I thought the Minister had moved that this Order should stand over.

I cannot move it new.

On Loan Vote G, “Land and Agricultural Bank,” £658,000,

I want to ask a question in regard to this vote. I see that the Umfolosi Co-operative Sugar Planters, Limited, is down for an advance of £58,000. I want to point out that this company already owes £333,000, which will be found from page 27 of the report of the Land and Agricultural Bank. This is a rather heavy amount. This makes a total of practically £400,000.

If this amount is voted, they will owe a sum of £359,000. The hon. member, I daresay, knows the circumstances of this debit now standing against these people. It was a commitment entered into by the previous Government. They made themselves liable for a certain amount, and then, afterwards, it appeared that unless you were prepared to lose that money, we had to come to their assistance from time to time to reconstruct and recondition the mill. These advances have increased to the extent already indicated by me.

The mill is the security, and the amount is guaranteed by the Government to the Land Bank. The Bank, of course, refused to undertake it as an ordinary business matter, and the Government had to guarantee that amount. Unfortunately this is one of the cases where a rather undesirable precedent was established.

Do you consider the Government is secured? The bank is all right.

The position is simply that if the settlers there make good, as we hope they will, there is no doubt the mill will repay the money in time, but just at present, I am afraid, the conditions are not too favourable.

As the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised this point I think some explanation is due to the House of the whole matter. In the first place, this Umfolosi settlement was established by the Government on a three-corner agreement basis, that is, an agreement existing between the original company and the planters concerned and the Government. The company failed to carry out its purpose and the mill was closed down, and the company practically went into liquidation. The Government came to the assistance of the settlers to enable them to take over the mill. Subsequently the settlement and mill were overwhelmed by flood, and either the thing had to be closed down altogether, or the mill had to be removed to a new site, and there established as an economic concern. The former Government assisted in the first place, and the present Government came to the assistance in time of flood when the whole of the settlement would have been ruined, and assisted to establish this mill in a new site above the flood level. I can assure my hon. friend that the country has no better asset, and the Land Bank has no better security, than at Umfolosi. The Land Bank have lent this money under the guarantee of the Government on the understanding that the whole of the money received from sugar comes into the coffers of the Land Bank, and only so much of that money can be paid out to the settlers as will ensure sufficient being left to pay interest and redemption each year. So my hon. friend will see that the Land Bank has complete security each year. The tax is upon the whole wealth of the community; it is not a tax upon land, as the Land Bank usually lends money, but actually the whole energy and the whole output of the settlement is pledged to the Land Bank, which has full control. I think, in the circumstances, considering an ordinary sugar mill costs £600,000 to £700,000 to erect, the Government has extraordinarily good security in the sugar mill at Umfolosi. Neither the Land Bank nor the Government has anything to lose whatever.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H, “Forestry,” £219,000.

What is this forest product station, £10,000, an entirely new Vote?

This is a new station which we are proposing for seasoning our wood.

I would like to ask the Minister where he proposes to spend this £25,000 for the purchase of land.

Although it looks as if we had lots of forestry land we cannot use all the land for plantations, and, therefore, we have put down this amount of £25,000 for buying suitable ground for new plantations, and also for cases where we can get ground adjoining the present plantations in order to extend.

In different parts of the Union?

Yes, all over the Union.

I would like to ask the Minister in connection with the purchase of further land whether he has taken into account the results of his forestry operations in various parts of the country. We know some of these Government forests are in a dry and arid part of the country. Others again, are situated in places such as east of the Drakensberg, where there is more rapid growth and better results are obtained. I do not pretend to have any technical knowledge, but it always seems to me there has been a tendency too much to ignore the possibilities of good results being obtained where there is a better rainfall than there is in the Western Province, for instance. There are many parts of the Western Province where forests are established with a very slight rainfall, and I think it is a matter the Minister should look into very closely.

I can assure the hon. member that we are not buying any ground or going in for big plantations in the dryer parts of the Union, because it would be absolutely throwing away money.

