as chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Report to be printed and considered in Committee of the Whole House on 25th May.

I should like to ask the Minister if much time will not be saved if a different method of dealing with this Bill is adopted. So many amendments have been moved and withdrawn again and again amended that the matter is so confused that I believe no one, not even the Minister, knows what the exact position is. I do not understand it, and I want to ask the Minister to have the Bill reprinted as amended, and re-amended, and as it is now proposed so that we can form an idea about it. It will save time because otherwise this Bill will take a very long time in committee. This Bill was first introduced in committee and the Minister introduced a Bill which he presumably thought was the best suited to the country. Subsequently so many amendments were made that the amendments contain more than the Bill itself. Then some of the amendments were again amended or replaced by other amendments and now the thing is so confused that one cannot possibly grasp it. I think hon. members all feel that we should take another method because otherwise we shall waste the time of the House and the Minister will have to bear the consequences. He will then not subsequently be able to say that we are to blame for the night sitting that will be required because it is not our fault but the fault of the department which proposed an incomplete Bill. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) also once introduced a Bill on co-operative societies which contained so very many amendments. The Bill was then referred to a committee for 24 or 48 hours and much time was saved. Cannot the Minister also do something of that sort?

I would like to remind the Minister of Mines and Industries that when this Bill was first introduced he told the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) that he knew nothing about the Bill. Looking at the present condition of the Bill, I should say the Minister knew less about it than the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). It is a regular Chinese puzzle. There are more amendments than Bill. I think the hon. Minister owes the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) an apology. Personally, I defy any man to make head or tail of it. It is in a most chaotic state. I think the number of amendments on the Order Paper beats all records. I have never seen a Bill in this House with so many amendments. I do not know how the Minister expects you, as Chairman, to understand the Bill, but I am sure there is not another member who understands these amendments.

I should also like to know whether the Minister thinks he can get the Bill passed with all the amendments he has proposed. I have been in the House for many years but have never seen such a thing.

I want to point out that the hon. member is now discussing the desirability of postponing the Bill. The hon. member can, however, only do that on a motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again. Otherwise the hon. member must confine himself to Clause 1.

I want to assist the Minister and I know that some of his amendments are quite good. It is, however, impossible—

The hon. member does not understand what I said. He must confine himself to. Clause 1.

I merely want to find out whether the Minister will not try to listen to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert). I thought that the Minister would possibly listen to him.

I do not wish to move that progress should be reported because I want the Bill to become law. It is not that I do not wish to assist the Minister, but he must himself admit that he is now 15 days too late with it.

I cannot permit the hon. member to speak on those lines any further.

Is the question under discussion whether the Bill shall be dealt with today or not?

No.

I want to say that members who referred to it like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) have not got diamond diggings in their constituencies. With regard to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), I want to point out what his own party people think about his attitude towards the Bill.

The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 1.

I hope the Minister will at any rate tell us what has happened since the time he introduced this Bill to justify all these amendments. We are not going to ask to report progress; we want to see the Bill through, but we are justified in asking for some explanation. There are 33 pages of amendments.

I will give the reason as we come to the article.

It may be that the Minister will not move all the amendments. We do not know.

But he has put them on the paper. Unless, of course, he is playing the fool with the House!

I move—

I want to move an amendment to this clause. When this Bill was introduced, the first speaker on our side told the House that he spoke for the South African party. Well, I don’t pretend to speak for the South African party. I speak for myself and for those whose rights are taken away under this Bill. I think we are introducing a principle under this clause which this House and this Union has never been asked to consider before. We are introducing the principle of confiscation of private rights. I want to tell the Minister my intention in this matter, and I hope every landowner in the Cape, whose rights are being tampered with, will stand firm on this point and that he will be able to tell his constituents that he has faced the position like a man who has stood up for their rights, which the Minister is attempting to take away. We are told it is for the sake of uniformity that this legalized robbery is taking place. Is there any uniformity in our Acts in this country? When we went into Union Natal had what was called the Asiatic question. Has there been any uniformity there? Have the barriers of provinces been broken down and Asiatics allowed in all provinces? Of course there has not. It is uniformity where it suits the Minister, but not otherwise. I say to the Minister that I welcome these amendments, and I should welcome a hundred more on this Bill, because it will enable me, and I hope all who represent the Cape landowners, to fight every amendment and every clause, and I hope the Minister will realize that he has undertaken a big contract when he is going to force through this House a Bill which contains legalized robbery.

It provides to avoid legalized robbery.

Since when, in the Cape, has this principle been the right of the Government? Is it not legalized robbery to take away these rights from the owners of the land? I move—

Every member recognizes that the industry must be controlled. The Minister is going to lay down a principle which is going to be a principle for ever in this country. A future government may come in this House, and it may be a matter of gold, platinum or other precious minerals, and will take away those rights as are being taken away now. The Minister who then represents the Government will say that in 1927 you accepted the principle that this right by legislation could be taken away, and it is no good arguing that now. If the Government interferes with the right of title, and takes away vested interests—and vested interests secured by title are the most sacred of rights—I say to every land-owner, and especially in the Cape, to stand on their rights. There is no necessity for this clause. We submit unanimously to the control of the output. If the Minister takes away rights which have been inviolate for years, the consequences are on his own head, and be must be responsible. It must not be on my head for opposing. I say that if I stand alone in this House I will fight every clause, and introduce every amendment that is possible.

It is a case of the mountain in travail. Is the hon. member so ignorant that he does not know that in every province of this Union—

You will not get the Bill through.

I am not going to submit to any threats of this cheap nature. In every province of this Union, except the Cape Province, the right of the owner was unimpaired, and the legislature has stepped in in every province, until to-day, as regards the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and Natal, this statement has become practically axiomatic; not in identical words, but so far as the Transvaal is concerned it has become stereotyped as regards minerals, except base minerals. As regards the Cape the hon. member ought to know that the grant excluded not only the right of mining and disposing in favour of the State, but excluded the rights to precious minerals in toto.

All the ground?

Yes, as far as precious stones are concerned. To-day only five or six per cent. of the farms of the Cape Province have untrammelled title. If the Free State farms which were entirely untrammelled and unaffected originally, and from which the titles of the farms in the Cape Province are derived, if the farms in the Transvaal, entirely unaffected, were affected by legislation, and if in Natal they were affected, why should this handful of privileged farms continue to be outside the law?

I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be agreeable to allow the clause to stand over until we have reached clause 2 (1), otherwise we may have as to repeat the argument.

I do not see that any argument on Clause 2 would be affected by the passing of Clause 1. If in Clause 2 any hon. member has any reason to urge why the Free State titles should continue as they are, I do not see how Clause 1 interferes with that.

I move as an amendment—

In dealing with the latter part of the amendment, I would like to remind the Minister that in the 1926 Bill, this clause was qualified by the words “subject to the provisions of this Act.” May I point out to the Minister that if you take the clause as it stands at present, he asks for a declaration that the right of mining is vested in the Crown. By the Minister’s amendment on the paper he desires to make it clear that there is no right vested in the Crown in respect of alluvial diggings in the Cape Province where mining has been conducted to his satisfaction, and in the case of all existing mines in the Union he admits in sub-section 2 of section 2 that the right of mining is not vested in the Crown. That is a conclusive argument in favour of the view that it is necessary to qualify the declaratory statement in Clause 1. A further objection to the clause is that as it stands at present the Minister wishes it to be declared as if it were part of the law that the right of mining for and disposing of all precious stones is vested in the Crown, but he does not say—

The right of disposing of precious stones is not, and never has been, vested in the Crown. In the Cape—

It has always been a right in the Transvaal.

In the Cape Province the Crown has no right to claim to dispose of precious stones or to exercise the right of mining. The Minister stated that as far as the Cape Province is concerned, only five or six per cent. of the farms have their mineral rights reserved to the owners. That statement is not correct, and the rights he proposes to take away by the Bill are very much more wide-spread than he believes.

That is the information I received from the lands department and the Surveyor-General.

I have been told that it is quite impossible to ascertain from the office of the Surveyor-General how many farms are affected without an examination of each grant. Has that examination been made? The Bill involves a surrender by the Cape owner of valuable rights. The Minister said this afternoon that grants had been made in the Cape Province with a reservation to the Crown of the precious stones. No such reservation was made from 1688 until 1813 and from then to 1842 most of the grants were perpetual quitrent grants. From 1842 to 1858 all grants were issued in freehold.

I have a memorandum from the Registrar of Deeds.

By a proclamation issued in 1842 it was announced that all grants would be made in freehold and that all perpetual quitrent grants could be converted into freehold. These freehold farms extend in a fringe from Piquetberg to the Eastern Province. The suggestion that 6 per cent of the Cape Province farms alone are freehold is quite incorrect. Are not the farms in Griqualand East freehold?

Every one of them.

Are not all the farms in the northern districts of Natal freehold? Then we have the Free State titles and the Western Province titles. The Crown in all these grants, even when reservations were made, did not reserve the right to mine but it reserved the right to precious stones. How can the Minister say even in those cases where there is a reservation that there is a right of mining? The Crown has no right of entry to the land. If the Minister wants to have a consistent Bill he should insert words making it clear that there is no right of mining in respect of these properties. I say there is no right vested in the Crown in the Cape Province of disposing of precious stones and the Bill should be modified so that there should be a right to dispose of the mining right but not of precious stones. [Time limit.]

In moving this amendment the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has anticipated me and in moving the amendment in my name on the Order Paper I am only putting forward what the select committee proposed in 1925. For the information of the House it would be well to state what the position was that led up to the amendment. We were dealing with the consolidating Bill, dealing with mineral rights in the four provinces and we had conflicting stages of Crown rights. There were practically no restrictions, in the Transvaal and Free State under the old Act, whilst the Cape and Natal were different. As a result of three select committees which sat we had this before us and it was practically a compromise Bill. Clause 2 read—

The Minister has taken as a precedent the old Transvaal Act dealing with the owner’s rights, and as far as I read it in the Dutch I take it the intention was to legislate as we propose to legislate in this Bill. The old Transvaal Act of 1908, of which the Minister claims this is a direct interpretation reads: [Quotation read in Dutch.] I leave it to the Dutch scholars that the word “beschikkingsrecht” means control.

No, you are wrong.

In view of that position I do not think it can be claimed, as this is a consolidating measure for the four provinces, that we would be acting right if we did what the Minister said by practically allowing precious stones to be vested in the Crown. That is different from the amendment moved here—

Under that amendment the State is getting what it is entitled to and no injustice is done to the owners. Following on that I suggest to the Minister he alters the Dutch or English text. Whether I am right or wrong the Dutch text says—[Quotation read in Dutch]. That is not the right of disposing of precious stones. So the Minister under the Dutch text, if it was signed by the Governor-General to-day, would have been carrying out what we thought was the intention of the legislation. I think the Minister can meet us in that amendment. It is clear it meets with the approval of everybody and as far as the owners are concerned, it is laid down that the State does not lay claims to the precious stones themselves. The question rises right through the Bill whether the State is the owner of the precious stones or not and that question has to be dealt with under the Bill. I move—

I am informed by the Registrar of Deeds that very few farms, if any, in Griqualand East have been granted without the reservation of minerals. Precious minerals have been reserved since 1813 and Griqualand East was given out long after that date. I have before me a memorandum by Mr. W. D. N. Lucas. Registrar of Deeds, dated June, 1907. I don’t suppose a lapse of twenty years has made any difference; the titles have remained the same. He deals with the history of titles and the ground in the Cape Province and says this, after quoting various Acts—

That is only since 1887.

Under the previous legislation and under previous grants precious minerals had been systematically reserved to the Crown.

That is not so.

You have got to read the memorandum. We must take it that the Registrar of Deeds, who is a highly-placed official and who was specially charged with the registration of transfers and titles, must have known what he was writing about. He goes on to say—

The hon. member has not suggested what percentage of these farms in the Cape Province have the mineral rights reserved to the Crown. He has not ventured on such a figure, but I can only repeat that I have repeatedly enquired from the Registrar of Deeds and from the Surveyor-General’s department, and I have been told that to prepare and draw up a list of the farms would take a tremendous time, but that, taken on an average, not more than about 6 to 7 per cent. of the farms in the Cape Province have absolute mineral rights.

You said 3 per cent. on the second reading.

Yes, I have enquired again. Even assuming that 20 per cent of the farms are entirely untrammelled, that the minerals and the right of mining and disposal as well as the property itself, are the absolute property of the owner, why should we have this anomaly, that in the whole of the rest of the Union you have practically had the application of what I call the axiomatic rule—

I was reading through Ordinance 66 of 1903 of the Transvaal, and I find—it is only repetition of what has been in vogue for many years —it says in section 3 the following—

Word for word the same. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has quoted from the Transvaal Act or Law of the Volksraad, No. 22 of 1898, and there it is elaborately laid down that the right of mining for and disposing of precious stones is vested in the State. Exactly the same principle. I appeal to anybody who has even a slight knowledge of Dutch, that the word “beschikking” means the right of disposal, not the right of control. To control is “te beheer.” I am sorry that under those circumstances I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member. We have, moreover, the Diamond Control Act of 1925, in the Transvaal we have a special Ordinance of 1903 dealing with the trade in diamonds, and all our diamond Acts throughout the Union give the State considerable say in the disposal of diamonds.

