I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I think the second reading stage of this Bill should be put off a little longer. It is an important Bill and we really do not know at present what is contained in it. The second reading stage should be deferred until this day week at least.

Second reading on 4th May.

Before the debate is resumed I wish to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) and the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) as to whether this Rill should not be treated as a hybrid Bill. It is not always easy to determine whether a measure should be treated as a hybrid Bill or not, and our Standing Orders afford very little guidance. In the ruling given on the Government. Attorney Bill in 1924 I pointed this out and stated that—

There are hardly any measures introduced as public Bills which do not affect private rights, and I think that generally it may be said that where the nature and objects of a Bill are of a public character and its provisions are applicable generally and not merely to particular individuals, groups of individuals, or localities it must be proceeded with as a public Bill even if it impinges on private rights. In this case I think that it is clear that the Bill must be dealt with as a public measure.

The Minister is to be congratulated on this Bill and I think the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) who stated that he was speaking for the South African party showed a broader spirit than many others on his side in congratulating the Minister on the Bill. The Minister has dealt with a most complicated matter in a most lucid and courageous manner. He has shown that he is not concerned with the interests of one section or another section, but with broad principles, and he has shown that he is not guided by the question of popularity. He is to be congratulated upon having dealt with this matter from the point of view of what is right and not from that of popularity. He has consolidated very many Acts which have been on the statute books of the various provinces and he has at last given us a consolidating measure dealing with a matter of the utmost necessity. If a consolidating measure does not as far as possible unify the position in the various provinces there is not much value in it and you cannot have a consolidation without the effect of creating certain difficulties for certain individuals. The Bill also deals with the question of securing the right to the State of its share in these precious stones. In the days of President Kruger and before Kruger it was laid down that precious stones did belong to the State. The province of Natal laid it down in their legislation, and Lord Milner laid down the same principle in the Orange River Colony, and what the Minister is doing is to provide that what rights the State have shall be secured as far as possible. The only question to consider is whether the State is not giving away more than it should to private interests in connection with this matter. The Bill definitely deals with the small man. What the Minister and the Government have in mind is that so far as the diggings are concerned they shall be the preserve of the small man who cannot find employment on the land or in industry or in other directions but who has the chance on these diggings of employment. The Bill shows that is definitely the intention. With the exception of the owner, who is entitled to prospect without a digger’s licence anyone else who wants to prospect must have a digger’s licence. The digger must work, and if he does not get a digger’s licence he does not get the opportunity of working and prospecting. It seems to me reasonable that the principle should be laid down that only the person who is actually doing the work, or going to do the work, should have the right, and not someone who may be sitting in Cape Town, Johannesburg or Timbuctoo. The third very important principle in the Bill is the control of the output of diamonds in South Africa. I know that amongst many people there has been a feeling with regard to this policy that it may have the effect of helping the big man as against the small man, and I must say I share that feeling; but I think everyone in this House will recognize that unless the diamond industry in South Africa is to be maintained in such a position as to secure the fullest value to the State, there must be this right of controlling the output, otherwise, as has been shown by the Government Mining Engineer, by the Minister and by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), there is a danger that the value of these diamonds will fall to such an extent that it will involve the diamond industry, the alluvial diggers and the State in tremendous loss. After all, diamonds are not like any other commodity. I disagree with the hon. member for Kimberley when he talks of the intrinsic value of diamonds. I do recognize their intrinsic value when used for industrial purposes, but these form only a small proportion of the diamonds produced in South. Africa. The bulk are large-purchased by people who like to buy them for their womenfolk, and the principal market is in America. That being the case, and people to-day, not unlike savages in that respect, liking to bedeck themselves with all sorts of things, the value of diamonds are not intrinsic but depends on whether there is a scarcity value or not. If we produce more diamonds than the market is able to consume it will mean a drop in the prices and a loss to South Africa. Even though it might benefit the big diamond interests, it is necessary, in the interests of the State, to control the output. Firstly, this is to be done by the Minister deciding whether to call a conference to consider the question of the output—and I hope that at such a conference the Minister will protect the interests of the diggers—and secondly, it is done by allowing only the alluvial diggers to do the work at the alluvial diggings, and then there is the stopping of the undue subdivision of farms. I agree it is necessary and right that these steps should be taken, and I believe by doing that you will be able to keep up the prices and to secure more than we have been able to do during the last year or two, and to have money coming into South Africa to develop its assets. I do regret it, and I may be mistaken in that but perhaps the provisions laid down in the Diamond Control Act of 1925 have not been carried into effect as fully as they might have been, and it is probable that had they been carried out to the fullest extent, the Minister would not have had to legislate as he has to do to-day to control the output. He could have had a provision that the alluvial diggers should come under the provisions of the Diamond Control Act. The Minister was perfectly justified in what he said about the South African party. That party did not object to the Diamond Control Bill, their chief objection was that the control did not go far enough. They said—

Now, in the present provisions before the House this is being done. I believe that if the Act of 1925 had been carried into effect to the fullest extent the probabilities are we would have been able to make South Africa the selling place for diamonds, and I think there might thus have been created facilities and the possibility of establishing what I think should be established in South Africa—our own diamond-cutting industry. I do not object to the principle of this control of the output; but I put to the Minister that if you look at the figures in connection with the diamond industry, it will be found from the Government Mining Engineer’s report for 1925, that as far as the diamond mines are concerned, they employed 2,600 Europeans and 13,676 natives and coloured, or about one European for every 5 natives and others, but as far as the alluvial diggings are concerned, 6,299 Europeans were employed and 22,856 natives and others, or the proportion was one European to 3.6 natives and others. I do make the suggestion that the Minister might make representations, and I hope strong representations, to the industry that in consideration of the protection it is now getting under this Bill, whereby by the limitation of the output they will be enabled to keep up the prices, the industry might do something to provide that, instead of employing one European to five natives and coloured people they should make it one to one—alter the ratio to that—and thus give an opportunity to thousands of white people to be working in the industry without harm to the industry, because after all, they get the money for the diamonds from America. The Minister is to be congratulated on having dealt, in this Bill, in a very clear manner with these important principles; firstly, consolidation; secondly, the rights of the small man, and thirdly, the control of the output. The Minister is to be congratulated on the fact that in a Bill consisting of 117 clauses the Opposition has found only two or three clauses which it has been able to criticize. The principal speaker on behalf of the Opposition has shown that in the main the Bill should be accepted and he has not strenuously criticized any of the clauses. Let me take the objections that have been raised against this measure. The first objection is to clause 20. which deals with the subdivision of farms. Whether these subdivisions were legal or not, the intention of those responsible for them was to secure a greater share of the diamonds at the expense of the alluvial diggers. They knew for some time that the Government’s desire was that diamondiferous farms should not be subdivided. We have had retrospective legislation before—even the Bill quoted by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) was retrospective in its provisions—so that the principle has been accepted by Parliament, and it does not matter whether the retrospective effect of the legislation goes back a few days, weeks or months. You either repudiate the principle of retrospectively entirely or accent the position as laid down in the Bill. In 1919 the S.A.P. Government in its Customs Tariff Act made the duty on spirits retrospective for a number of months and this applied not only to spirits in bond but in open stocks. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) objected very strenuously to that proposal, but the South African party Government passed the Bill. Again, we have the case of the Wine and Spirits Control Act of 1924 which was retrospective. That principle was again accepted by the S.A. party. It is wrong and unreasonable, therefore, for that party to take up the attitude they are doing unless their object is simply to create prejudice against the Government. Then objections have been raised to clause 73 which deals with syndicates, but if you accept the principle that the alluvial diggings are not to be the happy hunting-ground of speculators but that the small man should have an opportunity, it is only right that something should be done to prevent syndicates taking advantage of the position. The Government is perfectly justified in taking up the line it has. Hon. members are knocking at the door which is half open as the Minister has intimated his willingness to consider amendments. The fear has been expressed that the small diggers will be prejudiced because they will not be able to form syndicates. That is not really so, for in section 63 it is shown by implication that the holders of diggers’ certificates will be able to form partnerships for working their claims, The people excluded are those who may be in a prosperous position or others such as civil servants who are engaged in regular occupations but who desire to invest money in the diamond diggings and make profit on the work of others.

Suppose a digger has no money at all with which to start?

