I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the frequent resolutions that have been passed by the Agricultural Union Congress from time to time in regard to the necessity for the revision of the pass laws that are applicable throughout the Union. A recent congress in Maritzburg has again drawn attention to this matter and there has been a commission reporting very fully on this question and it was anticipated some time ago that legislation would follow upon the recommendations of that commission. The Masters and Servants Law, it is also pointed out, is, in a very chaotic state, and various farmers’ conferences have drawn attention to the necessity for a revision of that law.

The hon. member is now advocating a change of the law. As the hon. member knows, he cannot do that on the Estimates. The hon. member may discuss the policy of the Minister.

I merely wanted to ascertain whether the Prime Minister intended to carry this matter any further, because it might quite well be that he is of opinion that the existing law is sufficient. Are we entitled to discuss policy on this vote?

The hon. member may discuss policy as far as the Minister is concerned.

In connection with the administration of the Native Urban Areas Act I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a case that has occurred in Johannesburg which seems to me to demand disciplinary treatment on his part. It is the case of one of the leading officials employed by the municipality there, under licence of the Minister, in charge of the natives there. Not very long ago he appeared in court in Johannesburg under conditions described in an extract from a native paper which I wish to read. The name of the official is mentioned but I do not propose to give the name—

There have been other charges from time to time brought by the natives against this gentleman which have formed the subject of inquiry, and I know that the Prime Minister has a very strict regard for the conduct and integrity of persons in charge of native affairs, and in other instances he has shown his disapproval of the employment of anyone of intemperate habits. I should be glad to know whether this case has been brought to his notice and whether he has withdrawn the licence which I presume his department had granted for the employment of this official under the Urban Areas Act by the municipality. It seems to me that the interests of the natives are not in safe hands combining all the circumstances surrounding this case, when men of this type are employed as the head official in charge of native affairs in so important a district as Johannesburg. There is the question of the demoralization that is taking place in the Witwatersrand among the natives owing to the sale of yeast. I refer to that because the urgency of the matter is not sufficiently appreciated in other quarters or by other Ministers under whose department the administration of the liquor law comes. I would like to quote a statement that has been published with regard to this yeast evil and its effect upon the natives. It says—

The same sort of evil exists under absolutely uncontrolled conditions in the alluvial diggings at Lichtenburg. I do appeal to the Prime Minister to consider whether it is not possible to deal in a salutary manner with this evil before the session closes.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to the non-provision for any betterment works in connection with the locations in Natal in regard to irrigation works. The Minister knows that the present works, which have been established for some years, have proved an unqualified success. The natives are entitled to have an extension of this work. There is ample land there for irrigation and there is no question about the quality of the land. The money expended on it is justified by the crops that these natives grow. On the same page we have an item, Relief of Distress. It only goes to show that the productiveness of these districts has not been fully developed. It is not fair to the natives that this irrigation should not be extended. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us it is the Government’s policy to extend this. I want to refer to a question I raised the session before last in regard to the Lillani hot springs. I believe the Prime Minister has come to some arrangement to making a road to these inaccessible Lillani sulphur springs, which are greatly sought after by natives, and Europeans also use them to a large extent. Then a burning question with the natives is their cattle. These locations are overstocked, and there is no outlet for their cattle. The Government have provided dipping tanks, and stamped out disease of every kind, and the cattle are increasing at a great rate. There is no restriction on the number they can run. What relief is the Minister going to give the natives in converting practically their only assets into cash? East Coast fever is practically unknown there now, as the administration is so good.

I should like information from the Prime Minister about sub-heads D. and F. respectively, advancement of natives (Natal) £4,400 and grants for industrial purposes for the benefit of natives £200. The subheads also appear in the financial year 1926-’27, and I should like to have information about it.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister what his policy is in regard to granting permits for prospecting on native locations. I find from the return the Prime Minister laid on the Table the other day that these permits have been granted during the last two or three years in very large numbers. I do not know what happened before that, and I do not say that there was a divergence of policy from what went before. During 1925, from the return the Minister laid on the Table, no fewer than 77 permits were given to various persons to prospect on native reserves. The gold law gives the Minister the right to grant permits to prospect on native locations and reserves, and I submit that is a power that ought to be used very sparingly, especially on the part of a Government which came in on a policy of segregation. Anything less calculated to lead to this, when the natives are already segregated, it is difficult to imagine. It is practically driving the natives out to find land elsewhere. I know that where it takes place with Crown land, the Government have to find other land by way of compensation. If we are serious in encouraging the native to remain and to assist him to remain on his own reserves, and not seek employment in towns and elsewhere, the Government should be sparing in the granting of permits to Europeans to prospect on these lands for their own profit.

Well, I must say that I am surprized at the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). For 14 years he has either been sitting with the Government, in the Government or in opposition to the Government. For 14 years the same practice has always been carried on, and to-day he comes and takes strong exception to this policy of giving permits for prospecting on native reservations.

In connection with segregation—that is all I asked for.

It is so much in clash with the Government’s policy of segregation that it must bear a totally different character! What was good the other day must be bad now! It is neither worse nor better than it was before. It is totally consistent with segregation, and if we were to have the fullest segregation possible my hon. friend would not stand up in this House and advocate any measure to prevent prospecting in native locations taking place. Why would he? He wants to go to this extent—that while your European has ground he has the right to make money out of the minerals on his farm, but the native should be debarred from that.

The native does not get the money.

But surely! May I tell my hon. friend that in consequence of platinum the natives got something like £16,000 or £20,000.

Who paid?

The company.

To whom?

To the natives. Of course, they have as much right as the European. My hon. friend has been led too soon by the Opposition policy with regard to segregation. Either the ground belongs to the natives or to the Government in these locations. As far as your native is concerned, he has the right—only yesterday I pointed it out in answer to a question put to me. The Government has no right to prevent giving prospecting rights to natives, as little as it has the right to prevent any other private man being given prospecting rights, or giving prospecting rights to anybody. But the Government sees that no native gives a prospecting right orally. It must be put in writing, so that the native is not fleeced eventually. The Government sees that the rights given to the European are under the most favourable conditions that can be, obtained for the natives. When that is the case all the Government does is to say—

and the contract is entered into by the Government with the man. Then they have to go to the Department of Mines, where they get the necessary licence. The Government does no more than only to see that the native gets a fair deal. Then part of these locations are Crown lands. Here again, all that the Native Affairs Department does is to say—

because we do not want a location over-run by so-called prospectors; so that the department keeps a watching eye there on behalf of the native, and when someone comes along and says he wants the right there, the Minister of Mines and Industries waits for the man to bring him the assurance that my department has no objection to his going prospecting there. This is no new practice, but has been followed all these years and will always be followed. Some of the richest platinum fields are in native locations. Platinum and chrome have been responsible for most of the applications for permission to prospect within native areas. As far as diamonds are concerned I am not giving licences in native areas as I don’t want anymore prospecting for diamonds as at present we are having quite enough of that.

*The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) asked for information in regard to subheads D and F. That is trust money which has been handed over to us since the establishment of Union. The money comes from an old British source and is first handed over to Natal, and we hold it now as guardian. We are annually responsible for its payment.

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has put a question about irrigation in Natal for natives. But that is a matter largely for the native trust in Natal.

You control the trust.

Yes, but the native trust some years ago established works and according to the funds it has it assists the natives. Nothing has been brought to my notice of late in respect of any particular irrigation undertaking in Natal. Two years ago there was talk of extending irrigation works there. And even to-day it would be a good thing if they were established on a larger scale, but you have always to bear in mind the income of these trusts. As far as the hot springs are concerned, this is the first I have heard of them officially, but I will make further inquiries. With regard to the native cattle, I do not see how Government is going to do anything in the matter of overstocking. It would not be wise of any Government to interfere with native stock except with their full consent. If any means could be pointed out of alleviating the position the department and I would be willing to assist, because we feel that the natives are overstocked especially in the matter of cattle. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked me whether I intended doing anything as far as the pass laws and the Masters and Servants Act are concerned. With regard to the pass laws the hon. member knows very well what a fine hornet’s nest he is going to stir up the moment this subject is touched. If my hon. friend will give me the assurance that he and his party will support me I may, perhaps, venture to put my finger into that nest, but so far I must say I do not think any government—even the previous government —has much reason to be satisfied with the assistance it really obtained when dealing with this matter.