I think it is a pity that the Minister did not read the whole of that report, because the concluding paragraph of the report of the Registrar of Deeds reads—

Then he goes on a little further and says—

It is, however, true that the grants contained a condition—

But the Registrar himself says in this report, quoted with approval by the Minister, that a condition which is not really expressed by the Act shall not be presumed to exist, and he holds in this report very strongly that these conditions in the grants were ultra vires.

Where does he say that?

Shall I read the whole of the report?

If you have the patience, certainly.

There is an addendum to that report.

I have not got that.

I am very sorry. The addendum reads as follows—

The Registrar then goes on to say—

The Registrar goes on—

Is that addendum also dated June, 1907?

No, it is not dated. It is attached to the report of the Registrar of Deeds, and I presume it is by the Registrar of Deeds. I would refer the Minister also to Government notice of 7th September, 1843. He will find that in 1843 special conditions were made in regard to these grants. The Treasury were in want of money, and they decided that all grants previously given on certain conditions should cease to be given on those conditions in future, and they agreed to do away with perpetual quitrent land and give freehold land. Lands were sold and the conditions under which the sales took place where that persons purchasing should’ cultivate a certain section of the ground. That is practically the only condition made. In 1862 a regulation was issued declaring that the redeemed land was not free of the conditions imposed. Now at the very worst these landowners between 1843 and 1862 had the land free, and if the Minister will look at the plan, which he will find in the Surveyor-General’s office, he will see that 90 odd per cent. of the farms were granted after 1842 and before 1862. That is the period within which the Registrar holds that grants were free of all conditions to Government. They were given absolutely without condition. Now the Minister says that only a small percentage of these farms will suffer by his conditions. If he looks at the map he will find that over 90 per cent. of the properties in Namaqualand alone are free of any conditions in favour of the Government. I think that if the Minister would re-peruse this report by the Registrar of Deeds, and certainly the last paragraph, he will find the Registrar of Deeds, supported by the Surveyor-General, holding very strongly that these grants are all free of any reservation in favour of the Government, and under the circumstances I do feel that the Minister should give some consideration to those who own property in the Cape Province, seeing that they were in the first instance, induced by Government, in many cases begged by Government, to take up land, the took up land free of conditions, and now they are going to be deprived of the rights which they had under those grants.

I think the Minister must agree that this Clause 1 as it stands here does go too far, in that if we want to harmonize Clause 1 with the rest of the Bill we shall have to propose some limitations. Clause 1 says—

If that is to be accepted as correct, then nothing further need be said, we do not want the rest of the Bill. If all precious stones in this country belong to the Crown, if the right to mine belongs to the Crown, well then, nobody else comes in anywhere. Then why have we diggers in this country? Why the people who buy and sell diamonds? Here in the first section of this Bill, we, in a most sweeping way, vest everything in the Crown. So the Minister must see that, after the sweeping character of this first clause, he must anticipate the whole debate as to owners’ rights and as to where others come in. I would submit that the Minister must really limit this absolute declaration of the rights of the Crown. I would suggest to him that he put in at the beginning of the clause the words—

Surely we must put that in. This Act goes on to say in its subsequent clauses what shall belong to the Crown and what shall belong to private people, what shall belong to the owners, the public, the diggers, and so on. The Act defines the various rights of the Crown, the owners, the diggers and the rest of the public, but as the clause stands, it seems that no-one comes in anywhere except the Crown. Unless the Minister is prepared to have an interminable and unnecessary debate on Clause 1, I think the wisest course is to bow to the storm and to insert these words. I think the Minister is going to throw the Transvaal law at me, but it is a question even, of the ruling of the Chair, whether if we pass this clause as it stands here, it is competent in conflict with the rights of the Crown to give rights to others. I do think we must limit this clause in some way. Clause 1 is simply a general form of words. The Crown takes general rights and those rights, I think, we must limit here in Clause 1 in respect of the provisions which follow, and we ought to make Clause 1 part and parcel of this Bill, and we ought to say “subject to the provisions of this Act,” because under the provisions of this Act it is not only the Crown that has rights, it is the diggers and the public, and I think we must have that limiting phrase in order to harmonize the clause with the rest of the Bill. If the Minister does not do that we are conducting a debate in the air.

It is rather edifying. Here is the gold law of 1908, No. 35, passed under the aegis of the right hon. gentleman. The very first section is—

and I find that this Act consists of 142 sections. What becomes of the arguments of the right hon. gentleman? Clause 1 of this Bill is part of the whole, and I am very much inclined to think that the legal interpretation is subject to the provisions of this Bill, but either these words are necessary or they are not. If they are necessary, then they import something that I do not want to concede, and if they are unnecessary then I am quite content with the bare statement. It is the same with Ordinance 66 of 1903, and that Ordinance consists of I do not know how many sections. The same argument would apply there.

I wanted to help you.

I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. gentleman has done it, but I think it follows in any case. Clause 1 is part of a whole, and you must read Clause 1, and you must construe it in the light of the whole. If those words are there by implication there is no necessity to put them there explicitly. With reference to the observations of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I have not got the addendum and I understand from him that the addendum he has is an unsigned document. I have what purports to be an official memorandum from the registrar of deeds, and so far from saying that most of the grants issued are free from reservation of rights to the Crown, he says most definitely that it would appear, therefore, that the Crown possesses no rights in gold, silver or precious stones found on land granted prior to the issue of the proclamation of the 6th August, 1813. This clause has been generally recognized now for years in the Transvaal, and the effect of legislation in Natal and in the Free State is pretty much the same, and in the Cape Province, not only is the right of mining and the disposal of precious minerals reserved to the Crown, but the whole of the precious minerals, the ownership in the precious minerals. Therefore, if in the Cape Province ownership in the precious minerals is reserved to the Crown, then surely the right of mining and disposal would be with the Crown. Therefore it is for that reason the Crown has reserved the right of resumption.

I do not think my hon. friend realizes the feelings of a large number of people with regard to the sacredness of vested rights in this country, and that, when the State in the interests of the State takes away vested rights, it should compensate the people concerned. The Minister says that he has looked through the number of farms in the Cape Province and he has the returns and he does not think it would be more than 5 per cent. Afterwards he came down to 3 per cent. I think it would be considerably more. Even in the course of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, ten people out of the large population were considered sufficient to justify their being spared, and if there are only three or five per cent. of farms in the Cape Province with rights vested in the owner, then I do not think the Minister should take those rights away. There is one thing upon which I would like to have your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Clause 1 states specifically that the right of mining and disposal of precious stones is vested in the Crown. If that clause is passed without any proviso, such as has been suggested, is it competent for this committee at a further stage to introduce any of the amendments that are on the paper which are in direct conflict with the clause already passed, or would it not be your ruling that the committee, having adopted Clause 1, vesting the rights of precious stones and the disposing of precious stones in the Crown, that in Clause 2 we could introduce a principle diametrically different from what the committee had laid down in Clause 1, or would it not be incumbent upon us to introduce a principle of that sort at another stage? It all depends what the ruling from the Chair is. There are certain members here who feel so strongly when standing up for vested rights that they do not want to run the risk of Clause 1 being passed in this manner, if it would prevent them at a further stage bringing forward amendments which they desire to see introduced and discussed.

As far as the clauses that follow Clause 1 are concerned, those clauses I will have to put, because they all refer to the Committee, but no amendments may be put, inconsistent with a clause which has already been agreed upon. I may draw the attention of the Minister to Standing Rule 217 —[S.O. read]. I may also refer to May—

That is the whole point.

May I call attention to the fact that in the Natal Act, which deals with mines and collieries, which I may say was drawn up by a very highly competent lawyer, who was conversant with mining, this provision stands in section 9 of Act 43 of 1899—

So it seems to me to be quite necessary in view of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the words suggested by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) should be inserted.

May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to another important thing? It strikes me that what are printed on the Order Paper as amendments, are not in the Bill. Consequently, as I understand your ruling, if we pass Clause 1 without that provision, it would be incompetent for this committee to move any amendments on the Order Paper which are in conflict with Clause 1 which the committee has been asked to pass. I hope the Minister does not think that I am raising this for the purpose of preventing his getting on with the Bill, but it is for the purpose of allowing hon. members at a future stage to bring in any amendments they desire.

I know it is very difficult for a man like me to talk about these points of law, but I hope the Minister will agree to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Standerton. The Minister rightly said that the principle already appears in the Transvaal law, but the statutes of course only refer to the position in the Transvaal, and this Bill applies to all four provinces, and in the other provinces there are certain owners’ rights with which the State has nothing to do. I think that the Minister held the opinion in 1908 that the State could not take away and do everything, but the Minister seems to have altered his opinion. Here he introduces a Bill to give the State every power to mine, and search for precious stones. The State is now to be the body to hold all rights over precious stones. Then the diggers who want to sell their diamonds must first go to the State for a permit. I do not know why the Minister is so obstinate and will not accept the amendment. I only want to make a few quotations from what the Minister said in 1908 with reference to owners’ rights belonging to the State, in the Transvaal Parliament—and I know the Minister is a man who goes thoroughly into mining matters. He then said, inter alia, during a discussion on the gold law—

Here we have to do with the four provinces, and I do hope that all the rights will not be taken away. We must respect the owners’ rights of people.

I take up exactly the same position to-day as I did in the speech quoted by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) from the Hansard of the Transvaal Parliament. Clause 1, however, does not deal with owners’ rights or with the owners’ rights to minerals, but with the right of mining and of disposal. I have already said that Clause 1 in my view means that you must read it together with the rest of the Bill. Now I understand that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) proposes that we should add the words “subject to the provisions of this Act.” In my opinion they are implied. I will, however, agree to the words being included but then I don’t want any further amendments to them made.

Has this amendment been moved?

Yes, I move—

A perfect case has been built up by our legal friends for the retention of this clause in its entirety. It is the case of the State gives and the State takes away, blessed be the name of the State. Our party insists that the State owns all minerals. As far as precious stones are concerned there could have been no intention to forego possession of these before 1870, but since that date of discovery the State has expressly reserved right of control and disposing of diamonds and not merely reserved the right of mining. Precious stones can now be dealt with only in certain restricted ways. If the State can control every act in regard to sale of diamonds, it is also right that the State should have complete and absolute control of production, which is really the inference derived from Acts we have passed. I hope that throughout the Bill it will be insisted upon that the State alone has the right to deal with all these various and conflicting interests. If there are interests that may embarrass the State, the Government has the undoubted right to settle all differences. In the Orange Free State there was once title which gave perfect and undisputed freehold, but a 40 per cent. right to mines was taken away again. What right have owners now to complain if a right is taken away which it was never intended they should have?

I took not the least interest in the Bill because I thought it did not affect the Cape Province. It seems to be now, however, as if there were doubts about the actual position. If the rights of owners in the Cape Province are taken away by the Bill I will never vote for a clause of that kind. The Minister was very definite when he said that the mineral rights in the Cape belonged to the Crown, but that the ownership was in the landowners. That cannot be taken away by a stroke of the pen or by a clause because it would not be right. I do not say that we have precious stones or minerals but who knew that diamonds would be discovered in Namaqualand? How do we know that it will not also happen at other places? If the mineral rights are the property of the landowners then I cannot agree to their being taken away. Even if the right belongs to only 5 per cent. of the farms in the Cape Province I do not think it is right to take them away.

I would like to know from the Minister what the position is with regard to Vryheid and Utrecht.

I have accepted your amendment.

When these districts were taken over in 1903, by proclamation the laws of the Transvaal were to be preserved in these districts; that is, laws up to 1899. I do not know what the exact position is with regard to the Transvaal, but in the New Republic all the mineral rights were vested in the owners. Lucas Meyer gave all the rights to the owners.

The position is that after the New Republic became incorporated in the Transvaal all farms in that area became subject to the ordinary Transvaal legislation, and, therefore, by virtue of the proclamation cited by the hon. member, the gold law, which says that the right of mining and disposing of precious metals is vested in the Crown, applied as far as precious metals are concerned to land in the New Republic.

The New Republic was annexed by Natal, and ordinances passed after the annexation of the Transvaal did not apply. The gold law of 1908 and the proclamation of 1903 do not apply. The Natal Act of 1899 I do not think applies.

Under the republican laws the right of mining and disposing of diamonds and precious metals and stones was vested in the State.

I am not at all satisfied yet. The Minister says that only 6 per cent. of the farms in the Cape Province have clear title. That may be right and I will not dispute it but 60 per cent. of the farms in Namaqualand were granted in freehold between 1843 and 1862. Now I am not at all clear whether that right is not being taken away. I am satisfied if the Minister says that a law is necessary to give control but why should we go further and deprive the owners of their rights to give them to the State? It is no answer to me to say that rights are taken away in the Transvaal. Because they are taken away rightly or wrongly there is no reason why the rights of Namaqualand should be taken away. In the Transvaal many wrong things have already been done. When the people trekked into Namaqualand they were told that they were going into a desert. Only last year it was said that it was a desert and that the people ought to be removed from it. Now the Minister wants to appropriate and curtail their rights, and with that they will not be satisfied. This is a matter which affects the whole of the Cape Province because there is some of this gravel 20 miles from Cape Town, although I do not know whether it is diamond-bearing or not. There are freehold farms in the district of Piquetberg as well. Are the people there to lose their rights? I should like to make certain that the man who has a freehold farm will not be deprived of his rights.