Very often a man starts a business with nothing at all, but the hon. member advances him goods on trust. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) does not become a partner with them, he just supports them, that is the position. The main objection was to clause 2, that is, farms that had the Free State title, and objections were raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitzi and the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I do not propose to pay attention to the ignorant impertinences of the hon. member for Griqualand. We are accustomed to them, and no decent member in the House would so insult me and the member for Griqualand cannot do so. But there. I look upon him more with pity than with anger because his insults are probably due to the manners which he has acquired from the Griquas in whose midst he has lived for many years, but perhaps it is not fair to say that as to do so may be an insult to the Griquas. I will deal with the criticism of the hon. member for Gardens, whose arguments are always worth replying to. What actually is the position? A certain number of farms have titles which originally were in the Free State, and now are outside the Free State, and which are affected by the provisions of this Bill. If they had remained in the Free State they would not have had the rights at all, because Lord Milner in 1904, by means of the Precious Stones Ordinance, took away those rights. He was not a socialist, but he did exactly what the present Minister is doing. If it was right to do it to other farms in the Free State by Lord Milner, it is right for the present Minister to do the same, so that there shall not be individual farms enjoying rights which the rest of the farming community have not got. Then there is the further fact that if these individual farms contain precious stones, it is imperative in the interests of the limitation of output that the Minister should provide for them as he does in section 2. If they do not contain precious stones they lose nothing and if they do and are left outside the scope of the Diamond Control Act and this Bill, and if by any chance to-morrow, next month or next year, a large find of diamonds was discovered by any one of them, the Minister would have to come again to the House and start legislating for the control of these farms. It is therefore imperative in the interests of the industry, to do what the Minister is doing by Clause 2, and that is why I think that the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) did not stress the point too much. It is imperative that all the farms should be placed on the same level. If these farms are not diamondiferous they are not losing anything, if they are diamondiferous, and belong to De Beers Company, then De Beers have been amply compensated by having had diamonds on their own property which they held up in order to keep up the price of diamonds, and thus remunerated themselves in respect of these farms. The only other objection is that which the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) referred to as—

The principle is already laid down by Kruger, Lord Milner and the Natal Government, that precious stones belong to the State, and it is not altogether reasonable to suggest that a principle already enunciated throughout the Union should not be applied to individuals who, by accident, have been excluded. It is not right, either, to come forward and say the Government has been guilty of statutory robbery. The moment you accept the principle of Government you begin to invade the rights of the people, in the first place, by imposing taxation. You do it when you are dealing with scab; you lay down the principle by which Government officials can come along and kill animals suffering from disease; you can destroy property; you have the right to demolish slums in the interests of the community. Governments without the socialistic influence have been forced into the position of passing laws which invade the rights of individuals and property owners. As a result of these invasions there is the peculiar fact that in South Africa in 1913 we had 211,533 convictions, and in 1924, 369,535 convictions not because the people have become more criminal, but because during the 11 years the S.A.P. Government were in power, they had passed Jaws invading the rights of individuals. I want to make one reference to this question of statutory robbery, and to draw the attention of S.A.P. members in this House to a book by John H. Harris, entitled “Slavery or Sacred Trust.” The S.A.P. have been held up for years as the custodians of native rights.

What has that got to do with diamonds?

They talk about statutory robbery in the same breath they also talk about their desire for the welfare of the natives of South Africa.

On a point of order,. Mr. Speaker, has this anything to do with the Diamond Bill for a member to talk about what the S.A.P. did with regard to the friendship of natives?

I am trying to follow the hon. member and to see what he is driving at.

I am dealing with the objection of the criticism that has been levelled by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) against Clause 2 of the Bill, and I am showing the invalidity of that criticism in the light of their own attitude. On page 72 of his book Mr. Harris says—

These are the people who talk about statutory robbery while they themselves are responsible for a policy of that kind. The author goes on to quote the instructions and the agreement issued by the late Dr. Jameson on behalf of the B.S.A. company to the force raised for service in Matabeleland.

Order. I hardly understand what this has to do with the present debate.

I submit I am showing that it does not lie with the party which has been going in for that sort of policy to object to the provisions of section 2 of this Bill as an instance of “statutory robbery.”

Are there any statutes that the hon. member is referring to which have been passed by the previous Government?

I am not referring to the statutes that they have passed. I am referring to the principles which they and others have carried out and which they have keenly supported.

I would submit that the hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) is in order. He is quoting something to answer the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) who said that the diamond business had led to the extension of Rhodesia and the making of Rhodesia. The hon. member is now endeavouring to show how Rhodesia came about and he is quoting what Dr. Jameson said in regard to Rhodesia and how the De Beers people were interested in that matter.

If the hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) is allowed to pick upon an incidental phrase in the speech of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) and develop that as the main theme of his speech, quite irrespective of its contact with the second reading debate on this Bill, where shall we end?

I would ask the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to confine himself to the subject before the House.

I was going to refer to the fact that the late Dr. Jameson, who I believe was not unconnected with De Beers and not unconnected with what is the present South African party, gave instructions to the men who went on service—

Yet hon. members on that side are heard today talking about “statutory robbery” on the part of the present Government. I need only remind them of certain legislation before this House. We have the case of the Medical and Dental Bill where personal rights are being taken away with the support of the South African party. The South African party have been urging the Government to take away the personal rights, the right to make a living, of dental mechanics and others. They have no objection to invading the rights of others, they have no objection to taking away the means of livelihood of people, so long as you do not interfere with vested interests which secure to their possessors the power of exploitation. [Time limit.]

In this Bill we have made an honest and earnest attempt to regulate matters in connection with the alluvial diggings. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has alleged that we have to do here with a piece of hasty legislation, but the hon. member forgets that there has recently come about such a development in the western Transvaal, and such complications have arisen in connection with alluvial diggings, that legislation can no longer be delayed. It went so far that last year the Minister had to warn the people against the unfair division of farms, and had at the same time to tell the people concerned that legislation would be introduced to declare that subdivision illegal. The matter became so serious that the diggers actually took the law into their own hands. At Grasfontein there almost was great trouble. As for the digging population, there has certainly nowhere else in the world been a more orderly body of people than with us. Compared with the history of American or Australian diggings in the past we come off very favourably. Recently at a congress I met a person who has experience of diggings in other parts of the world, America, Australia, etc., and he told me that he had never yet seen such good order as on our diggings. But we must take care. When quiet people become troublesome things are dangerous. We must take care that the diggers do not become unruly. We have had something of that at Grasfontein. We must meet the diggers as much as possible. The great force of the Bill consists in its protecting the alluvial diggings. The alluvial digger is being well protected, and rightly so. If the alluvial diggings had not existed in this country in the past there would have been no Kimberley, no Premier Mine, and no Jagersfontein. Alluvial diggers opened up the rich diamond sources of the country, and it is the ordinary prospector who opened up the rich gold areas in the Transvaal. And what have the voortrekkers had up to the present of the country’s riches? How much have they got? It is high time that not only the State, but the ordinary digger should have more of the treasures of the country. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said that we were by this Bill going to create a political machine on the alluvial diggings. I would rather a political machine under the control of the diggers than a political machine controlled by the big mining magnates. We have had more than enough in this country of that kind of machine. So much so that we need not fear that by this legislation political machinery will be created on the diggings. If the diggings did not exist in the country we should be met with a serious state of unemployment. The late Administrator of the Transvaal said to me one day that it was God’s Providence that there were alluvial diggings, because where would we be with regard to unemployment if they did not exist. The poor man must get more. It is an important factor in the solution of our poor white question. The most important factors in the solution of the poor white question are the mining industry and the factories. If we did not have them we could continue with settlements, but we would never succeed on those lines. Agriculture has indeed done a great deal and is still doing much, but does not have the same opportunity in South Africa as other industries. Therefore the time has certainly come that our diggers should get their full rightful share. As the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) said the diggers on the whole are satisfied with the Bill. It is of course not conclusive, and I take it that the Minister himself thinks that we have not yet done enough. It is, however, the first serious attempt at solving the question and of creating better conditions in the country. We do not get enlightenment from other countries. We have conditions here in the matter of alluvial diggings which no other country has ever had be must find our own way, and it will certainly be necessary to alter and amplify the Bill now before the House in the future. As for the Bill we shall hear much about owners’ rights. They are not touched at all. I think the Minister is acting wisely in not tackling too much at once, except that we shall still hear a great deal about the number of labourers per digger. I do not know if it is possible to give the Minister discretion to permit the employment of more labourers in cases where it is necessary.

I will consider that point in committee.

We shall hear a great deal about owners’ rights because we are a long way yet from the end of the diggings. I expect that in the western Transvaal we shall yet discover one of the greatest diamond mines which the country has ever had. The owners want more rights; the Government gets more rights in the Bill and the digger can be given more. The owners will ask for additional rights. As regards the forming of syndicates, I must say that the fact is that the poor man gets a claim but is too poor to work it. He has to borrow money. The digger borrows money on the security of the richness of his claim. How does he know, however, how rich it is? The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) said that the Government should only throw open blocks of claims which were actually diamond-bearing, but how can the Government always know what is under the ground? It can only act according to the best of its information, but will never get at the truth unless the X-rays can be so developed that one could see into the bottom of the earth. Before one mines there it is only a guess. In order to get assistance a digger will have to give security, and all he has is to say that he will give a share of the proceeds. Undoubtedly there will be evasions of the law, and the door for evasion must not be left open. Persons will work on shares on a claim and no one will be able to find out that a small syndicate has been formed. I want an opening to be left in the Bill to allow the Minister to use his discretion when a syndicate is formed out of necessity, in order to allow a man to work his claims. The syndicate must be a matter of necessity and must not be permitted to speculate. The mining commissioner can easily find out what the object of the people who want to co-operate is.