I do not think the explanation of my hon. friend is very clear about the £10,000. There is a plant at Pretoria for drying wood. Is this another plant you are putting up, and where are you going to put it up? £10,000 is quite a good sum, and we ought to have some explanation.

In the past we had a seasoning plant at Pretoria, but it belonged to the railway department. The railway department is going in for a plant of its own, and, therefore, the forestry department has to make other arrangements now for experimenting in regard to the proper seasoning of wood, and on that account the department had to make arrangements to start a new plant, and that is why this amount is put down. It is in Pretoria.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote J. “Native Affairs,” £2,000,

Would the Prime Minister tell us exactly what this Vote refers to— £2,000 for fencing locations?

This is because, according to law, locations where required, can be fenced in, the Government supplying the moneys, but the moneys being repayable as time goes on, through taxation upon the natives in the locations. You have ever so many of these locations where the natives ask for fencing—fenced off from the rest—we always assist them, and they pay the money back through taxation.

Could not the Minister1 apply some of the Vote to the repair of the fence between Basutoland and the Cape Province? The fences are in appalling order in some places. The necessity for this fence is admitted by it having been erected in the first place and I would press the real urgency of it being put into proper order.

That is not a question for native affairs. It is one of those questions of an international kind, and the natives not being Union natives, I have nothing to do with them. It is practically a defence against Basutoland, and the question has to be approached from the diplomatic side more than anything else.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote K, “Agriculture,” £48,000,

I would like the Minister to tell us what the position is about these advances to the ostrich feather industry, and whether the results of the advances of last year have been so satisfactory that he has thought it well for the Government to guarantee the further advances provided here. From the report we had from the Land Bank it would appear as if the results had been far from satisfactory; and a careful and economical Government would have declined to guarantee further advances. The report states—

Not 75 per cent., I would like to point out—

No objection was made last year, and the result was that a loan of £112,000 was duly granted, and £84,000 was paid out. Apart from a small amount of £124 15s., nothing was repaid by the company, and no feathers were sold. The security the Government had was that the members of that society numbered 760 and they took out 775 shares, of which £754 16s. was paid up. Can the Minister tell us what the value of the feathers is he has on hand now, whether any have been sold, what prices they fetched, and what the position generally is?

I might just point out that the amount voted last year was £112,000, out of which only £87,000 was used this year as an advance to the ostrich feather co-operation, leaving a balance which we ask Parliament now to re-vote of £28,000. The position of the feather market to-day is very difficult to say. They will have sales only now and then, and the next, I believe, is in October. The state of the market is very bad at present. If we force these farmers now to put all these feathers on the market they will have to sell to speculators at half their value, and while it was the policy of the Government to help these farmers over difficult times it would be a wrong policy to force them to sell their feathers now. We feel it is better to give these farmers the £28,000, and see whether the position would hot improve during the year. As the hon. Minister of Finance said quite clearly last year when the vote was before the House, the Government thought it their duty to help these people, otherwise they would practically all become poor whites. That was why we took up the position then that these farmers should be helped. Many of them have turned to something else—dairy farming or other kinds of farming—and the help the Government has given them has been of great assistance to them. It is not only more than right that we should help them further on. Very few feathers have been sold; others are kept and the Land Bank has them for security for the amount which has been advanced. They will have to wait further until the market improves, and then sell the feathers. It is doubtful whether we will sell all the feathers, or give the company another extension.

The Minister did not give us the proportion of the market value that is being advanced on these feathers. I share with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) the doubt as to whether this is not simply a gift; that is the fear one has. The Minister talks about waiting for the market to go up. As the feather market has been in such a parlous condition for years, I think the Minister will be gray-haired before it ever goes up. The Government, I fear, are simply storing ostrich feathers for a market advance. Unless you advance a very small proportion of to-day’s market value the owners will demand that you hold these feathers till the market goes up to their price. The market prospects are of the dismallest, and I should say to the Government that they should hold their hand and not advance money on these feathers. These people in twelve months have not put up £1,000 of their own money, and we are paying up to £100,000. I think the advance is out of all proportion to what these people are doing to help themselves. Another great danger is that by reason of these advances you induce these people to hold on to ostrich feather farming, when it would be an advantage both to themselves and the country if they turned their attention to some other branch of agriculture. At the best ostrich farming is a gamble. These advances are a very unwise move on the part of the Government.