I want to assist the Minister because we are now going along wrong lines. The question of the rights of farm owners is also dealt with in Clause 2, but the debate commenced when we were dealing with Clause 1 because it was drafted in such general terms. The Minister, however, accepted my amendment which limited Clause 1 and made it subject to the rest of the Bill, and therefore I suggest that we no longer discuss the question of property rights. It only wastes time, because the matter can be discussed when we deal with paragraph 2 (1). I fear that we shall be debating here for hours this afternoon and that we shall have a repetition of it when we come to Clause 2. I accordingly suggest that Clause 1 should be passed with my amendment and that the position of owners of farms in the Cape Province and in the Free State be discussed when we deal with Clause 2.

I would like our leader to deal with that point, as the amendment does not necessarily remove the difficulty. If the Minister would indicate that in the next clause he will respect our rights, and we can go straight ahead, but if the Minister intimates that he is not going to give way on the question of Cape rights, our objections to the Bill still hold good. The rights of people are sacred and I am only standing up for the rights of property owners. The acceptance of this amendment does not clear the way. The Bill for which the Minister was responsible last year contained a clause stating that nothing in it applied to land in the Cape of Good Hope held by private persons the minerals on which were not reserved to the Crown. Last year the Minister’s sense of justice indicated that he should not interfere with vested rights in the Cape. Why this change? Will the Minister say whether he will accept an amendment to preserve Cape rights?

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) is asking for what is not in accordance with the rules. I agree with him that the point he is arguing has not yet been met, but it arises on Clause 2. We are now conducting a discussion—somewhat aimlessly—which does not affect the position, and it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to state his position on this clause, It is a very long and complicated Bill and has been made much more complicated by the procedure we are following, and unless we help the Minister we shall not make much progress.

With leave of Committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Gilson and Mr. Munnik withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries and Gen. Smuts put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

For how long?

How can I tell? The committee may keep me busy to-night and Monday. Naturally, Clause 2, if my motion is agreed to, will stand over until the other clauses have been dealt with.

I also have an amendment here. Shall I have the right if the clause stands over to move my amendment later? It is a new Clause 2 as set out in the Votes and Proceedings.

I have already put Clause 2, but in any case I could not allow the hon. member to put the new Clause 2 because he would first need the consent of the Governor-General.

Do I understand that if Clause 2 stands over you will rule me out of order subsequently in moving my amendment?

I did not want to put the amendment in any case because in my opinion it is not permissible under Clause 119 of Standing Orders. [Clause read.]

I move that the ruling of the Speaker be asked.

I object.

The hon. member wants the ruling of Mr. Speaker. The hon. member moves a new Clause 2, which it appears to me, interferes with the prerogative of the Crown. It will be found on page 571 of the Votes and Proceedings.

I understand the hon. member is moving a new Clause 2 to precede the clause which is now going to stand over?

The Governor-General’s consent is necessary to his proposal, and he has not got it.

Why should we have this waste of time. The consent of the Governor-General is necessary, and if it stands over the hon. Minister will help him to get that. Let it stand over.

Shall I be able to move it later when we return to Clause 2? I only asked whether it could stand over together with Clause 2. I must, however, say that I am surprised at the Minister. He is a lawyer, and I am not, and I do not know how he will advance the interests of Namaqualand if he does not accept my amendment.

The hon. member cannot now discuss it.

May I not even speak about it?

The hon. member cannot go into that matter now. It is moved that Clause 2 shall stand over.

If I ask for my amendment also to stand over, then, surely I can speak on the question?

Would it not be your ruling, sir, if it is agreed that Clause 2 stand over, that it will be competent for my hon. friend to let his amendment stand over and when the time comes, move it before Clause 2 is taken? If he understands that he will see his rights and liberties have not been taken away.

If I can put it later I am quite satisfied. I shall then have an opportunity of obtaining the consent of the Governor-General.

There are some members of the committee who consider this clause can be moved without the consent of the Governor-General, and the hon. member can go into that in the meantime:

The point is merely whether the hon. member’s amendment can stand over. Your ruling, Mr. Chairman, then was that the hon. member had first to get the approval of the Governor-General. If you say it can stand over together with Clause 2 the hon. member is satisfied.

The amendment of the hon. member can stand over, but I pointed out that in my opinion I shall not be able to permit the hon. member to move the amendment because the consent of the Governor-General will be required.

I have always given the Minister credit for being very clever, and I think he is giving an exhibition of extreme cleverness here. His Bill is either a good Bill or a bad Bill Let him keep our Cape rights—

The hon. member must only discuss one point.

I am proceeding to give my reasons why it should not stand over. The Minister has put me in a cleft stick. If the Minister persists in including the clause as it stands and refuses the amendment about the Cape, it is a very bad Bill, and I would oppose it from start to finish. The position as far as I am concerned is, that I do not know what he is going to do. Where I would have opposed the Bill clause by clause he cuts my feet from under me. He has adopted a clever attitude. Is it fair? Cannot he say he will meet us in some way? Is the Minister prepared to give any assurance whatever?

The clause either stands over or it does not. If I ask for the clause to stand over the hon. member can oppose it. It shows my anxiety to go further into the matter, but he can have it any way he likes.

I accept that, then.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

Does not Clause 3 require to stand over also, because it is consequential to Clause 2. It repeals certain acts referred to in Clause 2.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

I move—

The Minister proposes to delete the whole of the sub-clause, but under the previous law there are people who have lawfully taken out their prospector’s licences, have pegged off their prospecting areas and paid up for twelve months. Then the proclamation was issued stopping them. All I ask in the amendment is the protection of their rights.

I will put the first part of the amendment moved by the Minister to test the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand.

I will clear up the matter. I am proposing to delete sub-clause (3) because in sub-clause 6 (2), as printed, I have made provision for the permitting, prohibiting or restricting of prospecting on any Crown lands which constitute a part of sub-clause (3), and is, therefore, not required in sub-clause (3). As for the protection of rights, I have provided a new sub-clause after Clause 8 (4) which provides—

What is contained in sub-clause (3) is provided for in the two places I have referred to. Otherwise, it would be a mere repetition.

I must ask the Minister to withdraw his amendment for the deletion of sub-clause (3). The Minister says that in another clause later on—

I call upon the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) to speak.

Does this mean that the rights of the people are protected?

Any right which a man lawfully obtained under the old law is protected.

The Minister now says that in a later clause protection will be provided, but the subsequent provision is an amendment which may possibly not become law. If sub-clause 3 is deleted, and the other amendment falls through, then there will be no protection for the man who pegged before the proclamation. I, therefore, want to ask the Minister to allow the clause to stand over until we have a certainty that the amendment is passed, because, otherwise, we shall be throwing away the bone for the shadow. Here it is already a part of the Bill. If it is now deleted and the amendment is not put, then there will be no protection. The Minister has already put so many amendments, and, subsequently, would not accept them, that we do not now know what may happen.

I do not know why the hon. member should be so terribly suspicious, because the House has just as much right to reject sub-clause (3) as to reject my clause later on. It depends on the committee, but I do not think a single hon. member will propose that the rights—by this I mean discoverers’ rights or rights of that kind—obtained under existing laws to-day can be destroyed by this Bill.

I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Mostert withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

I move—

The clause reads—

Surely it is sufficient to say “to the satisfaction of the mining commissioner.” Why I want to have the words I have mentioned eliminated is this, that I think the Minister is putting a curtailment on prospecting which I consider there should be no intention of the legislature carrying out. If anything, we should encourage the prospector. We certainly want to curtail diamond production, but we do not want to curtail prospecting operations so far as diamond discoveries are concerned. In the Bill generally the tendency is to impose a restriction on the prospector by curtailing him in his prospecting operations, so as not to let him get too far ahead. I would rather see the Minister direct his energies to encouraging the prospector and, once he has discovered, then curtail him as much as possible, and impose the necessary restrictions so as to discourage over-production. Once the prospector gets it into his head that we do not want to encourage prospecting, and that we are interfering with his rights, we shall find that that State asset, which we are getting practically for nothing to-day, is going to vanish. We are getting our prospecting done practically for nothing; it is not costing the State 6d. The Minister will achieve everything he wants if he will devote his energies to encouraging the prospector, but when he has discovered, then put his restrictions on him, but do not put his restrictions on him before the prospector has actually got to that stage. The Minister has in the sub-clause the words “to the satisfaction of the mining commissioner,” and I would suggest that he should accept my amendment, otherwise it only looks as if we are trying to curtail or throw an extra obligation on the prospector.

I hope that the hon. member (Mr. Munnik) won’t press his amendment. In the first place, if we omit those words, to my mind the mining commissioner would not demand that the prospector should be personally present. Another reason is this, and I think a very cogent one, that the prospector ought to be in charge of his operations, and I think it tends to encourage illicit diamond dealing, if the prospector is not constantly in charge. It does not, for instance, mean for a moment that his prospecting is annulled because he has been in bed for three days, but when he is able to be there he ought to be there. It is certainly so. The position generally in this Bill is to control prospecting. Is it not better if you want to control a thing to get to the root of it rather than allow a man to prospect and find and then prevent him from having the fruits of his discovery? It is much better to take powers to control. Let us hope that when the new Bill is law as a natural result of the new provisions, there will be no need to unduly curtail prospecting, but it is certainly necessary for the Government to take the powers.

I cherished the hope that the Minister would consider the interests of prospectors to a greater extent than appears in this Bill. It is perfectly understandable that more ground should not be thrown open if the share of alluvial production exceeds that of mining production. Limit proclamation, but don’t limit or handicap the prospector. He is one of the most valuable assets this country could possibly have. It appears to be quite unnecessary to make constant personal attendance essential, and if the mining commissioner is satisfied that the prospector is genuine, and going on with his work properly, why handicap him? I ask the Minister to recognize that, while he is actuated, and rightly actuated, by the desire not to over-flood the market with diamonds, yet he must not do anything to antagonize the digger by unnecessary legislation and restriction. The alluvial digger has done wonderful work in the past 50 years. I hope the Minister will realize that we are out for a 50-50 deal between alluvial and mining producers. If the required total output is, say, £10,000,000 a year, the mining companies should be confined to £5,000,000 production, and the alluvial diggings to £5,000,000, and if the latter drop below that 50 per cent. mark, there should be a further proclamation of new areas for their enterprize between alluvial and mining producers. Otherwise, if the diggings are restricted to below their fair half-share of total production, there will be friction between alluvial diggers and Government, with possibly disastrous results.

I only want to point out the position as this clause now stands. Take the prospector who prospects in the back blocks at Zoutpansberg. When he has to renew his licence from the mining commissioner, he has a long distance to go. It is definitely laid down that the mining commissioner may cancel the rights of any man not in personal attendance at his office. I hope the Minister will reconsider that. To require his personal attendance at the mining commissioner’s office for a renewal or other application, and to cancel his rights if he does not attend, is unjust. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in what I am asking the Minister.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment. We know what the position of many prospectors is to-day. They are used by other people. If we refer to the Order Paper, we see that this amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is only the beginning of a series of amendments. If those amendments are passed, it will mean that the object of the law and of the Minister will be undermined by the Bill. We are further going to give certain syndicates to whom the Minister is opposed the chance to act against the spirit of the law, and to continue their work. If we do not take control of all prospectors, then we shall get once more what has already been the experience of the representatives of diggers in this House, viz., that these people, under colour of doing prospecting, will practically work out their pieces of rich ground, because they can work and prospect unrestrictedly. The argument of the hon. member for Vredefort that, e.g., a man will lose his licence if he cannot renew’ it when he is sick or prevented in some other way, is a very weak one, and I think the Minister will not permit the mining commissioner to adopt such an attitude. When a man is sick, his licence will not be cancelled. This work is necessary to give the Minister and his department the right to exercise control over the prospectors, so that it can be seen that they do not prospect over the whole country. This amendment is only a forerunner of further amendments. It is the thin end of the wedge, and the other amendments will drive the wedge in still further, until eventually the prospector will have so much liberty, that the whole law will be meaningless.

I do not see the thin end of the wedge, and wish to support the amendment. If, one of these days, the Minister is in a good mood and cancels the Namaqualand proclamation and my diggers can re-start working, what will then be the position in Namaqualand? There are some of them who have to walk from 70 to 80 miles. They have no motor-car, but have to walk for nine days to Springbok, the nearest magistrates office. What the Bill aims at here amounts to this, that a man can only exercise his right of prospecting if he remains from early morning to late at night daily at the place where he is prospecting. Most of the prospectors are also diggers. All the prospectors I know are diggers. People who have no knowledge about it cannot prospect, and the prospectors often prospect at four or five places on one farm. Such a man cannot be at all places. Why, if the control is coming under the mining commissioner, is such a regulation made to the effect that a prospector must remain all day at his prospecting place?

Who are the diggers in Namaqualand?

The first man who found a diamond did not belong to a syndicate.

We know the names.

The first man was a Namaqualander, but when I was in Namaqualand the other day, I unfortunately noticed that that person was now the foreman of another. He got nothing for finding the first diamond, and I am very much afraid for many of our prospectors if we pass the Bill as it is.

