosely. When people were first attracted to the gold-fields the only thing they thought about was a place to put up their shanty to live in whilst working on the gold mines. Nobody at that time thought they were establishing a large modern city and flourishing townships, and the leases were, in some cases, loosely drawn up. Many improvements have been made on these leasehold stands. Several leaseholders, commencing business in a small way, built premises suitable to their then requirements, but with the general development of the districts and the consequent increase in business have found it necessary to erect more substantial buildings, in some cases very valuable buildings indeed. There are also many modern residential properties built on these stands. The position is that leaseholders, without any assistance from the owners of the freehold, have, by their industry and energy, increased the municipal valuation of the townships from nothing to approximately £35,000,000. In most of these leases there is no provision for the lessee benefitting by the improvements or getting any compensation for them. The result is going to be that when these leases expire these improvements will fall into the hands of the freeholder. All these years they have been paying rent, whilst they are bound into the remote future to, the free-holders, and some of them, have already, paid over 4,000 per cent. on what they paid originally for their stand. I understand a deputation waited on the Minister in connection with this, and I should like to know what the position is at present. The thing has become very urgent, and I should like the Minister to deal with it in his reply. (Time expired.)

I congratulate the Minister upon his assumed generosity in regard to the exhibits and the advertising of South African products at Kenya. An amount of £150 is shown for that purpose. It is not even sufficient for a decent poster and, generally speaking, in regard to advertising and exhibiting South African products, I think the Minister is erring in not giving a sufficient amount. We find that for London the amount is £500 and for the Continent £1,000. That is not sufficient. If we are going to establish markets for our products we must be in the position to pay a large sum for advertising. We must admit that America is about the greatest advertising country in the world and not a single penny has been allocated for advertising in that country. I hold, as a business man, if you want to make your business successful you must advertise and continue advertising. I believe I am not in order in asking that these votes be increased, but I would like the Minister next year to put aside a larger amount for advertising and exhibiting our products overseas and in Kenya.

I want to move—

In order to raise certain matters which come on his vote. Let me first say a word to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) who has used this vote to raise the slogan of State mining. I venture to predict to him that he will receive the same response in regard to State mining as did the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) on the question of a State Bank from the Minister of Finance. Many of the points he has raised in regard to mining and especially the very important point he mentioned about mines closing down prematurely were considered in the amending Gold Law Bill before this House for two or three years running and on which a Select Committee sat for some time. I am not inviting the Minister of Mines to introduce that Bill into the House this session, but I do ask the Minister to tell us what is to be the fate of that Bill, and whether he will revive it next year and whether the important omissions which exist in the present gold law and which are supplemented, in that Bill are going to be put right next year, Then there is the urgent question of the “stop orders,” Is he going to deal with those orders and see that fair and free trade is going to exist up and down the Reef? I want to support what the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) says on, the bounty for superphosphates. It is not the first discussion we have had on this subject. A vote to provide a bounty on superphosphates appeared on the Supplementary Estimates early this session and the Minister of Finance was then in charge of it. He was forced to admit that this bounty was being paid to one of the largest and wealthiest concerns in the world without any report having been obtained from the Board of Trade and Industries and without an Act of Parliament having been passed to sanction the payment of such bounty. We raised a very considerable discussion on that matter when it came on the supplementary estimates, but the plea of the Minister of Finance was like that of the lady in “Mr. Midshipman Easy”—

And on that plea and on the assurance that he gave this committee that the vote would not be repeated this current year and that it would not be on the estimates when they appeared for this year, the discussion was then allowed to drop. It subsequently transpired; however, that the Minister of Finance had been misinformed by his department and, so far from that being only a special vote for that year and so far from it being the case that the vote was not to be repeated on the estimates for this year, he was forced to get up the next day and correct that and state that the vote was on the estimates. It turned out that the Minister of Finance had made a mistake. He had been wrongly informed by his department, and the matter rested there, but we do not intend to let it rest there now that we see that this bounty is being perpetuated, and we see two grave errors of policy which the Government has committed in this connection. When the Government set up the present Board of Trade the first and foremost of its functions in the Act of 1924 was to enquire into and advise the Government on the payment of bounties or other forms of State aid to industries. In regard to the first, and, I believe, the only payment of bounty, which this Government has made since it came into office, it is ignoring the Board and its own Act and we want to know why the Government, having created a Board of Trade and Industries, whose functions are defined by an Act of Parliament passed last year, the foremost of those functions being to advise the Government on the giving of bounties, has ignored that Act and the Board of Trade and Industries. I venture to say that if the late Government had given to a powerful wealthy Corporation any form of assistance in the shape of a bounty and had done that by the process of ignoring its own constitutional advisers in such a matter, the welkin would have been made to ring with a tale of the iniquities of that capitalistic Government. Is it the case that the Minister of Mines and his colleagues feel themselves so free from any imputation of such a taint that they may safely ignore all the constitutional checks which the late Government brought into being? The late Government did endeavour to put between themselves and big finance and industry certain boards of advisers.