Haven’t you your finger in several nests already?

As far as I am concerned I am quite satisfied to remain where I am. As to the Masters’ and Servants’ Law that is a question for the Department of Justice as it affects both Europeans and natives. I do not think we are likely to introduce a Bill which will be applicable today to the native as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. member spoke about an official who in a drunken state drove a motor car, and was brought before a Johannesburg magistrate. This is a municipal matter and as such I have nothing to do with it. There is reason to think that the municipal authority is dealing with the man. If he were my officer he would certainly not remain there one day, and if he holds the licence with the approval of the Government that licence will not remain where it is. With regard to the sale of yeast, if there is any question which has given a tremendous amount of worry to the police in the Transvaal, it is this very subject. The hon. member knows to what extent this is being imported clandestinely, and every now and again we see that the police have come across large quantities smuggled stealthily into the country. The Minister of Justice is dealing with that in the liquor law. In the meantime representations have been made to the Treasury to deal with this subject from the Treasury point of view by the imposition of restrictive duties, prohibitive duties. But it is still under consideration as to which is the most effective way of dealing with this matter. I think the best way is that suggested by the Minister of Justice in the Liquor Bill before the House.

What policy does the Government propose to follow with regard to fences erected between native and European areas? There has been a lot of misunderstanding and confusion in his department. For upwards of 25 years we have had fences along the boundaries of New England and Herschel.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order in discussing this subject?

The hon. member may discuss this on the Minister’s portfolio.

From time to time these fences have been renovated, repaired and improved, and in each case the Government has borne half the cost. With the approval of the magistrate of Herschel, farmers who constructed their fences were paid half the cost by the Government, and at one time the magistrate of Herschel employed a man to look after the fences and maintain them, of which the farmers paid half the cost. The last farmer to erect a vermin-proof fence was not so fortunate. He was promised that his case would be dealt with in the same manner as those which preceded him, but when he presented his account the magistrate demurred about it and delay was occasioned, during which period the last Ministry went out of office and the present Government came in, subsequently this party again put in his claim, which has been turned down. I then interviewed the Herschel magistrate. I suggested that if they were not prepared to go to the extent of contributing towards vermin-proof fencing they might do so on the basis of a stock-proof fence, but the argument was advanced that the farmers by converting their fences to vermin-proof, thereby forfeited their right to any claim. This is a very unreasonable attitude to take up. Let it be ascertained what the difference is between the cost of an ordinary and a vermin-proof fence and adjust the payment on the basis of the former. Afterwards I went to Pretoria and saw the Secretary of Native Affairs, and he was in agreement with me that some obligation rested on the department and suggested that such farmers should be paid out on the basis of stock fences. He wrote to the magistrate in regard to this, but so far, nothing has been done. Ever since the existence of these joint boundary fences, up to three years ago, they have been mutually and jointly maintained. Since then the Government has refused payment. I also saw the Minister of Agriculture and urged the desirability of getting the Basutoland Government to contribute towards vermin-proof fences in respect of their section. But now we have another Government. In the past the Government recognized the claim and promised to pay out, but now the Government turns the matter down and it is not receiving attention, in spite of the fact that three parts of the entire line is being fenced. The Government has put a stop to it. The Minister of Agriculture got a report from the Secretary for Native Affairs with regard to the same fencing, but it is a most erroneous and misleading report, and they have the record so mixed up that they don’t know where they are. They put forward a suggestion which has never been made and they have no knowledge of certain payments. A payment to myself, for instance, when I put my vermin-proof fence along there, they have no record, as far as we know, of that. I do hope that the Minister will go into the matter, because we all know that the natives on the other side are liable in respect of a stock-proof fence. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring a few things to the notice of the Minister of Native Affairs in connection with the collection of native poll tax. It appears that in 1925 there was a doubt about the interpretation with the result that a number of coloured people were also made to pay the tax. The tax is in many cases paid by the employers, and now the coloured people who are not liable for it are demanding a refund from the farmers. The difficulty is that the farmers acted in good faith but bad feeling is now arising between the employers and employees. I brought the matter to the notice of the department and the difficulty is appreciated, but I do not think the matter has as yet been disposed of because a few weeks ago Í was again approached about it. A second point in connection with the collection of taxes is that I have received information from my constituency that the police have done amazing work in this connection, but that the police for some reason or another have received orders from the Native Affairs Department that they are not to collect the tax. This is objected to by the farmers because they fear that their native servants in consequence of the new orders will have to go the villages to pay the tax. They think that the police are the proper people to collect the tax and I want the duty to be again placed on the police. There was no objections in my constituency but I understand that a native casually went to complain. As for the spending of the poll tax the impression exists among the natives that they are entitled to a part of the amount collected for educational purposes. At the Brakfontein diggings there are a few thousand natives and they rightly put up their own private school to keep their children out of mischief. Even the police officials there stated that the institution was a splendid thing for keeping the little ones off the road. Applications have been made to the local school board, the Provincial Administration and the Native Affairs Department to get an allowance for the teachers who are doing good work there. The local school board and the Provincial Administration said that they had no funds for the purpose, and the Department of Native Affairs said that it was not responsible for it. In the end they had to pay the tax and at Brakfontein £1,000 was voluntarily paid.

They must pay it.

Yes, but they brought it in so that it was not necessary for the police to go and collect it. I shall be glad if the Minister of Native Affairs will give his attention to the matter, or will arrange with the Provincial Administration for the matter to be cleared up.

I should like a little more information from the Minister with reference to the permits that are issued for prospecting in native areas. I see from a return that more than 100 have been issued for native locations, but fortunately the majority of them have lapsed. The Minister said that the natives in one location received about £20,000 from options for platinum contracts. The natives, of course, live on Crown lands.

Not of course.

They are surely not freeholders of the ground?

Yes, certainly.

If they have transfer and have bought the property then I agree of course that the option money is due to them, but if it is Crown land, then it should not be given away to natives. I should like to have the matter cleared up. I do not agree with the Minister that we should be so frightened of granting contracts to dig for diamonds. If there are diamonds in the native territories let them be taken out.

Enough are being found without those in the native territories.

All I want is that if minerals are found on Crown land they shall not be given away, and that the natives should get a large share of the money.

What is your question?

I state that the natives in the locations were not entitled to the £20,000 if it was Crown land. It is possibly a very good thing that a large number of the platinum licences have lapsed. I am not opposed to a man trying to make something out of it, but I do not want the natives in the Transvaal to have advantages from what should come to the Union. Take the case that half of 100 prospecting contracts turn out successfully. How much loss might the State not have suffered if it had been given to the prospectors, and the natives had got a large share of it. I think the natives are only entitled to live on the ground.

I should like to invite the Minister’s attention to the position regarding natives in Johannesburg. About four years ago an Act was passed which compelled the town councils to house the natives in locations. The Act has been in force four years and municipalities have already spent hundreds of pounds for housing natives, but the position has not improved at all. If a house is built for a native two more come in from outside. The result is that the natives are all over the place to the annoyance of the white population. There is, e.g., the location at Vrededorp. Is used to be railway ground, and some years ago natives were permitted to go and establish themselves there. Subsequently the municipality and the Railway Administration agreed to have a drainage system because the location was such a pestilential place and to put it in better order. Nevertheless some of it was subsequently vacated, and the natives went away. A large part of that area belongs to an Indian, and some time ago there was a case in court which the municipality lost for the reason that there were more natives than could be housed. Around those places where the natives live there are Europeans living and the natives are a great nuisance to the Europeans and complaints are made from time to time. There is, e.g. Ferreirasdorp which is a pest of a place and where the natives live right in amongst the whites. The position is such that when people go to bed at night they do not know whether they will be robbed the following morning or not. I think that better control of the natives is necessary and that the public should be reassured in regard to this matter.