Then he will be busy from morning to night.

He will not be bothered very much because it is wonderful how much the mining commissioner knows about the people on the diggings. He will be able to distinguish what the intention of the syndicate is, and I think it would be worth while to try my suggestion. There are already sufficient limitations on the yield to-day. I cannot approve of Government officials being singled out as people who may not take part in the diggings. If the Minister wants to be consistent he must also prohibit them buying platinum and gold shares. The Minister said that the Government officials get information in the Government offices which they might abuse, but that applies only to officials in the Mines Department.

It applies to all departments.

It applies to the others because the officials of the Mines Department can tell them. But just as well as they can give the information to Government officials the man who gets the information can pass it on to a private individual saying that he will give him good tips if he is prepared to divide the profits equally. The obtaining of information does not apply in the case of officials in the Departments of the Interior and Education, and yet all are included. If Government officials are excluded then I do not see why bank and office clerks who are in the same position as Government officials are not excluded as well. Why are not all people who are earning a living wage excluded? The Bill provides that the diggers committee can reject certain people, and it can be left to the diggers’ committee to say that Government officials and clerks earning an income will not be admitted. I, however, do not feel happy about the point that Government officials are singled out as people who may not be there. I shall be satisfied if persons with a fixed income including members of Parliament, are also excluded, but I only want to say that we should be more consistent. The diggers will be satisfied if the diamond production is limited on the diggings, because as we have heard the prices of diamonds will drop tremendously if the diamond fields of Namaqualand are exploited to the full I think the diggers understand quite well that if there is no control and no restriction of the output then the diamond market is insecure. I think we have here an honest and earnest attempt to improve things. The hon. member for Delarey dealt with the health conditions on the diggings, but I think that he has done the diggers some injustice in speaking about the great danger of an epidemic. There are many slums in the towns which will suffer heavily.

The health conditions on the diggings are not good.

Nor are they good in the slums. But why should the diggings be singled out as such a dangerous place?

They are dangerous.

That is so, but if there is an influenza epidemic in the country we are all exposed to it, and I do not think that we should allow the diggings to be regarded as such a dirty place.

Do you not wish to have doctors and hospitals there?

The hon. member knows that Mr. Speaker stopped me when I wanted to speak about hospitals. That is a question we can discuss on a subsequent occasion. Steps have already been taken in connection with the appointment of health inspectors and more is going to be done. I think that considering everything on the diggings we ought to be astonished that the health conditions are as good there as they are. The diggers are, however, just people like ourselves and they are not blind to their own interests. The hon. member also spoke about education on the diggings. That is the great black spot on the diggings. Proper education must be supplied because the neglect of the education of the children is the serious matter with which we have to contend there. The Minister must be prepared for requests for grants on generous lines in future for the education of the children on the diggings. The hon. member for Delarey mentioned what the ordinary digger paid into the Treasury. I do not wish to say that a man should receive according to what he pays in, but it is right that the diggers should have proper educational facilities for their children. They must either be removed from those surroundings or have proper education provided. I wish the Minister all success with his Bill, and I hope that as he has put his hand to the plough he will not draw back but go on. He must, however, accept fair amendments, because there are many points in the Bill which need improvement.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) when he favours this House with speeches cannot resist the temptation of criticizing this side of the House. I think he should be more sure of his facts before he makes definite statements. In dealing with the retrospective clauses in this Bill he quoted as a precedent that the party on this side of the House favoured retrospective legislation. I may remind him that in 1919 this side of the House actually opposed the measure. The hon. member referred to an act of Lord Milner when the present Free State was the Orange River Colony. That was a wrong act of Lord Milner to deprive people of their property. You might just as well say that because A robs B then C is perfectly justified in robbing D.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Exactly. The Minister of Mines and Industries is committing a double wrong in my opinion. The hon. member also made some remark that taxes were imposed to deprive people of their property. It is not so. Ordinary Acts of Parliament, ordinary taxation, deprives people of part of their income, but retrospective legislation and taking away the rights of people on their farms is depriving them of their property and capital, which are two different things. I must remind the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) it is not very courageous to accuse a public man of misdeeds when he has been lying in his grave for several years.

But you said he was wrong.

But this is Sir Starr Jameson I am referring to and not Lord Milner. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) who, to his credit, has been advocating the case of the poor man, and has made a very eloquent appeal on their behalf, advised the Government to continue these alluvial diggings so that a large number of men could make a living and some a lot of money in the country. But I would remind the hon. member that the people working for the mining companies are also circulating money in the country. If diamonds are not controlled the people now circulating money in Lichtenburg will have no money to spend, because diamonds will fall so much in value that they will not be able to work at a profit. The figures are not as rosy as the hon. member pointed out. I have here the fifteenth yearly report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa. I will quote part of one clause—

This Bill appears to me to be overloaded. I am sure it would have an easy passage if vested rights had not been assailed and no retrospective clauses put in. It is a great pity, but I hope that these matters will be put right so that the Government control will come into force as early as possible and reestablish confidence in the diamond trade. The Minister said that if Griqualand West had been a portion of the Free State the farms would not have retained mineral rights. Excuse me, if I say this is only conjecture. I am certain that if the Free State Raad had remained in existence it would not have deprived any of these farmers of their rights to the land. The Free State Raad never taxed the mines because they felt that to establish mines throughout the country would provide markets for the farms. “If” is a very small word as the Minister of Mines and Industries pointed out, but it may have a very big application. If my brother had been born at the same time as I, we would have been twins. The Minister said he was so satisfied with the Vaal River D.M. Company’s conduct of operations that their title would remain intact, or words to that effect. Now I ask, what is wrong with De Beers? We treat our employees well, as we ought to do, and we have played a great part in the development of this country outside diamonds. We have built railways, and established that big dynamite factory and chemical works at Somerset West, and if hon. members knew Somerset West before that factory was established and compare it with what it is to-day they will see what that alone has done to develop the country. We have large ranches and we are pioneers of the fruit industry in the Western Province. Two millions of our reserve are in Union Stock and Treasury bills. We have never had any strikes in Kimberley, and we grant to working men pensions amounting to £60,000 a year to-day, and not one of those men has paid a sixpence towards a pension fund.

Who has got the best end of the stick out of it all?

Who gets the best end of the stick out of it all in this House? The hon. member at that end getting £700 a year, or the messenger in the lobby? You can apply that in all quarters. Are the vested rights of persons to be dependent on the opinion or the satisfaction of the Minister regarding the manner in which a concern conducts its operations? If so, De Beers is a long way ahead of any industry in South Africa, and why you should differentiate between the De Beers Consolidated Mines and the Vaal River D.M. Company I do not know. If the Minister could show how they have conducted affairs better than the De Beers Company have, it would be surprising. Under this Bill rights which have cost the company an enormous amount of money are to be taken away. Twenty-seven years ago De Beers bought two farms for £1,600,000. They issued per cent. debentures on the security of the property, but the surface value is not worth more than £10,000. I quote this as an illustration to show how infinitesimal the surface rights of a farm may be as compared with the mineral rights. You are going to deprive people in some instances of the greater value of their property. I am very pleased to see that the Government’s interest in the diamond industry is paramount, and the State derives in direct and indirect revenue more than the combined dividends paid by De Beers, the Premier, Jagersfontein and South-West. The Government is the largest shareholder of the whole diamond industry, so in bringing forward this Bill they are not altogether altruistic. The revenue derived by the State is over 20 per cent. of the value of the diamonds produced. I think I am not far wrong in saying that it is probably 40 per cent. of the total profits, and that does not include indirect taxation.

made an interjection.

I am taking diamonds as a whole. I hope I did not misunderstand the Minister. It appeared to me that he said that diamonds were practically only controlled after the passing of the Diamond Control Bill.

Not including voluntary control.