There is nothing in the Bill to compel a mining commissioner to cancel a licence. Moreover, the mining commissioner is in all things subject to the instruction of the Minister, and no Minister will ever cancel a licence just because a man was temporarily absent on account of sickness or reasonable business. If we were to insert the words, anyone would be able to have prospecting done by proxy or by an agent or any untrustworthy person and himself never go to the fields, and I understand that the diggers themselves are specially desirous to prevent that, and to leave the provision as it is.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

I notice that in this amendment the Minister still retains the provision that no such prospecting permit shall be issued, and no such endorsement shall be made without the written consent of the registered holder of any mortgage bond over the land. We have appealed against this provision before now as a matter of principle. Take the case of an unfortunate man who has bonded his property, and is under servitude to the bondholder. If prospecting is successful he may have no difficulty in paying off the bondholder. Now we have this perpetual servitude—the bondholder has ample security for his loan, and this unfortunate debtor has no control over his own property because it is bonded. I cannot understand why this restrictive provision is here. I can see that the bondholder can come and say—

The bondholder may be in the “ring” of the diamond syndicate, and most probably is. Can the Minister adduce any argument in favour of the bondholder having that further grip on the land in addition to holding the land itself as security. He has already taken good care that the farm, as a farm, is sufficient security for his bond.

The hon. member must remember that we are going out of our way here to meet a person who has not the vestige of a right to the minerals to-day. This is a clause corresponding to the privilege we extended last year in the Reserve Minerals Act to surface owners and settlers who, up to this, could not have a vestige of a right to precious metals. We excluded precious stones last year because we are introducing this Bill. The Act last year contained a similar provision, and there is no reason to discriminate between precious minerals and precious stones. The bulk of the mortgages are held by the Land Bank, which is a semi-Government institution. I hope the hon. member will not press the amendment.

I move—

It appears later in the Bill as well that such a lessee of Crown land will not have the right to have prospecting done on his own ground, but the Minister will have the right of allowing anybody to go and prospect on the man’s ground. It may happen that one first exercises one’s option only after five years. Then first does one get one’s title deed. Why should he not have the right of prospecting in the meantime? And if he has not the right, why should we then give the right to the Minister to grant one or another person a permit to prospect on the ground or to interfere with the man’s water and to dig holes in the ground? The man himself may not prospect until he can exercise his option of purchase and has obtained title. I regard that as unjust. When a man has leased the ground with the option of purchasing it, how can the Minister have the right of allowing someone else to prospect on the ground. It is, moreover, not the Minister from whom he has hired the ground. He hires the ground from the Minister of Lands, but the Minister of Mines will have the right to allow another man to prospect on the ground. The poor people are thereby done an injustice, and I think the Minister ought to be fair.

I trust that the Minister of Mines will not accept the amendment. He would then be making a distinction between the gold law and the laws on precious and base metals, in comparison with this law. Last year, as the hon. member will remember, an Act was passed in connection with Crown lands. It has always been the case that the man who hires the ground has no right to the minerals. The Act of last year makes provision for meeting the lessees of Crown land. It was felt to be desirable to meet many of the lessees of Crown land, and, accordingly, the Reserve Minerals Act was passed, in which it is provided that a man who hires Crown land cannot prospect until such time as he has exercised his option of purchase. Thereafter, he will get those rights. The hon. member is wrong if he thinks that minerals come under my department. The Minister of Lands alone has supervision and a say with regard to the surface of the land, but the minerals fall by law under the Minister of Mines. Therefore, the Minister of Mines first says that he considers it necessary for a certain farm to be prospected, and all that concerns the Minister of Lands is the question of indemnity for damage of the surface. As for the precious stones the lessees have no rights to them. If that were the case, then we shall have the position that such a person could remove the minerals and leave the place. It is not the man’s farm. If anybody hires a farm for a year or more from me, then it is my farm, and the minerals are mine. It is just the same if it is Crown land. Then the minerals belong to the State. If the man exercises his option to purchase, then he has the right to prospect himself and then his consent has to be obtained by other prospectors. I can, however, not agree to the motion before he has exercised his option to purchase.

The Minister of Lands now says that a lessee does not get the right. There is still much ground over which the man will only exercise his option years after. He says that if the man goes to the Minister of Mines and Industries and wants to dig on the farm that the Minister of Mines must first come to the Minister of Lands for an act of indemnity for any damage to the surface. It he does not get it then the Minister of Mines and Industries is bound not to give a licence. Then the man finds that he is caught napping, and is not able to dig. Why is it stated in the Bill that the Minister can consent to digging on a man’s farm? A man can say that he does not want digging done on his farm, but another man gets the authority from the Minister to dig. The Minister must not forget that the man who is not the owner of the farm does not get the owner’s claims, but only the discoverer’s rights. He ought to get the same discoverer’s rights as are given to the man who comes to ask permission of the Minister of Mines and Industries. What grant is the Minister making thereby? Let the man who is on the farm go himself to the Minister of Mines and ask for leave to dig.

Let me put it this way to the hon. member. If you give a mere lessee, who has not even exercised his option to purchase, the right to prospect, then you will have that Crown land completely ruined. If he has the right of prospecting as he pleases before exercising the option of purchase, then he can ruin the farm and give it back to the State worthless for farming purposes. Is it not right to say that the right to prospect should be postponed until he has exercised his right to purchase? One might go further and say not alone until he had exercised his option to purchase, but until he got transfer. The Bill, however, does not go so far, because it merely says that he must have exercised such option and stated that it is his intention to become the owner before he is allowed to prospect. This seems to me to be quite fair.

It may appear very fair to the Minister and look nice on paper, but where then does the right come from for the Minister to send another man to go and dig? Another man can get leave to dig, to search and to potter about, but the lessee may not do that.

It is not the man’s ground until he has exercised his option to purchase.

If the farm is scratched about by another man, then it will be spoilt for the lessee. Is it right then to give another man permission and to prevent him? The poor man who is farming on his own farm must see another man scratching about, but he may not. The Minister has the right of giving permission on any Crown land. Let it be said that both he and the Minister must give the permission. If he has to give an indemnity order for the damage which is done, then it will be postponed for a long time. Make the matter easy and let the poor man who is on the farm also have the right to prospect.

Where the hon. member is wrong is in talking about the man’s farm. The ground and the minerals are not his, because they remain the property of the State until the lessee exercises his option. In the meantime he is an ordinary lessee. Hitherto there has not been a single case where another man could come and dig on a farm leased from the Crown. It is usually the man who hires the farm who asks for permission to do so. When he has exercised his option and the Minister of Mines gives him permission then he can do so. To say that he is prevented from digging if there is a rich diamond mine on his farm goes too far. When he has exercised his option of purchase then he can do so. It is not necessary for him to wait five years, because he can exercise the option during the period of five years, if it is proved that he has made improvements. There is nothing unfair and wrong in this provision in the Bill. It is not possible for us to permit a man to dig and to leave if he finds nothing, because then the State will be left with a valueless farm.

The Bill expressly provides that anyone can peg on a farm which is held by a lessee from the Crown. There are now lessees from the Crown in Namaqualand where pegging has been done by other people. Why should he not have the right of pegging on his farm while he is lessee. It is not right that another man should come and peg without his consent so long as he is the lessee. The Minister said I was wrong in calling it the man’s ground. The ground belongs to the State, and the State is also the man who has no ground. It must not be thought that only large landowners constitute the State, or that Ministers only are the State, because they grant the land. The poor unemployed who stood in front of the Houses of Parliament the other day are also a part of the State and, therefore, one should not talk so big and say that something belongs to the State. The poor man, who is being helped on to his feet, is also a part of the State, and he is an asset.

Let me make another attempt to make the hon. member understand. I believe he is open to conviction. The hon. member is confusing what the clause says with what he is himself proposing. It says that the man cannot obtain the exclusive right to prospect until he has exercised his option, but the Minister can give permission to prospect. His right to prospect only exists when he has exercised his option. Before that time the Minister will not permit another person. The Minister has never yet done so and and he can permit the lessee himself to do so if he wishes. It was the fixed policy of the existing laws, and it is the law passed last year with regard to metals.

If the Minister assures me that the right will not be given to other persons to prospect, but to the man himself, if he asks leave to do so, then I am satisfied. I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Mostert withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Must I first of all move the amendments to Clause 7 as printed?

The Minister can propose that the heading to Clause 7 shall be placed over Clause 6.

You have not put new sub-clause (3), have you? The Minister has an amendment of a new sub-clause (3) to be read with Clause 6.

I have not put that amendment yet.

I hope that the Minister will not press this amendment. I do not know whether he deliberately intends what the effect of this sub-section will be, but if one refers to Section 116 one will see that—

So he proposes that the Governor-General may cause to be carried out any prospecting operations not only on unalienated Crown land, but also upon land which has been alienated with a reservation of precious stones to the Crown. First of all, that is inconsistent with Clause 5, which we have just passed. In that clause it is laid down, and the committee has adopted the view, that the owner of reserved land shall have the exclusive right of prospecting on such land. The Minister proposes here that the Governor-General may cause to be carried out on that reserved land prospecting operations without the consent of the owner. That is a fundamental departure from a principle that runs right through this Bill. I do say that if it is intended that the Crown should, without the consent of the owner, cause prospecting operations to be carried out to be followed by proclamation and so forth, then it is doing something to which every owner in this House and every member representing owners outside the House, would, I think, strongly object. I put the point for the Minister’s consideration, and perhaps he will tell us whether he really intends to introduce into this Bill so startling a proposition.

Should not Clause 6 read in line 64 “any unalienated Crown land”? Would not that meet the point?

That is the intention.

I move—

On further reflection, I rather doubt whether that still meets the case, because Section 116 says that—

I see now the difficulty. It is solved by the transition of Clause 6 to “Miscellaneous.” It is perfectly consonant with the definition of Crown land as pointed out by the hon. member, so that we must leave out the words “any unalienated.” It was quite correct as it was. I propose to shift Clause 6 to Chapter “D—Miscellaneous.” Then you look at the definition of Crown land under Clause 116 which means all land in respect of which the Crown is the holder of the rights to precious stones. I move—

That definition includes reserved land.

No.

Yes.

We will have to put a clause in that this shall not refer to any land which has been given out under the Land Settlement Act, or something of that sort, otherwise you do not meet the point. I think the Minister wants to meet the point.

Oh yes.

The intention is that this clause shall not apply land that has been given out under any Land Settlement Act.

Certainly not, because it would be in contradiction with Clause 5. We may amend the definition of Crown land later.

Right through the Bill there has been a very clear distinction drawn between Crown land and private land. Crown land is of two classes, unalienated Crown land and Crown land which has been alienated with a reservation to the Crown of rights to minerals, and private land is any land which is not Crown land. The Minister apparently wants to give authority to the Government to carry on prospecting operations on unalienated Crown land, but whether this appears in “C” or “D” makes no difference whatever to what I wish to convey. What I had in mind was expressed entirely by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), that is that this power of the Government to carry on prospecting operations should be restricted to unalienated Crown land. The new sub-clause moved by the Minister would then read—

Is it not best for this amendment to be accepted, and if at a later stage it is found to be not quite consonant with the Bill, we can make the necessary provision, but pass it at this stage.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to B, line 59, which states distinctly—

It is perfectly clear that this clause is intended to deal only with alienated land. I would advise the Minister to be careful about putting in any words contrary to the word “alienated.

But we propose shifting 6 out of this heading.

In Namaqualand there are 700,000 morgen of Crown land which come into the list. If the Minister wants that clause to remain that the Governor-General can permit prospecting, then the Minister probably intends to have State mines there. If he wants that, then we shall get into confusion in Namaqualand A few years ago we had a famine there and the public had to assist. The middleman who could not be assisted went to the Government for help because his stock had died and the farms were heavily mortgaged, but they were told that there was no law under which they could be assisted. Now the Minister speaks of State mines. What is the good of the poor people in Namaqualand, who have lost everything, going and working there The middleman, who at that time had no law under which he could be assisted, is now being oppressed. It is not good for Namaqualand There is Crown land in Namaqualand and Bechuanaland, but there is not much in other parts of the Union. Let the Minister say that he has to do with Namaqualand and Bechuanaland It looks innocent on paper when Crown land is spoken of, but the places ought to be mentioned by name because it is aimed at them. If the Governor-General can prospect, then we shall have State mines, and the poor man will be able to get help, and there will be nothing to keep out the class of people who stood before this building the other day. They will be able to be brought on to the State diggings to work and to teach my people evil things of which they have never heard. They are still unspoilt and clean people who do not know all the underhand tricks of the towns. The Minister has also protected another thing because he has given a licence for base metals where the company was. I must raise my voice against the Governor-General’s power to allow prospecting, because it will lead to things which the country is opposed to. It will affect the principle which the Nationalist party, if it stands for its old principles, may not touch. It is now the State this and the State that, and I, as a representative from the countryside—

Hear, hear.

I knew that they would say “hear, hear,” but we are here undermining a principle which is still greatly respected on the countryside. There are some townspeople who say that there are Nationalists who care nothing for our principles which to them are a dead letter. If the Nationalist party no longer stand for the principles of the countryside, then its fall is close at hand.

