I move—

Before this Bill is finally passed I would like to make a last protest about the matter. I think that it is fair to say that a feature of the proceedings in connection with this Bill has been the utter apathy and the absolute indifference with which the question has been treated by members on the other side of the House. Here we have an absolutely new departure where the Government of this country takes a direct hand in mining and in a very highly technical and specialized industry, and where the Government is spending a large sum of money—and I am afraid we are going to waste that large sum of money— and members on the other side did not take the trouble very often of listening to the debate. I think it is quite fair to say that. Another feature of the proceedings in connection with this Bill has been the manner in which it was rushed through this House and rushed through the select committee. I say deliberately that most of the hon. members on that side did not even endeavour to understand the measure, they were satisfied to leave it to the Leader of the Labour party, to tight this matter through with their silent vote, and their conspicuous absence of any knowledge Another feature has been the manner in which we were not allowed to get very valuable evidence in connection with the matter. Members on this side asked for the evidence of Mr. Clegg, the Governor of the Reserve Bank. One would have said that if there was one man in this country whose evidence would have been valuable as regards the financial proposals in this Bill, it would have been Mr. Clegg. I have often wondered what the reason was. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. I have often wondered if Mr. Clegg had been asked to report and his report was adverse. We asked for the evidence of the two general managers of the two large banks in this country in connection with the financial proposals of the Government. It was refused, and we were voted down. We asked for the evidence of the Government Mining Engineer. I hold that in a matter like this he is the consulting engineer to the Government: he is the man who should advise us. It was refused, and we were voted down. What was given was this: he said he had not had an opportunity to make himself acquainted with the matter. I say it is the Government Mining Engineer’s duty to make himself acquainted with the matter; through his officers and reports he could have made himself acquainted and given us the benefit of his advice. And so on. The present industries which have been established asked to give evidence. The people at Newcastle and the people at Vereeniging asked to give evidence; they were actually here to give evidence. Another feature, I think, of the proceedings in connection with this matter was the way in which the Minister obstinately refused any amendments or to listen to any amendments or suggestions in connection with the financial proposals. One got the idea that the Government did not want to make, this attractive to private investors; that the Government wanted to be forced into the position that they would have to take all the shares of £5,000,000 and run this as a State concern. That is what the members on the cross benches want. I would just like to call attention to one amendment in committee, that by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who proposed that the Board and the Minister should reserve the right or have the option to either have a portion of the share capital guaranteed or the debentures guaranteed. So it was right through this Bill. Then there is the question of giving Pretoria a monopoly. I would like to say at once if this industry were not established in my own district—Ermelo—I do not know of any other place I would like to see it established but Pretoria; but here you went out of your way to establish a monopoly and put everybody else out of court. It was not necessary to go so far. It seemed you closed the door and wrecked the industries of Newcastle and Vereeniging, and with a little more justice and care one could have avoided all this. With regard to the supplies to the railway, this side of the House did not ask the Government bind itself to take the whole of the supplies for the railway from the Pretoria industry, but to allow yourself the option of giving 50 per cent. of the requirements to someone else, and 50 per cent. should be taken by this company. We might find somebody else able to supply the 50 per cent., and why not leave yourselves free to do it?

Your own leader has admitted that there is room for only one big works.

We admit all that. We might develop very quickly in five years’ time, and you have bound yourselves for 20 years. We might find a centre where it is much cheaper to work iron. The Government has rushed this matter through, and has not given us the opportunity. With the best will in the world we fought the principles of socialism in this Bill, and when we wanted to make this Bill better they would not give us the chance we asked for. The Government alone will be responsible for the investment of these large sums of money and the loss in this to the State.

I do not intend to go into the principle of the Bill again. We have now reached the third reading and all arguments for and against have been repeatedly heard. I, however, rise to express my astonishment at the note worthy speech of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). It is long since I listened to more distortion than when he spoke of the way in which the Bill was being pushed through. He makes misrepresentations to the House, and I think it is our duty as members who sat on the select committee to point out that these stories are nothing else but misrepresentations. The hon. member spoke in a sneering way of the laxness and carelessness of hon. members on this side with regard to the Bill. That is very cheap, especially for the hon. member for Ermelo. I do not know if he wants to state that all members on this side of the House had to give their full attention to the Bill, and should all speak on it. Members on this side of the House have given full attention to the Bill and studied it well. When, however, the Bill was dealt with in committee, there were often only three or four members of the Opposition, including the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) were present. All the other benches were completely empty and those few members sat in a corner and spoke about the Bill. All the members could speak about the Bill but they entrusted the matter to the select committee, and it was not to be expected that all members should sit here the whole day following the Bill. Then the hon. member spoke about the way in which the Bill was being pushed through. He said that no opportunity was given for taking evidence. The hon. member wants to make out that the select committee, and especially the Minister of defence smothered any attempt to get evidence. He speaks a great deal about the evidence of Mr. Clegg and bank managers. We thought that the evidence was not necessary. It was, therefore, merely a difference of opinion, but then the hon. member said further that we refused to hear the Government mining engineer. That is untrue. We asked the Government mining engineer whether he was able to give any information in connection with the matter. His answer was in the negative. He said that he was not able to give any further information than was already available. Dr. Wagner e.g. had given evidence. He has been engaged for years studying the subject and he is acknowledged as one of the best experts on this subject in the whole world. Recently an American expert also said this. Further, Dr. Meyer gave evidence. He is a member of the staff of the Board of Trade and Industries, and drafted the memorandum sent to the English expert, Professor Burny, about which the latter said that the memorandum and criticism of Dr. Meyer was so good and complete that it was unnecessary for him to add anything, and that he fully agreed with it. Dr. van der Merwe, chairman of the Electricity Commission also gave evidence.

We secured that with great difficulty.

That is very petty. He was there. We took trouble and we did not want to call unnecessary evidence. Then the hon. member speaks of other industries existing today and which ought also to have been given a chance of giving evidence. In this connection also he represents things wrongly. We asked Major Butler to give evidence as chairman of the Union Steel Corporation, Limited, and we told him that he could bring his advisers. His attorney came with him. Major Butler gave his evidence and we listened attentively to it. Then the hon. member says further that we refused to give the municipalities of Newcastle and Vereeniging an opportunity of giving evidence. If we had obtained their evidence we should also have had to give an opportunity to the municipalities of Oudtshoorn, Ladybrand, Pretoria, etc. Where should we have landed if we had to hear all the municipalities in the Union and listen to their representations as to the suitability of their municipalities for the industry. We had a deputation from the Vereeniging municipality here and they asked for a discussion with us so that they should be able to prove that Vereeniging was a very good place. We replied that the select committee could not decide the point as to where the industry was to be established. It is nowhere stated that the industry would be established in Pretoria. That is left to the eventual decision of the board of directors. It did not fall within the terms of reference of the select committee and we had no right to investigate that point. We referred Vereeniging to the Minister. They had an interview with the Minister and as they themselves acknowledge they were highly satisfied about it. Newcastle sent a memorandum and they wanted to give evidence about the importance of the industry to Newcastle. That, however, was completely outside the orbit of our investigation. The hon. member for Ermelo knows this as well as anybody and it is very petty of him to come here and say that we refused to take evidence, and to represent us as doing a great injustice to existing industries by not wanting to hear them. We heard the authorized representative of the existing industry, Major Butler. But then the hon. member says further that the chairman of the select committee, the Minister of Defence, obstinately refused to consider any amendment from the Opposition. I know the “Cape Times” also made a fuss and said that the Minister of Defence would not consider a single amendment which touched the question of State control. Hon. members will remember that the Minister of Defence, when a motion to that effect was made in the select committee, ruled it out of order because it affected the principle which had been approved of at the second reading, and he said that he was willing to refer his ruling on the point to Mr. Speaker. You, Mr. Speaker, decided that the chairman was quite right and that such an amendment was not admissible. What right then has the hon. member for Ermelo to accuse the Minister of obstinately refusing to consider any other amendment. It is petty and a misrepresentation.

You are missing the whole point.

No, the whole quarrel was about the Minister smothering evidence, but we heard the evidence which could be useful and which was admissible. I am sorry that the hon. member for Ermelo makes this protest to-day because his motion was rejected by the select committee, and he wants to create the impression that the select committee did not give a proper opportunity for hearing evidence. That is a false representation.

I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) to get so heated when we on this side of the House simply state a few facts regarding the work of the select committee on this Bill. This is a very good example of the ineffectiveness of work on the select committee. When it comes to amendments moved by members of the Opposition being voted down simply because the proposers of the motion are Opposition members, it is wasting time for us to go on a select committee if our views are to be treated in this unceremonious fashion. I agree that certain amendments of ours were accepted, but they belong to two classes only; one class comprised amendments for the deletion of matter which it was very evident ought never to have been in the original Bill. The other class of amendments that was accepted, were those concerning provisions of the Bill in which the cloven hoof of socialism was so evident that one side of the Pact did not feel comfortable that legislation of this nature should be laid down very clearly in an Act of Parliament. I refer to certain clauses regarding wages, appointment of staff arid so on. A few amendments which were put forward by our side with the intention to improve the prospects of the industry were unceremoniously wiped out by the select committee. When we went to the committee we did so thinking that that body would solve some of the problems connected with the starting of an important new industry, but I am afraid that practically none of those problems were solved, because the committee had not the opportunity of obtaining evidence which proved one side or the other of a question. One problem in particular has not been solved, and that is why the Guttehoffnungshütte people, after issuing a report pointing out the great value of the deposits at Pretoria and the prospects of making the industry a payable one, did not themselves take it up. We were told that trouble in the Ruhr prevented these people embarking on this enterprise. But if they did not feel able to do this, there are many other iron interests in America or Great Britain which might have been induced to take an active share in starting this new industry. Later on, it appeared that the Guttehoffnungshütte went to Sweden and put a lot of money into an iron enterprise in that country. Even today we cannot tell the real reason why the technical people, who should know whether this industry is likely to be a success or not, did not proceed further with the matter. Another problem which is not clear is the provision of a sufficient water supply at Pretoria, and whether that water supply is so sure that it is good enough to put five millions of money into an enterprise which largely depends on an ample supply of water at a reasonable rate. Unless that water supply is sufficient in quantity and reasonable in price, we stand to lose all the money which is to be embarked in this vast undertaking. In the long run the Government will probably have to come forward and provide a water supply in order that the industry may carry on its operations. Now there is another problem we have not solved and it is entirely the fault of the majority on that committee. That is the problem of which is the best way to finance the industry. That is a very important problem to the Government whether this industry is going to be financed in a way that will enable the industry to get their capital or whether it will be financed in a way in which the Minister of Finance will have to find not only the capital promised by the Government but also the capital which it is suggested should be got from the public. We asked that the managers of the two banks of this country, independent men with wide experience who have seen things go down because they were badly financed, should be called. Surely it was not too much to ask the Minister of Defence that these two men should be allowed to give evidence and I don’t think there can be any excuse for the Minister’s refusal except that the Government did not want the evidence, but they wanted it to be run as a Government concern. If the Government are so certain their system of finance is right they should have got those two men to back up the Government view and they should have been satisfied that they would back their view. As it is to-day we believe, and many people believe in this country who know something about financing companies, that the Government have gone the wrong way to work. They are covering the debentures instead of the first issue of shares and we believe they are going to have the utmost difficulty in raising the ordinary share capital. Time will show whether we are right or wrong. Unfortunately if the Government are wrong the taxpayers of the country are going to suffer, and we say we should have taken evidence from people competent to speak on this vital matter. There is another matter we did not go into at all and that is the question of whether Pretoria is the best place. I do not say that there is proof that Pretoria is not the best place but I say there has been no inquiry into the matter and the only chance of inquiry was smothered by the committee. There are going to be many difficulties in the development of this industry and the most important difficulty is that of synchronising the output of iron ore and steel with the subsidiary industries which are going to consume the supply, and it seems to me the Government are going to have great difficulties unless they at once proceed to get private interests to start at once making preparation to provide the subsidiary industries, the only outlet for the iron and steel ore which they propose to put out in five years’ time. There was another point which was not cleared up and that was whether the evidence was at all strong that you are going to get a reduced price, that is that the public are going to get a reduced price for your commodities and at the same time the company make the profit which the Government are putting forward to the public as an inducement to invest in the shares. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) thinks he is going to get cheap steel. As far as I can see one of two things is going to happen. Even if it is a success either the shareholders are going to get the 10 per cent. dangled in front of them or the public are going to get cheap steel, but they are not going to get both on the figures shown, and I doubt, under Government control, whether either will happen. Of course we have not removed the evil feature in this Bill. The real basic trouble of the whole thing, and the trouble which is going to wreck this scheme, is Government control. By having Government directors in the majority it is going to slow down the whole machinery of the work. It has been proved in other industries and it will be proved again here that these directors, whether independent or not, are going to put off decisions until they have talked with the Minister, and decisions which should have been taken to-day are going to be taken next month, and consequently the concern will be slowed down. To that extent the industry is going to be expensively run. I go further and say that the policy which might be best for the industry is going to be deflected for political considerations. Directors will feel they must consult the Minister and he will not look at the matter purely from the point of view of the industry, but from the general political point of view and decisions will be made which are harmful to the industry, whereas, if the Government had not complete control, this political point of view would not be taken into consideration at all. Another very great objection is one mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and that is that the policy of the railway administration is going to be affected by their position with this corporation. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) the other day in replying during the report stage thought that was what the railway administration was there for. It was there in order to support and bolster up this industry. I say that will be bad both for the industry and the railway administration. By not accepting our rational and reasonable amendment that 50 per cent. of the railway requirements be kept out of the contract the Government have actually closed the door to any competitive price for their requirements. Nobody is going to give them a competitive price if they know they cannot get the business whatever price they give. The administration will get bogus prices put up against them and the corporation is going to get more for their products than the railway should be legitimately called upon to pay. Nobody, more than myself, wants a steel industry in this country but the question is whether we are not paying too big a price for it. Are we not paying a very big price when we crush out all private enterprise in these industries? I doubt whether the balance of advantage will accrue to the country when it is based on crushing out private enterprise in such a big sphere of work. If the Government had treated the matter rationally and had supported the industry, guaranteeing a portion of the capital and knowing exactly where their liability ended, and then handed it over to people who understood the job—

Same old thing.

I ask the hon. member (Mr. Hay) to understand that as far as we are concerned we have no desire for any of your socialistic doctrines.

What about the Diamond Control Bill?

I am not interested in the Diamond Control Bill. The only thing I am interested in in regard to that Bill is the taking away of private rights. I am convinced that if you were to hand over this steel and iron industry, when once it had been put on its legs, and leave it to private interest to work it properly, it would have a very much better effect and would be very much more likely to succeed. I will go further and say that the one town which will confirm this in a few years’ time will be Pretoria itself. Pretoria will be sick of Government control when it has had five years of it in connection with this scheme. I believe that the true function of government should be to remove obstacles in the way of private enterprise; give private enterprise a chance, and private enterprise will come through every time. That is the reason why I believe this Bill is based on absolutely wrong lines, and it will only be by a miracle if they come through and make a success of it.

I am glad to see my hon. friend the member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) sitting here. I hope he will this afternoon get up and support what I have to say. The hon. member has a greater interest in this Bill from his constituents’ point of view even than I have. I notice the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet), who is also vitally interested, does not even take the trouble to come into the House and listen to this debate. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) in his speech just now said that the Vereeniging deputation who came to Cape Town to give evidence before the select committee and were turned down were perfectly satisfied. I ask the hon. member whether I understood him correctly.

I said they were quite satisfied with the interview.

I ask the hon. member whether they are quite satisfied in regard to the select committee.

I am sure they are quite satisfied.