In Mr. Rhodes’ time in 1893 the diamond output was controlled and the diamonds were sold through one syndicate. Mr. Rhodes said to me—

Clause 73 makes it illegal for corporate bodies or an association of individuals to be capable of holding a claim licence, and makes it retrospective to 1st July, 1926. This is retrospective legislation. Many syndicates have been formed since this date. Men of limited means have combined to purchase the necessary gear. They obeyed the existing laws, and they did not try to circumvent any Act of Parliament. They could not dream that a practice which had remained in existence for centuries would be made illegal. This clause, if passed, would, to my mind, be a gross act of injustice, and it should not be made applicable before the passing of this Bill. If I am not wearying the House with these figures, I should like to draw its attention to the alluvial production during the past four or five years. In 1922 the total production in the Union of the alluvial diggings was £1,359,730; in 1923, £1,656,270; in 1924, £2,156,340; and in 1925, £1,900,050, or making a total in the four years before the discovery of the Lichtenburg diggings of £7,072,390. The annual average production approximately was 1¾ million pounds. Let us turn to 1926 and see the effect of the Lichtenburg output. For six or seven months only the output for Lichtenburg was £3,047,590; Pretoria, £18,427; Ottoshoop, £2,639; Pietersburg, £2,543; Cape Province, £871,921; and sundry, £40,514, or a total of £3,983,634. Lichtenburg for the six or seven months during the latter part of 1926 produced diamonds to the value of £3,047,000, and for January and February of this year the alluvial diggings turned out stones to the value of £1,140,000, or an average of £570,000 a month. At this rate they would turn out diamonds to the value of £6,840,000 annually. Yet the total output of De Beers, the Premier and Jagersfontein this year will not, in my opinion, amount to more than about £5,000,000. The diamond market is in an uneasy condition. The three mines I have referred to will produce £1,705,000 less this year than the alluvial diggers, while the three mines will produce this year £1,185,000 less than they turned out during the preceding twelve months. This is a very serious state of affairs. Diamond stocks are accumulating in London, the whole trade throughout the world is holding aloof, and waiting to see the results of this Bill. If nothing is achieved this session, the damage will be done, and we will learn by bitter experience the consequence of allowing matters to drift, for it will be too late next session to prevent a crisis in which the State and all the producers will suffer alike, and the small man, as usual, will go to the wall. I take strong exception to the clause which dispossesses landowners of their mineral rights and vests them in the Crown. To my own knowledge, big prices have been paid for farms in which the mineral rights are reserved to the owner. Farms of little value agriculturally have changed hands at prices far in excess of normal rates where mineral rights are reserved to the owner. This Bill proposes to confiscate that right, to deprive a person of a valuable asset acquired by purchase, and to transfer to the Crown without any consideration whatever assets belonging to an innocent owner. Take the case of a man who bought a farm with mineral rights reserved and mortgaged the property. He wakes up one day to find his mineral rights have been filched from him by the Government. Naturally, he would feel that he had been robbed; then the mortgagee would probably call up the loan in consequence of the depreciated value of the security. In most instances the farm would not realize the sum advanced on it, and the innocent farmer would be ruined. I cannot be a party to such legislation. I consider that every member of this House represents the people, and I cannot allow, as far as my limited power permits, a measure to pass which will deprive people of their just rights. Before the Premier Mine was discovered De Beers produced 85 per cent. of the world’s production of diamonds. Since then, other fields have been opened up, including South-West Africa, the Belgian Congo, Angola, Becella and other areas in Portuguese West Africa, and now we have the enormous output from Lichtenburg, the result being that De Beers’ output has been reduced to 23½ per cent. of to-day’s total supply. Before the new discoveries were made, De Beers employed 4,000 white men and 20,000 natives. But to-day we are employing only 2,000 whites and 6,000 natives, a bigger proportion of whites to natives than employed by any other South African mining company. For several years, De Beers sold on the average £6,000,000 worth of diamonds annually, but now the sales are only £4,000,000 a year. We have made a great sacrifice to maintain prices and to give confidence to the trade. Kimberley has suffered in a decrease of population, a big fall in the value of property, serious shrinkage in trade, and farmers have lost the large market they formerly had. Kimberley, in fact, has changed from a large, thriving and prosperous city into a dwindling town, and may become an ordinary dorp if diamonds are allowed to be produced and sold ad lib. De Beers own five rich mines within a radius of about four miles. For a very long time we have worked only three of these mines on one shift of eight hours per day. We could produce five times the value of diamonds we are now doing by working all the mines with three shifts per day. De Beers have, up to now, borne the whole burden of limiting the Union’s output of diamonds, but we cannot continue this policy and allow every other producer to ride on our backs. I verily believe that we have reached the irreducible minimum. I have a report by Mr. H. T. Barber, a gentleman who, I believe, occupied a very important position in the civil service. He was appointed auditor by the then Government and the producers to make a continuous audit of the accounts of the syndicate in London. He was highly recommended by Mr. Sheridan, the late Secretary for Finance. Mr. Barber represents the four mining companies. He audits the accounts of the syndicate, but he is paid by the De Beers, Premier, Jagersfontein and S.W.A. companies. He has audited the syndicate’s accounts continuously for seven years, and during that time has gained an enormous experience of the trade. He is a very honourable and conscientious gentleman and has no interests in the diamond industry. He is not a politician, which is a good deal to be thankful for, and has no axe to grind. His report on the audit of the syndicate’s accounts in London for the year ended December 31, 1926, is as follows—

As soon as a farm is proclaimed thousands of all sorts and conditions of people swoop down like bees on the ground and mark out claims with the intention of getting rich quickly, by taking from the soil in the quickest possible time all the diamonds contained in the ground. The richest claims are worked at compound pressure with the intention of making money in the shortest possible time, regardless of the effect on other producing centres. If the majority of these diggers made a few hundreds of pounds only they would not give a thought to, or have a care for, the interests of others or the stability of the whole industry and its future. These people cannot be blamed, but it is the duty of the Government to preserve a great industry, and prevent it from being ruined by those wealth seekers, regardless of the danger to the Union in the loss of a permanent industry and large avenues of revenue. We do not want to crush the digger or to injure him in any way. The policy of the mines has been of the greatest benefit to the digging community, but we don’t want them to annihilate us by producing diamonds at an enormous rate and throwing them on the market practically as quickly as they find them. De Beers Company cannot sit down quietly and further reduce their output to enable the diggers to obtain top prices. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. We are willing to come to terms in order to preserve the industry for our mutual benefit. I repeat that. We are willing to come to terms to preserve this industry for our mutual benefit. But if this cannot be done De Beers will not succumb. We have high grade mines, big financial reserves and resources, and great responsibilities to thousands of share-holders, a large number of whom are resident in the Union of South Africa. Speaking for myself, for I have not discussed this question with my colleagues, if we cannot come to terms I would not reduce De Beers’ output by one carat, but continue the present output and let nature take its course. A further retrenchment would spell ruin to the commercial community and would bring starvation and misery to Kimberley families and inhabitants, a state of affairs which would be painful to my colleagues and myself. There are hundreds of millions of pounds worth of diamonds still in the mine. If these were worked on the same principles as the alluvial diggings—that is, get them as quickly as you can—diamonds would be worth next to nothing. The collapse of the industry would react disastrously on the finances of the Union, and would dislocate the whole of its financial structure. It would bring about serious unemployment in Kimberley, Jagersfontein, Koffiefontein, the Premier Mine, and all over South-West Africa. Property would decrease in value, and trade would suffer an enormous setback, whilst farmers in those centres would not be able to make ends meet. The collapse of the industry would be a catastrophe of the first magnitude. In my opinion, this can be averted by devising a scheme to limit the output to the world’s purchasing power. Until the discovery of Lichtenburg, the four big producers, by arrangement to which the Government was a party, supplied the trade with its requirements on a well-thought-out plan that worked automatically. That has all been upset by the enormous output of alluvial diamonds. The mines have now lost the control through the alluvial fields pumping diamonds onto the market recklessly and with indifference to the consequences, and if this continues any longer, there can only be one ending—disaster to the whole industry. To prevent this river diggers must submit to having their output controlled the same as the mines. They do this in Belgian Congo, Angola, British Guiana, West Africa and other fields. It cannot be contended for a moment that the alluvial diggers shall be allowed to produce enormous quantities without let or hindrance and glut the market whilst all other producers control their output. It is to their own interest that we should limit the output of the diggers as much as of the big mining companies. By submitting to this, alluvial diggers will protect their own interests, because, if we allow them to produce and sell diamonds, they will produce to such an extent that enormous numbers of the diggers will have to leave the diggings and their industry would be ruined. [Time limit extended.] I have lived in Kimberley from 1871 through all its trials and vicissitudes when the diamonds and the mines were owned by individuals and small syndicates, and diamonds then realized one-fifth of the present prices. I must say the working costs were lower in those days, because it was mainly surface working, while, to-day, they are produced from 3,600 feet underground The amalgamation and the selling through one channel, the combination of all mining companies and the fixing of the quota of diamonds supplied by each brought about an enormous increase in prices and gave the utmost confidence to the trade all over the world. I say without hesitation, and in the responsible position I hold, that if this House fails to limit the output of alluvial diamonds this session, there will be a panic in the trade. Dealers will not only not hold, but will tumble over each other to get rid of their stocks, the majority of them having been bought on credit by facilities given by Continental banks, whose system is quite different to ours, and the English method of banking. The damage will be done and may not be repaired for a decade or two as in the case of the ostrich feather industry, which, as yet, has shown no signs of recovery. We know Oudtshoorn is on its last legs through overproduction. As an example, I might tell you that when ostrich feathers were being produced to the world’s requirements they were realizing £40 per lb. To-day they are not realizing more than £2 per lb. I will put all my cards on the table, despite the effect my remarks might have on the diamond market, and on the share market, and I tell the House emphatically that if the value of diamonds falls, not to one-fifth, but to one-half, of the present value, the Premier Company, the Jagersfontein Company, South-West Africa and Koffiefontein must shut down. The only concern that can keep working on a limited scale is De Beers, with its high-grade mines, but De Beers would receive a nasty knock, but they would survive. There are sufficient diamonds in the Union unearthed to last beyond the present century. I estimate De Beers can produce for another hundred years, and this industry will be a continual source of wealth, and contribute largely to the prosperity of the Union, but if allowed to take its own course, unchecked and uncontrolled, it will run on the rocks and become a complete wreck, a signpost to passers-by of the loss of an enormous asset which, by ordinary foresight, could have been preserved. If we do not control we shall be like the spendthrift who dissipates great wealth in the shortest time. If we do control we shall retain our wealth for many years in the interests in the long run of the workers and diggers, and preserve for the State a great industry and a mighty asset.