What about South West diamonds?

I do not see what that has got to do with this matter, but I do remember the great outcry which was raised by the other side in regard to a contract which was entered into in South West Africa and which it was said created a monopoly in cold storage. I have not heard that the present Government has done anything to remedy that, in spite of all that was said eighteen months or two years ago about the alleged monopoly that was being given. One of the first acts of this Government when it comes into power is to give a bounty to, as I say, one of the wealthiest corporations in the world and for years it was hammering away at us on the iniquity of our supposed association with big finance. It has ignored, it has ignored deliberately, the specific constitutional check which was set up to advise the Government and stand between the Government and these big interests and set up, moreover, for the purpose of advising this House, because the reports are laid on the Table of this House on the merits or demerits of any proposal. Then, I submit, it is wrong that a bounty of this sort should be created and perpetuated as it is now being perpetuated without a proper Act of Parliament being passed. When you give a bounty of this sort there should be a Bill brought before this House and we should have an opportunity of discussing it. It should not be put on the estimates in this way. When we gave a bounty to the iron and steel industry we did so by a Bill and, before that Bill was introduced, a specific report from the Board of Trade and Industries was laid on the Table of this House and hon. members had a full opportunity of going into the merits of that proposal. I hope the Minister will give us some sort of indication as to what were the steps which led to the creation of this particular bounty and what is the rate at which it is paid, and explain to us why the proper procedure in regard to the creation of that bounty has not been followed. The second point I wish to raise is on the item for the Board of Trade and Industries. I want to raise a very serious question as to the composition and personnel of that board. The board consists of Dr. Bruwer (Chairman), Dr. de Kock, Prof. Fremantle, and Mr. Fahey. In regard to Drs. Bruwer and de Kock, I understand that they are very distinguished graduates of South African and foreign universities and I do not wish anything I say to be taken as implying any disparaging reference to the attainments of either of those two gentlemen. I think South Africa has every right to be proud of any of her sons who go abroad and distinguish themselves at foreign universities and then come back here and give us the benefit of their services. I have not one word to say against the academic attainments of either of those two gentlemen, but my point is that you may read the four names of the gentlemen who constitute that board and you cannot find one of the four who has any commercial or industrial experience. You cannot find among those four names one single man who has, in his own person, taken any part, any leading part, in fact any part at all, in the commerce or industry of South Africa. Yet, sir, the function of this board is to advise the Government on commercial and industrial matters—a function the importance of which cannot be exaggerated. We have seen one of the fruits of their labour in the new customs tariff which we are going to discuss in detail in a few days time suggest it is most unwise, without wishing in any way to attack personally any of these four gentlemen, it is most unwise for the Government to constitute a board, which is to advise it on commercial and industrial matters, from two students of economics—and only theoretical students at that—one professor—

That is better than lawyers anyway.

My, hon. friend forgets that the Minister to whom I am appealing is a lawyer. To resume—one professor, and I do not know what the fourth member, Mr. Fahey is—

“A compositor or something of that sort.” Ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) about that; he sneered about it.

There was no sneer at all.

When the two hon. members have composed their differences, I will proceed. I do not know the history of Mr. Fahey, but I understand he was a mechanic of some kind.

Now be careful!

These are the four men who are to advise the Government, who are to frame and help frame a customs tariff for the protection of industry in this country, and for revenue purposes, and who generally come into contact with every commercial phase of our activities in South Africa. I challenge the Minister to show me that any one of these four has any knowledge of industry or commerce. If Mr. Fahey is a compositor, no doubt he is a very good compositor, perhaps even better than the future administrator of Natal, but however good he may be, does that give him the requisite knowledge of trade and industry in this country to entitle him to a seat on this board? I would not have objected if one of these four gentlemen had been a student of economics and the other three had been practical men, because it might have been said that it would be an advantage to have the practical knowledge of the three men in combination with the theoretical knowledge of the one, but to constitute a board of three professors and—may I say it, one mechanic—

A very practical man in affairs.

He may have been a practical man in political affairs, I do not know, but I want to know—perhaps the hon. member for Roodepoort (The Rev. Mr. Mullineux) can tell me—what he knows about the industrial life of South Africa.

How do you say the board should have been constituted?

I say almost entirely of business and industrial men. There would not have been the slightest difficulty in getting men so qualified to sit on the board.

This is not attacking the board?

Oh no!

No. The members on the cross benches can never listen to reason and tempered criticism without taking personal offence.

Reason from you?

I do suggest, having in view the extremely important duties this board has to perform, that the country had the right to expect, when the Government dismissed all the old board, except one, it would appoint in their place men in whom the country really could have confidence. This Dr. Bruwer—again I say I have no reason to make any personal attack on him—came before the select committee on Public Accounts and there gave evidence on the currency question with bankers and business men. That committee having heard his evidence and having compared it with that of the business men and the bankers, bad no hesitation in following the lead of the business men and bankers on that particular question, and not that of Dr. Bruwer, though it was perfectly obvious to us that he had taken a lot of trouble with his evidence and had studied a great deal, but the impression was that he had put in a lot of study at universities and other places on this question, but he was not a practical man of affairs, not a business man.