I wish to call the attention of the Minister to sub-head C, No. 7, repatriation and removal expenses of natives. It will be interesting to hear, not only for what particular purpose this amount is intended, but the reason of the increase by 50 per cent. Then sub-head F, grants for industrial purposes for the benefit of natives. Here again it would be of interest to know in what direction this amount is being spent for industrial purposes for the natives. Then sub-head G, relief of distress; hon. members are well aware that distress during the last two years has been very severe right through the Union. The distress among the European population in the rural areas is a matter of grave concern at the present time. Then distress as the result of drought is also prevalent among the native people. I would be glad to know why only £250 is voted for the relief of distress among the natives of the Union. Surely the conditions of natives on their locations and reserves and elsewhere deserve greater attention from the Minister in regard to relieving distress and poverty I would refer the Minister also to Clause C again, agricultural supervisors. We know that the yield of crops, wheat and so forth, in the Union is very poor compared with other countries. While it is so among Europeans, it is still worse among the native population. The improvement of the productive capacity of the agricultural and arable land of the native will make all the difference in his material prosperity. I see there are only three agricultural supervisors, and from the amount of salary I suppose they are Europeans. Surely we require a very much larger number of men working under them to give the necessary direction to the natives.

With regard to this last point I would say at once that these are more or less general supervisors, and there are under them, and supervised by them, a number of agricultural demonstrators of whom there are a fair number. Not that the number is large enough, but the number is increased annually as we go on, both by the Bunga and by us.

By whom are they paid?

By the Bunga. The hon. member also asked why only £250 was provided for relief of distress among natives. When the Estimates were framed we did not know exactly that matters would become so serious as they have become since. Although I must say that they are not so serious as they have been on some past occasions, still they are more serious than to require merely £250. Probably a good deal more will be required, for instance, in Natal on the border of Portuguese territory. The position there, I was informed, was such that I had to consent to something like £2,000 being spent there for the acquisition and importation of maize for these natives. The great thing is to have an amount of this kind on the Estimates and then it is so much easier practically to get from the Treasury whatever is required, because this is one of those cases where the Treasury never refuses to come to our assistance. Then the hon. member asked as to C 7. why this increase? This is because of the Urban Areas Act, if I mistake not. Yes, it is repatriation and removal expenses of natives due to the operation of the Native Urban Areas Act. For instance, a number of natives from Portuguese territory are landed in Johannesburg; they find they cannot be used there, and they do not get employment and they must be sent back, and the Government must pay for that. Then he asked also with regard to subhead F, why only £200? That is exactly for such things, as, for instance, assisting in the development of natives in native territories or of getting somebody in connection with native agriculture and so on, in these places.

*The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) asked me a question about the state of the natives in Johannesburg. We know how much it is desired that the position should be much improved, and I can assure the hon. member that the department is constantly engaged in getting the Johannesburg authorities to make haste with the necessary provision for natives, so that they can be put into locations. I think that the Johannesburg Town Council on the whole has not done badly. The town council is incurring a tremendously large expenditure because thousands of places have to be built. It is to the credit of the council that hundreds have already been built and that so much progress has been made. I can assure the hon. member that the department is taking action, and I can say to the credit of the Johannesburg Town Council that it has done its best to meet the demands. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) wants to know whether the £15,000 obtained for prospecting options should not actually come to the State. I can assure him that neither the Department of Finance nor the Department of Justice would allow me to give it to the natives if it was not due to them. No, it is only because the ground where platinum is found belongs to the natives that the money has been paid to them. The ground indeed is registered in the name of the Government but the Government are merely trustees for the natives. The ground belongs to the natives but as usually happens when a native tribe buys ground the transfer deed is registered in the name of the Government. The ground belongs to the natives and we are therefore obliged to deposit the money to their credit in the bank. Then the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) spoke about the collection of the poll tax by the police. There my department cannot assist him because it is a matter for the Department of Police. I have no doubt that if the Minister of Justice is approached he will meet the people if it is at all possible. With regard to the rights of the natives to a contribution for the upkeep of schools, I must point out to the hon. member that it is a matter which comes under the Provincial Administration and not under my department. My department is concerned in giving a certain contribution to the Provincial Administration but with the spending of the money the department has nothing further to do.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has raised a question with which this department has nothing to do. The hon. member has seen me, and let me honestly say that if the law had allowed me. I would have come to his assistance most readily. But I could not come to his assistance except on the basis of an ordinary fence. If any change is to be brought about in the fencing law, it is not for this department, I cannot shirk the law as it stands, and it is a matter which pertains to the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member knows as well as I do that there is no question here of any legal claim. It is only, I take it, that he raised the matter for the purpose of seeing whether the Government would not be induced to introduce a policy through legislation or otherwise which would meet the wishes of people in his position and others along the border. I think I shall follow the advice of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and say that this department. I at any rate, have already sufficient hornets’ nests to deal with.

I wish to take the opportunity given me by this vote of voicing certain criticisms in regard to the administration of the Native Urban Areas Act, especially on the Rand. Hon. members will remember that we passed that Act in 1923, and we called it an Act “to provide for improved conditions of residence for natives in or near urban areas, and for the better administration of native affairs in such areas.” I think hon. members will agree with me, when they have heard my story of what has happened up there, that at any rate, so far as Johannesburg has been concerned, this Act has not brought about the better administration of native affairs in the area of Johannesburg. The Act is intended to provide for a segregation policy in urban areas throughout South Africa. It provides in the first few clauses that municipalities should be compelled by the Government to erect proper accommodation for natives in such urban areas. It provides also that if the municipalities fail in their obligations to provide such accommodation that the Government of the Union can step in and at the cost of the municipalities can erect such accommodation then it goes on in section 5 to say—

I dwell on those words—

provide that after a certain day all the natives living within that area must live in a location, and by proclamation apply it to the whole or part of the municipality; and if he should apply such proclamation it is a criminal offence for any native living in that urban area to reside there except in a location or native hostel. I should imagine that any hon. member would draw the conclusion, having regard to the power of the Governor-General to specify the whole or the portion of such an area, that if the municipality has been able to provide accommodation for the whole of the natives within its area, the proclamation would apply to the whole of the municipality; but if the accommodation is only sufficient for a portion of the natives in the municipality, the proclamation would apply to such portion of the municipality as contains the requisite number of natives. In Krugersdorp the existing accommodation provided by the municipality was sufficient to provide for only a portion of the natives and a proclamation was issued that the natives of such and such a portion of Krugersdorp should after the date of the proclamation go and live in the location. On the same date and in the same “Gazette” there was issued a proclamation relating to Johannesburg, which said that every native living within the municipal radius of Johannesburg, unless he was exempted under the Act, should after the date in the proclamation, go and live in the location. After a chequered existence of 12 months it was declared ultra vires by the court, because of a technical informality of its issue. Then they issued another proclamation in the same terms having cured that technical defect, and it said that every native living within the municipal area of Johannesburg should—

According to the chief superintendent of native locations who gave evidence in the test case, there were 60,000 unexempted natives living within the urban limits of Johannesburg, and the accommodation available at that date amounted to something like one-tenth of that number. There was accommodation for 2 117 married natives, 2,900 single natives, and’ no accommodation at all for native women, and nearly the whole of this was already occupied. The Government said natives must live in the location and said to the natives—

A test case was fought, and the magistrate had under the law to convict. The matter went to the Supreme Court which said—in effect—

Who were the judges?

Mr. Justice Stratford and Mr. Justice Tindall. The Supreme Court at Pretoria. They said in effect—

The defence set up by the Native Affairs Department was—

The simple answer that would occur, not only to lawyers in the House, but to the ordinary hon. members, is that no amount of benevolent intention in its administration will cure a radical defect in the proclamation itself. For the second time the proclamation was set aside, and on that being brought to the notice of the Minister of Native Affairs by myself by a question in this House, he said an impossible position had been created and he would have to come to the House for an amendment of the Act. Apparently he has reconsidered the matter, and has done what he said was impossible. He has issued a further proclamation applying only to certain portions of Johannesburg, Ferreiratown, Vrededorp and some of the worst spots of Johannesburg. [Time limit.]

I noticed in the press the last two days telegraphic statements about the alarming unrest amongst natives in the Greytown district in Natal. I want to know what is the truth of these statements. The story telegraphed by Reuters is to the effect that the organization known as the I.C.U. has been active in this district, and inflaming the natives.

Ask Barlow about that.