I am one of the members of the House who represent exclusively persons familiar with this Bill. Sixty per cent. of my electors are diggers, and the others are landowners who are affected by this Bill. I think, therefore, that I can speak with more authority on this Bill than many other members of the House. I made a special point of ascertaining the views both of the landowners and the diggers in my constituency, and the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) and I went to the trouble of calling the foremost landowners in the Transvaal together during the recess in order to get their views on the Bill. After that, we met the diggers and obtained their views in connection with the Bill. In listening to the speeches of hon. members it seems their first point is the question of the protection of the rights of landowners, and from the speeches one would say that the Minister is engaged in taking away all the rights landowners have possessed in the past. The great point is that the Bill does not allow the cutting up of the ground in the future as it has been done in the past by syndicates. Under the old law 200 owners’ claims and 50 discoverers’ claims were granted to landowners, and, in all the history of the Transvaal, I never heard of any farmer and ordinary landowner who complained that those rights were not adequate. The landowners have always been satisfied. For the last ten years I have been representing diggers’ constituencies, and never has an owner, who had diamonds on his land, complained to me that he was dissatisfied with the rights he had. And, further, not one of them has ever attempted to cut up his land in order to obtain more rights under the existing laws in that way. The diggers have proceeded with their work, and there has never been any question of over-production. Now, suddenly, rich discoveries have been made in Lichtenburg, and that has caused the trouble. Speculators have gathered everywhere and have bought up farms on which they thought there might be diamonds, and for the first time in the history of the Transvaal a gross speculation has taken place in land which should really go to the diggers. I just want to inform the House what really happened on the diggings. It seems to me the main point on which hon. members have attempted to attack the Minister—for there has not been any well-founded attack as yet—is that the provision with regard to the subdivision of farms has been made of retrospective effect. The other points of criticism are only minor matters. Now I want to go into the necessity for this section in the Bill. I grant that those who have not been to the diggings and seen what is needed there may say that retrospective laws are always dangerous. I grant that it is not healthy, but if hon. members know what has taken place on the diggings it will become clear to them that if the Minister had not inserted this provision the Bill would be meaningless, and it would be a shame for the Government to sit still and regard what is taking place without putting a stop to it, and without making the provision of retrospective effect. I want to mention a few instances. I was at Grasfontein and Welverdiend in person. In the case of Grasfontein the retrospective provision comes too late, because the farm has already been proclaimed. In accordance with the spirit of the existing law the owners of Grasfontein had to peg off 200 owners’ and 50 discoverers’ claims at any spot they chose. That then would have given the poor digger and even the farmers in the vicinity, and in the whole of the Transvaal (the public in general) an opportunity of acquiring the remainder of the land. It would not have been so scandalous had the owners divided the land into two or three sections, but they divided it into strips. In this instance the farm has been divided into fifty portions, and the result is that only three strips of diamond-bearing gravel have been pegged off and now one sees that the diggers are working all round the syndicate, and only getting a stray little diamond now and then. Their wives and children die of distress, and yet, in between the claims of the ordinary diggers, the syndicate recovers wealth by the handful and flourishes in luxury. No one—apart from political party —can see this without wishing that it should be discontinued. Not one member in the House will have the courage to rise in his place and contend that he is against the clause in the Bill which provides that sub-division shall not be allowed in the future. All are agreed that this must happen in the future for the reason that everyone acknowledges that what happens now is not right, and contrary to the spirit of the old law. Hon. members say, concerning the provision for retrospective effect, that in principle they are opposed to such a provision being incorporated in the Bill because it restricts owners’ rights. If the provision is not made retrospective in effect then the whole Bill would signify nothing. It must be borne in mind that the diamond-bearing farms have already been taken up and subdivided by companies. Those who speak of the landowners in the country districts I may inform that there is not one such landowner who has already cut up his land. They would, therefore, not be affected by the provision, but only the companies. It is nonsense to say that members desire to protect the farmer-landowners because they are in favour of the provision. The sub-division of the farms in the manner it has taken place is not only unjust but scandalous. If we follow the map, we will come to the conclusion that it, amounts practically to robbery, and that our Government may not permit to take place. Those persons who have so wantonly evaded the law are not only prevented from doing so in the future, but are under the present Bill also punished for what they have done. Then much is heard also about the public who have bought shares offered by syndicates, and it is said that the retrospective effect of the law will not affect the syndicates, but the public. I have been all over the diggings where I have made thorough inquiries and, as a result, I am convinced that the public will not be affected by the retrospective provision, but that if the Minister withdrew the provision he would certainly touch the public I will show why. We find instances where a piece of land has been cut up into fifty small portions, and the companies have formed a company for every one of these fifty small portions, and for one of these small portions of land they have issued 500,000 shares of 5s. each, while the whole lot is, perhaps, not worth more than £100,000. What then happens is that the syndicate itself drives up the prices of the shares of the company—we know how it is done—and as soon as the shares are worth £1 the 500,000 shares are delivered to the public, and in a few weeks’ time they are worth nothing, because the ground has, in the meantime, been exhausted. The Minister may not allow the few syndicates to rob the diggers of their just due, nor that the public be so shamefully robbed in the manner described. These are in short the main points concerning the actions of the companies on the diggings. I held a meeting on the diggings in company with the member for Klerksdorp (Mr. C. P. de Villiers). There were about 2,000 people.

Where was that?

At Grasfontein.

That evening at the café?

Yes; immediately after the meeting the syndicate went and spread the report that the meeting was a small one. I have already held many meetings, and I can assure the House that there were about three thousand people, consisting of members of the South African party, English-speaking people, and people of all parties, and no one raised any objection to the Bill, and especially to the clause. A special motion of confidence and of thanks to the Minister was adopted, because he had acted in such a manly way in reference to the provisions of this Bill, and, apart from party, the diggers expressed their satisfaction with the provisions of the Bill and promised full support. We also had meetings with landowners not syndicates, but farmers in the neighbourhood who own farms on which diamonds may any day be discovered, and they have caused the Minister to be informed that they stand behind him as one man. They have always been satisfied with 250 claims, and will in future be satisfied with that, and the retrospective effect of the provisions is not going to affect them, while they will have the opportunity of obtaining a piece of land for digging also. The western Transvaal supports the Minister to a man, the diggers as well as the landowners. I do not wish to abuse my right of speaking in the House, but I just want to say that it is my experience, and the hon. member for Klerksdorp will agree with me, that every possible effort is made by the syndicates to furnish wrong information to members of this House. Does the House know that even the press in the Transvaal does not want to accept an advertisement giving notice of a meeting, if the assurance is not first given that the speakers are going to support the syndicates.

How do you then manage to get these big meetings together?

By sending round my own notifications. I do not wish to go into that any further. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) surely knows better himself what the position is.

I was at the meeting also.

Then the hon. member will know that I am telling the truth.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) must have made himself very scarce.