Was that the unanimous feeling of the entire committee?

I think so.

I have reason to doubt it.

I would not like to say it was the feeling of every single member, that would be going too far, but I think that was the general feeling of the committee, and it was reflected in the report the committee gave. It is a matter of regret that the Minister should have found it necessary to have put two students of economics on the board.

Do you suggest that we should not have appointed an old member of the board?

No. But I do say this, if you re-appointed Professor Fremantle, I have no objection to that, but he confesses he has no practical experience of business, he was a student. I say if you re-appointed him, then the other three ought to have been business or industrial men.

Lawyers, I suppose.

The hon. member, if he so objects to lawyers, should attack the Government. The other day the Government appointed as chairman of the fruitgrowers’ board, a Cape Town lawyer.

This has nothing to do with fruit growing.

It has nothing to do with lawyers either, and in any case this is really a private quarrel between my hon. friend in the corner there and myself, and not with the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood). I want now to deal with the question of the trade commissioner for Kenya, I visited Kenya some eighteen months ago, and came into contact with the gentleman occupying that position there, and I am satisfied, from my visit, that there does exist a wide field for the extension of South African exports to that country, and I am also satisfied that, in Colonel Turner, the Commissioner, the Minister has one of the best men he could get. He is a South African, settled in Kenya, and has a very high standing in that colony. I am also satisfied, from enquiries made in the Minister’s department, that he is doing excellent work.

Is he a commercial and industrial man?

Yes, he is both, and he is a good man.

Yes, I have met him, and he gives me a good impression.

There is something I wish the Minister to redress. I am told that Colonel Turner’s appointment is on a monthly or three monthly basis only. That is quite different from the appointments of all the other trade commissioners that appear in these estimates, and I suggest that it is hot fair to Colonel Turner, or his department, that this should continue. He has been functioning as trade commissioner for some years; but it is only recently that the office has been put on a proper basis as regards salary and staff, and it is not fair to a trade commissioner to put him simply on the basis of an ordinary temporary servant in our civil service. If he is too old to come under the ordinary civil service arrangement, he should be put on a three years’ agreement, and should know that the Union intends to maintain that office, and maintain him in that office, subject to good behaviour, for a fixed period. But there may be no continuity of the work there if the commissioner is simply a temporary servant who may be dismissed at one month’s or three months’ notice.

I would like to have some information from the Minister with regard to elevator regulations. Some months ago his department issued elevator regulations necessitating a daily inspection by a qualified mechanic. The commercial community snowed conclusively that that was quite an unnecessary regulation, and it was eventually modified, I believe, to a bi-weekly inspection. The daily regulation included Sundays. When the regulation was first issued, it meant that before you could use a passenger lift on Sunday morning, you had to get a qualified mechanic to say that it would not break down. I would suggest that there are few forms of travel safer than passenger lifts. There are millions of trips a year, and the accidents are few and far between, and I think it puts unnecessary and considerable expense on the public to have this constant inspection. It would be almost as reasonable to insist on a bi-weekly inspection of motor car brakes. There are many more accidents caused by defective motor cars than by defective elevators, and I think that the original arrangement, under which there were surprise visits by inspectors, was a more reasonable and a less costly arrangement, There is a very serious financial liability on any person who permits a lift to be used which is in a defective state, and that financial liability is quite enough to deter anyone from deliberately allowing a lift to be used in which the brakes and other parts of the machinery are not in perfect order. There is one other matter I would like to refer to, and that is in connection with these trade commissioners’ votes. I should like some information as to the prospects and work of the trade commissioner in America—£14,000. I notice that amount is almost as much as the cost of the trade commissioner in London, who has to deal with 80 per cent. of cur exports, and it seems to me that the trade commissioner in America will have to be a remarkably clever man to make his job pay. America is remarkable for preventing our exports entering their borders, and I should think that the best way to expend the £4,000 would be judiciously at Washington to have some of their regulations altered, because you will find in America that very severe duties have been put on, preventing our getting into their markets at all, and it seems to me that unless we have a chance of getting better terms from America than we have to-day, it is very unlikely that we shall get, any substantial advantage out of the £4.000 a year which we are going to pay.

What do you mean by judicious expenditure in Washington?

I am talking in an American sense.

Where is your international committee!