I was told that they were foaming at the mouth. Since their return they have made a report to the municipality of Vereeniging, a most damaging report against the way they were treated here. I would like to join in the statement made by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and protest against the manner in which the evidence was allowed before the select committee. The Newcastle Corporation and the Newcastle interests were very anxious to give evidence, including Mr. Eaton, who has been the pioneer in the iron and steel industry in South Africa. Mr. Eaton was not allowed to give evidence. That is a sufficient indication of the manner in which the select committee treated Newcastle and Vereeniging in disallowing their evidence in toto. I go further and ask, why was not the evidence of Mr. Clegg allowed? Why was Mr. Farrer called and not Mr. Clegg? Mr. Farrer said that he did not want to give evidence on any questions of policy. Naturally, Mr. Farrer was afraid to express his opinion. If Mr. Clegg had been called we would have got an independent man, not subject to the influence of the Government. We were told that Mr. Clegg was a man who had only a knowledge of gilt-edged securities, that he had no knowledge of a speculative security such as was contemplated under this Bill. That was why Mr. Clegg’s evidence was not called. Are we to take it as being correct that even the Government regard these shares which the public are to be asked to subscribe for in connection with this industry as speculative? I submit that we are entitled, and justly entitled, to call the attention of the country to the way in which evidence was smothered by the select committee. The Minister, when addressing the House on the second reading, admitted that this was a very difficult subject for members of Parliament to speak on, as very few members had any knowledge of the iron and steel industry. Then he went on to say that he admitted that the Government had been in possession of the report which had been issued by the German experts for a matter of two years. They had never allowed that report to be placed before the country, so that the country could have had an opportunity of reviewing it and investigating whether it was sound or not. That report was kept a dead secret until the very day of the second reading of the Bill, and then only was it placed on the Table. Before then I made every possible effort to obtain the reports to the Minister dealing with the subject and those reports the Minister refused to hand over until the second reading debate had started. What was the object of the secrecy?

Have you read it now?

Yes, I have read the greater portion of it, at least the synopsis. Has the Minister read it?

No, and I don’t pretend.

Were you in the Cabinet when the matter was decided?

Oh, yes.

Yet you decided without reading the report. That shows how much the Minister could know about the matter. I wonder how many other Ministers have read it. I doubt whether one of them has done so. Probably the only Minister that did read it was the Minister of Defence, and he read it just before the second reading. The whole of the information which was at the disposal of the Government was kept secret, and it was kept from the existing industry, who never had an opportunity of knowing what was in the minds of the Government. The existing industry was never taken into the confidence of the Government and was never consulted. The first they heard about this Bill was when it was published for the first time on the motion for leave to introduce it. The Minister of Mines and Industries said in his statement on the second reading that he had warned one of the leading directors of the existing industry. I take it that that was the late Mr. Lewis. I happen to have spoken to Mr. Lewis and he denied that he had ever been warned by the Minister of the intention of the Government to pass legislation of this sort. If it was not the late Mr. Lewis whom the Minister warned, will he tell us who the director was that he had warned, because I say this—

I have made the statement once, and I stand by it, and the House can believe me or not.

Will the Minister tell us what director it was whom he warned and what was the purport of the warning? The Minister left the existing industry absolutely in ignorance of what the intention of the Government was, and allowed them to develop the industry and spend in the last two and a half years a sum of £700,000. He should have told them not to spend that money, that the Government was going to establish a State industry, and that the existing industry would probably have to go into oblivion. The directors of the existing industry had no information whatever of the intention of the Government until the first reading of the Bill. Only last June the Minister passed a Bill which confirmed and extended the dates of the Bounties Act. He set the dates back so as to enable the existing industry to reap the full benefits which the Bounties Act of 1923 provided for. What was his intention when he passed that Act? Was he simply throwing dust into the eyes of the existing industry? Was it trickery, or was it seriously intended that that Bill passed last June was to have effect? I would like to know from the Minister when, last June, he introduced the Bill, had he then decided that he would introduce this legislation which is now before the House, or did he subsequently decide to introduce this legislation? I, personally, believe that the Minister only decided after that. I will show the House why I come to this conclusion. When he was called to pay the bounties under the Bounties Act, the Minister said—

Let me read to the House parts of the letter which the Minister addressed to the existing industry, in February last, and I submit that this letter would never have been written if this Bill had not been introduced in the House.

You are a past master at assuming things.

I will prove to you that my statements are based on facts. The letter is dated 21st February, 1927, and reads—

Now the Minister knows that statement is not correct, because he has in his possession a certificate by Mr. Reece, the consulting engineer, stating that this blast furnace is capable of producing between 50,000 and 60,000 tons of pig iron a year. I want to know from the Minister why he wrote that letter. He goes further—

I submit when one reads the Act of 1922 the words to my mind are perfectly clear, and I cannot understand how the Minister can now claim that although a certificate has been given to show that the blast furnace is capable of producing 50,000 to 60,000 tons that he is not liable under this Act to pay a bounty. I want the House to know how the Minister is making every possible effort to kill the industry so as to leave the road clear for the new industry at Pretoria. The Act provides—

I say the blast furnace is capable of producing at least 50,000 to 60,000 tons of pig iron a year. The existing industry is legally entitled to payment of the bounty. The Minister’s interpretation of the intention of the Act is untenable. If the Act is not clear then why did the Minister last June not amend it so as to give effect to what he intended? I must assume he did not do it because last June he had not then decided that he would introduce the legislation now before the House. That is the only conclusion I can come to. Furthermore, I want to say that only last December the Minister of Defence was at Newcastle. He did not go there to inspect the industry, but to hold a political meeting for propaganda purposes; but at all events he was received by the Newcastle people; he was given a luncheon or a dinner and at that function he got up and praised the industry. He never said a word about what the intention of the Government was in regard to this Bill; in fact, the Newcastle people said he gave them the kiss of Judas. Could there have been any falser kiss of Judas given than that kiss given at Newcastle? He made a most glowing speech about the industry, and yet he knew all the time that within a few months he was going to introduce a Bill which was going to kill the very industry he was praising. Was that a fair and honourable thing to do? If Ministers of the Crown are going to act in that way, all I can say is no industry will be safe. Newcastle asked the Minister there, and what have they received from him? They asked for a loaf and have received a poisonous serpent.

Not a stone?

No, something worse than a stone—a serpent. I want to come to another point of practical interest. The Minister, at the second reading, said this—

I put it to the Minister, if the Minister contends that this existing industry is so economically impossible, how is it the Minister will not agree to allow 50 per cent. of the railway requirements to be open to public tender by South. African producers? The last Minister gave no reply and the present Minister has given no reply.

Just because I know they are uneconomic.

If they are uneconomic what is the Minister afraid of?

It would be obvious folly.

Well, why not back your opinion by giving the existing industry a chance to see what they can do? When this matter was discussed before the select committee in 1925 the Secretary of Mines. Mr. Warington Smyth, in giving evidence, said this, and I think he was perfectly right—

This Bill is the direct antithesis of that policy. I say that every fair-minded man must admit that the effect of this Bill will be to break the industry, which industry, let me say, has been established at the express invitation of the Government of this country. It would have been totally different if it had come into being on its own. The policy of encouraging this industry to expand was confirmed by this Government last year by extending the bounty system. As the Government is the father of that industry, it is entitled to receive consideration from the Government, because it is possible if the Government of the country had not invited the establishment of the industry it would never have existed. Over £1,200,000 has been spent in the industry. There are over 1,200 shareholders both in this country and in England. Is it fair to those shareholders, after they have put their money into an industry under the circumstances mentioned, for us as a Parliament to pass a law which must smash that industry? No more diabolical legislation could be passed; no more unjust and unfair legislation could be passed. I am certain I have got justice on my side. The Minister thinks I am wrong, but I say I am right. It would have been possible for the Government to have made some provision to protect the existing industry in some way, but they have done nothing. Efforts have been made to come to an arrangement, but the reply received from the Minister of Defence was: “The Government can do nothing; you must wait until the new corporation is established, and then you must negotiate with the new corporation; in other words, with the Government, as they will control the board.” The present Government have refused to see that the existing industry is protected; in fact, I myself met the Minister of Defence and endeavoured to get him to make a tentative arrangement. He would not even do that. The Government, apparently, are not in any way interested to see that some protection is granted to the existing industry. If the Minister of Justice had been in charge of this Bill I believe a satisfactory arrangement would have been made, but I have found two Ministers who are impossible to deal with, who will not listen to reason, and who simply say: “Wait, we can do nothing.” It was possible for an arrangement to be come to, an arrangement which would have satisfied the various interests which are being seriously affected by this Bill. There is another point which cropped up, and which was referred to by Major Butler, and members of the select committee must admit that Major Butler gave his evidence very clearly and openly. He said this—

He gave as his reason this—

It seems extraordinary that if, according to their report, this industry could be made such a successful thing, how is it they themselves did not take up that industry?

The Bill does not lay down it is to be at Pretoria.

We all know it is going to be Pretoria. I say the German experts confined their inquiry to Pretoria, and nowhere else. That is the point.

Why?

Because they came out to report for the Pretoria people. Can you tell me how the Pretoria people got into possession of the report?

What did your leader say about Pretoria?

I am speaking about Newcastle. Is it not a fact that the Free State has come to an arrangement with the Transvaal—

Nonsense!

Well, we will see if this does not eventuate. I say that this Bill is going to create deep resentment in Newcastle and Vereeniging, because they are smarting under an injustice. I want to say to the Minister of Labour, who is supposed to represent Natal, but does not, he has never said a word in protection of the interests of Natal, and I submit it was his duty to do so, and to see, at all events, that the Newcastle people were fairly treated. If I were asked to give my interpretation of what this Bill is, I would say—

Shocking! Any Russian gold in it?

This Bill has been brought in as a sop to Cerberus, that is, the three Labour Ministers of the Government. If the three Labour Ministers had not been in the Cabinet we would never have had these socialistic clauses imported into this Bill, and the existing industry would have been fairly dealt with.

And bigger bounties.

This Bill is nothing more than a vote-catching measure. The taxpayer is to be mulcted. The only way you keep these Pretoria seats is to pass legislation of this sort. I wish to warn the Cape Province that the establishment of the steel works in Pretoria will be used as a weapon to skirmish with to shift the capital from Cape Town to Pretoria. I may be wrong, but we will see.

What is Newcastle’s claim to the capital?

What has the hon. member to do with Newcastle? I hope the Minister will look upon the existing industry in a more sympathetic way. I do not only want sympathy, but justice, and until I get it I am bound to protest at what, to me, is unjust legislation.

It is a “steal” Bill.

I hope the Minister will see, when the time comes, that provision will be made for the existing industry to be protected by a fair arrangement between the corporation created under this Bill and the Union Steel Corporation, Limited.

From the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), it is evident the iron has entered his soul. I cannot pretend to the detached frame of mind of the hon. gentleman, as I am interested—and I say so honestly and straight out—in Pretoria where the iron to be worked is situated; but I am more interested still in the general advancement of this country. For days we have been patiently listening to the most doleful story about the existing mineral props of the Union. We have had it brought forward, and it is incontestible, that our largest mining industry is a rapidly wasting one, with an average life of 12 to 15 years given to gold production. Then what have we heard about our diamonds during the last day or two? That industry sick unto death! It is now in such precarious condition that the least breath of wind would upset it. The buying syndicate and the Government are alarmed that it may disappear, and that diamonds will become so cheap, that American women may give up wearing the gems altogether!

The hon. member may not now discuss the diamond measure.

I am using the statements of a decreasing value of our present mineral wealth so as to base upon it my argument with regard to the projected iron industry. Let me draw attention to the fact that the whole contest in this House as put up by the hon. members for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is that we are acting most unfairly towards private enterprize— which is proving to be a failure everywhere and in every way. State control is coming more and more to the front, because people will not be content with, and are tired of, the ineffectiveness and insufficiency of private enterprize. It is so in respect of the iron and steel enterprize we are now providing State funds for. Private enterprize has had its chance and tailed. The way of private enterprize is strewn with wreckage; it is inadequate to the needs of the people. I wish to give every credit to Messrs. Lewis and Marks; but with regard to private enterprize in this iron industry, has Newcastle been able to meet requirements? Vereeniging does not come up to our present desire to develop our ore sources, but has lived upon scrap metal for 16 years, and without that assistance could not have been even moderately successful. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), as leader of the Opposition, had only one difficulty upsetting his mind, and that was whether we should go along by means of a Government guarantee, which is a certainty, or a bonus system, which is always speculative. The Opposition wish to see once more if we could get money from individuals outside; but it is time Government took some responsibility. If we consider the profits that have been made, and what this country has done in the past, one only wonders why anybody is against the Government’s coming on the scene and seeing what they can do to establish iron and steel production. Up to the end of the last year, gold to the value of £876,000,000 has been won in this country, diamonds to the value of £245,000,000, and coal to the value of £68,000,000. I am glad to see that coal is only third on the list. Iron is as valuable to the country as coal, but after all these years, we have raised only £6,500 worth. As this country has produced mineral wealth to the extent of £1,225,000,000, what would a Government be like if it were not prepared to risk £1,500,000 to do something for a permanent development to take the place of vanishing minerals? I am tired of hearing incorrigible pessimists, who are always posing as “incurable optimists,” and protesting that everything will be a failure if we do not hand the asset over to private enterprize, and on no account must the taxpayers’ money be risked. What would any possible loss amount to per head? The fight here is just the same old thing—fear lest there should be further success on the part of State enterprize. The financial tiger is, as usual, fighting just as hard for his whiskers as for his whole body.

Where has private enterprize been a failure?

Well, housing for the people, certainly. Take one example of State enterprize which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has some familiarity with, that is, the Land Bank. I was in the Parliament of the Transvaal when the Land Bank project was being opposed just in the same way as the present attacks on this Bill are being made, and it was said—

They understand the business! Well, we did not, and to-day we are proud that we have made these carping critics look foolish—if possible, more so than nature has already done for them. We heard the same old silly argument; it would only bring about a further system of doles, and induce farmers to ask for more and more credit; in fact, they must not be tempted to get into debt. To-day we have loans of £8,250,000 from the Land Bank, and everybody admits it has been a wonderfully helpful institution, and its critics are silenced by success. The Land Bank has been the means of establishing many a farmer who would otherwise have fallen a prey to speculators and to those who profit by the necessities of the people to add to their own wealth. I am certain the day will come, too, when the public will thank those who had the confidence to say—

I believe the State is perfectly right in taking a full directorate majority control, and it should have appointed directors on many other concerns in which they hold an interest. People who say there will be sufficient work to keep an iron and steel industry employed profitably for only four months in the year do not give the country credit for what it will do in the way of expansion. There is great need for the supply of steel on our bridge and railway construction. We are building up exports of fruit and other commodities, apart from wool and hides, and I hope we shall add iron and steel to the list. But whether we do so or not, it is the Government’s duty to take a definite interest in the development of the country, particularly when private enterprize fails to meet our wants. It should establish a State Bank. I do not wish to be too laudatory in regard to the Government, and trust that those interested in the existing iron and steel company will receive fair play. In dealing with it, however, we must see that there is no payment for watered capital. I am sure Government has no wish to injure what has been established by private persons, and a fair deal can be made if—and it is a big if— the other parties to the deal are not filled with greed, but are willing to take a fair return for what they have actually done. The proposed new industry is a solid, sound venture, and we should be brave enough to be experimental, and find work for our own countrymen, and retain in South Africa money which would otherwise be sent overseas for the purchase of goods we can make for ourselves.