I understand that “Die Burger made inquiries of the Native Affairs Department, and found it is not so at all Is this simple ordinary unrest, or “other excitement, such as the speeches of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) or Illovo (Mr. Marwick), or is it due to the nefarious influences of the I.C.U.? It is just as well we should find out what the actual facts are in connection with this matter.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) has raised the question of agricultural advisors in the native territories We are all interested in this subject in Natal, particularly in respect to the lands which the natives occupy. It is always necessary to inform the Committee what Natal is doing for its native population in connection with the lands set aside for them. We set aside no less than per cent. of our total acreage; while the Cape with its 9 per cent., the Transvaal 15 per cent. come next, and the Orange Free State only 1.5 per cent. Although we set aside this tremendous area, it is now proposed to take another 1,000,000 acres, and release them for native purposes Now we take the view that before any further land is taken the Government should use every means to develop the land already allotted’ to and occupied by the natives that is to bring it up to its highest cultivatable capacity. To a large extent this land is wasted. It is overstocked as regards its cattle-bearing capacity, but as regards its agricultural development the land is being ruined. The native crops the land until it is worked out and then works other land in the same way to its total ruination! In discussing this matter with certain native chiefs and bearing in mind what is done in the Transkei, they have often asked that the same attention should be given by the Government to assist and instruct their people to get the best out of the land under circumstances as they exist to-day. They believe that under similar circumstances and if given the same assistance and instruction and encouragement, they will get a greater return from the land in Zululand and Natal. We think that is the right and proper thing to ask. It can be done, partly by the development of irrigation works such as the Mooi River Works, where excellent land is brought under irrigation and excellent crops are grown. But this requires careful supervision as the tendency of all natives under the circumstances is to over-irrigate their lands. Natal has, however, no more land to give away for as regards its whites it has a denser population per mile than any other province of the Union. As regards the desire of the hon. member for Umbilo for information this is not a matter which should be discussed publicly at the present moment, but we know the Prime Minister has his eye on the situation. There are, however, certain irritating matters which might easily be rectified. Reference has been made to the tax on native blankets. Every native, no matter his station in life, has his cotton blanket, which they have always been able to buy for 2s. 6d. or 3s., but the increased customs duty has raised the price to 7s., the idea being to encourage the manufacture of these articles in South Africa. That naturally indicated the growing of cotton here, but instead of utilizing South African grown cotton these factories are kept going with rags and yarn and other imported material, with the result that the article is very inferior. A little consideration here on these lines would go a long way. Then the matter of the issue of native passes to leave the province is far too lightly undertaken in Natal. Parents object to passes being given too freely to children, without either the consent of the parents or the owner of the land on which they live. Children who obtain passes in this way go to large towns and to gold fields, and return home demoralized. Some of them never return at all. There has been an increase of crime amongst the natives to the number of 28,000 cases, and there must be some reason for that. Rural crime is a more serious indication of the deterioration of the native as a law-abiding person than is urban crime, and this calls for the serious attention of the Government.

I am sorry the Prime Minister replied to my speech before I had an opportunity of finishing my argument. I anticipated the reply he gave, that his department was not responsible for the erection of wire fences. The Minister of Agriculture has likewise repudiated responsibility and referred me to the Minister of Native Affairs. Who, then, is responsible for fences along native boundaries? Last year I proposed a motion asking the Government to make it obligatory on natives living in such areas to contribute half the cost of vermin-proof fences, or for the Government to take other steps to meet the farmers in regard to these fences. The Minister of Agriculture, in his reply, said, whether the motion was adopted or not, it would make no difference, as the Government had the right to grant money for the purpose. The Government having paid half the cost of the erection of a fence, surely it should be responsible for a part share of its maintenance. It is a tremendous hardship that people who are on the border, and who are our first line of defence, should have to construct a fence at great cost without any financial assistance. The late Government recognized that these people were entitled to consideration. Some farmers have put up fences towards which Government has contributed half the cost, while an adjoining farmer has been refused. The Agricultural Union has endorsed what I am trying to get the Government to recognize. Without any reason, as far as I can see, the practice of Government contributing towards the cost of these fences has suddenly been repudiated.

I was not quite clear when I spoke a little while ago. Inasmuch as various deputations went to the late Government, and I think also to this Government, asking for the removal of the Vrededorp location, I should like to ask the Minister what the intention of the Government is. The location lies between the European population of four villages, and it is a terrible burden. Then I should like to ask the Minister what his intentions are with regard to the in rush of natives. Is it intended to put a stop to it? To-day you already have half of the native territories in Johannesburg.

It has been said that the quality of speaking in this House has very much deteriorated. If that is true, nothing is more responsible for it than the rule limiting speeches in committee to ten minutes, because it is impossible to put a difficult or complicated case in that short time. To make matters worse, when one’s time limit is up the Minister is apt to assume that one has finished, and replies before the whole case has been submitted. To resume my story, apparently the Minister has reconsidered his attitude in regard to the matter at Johannesburg to which I previously referred, for a fresh proclamation has been issued dealing with Johannesburg on a partial basis, and this is about to be tested by the Supreme Court. The first two proclamations were found to be invalid, and, consequently, a third one has been issued. In dealing with a heterogeneous body of natives in Johannesburg, it is exceedingly unfortunate that the department should issue proclamations which are very soon found to be invalid. The department should have taken legal advice to ascertain whether its proclamations were legal. According to the answer he took no such advice. He issued the proclamation and trusted to chance whether the proclamation would be valid or not. The proclamation applied to native women, and there was no accommodation for native women at all. Accommodation certainly existed for 2,000 families, but all of it was full up, and accommodation was provided for single natives in two hostels. Under what conditions were they expected to live? They lived in dormitories which contained from ten to twenty natives each, and they had to go into whichever dormitory they were placed by the superintendent. There were no health regulations, and a healthy boy might have to live in a dormitory with diseased natives. The Minister says natives accommodated in the Wemmer hostel are provided with beds, but does he know that these “beds” are concrete slabs arranged in tier fashion round the walls as in the mining compounds. We tell highly civilized men that they would be put in these dormitories with ten or twenty other natives, and would have to live under conditions of barrack life, and if they did not do it, they would be fined. That is the unfortunate way he has administered the Native Areas Act in Johannesburg. If a native is civilized this Act will not allow him to live in a private room in Johannesburg. Until proper room accommodation is provided, such natives would be willing to pay for their own rooms, and I submit that it is not right in these circumstances to enforce the penalty on those who will not live in the compounds.’ The Government has been guilty of undue haste in applying the Act to Johannesburg. I admit all the evils, but no good purpose is served by getting the backs of the natives up by attempting to force the pace as they are attempting to do in Johannesburg. Some sort of informal board has been in existence, but it has had no legal powers, and the natives are not represented on it and the Government have failed to appoint inspectors as they had the power to do under Section 11 of the Native Urban Areas Act. There have been 132 convictions, and £230 has been collected in fines under a proclamation which has been declared to be ultra vires. Not a penny has been returned.

I would like to revert to the question of mining in native locations, and invite the attention of the Prime Minister to Section 147 of the South Africa Act. As indicated by my question yesterday, I suggest that no diversion of the existing native locations from the purpose for which they were granted can be made without sanction of an Act of Parliament. The concluding portion of Section 147 of the Act of Union is in these words—