What about the wages of 8s. per day?

It is the townspeople who have always had them.

The hon. member must confine himself to the matter under discussion.

The principle that the Governor-General can allow digging is one that we do not believe in on the countryside. It is something which will one day yet cost our party dear. We now hear of State diggings, but if the Minister has promised that, then he is on a wrong path.

I just want to remind the hon. member that the law has been in existence since 1908, which permits State mines for gold and platinum to be established. It requires millions of pounds to establish such State mines, but with respect to alluvial diggings a little insignificant machinery which will cost a bagatelle is necessary, and now the hon. member wants to stop the State from digging or prospecting on its own ground. I think the hon. member who speaks so much about Namaqualand possibly does not know that his motion would limit Namaqualand more and cause more damage than benefit.

No, it will not damage Namaqualand. There are rich people—only a few of them—then there are a number of middle class people who used to have large numbers of stock and were well off, but who lost thousands of their stock and have now gone back, but who still hang on to their ground, and who spend less on themselves in order to retain the ground. It will only help the quite poor man whom we could assist just as well in another way.

Why did you not support me in my opposition to the Iron and Steel Bill.

Because I should have been doing wrong in doing so, but I want the middleman to be assisted. I know that since 1908 there has been an Act which permits State mining, but the Minister has never yet experimented in that direction. The Minister says that much money would be required for the other mines, but that here very little money is necessary. Just as little as the Minister knew that it would be just as adequate to proclaim the area round Alexandra Bay as the whole of Namaqualand so he knows much about the other matters. Namaqualand is not such a stupid little thing, and the Minister cannot play with the interests of Namaqualand. The Minister also is a townsman; he lives in the places of luxury and prosperity, and gets out of sympathy with the countryside and with the people who always have difficulties. He should, therefore, listen to the representatives of those people. I remind him of the deputation that saw him on the 7th March. He did not then ask what the other people knew about it. He is also getting out of sympathy with the members in this House who come from those parts.

The clause which has just been passed I should like to have transferred under capital C, just before 8.

That has already been done. The Minister has already moved it.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

I move—

I move—

I want to draw the Minister’s attention that this is an unnecessary restriction on the owner. I understand the object is merely an administrative one. Under the law he is compelled to register at once if a discovery is made. There is no necessity to put these restrictions on that he must be restricted to five persons.

Here we have to do with the thin end of the wedge in this amendment by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). If we were to permit the deletion of the provision about five persons, then it would mean that the prospectors could employ thousands of people. The poor people rush to the diggings, and then there is a great accumulation of them. The Minister of Mines then immediately takes steps through the mining commissioner to proclaim the place, but then it takes quite a time, sometimes a few months, before everything is ready for the proclamation. All the people are there, and it would be extremely difficult if so many persons were permitted. According to the Bill as it now is, five persons are permitted, and each can employ ten men. There are therefore 50 persons permitted to prospect. If the restriction is removed, how many thousands will then not make a practice of prospecting, and the ground will be worked out before the Government knows where it is. I hope the Minister will stand firm with the number 50.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). According to law, the owners are restricted, and restricted too much. The owner may only permit five people. Why does the Minister want to stop a man from having his ground properly prospected to find out where the good claims are? It is not right towards the owners. They will have no opportunity of knowing where the best claims are. The Minister surely has charge of the matter. Reports are made to him as to how many diamonds there are, and he can stop the business at any time. We must not go too far. I want to point out that it is in fact often fortunate for the public in general if the owners employ more people. I have met people who said that they had been walking about for a year, but have now finally been employed by an owner, and in this way were at least earning something. Why should the owners be prevented and restricted to a small number of workmen? I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. Let us try to protect the owners’ rights as much as possible. Let the men have a chance of finding out where the best part of their ground is. That is no more than right and fair. If only a few people are employed, it may happen that the mining commissioner may come and put a stop to operations within a few days, and the owner in this way would get no opportunity of selecting his claims. I hope that the rights of private people will be protected. They have already been tampered with enough.

I am not at all surprised that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) advocates the increase of the number of workmen. This strengthens us in our point of view. The hon. member has spoken about the poor diggers who eventually have got a small piece of ground from landowners, and were so thankful for getting it. That is just what we want to prevent, that the owners in future will dispose of all the ground, and that the poor man then has to be so thankful if he also gets a small opportunity. In the future the owners will only get what they are entitled to, and the poor people will no longer have to be satisfied to be the slaves of the owners in order to do anything. The private owners are also satisfied with it. It is only the kind of owners, of whom the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is one, who are not satisfied.

It is a good thing that it is you who say so.

I should like to say what one of the supporters of the hon. member says in order to prove the truth of my statement. He is a prominent member of the South African party, and if the hon. member wishes I will give his name. He says we are afraid of people like Mr. Geldenhuys, and he does not even deserve to be permitted to talk in Parliament about that subject.

Mention his name if you wish.

It is Mr. P. U. Fischer, member of the South African party in the Klerksdorp district, and a very prominent member of the party. It is a well-known fact that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has very great interests in the diggings, and he is one of the persons we want to keep away from there, one of the persons on whose account the law is being made, and I should almost like to ask for the ruling of the Chair whether that member has the right to take part in the debate and to vote on this matter in which he has a monetary interest. As for the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), I want to say again that the whole series of amendments which he is proposing are not in the interests of the diggers. They have only one object, and that is to again drive a wedge into the law, a hole through which the syndicate can come in again to escape the law. I think the Minister is going too far in the clause, and still gives the prospectors too much. He lays down that five persons shall be allowed, and that every one may employ ten natives to prospect the ground. I know from experience that in my constituency five men with ten natives each can prospect a very large piece of ground and work it out in a short time before the Government can intervene. If the Minister were to permit persons to employ an unlimited number of natives, then the owner could possibly bring thousands of prospectors on to one farm. The private farm owners will not do that, but it is the speculators, the syndicates, who do it with the intention of evading the law.

Uncle Louw.

I do not want to say it now.

The hon. member can say what he likes; I am not a diamond buyer.

We are opposed to that type of speculator who is always out to evade the laws in order to fill his pockets. The speculator will be able to abuse the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Vredefort, and to bring thousands of natives and work out the whole farms containing diamonds in a week. We must prevent a repetition of what has occurred at Lichtenburg. While the Bill was under discussion, people were employed at Welvediend in working out the ground so that there should be nothing left when the Bill became law. I want to point this out to the Minister, so that he can put an end to it. If they go further than what they are entitled to, then they will have to compensate the State. The Government has no idea how far that class of man will go. Only members who have themselves been on the diggings can understand what that class of speculator is doing. One of the hon. members spoke about statutory theft, but the class of man that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) is now supporting is engaged on something worse, and is robbing the public of its lawful property. I hope that hon. members will not take the least notice of this kind of amendment. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has not a single digger in his constituency, nor is there any possibility of diamonds being found there. Yet he has 40 amendments on the Order Paper. I should have thought that that could have been left to members like myself who represent nothing but diggers.

Where are your amendments?

My amendments are those of the Minister, because I, as an actual representative of the diggers, am convinced that the Bill and the amendments of the Minister cannot be improved upon. Therefore I support him, and I hope that hon. members who do not know the diggings will listen when representatives of the diggers who know the actual position speak.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) is very late, and he should have raised the point under Section 5. We have already accepted the principle in regard to land held under reserved title, that there should be unlimited restrictions so far as the owner is concerned.

I said nothing about that.

I know that. Under Section 5 the Minister is giving the owner of reserved land an unrestricted right to prospect his land. Section 7 applies only to freehold land, so that if the owner of a freehold farm has his land next to a reserved farm he may see the owner of the latter employing as many prospectors as he likes, while the owner of the freehold farm is to be restricted to five prospectors. Under Clause 5, so far as reserved land is concerned, the owner has the exclusive right of prospecting for reserved precious stones, either by himself or his nominee.

Look at 8 (3).

That deals only with labourers. We are dealing with the right of the owner of private land. The Minister proposes to limit it to not more than five persons holding prospecting permits on the land. There is no principle involved and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is correct. How can you justify a position such as I have referred to? Take, for instance, in the Hopetown district you might find a farm in freehold, perhaps held under a Free State title. Next to it there might be one with a reserved title and one owner can put 1,000 prospectors on his farm and the other can only put five.

I will put it right, certainly. Do you think I am going to leave it like that?

Why the Minister should get the House to accept such a principle and then go back on Section 5 I cannot understand. I think the matter is better expressed by the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vredefort. I shall strongly support what he says.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. It is known to all members who have made a study of the diggings that the rights of owners are simply being abused there. At Elandsputte it occurred that thousands of people under the cloak of prospecting dug for diamonds. The law never intended that and does not intend it to-day. If you compare it with the number that are employed for gold, platinum and base metals you will find that hundreds and in one case even 10,000 people were employed under the cloak of prospecting. This is an absurdity and does violence to the intention and the letter of the law. I am glad that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) said what he did. I thought that Clause 83 met the position because it clearly applies to all kinds of prospecting. I agree that if it comes to intensive prospecting then it is not the ordinary farmer but some speculator or other who has bought the ground. According to the Bill a man can have five persons with prospecting licences on his farm and each one can employ ten persons—natives or white men—and I think that 50 persons are sufficient for prospecting purposes. No one will tell me that his farm of 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 morgen cannot be properly prospected by 50 persons. In the circumstances I cannot accept the amendment. If there is a defect in Clause 5 I shall seek a suitable opportunity to rectify it.

I cannot agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and therefore I can agree with the Minister in not wishing to accept it. Yet I feel that the number of prospectors allowed is quite too few. I do not know whether the Minister knows what it costs to have a farm prospected. The clause, moreover, cuts on both sides. In the first place it keeps the diggers out because many of the poor people could find a chance of prospecting under the owners. On the other hand it gives the selfish owner who wants to retain everything for himself the chance to prospect with his own family circle as long as he wishes, so long as the ordinary diggers are kept off it. Therefore, I say that it is not desirable to restrict the number so much. My experience has taught me that there are owners who will not employ a single person to assist with the prospecting, because they are too selfish and want everything. If the Bill to-day is so restricted then it will be very easy for me as a landowner, when I am protected as owner, to merely employ five prospectors and to tell the other people that I do not want them. The argument used by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) and even by the Minister that the farms will be worked out under the name of prospecting is in some cases true, but this only happens where there has been bribery. This is not really in accordance with the regulations. So tone farm Vaalboschputte was almost completely mined before it was proclaimed. I agree that this should be prevented and that the number of diggers should not be unlimited, but if a farm has to be prospected then five persons is too little.

No, it is 50 persons.

If it is 50 natives then it is too little, and it is too little even if there are 100 natives. There are farms which have been prospected for more than a year and yet are not to-day in a position to be proclaimed, so that tile ordinary diggers are excluded. I cannot agree that the number should be unlimited, but because I think that five are not enough I move—

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

Just before the adjournment the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) made a few remarks which I want to reply to, I just want to tell him that I moved this amendment after, as a member of the select committee, I had personally made the diggers in his constituency acquainted with the Bill. As a result of the work of the committee the diggers instructed me that the owners and the diggers had agreed to allow the Bill to pass as it was introduced. If the Minister had introduced the Bill last year then the position would have been entirely different. This amendment is the same as the provisions to which the owners and diggers had agreed. The amendment as it now reads was then proposed by the landowners of the western Transvaal. These are the owners who are wrongly represented by the hon. member for Christiana although they have sent him here as their representative to the House. He makes a personal attack on me and says that I am introducing an amendment which I cannot establish or defend in the House but the Act of 1898 of which the Minister is so proud was passed after I was one of the persons who went among the diggers to make them contented. I think the hon. member was then still in swaddling clothes and he must not come and tell me what my duty as a member of the House is. There is a tendency amongst a few hon. members to watch any attempt that we make to expedite the Bill and to make it as easy as possible for the Government to get it through and to ascribe motives which are not fair. We who are moving amendments think that we are out to give the Minister the best advice and to make him acquainted with the actual position. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) moved the amendment I then thought that the Minister had already accepted the principle, but now he says that he is not prepared to accept it. In all reasonableness I want to ask him to accept the amendment because that is the compromise which was proposed by the select committee after it had sat three times in succession with the object of reaching a satisfactory relation between the diggers and the landowners. Since that time, however, no change has come, although to-day there is the possibility that the matter is being exaggerated owing to the new discoveries. This, nevertheless, does not justify introducing legislation into the House which seriously encroaches upon the compromise as regards the rights of the owners. I am not speaking here only of the rights of owners, but I consider it is fair that the amendment should be passed. We shall satisfy the owners and we satisfied the diggers at that time about the amendment. With these few words I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and to accept the amendment. That argument that a farm will be worked out if the owner has the right to more than five persons with prospecting licences—of whom each will have ten people under him— does not frighten me. If the Department of Mines does its duty then the work will automatically stop as soon as diamonds are discovered, and the discoverers’ rights are granted to the owner. Further work cannot then be done. If the Minister says that it is the custom for the claim diggers to rush to the farms and when they are there then the Government can no longer get them to leave then I say that I have no fear of that. The diggers, in my opinion, are quite sensible and as far as I know them they are a class of the population who are reasonable to deal with, otherwise we should have seen a different position to-day on the diggings. If the department is in need of people to carry out the law then it is quite another matter. The Minister can then come to the House and say that he requires a larger staff. That difficulty will still exist if the Bill is passed as it stands to-day.