I have no doubt the Minister thinks this debate is beating the air, because he has a solid majority which will carry the third reading of the Bill. At the same time, we on this side of the House who object to the measure should take every opportunity of voicing our objections. The principal objection I have is not to the establishment of an iron and steel industry, of which I am entirely in favour, but to Government making it a State enterprize. The mere fact that Government will have the control of the industry will impede its development, and it will end in failure, or, failing that, it will result in the price of iron and steel goods being greater than it otherwise would be. The experience of other parts of the world where Governments have established any industrial enterprize has invariably been disastrous. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has quoted the experience of Queensland with regard to State cattle ranches, butcher shops, dairies, and a host of other things, the invariable result being a loss of public money. We have the example of the governments of Australia and the United States embarking on shipping enterprizes which have meant a very large loss, which has had to be borne by the taxpayer. In these Government enterprizes you always have a Government stroke. It is nobody’s particular duty to see that the employees do their best. A man in Government employ as a rule has not the same incentive to put forth his best efforts as has the man in private employment. The Government employee has stated hours and scales of salaries, and it is impossible for the Government to offer the same incentives to its employees to do their best that ordinary commercial undertakings can. Then there is the danger of political control. I don’t think the Minister for a moment is a man who would use his position in order to impede industry, but undoubtedly in every case where Government has control of an undertaking political considerations are bound to enter into the matter. That was very clearly admitted by the Minister of Railways in connection with the proposed Government workshop. A committee of experts was appointed to inquire into the best site for a central railway workshop. They reported that the best site was either Salt River or Northern Natal, but when the matter was submitted to the Minister he freely admitted that other considerations besides economic ones had to be taken into account, and the only conclusion was that these considerations were political ones. Again, I think the attitude of the Government towards the Union Steel Corporation, which has borne the heat and burden of the day, is, if not one of hostility, one of entire indifference. That company was encouraged to experiment in the manufacture of iron and steel. To this end it spent large sums of money, variously stated at some £750,000 and £1,250,000, in carrying on experiments year after year. After arriving at the position when they were able to produce pig-iron from ore and to see the prospect of earning a profit, they were calmly shunted, and told that Government intended to establish an iron and steel industry, and if that meant the company’s obliteration, so much the worse for them. That is not fair treatment, especially seeing that only last year the Government encouraged the company to go on in order to earn a bounty. The time for the payment of the bounty had expired, but the company was still carrying on its operations, notwithstanding that there was no prospect of its receiving the bounty. But the Minister promoted a Bill, and the bounty was continued. The company had been striving to make the industry a success, and all at once, and without any definite warning on the part of the Government, the company is being faced with extinction. This is a bad thing for the country. We want to attract capital here, and investors to have some sense of security. It is bad enough to run the risk of competition and failure which inevitably attends industrial enterprize, but when we have the Government “putting the lid” on the efforts of these industrialists, it is a bad thing for the country. The Union Steel Corporation has not had fair play. From the very beginning it is quite evident that the Pretoria people had the ear of the Minister and the Government, and that no attempt was made to come to terms with the other people who were on the point of making their works a success. Assuming that the Union Steel Corporation is able to carry on, the dice are being loaded against it as far as the Government can do it, because there is a clause in the Bill stating that all the requirements of the Railway Administration are to be purchased from the new company. When it was sought to restrict the requirements of the railways, which might go to the new company, to 50 per cent., in order that the Union Steel Corporation, with others, if there are any others, might compete for the remaining 50 per cent., the Government would not hear of it. If the railways are to be managed on business principles then from the railway point of view there was nothing at all to be lost by accepting that amendment. When the Minister refused to accept that amendment, he did so without giving a valid reason, in fact the argument was on the other side. Right through the case the argument of the Opposition with regard to the points I have mentioned, and the methods of financing the new company, were sound, and were not really met by the Minister or his supporters, but were voted down by the application of the steam roller. I do not think the matter has been approached in the way it should have been approached. There was no intention on the part of the Opposition to impede the Government in the establishment of an iron and steel industry in a fair manner. We all felt it was a key industry, and that the time might come when it might be a matter of life and death to this country to have iron and steel manufactured within our own borders. The Government seem to have made up their minds before approaching the House that they would not accept any material modification of their scheme, and, worst of all, they were indifferent and even hostile to the existing corporation. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Hay), who spoke last, said the reason why the Government came forward to establish the industry was because the Newcastle company had not been able to come up to the mark. The Newcastle company has been in existence for several years, but the building of a blast furnace in South Africa was something entirely new, and it took them several years before the furnace was in a state to produce pig-iron, and it was only last July that the furnace was started, and it has been producing regularly ever since. There is no doubt the quantity produced during the last year was not equal to the 50,000 tons required by the Act of 1922, as the year has not elapsed, but their capacity is equal to that, and they will, if they get fair play, produce the required quantity. I want to register my protest against the Bill, and I say that the existing industries should have received greater consideration from the Government. If it is not too late, I think it is the duty of the Government to enter into some reasonable arrangement with the Union Steel Corporation. It is a matter for bargaining. The Government may think the terms the corporation ask are too high, but in a matter of this sort surely it is possible for the Government to meet the corporation in a friendly way, and, instead of brushing them aside, try to come to some friendly arrangement.

I do not intend to prolong this debate. The empty benches opposite show clearly that hon. gentlemen on the opposite side do not place too much importance on this question at this stage.

What about your own benches?

We have used every argument, that can be used, and don’t propose to repeat them.

You have not used arguments, but the steam roller.

There has not been a single speech to-day in which an argument has been used with which we have not been made well acquainted. These speeches are a further attempt to damage the Government. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down said they did not wish on that side of the House to do anything except assist the Government in the matter, but every speech attempts to belittle us in our efforts to establish this national industry, and hon. members opposite are doing their best to destroy any success we may have in the future in establishing this industry at Pretoria. I have risen to reply to one point which the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) made in his speech. He said the Union Steel Corporation has not been given a fair chance. I would recall to the memory of the hon. member the history of the efforts of this corporation to establish themselves, but before doing that I would refer him to a speech made by a member of the South African party on the occasion when a debate took place in the House on the granting of a monopoly of scrap iron to that corporation. I refer to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) reported in Hansard. Mr. Rockey is reported to have said in that debate, discussing the Union Steel Corporation, that he did not see the genesis of a big staple industry. What they did see was the making of a permanent endowment of a pettifogging scrap iron shop and he used the words advisedly which would never be a source of profit to the State nor a benefit to the people of South Africa. That is the opinion of an hon. member on that side of the House, and I take it they make these statements advisedly.

Things have progressed since then.

I will show the hon. member the progress this corporation has made. What happened in regard to this corporation? In 1912 the Government gave them a monopoly of all the scrap iron of the railways of this country, and the curious part of the proceedings was that the Unionist members, representing the greatest portion of the South African party to-day, opposed the granting of that monopoly tooth and nail, and they are the very gentlemen who are fighting for these people to-day. Not only were they granted this monopoly but they were given a railway contract protecting them for sixteen years, and later in their history the opposition party then in power brought forward a Bounty Act in 1921, and this company has been operating under a bounty system since then. For sixteen years this corporation has been protesting that they were about to produce steel from virgin ore. They have been quietly leading the country to believe they were the real industry this country required, and for sixteen years they have done nothing. They have produced steel from pig-iron and nothing else until last year, when they made a few paltry thousand tons of pig-iron from virgin ore. And the Opposition now asks the country to wait for a company of that kind to put our steel industry on a proper basis. This side of the House will not accept that argument. We shall not wait further. We look upon a steel industry as of the utmost importance to the development of the Union, and for that reason the Government has come forward with this measure feeling that it can no longer delay the development of so important an industry. That being the position, we wonder why the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has wearied the House hour after hour by saying and doing everything in his power to wreck the Bill now before the House. Speeches not only from the hon. member for Newcastle and the hon. member for Dundee, but also from the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) have gone to show that they are endeavouring their best to prove to the country that what we are doing is not a good thing for the country but a bad thing.

And quite right.

We shall remember these remarks of hon. members, and the country will have to judge later on.

It is the way it is being done.

There you have it. The hon. member knows private enterprise has failed to produce a proper industry in the country, and it is only as a last resort the Government have come forward prepared to do anything in its power to make a success of the industry. That is the basis of this Act, and we wonder how the opposition party would have done it had they been placed in similar circumstances. Would they have allowed the matter to drift? I think they would, and the country would have been faced with a long period of drift. We should not have been given this important key industry, which the country must have before it can be fully developed. This House and the country ought to realize that this corporation, for whom members of the Opposition are fighting, has not been a success in the past. I do not want to say anything that will damage them, but it is necessary in view of the repeated attacks on the Minister and the Bill that I should make these remarks about the Union Steel Corporation, and that we should let the country know that it has the choice between what he Government is giving it in this Bill and having to rely upon a company which, in the past, has not fulfilled its pledges and has not succeeded in giving the country the industry which it requires to-day.

My hon. friend is unjust. How can he say it is a failure? They have just put in capital of £1,200,000. That does not look like a failure. They had to start from small beginnings but my hon. friends supporting this Bill are not prepared to wait but want to rush in, not with their own money, but with the taxpayers’ money. These people have had to grow, and they have got nothing from the State. It is admitted by the Minister that two concerns cannot live and you will ruin this company.

They will find their proper place.

How can they find their proper place? The Minister twice this afternoon has stressed that two concerns cannot exist. What is to become of it? One has the resources of the State behind it—£5,000,000— and the other has just private enterprise behind it. To say that this enterprise has been a failure is grossly unfair. It has not been a failure yet; it has not had a fair chance. We would like to see this iron and steel industry go ahead, but we very much object to two things. We object to State money, the taxpayers’ own money, being put into this concern and then, above all, we object to State management. Can my hon. friend point out in the whole world a similar concern to this run by the State and on State money, having been a success? As sure as we are sitting in this House this afternoon you are going to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds on this concern. Hundreds of thousands of pounds will be lost before this thing is wound up. It is no use—Government management is bad always.

What about the Electricity Commission?

That is another story altogether. I said that you cannot point to a similar concern to this, producing iron and steel in the whole world, which has been successful under State management. We want to warn the country—the whole of our thoughts have been in that direction—against the losing of millions of money before in this project.

I have been repeatedly challenged by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) to stand up for the interests of my constituency and assist him in his opposition. I just wish to say that the people in my constituency and also the existing industries are not so much dissatisfied. It is the hon. members there who are dissatisfied. The late Government had the development of our industries on its programme, but did nothing. We can understand it when we see the attitude of the hon. member for Newcastle. I just want to tell the hon. member that there is more iron ore in Losberg and Potchefstroom than in the hon. member’s district, and I am quite able to stand up for the interests of Losberg. We have to do here, however, with a national industry which must be established as centrally as possible. We know that there cannot be two foundries in the country. Why then should everybody agitate for his own constituency? We have to do with a national industry and must regard it from that point of view. I just want to ask the Minister not to forget the Potchefstroom iron ore if the industry is established in Pretoria. Moreover, Vereeniging must be fairly treated. We know that much money has been invested in the industry there and we must treat the people who established the industry fairly. We have already had the assurance that the Minister will do so, but I am only urging it once more.

I do not propose dealing with all the questions that have been raised. I do not see any use in churning up matter constantly. Hon. members opposite have been very sedulous and persistent in churning up one and the same matter, identical matter throughout and especially the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) Newcastle may well call out—

I think that his handling of this whole subject throughout the debate on it has been very gauche and he has rendered anything but good service to his constituency. I just want to deal with a few points in order to remove any misapprehension. The hon. member for Newcastle led the House to believe that I had positively encouraged and misled the Union Steel Corporation by the amending Act of last year when the dates for the bountry were shifted forward. Now let me tell the hon. member this, I received from Professor H. E. S. Fremantle on the 31st March a letter dated 29th March and this letter incidentally deals with the charge that the hon. member makes against me, that I had never warned any representative of the Union Steel Corporation. The hon. member for Newcastle waxes eloquent on pure assumption. It is very easy to argue a case when you assume your facts throughout, but they are pure assumptions in many and material respects. The letter from Professor. Fremantle, which is dated 29th March, 1927, reads—

That in itself is already a misstatement, or incorrect. I did nothing of the kind, as my answer will explain. The letter proceeds—

Nor did I indeed—

I answered this letter through my private secretary on the 2nd of April as follows—

The director referred to by me was, of course, Mr. Isaac Lewis himself. The letter proceeds—

I find that that statement was made by me on an interruption by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he put me a question—

And this statement was made in connection with the Act of last year extending the period for the bounties. So that, so far from the hon. member for Newcastle being justified in saying that I brought the Union Steel Corporation under a wrong impression, and that I misled them, I most explicitly warned them that the Government would decide the matter on its own merits, and would not consider itself morally bound in any way by giving them this concession, namely, extending the period of time for the bounties. My secretary’s letter to Professor Freemantle continues—

I do not for a moment wish to impute any bad faith to the late Mr. Lewis, for whom I had a very high regard, but he was a man of considerable age, and his health was anything but satisfactory. You could see the state of the old gentleman, and everybody could notice his condition—

These are the simple facts. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has stated that an offer was made by the Union Steel Corporation, and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has suggested that, although that offer might be unsatisfactory, we should attempt to come to a reasonable arrangement. Let me assure him I have seen these offers. They were at the time in the hands of the Minister of Defence, but I do not hesitate to say that the basis of that offer is entirely impossible. If these people wish to approach us again with another basis, I am quite willing to reconsider the whole matter.

Did you make a counter offer?

No, of course not, but if they make an offer which is at all discussable, which can become the subject of discussion, then I am willing to answer, but it is no good my making a counter-offer to an offer which I consider entirely impracticable and impossible. I want to tell hon. members this. A call was made upon me recently by Major Wanklin, of the firm of Partridge, Jones and John Paton, Limited, of England, and Major Wanklin told me that Vereeniging as an iron and steel works was absolutely impossible, but he thought that what we proposed doing would not at all interfere with the continuance of Vereeniging as regards subsidiary matters, and he particularly mentioned pipes and wire, and that he was convinced that there would be scope enough for their continued existence. He practically pooh-poohed the idea of calling them iron and steel works at present in the sense contemplated at Pretoria, satisfactory and adequate iron and steel works. I must say that the hon. member for Dundee, who is always moderate, and whose criticisms I listen to with great attention and respect, is rather unfair in saying that we are either hostile or entirely indifferent. Far from it. These gentlemen will find when they negotiate with me, and when they approach me, that the Government is not indifferent and is not hostile. For these reasons, I confine myself to the points I have mentioned, and I do not propose dealing with the other points raised because I think they have been sufficiently discussed, and no good purpose would be served by pursuing them.

At the adjournment last night I was discussing the question of retrospectivity, especially with reference to Clause 20 of the Bill, and I had quoted the instance of the Wine and Spirits Act. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) justified the retrospective force in that Act by the excuse and on the ground that the parties concerned had agreed. I find, indeed, that that was so, but what do I find further? I asked him the question whether, if the parties had not agreed, and especially if Mr. Kramer, of the Castle Wine & Brandy Company, had not agreed, what would then have happened. I understand that Mr. Kramer had contracts for 15,000 leaguers of wine at £4 per leaguer, while, owing to the retrospective force of the Bill, he would have to buy wine at £8 per leaguer. It would, therefore, mean a loss of no less than £60,000. After an interview with the hon. member for Standerton he left it in the hands of the Government, but I have found out since last night that it appears clearly from the debate that, in any case, it was the intention of the Government, whether there were consent or not, to force the Bill through Parliament, and the argument of the hon. member for Standerton in his speech was as follows—

Therefore, agreement or no agreement, the Act would be of retrospective force, and be passed.

That is not at all what I was referring to.

No contracts were affected.

I refer the hon. member to what I quoted.

That had nothing to do with the Kramer contract.

What is the date?

6th of February. After that the parties were approached, and an agreement entered into with a section of the merchants.

It was before that time.

And Mr. Kramer opposed the retrospective force, and only later, on the 27th of February, did the hon. member for Standerton come to the House, and he could then say that he had had an interview with Mr. Kramer and that the latter had adopted a very reasonable attitude, and that, therefore, the matter was now settled.

He himself assisted in drawing up the contract.

It is, of course, impossible to quote the whole debate, but I just want to point out that the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) opposed the retrospectivity, and said—

The hon. member protested strongly against the proposed Bill having retrospective effect. Subsequently, however, on the 27th February, the hon. member for Standerton said to the House—

And that decision was come to before the merchants, and especially Mr. Kramer, had consented. Their consent was only obtained after the decision. My point is that it was fully intended to put the Bill through with retrospective force whether there were an agreement or not. Whether Mr. Kramer consented to it or not, the Bill would be pushed through, and the hon. leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, cannot deny it.

It did not clash with any existing contract.

Were not the farmers of the Caledon district consulted? It was a retrospective measure. That is my simple proposition. I now come to various other points mentioned by hon. members. The first is the point raised by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshof). He objects to the provision that owners can only allow five prospectors with at most ten workmen. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) wanted to make out that the total amount was only five, but as each of the five might take ten workmen with him, the total number of prospectors who may be permitted is, of course, 50 on a piece of ground, and I say that that is an adequate concession and a fair number of persons to prospect and to find out whether there are alluvial diamonds on a piece of ground or not. I asked the hon. member for Standerton whether he wants to permit the existing position, and which has actually existed in the past to continue? I told the House that it had occurred that owners had permitted as many as 2,000 persons to come on to their ground for so-called prospecting, and the State has no control over that. Instead of prospecting bona fide, the people simply dug for diamonds.

The Department of Mines could have interfered.