I understand the contention of the Minister’s department is that the Transvaal mining law of 1908 empowered the Government to allow mining in native locations, and that, therefore, no further legal sanction is necessary. The wording of this Act makes it quite clear that the express authority of the Union Parliament is necessary, by way of Act of Parliament, before any diversion of this land from the way they were dedicated can be made. That is borne out by the Transvaal constitution of 1907, which is in line with that section of the Act of Union. It says that no land which may be set aside for the occupation of natives may be alienated or in any way diverted from the purpose for which they were originally set aside. The grant of these lands was not within the disposal of the Crown as Crown lands. They were originally granted in accordance with the Pretoria convention at the end of the Anglo-Boer war, and special provision was made for the appointment of a native location commission, and it went on to say that such native location commission would reserve such locations as they may be fairly and equitably entitled to do, regard being had to the actual habitation of these tribes. In respect of the two locations of which I am speaking in Waterberg and Zoutpansberg districts, the further clause is of importance. It says that no fresh grants of land will be made in the districts of Waterberg, Zoutpansberg and Lydenburg, until the locations have been defined. In other words, the beaconing off of the locations was the first thing to be attended to. There were no previous grants. They were the first grants made by the Government, and as they were transferred, in trust for the natives, they were no longer in the category of Crown lands. The London Convention laid down that all transfers which took place during the British occupation would remain in force, an officer of the Transvaal Republic taking the place of the Secretary for Native Affairs. These locations were originally the ancestral homes of the natives, and they were set apart for the natives by agreement between the Transvaal Republic and His Majesty’s Government. They were then taken out of the hands of the Re-publican Government and were registered in the hands of the Commissioner of Native-Affairs for the use of the natives, and under the gold law the natives would have ample protection as if they were on Crown lands. Under the gold laws it is laid down that if the location belonged to chiefs or tribes a different procedure was laid down, but I am not quite clear whether these locations have been treated as Crown lands. If so, they were wrongly treated and my contention is that no mining can be permitted in these locations unless the diversion of these locations to mining purposes is approved by Act of Parliament, and I submit on the reading of the concluding portion of Section 147 of the South Africa Act, that contention is amply borne out. There is the question of the desirability or otherwise of allowing locations to be opened up for mineral rights. If the Prime Minister’s contention is correct that these locations may be opened up and the natives may be dispossessed, and that all that is necessary is for other land to be provided, then I say the whole of the principles of segregation are challenged, and the whole principle on which these locations were set apart for the natives is in danger. In the Act of 1913 these particular locations are mentioned in the schedule of the Act as locations set apart under the segregation scheme for the use and occupation of natives. If the Prime Minister has the right himself to approve or grant these permits with regard to locations, everybody would welcome a declaration of his policy for the future in regard to prospecting for minerals on these lands. If these locations are to be prospected upon and opened up for mining and be treated as Crown lands, then every protection which we imagined we were giving to the natives by the Act of 1913 will fall away. By the process of mining the natives will be dispossessed of their lands and, although it may be sought to re-establish them in possession of other lands, as we all know, it is becoming a more difficult matter as time goes on, and we shall arrive at this stage very shortly, when it will be impossible to place them on anything like the value of the ground they now possess.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has raised a very important matter, and I think all those interested in native welfare are indebted to him for bringing the facts to the notice of the House, especially those hon. members who do not live in the Johannesburg area and who may not know the facts. It certainly raises a very serious question in regard to the Native Urban Areas Act, because I always understood when that Act was brought forward that it was quite clear—and I think the interpretation put upon it by the court proves that also—that, while you are making every provision for natives living in a location, you would not compel them to do the impossible, and to ask them to remove to a location which does not exist is something that one does not really understand at all. It does seem to me that the department in this respect made a very bad blunder. The omission which was made, it seems to me, was that the first thing the Government should have done was to submit the proclamation to the Government legal advisers to see whether it was intra vires. I personally cannot see anything more demoralizing to the natives, of whom, we are told that they are children and that the Prime Minister is the father, than to find that their father does not know how to frame laws to provide for his children. I cannot conceive of anything having a more unsettling effect than fining people under a law which has been held to be ultra vires, and then not refunding the fine.

We refunded the native poll tax.

Yes, but that had to be done specially by Parliament. I think it ought to be done in every case. If any law is decided to be ultra vires, the Government has no right to stick to the money. Anything more ill-advised I cannot imagine than for a number of natives to know that they have been fined under a law which has been held to be ultra vires, and for the Government still to stick to the money.

Order. The hon. member cannot pursue that. It requires legislation.

I do not know that it would actually require legislation. It would require a grant from Parliament, and I would suggest that when the supplementary estimates are brought in, provision should be made for it on the native affairs vote. I should imagine that it must have a very bad effect on the natives to know that the money has been taken from them under a proclamation which the Government had no right to issue, and they must be very much surprised that the Government insist upon keeping the money. I hope, now that the new proclamation has been issued, that the Prime Minister who, we know, does not want to do anything unjust or unfair to the natives, will see that that proclamation is administered with scrupulous care. I know the difficulty. I know that in other parts of the country, besides Johannesburg, owing to the overcrowding of natives in the urban areas, some of them have been living in a most unfortunate condition, and some of the buildings they are living in urban areas are so terribly overcrowded as in some cases to become a menace to public health, and to amount to a public scandal. All the more reason, therefore, for the local authorities to proceed as expeditiously as possible with their work of making proper provision for natives in their areas. Everyone is anxious to see that natives who are living under slum conditions and in an insanitary way should be placed in properly equipped locations, but, at the same time, one must realize that to compel them to go there until proper provision is made is something that is not only unjust and unfair, but which is likely to recoil upon those who are in favour of this particular kind of class legislation. I think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has certainly brought forward a matter of some seriousness. Although the answer given on the 8th February by the Minister dealt * fairly adequately with the matter, there are still points that I hope he will deal with. One is the refunding of the fines, and the other is as to whether proper advice was taken in regard to this proclamation.

The Prime Minister will remember that a piece of land situated to the south of the Kruger National Park, and between White River and the park, was about 12 months ago constituted an area for natives to go and live in. I have not been through that area myself, although I have seen it, and I do not profess to speak with first-hand knowledge, but I have it on the authority of farmers living in the neighbourhood that that land is wholly unsuited to occupation by human beings, whether black or white. There is no arable land, there is no water—

Where is that land?

It is known as Block F. It is a piece of land situated between Plastron and the reserve, near White River. It formerly constituted a part of the reserve. It is a barren, arid piece of ground, and when I was there last there was a drought prevailing, and the natives were on the border of starvation. I am not speaking very authoritatively in regard to the matter, but if this land is unsuited to native occupation, as I am told it is, I would suggest to the Prime Minister, seeing that there are rare Bushman paintings in the area, whether he would not accede to the request made by the South African National Society to set this area aside and place it under the society. I am not pleading now for an extension of the game reserve, or anything of that sort, but if the ground is unsuited to native occupation, then I think it might very well be added to the reserve, or placed under the society mentioned. I would like to ask the Prime Minister how it is that last session the Prevention of Disorders Bill was withdrawn. This Bill passed the second reading and was sent to a select committee. It came back from the select committee, and never came before the House again. We all know the Bill is very urgently required.

The hon. member cannot advocate legislation.

I am not advocating legislation. I want to know why the Bill was withdrawn. I would like the Minister to state under what circumstances this Bill was withdrawn, what representations were made to him, and by whom. I think the House is entitled to that information, because the Bill went through the second reading without opposition.

All those in Natal who have the welfare of natives at heart will appreciate the action of the Prime Minister in regard to appropriating the Amanzimtoti location I believe the Natal Native Trust received £30,000 to purchase more suitable land. This policy is a very wise one, because this land is not suitable for growing cereals. It is sugar land, and the natives have never attempted to grow sugar. I would like the Prime Minister to say what land has been purchased with this £30,000 for these natives, and where it is.

Regarding what was said by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) I would like to say that I think the hon. member rather hasty in his congratulations and it is the first time I have heard that Natal is so appreciative of this transaction.

Natal never appreciates anything.

For my own part, speaking for my own constituency, to which I believe the displaced natives have been sent, or are to be sent, instead of appreciating what has been done we resent it very much. It is all very well for the hon. member for Umvoti whose constituency has not been inflicted with this horde of natives, to express his appreciation for what has been done, but I would like him to speak for his own constituency rather than give the impression that Natal as a whole is satisfied, which is not the case. I want to allude to a matter which is of more serious import, namely, the position regarding land held by societies carrying on educational and missionary work in the Union. The restrictions imposed on Europeans and others as to transactions between Europeans and natives being subject to the approval of the Governor-General are not applicable to these societies. The section of the law reads—

It is quite clear that it was not contemplated when that 1913 Act was passed that these missionary societies would treat their holdings as speculative counters to be turned into money by selling to persons regardless of the race or colour of such persons. Earlier in the session the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) raised the matter in the form of the following question to the Minister—

The Minister, replying, said—

That particular district of Biggarsberg it is true is in the constituency of the hon. member for Dundee, but it affects a considerable number of farmers in my constituency. This Trappist mission is adjacent to the boundaries of the two constituencies. Since this question was raised by the hon. member for Dundee I received this letter from a gentleman in my constituency, Mr. James Macauley—

Almost simultaneously with the report of the intended sale of the Biggarsberg land I received this letter advising me of the contemplated sale to natives of St. Joseph’s Mission in my constituency. I happen to know both these mission stations.

What is it you want?

I will tell the Minister in a minute. I will tell him in good time The Biggarsberg Mission is right in the heart of a European area. St. Josephs Mission in my constituency is also in the heart of a European settlement. If the proposed released areas come into being it is conceivable that these two mission holdings, if purchased by natives, becoming a suitable jumping off ground for increasing native areas in what is to-day a purely European area. Now I will tell the Minister what I want. I want the Minister to consider the advisability of introducing legislation and imposing the same restrictions on the societies in question as are imposed on Europeans and others under the Native Land Act in regard to the sale and purchase of land.