I do not rise here as the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) did to say that I only represent diggers. This House is here to represent all sections of the population. The hon. member boasted that he was the only representative of diggers in the House, and he did not only say that but he abused the landowners and made them out to be robbers and thieves.

To a point of order, I did not say that.

That is not a point of order.

To a point of personal explanation I want just to definitely deny that I made out the landowners in the House to be robbers and blackguards. I said that one hon. member opposite had spoken about statutory theft and to that I replied that the syndicate who had made the subdivisions in Lichtenburg were committing something worse than statutory theft.

The hon. member can wrap up his words in the best folds in the world, but his whole speech was directed against the landowners of Christiana and Lichtenburg. He had the temerity to attack the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) but the career of the latter is clear and there is nothing to be said against it. It is a great pity that the hon. member for Christiana has meddled in a matter in which he may get into trouble. I can support the motion of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). Why should the owner be prevented from putting as many people as he wishes on his ground? The Minister need not be afraid of issuing a proclamation to put a stop to the prospecting. It is much better for the owners to have the right of prospecting and finding out what is on his ground and if diamonds are found in paying quantities then the Minister can say that he cannot go any further according to law. There is quite enough protection under the law, and I say that the limitation on the landowners is unjust. Let the man do with his property as he wishes. We live in a country where we want to protect our rights of property, but now the Minister wants to give instructions. If the owners’ rights interfere with the general good control and condition of the country then the Government can intervene, but it is not fair to prevent the man from properly prospecting his ground. I think the Minister ought to think seriously about the matter to see whether he cannot accept this reasonable amendment. It will improve the Bill and give much satisfaction to the people, and to the owners who have been so attacked by the hon. member for Christiana.

I cannot agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). In the past prospecting was much abused and it is a good thing the Minister is going to limit a number of prospectors. On the other hand, I do not think it right to restrict the number to five. That is too little and therefore I support the amendment of the hon. member for Ventersburg (Mr. Boshof) to increase the number to ten.

I want again to ask if the Minister will not alter his opinion. It is not so much that I object to a man working with five or ten prospectors, but I object to the principle implied in the matter of telling landowners how many people they are to employ. I am surprised at hon. members opposite who are landowners, and who represent landowners, agreeing with it. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) spoke about people who have gone to prospect. My experience is that the people who get a chance of prospecting subsequently know where to peg their claims. It is an advantage to those people. I also prefer the amendment of the hon. member for Ventersburg (Mr. Boshof), which is fairer than the provisions in the Bill. I do not possess a diamond farm, but if I had one and wanted it to be prospected, then I would not employ so many people. The question is, however, whether we will adopt this principle, because to-morrow or the day after it will surely lead to something else. As the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has said, the select committee came to an agreement with the diggers and the landowners about the amendment, and therefore I think it is fairer. It is a very difficult Bill, and I know that many people are trying to evade the law, but the Minister always has the right to stop too much prospecting. I have seen owners themselves going to the mining commissioner to ask for prospecting to be prohibited because there are already too many people. Those who make a little on the diggings are people who work hard. The man who works with few people does no good. About the attack made on me by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) I want to say nothing, and if Mr. P. U. Fischer, of whom he spoke, meets me, he will see that I am not such a dangerous man to the diggings. I am not ashamed to-day to go to the diggings, and I therefore take no notice of his attack. He is still a young man, and I do not want to spoil his career, so that I shall let the matter rest.

The small owner of a farm does not need so many people to prospect. Usually he only allows a few people to prospect, and there will be no difficulty if the number is kept at five. The fraud comes in where a man believes that there are diamonds on the farm, and then allows a large number of people to prospect, so that at the time the farm is proclaimed he, the owner, with his large party of prospectors, have already worked out a large portion. When the digger comes thereafter, he finds that he has been injured by prospecting on too large a scale. Such eases have taken place, and the Minister well knows what occurred in this connection at Lichtenburg. There are many complaints among the people of not having got their share. When the time comes to peg, they find that the best parts of the farm have been worked out by the owner with his crowd of prospectors I therefore say that the ordinary owner of a farm—and the hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) and Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) must admit it— does not permit a large number of people to prospect on his farm. That only occurs in special cases with special owners. We are out to protect the diggers, not only the prospector. We want to give the general public a chance to peg off its share, and to get a share in the riches of the country. I do not think the Minister will agree to allow an unlimited number of prospectors. That would be wrong. I think that the Bill is safe, and will give complete satisfaction to the diggers.

I am sorry that an hon. member has referred to a wrong expression that another member used. Let us keep to the Bill and try to do justice to both sides, the landowners as well as the diggers. I represent both, and therefore I ask the Minister to do justice to both sides. I therefore ask him to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). My reason is that it is laid down in Clause 4, which concerns the rights to diamonds on Crown land, that much more is given to the people on Crown lands than to private owners, viz., claims of 2,000 feet by 2,000 feet. In the western Transvaal, as well as in my neighbourhood, the farms of private owners average 3,000 morgen, and there accordingly, according to the Bill, the private owners will only have the right to employ five prospectors. The private owner is worse off than the man in Crown land. That is not right. I appreciate that the first object should be to see that the market is not over-stocked, and that we should therefore provide a large amount of restriction, but why should the rights of private owners be curtailed so much? The Minister is concerned about the rights of the State, but he should also be careful about the rights of private people. I want to suggest to double the number of people allowed to ten. Then he will still be interfering with the rights of private owners, but not so much. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) wants to prevent private property and also other property being worked out without the ordinary digger having a chance of digging. I know of a piece of Crown land which was worked out in prospecting without the public ever having a chance. Therefore, I want to associate myself entirely with what the hon. member for Vredefort proposes. The number of prospectors must not be unlimited, but it will also be for the benefit of the alluvial diggers if a man can properly prospect his farm, and to do that more than five prospectors are necessary. To do it properly it will take ten people more than a year. It is in the interests of the diggers that there should he proper prospecting before the proclamation, and five people will take a very long time to prospect a farm, especially as the next clause limits the number of workmen that a prospector may employ to ten. Moreover, the mining commissioner or the Minister can give instructions if a piece of ground has been properly prospected and a certain quantity of diamonds have been found for the prospecting to stop, and for the prospectors to be transferred to another area where again their operations may be stopped, so that there is no danger that ground will be worked out during prospecting. I, however, plead for the doubling of the number of prospectors from five to ten.

I do not agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), because we have here to do with legislation which only aims at restriction, but the restriction to five prospectors goes too far. In the same clause the Bill says that the owners must carry out the provisions in (a), and must therefore give written notice to the mining commissioners, must give their names and addresses and also those of the people whom they are allowing to prospect. Perhaps they may still have to report to the magistrate how many diamonds have been found, what the value of them is, and how many carats there are. The Minister has the owners in his hands, and it can make little difference whether prospecting takes a year with ten men or a month with five men. The sooner prospecting is done, the sooner the digger can begin his work. But if the Minister thinks that in the past prospecting has been done on a large scale before the proclamation of the ground, then it is the fault of his department. At Schweizer Renecke there is a farm out of which diamonds to the value of £26,000 were taken, and which is not yet proclaimed to-day. Whose fault is that? The Minister wants to control the diggers and the farmers as well now. In whose interests? In the interests of the mining magnates? If the owners and diggers are so restricted, then he must reduce the quota for the mining magnates from £8,000,000 to £6,000,000. Control over the diggers is constantly being spoken about here, and now the farmers also are being put under control. The diggers particularly are being knee-haltered. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said the other day that if the Minister had not introduced the Diamond Control Bill last year, this legislation would have been unnecessary. Must the diggers then first be controlled and subsequently hanged? Either a thing assists or it does not, but if it does not, then one employs a different method. I have another difficulty, however, and I come once more to Namaqualand. We are of opinion that we have been unjustly treated by the reply of the Minister. The Bill now provides that an owner of private ground can prospect to a limited extent, but what about Namaqualand? Will the proclamation in Namaqualand be cancelled if the Bill is passed? Will the people there also in the long run be able to prospect under the conditions provided? The law expressly says that anyone can prospect, and even appoint anyone, and can subsequently allow five people to prospect, but what about Namaqualand?

You are inquisitive.

We are not inquisitive, but it is a question of life and death to our people, and I think I have a right to ask. I have no diamond farms, but many of my constituents have. If the proclamation in Namaqualand lapses as soon as the Bill is passed, the people will once more be satisfied. I see that a new place has been discovered in Kimberley, and that the people are streaming in there from Lichtenburg. I have not heard of the Minister issuing a proclamation there and putting a stop to that. How will this Bill assist Namaqualand if the proclamation is not cancelled? Then it only assists the people in Lichtenburg and in that neighbourhood.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has misunderstood my criticism. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I nurse no personal grudge against him and did not wish to attack him personally. But I am sorry that hon. members in this House attempt to misrepresent the position. Listening to the arguments of the hon. members for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert), Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), and Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), I come to the conclusion that they, and especially the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), want to represent now that we are attacking the landowners in order to defend the diggers. I just want to explain my attitude. I am acting in the interests of the landowners of the Transvaal, and particularly the Western Transvaal, as well as in those of the diggers, and I said nothing here to attack the landowners. On the contrary, it has been said that I contended that I was the only diggers’ representative in the House. That I never said. On the second reading I contended that 60 per cent. of my electors were diggers, and that the remaining 40 per cent. were owners of land on which diamonds have been found or may possibly still be found. I represent diggers and landowners, and further the interests of both. But hon. members get up in this House who represent constituencies where there are no diamond diggings, and who do not understand the position well. I can assure the House that the diggers are quite satisfied with the action of the Minister, and that the landowners are also satisfied. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) talks here about the landowners, but I have not yet heard that there is diamond-bearing ground in his constituency, and, as far as I am aware, there is no such ground in Vredefort either.

You are quite wrong.

As regards the people in my constituency, there is satisfaction concerning this Bill, and those people are directly interested in it. We must consider their views, and the Minister also should heed their words. I challenge any member to give an instance where a private farmer, owning a farm, has made use of more than five prospectors to prospect land for diamonds. I have never yet come across a case of that sort. I will tell you who do use more: those persons whom the Minister wants to get away from diggings by means of this Bill—the syndicates. And the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort is going to assist the syndicates. It will not pay a man to put more than five prospectors on his farm, because there are only 50 discoverers’ claims for the five put together. Very often more than one prospector is not used, but he then uses a certain number of kaffirs. A farmer searching for diamonds on his land does not use more than the 50 natives the Bill allows him. I speak from experience. A farmer with the aid of five of his farm kaffirs sinks holes in order to see if he can get gravel. If he gets it and he does not want to prospect any further, he hands it over to somebody else. I give the House the assurance that a man could prospect any diamond farm in South Africa property with 50 natives, but that means that by the word prospect we understand prospecting. If we admit that to mean a diggings, naturally then he will take on more than 50 natives. What the hon. member aims at by the restriction is to allow searching for diamonds, but no digging. With regard to the insinuation of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) about me in this matter, I just want to tell the hon. member that he does not hold all the wisdom on lease. I admit that I do not either, but the position is that the hon. member does not represent diggers, as I do, and that he therefore has not got to account to his constituents.

What about the landowners?

I have to answer for what I say here, and I am quite prepared to take the responsibility. The hon. member need not be concerned about my position in Christiana. Again I appeal to the Minister not to accept the amendments, but to leave the clause unaltered.

Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) and his challenge, I am compelled to come to the conclusion that he knows nothing at all about diggings. He challenges hon. members to name a single owner who has used more than five persons as prospectors. I want to ask him whether any farm in Lichtenburg has been prospected on which less than almost a hundred persons have prospected.

It is just the Lichtenburg syndicates the Minister wants to prohibit.

I am not talking of syndicates now, but of farmers. I am talking about Rooipan, Droepan, Swartplaas and Elandsputte.

Yes, Elandsputte.