Yes, but I have already pointed out that the 2,000 people face one with an accomplished fact. These are things which the Government cannot control, and when that is once the case the people come and ask whether the Government is now going to take away their bread. The Government is frequently faced by an accomplished fact. The object of the Bill is to obviate that position. Hundreds and thousands of people have actually dug as prospectors and found alluvial diamonds. I now come to the remarks of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees), who pleaded for a central selling body. I think that that is quite impossible and unpractical. It seems to me that it is just as impossible and impracticable as the diggers’ bank he proposed. I have obtained the opinion of the Board of Trade and Industries, and had his motion with regard to a diggers’ bank which at once appeared to me to be impracticable, investigated. They made a report, and said that the scheme was not a practical one. I have, however, taken the trouble. Although I have the reputation that I only want to destroy and push through. I want to give attention to all criticism, and, perhaps, I take too much trouble in going into criticism. The hon. member for Delarey also suggested that there should be a preliminary test by the Government. He says that it is intended to proclaim a piece of ground the people must not be misled, but the Government must make a preliminary test, and say if it will be actually worth while for the diggers to go there. Just imagine where such a thing would lead to. How can the Government guarantee beforehand whether payable minerals exist there, and for how many diggers? It is surely clear if a man goes to dig on a digging that he takes the risk in his own hands. One of the clauses found in all our mineral laws from the oldest times is that the State does not, by the proclamation, guarantee the payability of gold or any metal or mineral. It implies that the Governor-General has to be satisfied before the proclamation that it is reasonably payable, but it is a risk which the digger or owner or whoever may be the discoverer takes upon himself. The discoverer comes to the Government and says: “I prospected, and here are the finds and this is the result of my work.” If these indicate that the area is reasonably payable then a proclamation issues. One cannot expect that the State should take further responsibility, and should make a test beforehand, and ask the public to rely on the test. That is expecting too much from the State. The next point raised by the hon. member for Delarey was the question of education. Let me point out to him that education, especially the kind that has to be given on the diggings, falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial councils, and he knows that the provincial councils oppose very strongly any interference by the central Government with their functions. Yet it is a matter which we are actually dealing with. The hon. member also mentioned the health conditions on the diggings. We make special provision for that in Clause 108 of the Bill. The hon. member must bear in mind that the position only assumed such enormous and unexpected proportions at the end of last year. He also particularly mentioned the question of partnership. I that the provincial councils oppose very strongly any interference by the central Government with their functions. Yet it is a matter which we are actually dealing with. The hon. member also mentioned the health conditions on the diggings. We make special provision for that in Clause 108 of the Bill. The hon. member must bear in mind that the position only assumed such enormous and unexpected proportions at the end of last year. He also particularly mentioned the question of partnership. I said in my second reading speech that there were certain amendments which I would have put on the order paper. I will allow a digger the right to have partners—but then they must themselves be diggers—to a limited extent, in the sense that you must continually see and take care that the large syndicates and companies are kept out. The hon. member was thinking of Clauses 63 and 73, and I will bear the matter in mind. Further, he says that the owners are now prevented from putting their claims on the market, and that the discoverers’ and diggers’ claims can only be sold to people who have diggers’ certificates. If we permit them to sell to large syndicates and companies, then I ask how we are going to stop the evil.

The owners, therefore, get practically nothing.

I shall deal with the owners later. But there is nothing to prevent syndicates or companies becoming owners of farms and the discoverers’ and owners’ claims going to them. That goes without saying. They can then work the claims. As a rule the farmer no longer owns the ground when the claims have to be worked, because the ground then belongs to syndicates or companies. I should like the hon. member for Delarey to give me a few instances where the farmer, who originally owned the ground, has the owners’ and discoverers’ claims. No, long before that time they have passed into the hands of the big man. Then he mentioned the fact, and I know that in a great measure it is true, that as soon as a piece of a farm is proclaimed the farm is much damaged, by the breaking down of fences and the pulling out of poles. We come back, however, to the first principle which we are maintaining in the Bill, viz., that the farmer is not compelled to have his farm proclaimed. If he chooses to have his farm proclaimed, he must bear the consequences. We shall, in future, do everything in our power to control the diggers, but he cannot have it both ways. That is impossible. As for the criticism regarding the water provision in the Bill. I am taking the whole matter into consideration in collaboration with the Minister of Agriculture. I understand he is drafting an Irrigation Bill for next session, and I quite agree that it is desirable that when such a comprehensive measure dealing with irrigation is being dealt with, that separate provision as to water should not be made in a Precious Stones Bill. What I am now doing in the matter is to make preliminary provision until the Irrigation Bill is passed. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will make sufficient provision therein for water on the diggings, On the one hand the owner must be protected as regards water, but on the other, when he himself elects to have his ground proclaimed., we must see that the digger is not exposed to extortion with regard to the price of water. The hon. member for Delarey is concerned about the owners’ water rights, and I do not take it amiss in him, but there are cases where the owners make small fortunes, and have made more out of water than out of their claims.

There is a case of £500 a day.

The hon. member knows what was done, e.g., on Elandsputte. I do not agree with the hon. member when he says that the diggers were not fairly treated, and that the owners were not honestly dealt with. He loses sight of the fact that the new position has only recently arisen, and that this is the first opportunity to properly tackle the matter. We nave already taken steps. The Minister of Public Health took steps in connection with the health position, and I specially sent one of the best men of the Johannesburg municipality (Mr. Bitwell) at a high salary to the diggings to properly examine conditions. According to his report—and he is an influential person—the position has considerably improved. I have made improvements in the diggings with regard to permanent sanitary inspectors and officials. We recently got the Public Service Commission to send a special officer to the diggings to see what the department could do to create better conditions than exist at the moment. That was done, and if account is to be kept of the fact that the development took place on a large scale with kaleidoscopic speed and swiftness, then it will be understood that it was impossible for the Government to keep pace. If hon. members will be patient then I think they will be satisfied with the results, especially after this Bill comes into operation. There is no lack of desire and keenness on the side of the Government to improve the position. With regard to retrospectivity, the hon. member for Delarey admitted that sub-division was an evil. Does it not follow then from his own words that what we are proposing here is justified? His attitude appears to me to be inconsistent. Now I come to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens )(Mr. Coulter). I am not going into his criticism, because I want to say this, and I do not say it in a bitter spirit, that the hon. member is the attorney of the hon. member for Kimberley, land of the Anglo-American Corporation who are both materially interested in the Bill, materially interested in alluvial production, materially interested in De Beers, and materially interested in South-West, and I say that when the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) in those circumstances comes to the House and wants to represent himself as a model of right and justice, and wants to put himself on a pedestal, wants to pose as a teacher of morals and lay down the law to us then he is simply audacious and impudent. I have nothing to do with the rules of the House, and the privileges of the House as regards this question. To my mind, it is a question of what is proper. It has been a fixed rule with me— and I appeal to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), as to whether it should not be so—when I was an advocate that I took care that when a matter was before Parliament in which I had been consulted, directly or indirectly, and even if I had only received a fee of three guineas, I took no active part in the matter, and did not vote.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has insinuated that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has taken part in this debate as the legal representative of the De Beers Company, or rather the Anglo-American Corporation. He mentioned De Beers also, and he insinuated that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) spoke in his capacity as the legal adviser of those companies.

No.

In other words, that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) was materially influenced on account of the position which the Minister alleges that he occupies in regard to those two companies. As a matter of privilege, I ask the Minister, according to the Privileges of Parliament Act to get up and frame a charge against the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). This matter transcends a point of order; it is a matter of privilege of an hon. member. The Minister has insinuated that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) has been influenced by material considerations in the allegations made in his speech in this House, and I now challenge the Minister, I ask him, to get up in his seat there, according to our practice, and lay a charge against the member for Cape Town (Gardens). That is the procedure. This is not a point of order.

Why is the hon. member on his feet, then?

Because I have got a perfect right to rise, either on a point of order or a point of privilege. If you rule me out of order On a point of order, I rise to a point or privilege, and I ask the Minister, in terms of the Privileges of Parliament Act, to get up and make a charge against the hon. member for Gape Town (Gardens). Then it will be your duty to appoint a committee of inquiry and report to this House whether the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) is guilty of the insinuation or charge made by the Minister in his speech.

I think the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has misapprehended what the Minister has said. The Minister was pointing out what his conduct was in regard to matters where he was acting for parties and where matters were brought before this House. I do not think he was making any charge against the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), and I think that he specially said that it was not a question of the rules of the House, but he was merely stating what his opinion was in regard to the action of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), seeing that he represented certain bodies who are materially interested in the matters now before the House. I do not think he made any charge against the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), nor do I think it is a question of order.

On a question of privilege, I think I can follow the Minister very clearly, though he spoke Afrikaans, and I think every member of this House will bear me out when I say that the insinuation made by the Minister was that the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) was not actuated by his duties as a member of this House, but actuated by private, personal and financial considerations. As I think that this matter is of such serious consequence, I would desire you, as I think I am entitled to do, that when you have the Hansard report in your hands of the words of the Minister, you should then give your interpretation of the words to the House. I feel perfectly certain that the statements I make are the views which must have been held by every member of the House who understood the language in which the Minister spoke, and I maintain that we must look to the Chair to see that every member of this House gets the fullest protection and the fullest privilege which, as a member of this House, he is entitled to.

I think that hon. members may rely upon it that any charge or anything that is not according to the rules said by one member about another will be dealt with by me. I certainly did not understand the Minister to make any charge against the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). If the Minister intended that, it is for him to explain and to make it * clear. I certainly did not understand it as such.

I am sure every member of the House agrees with me, Mr. Speaker, that we have no desire in any way to insinuate that you are not going to give impartial justice to every member, but may I with all due respect submit that you call for the Hansard report of the words of the Minister and, having fully studied them, that you then state to the House whether you consider the views hon. members hold are correct or not.

It is for the Minister to make any explanation he wishes.

Why I rose to the point of order is this. This is not a party question; it concerns the honour of a member of this House whether he sits on this side or on that, The Minister made this distinct insinuation. He appealed to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), and said that if he, the Minister himself, was professionally engaged in certain transactions, then he would scrupulously desist from raising his voice or speaking on that subject, clearly insinuating that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) did not observe that scrupulous care which the Minister says ought to be observed in this House.

I think the hon. member’s deduction is wrong.

May I be permitted to point out to you, sir, that in the course of a previous stage of this debate, when the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) was addressing the House, the Minister from his place there said—

I ask you if you will not also take that into consideration in connection with the statement the Minister has made this afternoon.

I can state that I did not hear a single word that the Minister said, because I was otherwise engaged. I must, however, say that I, as well as every member in the House, have the right of pro-testing against the anything but courageous way in which the hon. members for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) have tried here to get a ruling from Mr. Speaker.

But you haven’t heard a word. You say yourself you were not here.

I am speaking here about what the conduct of the hon. members means. I say it is anything but courageous to get up and want to insist on a ruling by Mr. Speaker without giving the Minister a chance of stating what he said. I say that if there is one thing to which the Minister is entitled it is that he should have an opportunity of answering the charges made against him by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) supported by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The behaviour of the hon. members is anything but courageous.

You have not followed the debate.

I watched your behaviour and listened to you when you were speaking.

I just want to draw attention to rule 91. [Rule read.] That clearly shows that when a question of this kind is raised, the hon. member whose words are called in question certainly has the opportunity of explaining what he means. As I have already pointed out, I did not deduce from what the Minister said the things which have been referred to by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). If that is what the Minister is insinuating or intending to convey, that is quite a different matter, but certainly the Minister is entitled to say what he did mean.

Let him say so, then.

What I said hardly needs explanation. I said that if I mistook not the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) was the attorney for the Anglo-American Corporation.

Is it not so?

And if I mistake not he is also the attorney of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). I said it deliberately.

What then is the imputation?

If you exercise a little patience I will explain. I said deliberately that I was not so much concerned with the rules of the House nor its privileges. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) may be fully justified in taking part in the debate and criticizing. I do not know if it is so, nor do I bother myself about it. What I said was that for years I had made it a rule of conduct when I was concerned as an advocate with a matter coming up before this House. I appeal to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) to say if it is not true that when I was an advocate in connection with matters connected with Bills before this House I laid it down strictly as my line of conduct that I never took part in such a debate and never voted. I claim the fullest right to say that. Am I not a free subject to have the right of fixing my own line of conduct?

I again rise to a point of order. We have just clearly heard from the Minister who tells the House that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) is the attorney of the Anglo-American Corporation, and of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer).

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) does not deny it.

The Minister further said that if he were not in that position then he would not …

He did not say that.

He said further that if he were concerned in a case—the principle is the same—then if it were before the House he would not come into the House and make a speech. Now I ask what the imputation is. The Minister cannot get away from it.

What is the imputation? Will you state it?

I appeal to Mr. Speaker. The accusation is that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) made a speech because he was under the influence of the hon. member for Kimberley, and that he as a lawyer represents the interests of the Anglo-American Corporation. The inference we are justified in making from the speech of the Minister is clear, and I would just like to learn whether the Minister stands by it. It is a serious point and not a party matter, but an accusation against an hon. member that he came here and made a speech in the House because he is under the influence of another member or certain financial interests in connection with which he makes the speech.

As I understand the matter it amounts to this that the Minister only said that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) did something which in the circumstances he ought not to have done, and I do not think that is out of order.

In short it is not a matter of imputation but of taste. The hon. member made a long speech which was characterized —it is one of his characteristics—by eloquent superficiality and superficial eloquence. The member has got a reputation about the economic freedom and status of the Union; he speaks fluently and well, but if you scratch the surface a little one finds air, an empty void. Owing to the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) having stated at the beginning of his speech that he was the mouthpiece of the S.A.P. with regard to this Bill I shall take no further notice of the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) except that I merely want to add that the speech was characterized by inaccuracies, foolishnesses, misconceptions, sophistry and for the rest it was the fruit of his own resourceful imagination. When the hon. member for Kimberley got up and said that he was speaking on behalf of the South African party, and that in this matter he was their mouthpiece, and when the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) rose and differed from the hon. member for Kimberley, I asked him whose mouthpiece he was. This is the man who is hailed as the Solomon possessing all wisdom with reference to our mineral rights.

It is a question of taste.

And who wants to tells us what should be done in such an important matter which my department has been studying for years. The hon. member assumes the right of speaking about statutory robbery. With that I leave the hon. member.

You are making yourself very angry about it.

It only appears so; I am not angry. When I hear the interesting laugh of the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) I cannot help laughing with him. Then I come to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). What he said in his speech I should like to repeat that it is really a fascinating psychological problem. My view in this connection will never change. It was amusing to notice the conflict, especially in his own speech. It could not have been surpassed. Now he stands up and makes bold to say that the criticism of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) has left nothing remaining of the Bill. This Bill has 117 clauses; it deals with very important matters of a comprehensive nature, even excluding the clauses which are contentious. It deals with many important and necessary matters. Does the hon. member deny that? What was the criticism of the hon. member for Kimberley? Clauses; 2, 20, 73 and 115, that is, the Free State titles, intensive subdivision, exclusion of companies and syndicates and restriction of production.

And owners’ rights.

Yes, and immediately after commencing, the hon. member for Kimberley turned round and said that he was going to give the Government every support to pass the Bill without a select committee. And he said that he was speaking on behalf of the South African party. How am I to take it? Who am I to take? The hon. member for Standerton or the appointed mouthpiece, the hon. member for Kimberley?

Will you adopt the proposals of the hon. member for Kimberley?