The present Minister claims to be a friend, of industry in this country, so I wish to put to him that there is one important industry that requires some protection but gets none. I would go further, and say that this industry is even suffering on account of dumping. The industry I refer to is the wire industry. Last session I asked the Minister whether he was going to give this industry some consideration, and I think the reply he gave was that it would injure the farmers if the wire industry had protection of any kind. Now there is no doubt that dumping is taking place. Wire netting sells in this country at 21s. 9d., but it costs 28s. 6d. in England. That is a clear case of dumping. I understood from the Minister that in every case of dumping the local industry Would be protected. Well, here is a local industry which deserves protection. There is a large capital invested in it and it employs a large number of men, and in every way it is of great benefit to the country. It may be claimed that if a duty is placed on wire the farmers will suffer, but the farmers here use mainly fencing wire, and it could very easily be arranged that there be no protection on that particular wire. Give the industry an opportunity and it will make great headway. We make a grant of £1,200 to the Imperial Institute. I have no objection to that, but in stead of sending plants to the Imperial Institute to have their medicinal properties investigated why cannot the Government establish a proper branch in South Africa for this very important work? I notice that the Assize Branch is costing quite a large sum. I do not know whether the Minister has noticed in the press criticisms of the railway scales. According to these criticisms there is hardly a single railway scale which is in proper order.

Surely that cannot be true?

In what direction are they out of order?

All against the public. The newspaper reports have not been contradicted.

Non-contradiction of newspaper talk is no test.

The Minister must not be supercilious.

I am not supercilious at all.

I next wish to support the request made by the hon. member for Caledon (My. Krige) for better facilities for our fishermen. The Central Government should take control of the whole of the fisheries, instead of, leaving it to the provincial councils. I am a member of the local fishery board, and we have had one meeting in about three years. When we attended the last meeting we found that our previous resolutions had been overridden. I cannot see the value of a board like that. There is a very important matter which the Minister should Consider and that is the wholesale capture of whales. I am informed that at the rate they are now being caught there will, in a very short time, be no whales left in South African waters. The Government should endeavour, in connection with the British and Norwegian Governments, to have a thorough investigation made into the method of whale-catching here and further south, and arrange that as far as we are concerned the whaling industry be controlled in a very much better way than it is at present.

There is just one matter that I want enlightenment on. As the House knows, there is a large undertaking in Pretoria in connection with the manufacture of steel. A few years ago an enquiry was instituted to see whether the ore was good enough for smelting furnaces. We do not know what the report of the expert was, and I should like the Minister to give us some information. We all admit that it may lead to great development, and it would be a pity if the Government did not do everything possible to bring about the manipulation of the ore. The House will appreciate any information about the matter.

The leaseholders on the Witwatersrand have approached the owners of the ground they occupy with the object of getting their leases converted into freehold. In 1908 the Transvaal Parliament passed an Act enabling the holders of leases of Government stands to obtain the freehold on reasonable terms. The other leaseholders have tried from time to time to get reasonable terms, but they have failed. I will suggest that the Government should hold a departmental enquiry into this matter and also call a meeting of representatives of the owners, the leaseholders, and the Government to see whether reasonable terms cannot be arrived at and, if they cannot, legislation should be introduced to end this unsatisfactory state of affairs. Some time ago a meeting was held at Johannesburg of these leaseholders and at that meeting the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) pointed out that the question had an important public aspect, for it was clear that whatever advantage the leasehold system had in the early days that position had now changed, and the present position enabled the freehold owners to obtain a share in the increased value of the land. That is the position to-day and the position is urgent and the Government should take some steps to deal with it. I would also like to mention the question of the oil shale deposits of the Eastern Transvaal. During the short session of Parliament last year an hon. member moved something about this, but the motion was not pressed because the Minister promised that the Board of Trade would enquire into it. I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to whether that enquiry has been made or is going to be made into this matter. Several small companies desired to get going but there were many difficulties in the way. They have asked the Government to assist them but the Government has never had sufficient information at their disposal. I ask the Minister to have an enquiry into the position this year, if that has not already been done.

I would like to ask the Minister whether his attention has been directed to a valuable report made by the Government Mining Engineer, Mr. W. A. Caldecott, Mr. T. G. Trevor and Mr. A. L. Hall, Assistant Director of the Geological Survey in regard to the means of stimulating the development of the mineral sources of the Union. It deals with the exploitation of mineral resources and the obstacles in the way of that exploitation together with suggestions for the most practical way of removing those obstacles. It seems to have been a very competent committee and it has produced an interesting report and I think it is useful, if for no other reason, than that it directs attention to a very important industry. It makes valuable suggestions as to the general policy which should be followed by the Government with a view to the encouragement of mining enterprise. I do not look upon it so much from the point of view of existing mines, because the best assistance the Government can give the present mines is to leave them alone. This report makes valuable suggestions with regard to the development of new minerals. The amount of the estimate is £4,000 to be used for the construction and maintenance of roads, purchase and hire of plant, and so on. The comment of the committee on that is—

It shows that nothing is being done actively to assist mining discoveries or the development of new minerals such as that referred to by the hon. member who has just spoken. That particular enterprise, oil shale, is referred to in the report. There is no doubt something might be done if the attention of the Minister were directed to giving effect to some of the recommendations in this report and generally to secure a more sympathetic attitude towards things of this kind. It might be said that you would get a considerable amount of speculators and money would become available for the exportation of minerals in the same respect as it is for platinum to-day. But there are many other things which do not offer such good prospects, but which would be worth encouragement. If something could be done to let people see that if they discover something and take steps to work it, they are sure of sympathetic treatment from Parliament. That is something gained and something that will add to the wealth of the country. I hope the Minister has given attention to this report and that he will be able to tell us that sympathetic consideration will be given to the recommendations of the committee. There is just one other matter and that is I should like to supplement what was said by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) with regard to the fisheries. We discussed the matter some time ago fully and it is not necessary to go into it again, but I hope the Minister has taken the subject into consideration and has realized the opportunity that does exist for the encouragement of what may be an extremely valuable industry along the coast in this part of the world.