As the ostrich farmers have not paid the interest the total amount outstanding is £87,000. What is going to be the position twelve months from now? Is the Minister going to continue making advances’ He made these advances against the advice of the Director of the Land Bank, who questioned the wisdom of Government bolstering up a “dead industry.” The Board of the Land Bank suggested that the ostrich farmers should be assisted to embark on other branches of farming. The House would far rather vote money to assist these people to enter another industry. But of course the farmers will not do that so long as they can obtain advances from the Government. How long are they to be fed with Government grants’ There is very little chance of getting these advances back, and if the Minister had followed the advice of the Land Bank the position would have been very much better than it is to-day.

The Minister misunderstood me—I was not suggesting that there should be a forced sale of the feathers against which advances had been made. It would be folly to do that. But the House should not be asked to vote further money, thus making the loss still heavier. A year ago these advances might have been looked upon as an experiment. But now we have had a year’s experience and are faced with a big loss, to ask the House to give another £28,000 is not taking case of public funds.

Last year the House voted £112,000 for this purpose, but the whole amount could not be paid. So £28,000 was kept back and we are only asking for that amount as a re-vote. Last year we allowed to pay 30s. per bird to the co-operative association, which, however, advanced its members about 24s. 6d. per ostrich. At sales held in England last year the feathers realized about 24s. 6d. per bird, so that if the feathers had been put on the market there would have been no loss. This year not more than 15s. per bird will be advanced, and the co-operative association will pay out about 14s. 6d. The money is not lost yet. We hope the feather market will revive and that there will be no loss to the taxpayer. It is better to have a small loss if by so doing we can save the ostrich farmers who in the past paid a great deal of taxation, and it would be very unwise not to try to help them over the stile. These advances do not come from the funds of the Land Bank, which simply acts as the agent of the Government in this matter. When I asked the director of the Land Bank how he came to make a report condemning the advances, he explained that it was never his intention that the report should be taken that he advised against advancing money to the ostrich farmers. He admits that we had to do something to help these farmers, and Parliament sanctioned the amount last year.

And what about Umfolosi?

The hon. member has always got a lot to say when another province is being helped.

That is not fair. I raised the question of Umfolosi.

The hon. member says that no interest has been paid yet. Would it be right to force these people with the market as it is, to sell their feathers? Would it be right to force them into liquidation?

I am afraid the reply of the Minister has not brought us very far. I wanted to know if you have 20s. worth of feathers, how much do you advance on the 20s. The Minister says he has been advancing up to 30s. a bird, and that he is now going to reduce it to 15s. I want to know what margin have you got to cover yourself for the fluctuation in the market? Last year, if the farmers had not been backed by the Government they could have got better prices for the feathers if they had been sold twelve months ago.

Your information is entirely wrong.

Very well, I will quote from a report of one of the biggest feather brokers in the world, for the year 1926, and this is one of the statements in the report sent to his principals—

If the Minister advanced 75 per cent. of the value of the feathers last year, to-day there is no margin on that at all as far as the Government is concerned. The best the Government can do is to get back its money, and the owners of the feathers will get nothing at all.

Would you like to sell up these farmers?

No, but the position is that the Minister would not have done anything for them. He will have taken their feathers and he would have sold them, and they will get nothing, because the Government advance will be taken first, and they will get nothing at all. I ask the Minister whether he has taken into consideration the difficulty of the storage of feathers. From what we understand there is a lot of feathers stored roughly for eight to twelve months. It is not acknowledged that you can store feathers for an unlimited length of time, and probably the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) who is a specialist on this, can give us some idea of what the deterioration is on feathers if stored for an unlimited time.