That excuse will not hold water. Then the hon. member approached me for so long delaying the introduction of the Bill. The House has already been sitting three days. We all appreciate the fact that the Bill deals with thorny problems. It is not the work of a few weeks or moment. The hon. member must be fair. He knows well enough that in September I was away in India. He may say that I should have stopped here, but when I left we had not yet realized that the problem would become so urgent. All these matters became intensive and developed suddenly. I have no need, however, to be ashamed of the work in India. It is true that I had no special mandate to do anything, but I hope that I contributed in creating the atmosphere and frame of mind which made it possible to solve this complicated question. The most amusing of all in the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was when he attacked the Bill in one respect, and in another fully approved of it. According to the hon. member it is I who attack and I do not want to attack. Then the hon. member after his strong criticism on the chief and subordinate points of the Bill comes and says—

I say that it is really amusing. The hon. member for Standerton wants the guarantee, but does he think that the Government drew up and introduced the Bill aimlessly? Does he think it is only a joke? We regard the matter as so urgent that we think there is no time to refer the Bill to a select committee. How can the hon. member then for a moment imagine that when the Bill is passed we shall simply sit with our hands in our pockets? The Government is not only out to protect the alluvial diggings, but also the ordinary mines. It not only wants to restrict the mines, but also the alluvial diggings. The hon. member for Kimberley, himself, said that if no steps were taken the alluvial diggings would go under owing to the sharp competition which he had in view. I was not aware last year that the hon. member held that view, otherwise it would have merely been sufficient to justify the Diamond Control Bill. I gather from the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley that that is his view, and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) also took up that attitude. The Bill for the control of diamonds was for the very purpose of protecting the small diggers and nothing else, and the utterance of the hon. member proves that we were justified in passing the measure. The hon. member for Standerton was not here when I spoke about owners’ rights. He represented that a farmer might only allow five persons to prospect. I made it clear that that was not so. If the hon. member reads the Bill again he will see that the number of prospectors is limited to five but that each one of them may employ ten workmen, so that therefore 50 people can be permitted. I again ask him if he does not wish us to control prospecting. It is clear that not only the digging for diamonds but also the prospecting of ground should be controlled. If we allow diamonds to be found when there is no market for them then the man who has once found the diamonds will be much more dissatisfied than if he were prevented from the commencement from looking for diamonds. Then the hon. member said that, with reference to Clause 57 which makes provision for State alluvial diggings, the owners’ rights were not protected. That has, as a matter of fact, been thought of and they are protected in Clause 13 and 19. If it is not clear that the rights are protected, if the State decides to run alluvial diggings then we can make it still clearer. Then the hon. member says that I do not understand the Bill or otherwise I intend to entirely oppress the diggers. He is wrong again and has no ground for that statement. I understand the Bill very well, and I am so bold as to say that I possibly understand it better than the hon. member for Standerton. He has been guilty of mistakes and made certain remarks which clearly show that he does not well understand the implications in the Bill. I am not surprised at it, because it is a matter which requires an astonishing amount of study. The hon. member for Kimberley will admit that the whole diamond question demands special study. There are few people in the House who can discuss the subject to its full extent. I do not say that I have a perfect knowledge of the diamond trade and of the diamond law, but for the last two or three years I have devoted myself to it as much as possible. Then he says that the small digger will go under. Is his contention then that if the digger goes under the syndicates or companies will be left? If that is not his meaning what does he mean by the statement? How will the large companies at Lichtenburg be able to exist? Besides one of the chief objects of the Bill is to get rid of companies and syndicates. No, the diggers are tougher than he thinks, and even if the Bill is not passed I wonder whether the hon. member for Kimberley will succeed in suppressing, the small digger. They can work cheaply and they are tough and even if they are temporarily suppressed they will always come to the front again. Then the hon. member says that I must level up the Cape Province. What is the position? On the one hand he says that I want to put the farms with the Free State title on the same footing as all the other farms where the mineral rights are vested in the State, but he does not want them to be put on an equal footing. The one has, however, nothing to do with the other. The levelling up of the farms with the Free State title is fair for the reason I have already given, and do not wish to repeat. What is the position about the owners’ claims? In the Free State the number of claims is 400; in the Transvaal, 200; and the size is 45 x 45 feet. I am taking them precisely according to the existing law. In the Transvaal the number is precisely half that in the Free State. Now I come to the Cape Province. In the Cape there are 50 owners’ claims measuring 30 x 60 feet which is smaller than the claim of 45 x 45 feet. The size of the owners’ claims in the Cape is therefore about one-eighth of those in the Free State, and one-fourth of those in the Transvaal. The area in Natal does not matter because there are no diamonds there. What does the hon. member mean when he says I must level things up? Does he wish that the Cape Province where the owners’ claims are one-eighth of those of the Free State should be raised to the Free State figure and that seven-eighths of the State assets in the Cape Province should be surrendered? Should we be justified in doing that? Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) agree to our surrendering our seven-eighths of the State rights in the Cape Province, because the size of owners’ claims in the Free State is eight times as much?

Put your proposals before the House. You make the laws.

I am not proposing it but am answering the criticism of your leader.

You are only taking away rights.

Does the hon. member wish that I should bring the Cape up to the Free State basis and make the owners’ claims eight times larger?

They are not State rights.

Of course.

No, it is a question whether the claim holders or the owners get them.

Oh, no, the State has a material interest. It means more ground than the State can surrender, and the State has an appreciable interest on all proclaimed ground, especially under the leasing system.

I say you must treat the owners fairly now that their rights are being taken away.

I may say that we can consider an increase in the claims, but to increase it in the Cape eight times would not be justified. Now I come to the discoverers’ claims. In the Free State the number is 200. and in the Transvaal 50. Therefore, the latter is precisely a quarter, and it has been so for years. In the Cape the number is 20, and the claims are 30 by 60 ft. in size, or 17 claims if they are converted into 45 by 45 ft. claims. They are, therefore, one-third of the number in the Transvaal, and one-ninth of the number in the Free State. How can the hon. member say that we must level them up and increase them nine times’ In this connection we have left the position exactly as it is to-day, and we have calculated it out. The only difference is that the figure for the Cape Province has been altered because we have increased the size of a claim in the Cape to 45 by 45 ft. In consequence, the number of claims in the Cape is 17. I hope the hon. member has followed me, and that he appreciates the reasons.

I appreciate it, but I do not agree with you.

Then we must agree to differ. I am willing, during the committee stage and in the meantime, to consider whether we ought to increase the rights of the owners in the Cape Province, but if we do so we shall create more dissatisfaction than anything else. Now I further want to point out that the owners with the tremendous development, especially in Lichtenburg, have made much money from other sources, from things which they never previously enjoyed, except to a negligible extent. Now, however, they are making fortunes out of them. At Elandsputte and at Vaalboslaagte they have made more money out of water than claims.

They had to bore for underground water.

I am not discussing whether they got the water on the ground, under the ground, or from the air. I state the fact that they made a great deal of money out of water.

They were entitled to it.

I do not dispute it. It is difficult to answer people like the hon. member. The hon. member for Delarey told us that he knew of a case where a man for a long time had got £500 a day for water.

He invested his money in erecting pumps.

The owners, in addition, make money from the rents of stands for trading purposes.

It is their own property.

Of course, but I want to point out that the owners have recently enjoyed a great improvement in benefits, and that there has been a material increase in their profits.

That is surely no reason to reduce their rights.

I am not reducing their rights. Now I come to another point. It is argued that a digger cannot give a part of his yield to a creditor. That was the point of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer), and also hon. members of the Opposition. Where is there a clause in the Bill which prevents a claim holder getting diamonds to the value of £50 in a week, selling them, and paying one-third of the money to his creditor? Then the hon. member for Kimberley spoke of the pledging of diamonds. But how can the claim holder pledge diamonds? He is surely enough of a business man to know that unless the creditor has possession of the diamonds, the diamonds will be no security. The digger can, however, deliver the diamonds to a creditor who is a man without a licence to have diamonds in his possession.

He can put them in a bank.

He can put them in his own name in a bank, but then the bank requires the same licence as anyone else. If it is not so, then it is time for the Minister of Justice to alter the law. Hon. members must remember that there is no such thing to-day as the mortgaging of a claim, because a hypothec or bond cannot be passed on it. The claim holder can just agree to give one-third or one-fourth of his yield to the creditor. It is exactly the same as borrowing £100 from a creditor and being personally responsible for the amount. One is no better security than the other. Now I come to the proposal. This is an example where I can be bold enough to say that the hon. member does not understand an important point in the Bill. The hon. member says that the owners’ claims must be granted in the proportion of one or two claims per five morgen. The select committee on 1924 and the Bill of last year proposed that it should be one claim in five morgen, but there was much dissatisfaction on the part of the owners, who said that the claims should be granted up to a minimum of 250. If you say that all pieces of ground under 500 morgen are in each case to get 250 claims, and the pieces of ground over 500 morgen or 1,000 morgen proportionally more, then the, immediate result will be that farms or pieces of ground will be divided into two lists. The one of 500 morgen or less, and then you will have in addition an intensive subdivision front 500 morgen downwards, or from the highest number of morgen downwards. I have discussed the matter with all my officers, and we have tried to solve the matter. Unless you give a constant figure of one or two claims per five morgen, so that the man who has 200 morgen will get a proportionate number, you cannot do it.

If the Minister is reasonable, then the committee will solve it.

I should prefer to have the proportion basis, but I say that it is impossible to work it out if a minimum is fixed. Are hon. members opposite satisfied that the man with 250 morgen should merely get 50 claims instead of 200?

We can discuss it in committee.

It is a very important point, and it was one of the points of criticism that I did not abide by the proportion system. I could not adopt the proposal of the select committee because it would have put all the provinces on an equality, a thing we could not do. Hon. members seem to think that if a farm is, e.g., 5,000 morgen in extent and 1,000 contain gravel, that the department makes a point of proclaiming the whole farm, just to prevent the owner getting more than 250 claims. That was never the case. A man possibly had a farm of 5,000 morgen in 1920, and after gravel was found on it the department proclaimed 1.000 morgen, so that he still has the remaining 4,000. In 1925 gravel may possibly be found on another part of the farm, and of the remaining 4,000 morgen 1,200 or 1,500 may be taken. Then we again grant 250 owners’ and discoverers’ claims. That is done so long as everything is bona fide and the department, with the knowledge it has at the moment, decides that only a part should be proclaimed. If a further part is proclaimed, then the owner again gets 250 claims. There is no objection to it, and there cannot be any reason for objecting. No, the difficulty in the Bill is—I am speaking of hon. members who criticize in this way—that the struggle is on the one hand to comply with the demands that the small man should be given a chance, while on the other hand they do not wish to abandon the big man and the syndicate. That is an impossible position. It is said that I have raked up matters 14 years old. Hon. members misunderstand the whole position. I have mentioned facts which happened recently, and I took the case of the speculation in platinum, in main reefs, in Geduld Easts, which are now or were recently on the go. I showed a diagram of the subdivision of Doornplaats. I have official information that the activity of companies or syndicates before the 30th June of last year was practically unknown. As for the alluvial diggings, there was only one case where a syndicate was registered in respect of claims, and it was represented by two people. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) referred to settlers’ rights, especially in the Free State. My answer is that we passed the Reserved Minerals Development Act last year, and that we cannot place the settlers on a better footing in this Bill than what we did last year. They are practically being placed on the same basis, and if the hon. member will come and see me and can convince me that they are not put on the same footing, I am prepared to give the matter every consideration. With regard to alluvial diggings, we will not be justified in placing the settlers on a better footing than we did not last year in relation to metals and other minerals. As for the percentage basis mentioned by various hon. members, I have already pointed out that it is impracticable. I have numbers of letters in my office which give the objections to it. The chief objection is that we should have to abolish all the discoverers’ claims and give the owners a percentage of the proceeds. That cannot be done. In the first place, it is a special tax on the diggers, and secondly there is a question as to how it is to be calculated. How much it is to be and how it should be controlled. The greatest objection to it I have just mentioned, and as I said, the owners never yet asked for it before a few people mentioned it. It has never yet been asked for by the diggers, and I think they would strongly oppose it, because they would consider it a special tax on themselves.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I move—

This Bill purports to supply a deficiency in Act 23 of 1920, Section 5. According to Section 5 the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the commission, establish a local council for the whole or any portion of any of the native areas which have been set aside or may hereafter be set aside as such by Parliament. Unfortunately, there are native areas which have not been set aside as such by Parliament, and the result is that the councils contemplated in this Act cannot be established for such areas, and, at the same time, it has been found it is very necessary that it should be done. The question arose last year when the right hon. leader of the Opposition drew my attention to it that, although on a previous occasion such a council had been established under his Government, it might not be valid, and I looked into it, and I subsequently said he was right, and that I would try and validate that as soon as possible by bringing in an amending Act. This is now what is contemplated. I think the hon. member for King William’s Town (Maj. Ballantine) is one of those who have felt the necessity for such an Act. I need not say anything more.

I want simply to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will this Bill go to a select committee after second reading?

No, I hope not. It is only one section.

You have not explained Section 2.

This is simply for the purpose of the Transkei under the Glen Grey Act, or the Ciskei, rather, so that councils may also be established for such areas and in such areas. That is all. Section I deals with councils in the Act of 1923, but there is the Glen Grey Act also, which also made provision for councils, and there are native areas where, under the Glen Gray Act, we would like to have a council also. So it may be said this Act is for both; the object is the same.

I do not think the Minister of Native Affairs really understands what these two clauses are leading to. The first clause, I understand, is the clause that should really have gone through this House last session. A similar Bill came before the House last session which included a certain native location which had not been included in the schedule of the 1913 Act, and the Bill was withdrawn. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether there are any Europeans in that particular area which it is intended to tack on to the native area in order to establish a council in that particular area, I understand these particular areas have Europeans in them. If so, if a council area in which Europeans reside is established under this Bill, is that native council to have any jurisdiction over the European farmers who may happen to reside in that particular area? It appears to me that, under the 1920 Act, they would have that jurisdiction. They have power to make byelaws dealing with dipping and different things. I take it that byelaws promulgated by these native councils will have effect, as far as European farmers are concerned. With regard to the second section, some very important factors arise there. In 1894, under the Glen Grey Act, a council was established in that particular area and has existed for over 30 years. It works entirely on its own, and it has powers entirely different from the powers of the 1920 Act. The Glen Grey Act allocates to this Council 21 different authorities. The Prime Minister is taking powers to amalgamate the Glen Grey Council with other councils in order to establish a general council. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to attach Glen Grey to one of the other council areas, and to establish a general council? The 1894 Act gives specific powers to the Glen Grey district council, among others, control of liquor licences and so forth, but the Act of the Transkei, or the proclamation of the Transkei, does not give those powers to the Transkeian Council, nor does the Act of 1920. Does this particular Act mean that the Glen Grey Council are going to lose any powers which they hold at present, and does it mean that they will be amalgamated with some other council which has different functions and powers? If that is the intention of the Prime Minister, I cannot understand two different councils amalgamated as a general council, one of which has powers under the Act of 1920, and the other under the 1894 Act. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he is bringing this in. Has he consulted the Glen Grey Native Council? This council is the oldest constituted native council in the Cape Province. Glen Grey is subject to the law of the Cape Province, and not subject to proclamation, as is the position in the Transkei generally, and it has had these powers for a large number of years. Is the council going to be divested of these powers given under the Act of 1894, and is it now to assume the powers of the 1920 Act? I think that is a very pertinent question. Above all, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, seeing that this Bill affects a council which has been instituted for 32 years, whether that council has been consulted. I would like to point out that this Glen Grey Council has almost identical powers with those of an ordinary divisional council of the Cape. There is no Government and administration in this country that would dare to amalgamate, or suggest the amalgamation, of two divisional councils in the European areas of this province without consulting the particular bodies. I would ask the Minister if it is his desire to amalgamate the district council of Glen Grey with the Transkeian General Council, or is it his intention to constitute other bodies for Herschel and King William’s Town and amalgamate the native councils of the Ciskei into one general council?

With regard to Section 1, it is very clear that all that is asked for is that the Act of 1920 shall be applicable, and with regard to Section 5 of that Act, for the purposes of having the natives within that area sharing in and being subject to such council as was established under that Act, When that is done, of course, it is only with regard to your natives for the purposes of this Act. Section 5 of the Act of 1920 gives that power only to such areas as by Parliament have been declared native areas. There are certain native areas. Take, for instance, this—this Government has bought in Glen Grey during the last two years lands for about £100,000 for the natives, but these lands have not by Parliament been declared native areas, and the result is the natives on these lands will not be subject to any of the local councils, either existing or to be established. Section 2 of this Bill says the Governor-General may now declare this land native areas for the Glen Grey Act. With regard to Europeans, we say no more than the Act of 1920, and if any Europeans are on such ground as we have got for the natives they must simply share the fate that is imposed upon them, or would have been imposed upon them, under the Act of 1920, if they had been on land declared by Parliament to be native areas. Of course, this will go into committee, and then, if the hon. member finds there is anything still doubtful as to this, we can have it discussed there and looked into.

What about the Glen Grey Act? What about the second clause?

I have just pointed it out. Incidentally, I also spoke about the second. We bought areas which we want subject to the Glen Grey Act.

Is it your intention to amalgamate the Glen Grey Council with any other council?

That is a question for administration, and nothing is laid down with regard to that in this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.