I should like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the position in Namaqualand. There are many unemployed at present. I know it is not his department but there are many mining licences there and the mines are not being worked. There is one company that I think has 17. Another has seven or eight and another three or four. If the mines were worked unemployment would be decreased. There is a provision in their contracts that if work is not commenced within three months from the issue of the licence the Government can intervene. The mines contain good copper but they are kept shut down simply for speculative purposes. On the one hand we have a group of mines that do not work, on the other we have a large number of unemployed. I hope that the hon. Minister will give his attention to this.

I would like to know from the Minister when he replies what is being done in regard to leasing some of the mining areas in the far East Rand. We have had some papers laid on the Table in regard to one particular tender for the lease of an area there, but I understand there have been other tenders, and I understand also, though I do not know whether it is correct, that in the case of the other tenders, at any rate, they were rejected, but that no reason was given by the Government as to why they rejected these tenders and that makes it very difficult for would-be tenderers to know on what lines to offer. I would suggest to the Minister that it is to the interests of the Government to encourage people to come forward and submit tenders for these areas, unless you are going to work them yourselves, of which I see no sign at present. It is very difficult for people to send in a tender on the complicated lines on which these things have to be drawn and then simply to be told—

without any indication as to why it was refused, or as to the points on which the offer might be amended. Then the other point I wanted to mention was simply to support what was said by the hon. member for Germiston in regard to these leasehold townships. I think the Minister should accept his suggestion and appoint a small departmental committee to enquire what the position is in regard to these townships and whether anything can be done to relieve the position which exists in some of them, at any rate those where the leases are on the point of expiring in a year or two, and many of these people will either have to renew their leases on the companies’ terms or abandon them and in some cases, at any rate, suffer considerable loss.

I will endeavour to deal with the questions in their order. In regard to a trades commissioner for America, so far from the amount being excessive, I think it is utterly inadequate.

But it isn’t necessary. That is my point—waste of money.

Evidently the hon. member differs from the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski). He conceived that it is necessary. The idea is to make a trial, in spite of the alleged excluding and exclusive policy of the States There are such things that we can export as fluor spar, asbestos, copper, nickel, wattle bark and so on. The commissioner will be there to open up opportunities for trade. Surely those things fall under the category of trade. So that if this undertaking is to be a success at all, the amount will prove utterly inadequate later on. Next year I hope the circumstances will have necessitated a material increase in the vote. The appointment has not yet been made, so, of course, I cannot give the hon. member any information as to the result of the experiment. Then with regard to Kenya there is a big market growing up there with wines, biscuits and numerous other articles, details of which will be published. Kenya took a large amount of goods from us during the war, but we lost that market, unfortunately, and now we are doing our best to recover it. I now come to the question by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). With regard to the beads of departments being unsympathetic I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Government will not be influenced by that state of affairs if there is really ground for thinking it exists. I must say that my personal experience is that the officials under me are quite willing to give effect to the policy of the Government. Willing or unwilling, there is no doubt that effect will be given, but so far I have nothing to complain about. As to the Cinderella Mine negotiations, unfortunately, have been protracted, apparently, unreasonably. As I explained last year, they are negotiations which cannot readily be divulged, and they are necessarily of a delicate nature. It is a question of give and take, and, although the mining industry is often held up as an example, I find that they are hard nuts to crack, when it comes to putting one company against another; but I have the best expectations of success in the immediate future. The committee was appointed and I should be very sorry to dissolve that committee, to cancel it as was suggested, to-day or even the next six weeks or two months, because I have information—which, unfortunately, I cannot divulge at this stage—which leads we to believe that the efforts of this committee may prove successful and successful very soon. Now, if success is attained, then it will mean that there will be amalgamation between the Cinderella and the E.R.P.M., that the Cinderella may be absorbed by the E.R.P.M. and that will ensure, as is obvious, the prolongation of life of the E.R.P.M. for a long period, and it will mean a very special fillip to Boksburg and, naturally, to all the localities in the immediate neighbourhood. Why should we run the risk of forcing the pace and getting these negotiations broken? I would ask the hon. member, who certainly has been very patient, because I can quite understand the dire straits in which these communities are placed, to exercise a little more patience, and I feel sure he will not be disappointed. As regards State mining in general, I want to point out what is an undeniable fact, that £1,400,000 were sunk in the Cinderella, and it is hard for me to be convinced that that mine was closed deliberately, for instance, or that it was just a deliberate attempt to hold up the development of the property. Unfortunately, calculations “gang agley,” even in these matters, as has often proved the case, just as in ordinary business matters. We calculate for a certain proposition a certain sum, and it proves to be quite inadequate. With regard to tightening up the law to compel a mine that has closed down to re-open, I want to point out that Section 127 of the existing gold law is utterly inadequate, and it was my intention to introduce a Bill this session—in fact the Bill has already been drawn—amending Section 127 so as to give the Government the power to act, and act very promptly. If you look at that section as it stands, it means that you are held up, even if you want to act, for ten to twelve months. The machinery is so cumbersome and the periods of time indicated are so long that you are held up for a long period of time. Then, if there is a mortgage over the property, the State gets nothing, because the property is forced on the market and is likely to be sold for considerably less than it is worth, and the mortgagee, having preference, goes away with the proceeds. And then you have only got another successor who buys the property for a mere pittance and then you have the same difficulty over again very likely with that purchaser. However, we have a very definite policy as to tightening up the provisions as to dealing with properties that are not properly developed, and I hope even during the session, even if there is no chance of passing it, to introduce a Bill which will acquaint the House this session with the measures the Government contemplates taking.