Order, order! The hon. member must not deliberately transgress the rules.

I want to refer to the matter touched on by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) with regard to native agricultural demonstrators. I see an item which is non-recurring, and from the footnote it would appear that these demonstrators are to be paid out of the native taxes development fund.

Yes, some of them.

Are they all in the Ciskeian territories? It is not only nine we require, but a much larger number. I should like to know what provision is being made for the establishment of an agricultural school in the Ciskeian territories. I am fully aware a farm has been purchased for the purpose, but I see no provision made in these estimates for its establishment. My hon. friend also mentioned three agricultural supervisors. I should like to know where they are stationed. I know where one is stationed, and that he is doing good work, but the area he has to cover is far in excess of what he can supervise properly.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the deputation of some weight, physically and otherwise, which waited on him in 1925 in relation to a certain congested area in the vicinity of Fort White. I was on that deputation, and well remember how we tried to emphasize to the Minister the parlous condition of these people—a clan of a formerly well-known Gaika tribe, wedged in amongst tribes not friendly to them; over-populated, with a small area, overstocked and impoverished. Since then the position has become much worse, owing to the protracted drought. I am sorry we failed to make much impression on the Minister and to get his sympathy. All he said was that he would instruct some official of his department, somewhere within a hundred mile radius, to provide rations. They need more land, and better and more sympathetic treatment. Their land and stock have degenerated, and their position is hopeless.

I know that the Minister and his department are doing everything they can to take the natives away from Vrededorp, and from Eleventh Street the natives have already been removed. But the Native Affairs Department are not stringent enough with the Town Council of Johannesburg, with which I have a grievance. I would like to see the Government be more drastic with the town councils. It is true they have built a large township westwards, but for every native who is removed from Vrededorp two natives take their place. I have asked the town council officials whether it is not possible to open a sub-office to keep proper control and supervision in that area. If the Minister would insist on the town council taking more active steps to have more efficient supervision to prevent natives coming in, we would soon get all the natives removed from there It is not only shop natives, but mine natives working on the surface of the mines who are congregating in the Vrededorp location, and the position has been intolerable for years.

As to the land pleaded for by the hon. member for East London (City) (The Rev. Mr. Rider), I may tell the hon. member that the question of extra land is one of the subjects which will be enquired into by a select committee now sitting on the Lands Rill.

They are starving.

Yes well, I am afraid that is the best we can do for them. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mai. Ballantine), dealing with native demonstrators, nine are being paid out of the Native Development Fund for the Ciskei and those in the Transkei are being paid for by the Bunga. In the meantime, I agree that a good many more demonstrators would do useful work, but the misfortune is that it is not so easy to get qualified persons. If we could get them at the moment we would be only too glad. They have to be trained, and are being trained. With regard to the native agricultural schools in the Ciskei, a farm has been got the purpose. The necessary plans for the building and so forth are out, and it is hoped that within a short time the buildings will be commenced. The hon. member asked me where the native supervisors are stationed. I must say I do not know at the moment where they are. I could find out, and let him know later on. With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), I am afraid I cannot do it.

Only if suitable.

I can assure the hon. member it is unsuitable. A number of farmers are very loth to my putting this ground aside for a native reserve as they want it for farming purposes so if the land is good enough for Europeans it cannot be too bad for natives.

Is it suitable for native occupation?

Oh yes, although I daresay there are other places better. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has joined in—what shall I describe it?—the criticism of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). Surely they are not serious in thinking that the Native Affairs Department every time it issues a proclamation should run to the law advisers and ask if it complies with the law in all respects. Both hon. members are lawyers and know very well that when an Act is passed here we all think there is no flaw in it. How many lawyers are there who could point out that on this or that little point the court would upset a proclamation? Thousands of proclamations are issued every year and if they were all submitted to the law advisers administration would be impossible. Our officers have to exercise their judgment, and unless it is an exceptionally important or difficult matter I do not think that anybody could expect that a proclamation should be submitted to the law advisers. What is the whole question about. Has any wrong been done to the natives in Johannesburg?

They have been unjustly fined.

Nothing of the kind. Except technically no wrong is done to the native and even then only to certain natives. On February 8th last a question was put to me in reference to this proclamation by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and I then gave him a lull account of the whole position. He knows from that answer what occurred.

I stated clearly what occurred.

But you didn’t state all, and I don’t see the necessity of raising the question again after that answer. I cannot put the case more cleanly than I did in February last. Everybody who heard the reply will admit that nothing really wrong was done, and that every precaution was taken to prevent any injustice being done to any native. And no injustice was done to any native, although a technical wrong was committed. Although that proclamation was issued so as to cover the whole of Johannesburg, every necessary step was taken to prevent it being applied to any but those natives for whom the necessary accommodation had been prepared.

That is quite incorrect.

It is correct according to my information from the officers of my department and the municipality. If the hon. member knows better, why didn’t he come to my department, and then I could have instituted an inquiry immediately? I say again, no injustice was done to nay native. I must say I do find serious fault with these hon. members. What they say in this House carries far beyond these walls, and they ought, therefore, to be the last to bring forward a matter of this kind, especially in a manner calculated to give an impression to the natives that a wrong or an injustice has willingly been perpetrated by the department or by the Government. As far as Johannesburg is concerned, you have either to follow the course we adopted in that proclamation, or wait until Johannesburg has spent, I believe something like £250,000 on buildings, and have them there unoccupied until they are all ready, and then issue a proclamation stating that the natives must go there. I say that was not contemplated, although technically that may be what the law requires, and the only alternative was to act as the department did act, to issue a proclamation pretending to apply to the whole of Johannesburg which, in reality, it was well understood, was made to apply to such portions of the natives as had already, or could obtain, accommodation outside. It is not the natives, with all respect to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who found that proclamation such a terrible thing. It was certain individuals who benefited by the slum position in Johannesburg, and who do everything in their power to make it impossible for the Government or the municipality to get those natives out of the slums into the locations. The criticism, as my friend calls it in this House, is not calculated to assist the native at all, but it may assist the very persons who do not like the natives to clear out of the slums, because they lease those slums to the natives. I must say I regret this is again raised, because I say advisedly, after the answer given in February last, there was no necessity for raising this question again, least of all for raising it in the manner it is raised here to-day. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) disputes the right of the Government to allow prospecting in the native locations. All I can say is that the previous Governments have thought they had the right, and this Government also thinks it has the right. I, as a lawyer, also» think we have the right, and I do not think the hon. member can seriously want me to convince him this afternoon that there is anything illegal in giving that right to persons who want to prospect within the native locations. It is very clear to me that if we do not do that, we shall suddenly be doing something very unjust towards the native, because we shall prohibit him from using his property in the same advantageous manner as that which the European has the right to do. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) again returns to his fences. I am not prepared to go into that discussion any further. I do not think it will carry us further.

*It is not the natives who object, but the owners of buildings in the slums where natives live. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) asks whether the Government intends to remove the Vrededorp location. The Government is, of course, very anxious to do so, but now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) objects to it I think I must bring the two hon. members together, to see what can be arrived at. If I understood the hon. member for Bezuidenhout he is opposed to the Vrededorp location being removed. I think that it must be left to Johannesburg to see which policy is the best. The Government is anxious that an end should be put to the slums condition in Johannesburg. The proclamation to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is so strongly opposed expressly provides that a whole district of Vrededorp must be evacuated. Of course, if we meet with such opposition as we have received from those who at that time took the matter to court, and such as we are now receiving, then we cannot be blamed that further improvement has not been made. The hon. member for Fordsburg also asks what our intentions are about prohibiting the inrush of natives. No, that is just where the whole evil originated. It was just to prohibit the natives from again rushing in, just as fast as natives went away to a part which we had ordered to be evacuated, that the proclamation which has been referred to was issued. The proclamation has, however, been invalidated by the Supreme Court, and then the natives for the most part streamed in from other places, and it was made impossible for us to actually prevent them rushing in again. As for the streaming in of natives from outside the towns, the Government has no authority at all in the matter. If the necessary location accommodation exists so that all the natives in the town can be housed in the location, then the position will be improved.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) asked what about the alarming native unrest? I think the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) is right that on a matter of that kind we should say as little as possible in this House. It is no doubt, quite correct that the wild talk which has been going on in Natal and other places has had the effect of making people feel a little uneasy, and no doubt has had a very bad effect upon the native mind, especially the raw native. All we can do is to see that we get the necessary power for the future to prevent this from again happening or going on. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has drawn my attention to the setting aside of land for native purposes, etc. In regard to that, we shall, of course, have full opportunity of discussing the whole question both in committee and after those Bills come from select committee to this House.