I move—

This Bill is one which is providing for something which ought really to have been provided for long ago. Practically ever since Union it has been felt that there must be an Act which brings into harmony the administration of natives in the various provinces, and several attempts have been made in the past; for instance, in 1917, under that Bill which afterwards the Government dropped after the second reading, a great deal of what is now included —almost the greater part—was included in that Bill. Subsequently another attempt was made, but the Government of the day never succeeded in getting it through Parliament. Now the attempt is here made to unify and co-ordinate certain of the more prominent principles of native administration in the various provinces. What these are appear very clearly from the different chapters that we have here. Hon. members will see that, for instance, in Section 1 to 4 we are trying to lay down and define the authority of the Governor-General in regard to, firstly, the appointment of officers to control and administer native affairs. You have chief native commissioners for all the provinces in future; assistant native commissioners, superintendents, chiefs and headmen. In the second place, provision is made, and the Governor-General’s authority is defined, as with regard to the duties assigned to such officers. In the third place, there is authority to create, dissolve and constitute native tribes in the native provinces. In Sections 5 to 7 the subject dealt with is the tenure and registration of location land, and provision for a cheaper means of registration. In Sections 8 to 18 we have matters dealing with the constitution of courts for the hearing of cases arising out of native law and custom. Hon. members will see at once that these are all questions of very great importance, and with regard to which there is such a diversity within the Union, as between the provinces, that it makes the administration, not only difficult at times, but in the eyes of the natives it means very often to lead them to think that the administration is not impartial over against the native. In Sections 19 and 20 we have the recognition of native laws and customs. In Sections 21 to 23 we have powers of legislation in respect of native areas. That is a question of legislation by proclamation, which I have not the least doubt is One in which all members of the House are taking, and will take, a very great interest. In Sections 24 to 26 we deal with powers to confer on the Governor-General power to make regulations with respect of certain offences. This is something new, and I may say here at once that this is probably a subject upon which hon. members are likely to be more eloquent than upon any one of the others. But let me just say to hon. members that if they know how necessary it is for something of that kind to be done, they will not cavil at what is going to be done. I want hon. members just to look at this—we cannot expect any guardian over minor children to make a success of his job if we insist upon it that he should treat his youngsters just as be would treat his equals in life. It is impossible, and unless we take the necessary opportunity in time of dealing with the subject, tremendous injury is going to be done to the native. I do not speak of those natives who can look after themselves, but we must never forget that of the 6,000,000 natives 5,700,000 at least are not in the position of really digesting or resisting and digesting what is being passed, unless they are protected properly.

How did we do without this in the Cape Province?

We have not been doing without it. That is where the hon. member is wrong. The transkeian natives have been standing under the very fatherly protection of the Governor-General, who has been constantly on the watch, and proclamations have been issued from time to time to protect them, which would never have been thought of by the legislature to be made use of ever against Europeans. It would not be fair to expect any Minister of Justice to be responsible for 5,000,000 of natives who are just emerging really from the primitive stage; nor would it be fair to expect him to carry the same responsibility to-day that he did 10 or 15 years ago, unless some means are given him to ward off the evils which are threatening the natives. Let me briefly run through the different sections. In Chapter 1, administration, we are instituting chief native commissioner and native commissioners; some of these officials are known only in certain provinces and not in others, and it is necessary that powers should be given to the Governor-General to institute these offices in provinces where they do not exist. With the exception of the power conferred in Section 26, the other provisions of the Bill are all of them in operation in one, two or three of the provinces. It was for the department to look into the practices in the various provinces and select those which have proved to be the best, so far as the interests of the natives are concerned. We have endeavoured to select the best provisions in operation in the different provinces, and to make them general. Chapter 2 deals with tribal organization and control. Clause 2 says a tribe is not to be responsible for personal obligations incurred by their chief. This is very necessary, for sometimes tribes have been very badly bitten by their chief. To bind a tribe the contract must have been approved by the Minister. Chapter 3 concerns land registration and tenure. The Governor-General must approve of an action instituted against a chief or tribe for the ownership or acquisition of land by a member of the tribe. Here again we find that cases have occurred where, on the most flimsy pretext, a native could institute an action against his tribe, and whether they lose or win the tribe is the sufferer in the end. We say that no native is allowed to institute an action unless he has the authority of the department. The Governor-General may define the boundaries of tribal areas, or alter them, which is a very necessary power. He may also order the removal of a tribe to another locality, but if the tribe objects to the removal, only Parliament can give the necessary authority. The law regarding the removal of a native from place to place in the Union is at present in force in Natal, and it is an excellent provision. For instance, a native may make a practice of stock stealing, and it is often advisable that he should be removed to another district. Naturally, the Government must be very careful to see that it does not act unfairly, and every case has to be approved of by me personally before the removal takes place.

The Bill gives you power to divide existing tribes.

Yes. The necessity for that very often occurs for administrative purposes. Sometimes the place where a tribe lives does not lend itself very easily to administrative purposes. This provision is not really for the removal of a tribe, but only for administrative purposes. Chapter 3, which deals with land registration and tenure, is most important. Practically the registration and tenure of individual holdings in the Cape is in a chaotic state. Frequently holdings are held by persons who claim to be the owners, but they have no title. Not being accustomed to land registration, a native sells his land and very often the successor does not want to have the transfer registered, as he thinks it will probably render him liable to special taxation or to fall under the control of a council. I think that during last year only five registrations of native transfers have been made. This will have to be changed. Another difficulty is this. When a native does register it is such a costly thing that it takes so much out of his pocket that you can understand why he does not have the change of title registered. Again, with regard to boundaries, these are shifted. We read in the Bible that to change one’s neighbour’s boundary is a serious offence but the same thing occurs with the natives. Land surveying is very costly, and it is very clear that we shall have to have a different method of surveying these small native plots. In future registration of these plots will take place with a commissioner, so as to simplify it and make it less costly. This change is absolutely necessary, especially in the Cape Province. The Bill empowers the Governor-General to appoint a commission to inquire into all these cases, and then to issue substituted titles which will take the place of any original title. These original titles are no longer of any value.

Where will the records be kept?

With the chief native commissioner.

The headquarters may be changed.

It is not intended to be centralized in Cape Town.

I don’t want it to be centralized in Cape Town.

I cannot say where it will be for the moment. Under Clause 6 the Governor-General may revoke any grant of land made on individual tenure to a native upon quitrent conditions, and issue a substituted deed of grant in favour of the holder or of such person is may be adjudged to be the holder. Under Clause 7 the Governor-General may appoint a commissioner for the purpose of investigating and determining the rights of occupation or ownership of natives claiming to own land in respect of which a deed of grant or title has at any time been issued. We now come to Chapter 4—judicial procedure. Power is given to constitute courts of native commissioners for the hearing of all civil causes and matters between natives arising out of native law and custom. The law applied will be native law and customs applicable in any particular case, and the law applicable in any particular case will be the law of the chief, which is a very just principle. Clause 10 authorizes the settlement of civil disputes by native chiefs or headmen. These native courts will deal only with civil cases. The Governor-General may give jurisdiction to native chiefs or headmen in such cases as are brought to them by the consent of the parties concerned. This is Section 10, sub-section (1)—

There will be an appeal to the native commissioner. Then we have in Section 11 a section which deals with the native appeal court and it is, laid down there shall be a native appeal court consisting of three members as follows, the president who shall be a permanent man, he may be a magistrate or a commissioner, but he will have to be a man who is specially versed in native law and he will be assisted by two magistrates or native commissioners.

Or other qualified persons?

Yes. In Section 17 native assessors may sit in an advisory capacity in the appeal court and also in the court of the native commissioner if so desired by the court. This is a practice which obtains in some places and has been found to be very useful. We find it in the Transkei proclamations of 1903 and the Magistrates Courts Act of 1917.

Does this not increase the powers of the chiefs?

In the first place let me say if there is one mistake we have made in the past it is what we have done to break down the power of the chiefs unnecessarily. We have not left it to that gradual growth which kept pace with the development of the native, and in this connection I assure my hon. friend the position in Pretoria and round about Pretoria is piteous. Native chiefs have come in from Pretoria to me and to the chief commissioner to ask us to see that the power of the chiefs is again restored. Because of their having been broken down their children run into Pretoria and we don’t want them. That is now found everywhere. If there is one thing to be careful about it is that in future we do not outrun with our European ideas the necessities imposed by circumstances.

Have the chiefs not broken down their own power by misuse?

Unfortunately, that is so.

Put a check on the chiefs.

Yes, if they misuse their power we must do. Then Section 18 deals with criminal jurisdiction and says—

Here is where misfortune comes in breaking down the authority of the chiefs. In some of the provinces we went so far to neglect any law and custom of the natives and the result was your native chiefs immediately found they were checked from imposing punishment on any grown-up child or half grown-up child, with the result that they were powerless and these children practically ran wild and unchecked. There are offences according to native laws and customs which are not recognized as offences by the European and there is no reason why in some of these instances the Governor-General should not say to the native chiefs: “You can go on according to your native customs exercising that jurisdiction.” Here again we shall have to be careful and we shall have to see this power is not abused, but we must take our chance as we have to do with the European. A European parent has the right without the law giving that right; it just simply connives but we know it is for the good of the community at large. There are cases where the Governor-General should have this power and give it to the chiefs. In Chapter V we come to “marriage and secession”—I mean “succession.”

Secession?

The less there is of that the better and although we are dealing with marriage unfortunately we are not dealing with marriage secession, namely, the dissolution of marriage It is one of those things we had better leave where it is. This has received consideration of the Native Affairs Department in 1910 and they recommended that the principles adopted there should be applied generally throughout the Union, and I must say I think—I may be wrong—this is a question where I shall be very glad to have the assistance of any hon. member of the House. It stands to reason that nobody except one from Natal can know what is best for Natal and one from the Cape can know what is best for the Cape and we shall have to thrash this out. The principles adopted here are certainly those which practice has shown to be those we should adopt as a general policy for the Union. I won’t go into 20, it is not necessary we should do so. We come to 21, legislation” in Chapter VI. Section 21 says the Governor-General may by proclamation amend the provisions of the Natal code of native law. I hope Natalians are not going to have any fears where that is concerned because I and the department heartily favour the Natal code and would have been glad to have it everywhere. It is perhaps a good thing that we find naturally, just as with the Europeans—and we lawyers know it, knowing the old Roman-Dutch law—every day we come into contact with it—the changes institutions have undergone throughout the years, and the same process is going on with regard to the native. Certain institutions get obsolete and it is this elasticity which makes such a law sound in a nation, especially a young nation like the natives who are only just beginning to grow where the institutions will grow along with it. Eight times in Natal the law givers have stepped in to modify the code and bring it up to date, but I do not think this House would be prepared that we should come here from time to time and ask for legislative authority to change the institutions or modify the code. The Natal law givers have found it impossible. It should be left to the Governor General to say by proclamation that “it has been brought to my notice it is obsolete so let us take it from the code and put something else in.” It is because this is a necessity and for no other reason …

Parliament will have no check on them.

Yes, because these proclamations have to be laid on the Table of the House, and no Government, I do not care which it is going to be, if it was pointed out that the contemplated change was not in their interest, no Government would meddle with a thing like that. Section 22 deals with—

and Section 23 deals with—

Then we come to the contentious section, not so contentious I hope to-day as in the past because the principle of legislation by proclamation has been adopted and is the law for the Transkei and everybody will admit that never has legislation been more successful than the legislation passed from time to time in connection with the Transkei. Why? Simply because the moment it has been felt there is a necessity the Governor-General can step in and do what is necessary whereas if you leave it to Parliament many of these things would never have been dealt with until the native had suffered over and over again. The objection may be made, and has been made, in the past that that is all good and well, but it is so likely to be abused. Under the circumstances of to-day I claim, that the argument has no ground whatsoever in it, for this reason that you have got the Native Affairs Commission and no Government will go and issue a proclamation and in fact under the law may issue a proclamation before consulting the Native Affairs Commission.

And be guided by their advice.

Yes, by their advice. Of course, the Government may or may not do so, but then they have to report immediately to Parliament. Of course, no Government is going to do that unless it sees that Parliament is going to support it. Then again, that has to be laid on the Table of the House. I think with such safeguards as are in existence to-day, as far as the native is concerned, there could be nothing better for him than to leave it to the Governor-General. If there is anything wrong again in that, just see how much more easily it can be changed.

Why not make all our laws that way? It will be much simpler.

The hon. member has now raised a point of the very greatest speculative interest, and the question is whether we have not already outlived the time of parliamentary legislation.

Mussolini.

Perhaps it may be a very good opportunity while this Government is here—

No

I see my hon. friend there (Mr. Jagger) is not yet convinced of that. Then I won’t insist on it.

Will this proclamation be applied to Europeans living in native areas?

No. Now we come to Chapter VII—prevention of misconduct and disorders, regulation of native living, and control of certain native villages and townships. I do not think there is anything of importance here. It is simply to prevent natives from carrying knives and kerries about that the Government may issue proclamations.

What about (c)?

(c) is the worst.

That sub-section reads—

Yes, that is wide, but I think my hon. friend will again understand. The first test that we are put to is the test of the educated native or the native in the towns. But you forget in the meantime that you have to deal with the greater majority outside the towns. It takes so little with children to be driven into a temper. My hon. friend from Natal sitting over there will remember that last year he came to see me in regard to a case where, out of pure devilment, two adjoining tribes flew at one another with kerries and sticks. I do not know whether anybody was killed but a good many. I think, were injured, and there was great dismay among all the people living in the neighbourhood. That is a question again of how we have to deal with ever so many children, and the Governor-General then comes and decides what should be done. Public opinion and Parliament will, I think, or at any rate I hope, always be strong enough to intervene and punish the Government of the day if they do not do what is right. But I think that on account of the possible abuse we ought not to expose not only Europeans but the natives to the dangers which they otherwise will run. Now we approach the more contentious—

What does Section 25 means?

Section 25 deals with the—

What we feel is this, that our pass laws have become practically dead letters and still they are there, troubling, irritating to the natives. It is clear that we must get some means of having a control more or less in the direction that the pass was intended to have, and at the same time of a nature that will not give the offence to the native which the pass gives, and it is for this reason that this section is introduced giving the Governor-General the power to define certain areas as pass areas, and in that way obtain the institution which is necessary to take the place of the pass, but taking it in such a form that it will not have the same irritating influence that the pass has. Now we come to Section 26; this is where I have said that we have to do with something that is practically new. Hon. members on the cross benches have come to see me, and they pointed out that as it stands here this section is not really what it should be. I quite agree with them. There are subsections (a), (b) and (c). They are really not required.

Why not?

The section says that—

That is already provided for under our laws. The “intention” and “unlawful act” are already punishable.

Why not re-state it here?

That is exactly why they were put in here at the time, but it is found that these things are unnecessarily irritating. I said that if they would irritate, I am prepared to leave them, but as far as (d) is concerned, that I must have. I have framed another, and what I would suggest is that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 26 be deleted, and that this be substituted—

1. (1) Any person who utters any words or does any act or thing whatsoever with intent to promote any feeling of hostility between natives and any other class shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
2. (2) If it appear to a magistrate on complaint made on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is upon any premises within his jurisdiction—
   1. (a) anything in respect to which any offence under this section has been or is suspected on reasonable grounds to have been committed, or
   2. (b) anything as to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it will afford evidence as to the commission of any such offence, or
   3. (c) anything as to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any such offence,

he may issue his warrant directing a policeman or policemen named therein or 11 policemen to search such premises and to seize any such thing if found and to take it before a magistrate. If any magistrate before whom any such case is brought is satisfied it is anything which may reasonably be calculated to cause or promote any feeling of hostility between natives and any other class he may by writing authorize the destruction thereof or its confiscation to the Crown, and the decision of the magistrate shall be final, and not subject to appeal or review.

Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) will remain as they are. Hon. gentlemen will see that what I am after here is to put a stop to the intentional raising of bitterness between Europeans and natives.

Why not leave it as it is if you want that?

My hon. friend will probably have seen the tremendous fuss that has been made outside—

By whom?

Well, unfortunately, I do not know by whom. I can only say the natives in the first place, and also that there are a good many Europeans. I have got a letter, for instance, out of dear old England.

What do they know about it?

Hon. members may well ask that. I have forgotten just at the moment the name, but he is not a nobody. He writes saying they feel very much concerned about this Bill. We may well ask what do they know about it, but that is the unfortunate part, that so many people will interfere when they know nothing about it. I hope that by the way we set about putting this thing through we shall convince them at any rate that there are not so many misdoers after all in South Africa.

The altered clause will not touch bolshevism at all?

What I am after, of course—I do not care whether it is bolshevism or what it is—is to get at these people who really iniquitously go about trying to stir up hatred between white and black.

Did the bolsheviks get you to change this clause?