What about the undeveloped areas in the far East Rand?

I will deal with that when I come to the question of the tenders for the East Rand. With regard to the figure that the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) quoted from the report of the Government Mining Engineer of 1916, when he calculated that the value of these areas was four hundred and fifty million pounds; to a great extent that was, I won’t say guess work; but in the nature of a guess. It could not be a reliable figure, and experience has shown that the areas east of Geduld are of more doubtful value than was thought at the time. Then I come to the questions put by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) about super-phosphates. I must admit that personally I am little acquainted with that question, because it has been dealt with hitherto by the Minister of Finance, but I will make a note of these questions and take the first opportunity, either myself, or through the Minister of Finance, to answer them. The same applies to the questions put to me about dumping. They are matters that have been dealt with, in practice, hitherto by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

*A question has been asked by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) with reference to the mining road from Prieska to Brakfontein. The provision on the estimates is ridiculous. I said this last year and also in private conversation with the hon. member. We hope to get £8,000 from the Department of Labour to devote to mining roads. It is, of course, not all for that road. We are busy dividing up this amount and allocating it. I hope that this grievance will soon be put right.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) raised the question of fisheries, but I dealt with it so fully the other day when the resolution was before the House, that I do not think it necessary for me to repeat what I then said. I have taken steps to appoint a Committee, and I am keeping in touch with the people directly concerned; this Committee will make practical suggestions and I will endeavour to meet the situation as far as possible. I cannot make any definite promise at this stage, except that I will enquire into the matter. There are difficulties in the way, but I will give the matter my best consideration. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) referred to the Cinderella matter and the report of the Commission of 1917. I have already explained the position in regard to the Cinderella and the E.R.P.M. Some time ago representatives of the Wit Deep and the E.R.P.M. appeared at my office at Pretoria, and I pointed out to them that they could settle their dispute amongst themselves. I have not heard from them since, and I assume that they have settled their differences. I come now to this question of the East Rand areas. We have received tenders. I cannot find any precedent during the whole of the existence of the Leases Board where we have assigned reasons for refusing a tender. The Government has been considering the question but our time has not admitted of our going fully and finally into the whole matter, but we hope during the early portion of the next recess to go into the matter fully and to settle finally what our policy will be. Tenders have come in for instance from the Union Corporation and from another party. These tenders, have up to now been turned down. I do not think it would be wise to indicate particularly to these parties why their tenders are refused, for the misfortune is that if you indicated the ground for your refusal you might be misleading them and inducing them to think that if slight alterations were made their tenders would be accepted. Up to now it has been a question of policy with the Government, and that policy has not yet been determined. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) the votes for the trades commissioners are admittedly experimental, and as for the votes for advertising our wares and products, they will be adjusted as these matters develop. We won’t be parsimonious about spending money where advertising will prove of value, but at present the amount of the votes are in the experimental stage, and it is impossible to determine even the approximate amount that ought to be spent. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) raised the question of elevators. I understand this matter was settled a year ago, and we have not had further complaints. If the hon. member will bring these specific cases to my notice I will see what I can do in the matter. The question of the wire industry was raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). The protection by way of suspended duty is about 15 per cent. in the new tariff, and the only thing ‘accepted is jackal wire. Under the Dumping Act all dumping will be automatically stopped if it injures South African industry. A new dumping Bill has been prepared, and will be introduced this session or next. With regard to the observations of the same hon. member re the excise department, the expenditure is covered by the receipts. The excise department is doing all it can to check the railway scales. I don’t mean that as any reflection on the railway scales. Then in regard to the observations of my hon. friend about the Imperial Institute, I quite share his view that we ought to have the research made here if we can do it. We have a research grant board here at present, which is doing its utmost to co-ordinate all scientific research in South Africa, and to utilize our universities and Other institutions, but we have not reached that stage yet when we can be entirely independent and rely upon our own powers. But I must remind the hon. member that this vote to the Imperial Institute is an example set by our predecessors.