On all those farms the owners took in a whole lot of prospectors to assist them in prospecting. It is in the interests of the poor people that I am pleading for more prospectors to be allowed. It is in the interests of the diggers themselves, because the more the owners can take for prospecting, the sooner the diggers get an opportunity of working the ground. I want to ask the Minister whether farms like Grasfontein and Elandsputte could have been prospected with five persons. If that had happened, then I want to ask the Minister when the diggers would have had an opportunity to work themselves. It would have taken five people at least two years to prospect the farms, so that they could be proclaimed. It is impossible for an owner to prospect a farm of 2,000 or 3,000 morgen in a short time with the aid of five persons. The argument that farms are excavated is cited, but where that sort of thing takes place the blame attaches to the officials of the Department of Mines, and not to the burghers and diggers. They submit to the regulations and follow them out, and if farms are excavated the fault lies with the officials. The regulations lay down that the excavations for prospecting may not be made less than fifty yards from each other. And if an owner has to prospect a farm of 3,000 morgen, and has to dig holes every fifty yards, so that when it is proclaimed there may be proper notice of where diamonds are to be found, then I want to know how long it will take to prospect a farm of that sort. I repeat that it is in the interests of the diggers themselves that the number be increased. I agree that a limitation is necessary, and it is, therefore, impossible to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), but I hope the Minister will have the courage or the patience to accept my amendment and increase the number of prospectors to ten. I think that is quite small enough.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. members for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) and for Ventersburg (Mr. Boshoff) for the reasons I have already given. The hon. member says that the officials of my department have been to blame in the past, but the difficulty in the past was precisely that the present law is too vague, and that the owners of the land could not be limited as to the number of prospectors. If you want to stop that when there is a palpable conversion from prospecting into digging, then you are confronted with the accomplished fact that there are already hundreds of people who say that the bread is being taken out of their mouths. We want to go to the root of the matter now and prevent that sort of thing happening. I feel that the evil has been so great in the past and there has been so much abuse, that it must be stopped. I think that 55 persons—the five prospectors and the ten persons each may employ—are enough to prospect a farm. If we take the centre-point of the diggings, viz., Lichtenburg, we see that the average size of a farm is 560 morgen. Does any hon. member want to say that five prospectors and 50 labourers are insufficient for a farm of 560 morgen? It is not so much a question of poor farmers of natural persons or individuals. I have here an official list from the Surveyor-General as supplied me on the 18th of May. In Lichtenburg lately there have been 468 subdivisions, and the owners of not less than 320 of those sub-divisions are registered companies or syndicates. That is the sort of thing that has to be stopped.

That is why these places have made so much progress.

In the circumstances, I hope hon. members will not repeat these arguments, because I feel I cannot accept the amendments.

The information the Minister has given us about the number of syndicates is very interesting, but that number may easily be a thousand, although some are not registered. I think the Minister is quite right in the matter of this clause, because we know that to-day farms are entirely excavated under the guise of prospecting. I consider, however, that the hon. member for Namaqualand put the Minister a very fair question when he asked what was going to happen to the proclamation prohibiting prospecting in Namaqualand. I think the Minister ought to explain to us what policy he is going to adopt if the Bill is passed. What is the position of the 500 or 600 persons who have obtained prospecting rights? To-day they are falling over each other in their endeavours to ascertain the position. The hon. member for Namaqualand put the question in the interests of his electors and of the landowners in his constituency who want to know the position to-day. They have already spent money. If the Bill is passed, is the Minister simply going to leave the position such that landowners will be bound by the proclamation, or are the owners going to obtain the right of prospecting on private land? If the Minister does not answer at all the hon. member for Namaqualand may feel compelled perhaps to cause obstruction. His question ought to be answered.

If the hon. member had been here when my vote on the estimates was under discussion he would have known that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) enlarged on the matter in detail, and that I answered him thereon. The hon. member should first place himself in possession of the facts before he attacks a thing. If the hon. member will look at the new clause proposed by the hon. member for Namaqualand at present standing over, then he will see that the hon. member for Namaqualand’s question will be answered there and not here. If the hon. member wants a repetition then my answer to the hon. member for Namaqualand is that the Government is not prepared to give detailed declarations of the administrative action to be followed as to each clause. It is impossible for any Government to do that. I do not even know in what form the Bill will be passed and what the law will be, and it would be dangerous for me to say in advance before I have consulted my colleagues after the Bill has been passed, what administrative action the Government will take on such an important point. I have repeatedly assured the hon. member that we are favourably disposed towards Namaqualand, and he went with me to Namaqualand. As regards the contention that the people are dissatisfied, they, together with the hon. member for Namaqualand, and he together with them admitted that the time had arrived when the Government could do nothing else but issue the proclamation. That is absolutely the case, and if I say it hon. members will take my word for it. The people felt that they had to be excepted, but that the circumstances of the case justified it, because if that had not been done thousands of people would have swarmed into Alexander Bay and eventually been stranded, so that the Government would have had the burden of these people on their shoulders. In what way would that have benefited the people of Namaqualand?

Where the hon. Minister has referred to more than 900 syndicates I want to ask him whether they are a lot of knaves? Is he not pleased that the people invest their money in the land in order to assist development? Those are people who went there honestly and spent their money. How many of the syndicates did not buy up owners’ rights, and how many thousands did not lose money? Is it not a principle in this country that ownership must be protected, and not only the original owner, but also the man who has invested his money? What would South Africa have been worth if people had not come and invested their money in gold and other mines? Let the Minister reflect on that seriously. I want to protect the original owner, but the man who has bought from him now has paid for it honestly. We should not go and blackguard him now as if he were a rascal.

There you have it now.

It may still happen, perhaps, that alluvial diamonds are discovered in Riversdale. Should it perchance take place on the hon. member’s farm, he would also like to make something out of it when they come to him. I do not want to defend people who have acted contrary to the law, but the Minister sent the diggers at Grasfontein a circular to the effect that those who had subdivided are within the law. Why does the Minister come into this House and make out that they are the worst offenders. I wish there were 9,000 syndicates in the country, because then the country would progress much more favourably. I hope the Minister will use his senses, and if the people then gain more confidence in the country, more money will be invested. It is no good arguing that we want to protect the small man, because the small digger will be injured if the confidence in the country receives a shock.

I think it is necessary to explain the restriction. The Minister says that he cannot allow diggers on owners’ land indiscriminately. Nor is that necessary. The law lays down restrictions without this restriction being necessary in addition. In the first place the number of persons one may allow is limited to five. I propose that that restriction be raised. Prospecting licences, however, shall still only be able to be granted to persons holding a digger’s certificate, and, therefore, not to everyone. And Clause 57 lays down what is necessary to obtain a digger’s certificate. A man has to be of good character, has to make application, it is posted up by the magistrate to whom application has been made, notice is given to the police, and after three months the man can obtain a certificate. They are the same qualifications as are demanded for a member of Parliament. The necessity for a further limitation, therefore, does not exist at all. The owners will not be able to employ those persons. As a result of the restrictions they will have to pay those people £1 per day. Who can pay that? The restrictions on the owners are quite considerable enough. In some cases there may be hardly a man available, and then an owner cannot manage with only five persons.

I move—

I am sorry that the Minister is so hard and will not listen to us. I want to ask him whether he knows what prospecting means, what it costs to prospect, and how important it is to prospect a farm quickly and then open it to the diggers. I am sorry that the Bill encroaches to such an extent on the rights of owners, who are restricted in almost every way. I see the Minister also has an amendment to this Clause 7 to the effect that if owners want to prospect land, they have to get a certificate or permission from the executive committee of the province.

Now you are thinking of municipalities.

In any case the restrictions are very considerable, and I do not think it is fair to go as far as the Minister wants to in the matter. The ground is at all events the actual property of the landowners, and the people have in any case to render the whole available, so that the ordinary diggers will be able to work there. I consider, therefore, that it is fair to take the rights of owners into proper account. The Minister has a lot to say about the syndicates. I admit that there has been cutting up of farms, not by farmers, but usually by companies and aliens. They were allowed, however, to do it also in actual accordance with law, but I want to know why the farmer-owners who still have farms must be limited to such an extent. Because the farmer ought in any case to be considered first as owner, why should he be so very much restricted? Further, it is in the interests of the diggers themselves that the land be properly prospected before the proclamation, so that they may know where the farms are diamond producing. And it is no light matter prospecting farms. The Minister talks of farms of only 600 morgen, but the farms in our parts are in general still 2,000 to 3,000 morgen in size. It is a huge undertaking to proclaim a farm of that sort, and I hope that the Minister will still accept my amendment, after all.

The Minister said that he went with me to the diggings. That is so. Now I want to ask the Minister whether it is not the case that we got to Karis at the time of holy communion, and whether the people did not come to him to ask him questions; and whether I did not at that time say that they should not question him then, but wait until he had first visited the area around Alexander Bay? It was anticipated that we should be back there on Friday, and I told the people that the Minister would then be in a better position to answer them. The return was then fixed for the Friday. We arrived at Springbok on Saturday, and the people there also wanted to approach the Minister, but we told them the same thing, and were to go back there on the Thursday. The people would then assemble there and meet the Minister. Then we went to Alexander Bay. Instead of getting back to Springbok on Thursday, we reached it on Wednesday afternoon. The Minister had to get back to the Cape in a hurry. At that time there were only a small number of people at Springbok, because the meeting had been fixed for much later. About six people then met the Minister in the hotel lounge, and now I do not want to discuss whether the Minister’s word or my word should be taken, but his secretary minuted the interview, and the two leaders of the deputation went to see the Minister again in Cape Town with the deputation because they were dissatisfied with the interview they had had with the Minister. Those two persons, as will appear from the minute-book also, were Daantjie Roussou and Mr. Beukes. They say that the Minister’s treatment gave rise to dissatisfaction, and they wanted to meet the Minister again. It is a fact that we arrived at Sprinkbok, and that the kind of sympathy manifested there led to dissatisfaction. Those who met the Minister there were farmers, not companies. At Karis we also arrived before the time, and there was no meeting there in consequence. With regard to the limitation of five persons, the Minister now says that the focus is Lichtenburg. No, the focus is Namaqualand, and the farms there are not 600 morgen in size, but 12,000 morgen, and what could five prospectors do on a farm of that nature? That means that when the diggers get to the farm they have to prospect anew, and, during that time, they have to eat mealie porridge. The Minister would not eat that mealie porridge with them. And then the Minister is not there with them. Even if they came to complain the Minister said that he would consider the case and treat them sympathetically, but the sympathy is mealie porridge if they are fortunate enough to get even that. The people are complaining now and come to me and say that I sit here and sleep. Now the Minister must not get impatient if I worry him here. In that case he will merely have to take the responsibility, but I feel for the people, and wish to interpret their desires and needs here. They are not here to defend themselves. It is a matter of life and death to the people there. They have gone through bad times, and it is not through curiosity that they put these questions to the Minister, but through necessity which drives them. The medium man who sticks to his farm now, and pinches in order to remain in possession of the land, comes to the Minister. Must they go to the towns and undergo poverty with their families? Then the Minister: will have to reflect as to where the responsibility lies. In any case, I want to have a clear conscience, and be convinced that I have done my duty.

I think that the criticism of the hon. member now is unfair. The Minister gave a clear answer here and said that everything depends on the Bill. As soon as the Bill has been passed the necessary steps will be taken. But what would have happened in Namaqualand if the Minister had thrown open that district? About 80,000 people would have swarmed to the place, and what would the poor people there have had then? People would have come from all over and taken possession of the land. The alluvial diggings have been in existence for about 60 years, and there have always been about 20,000 professional diggers—a class which has always struggled along the rivers where the alluvial diggings were. All these years there were no syndicates and companies, and these people lived sparingly and day after day from hand to mouth. Now rich finds are discovered and the syndicates and companies immediately spring into being and take possession of the diggings.

Just steal these things then.

It is not a case of stealing, but if the speculators want to speculate they can do so with the gold mines and shares, but they should not start that little game on the alluvial diggings. Those have always been set aside for the poor diggers. An inspector calculated that from Hopetown up to the Transvaal about 20,000 persons make a living from the diggings. All these years they have led a life of destitution and have been struggling, and now a few good opportunities present themselves the big syndicates come and forestall the poor digger. I cannot see either where owners are at a disadvantage. I have witnessed prospecting activities and five persons can go through, say, 5,000 morgen of land in three months. They do not need to work the ground everywhere, but take washings at spots fifty yards apart and can then judge whether there is diamond-bearing ground or not.

I want to ask the hon. member whether five persons cannot ascertain the best spots just as well as ten. It is striking how people who have no interest in a thing talk so much about it. I know that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) represents a constituency where there are a number of diggers, but he himself admits that he neither is nor was a digger.

But all the same I know all about it.

I do not know either whether he is a landowner. I do not believe he has a farm there. We get up here and plead for direct interests and the Minister should pay attention. The Minister says that he cannot satisfy our requests and earnest appeals. I do not think that is right. He is concerned with his own supporters here and should take these people into account. Why is there this difference between persons on Crown lands and private owners? What about the large farms of 2,000 morgen or 12,000 morgen in Namaqualand, or 30,000 morgen in Prieska. Let the Minister apply the percentage basis and allow labourers according to the size of a farm. As the provisions exist at present private owners are treated unequally compared with the man on Crown lands. The Minister ought to pay some attention to those members who represent direct interests here.

I will put the amendments. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has moved, after “permit” to omit “not more than five persons.” There is an overlapping amendment by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and also the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff).

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, is it competent for an hon. member to put an amendment and not be in the House?

Oh, yes.

And run away from it?

I move—

and an amendment in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Agreed to.

It is almost unnecessary for me to speak on this clause because it deals with practically the same principle as the former clause which was passed. I want to repeat again, however, that it is a puzzle to me what reason there can be for limiting the number of prospectors. We see in the schedule paragraph 3 that the Mining Commissioner has all the powers he can get under the law, but still the owners are restricted in this case. If it is found that diamonds are discovered in payable quantities then the Mining Commissioner can step in and put a stop to the prospecting. Here we have a restriction on landowners which I cannot approve, because with this restriction it will take a year or more to find out whether there are diamonds on the land. It is a terrible handicap for anyone who thinks he has diamonds on his ground. It is hopeless to fight against this clause now, but I think the Minister can leave out the number of prospectors in this clause.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I have here an amendment to Clause 8 still, viz.—

The clause has already been agreed to.