I do not know of a single bolshevist who approached me. It is a clause that as a legislative body we will have to look well into, but I say this again: I feel it is absolutely necessary, if we are really to protect the natives properly, that we should protect them from these influences which are being brought to bear with the evil design, not of assisting them, but with the evil design of creating mischief.

What is the objection to sub-section 1?

The hon. member will see at once—

A man may advocate a doctrine which, as far as Europeans are concerned, is done everywhere, and it does no harm, but there may be natives and it may do harm. But can we go and punish this man? If he is really sincere and all he wants is to preach to these people another doctrine different from ours, then I say we have no right to interfere with him. But when he does it with the intention of bringing about ill feeling between the two, I say now we must step in. Let me again say, if I could do it as a protection for the native and say “Well, no doctrine that may be harmful to you shall be preached by anybody,” then I would say, Very well. But who is going to prove that the doctrine is going to be harmful? All these doctrines, never let us forget, 30 years ago were held to be very harmful to Englishmen, and Englishmen were punished, but it is not so to-day. We can discuss it later on in committee. The only thing is this: I do not want to be unfair to any man. If he is sincerely convinced that he is doing the right thing, then I am not going to stop progress simply because I differ from him and think he may be wrong. But I say again, I certainly cannot advocate leaving things just as they are to-day, because we are drifting to a state of things which will be very bad, not only for the Europeans, but for the natives. Practically this is all; the others are general sections of no particular significance, so that I need not say anything more except this, that I do not intend to go to select committee, because these are all so patent and clear that we can more effectively in this House discuss each of them as we go along.

Why do you repeal the Hofmeyr Act of 1887?

We can discuss that in committee.

This Bill I consider of considerable importance. It is not a political Bill; it is not a Bill—apart from Section 26, on which the Prime Minister has just given us a beautiful display of an egg-dance—of a political character, but all the same, it deserves our very careful attention, and it is one of those Bills which I, from my experience, know so well; I mean departmental Bills, which we have to consider very carefully where they touch native affairs. There has been a tendency in all departments, and in the Native Affairs Department also, to assimilate administration as much as possible, and to assimilate the laws in the various provinces of the Union. So far as the whites are concerned, it is comparatively easy to carry out such a policy. Yet we have only in the last couple of days had an outstanding instance of the difficulty of applying uniformity, even as among whites. The Minister of Mines and Industries has been dealing with a Bill on Precious Stones, in which he confesses he finds it impossible to give the same rights to owners in the various provinces of the Union. But with regard to the natives, this uniformity is a particularly difficult matter. The native mind is very immobile, and does not respond to the changes and advances which move whites. I am afraid that we are often deceived in our ideas as to the natives by a superficial show of education and advancement which we see among a very small, almost an infinitesimal, portion of the natives. The vast mass, millions of natives, are to-day where they were 20 years ago, or 100 years ago. But for the passing away of barbarism and tribal wars, there is no change in the native mind or life. And when I move amongst the natives in the backveld, or in the locations and the reserves, I am struck by the immense force of conservatism and the immobility amongst them. They move along lines of thought and practice which their forefathers have followed during the course of centuries. It becomes, therefore, very dangerous to apply a system of uniformity to them One system may work quite well amongst the Zulus, and another may work quite well amongst the Basutos in the Transvaal and the Free State; but if you try to apply the Zulu system to the Basutos, you are at once in a sea of trouble, and therefore, when we follow the bent of the departmental mind and try to create uniformity in native law and administration, we must be prepared to find that we are up against difficulties, and our well-meant efforts may well produce great unsettlement in the native mind. Reading this Bill, it seems to be one of those Bills where the departmental mind has been at work trying to produce uniformity, and I doubt whether we have reached results which will be beneficial. About certain sections I have very grave misgivings, and I am very much afraid we are going to perturb and disturb the native mind profoundly. Only last year we changed the system of native taxation in the various provinces of the Union, and that has had a very unsettling effect. Hon. members who are in touch with natives know that that Act perfectly well meant, and on general grounds well justified, has had a very disturbing effect in many parts of South Africa. Here we are making another attempt to produce uniformity, and of a more far-reaching character. It is going to touch native life and practice in a number of vital concerns, and the results may be more unsettling than we think to-day. Take the case of the organization of law and the law courts, and the procedure to be followed I take the ideas which are embodied in this Bill and intended to be applied to the Transkeian natives. We have had a system of justice amongst the natives of the Transkei and the surrounding territories, which I shall describe roughly, as I have not looked at the laws quite recently, because we are so overworked in Parliament that it is almost impossible to probe into these things with the necessary care. We have in the Transkei a magistrate, and not the native commissioner, as intended to be instituted here. The magistrate administers justice both amongst the whites and amongst the natives in his area. According to the law at the Cape at present administered, he exercises his own discretion whether he is going to apply Roman-Dutch law, or whether he is going to apply native law. He must judge for himself what is a case for Roman-Dutch law and what is a case for native law. The system has worked fairly well. With a wise magistrate it is quite easy to determine in what case he should apply Roman-Dutch law, and in what case native custom. You have a case, for instance, of sale and purchase. One native has bought a horse or a donkey from another man. It is clearly a case where the Roman-Dutch law should apply. But the magistrate may have a case of family law, if I may call it so, and clearly that is a case where native law customs and usage would apply. As far as I am aware, there has been no trouble whatever. The system which has been in force here in the Cape since the nineties has worked perfectly well, and the natives are accustomed to it, respond to it and are contented; and the Transkei, as the Minister has said, is almost a model of native administration to the rest of South Africa. Under this Bill an entirely different system is instituted. Where it is taken from I do not know. The system is this— there are going to be two parallel sets of institutions— a native commissioner applying native law and custom as between natives; and at the same time, and in the same area, there is going to be a magistrate applying not native, but Roman-Dutch law.

Who will probably be the same man.

I don’t know.

That is the idea.

We shall have to probe into this in committee and see how it will work.

I understand.

I am afraid unless we are careful we are going to produce the greatest confusion in determining what is a case between native and native to be decided under native law, and what is a case as between native and native also, to be decided under Roman-Dutch law. Two parallel systems of courts and of law are set up, and one can see how easily confusion may result. In the end, there is a difference, even in the matter of appeal; in the one case of the common law there is an appeal to the Eastern Districts court at Grahamstown. So far the appeal has always been, in all cases, whether under Roman-Dutch or native law, to the Transkeian Territories appeal court—a special appeal court for the Territories. Under the new system, this proposed divorce is continued between the two systems right to the end. In the one case the appeal will go to Grahamstown, and in the other to the native appeal court. Of course, in the one case it will be much more expensive than in the other. An appeal to the Eastern Districts court will be much more costly than an appeal to the native appeal court. It seems to me that we are disturbing and unnecessarily disturbing a system which has worked quite well, and that we are substituting for it a system which is much more complicated, which draws distinctions and tries to assimilate systems of law which are not called for. If there were abuses in the Transkei I could understand the reason for a change, but as far as my knowledge goes, there has been no abuse and the system is completely satisfactory. I mention this as one instance of the way we are going to disturb the native mind. The natives know exactly where they are now, and they are accustomed to the present administration of justice, but I am afraid that when the new system is started, unless we are very careful it may easily become an unsettling factor, and lead to a state of affairs we are all intent on avoiding. As to chapter III. (Land Tenure), I think the Prime Minister has not exaggerated the confusion and chaos of the present system. This confusion in the land tenure and registration in the Territories is to me a standing proof of the difficulties that we encounter when we move sensibly in advance of native ideas. It was thought in the nineties, when the Glen Grey Act was passed, that that would be a very progressive step. No doubt it has led to a good deal of progress, but the native is, perhaps, the only socialist in the world to-day. Kaffir socialism is the primitive socialism to which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs wants us to return.

In a somewhat modified form.

The Minister wants to get back to the state we emerged from thousands of years ago. The natives hold all land in common. We made this departure of individual tenure which has been very successful in the individualistic civilization of the whites. European civilization is based on individual and private ownership, and we thought that what was good for the European must necessarily be good for the natives, too. But this has led to enormous confusion. Plots were given to the natives, and it was thought that the plots would be registered and transferred in the same way as in the case of the whites, but we have found that that system does not work with the native. The beacons among the native holdings have been on the march ever since this system was started. There has been no registration in the case of death or sale, and to-day there is hopeless confusion, and it will take an immense sum of money to right the position. The Prime Minister is endeavouring to deal with the situation through this proposed commission, but this is a warning to us not to move too fast in advance of native ideas and practices. I say this because the Prime Minister has some other ideas in which he is moving much in advance of native ideas. The native does not understand our political system; he does not attach the same values to political language and ideas that we do, and we had better go slow with him. We cannot have a better warning than the absolute confusion and chaos which have resulted by the application of individual ownership and tenure to the natives in the Ciskei. In the Transkei, where they have not this system there is no complaint. Let me say a word about the power of the chiefs. Generally, I agree with the Prime Minister that one of the great evils into which we have landed ourselves is due to our prematurely breaking down the power of the chiefs. You sometimes hear our dominion administration compared unfavourably with British administration in South Africa, as far as natives are concerned. You often hear that the British system is said to be more successful in the territories like Basutoland and’ Swaziland than our system is. There as a difference in the two systems. In the territories administered by the High Commissioner much more consistent effort had been made to maintain the power of the chiefs and to use the existing native machinery for the administration of the country and for the guidance of native ideas and life. We colonials, to use a now obsolete expression—I am speaking the language of yesterday—have gone in for a different system. We thought the native chief was an organ of barbarism.

The change was really started by the British.

It is just the same in the Transvaal and the Free State. I don’t think we can throw stones in this matter.

Sir George Gray started it.

It was short-sightedness. We have broken down the organs of native administration far beyond what was necessary. This has happened in other countries, too. It is one of the great problems in India. The Indian organization was broken down, and now western ideas are being applied, and they work out with the greatest difficulty and friction. We have broken down here the organs of native life, opinion and practice, and have tried to substitute for them our civilized white ideas and machinery, but they do not work smoothly. I agree generally with the Prime Minister that we should go slow in breaking down the power of the chiefs. But even here we must be careful. The Prime Minister proposes to give a certain amount of criminal jurisdiction to the chiefs, who are authorized to impose fines not exceeding five head of cattle or £15. Of course, we shall have to exercise a certain measure of control there, because our chiefs are not always up to the mark. That is Section 18 (3), and you see in this Bill we give a certain civil jurisdiction to the chiefs from which there is an appeal, and, therefore, there is a safeguard, but when you come to criminal jurisdiction the chief has fairly extensive powers given to him; he can impose a fine of five head of cattle or £15; and there is no appeal. The Prime Minister will see in the case of a chief unfitted for his position, this power, unless there is a check, may lead to grave abuse, and we may have to give some power of supervision to the Native Commissioner to prevent abuse. On the whole, I am at one with him that we should, as far as possible, support the chiefs, educate the chiefs, establish schools for the chiefs if necessary, and make decent administrators of them, and fit them for the high position they have to occupy in the development of native, life, and, in that way, some good may result. The Prime Minister, in this Bill, applies the principles of native marriage and succession which exists in the Cape territories over the rest of South Africa. There, too, we shall have to be very careful. I do not speak of very close knowledge, but reading this clause, especially Clause 19, the Prime Minister seems to me to legalize polygamy.

I do not legalize it. I have it recognized.

I advise my hon. friend to be careful, or he may get into difficulties with the church and the missionaries. He has already used very strong language about them in this House, and they may look upon Clause. 19 as a first-class frontal attack on the church and missionary societies in South Africa. I believe the practice among the churches has been over most of South Africa that if a polygamist becomes a Christian he must choose one of his wives and set the others aside. He cannot continue as a Christian polygamist. There is no such thing as Christian polygamy, but I am afraid under Section 19 there will be legalized Christian polygamy in this country, and we must be careful not to get this House into conflict with the moral conscience and the churches; a conflict between church and State it is to our interest to avoid. One other matter where I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister is in the power he takes to legislate for the scheduled native areas by way of proclamation. I do not know whether the Prime Minister pointed it out to the House, but it is a fact that every proclamation drafted must go before the Native Affairs Commissioners, and if there is any dissent from any of them, it has to be laid on the table of the House together with the proclamation when the House meets. That is a considerable safeguard in this matter. To my mind there is a great deal to be said for keeping native legislation outside the arena of this House. It is difficult to discuss native affairs where we are accustomed to discuss our own white concerns, and the issues that trouble us in our own party politics. Any Government, even the present poor Government, is more likely to be wise in connection with natives than Parliament would be. There is a good deal to be said for this system of legislation by proclamation. It has worked well in practice. It has been in force in the Transkeian territories for a very long time, and the system on the whole is satisfactory. We shall have to make it clear that it does not apply to the small white communities in those areas.

It does in the Transkei.

Perhaps that accounts for the happy state of affairs of the white communities in the native territories. I am not against the authority of Parliament, but we shall have to make it clear that this system of legislation by proclamation is intended for the natives, and the whites must look to the forum of Parliament as the organ of their legislation. I am not very clear, and the Prime Minister was not clear, as to what is the meaning of Section 25, a clause which deals with passes, defining pass areas, prescribing regulations for the control and prohibition of the movement of natives and the repeal of all or any laws relating to the carrying of passes by natives in any such areas. I know our pass laws are in a parlous condition, and the confusion is very great, but Section 25, to me is unintelligible as it stands. However, we can discuss that matter in committee, and, maybe, we can come to an agreement. In Section 26 I am differing from some of my friends behind me, but my feeling is that Section 26 does not belong to this Bill. I do not, however, think that that is the Prime Minister’s reason for deleting it. We have had protests from one wing of the Pact and there have been interviews with the Prime Minister, and in the end he has seen the error of his ways, and has come to heel. That is his business as a Pact politician. I am concerned with this matter from the native point of view. From the native point of view it seems to me to be a real blot to have a separate system of crimes established for natives. We shall have to discuss the amendment which the Prime Minister proposes more carefully when we come to committee. I have not been able to follow the involved legal phraseology of the amendment which he has read out. I personally shall not mind if Clause 26 disappears from this Bill. I agree with the remarks which the Minister of Justice made some time ago that it is highly necessary to have what he calls a sedition law, a law against people and practices subversive to the institutions of this country and law and order of this country. There is undoubtedly to-day a very serious state of affairs. We know from the reports of the Commissioner of Police and other sources that there are movements among the natives which are really dangerous. There are a number of native agitators who make a profession of it to subvert public tranquility and the existing state of affairs. But the evil is not confined to native agitators. There are white agitators who are just as dangerous to my mind whom it is necessary to deal with by more effective legislation. Let us have a general law for both black and white. Do not let us give the impression that on a matter of cardinal importance like this we see only with one eye. What is urgently required is a law to deal with people who try to subvert the existing state of affairs by illegal means and by poisoning public opinions. Such a law we want, but it must be a general law, and it must not be a law introduced into a native Act for natives. In a white man these practices are, in my opinion, far more reprehensible and dangerous than in the case of the native. The white man should know better. I hope the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that he will screw up the courage of the Minister of Justice, and that this general Bill will be forthcoming. The disappearance of Clause 26 from this Bill ought not to mean that we are shelving or shirking the issue, but it ought to mean that we are going to deal with the issue in a fair and impartial manner. Let me, in conclusion, say a word about Clause 28. That deals with the exempted native. It has been the practice, I believe, of all the Governments of South Africa so far, in all the provinces, to exempt educated, well-behaved natives from the operation of the ordinary native laws. If a native raises himself up by his own effort to a scale of civilization above his fellows, we have recognized his effort, and we have given him a certificate, so to say, and he has got this highly valued exemption from native laws.

Certain laws, pass laws, etc.