I was very careful to say that I did not object to it.

In regard to the whaling industry, the fisheries committee made recommendations which have been passed on to all Governments of the African coast line, the object of which is to protect the industry, and satisfactory replies have been received. The Fishery Survey Committee now has these proposals in hand and is to keep in touch with the observations and reports of the British expedition of enquiry referred to by the hon. member. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) raised the question of oil shales. A committee has reported and the report was published in the “Journal of Industries” last month. This was a technical committee and the report is directed to the technical aspects, which present difficulties, for example in treating and refining, which are often overlooked. Last year the matter was brought forward by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and I said I would again have it enquired into. I can tell the hon. member for Germiston that our technical advice is that the supplies, so far as they can be calculated, are inadequate, too inadequate to justify the State in actually granting active help. It seems to me that private reports differ from the technical advice which our department gives us and I will endeavour to investigate how this difference of opinion is to be accounted for. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised the question of the personnel of the Board of Trades and Industries. I indicated when the Bill, which is now an Act, was before the House last year the probable difficulty of being able to get commercial and industrial men who would take a position like that. The previous Government was in the same quandary. Sir Howard Gorges, an ordinary—well, not an ordinary, but a highly placed civil servant—was the Chairman of that Board. Perhaps that was not the most desirable thing, but the Government found difficulty in appointing somebody else. If a man is a successful commercial and industrial man, he can command a much higher salary than we can as yet afford to pay members of the Board of Trade and Industries, and we hope that the Board will prove such a success that the membership will be made more attractive.

Then you will turn out the men who have made it a success?

No, of course not. How can you? I merely want to point out to-day that you cannot get successful commercial and industrial men to take up positions of this nature, but I also adumbrated last year the possible feeling that it was undesirable to appoint as members of such a board men who were prominently identified with commerce or industry or certain commercial or industrial interests. Obviously, if a man is a very competent commercial or industrial man, he is either so actively, or he is a retired man. If he is a retired man, you won’t get him to devote the time and put in all the labour that these members of the board are doing to-day. He Won’t be available. If he is actively carrying on his own business, he would be still less available. Well, I did the next best thing, assuming for a moment that the hon. member (Mr. Backwell) is right. I appointed men who had studied economics, finance and commerce, you may say academically and theoretically; I appointed one of the old members of the previous board, and I appointed Mr. Fahey, a member of the Provincial Executive Committee in Natal, and I am very glad I have appointed him, because he is proving a most efficient member of that board. I think the hon. member will live within the next few years to himself approve of it.

I only want to know his qualifications.

His qualifications are that he is an able, far-sighted man, a practical man and a man who is intimately acquainted with the working conditions of the labour classes in this country, who are closely identified with industries, at all events, if not with commerce. I can only say that we have reason to be more than satisfied with the personnel of the board, and with the work they have done up to now. They have worked like slaves, like mules, and they have done very valuable service indeed. I would remind the hon. member that he himself when he started his career was callous and inexperienced, and he would consider it very unreasonable on my part to suggest that he should never have been entrusted with any work. Well, we have three young men, at any rate, on the board, and the professor is not so old, and we expect much of them, and I am certain we are not going to be disappointed. If the past work is a guarantee of the future work, I can give the hon. member and this House the assurance that the appointment was fully and amply justified. Then the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) has raised the question of freehold and the conversion of leasehold titles. Well, I am very sympathetic towards that grievance, but I found when that deputation approached me—the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) was a member—that it was a matter that pertained to the provincial council, and I wrote to the attorney of the deputation, Mr. Cohen, of Johannesburg, at the time, but I have not heard from him again Therefore he has evidently taken counsel’s opinion and has come to the conclusion that my view of the matter was correct. If I am again approached, and I am satisfied it is a matter belonging to the central Government, then I have no objection to taking steps to institute a departmental enquiry into the matter, but I think I am right in saying that it is a matter that belongs to the provincial authorities. With regard to the revision of the gold law, and the stop order system, I have to state that I intended bringing up these Bills during this session, but hon. members can see for themselves that there is not the remotest chance of doing so, and I hope to deal with these matters next year. As regards the stop order system, I am of opinion that the mines should not be interested in trading in any direction, either directly or indirectly; and although I do not see any chance of such a Bill going through this” year I am probably introducing within the next few weeks a short Bill dealing with that matter alone. With regard to the observation of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that bounties should be authorized only by Parliament, he made that in connection with the question of superphosphates. I have already stated that that is a question that has always been dealt with by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.

What is your answer?

I indicated that I personally was little acquainted with the details of these matters and that I should either myself obtain the information or deal with the matter through the hon. the Minister of Finance on a suitable occasion, during this session, when he returns.

But we are asked to pass the vote.

I have already explained that although the vote is formerly under my vote, this is a matter that has always been dealt with by the Minister of Finance.

But how can we pass the Vote without the information?