We have listened to a rather amusing little lecture from the Prime Minister once or twice this afternoon on the duties of the Opposition, what they should and should not do.

Oh, heavens, no. I do not want to teach them their duty.

I wish to come to a very important matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and that is the question of the right to allow mining operations on native reserves. If I may say so, I do not think the Minister has given the attention to that point that it deserves. It seems to me that the point boils down to this, that in previous legislative enactments of the Transvaal there are certain restrictions on the alienation of reserves set apart for natives. As we all know, the legal position of every native reserve depends upon the conditions under which those reserves are constituted. In the Transvaal, with which this point is particularly concerned, certain lands were reserved and set apart for natives in the constitution and letters patent of the Transvaal of 1906, Clause 51 (3) laying down—

My position is simply that I wish to ask the Prime Minister’s attention to this, for the purpose of seeing whether he will not get his legal advisers to give a considered opinion upon this whole question. The point which has been raised is of such importance that I hope the Prime Minister will give an undertaking that the matter shall be submitted to the legal advisers as to whether, under sub-section (3) of Clause 51 of the constitution and letters patent of the Transvaal an express Act of the legislature is not required for the purpose of dealing with any land set aside for the occupation of natives. That point is emphasized by Section, 147 of the South Africa Act, which says—

The constitution of 1906 having said that lands so set aside shall not be alienated except by an Act of the legislature, this is a case which falls expressly under section 147 of the South Africa Act. It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the contention that both in the Transvaal law and in the Act of Union, the Act which can be considered to justify the setting aside or diverting of these lands is an Act which is expressly directed to that purpose. It must be an Act of Parliament expressly intended and devoted to that particular object. The Prime Minister says that the native will be prevented, if this construction as suggested is correct, from using the land in the same advantageous manner as Europeans. With respect, that begs the whole question, because the whole question is whether the land is set aside for a particular purpose which cannot be used in the same way as by Europeans. The whole question is whether the object of the Acts is not to prevent the use of native reserve lands for any other purpose than as lands for natives, reserved and set aside and to be used entirely for natives. What we want to get at now is not whether the question of recent rights given to Europeans in native areas are or are not legal, but we want to go to the whole principle whether any such grant of rights in native areas is of any value at all no matter who has done it before, in view of the terms of these Acts. The principle is one of such importance that, although the Prime Minister has told us that in his view as a lawyer there is nothing in the point. I would like to ask him whether he has given special and careful attention to this point, and considered it in all its bearings on the different statutes. I trust we shall get an assurance from the Prime Minister that the matter will be referred to the legal advisers.

The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Close), the legal point, is a very important orfe, but I should be sorry if the Prime Minister were led to the idea that the legal question is the only one involved because it is not so. The Prime Minister took me to task with a great deal of eloquence when I raised the matter at the beginning of this debate but I do not think that he answered my point at all. It is not a question of legality. I think it is an open question as to the legal Tights of it, but I do not want to go into that at all. The question is that here are certain lands, not lands that belong to natives as private owners, but here are certain lands which are vested in the State in one form or another, either as trustees for the natives, or directly as Crown lands. They are vested in the State for the purpose of being kept as native reserves, and I submit that it is no answer to that to say that it you do not grant prospecting permits you are depriving natives of the same benefits from the land as Europeans would have if the land belonged to them. The question is, are we as a State, as a Government, going to freely throw open to prospecting lands which have been set apart as native reserves or locations? The Prime Minister, as portion of his answer, said that all Governments had done that. I am not going into that. I am quite prepared to believe that other Governments have done it. I say it comes least of all well from this Government, which came into office on a great policy of segregation, that here in one year they give prospecting permits for people to go and prospect in native reserves and locations. I say that is a bad policy. If we are going to be serious about this question of segregation, or even if we believe, as I do, in encouraging natives to remain in their own reserves, even then we ought to be very careful about granting prospecting permits to prospect and exploit native reserves and locations. I would go so far as to say that. We should not grant them at all. I would like to allude to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), also a very important point. I think we have the right to object to the manner in which the Prime Minister dealt with that. The Prime Minister dealt with that as if the hon. member was attacking the policy of providing locations and of requiring urban authorities to provide locations for natives within their borders. He was trying to show how it should not be done. Perhaps if the Government could see how it should not be done they might come to see how it should be done. The Prime Minister went further than that, and he almost said that my hon. friend was in league with certain people who are making a profit out of these slums.

Nothing of the kind. You have no right to say that.

I want to know, then, why the Minister referred to it at all. He said there were certain people who made a profit out of these slums, and he said the hon. member here was trying—he did not say he was acting as their agent or representative—but that he was trying to make it difficult for the Government to deal with those people.

Quite.

I think that is a thing the Prime Minister should not have said. I do not think it was the right way of dealing with the matter. He said, too, in answer to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) that he and others who wanted the location at Vrededorp cleared of natives, had to deal with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who was against that policy. The hon. member is not against that policy. He is criticizing the Government, as he has the right to do for issuing a proclamation which was obviously unfair and unjust, and impossible of execution. It made every native a potential criminal by insisting upon his going into a location when there were none for him to go into. I think the hon. member has a perfect right to criticize the Government, and he should not be held up as if he were acting in defence of those who are making a profit out of slum areas.

The Prime Minister has developed the habit of recent years, of descending with Olympian wrath upon anyone who stands up in this House to espouse the cause of natives, and of suggesting that, by doing so, he is creating native unrest. I remember the undignified remarks we had to listen to from the Prime Minister a year or two ago when we were debating the Colour Bar Bill, and a manifesto was presented to him by the churches and missionaries of South Africa. We still remember with feelings of shame the language and attitude he adopted on that occasion. Without suggesting that he has gone anything like as far this afternoon, I do agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that we are entitled to take exception to his attitude. Because I have brought to light the ineptitude of his department in handling this matter of the natives in Johannesburg, and the administration of the Urban Areas Act, he turns round and tells his followers that I am against the policy of that Act, that I do not want the slum areas in Johannesburg cleaned up, and that, possibly without intending it, I am playing the game of these slum landlords in Johannesburg. That sort of talk will not make for calm and temperate criticism in this House. I put it to members of the committee as to whether I did not put my case plainly and calmly. When the Native Affairs Department, without pausing to consider, issued a proclamation which, in its terms, said to every native in Johannesburg that he had to go and live in a location, they well knew that there were no locations for them to live in. I join issue with the Prime Minister in his suggestion that there was no reason why they should take legal advice before taking such a course. I will not sit down for a moment under the implied snub when he suggests that I am meddling with matters which it is not necessary to discuss, and that I am really talking against time. That was another delicate suggestion by the Prime Minister. The department and the Minister must expect to have criticism if their system of native Government in Johannesburg is to issue one proclamation after another, and have the court set them aside on various grounds. I confined my case of alleged injustice in my opening remarks to the issue of this proclamation at the time when there was no accommodation. The Minister has rejoined to that by saying—

I will reply to him. I pointed out that, although the proclamation applied in terms of the whole of Johannesburg, it was urged that administratively it was being applied only to certain portions. Let me tell him this, that even in those portions some 1,500 natives actually sent a petition to the municipality asking for accommodation, and their attorney said the signatures of another 1,500 or more were being secured. No reply was sent by the municipality at all. The reason was that the existing accommodation was practically all booked up. Even in the areas which were to be cleaned up and in respect of which the natives had been served with notices to get out, there was a very much larger number of natives than the accommodation was capable of taking. So that the injustice is more than a mere technical one; it also existed in the administration of the proclamation, and that fact was actually brought home in the court proceedings. If the Prime Minister wants verification of what I say, let him send for the records of that particular case and he will see the facts are true and cannot be disputed. Yet I am told that when I raise a matter of that sort I am raising it unnecessarily and, as I say, I incur the Olympian wrath of the Prime Minister.