Yes, quite a number of them. I know, from my own experience in dealing with natives while I was Minister of Native Affairs, that the natives in all parts of South Africa value these exemption certificates very much indeed. They look upon them as certificates of civilization, and I am glad to see that, in Clause 28, this system is kept up. I was afraid that with the new ideas which are coming into vogue we might, perhaps, press this exempted native, this civilized native, back into the mass again, and make him an element of unsettlement and danger in the country. But I am glad to see that the Minister in this Bill, although old laws are repealed, is maintaining this exemption granted before. I hope we shall keep this system in force, because, to my mind, we must give some fair and reasonable scope to the educated, civilized native. We must do it even if it were only a safety-valve to ourselves. As a safety measure of white civilization in this country, it is necessary that we should give recognition to the native who raises himself in the scale of civilized life, and I hope that, by the application of Section 28, when this Bill becomes law, it will be possible to make the natives realize that, if they help themselves, if they become educated and civilized, everything will be done not to press them back into the mass of native barbarism, and that they will be exempted and continue to be exempted from the ordinary incidence of the laws which apply to the natives in their raw state. I note what the Prime Minister says that he does not intend to send this Bill to a select committee. This is a great pity. I know we are so hard-worked now, and we have such scanty resources now left in this House that it is almost impossible to have an additional select committee on any Bill. Yet I am really afraid of seeing this Bill in its present form put on the statute book; I am afraid it is going to have an unsettling effect on the natives, and it may be after the discussions which the Prime Minister will hear on this debate that he may decide not to put the Bill into force this session, but that he will allow it to stand over so that in the recess he may be in a position at a conference of his officials from the various provinces to submit this Bill to their expert examination, so that we may be guided in the best way in dealing with this matter. My one sole object at this stage of native development, when the native mind is being unsettled in every direction by our various proposals and legislation, is to see that we do not add to the burden of the natives, and still less through this Bill to cause a serious disturbance to the native mind and the native system which may have very untoward effects far beyond what we can foresee to-day.

The right hon. the leader of my party has said this is not a political matter. It is a matter on which, I presume, everyone is free to express his own opinion in the light of his own experience. I look upon this Bill as one of the most important introduced into the House since the inauguration of Union. I consider it more important in many aspects than the four Bills now before the consideration of the select committee— epoch making though those Bills may prove to be—because in those Bills we are dealing very largely with theoretical conceptions which have never been tried before in South Africa, but in this Bill we are dealing with practical issues of the everyday life of the native. It is a Bill which has been drawn up by the Native Affairs Department, which consists of experts who have spent many years of their lives in close contact with the very problems dealt with in this Bill. I like this Bill very much better than the other Bills that have come before the House. I propose merely to point to the general principle which I see underlying the Bill, and not to discuss the various matters in detail. I like the Bill because there is nothing new in it; there is nothing theoretical in it; there is nothing foreign in it to the ideas of the natives, and there is nothing in the nature of experiment upon the wise application of the powers herein contained, and the policy behind their administration will depend the future relations of the races. The systems of administration which we already have existing in the Union are systems which arose 40 or 50 years ago, and in the course of those years, enormous divergencies have taken place in those systems. Take one simple illustration of a great divergence which took place between Natal and the Transvaal. The Transvaal had translated into Dutch the native law of Natal of 1865 word for word, with the exception that it made a mistake in the translation of one single word. This mistranslation has upset the whole of the native law and custom in the Transvaal. The Natal law provided that—

When the Transvaal came to translate that into Dutch, the word—

was translated into the word—

Consequently, when native cases came before the Supreme Court, a world of difference was laid down in the interpretation of native laws. So we had the extraordinary anomaly that children born under native law in the Transvaal were deemed illegitimate by the Supreme Court because their customs were repugnant to the principles of civilization, while children born in Natal under the same native law were deemed to be perfectly legitimate. In the Cape we have the utmost confusion. At the Cape we proceeded to democratize the natives many years ago. In the Ciskei to which I am particularly referring, we have neither chiefs nor native law, and the natives lack the paternal care which is necessary, but we have many politicians there, and that is probably the reason for the natives there being the most impoverished and miserable in the Union. I disagree with the right hon. member in this. I think there must be some measure of uniformity in native administration, that is, uniformity in the power of supreme chieftainship, and I go further and say there should be a measure of uniformity in administration throughout the whole of Bantu Africa. The best service the Government can render to the people of the Union, both European and native, is to get into consultation with other administrations and try to adopt such a measure of uniformity. In spite of being, for instance, Zulus or Basutos they are the same people, in their traditions and outlook on most things. For instance, Zulu is spoken in Nyassaland and on the shores of Lake Victoria Nyanza, and Basuto can be understood from Cape Town right up to the Congo. There is only one important principle we have to discuss in this Bill, and that is it proposes to re-enact the Natal code throughout the whole of the Union. Although not in so many words, it proclaims that the Governor-General is the paramount and supreme chief of the natives, and I would like to see that stated in the Bill. He is the supreme chief in the same way as he is in Natal. This Bill does not give the same powers as exists in Natal under the native code. The supreme chief in Natal under the Natal code “exercises in and over all natives in the colony of Natal all political power and authority, subject to the provisions of Section 7 of Law 44 of 1887. Clause 7 of Law 44 provides in certain cases for the removal of the chief. Clause 39 of the code reads as follows: “The supreme chief in the exercise of the political powers which attach to his office has authority to punish by fine or imprisonment or both for disobedience of his orders or for disregard of his authority, and is not subject to the supreme court of Natal for any act done personally or in council.” This then is the supreme chieftainship as exercized by the Governor-General in Natal. I wonder how many people in South Africa really recognize what a magnificent instrument for the preservation of peace the Natal code has been for so many years. The whole history of South Africa had its impulse from Natal. Chaka’s warriors were responsible for the amalgamation of the Bechuana tribes which founded the Basuto nation, and sent Sibetuana north to conquer Barotseland. He drove Mziligazi to the plains of the Transvaal and this founded the Matabele nation. He set in motion those forces which led to conflicts between the Europeans and natives in the Cape. The fact that the native Government of Natal has preserved the peace for many years has been of untold advantage to the rest of the Union. In the past the native administration have spoken the native language and understood the native mind and thus maintained the most kindly feelings between natives and Europeans. But the old order is changing, and that without advantage to either Europeans or the natives. In the place of experienced and capable native officials who were Zulu linguists we have officials in whose appointment undue stress is placed upon their legal attainments, and who are more given to splitting hairs in legal definitions than to keeping their fingers on the pulse of the natives. We want more increased control by the Native Affairs Department and less control by the Department of Justice. I do not desire to discuss the Bill any further in regard to its principles. We can discuss the clauses in detail in Committee, but I can say that many of them will require some amendment. There is a question, however, I really want to consider. The good or ill that this Bill will do will depend upon the policy behind it. It is reasonable to ask what is it that inspires our native policy under the Bill? The administration of native affairs is entirely guided by the policy behind it. We have had no native legislation since 1884 or 1885, and it is very unlikely that any of us here will see another native Bill brought in. We are launching a new vessel, which we expect to see us through the stormy seas of the future. I have not heard from anybody where we are going in our native policy, or what port we hope to make. I find the most conflicting ideas as to the destination of our native craft even in the highest political circles. In fact, we are going on with a policy of drift. We have talked platitudes for years, and we have been living in a strain of optimism, without any realization of what we are really aiming at. An examination of the different destinations to which we are travelling at present will show that we have two diametrically opposed ports—one is tribalism and the other is individualism. We are aiming at the same time to maintain tribal customs and endeavouring to democratize the natives. How is it all going to end, for obviously we cannot make both ports—we cannot democratize our natives and at the same time keep them along the tribal path. That is the real issue of the native question. Hitherto the official policy of the Government, as far as I have been able to understand it, is that we must try and develop the native along his own line or in other words to allow him to build something new on his individual character and social system. What is the consensus of opinion regarding our native objective? An unofficial conference was held at Johannesburg—the largest ever held—which expressed itself—

My right hon. friend, in his speech, also agreed with it. We find the same thing existing in the administration of the Congo. The Belgian Colonial Minister said that—

That is a policy approved of by a vast majority of natives in this country that they should be allowed to develop along their own lines and maintain their purity of race, and that the administration of the native laws should be in the hands of their chiefs. The Cape has followed a different policy. It has pursued a distinctly democratic objective, probably due to a political reason—the franchise. The tendency I have observed in the Cape shows a distinct distaste to tribal life. They think there is something undesirable and unprogressive in it, and all attempts to develop the native on his own lines have been frankly abandoned. This policy is an ancient policy, and is out of keeping with modern thought. It is the Victorian conception, the same conception as Lord Durham had on going to Canada when he wrote his minute urging that we should try to make the French-Canadians into Englishmen; the same conception which inspired Lord Macauley in India is say—that English culture would inevitably become the culture of the Indian people. We have to-day a new conception in the Government of the native races and this conception was explained by Mr. Amery the Colonial Secretary not long ago in England, when he dealt with the two principles of native government. The first, he said—

That has been the policy in the Cape. The second principle he dealt with was one which—

I have never understood that Cape idea that the native is better off on a privately owned plot of ground to which he has some kind of individual title than on a tribal plot of equal size given to him by his chief. I have never been able to measure native progress by the building of a square hut with two windows rather than a round hut in the native village. And I cannot understand why the native is better off with the selfish individualism of the private table rather than the simple tribal companionship of the native meal. We have never attempted to develop the native along the tribal line, but we have tried to break it down. How can we when we take the native into our schools destroy every tradition and we fill him with preconceived ideas which destroys every natural aspiration which might be of service to his race. We have a large educated class but what use are they to the rising Bantu races? Detribalized, Europeanized, chock-full of ideas and emotions which are quite alien to the ordinary native, seeking progress entirely on the lines of the European, while we ourselves, as Europeans, are disputing amongst ourselves as to the value of such progress. Many of these people have drunk very deeply of the wine of European demagogy, and they spew it all over the country to unsettle the native mind. What will be the inevitable result? The must inevitably become like the ex-slave population of the United States, a people without any tradition, without any language, without any law. These educated natives have a most glorious opportunity to go in amongst their own tribal units and try to develop their own race upon real native lines. I admit we have got so far now that it is very difficult to return and particularly difficult to return in the Cape. As a writer has put it—

stream carries all before it with a rush. I do believe, however, that if we can only have a conscious aim in our native administration we can do much to direct the main current of native development into its own natural channel and prevent the breaking down of those tribal restraints without which I am sure this country is going to be a very horrible place to live in. It ought to be very plain to every thinking man that if a stand is not quickly made, it will soon become impossible. With the vanishing of the last vestiges of tribal rule we are face to face with a proletariat fed upon the same pabulum that is being served out to the proletariats which are learning us the roots of ordered society in other parts of the world. What prevents that conscious aim? Largely platitudes and politics, and the opportunism with which we regard all native matters. We seem to take things for granted as though there was going to be no end to the good times which we are experiencing to-day. One serious deterrent to that conscious aim has been the assimilation policy which has hitherto been the policy of the Cape. So we have created a certain sloppiness of mind in the public and it seems impossible to stiffen up our attitudes and regard native progress from the right angle. I want here to refer, with all due consideration, and with great timidity, to another factor in this opportunism which is interfering with our real objective, and that is the Native Affairs Commission. I speak with the utmost respect and admiration for the members of that commission as a body, and I know that the two schoolmasters who are members of that commission are very earnest and learned men who have had the welfare of the native very much at heart all their lives. Yet I fear that this commission undermines the tribal system more than any other institution which we have. One of the members of that commission is in this House, and another is in the Senate, so that they will have an opportunity of replying to any remarks I make. I know what a serious thing it is to say one word which might destroy the admiration and respect with which they are hold by both Europeans and natives, but I think something has to be said. Now all their lives the two schoolmasters on this Native Affairs Commission—I do not speak with any disrespect—have been concerned with educating children. They are inclined in my opinion to look upon the natives or native evolution through the windows of the schoolroom. They seem to be intent upon building up with the aid of their old scholars a politically conscious class which is entirely out of touch with the tribal natives, and I think they have been responsible to a very large extent for encouraging the native congress, whose goal as I see it is parliamentary development among the natives. Their attention has not been concentrated at all upon the native aristocracy but upon the native democracy, upon the articulate native politician who has been attending so many conferences. So consciously or unconsciously I believe they have been organizing a proletariat. How is it possible for these different policies to have one conscious aim in our native administration? Here is a measure which has been drawn up by the administrative officials who have spent their lives in administration. They sent this Bill to the Native Affairs Commission for its examination and report. And what does the commission say about it? It says that Clause 26—over which there is so much trouble; I do not know where it comes from; it did not come from the Native Congress which considered it—militates against the true purpose of the Bill, which is to unify and improve the administration of native affairs. One of the principal powers of the supreme chief of a native tribe is surely to prevent subversion of his authority, and the disruption of tribal life. This was one of the chief functions of chieftanship. I do not blame the commission; I blame the Government for their want of purpose and want of policy. The commission cannot be expected to do other than express the current opinion of the times. It is an excellent illustration of the fight going on under our nose between the officials on the one hand and the native commission on the other. Let us consider a few results of this. For a long time the native congress has been trying to get hold of the native chiefs. The native congress consisting of the politicians is at a discount among the tribal natives; they represent very few natives really although they are very articulate. The other day they succeeded. They convened a meeting of the chiefs and what was the result? They passed a lot of political resolutions which the chiefs I am sure never understood, resolutions framed by these politicians, and they sent these chiefs down here to see the Prime Minister. I am very sorry that the Prime Minister saw these chiefs, because they will go back to their own people and say they achieved what they never would have done had they remained under their own tribal rule.—

but they went to Bloemfontein and saw them there, and they went down to Cape Town. It never seems to have occurred to the old administration that wisdom lay in educating the old chiefs, but it had occurred to the late General Botha, and he saw that the time had come to take hold of the right end of the stick and have a native college for the training of the sons of chiefs. It ought to be more deserving of support than it has obtained. We take the outcasts of the tribes, the little boys, the commoner, and take them into the schools and educate them, while the aristocracy, the rulers of the people, for whom the Government itself was responsible, has been allowed to remain in ignorance by us. Then we blame the chiefs. It is not the chiefs, but we, who are to blame, because we have allowed them to remain in ignorance. The native politician is a product of Lovedale. The native chief is a product of our own neglect. There is another and infinitely more potent factor than the political factor, and that is a factor to which even the Prime Minister has to bow down. Native administration—it is a sad thought when you come to think of it—is being dictated by a socialistic organization in Johannesburg—of Europeans living in an European area and dictating to the Government what its administrative policy should be.

To which organization do you refer?

The one which sent its resolutions to the cross benches, which caused them to get to the Prime Minister.

Are you referring to the Trade Union Congress?

I leave the hon. member to put a name to it. He knows better than I do. Take Mr. Andrews, for instance, the secretary of the organization which takes its orders from Moscow. Is he responsible for the resolution?

Your own leader said: [rest of the sentence not caught.]

My leader said this is not a political matter; and we are expressing our own opinions. I do not know what the old Voortrekkers would say if they saw who the people were who are guiding the hand of the natives. Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) know much about these primitive passions which are kept very much in check in Africa by the able administrators who hold the onward path open to the native by the restrictions he objects to? These people, heedless of the past and of the future, are content only to propagate doctrines which they think may advance them as Europeans along their own plane, but they are utterly regardless of the natives. I think it is high time that these activities were put an end to. I would welcome the withdrawal of this clause if it would mean the bringing in of a Bill dealing with the whole population, if I thought that would be done, but I don’t believe this or any other Government will do it. While these clauses remain in the Bill I hope we shall have the support of those who have some regard for native administration to push these clauses through for want of something better. I think the white workers would be with us. I cannot conceive that the white workers want the natives to start preaching a class war. What will socialistic slogans mean to the natives? These very doctrines which are preached at street corners to-day with no effect whatsoever upon our own race, if they are preached amongst the ignorant natives we, who live amongst them will know what the effect will be. Our civilization has a glorious mission in this vast continent. I believe we were placed here by Providence for a special purpose. I cannot believe that 1½ million whites were placed here to rule over millions of natives for their own gratification, but that we have a special destiny. To us this day has come a choice which may easily influence the course of history on the world’s stage. The world today is very closely watching all we do on this matter, and whatever we do our actions will be very much misinterpreted overseas, but upon the continent of Africa, our decision will be of vital importance. We can either follow the blind and opportunist path of gradually converting every native into an imitation European, or we can direct our policy to the developing of the native along his own lines by building upon the sure foundations of tribal custom and tradition. In the first case, the Europeanized native will strive for recognition in European society, as the native doctor is doing to-day at Mafeking, only to find when they try to seek recognition in European society that there is no advance along that line. Dissatisfied and rebellious, cut adrift from all that his people had created, alien in thought and speech to the spirit of his race, his future will be dark indeed. And in the darkness of his despair, the fruits of our folly will fall upon us in retribution. On the other hand, if we have the sense to see, and the strength to carry out a conscious purpose, we shall immediately discard the childish false conceptions of the Victorian era and, acting without fear as the guardians of the native races, we shall employ this evolving native intelligensia in the service of his race, and build with sure hand a native indigenous civilization which may, in due course, add its quota to the forward development of the world.