I think the question has already been raised several times during the session.

We were given the assurance that it would not go on these Estimates; that is why the discussion then terminated.

Yes.

*The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has mentioned the question of the iron works at Pretoria and asked me what the experts reported. The position is that we have received no reports from the experts. The information is not even complete. The hon. member has not made it clear what report he means. I take it that he is referring to the report of the so-called German commission which were there last year. All that I have is a sort of summarized publication, a copy, and I think that the time has not yet come to say what is contained therein. It would not under the circumstances be fair and reasonable I think to say now what they report. The report was I think given to the Delfos Iron and Steel Company and the summarized edition given to me was given on behalf of the company for the information of the Government but the report was not made to us. If I were now to divulge the contents of the summarized report then I should, perhaps, be publishing something that upon the face of it is unreasonable and incomplete.

The hon. member for Peninsula (South) (Sir Drummond Chaplin) referred to the report of the special committee on the development of the mineral resources of the Union. Well, the hon. member will see that that report is dated towards the end of January this year. This session commenced about the middle of February, and he can judge for himself that it has been utterly impossible for the Government to consider an important and comprehensive report like that. It undoubtedly shows great industry and diligence on the part of the committee to investigate this question in all its phases, but, in the nature of the case, the Government has had no opportunity to consider this report,. It will undoubtedly receive the consideration it deserves from the Government during the recess.

*The hon. member for Namaqualand Mr. Mostert) has asked me about unemployment in Namaqualand. That is a matter which concerns the Minister of Labour. With reference to the mining licences I can say that we are in communication with the mining companies and we shall see that the law is carried out.

I think I have dealt with all the important points raised, and I hope hon. members will now pass the Vote.

There is one statement which the Minister has made, which will give great satisfaction to the taxpayer. It certainly gave a great deal of pleasure to me, although it meant the sacrifice of another of the promises made by the Pact during the general election. The Present Minister of Labour, and I think the Minister of Justice also, advocated the nationalization of the mines. I am very glad, however, to see that the Minister of Mines and Industries has thrown that overboard, and quite rightly too. I hope the Labour members will take note of that. There is no doubt that it would be an evil day for this country if we went in for State mining, for we should lose money. In the first place you have to invest an enormous amount of money before you see a single sixpence back. I understand that the people who opened up one of the mines leased from the State spent £800,000 before they obtained a penny back. What Government dare do that? Even with this vast expenditure it was at the lime problematical whether the people who spent the £800,000 would get a return. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) says you can get able managers, but their hands would be tied by this Parliament, which would continually interfere, and then it would be another story altogether. Suppose a miner happened to be discharged for some reason, a question would be put in the House from the Labour benches as to the reason of his dismissal. In the same way the hands of the railway administration are very much tied. We have on the railways a privileged class of men who are favoured over any other class as the result of interference by this House. Again, if the State went in for gold mining there would be continuous agitations for the raising of the miners’ wages, or possibly the allowance for miners’ phthisis, for the men would not be satisfied. I have not the slightest doubt that the manager of a State-owned mine, however able he might be, would resign before very long, as a result of this continual interference. The soundest position is the one introduced, I understand, by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) under which the Government takes a share of the profits.

How much would we get if we worked the mines alone?

We would be making no profits. We would be losing money. See what the Government has got for its share of the gold mining profits. From 1915-’16 to 1923-’24 the Government Mining Areas made a total profit for the Government of £4,855,000. Is that not food enough for the Government to get without incurring the slightest risk?

What risk did the company take?

They took all the risk. Then the Brakpan Company has paid to the Government £218,000 and the Springs Mine £200,000. Is it not better for the State to have its share of the profits without taking a sixpenny worth of risk? I congratulate the Minister that he has thus thrown that part of the Pact programme overboard. I want to support what was said about the members of the Board of trade. It would have strengthened the Board to have had one or two business men on it, and the late Government managed to find one.

Who was it the late Government found.

Mr. Marshall.

He was a part time member.

Yes, and if you had a man of business experience on the Board you would have avoided many mistakes.

The Act, I think, is against part-time members.

I see amongst the things they want to do is to control prices. I would like to see the angels of heaven try to control prices, it cannot be done. I move—

I do it for the reason that it is absolutely unnecessary, and is a waste of public money. When it was put on, dumping duties were in force, or were about to be put in force, and at that time the freight rate was 12s. 6d. and it was given to please the farmers in Caledon and the Malmesbury districts. The rate now is 17s. 6d. and on the 30th of this month it will be 22s. 6d., which will be 10s. more than it was when this amount was first given. This amount is paid to one of the biggest companies in South Africa. How my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, agreed to this, I cannot understand. He has always had his knife in big companies.

It shows how I love combines.

Yes, I suppose so, when you express your real sentiments. I believe there are 23 other manufacturing concerns, manufacturing fertilizers. I don’t say they all manufacture superphosphates, but why should they not get some share in this. There is no necessity for it and I think I am justified in moving its deletion.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House resume in Committee on Monday.