I did not notice him. The officials are another consideration, and I cannot do otherwise, after my experience on the diggings, than congratulate the Minister on his proposals in this regard. Officials of the State ought to be above suspicion, and the public service cannot remain pure if public servants are allowed to have interests in the diggings, but I think that it is unhealthy also if members of Parliament are allowed to hold shares or to be interested in the diggings, because that might influence their attitude in this House. Another’ point is the limitation of the output. We all felt in agreement with the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) when he said that something should be done to control the output, but I cannot altogether agree with his proposals. This Bill is going to have the desired effect. It is said that in 1926 the alluvial diggings produced £3,000,000, but I can assure the House that the diggers did not produce one-third of that. It was the big syndicates and companies. There are syndicates working on just as large a scale as the Premier Mine and De Beers. They have hundreds of natives in service and large machinery, and they are the cause of the overproduction. The Minister’s Bill will protect the individual digger and break up the syndicates. We must either accept or reject the principle proposed by the Minister. Some members say that the alluvial diggings should be left to the individual digger. I am in agreement with that, but if the Minister leaves open the possibility of exporting diamonds then the syndicates will still get too much of an opportunity. There is no such thing as existing rights. The existing rights were obtained by the companies against the meaning and spirit of the laws, and we should accept the principle that the diggings are for the individual person, and that the syndicates or companies cannot come and uproot individual diggers. Other points of minor importance we can deal with in committee. There is, e.g., the provision with regard to the number of natives a digger may use. Most diggers will be satisfied with ten natives, but I feel that we should not always leave the diggers poor whites, and if he is on a rich spot the man must have an opportunity of doing something there in order to be able to get away from the diggings. Ten men are too few to run a machine; the diggers have the utmost confidence in the Minister in this connection. In conclusion, I still want to say that there is certainly not one member in the House, who can claim to represent the people, who will approve of the cutting up of the farms and the work of the speculators, while the poor diggers with their wives and children are starving, and are working next to the syndicates and cannot exist. If the Minister’s Bill is passed there will, perhaps, be 5,000 poor whites who will be saved from their position, and will get another opportunity in life. I want to congratulate the Minister again, and I do that also in the name of the diggers and landowners of the Transvaal, that he was manly enough to make the Bill so drastic and to introduce it. If hon. members would only go and have a look at the conditions actually existing on the diggings, and what goes on there, they would all support the Bill without hesitation. Other members have posed as representatives of the diggers and disapproved of the course followed by the Minister. I am prepared to meet any of the hon. members at a meeting of diggers and if the diggers are not on my side, I shall be prepared to surrender my seat in the House.

I am sorry that I was not here during the whole debate, and that I did not personally hear the speech of the Minister of Mines and Industries, but I can give the House the assurance that I have, from the newspapers, carefully gone into the speeches delivered here, and I think that I know practically every word spoken. The Minister has a most difficult subject in his hands, and we cannot treat it lightly. I have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers), the great representative of the diggers, as he calls himself, and I do not wish to refer to what may hurt other people, but I think that in the cutting up of farms, things somewhat contrary to the spirit of existing legislation have been done. I say, however, with that, that there is a Supreme Court, and that owners will not be so satisfied if their rights are taken away, rights which they have obtained lawfully. I go so far as to accuse the Minister of Mines that he is the cause of the cutting up of farms, because he did not push the Bill drawn up last year through the House. In that there were provisions having reference to the proportion of owners’ claims, and if the Bill had been passed we would not have had this difficulty to-day.

You know’ what the position was and the objection you had to it.

To the members who so warmly congratulated the Minister, I say that the Minister has missed the object of the diamond law if he does not accept the principle of granting claims to the owners on the percentage basis. I do not say how many claims should be given to each owner, but I think that the number given in last year’s Bill was too low. However, it is the principle that must be accepted in order to put an end to subdivision. If the percentage basis is introduced, then the owners can cut up their farms as they wish, and still the object of the Bill will have been achieved. This is the first time in my life that I have heard that the rights of landowners have been infringed. If we accept the principle that that can happen, then South Africa would be a dangerous country to live in. Even if the subdivision in the past has been against the spirit of the law, at all events it was quite legal, and the provision ought not, therefore, to be made of retrospective effect. If that were to happen, then I am sorry for the country.

For more than three years you have been sorry for the country.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), I suppose, is an authority on the Bill because he is a lawyer. I do not believe, however, that the people will get him to plead their cause. However, he will want law and justice to carry the day. I am sorry that the difficulty has arisen, but we must endeavour to put ail end to this for the future. I would very much like an explanation from the Minister why the owners in one province get more owners’ claims than in other provinces. In the Transvaal it is 200; in the Free State 400; and in the Cape Province 17 or 40. I want to ask the hon. members in the Cape whether they are satisfied that the rights of landowners in the Cape are inferior to those in the other provinces. The Minister will say that they have the same rights according to their transfer deeds, but it must not be forgotten that to the earlier owners of Crown land in the Transvaal and to the surface owners of occupation farms 100 claims were granted. I am glad that that has happened, and would like to see it made 200. In the Cape owners ought to get more claims also because their surface rights have been broken up. For the very reason that the Minister has granted a hundred claims to those in the Transvaal who did not have sub-surface rights, he should also consider the Cape owners.

That is done in the whole Union.

Not in the same proportion. I cannot see why owners in the Cape should be worse off than owners in the other provinces. We should not only talk of Lichtenburg and of western Transvaal, but we should also look to the future. We do not know where diamonds may still be found. The Minister had to chase off to Namaqualand in order to find out how many diamonds are being extracted there, and has taken the law into his own hands and put a stop to prospecting. Why has that not been done in Lichtenburg, and why were the people not warned that they were acting contrary to the spirit of the law? Why did the Minister not put the Bill on the Table of the House on the first day of the session? Why is that done now when the session is drawing to a close and members are already tired? The Minister said that there was reconsideration on account of new matters arising, and I agree with that, but nothing new has come to light with regard to the subdivision of farms since the commencement of the session. Many of the rights of owners are being taken away, because now an owner may not work with more than five prospectors. If I expect to find diamonds on my farm, I should not want to work with only five men. Where have you heard of a civilized country with a Bill of this sort? Every owner of land will try, nevertheless, to choose the best spots for owners’ and discoverers’ claims, but now it is said that only a certain number of people may work, and then the Minister has the right to put a stop to prospecting at any time. The hon. members for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) and for Christiana (Mr. Moil) want to make out that they went about during the recess consulting the diggers. I was also on the diggings during the recess, and although I did not go so specially to consult the diggers, I met many of them and discussed the Precious Stones Bill with them. They know the Bill particularly well, and, according to the conversations I had, they do not want to take other people’s property away from them. They are people who work hard, and I did not find one who wanted the owners to be deprived of their rights. They want the subdivision of farms to be stopped in future. The hon. members say also that they consulted the landowners of Klerksdorp and Christiana, but I should very much like to know how many of them were at that meeting, and where it was held. The hon. member said that the newspapers did not want to take up their advertisements. I was not present at the meeting at Grasfontein, but one of my sons told me that there were about 40 or 50 persons present, but that they did not actually take much notice. The people on the diggings do not concern themselves with politics, because in the evenings they are tired. I do not believe much in the representative nature of the meeting, and would warn the Minister to give careful consideration to the resolutions produced by the hon. members. Let us act squarely, and endeavour to put the Bill through. I am only sorry that it was not introduced earlier, and at the beginning of the session I asked the Minister a question in that regard. The Minister will agree that it is a very difficult matter, and it is a pity that it cannot be referred to a select committee. So many amendments will be proposed, that I do not know when the Minister will get the matter settled by the House. The principle in the Bill of infringing the ownership of people who have invested money in the land will cause difficulty. I do not think that a Bill should be passed by a civilized country which takes away rights by means of a provision of retrospective effect. It will be a bolshevistic measure such as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) would support, but I do not think the Minister is the sort of man to rob people of their rights. The Minister wants the digger—we hear now of another title, “natural” digger—to be limited to ten natives. Now that my children are working on the diggings—

You also make lots of money there.

I make money there, but I think the hon. member is sorry he did not have the opportunity. My children and I had a little luck there, and are making our money in an honest way, and I am not at all ashamed of it. What does the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) say with regard to the fact that owners in the Cape get fewer claims than those in other provinces? Discoveries are being made here now, too, and we have already heard of Namaqualand. The hon. member for Christiana said that he could give the House the assurance that it is the syndicates and companies who hold the land. Are they then a different kind of people? Did they steal the land? No, they bought it honestly from the original owners, and paid for it. It is a bolshevistic measure which takes away the rights of landowners, and if that is done the property of the owners becomes worthless. After all, they are people who have invested money in the land. The prosperity South Africa has enjoyed is attributable to the mining industry, and the Minister of Finance made it clear in his budget speech what the mining industry and the diggings have done for the country.

What about the subdivision in the past?

The hon. member will never have a farm to sell, that I know. In the days of President Kruger, when the gold laws were made, the owners said their rights should not be taken away. Now the Minister says that the right to dig for diamonds belongs to the State, and he wants to say that that is a principle of the gold laws. It was not, however, a principle to take away rights.

Now you are really talking of what you have no knowledge.

I acknowledge that I have not the learning of the Minister.

It is not a question of learning, but of ordinary common sense.

The Minister may look down on me with disrespect—

It is not disrespect.

I want to tell the Minister, however, that I voted for the gold law before he was a Minister.

You yourself took part in legislation which took away owners’ rights.

How can you say that?