Undoubtedly this lack of provision of land for the accommodation of natives, both urban and rural, is very serious. I notice in the Native. Affairs Department’s report it is stated—

We all understand the Minister is to bring in a comprehensive measure to deal with this matter, but at the moment there is a good deal that could be done administratively to ease the situation or to prevent its growing as bad last it might. It is not sufficiently known throughout the Union what the desperate position of the native is with regard to land. We have natives forming three-quarters of the population of the Union, and only one-eighth of the land is reserved to them. These figures are striking, and, if fully appreciated, we would have less strenuous opposition from intelligent Europeans to the provision of more land for the native. In the Orange Free State, where the natives outnumber the Europeans by nearly three to one, the proportion of land reserved to them is only 2 per cent.—not 2 per cent. That is an impossible state of things, but let me remind the Minister what he already knows, of what is happening in the Free State. It so happens that in Thabanchu a certain area of land was secured to the Baralong tribe, and legislation was passed by the old Free State Volksraad to prevent the land being thrown open to others. But land has been sold to Europeans during the past ten years, and it is going on still. While the Minister is not in a position to provide more land for the natives at the moment, administratively he might prevent land which has been ear-marked under treaty from passing out of the possession of these people. It is a very poor consolation to be told, as we were by the Minister, that provision for extra land for the natives will be inquired into. I hope something more will be done.

I am much obliged to the Minister for the information he has given in regard to the block of land on the native reserve in regard to which I put a question just now. It is as well that publicity should be given to this matter, because those who are able to express a definite opinion will be heard further in the matter. But I have not yet received a reply why the Bill which came before the House last year, passed its second reading and went to a select committee—I am referring to the Prevention of Disorders Bill— has been withdrawn. The Minister indicated the necessity for the Bill in reply to the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) that unrest was being caused in Natal amongst natives by agitators. Under what circumstances and on whose representations was the Bill withdrawn?

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), there is a considerable amount of complaint in Natal of the infiltration of natives from the Free State into Natal. A resolution was recently agreed to—

In my own constituency natives have come in and actually been allowed to squat there. Under the existing Natal laws no native is entitled to come from any adjoining province into Natal and settle there unless and until he obtains the consent of the Minister of Native Affairs. That provision has been carried out in the past, but from what I am told it is now in disuse. My hon. friend here says it is now Union, but a serious state of affairs has arisen in Natal owing to the infiltration of these natives. They have come from the Vrede district and settled on the Buffalo flats.

Why did you accept that?

We do not. When the Native Affairs Commission came to Newcastle a number of farmers pointed out the unsatisfactory position which had arisen owing to natives coming into Natal from the Free State. Some steps should be taken to stop that undesirable state of affairs. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) made an attack on the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) by stating that through their incitements there was a certain amount of unrest amongst the natives of Natal. I challenge him to give me one instance where either of these hon. members made any statement calculated to incite the natives of Natal. The trouble arises, not from the hon. members for Illovo and Umvoti on this side of the House, but through statements made on the cross benches. There is a statement by the Minister of Public Works, who, addressing the master builders’ conference here, stated that no native could live a civilized or decent life under 8s. a day. Are there hon. members opposite who agree with that doctrine? I read a statement of a meeting of the I.C.U. which is reported in “Die Burger.” The report stated that about a thousand natives attended the meeting of the I.C.U. held at a mission station on the borders of Zululand, and about 50 or 60 miles from the nearest town. A native speaker said he was prepared to be burned alive in order to aid his people. The hour, he said, was not yet come, but it would soon come, and in the meantime they must stand together and organize so as to get a minimum wage of 8s. a day for men and 2s. 6d. for women. That demand for 8s. a day originated from the Minister of Public Works, and statements of that sort by a Minister are calculated to do irreparable injury. Are hon. members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies in agreement with the dictum that natives should receive 8s. a day? The Minister of Public Works has put ideas into the heads of natives which cannot possibly be carried out, as the country cannot afford to pay natives 8s. a day. Will the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees with propaganda to establish trade unions for natives, not only in the towns but in the country? Do hon. members realize what our position is going to be if this propaganda continues? In 1923 the present Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) owner and editor respectively of the “Guardian” of Durban, stated in that paper—

Hear, hear.

Are there any “hear, hears” from the other side? Not a funeral note; but there will be a funeral note. The matter is one of the most serious things we as Afrikanders have to face, and unless steps are taken to protect the native against this propaganda, both Europeans and natives will suffer. The natives are not in a state to accept trade unionism. We know what a danger that doctrine is to certain Europeans.

As an attorney you are a trade unionist.

Does the hon. member deny that trade unionism among natives is a dangerous thing?

You are running away from my point.

I am asking you a question. [Time limit.]

I notice the item, bonus for Bantu studies, £250. Will the Minister kindly explain this item? Some time since an economic survey was made of the natives in the Herschel district by Professor MacMillan. It revealed a somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs, showing that the natives were very poverty stricken. We have laid pretty severe taxation on them to the extent in 1925 of £925,000. Then the duty on cotton blankets brought in last year £332,000, most of which was paid by the natives. Could the Prime Minister have an economic survey made of the Transkeian territories? There is an impression abroad that the economic position of the natives is going back, and that in recent years owing to taxation and, perhaps, a want of initiative, the economic position of the natives to-day is worse than it has ever been. An economic survey would be extremely useful.

I notice the item on page 112 “Ethnologist, £532” This is a new appointment which has apparently escaped the eagle eye of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I would like to ask the Minister what was the necessity for the new appointment.

For the study of the jaw bone.

It is under head C (1). I also notice the appointment of four native commissioners, 13 magistrates, 9 sub-commissioners, two chief clerks and one principal clerk, the same number as the previous year. In the next item there are three additional senior clerks at an increased salary of something like £1,000. Previously there were 320 clerical assistants and this has been increased to 346 with an increased salary allowance of £3,353. I would like to know the necessity for this large increase.

I should like some information with regard to general dealers’ licences in the native territories which fall under the Minister’s department. His department is responsible for the issue of general dealers’ and traders’ licences on the territory and they have adopted the principle that no licences are issued where there is already a trading station within five miles. That principle is being applied to the three European districts adjoining the native territory in the Transkei. In European districts, where a farmer wishes to apply for a trading licence, he is met with the difficulty that the department says if the proposed site is within five miles of another store which serves the native trade he cannot get a licence. I submit that is unfair and it is not enforced in any other European district of the Union. It is a sound provision so far as the native territories are concerned because we do not want to see it overtraded, but why should it be applied to a European district? If I like to start a store within half a mile of another one what has that got to do with the department and why should they come and say they will apply the same principle as in the native territories proper. It is undue interference. If you go to any village in the Transkei you can have as many stores as you like, but if you go half a mile out of the village then you must not be nearer than five miles from another store; that seems an inconsistency, but I am not pressing that point. I put it to the Minister that in European areas the department should not apply the principle that the nearest store should be five miles away. I believe the Prime Minister should not apply these restrictions in the European areas. They are unnecessary. You get a small store with, say, £500 worth of stock serving native trade and a man comes along prepared to put up a store stocked with agricultural implements, farming requisites and so on, to benefit the surrounding farming population, a store whose owner is prepared to buy agricultural produce, but he is prevented because he is within five miles of another store serving the native trade. I ask the Prime Minister to look very thoroughly into this matter.

I should like some information with regard to the new laws where the native chiefs administer the law as between native and native. What steps are being taken by the Prime Minister to prepare a text book to act as a guide in the administration of the law under native customs because I see there will be a great difficulty later in having the law administered by native chiefs who will use their own opinion.” Therefore, it is essential the Prime Minister should see there is a compilation in regard to native laws and customs.

We are discussing the affairs of a nation and not merely the affairs of the department, a nation largely unrepresented in this House. I want to refer to the list of prospecting licences granted for prospecting in native locations. In doing so I know I need not appeal in face of the Prime Minister’s high sense of the undesirability of granting permits to people with regard to whom there may be some comment at a future time. The Prime Minister’s attitude in the past has marked him out as having a high attitude with regard to public purity. According to the list the granting of licences to members of Parliament is open to criticism on the ground that obligations between members of Parliament and the Government tend to undermine the prestige of Parliament itself. In this list I find four members of Parliament and one who has just ceased to be a member.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.