I move—

This clause deals with prospecting on forbidden or restricted areas.) Sub-section (c) refers to prohibitions relating to mines or residential areas or any prospecting area held by any other person under this Act or any other such law. “Such law” means a law relating to precious stones. The Minister, however, has not provided for a prospector pegging under a law relating to base minerals, and this law does not prevent a prospector from pegging in base mineral or precious mineral areas. I do not think a prospector should be entitled to do that. In order to make the position quite clear, the words—

should be inserted at the end of sub-section (c).

Bring it to my notice later on.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause Ten,

I move—

I move—

The proviso gives the Minister power to draw up regulations and to decide what shares shall accrue to the State from prospecting. This is very unsatisfactory from the prospector’s point of view, and it is the first time that such legislation has been introduced. What chance is there of making prospecting attractive if such a condition is imposed? There have been 999 blanks, and this is probably the one plum in the basket, but now we say that the prospector shall not be entitled to the fruits of his labour. We should encourage prospecting and give the prospector any rights that may accrue to him during the prospecting period. I hope the Minister will consider this. I understand it with regard to the recent discovery, but that is one of the plums that is not likely to arise again. It is an inducement that should be given to the prospector, and he should not be left to the mercy of the Minister or the Governor-General to say how much of his discovery will be taken from him.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. In practice it has always been taken for granted that the prospector was entitled to the stones found. I do not know what the legal position is, but I think this departure is entirely justified. In the first place, the prospector gets the benefit of the law, which distinctly entitles him to any precious stones found, in the absence of further regulations, and the likelihood is that no regulations will be issued. Of course, cases may arise where it is desirable that they should be.

I should like to point out to the Minister an attempt seems to be made for ex post facto legislation. Where a prospector is prospecting and finds diamonds the Governor-General may step in and say ex post facto, we are going forward with a regulation to take some of these diamonds. It is really a confiscation after the diamonds have been found. The wording of the clause leads to that—

I do not think that is right.

I am willing to strike out the word “such” if it meets your case.

Yes, I suppose that will meet it.

Does the right hon. member move the deletion of the word “such” in line 34?

Yes. I move—

It is a regulation which takes account of the proceeds, but no account of the expenses, and that is wholly unfair. The expenses might be large or small, but the principle is that the proceeds should be divided without taking into account the expenses to which the prospector has been put. The moment it is found that his finds are rich, then the Minister can come forward and may promulgate legislation which has the effect of the Crown taking a portion thereof. The section is a discouragement to the bona fide prospector. A man finds that his foresight, experience and capital would penalize him because of his success. Look at the temptation to which a prospector is open. If he makes a find and the Crown is going to be unreasonable, how will the Minister detect what that find is? Will the Crown make a contribution to the losses incurred by the prospector? No, of course not, and I cannot understand why the Minister, because of one isolated case, the only one ever known, should come forward and say in advance he reserves the power by regulation promulagted administratively, to say that he will take away from the prospector a portion of the benefit he might derive. The prospector plays an important part in the development of our minerals, and nothing will cause more discouragement than this. It is unreasonable and one-sided, and in any case it would be unworkable. I would ask the Minister to regard the discovery to which he referred in his second reading speech as something which is not likely to be repeated, and it seems to me that the best way that the matter can be dealt with is by the complete deletion of the proviso, as moved.

I cannot agree with the attitude hon. members take up in this matter. The purpose of prospecting is not that the prospector should make money out of it. When a man prospects, he looks for precious stones, and if he finds them he gets 50 discoverers’ claims as a reward for his discovery. The whole tendency of the Bill is to prevent diggings under the guise of prospecting. As soon as a man discovers precious stones and makes it known, he gets the reward which encourages him. It does not discourage him when he searches and while prospecting finds diamonds, that the State will take a share, because if rich finds are made he receives 50 discoverers’ claims. That is why he searches. If diamonds are found in the course of a discovery, no government would be so unfair as to take so many diamonds away that he cannot pay his expenses. Any Minister, apart from party, will be fair enough to allow him to subtract his expenses. The idea is to prevent prospectors getting the notion that they must make money out of prospecting. I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik).

I hope the hon. member who has just spoken is not under the impression that prospectors are working for the love of prospecting. I would point out to the Minister that, take, for instance, the discovery in Namaqualand that we have heard so much about, under the law as it stands to-day, we propose to compensate that man by 20 discoverer’s claims, and that would mean exactly one-fifth of a morgen. Look at the potential wealth which this discovery may open up in that hundreds of thousands of morgen of ground enter the area of possible payability in the future, and here we say to the prospector—

I think this is one of the biggest discouragements that the prospector has had from the Minister in this Bill. Once the prospector has discovered, then the Government has all the rights of restriction, but you must not hamper or jeopardize the prospector in regard to his prospecting before discovery. When once he has found, you can take all the necessary measures to control, but the tendency right through of the Minister is that he seems to be under the impression that by interfering with the prospector, restricting or restraining him, he is in some way going to control the output. It is not going to have that effect. What it will affect is the future opening up of the country, which we are having done to-day by the public themselves. I would ask the Minister what quid pro quo is given, for instance, if a man finds £110,000 worth of diamonds, and his finds have been registered, and the Government immediately step in and tell him that he must hand over his diamonds found, and be satisfied to come in under his discoverers’ rights.

I must say I think there is a great deal in the argument of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). It does seem to me that it is rather hard on the prospector that the Government should come down on him by some regulation which does not exist and tell him that he has got to give up a share of what he has found. If the law laid down in advance what exactly the prospector was going to get, and what proportion of his findings he was to hand over well and good, he would know’ where he was. But this section, especially as amended by the Minister, makes the things hopelessly vague. It says the Minister may make regulations, and it is only in the absence of regulations that the prospector may keep what he has found. The amendment widens the power of the Government in a way, so practically the Minister has the power as soon as the section is passed to make regulations. He may say 99 per cent. or any other percentage will be payable by the prospector. If the prospector is to be limited it should be a definite limitation, but he has left the thing entirely uncertain in this way, and I think that is unfair.

I cannot understand why the Minister wants to oppose prospecting. After all, it has always been a principle to encourage it, and I would like to know where the hon. members of the Labour party are to-night. They always fought for the greatest possible benefits for prospectors. It is not easy to prospect and discover all these treasures for the country. It is unfair for the Government to step in and take a share of the diamonds when the prospector finds them after he has had all the trouble of looking for them. The prospectors are people who make the country worth something and who sacrifice everything in order to make discoveries. The Minister has control of everything, because he can put a stop to prospecting and then the prospector still has to surrender a share of the diamonds. I want to ask the Minister whether a private owner will also have to surrender a share on his own land.

I now speak for Namaqualand only and not for other parts, because they have told me what to say to the Minister.

But you do not vote.

Although I do not agree with the Minister I am ashamed to vote with you because I do not belong to that party. I have a message from my people to the Minister. They are prepared to surrender a share of the diamonds found while prospecting, but their difficulty is that the Minister does not want to allow them to prospect. Hon. members in whose districts prospecting is permissible to the full complain, while all prospecting in Namaqualand is prohibited by proclamation. If a find is made, as at Alexander Bay, then it is just that the State should get its share, and the people of Namaqualand are prepared to surrender a share—10 per cent. not only on stones prospected but also when they have pegged their claims. They are not dissatisfied at surrendering a share, but also when they have pegged off their claims. They are not dissatisfied at surrendering a share but at not being allowed to prospect, but now hon. members in whose districts prospecting is permissible make a fuss because prospectors have to surrender a share. They have no right to protest against the State getting a portion when rich finds are made. If the State had got its proper share at Lichtenburg it would have benefited the taxpayers. With regard to this clause I think the Governor-General can make regulations for a surrender on rich finds. If the Minister is right I support him, but where he is wrong, I make a fuss and try to see what I can do with smooth talk. My constituency to which I have to be obedient gave me this commission and I therefore deliver the message in the hope that the Minister will accept it.

Is the Minister under Clause 10 to wait until—

It is not a question of warning; the prospector has to report regularly.

Is the Minister taking power to wait until he sees how many diamonds a man has got?

It can be done at any time in the future.

Is the Minister to wait until a man has found diamonds, and then to step in and say—

That is not sound reason at all

Surely the richness of an area will make a difference.

It is simply putting a premium on dishonesty.

I would like to put this to the Minister—in the majority of cases the prospector actually has a loss. It may be that he may have a rich find, and that compensates him for the losses he has sustained in prospecting on other ground. It seems to be manifestly unfair for the Crown to come along and take a share of the diamonds the prospector has found.

I do not really object to the prospector giving a portion of his yield to the State. I think it is fair that the Government should also benefit by finds discovered owing to prospecting activities on Government ground, but I think it is very desirable to fix what percentage a prospector must surrender— 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. Here it is left quite indefinite.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries, and by Gen. Smuts, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Munnik put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

and an amendment in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

and an amendment in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

and an amendment in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I want to know why an owner of land has to ask the Minister for permission to sell claims.

That is in accordance with the existing laws.

I cannot see why a landowner should obtain permission. The claims belong to him after all, and why should the Minister decide whether a person can sell his property or not. I think it is an amazing restriction.

I move—

It seems to me that the clause as it stands here may affect the owners’ rights considerably because in many cases the discoverer may be the owner. Why should the owner be obliged to go to the Minister and get his consent in writing before he can transfer his interest? It seems to me that this is a very far-reaching clause, and I cannot agree to a far-reaching clause of this sort being passed.

The simple explanation is that the same principle is admitted all over under the existing laws. The financial provisions allow no one whether he is discoverer or owner or anything else to cancel his interests in a mine without the permission of the Government. One of the most important financial provisions is that the discoverer or owner should provide the capital and may not deprive himself of his interest in the mine without the consent of the Government.

I want to ask the Minister whether there is a law of that nature in Natal also, or whether it is only applicable to the Transvaal. As far as I know there is no such law in Natal.

The laws with regard to precious stones up to the present only refer to the Transvaal and the Cape Province. I do not believe precious stones have ever been found in Natal.

But this is a law for the whole Union.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nel put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

I move—

The object is that I do not see the necessity for discoverers’ claims to pay transfer money. I do not see why that free right should be taken away from the discoverer. It is one of the things that make discoverers claims attractive. At all events it secures them as far as their titles are concerned, and I hope the Minister will agree to this.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Munnik put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I move—

Agreed to.

If an owner is using water for tertiary purposes, is that right protected to him under that section?

The whole of the water rights becomes subject to the provisions of the present Irrigation Act—whatever they may be. I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the question straight off.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

On the motion of the Minister of Mines and Industries, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

New Clause 28,

I move—

I want to emphasise at once that this amendment has nothing to with private land or Crown land. If it were something which had regard to private land, I would be the last to move it because I do not want to limit the rights of private owners but to protect them. It is not Crown land either, but land originally specially intended for “talings” viz., on which to preserve the earth thrown out. There are various opinions as to the wealth of that ground because some people think it is very rich while others think it is less rich. The diggers themselves are convinced that there are fortunes in diamonds on that ground. The ground is now protected by the Premier Mine Ordinance but it was passed because the ground was intended for the excrement from the mines. The facts are now that diggers have been working in the vicinity of the intended ground for ten or twelve years and came up along the stream which now runs below the Premier Mine. The ground of which I am speaking has to do with this mine. The people there have suffered a great deal of poverty, but when they got to the gate and wanted to open it, there was a law to prevent them. It is in the general interests of the country that I bring up this matter of taking out now the wealth that belongs to the people and otherwise would be lost, and to help people in this way to make an honest and hard-working livelihood, so that they can provide for their wives and children who are in want to-day. If I remember rightly the ground was bought in 1906 with monies obtained by way of mining profits, and it is generally known that 60 per cent. of the profits go to the State and 40 per cent. to the company itself. That ground therefore belongs in this proportion to the State and to the company, but the ordinance lays down that the ground is indivisible and there is no law which will enable Government to divide the ground in such a way that the State may get an independent share so that it can be proclaimed. There are divers opinions, however, as to the right of proclamation, because there are lawyers who think that the Government can proclaim it. I understand from the Minister that he has interested himself in this matter, but the Government law advisers think that it cannot be proclaimed under the existing legislation without the consent of the company concerned. As far as I know, the company concerned is not prepared to permit the proclamation of the ground at present, and I gather further that the main argument against it has always been—and it is quite a reasonable business argument—that the company does not want to have the ground proclaimed because they want no competition. The company says rightly, that every stone taken out there competes with every stone taken from the mine. The argument falls away entirely, however, if the Bill is passed, because the main provision to my mind is that there should be a certain degree of control in alluvial diggings too. I therefore hope that the Minister and the House will agree with me that the time has arrived to give the people what they have already been pining for for such a long time. If the House understood the position of these people as I do, hon. members would agree with me at once. I have represented these people for seven years in various capacities, and I can give the House the assurance that they are poverty-stricken and have scarcely a little mealie porridge to eat and clothes to wear. I can give the assurance that they are sticking to it on the boundary in the firm belief that Parliament will come to their assistance in passing this Bill. Apart from their expectations there they have also a moral right, viz., that if the wealth in that ground is not taken out, in a comparatively short time. [Time limit.]