By the acceptance of the Transvaal gold law, when you were a member of the Volksraad.

If the Minister lays down the same principles in this Bill as laid down in the Transvaal gold law, then I say it is all right, because we had the same experience there. The people made too much use of their rights, and ploughed over the plains. Then the Government stepped in and said that they should be given a fifth part of the ground. What does the Minister give now? One morgen contains 48 claims, but how many claims does an owner get if he has 3.000 morgen?

It is exactly the same under the existing law and this Bill, and you know it.

If the Minister will carry out the principle, I will help him: if he departs therefrom, I will oppose him with all my power, even if we have to sit another six months. The Bill should have been referred to a select committee. It cannot be otherwise, but the Minister must not think that he can frighten us because members want to get home. We will fight clause after clause in order to get what we want. The people of South Africa do not want the principle of depriving people of their ownership to be accepted. I ask the Minister to say honestly whether he thinks that the cutting up of farms will be prevented by the course he wishes to follow in connection with the granting of ownership claims. And where did you ever hear of a principle of providing that a digger may only use ten kaffirs for his claim? Has the Minister ever stood next to the machines? My children are working on Grasfontein today, and 50 kaffirs are required for one machine.

That class of person ought not to be there.

That is a lot of nonsense. Why are the hon. members not there? They are not capable of making money.

You are pleading in your own interests.

I am not at all ashamed. It seems to me the grapes are sour.

Personal interests play a big part.

Not a bit of it and I can give members the assurance that the Bill does not affect my interests in the least, by its provisions. But that principle that diggers may not assist each other really borders on being childish. Some poor people cannot manage alone. If people like my children disappear from the diggings, 10 to 15 other poor whites who never had a chance but have now been saved from unemployment will go with them. Thousands of people find work there, and business in general is extensive as a result of the diggings. I am not as afraid as the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) that there will be too many diamonds. The places which are rich in diamonds are scarce and small, but I agree with the Minister that if the production could be controlled in order to keep up the prices, it would be a good thing. We are in favour of that, and the hon. member for Kimberley has put our attitude very plainly. We do not wish to kill the diggers, but we want the rights of landowners to be protected. It is a large industry, and may still spread considerably, and the rights of the landowners cannot be taken away so lightly. I would also like to see a Bill become law as soon as possible, but that principle of dispossession I shall oppose as best I can.

I am sorry that the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) who usually speaks very moderately has to-day exceeded the limits of moderation a little and has attacked the honour of an hon. member of the House by actually alleging that what the hon. member said was untrue. On behalf of the hon. members for Christiana (Mr. Moll) and Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers), I want to ask the hon. member to address a meeting on the diggings together with them.

I am not at all afraid and am prepared to go.

As a result of the circumstances and the developments in the last few years on the alluvial diggings and with a view to future development, everyone who has for years taken an interest in this industry expected a comprehensive Bill. Some people have noticed the development of the industry with sorrow, others with joy. Some have noticed signs of prosperity, others of retrogression. More money has come into circulation and the neighbourhood has, to a certain extent, benefited thereby, while in other respects the seeds of destruction have been sown. It is not necessary to go into details in this connection. I think that in any case none of us expected such a fair all-embracing Bill as that now before us. The Bill contains many new principles, or principles at any rate which are new in practice, and so comprehensive a Bill with so many new principles has for a long time not been before the House. Therefore, the. Minister should have expected, and I certainly expected that there would be, considerable difference of opinion in connection with the Bill. The question merely was in what direction the difficulties would lie, and I think those of us who know our friends in the Opposition were not far out as to the direction which their objections would take. The basic principles of the Bill are of importance, not only to the industry, not only from an economic point of view, but also with regard to the moral life and the health of a large portion of our population. One of the great problems in the past always was mineral rights, and I would like to admit that I cannot quite agree with the policy the Minister is laying down. I think he is going too far in establishing a rule about the ownership of minerals in South Africa, because there are different principles in this connection in different parts, and I think that the prescription law with regard to property ought to be borne in mind. But I just want to point out that the Minister deserves the thanks of the country for this comprehensive Bill. A second important point is the provision with regard to the permit to dig, viz., who can be permitted and who cannot. A third important point is the State’s share. It was always agreed that the State up to a certain extent was entitled to a share in the minerals of the country or the proceeds thereof. How far those provisions express the views of the members of this House we have yet to see. The State should have the right to the wealth under the soil, but I want to ask the question whether we should not go further and fix what the proceeds from this source should be used for. I know that this does not come in here, but it is an important point. Then the control of the production and marketing is a very important point, as also the regulation of the surface lights of owners, and of discoverers’ and diggers’ rights. Finally there is the social position which has also been touched upon. The Bill is most comprehensive and the Minister deserves the thanks of the House for his courageous step, even if we do not all see eye to eye with him on all points. The Bill goes a little far in certain respects. It goes without saying that the Bill goes further than the one of 1923 on account of the new developments in recent years, and therefore I do not wish to draw an unfair comparison between the 1923 Bill and the 1927 one, but in any case this Bill deals in a drastic way with some questions. I want, however, to point out to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that it was also provided in the 1923 Bill that the Crown should have the right to mine and the disposition over the minerals. There the former Government also appropriated the rights. In this Bill where the same thing is done there is therefore no new principle. We cannot get away from the fact that minerals belong to the State. It is not property which one or a group of citizens ought to possess, but it belongs to the State as a whole, and the only question is in what way the minerals can be mined and be beneficially employed in advancing the welfare of the citizens in general. We must admit that the Bill goes tremendously far in relation to the share of the State. On the other hand I agree to a great extent with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that when the State is assuming rights we must be careful about the methods and what is meant to be affected thereby. This can be done in a moderate but also in an immoderate way, and according to the policy which is followed the question must be put whether so far as it does not conflict with the highest interests, the rights of the individual or of society in general are being interfered with? In this debate which embraces so many matters of importance to the people, we expected that there would be less grouping of parties, but we have been much disappointed. Party groups are being formed on the lines of protecting certain interests. This is not a new and unexpected division, but yet we are disappointed seeing we are dealing with a very important problem to the people. The hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) and Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) talk of the vested rights of landowners. Are landowners, however, the only people who have vested rights? When we talk of the landowners as the only people who have vested rights we are exaggerating and missing the actual point. We heard from the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that it is a bolshevic measure to attack the vested rights of landowners, and I prophesy that more than one speaker opposite will express the same thought in order to make it appear so repulsive to the people. There are other rights beside those of the landowners which have just as much right to protection, although the people possess less worldly goods and have less money in the bank. The second argument of the Opposition is the retrospective prohibition about the division of farms. Before I saw the Bill I thought that the provision with regard to subdivision should be made retrospective, and therefore I have no objection to it now. I am, however, glad that the Bill provides for a certain amount of discretion being left to the Minister. I admit there may be cases where an absolute cancelling of the subdivision may operate unfairly and unjustly, and therefore I welcome the provision giving the Minister discretion. I assume that the Minister will not be so unwise as to draw a general rule and deal with all the cases according to it, because I have sufficient confidence in the Minister and in his advisers that the provision will be applied practically, economically and justly. The third argument which came mainly from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) is in connection with the weeding out of companies on the diggings. This, of course, is another argument which we expected from the Opposition, because they are intimately concerned with looking after the interests of their supporters. His representation, however, is not the whole truth, because Clause 63 provides that people can actually work in partnership on the diggings. All that is necessary is that they must have diggers’ licences. The hon. members for Johannesburg (North) and Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) can also go and work there if they will pull off their coats.

The Minister is the Emperor.

If, however, they want to sit in the clubs then the position is different. We approve of the policy of the Government. If natural persons want to co-operate, well and good, and Clause 63 is quite clear on the point. The Bill also provides in Clause 73 for a special case. That is precisely a point with which I have great sympathy, viz., the exclusion of public servants from the diggings. As citizens they can maintain their rights, but I do not think it is right that a man who has an adequate income and a fixed appointment and is assured of a pension should compete in the uncertain industry which the diggers are carrying on. The intention, however, is not to cast a stigma on the public servants. It goes without saying that that is undesirable. I know of a case where an official was concerned in a digging and as an official of the Department of Justice he had to take certain decisions. The whole digging population was suspicious, because they knew that he was interested in the diggings and because they did not trust him. Therefore it is right that officials should not have a personal interest in the diggings. I have a further objection to the Bill as drawn. We have in the first place to do with a consolidating Bill. I have gone into it and noticed that no less than ten Acts are repealed to incorporate them under this Bill, but there are a number of shortcomings in the Bill. A Bill should only take account of provincial interests if they are irreconcilable with the country’s interests. If they are reconcilable then we must not deal with provincial inequalities in consolidating legislation. Therefore I object to the inclusion of Clause 2 which wants to introduce a certain measure of uniformity and which will be explained to those concerned in the matter as the consolidating clause. Immediately thereafter, in Clause 13 and 14, the provincial legislation is again incorporated in the consolidating measure. I have the privilege of representing a large number of persons who are concerned in Clause 2, but I can say that I would have taken up the same attitude even if that were not the case. There are farmers in my constituency to-day who have free title issued by the old Free State Government in which there is no limitation as to mineral rights. That right has been maintained all these years but now the Minister is taking it away by Clause 2. The argument that it is a consolidating measure is not right, and it is no good saying that the intention is to bring about uniformity. We must in this case acknowledge the vested rights of the citizens. I do not wish to interpret the term “vested rights” as some hon. members have done, but it has to do here with a right which has been in existence for more than 100 years, and that is a good reason for further acknowledgment. The State must be careful about expropriating a right which has once been granted.

Lord Milner took away the right.

It was admitted that it was wrong, and one mistake does not justify a second. Moreover, we do not know how many farms are affected thereby. The Minister mentioned one figure and the horn member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) another. I am certain that they are both wrong. I have reliable information that 167 farms with the Free State title are affected in the matter, and no one can say how many farms in the northern parts of the Cape Province will be affected. There are many farms, and the argument that it is a trifle cannot be used. Moreover, I have doubts as to the advantages connected therewith. The State can, in any case, levy the export duty on the diamonds that are found and can retain control over the diggings. All the State cannot do is to exercise control over the granting of claims. In Clauses 13 and 19 the provisions are applied which are mentioned in Annexure 4. If there is an argument for uniformity then it is not to commence re-enacting the provincial legislation. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was not right when he said that we made this difference to-day, because the difference is merely acknowledged in the existing law. I think, however, that it is wrong that we should render it permanent for the future. Annexure 4 allows a private landowner in the Transvaal to have 50 discoverers’ and 200 owners’ claims; in the Free State the figure is 600, and in the Cape only 17 plus 9, i.e., 26.

That is precisely the present basis.

That is exactly my objection, that in a consolidating measure by which we are going to get uniformity the inequality should be continued.

We cannot surrender State assets.

We must have uniformity. Borne principles have been suggested as to the manner in which the matter of owners’ claims should be regulated. The one is a percentage basis and the other is a provision like that annexure. I think the only sound basis is that the owner should get a number of claims proportionate to the number available on his ground. I think it is not right that a man should get 100 claims if his farm is 9,000 morgen in extent. He should have a number of claims according to the claims available on his farm.

It is only a question of the part that is proclaimed and not of the whole farm.

I have no objection to the provision with regard to subdivision being made retrospective because the Minister can use his discretion and because it is in the interests of the citizens of the country. I will honestly admit that I have a telegram here from a tanners’ association in my constituency asking me to protect the vested interests of landowners. I have done so. I am prepared to stand up for the landowners so long as there is no conflict with the highest interests of the country, and I have so much confidence in the patriotism of my constituents that they also will bear in mind the interests of the State. Another great principle about which there is much difference of opinion is the limitation of the production. I have the honour to represent a large number of diggers, and I do not think there is a single rich digger amongst them. But with a view to the increasing production of diamonds and the limited use, it goes without saying that if the production is excessive, we shall not only lose a steady market—not to speak of a rising market but that the market will drop, and there I agree with members opposite that if the market drops the strong man will not be the first to be ruined, but the poor digger. I am speaking for him when I say that I am convinced—he may not approve of this—that it is in his own interests that the production should be restricted and that a steady market should be retained in our country. The State is compelled to restrict the production. It is inevitable, but as there are to-day so many thousands who are dependent on alluvial diamonds and who can only make a living there, the State must be particularly careful in making the restriction not to go too far. It is a matter of life and death to the digger and his wife and children. We must not act lightly with reference to this restriction. There are a lot of further points about which there is a difference of opinion and others which will mean great improvement. In Clause 57 provision is made for a new composition of appeal boards, and as for my constituency, I do not know of one section in the old Act which caused more difficulties than the composition of appeal boards. I have discussed the matter with my constituents, and I think everyone is satisfied. Some preferred that a magistrate should be on the board, a man who usually can better decide upon the necessary procedure than persons who have less to do with litigation. I think that is a great improvement. As for social life on the diggings, the Minister deserves thanks for the institution of a certificated character. There are many of the diggers who are people of high standing, and who deserve respect just as much as anyone else, and the provisions of the Minister amount to this, that no persons of bad character, or who have lost their good name, can be put into the diggers’ community. Other difficulties are removed by the provisions of Clause 97. It is there laid down that more stores shall be permitted on the diggings. I remember a case where there was one business for at least 3,000 white diggers, not to speak of the natives. Now the business people get an opportunity of competing and preventing unfair prices being charged to the people. I wanted also to go into a few points which the hon. member for Delarey touched upon, but the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) has already done so. As to education on the diggings, hon. members who have difficulties in the matter should remember that under existing circumstances the provincial councils are responsible in the matter. The State provides funds for the provincial councils and pays a certain sum for every child, whether a digger’s child or not. It is true that there were scandalous conditions. On one digging there was a school with five teachers and 300 children, and there was only one big room. The floor and the whole building was very defective and the conditions shameful, but the central Government is not responsible for that. I am glad that the interests of the diggers are so well protected, and that not merely rich people are being considered. Some of the diggers are in a very sad position and who could be assisted, and their interests exceed those of the people who do not need it, and who possibly live hundreds and even thousands of miles away from the diggings. This Bill will contribute to the improvement of the economic conditions of our people.

The first impression in dealing with this great matter is the thought that the Government has a very great responsibility in connection with the alluvial diggings. The existence of thousands of people is in the balance, and there is no doubt that there has been a certain amount of neglect with reference to them which must be attributed in a certain measure to our Government, because what the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) said about their walking about without any education is true. I am sorry that we have to listen to so many different opinions of hon. members who have visited the Lichtenburg diggings, and that we are not able, from their statements, to find out what is actually required. I have received the impression that it would have been better if they had not gone there. How will the Minister, in solving this question, know which member’s word he ought to take as to the state of affairs? I think that the chief purpose of the Bill is to guard against the over-production of diamonds, and this is in the first place of the greatest importance to the digger himself. Professional diggers are people who are dependent solely on digging. Many people think then when a professional digger has once made a lot of money and had a good find he leaves the diggings and makes his living elsewhere. But that is not the case with the professional digger. Only about 10 per cent. of the diggers at Lichtenburg are professional diggers. The others are farmers from the neighbourhood or people from the towns who go there to try their luck. When they have had a good find they go away and do something else, but the professional digger keeps to that job all his life. Legislation was necessary because if conditions continued as they were in the western Transvaal the calling of a digger would become desperate. Moreover, all are agreed as to the principle of the Bill. Everybody wants the alluvial digger to be given another chance of making a living. I have made a special study of the conditions on the diggings, and I do not think that the Bill, as drawn, provides for the needs of the professional digger. In that respect I disagree from the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll). I represent diggers, and during the past ten years, there have been diggers in my constituency, and I, therefore, know their interests. The interests of the Lichtenburg diggers are, however, entirely different to the interests of diggers in other places in ordinary circumstances. The Government, moreover, will not at once be able to put right all the short comings in the old law, but this Bill will make an improvement in things. It will not, however, do much for the professional digger. The professional digger, e.g., cannot do much with eight or ten natives. When a digger comes to a claim on which he can make something he should have the opportunity of taking out of it all that is possible. He then requires more labourers. The professional digger has to work out a claim as quickly as possible to see if he can make anything out of it. He has no other livelihood, but has to make his living on the diggings. Even 20 natives will not be enough for the professional digger. It will not enable any digger to run two big machines. I am in favour of the large syndicates and companies being restricted and the individual persons being protected, but it should be possible for individual diggers to make a living. This Bill prevents my lending money to a co-digger to continue his operations, but if many diggers cannot get money they will have to stop working. I can lend money to a digger, but he is not liable to pay it back to me. If he does not wish to do so he need not. If I lend a digger £3,000 for three months then I must have the security of a share in the claim until the £3,000 is repaid. The Bill, however, prevents that.

The claim must not be pledged.

I shall be glad if I am wrong, because it is the usual practice among diggers for a successful man to help another. The successful digger does everything in his power to assist the others to carry on their business.

You can still lend him money at 5 per cent.

If a digger cannot be assisted beyond that then he will be ruined and become a poor white and a burden on the shoulders of the State. I feel that we should prevent the diggings throwing more poor whites on to the shoulders of the State. I have had personal experience of prospecting in my constituency. After a prospecting area has been thrown open it is completely prospected without is being proclaimed, and I am glad that the Minister makes provision that a man cannot completely prospect his farm without its being proclaimed. The sub-division of farms in the Transvaal has caused great dissatisfaction among the diggers, because in that way they were deprived of their rights.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.9 p.m.