You are wrong.

I want the hon. member for Oudtshoorn to give his technical views on the matter. I have a technical opinion, which appears to bear me out, but it is not strong enough for me to say in the House that it is so. We are losing interest on the money all the time, and as far as the market is concerned there appears to be no prospect of getting back on the feathers more than we have advanced to the farmers, and the farmers will not therefore benefit.

It is an extraordinary thing in this House that we always get the big shopkeepers attacking the farmers. Why is the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) attacking the farmers? We support the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and we were right in doing so, and he was right in asking the Government for support. When the big commercial people have anything to do with the producer, like the farmer, they always attack the farmer. They also attack the unfortunate sugar planters, and now we have the people of Oudtshoorn who are neary ruined, being attacked by a man who represents the commercial interest, men who are parasites in South Africa. Where would these hon. members be if it were not for the farmers? What will the position be if the Government does not help the ostrich farmers? They will have to vote more than £28,000, or these men will come along here as part of the unemployed. Let the hon. members who make the attack try and farm.

The hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) does try.

Yes, and I don’t come for Government assistance. I pay my own debts.

Let him try ostrich feather growing, or sugar planting, and then come to the House and talk. I would like to know what the South African party does not attack. Yesterday it was the railway station at Johannesburg, now it is the unfortunate farmer, the backbone of the country, and I am certain the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) does not agree with this attack on the farmers. As soon as you come along to help the farmer, up gets the commercial man and attacks the farming community.

I listened to the speeches of hon. members opposite, who always pose as champions of the farmers’ interests, to see whether they would jump into the breach when other members of their party made an attack on the Minister for wanting to assist a languishing farming industry, but not one of them did so. We are dealing with the ostrich industry, which was once flourishing, but in course of time began to languish and to struggle for existence. The Government is stretching out a helping hand to enable these people to recover a bit, but then hon. members opposite who know nothing about it—the big business men who have always got their knives into the farmers, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said—come and criticize the Government. I know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is a prominent farmer, but he could only become so by means of his cheque book. I have every respect for him, but if he had had to start farming like myself and others, then he would long since have had his nose to the grindstone. The hon. member admitted last year that farming was the worst paid business in South Africa, but now that the Government wants to assist a portion of the heavily-burdened farmers to get their heads above water he criticizes the Government. No, I can assure hon. members opposite that I expect them to give their support to something that is quite right. The unfortunate position here is that the Opposition is entirely divided against itself.

How did you arrive at that?

There you have one who calls himself a champion of the farmers, but in this case he is quite quiet. If they are the champions of the farmers’ interests they will not remain quiet while the leaders of their party attack the farmers, but they would defend the farmers. They should not only do so when they want to make party capital out of it. I hope the Oudtshoorn farmers and the ostrich farmers in the midlands who have been assisted by the Government will note this, and will know in the future how to deal with persons who criticize the Government when it assists the farmers. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has protested against the assistance, but I should like respectfully to ask him where he would be today if it were not for the ostrich farmers and the wool farmers. All the big gentlemen in Port Elizabeth have been fed and reared by the farmers, and the farmers deserve their support rather than criticism.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has very successfully, apparently, drawn a red herring across the trail of this.

That was his object.

The point I brought out and still stick to is whether this £28,000 which we are being asked to vote is to be advanced on a sound basis that is fair to the taxpayers of the country. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) may talk with his tongue in his cheek as he likes about the relationship between the farmers and the merchants, but in the Midlands of the Cape that question does not arise any longer. The sympathy between them is well-established and recognized, and nothing that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) can say will destroy it or go towards destroying it. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) knows that well enough. Practical proof has been given during the last month or so. There has been such a thing as drought and distress in the Midlands. Where is the money coming from to help those people? From the public of Port Elizabeth.

Where did they get their money from?

The sympathy between the merchants and the farmers is perfectly well-known in our part of the world. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) can talk as he likes, he won’t disturb the good feeling that there is. Hon. members here make statements about myself in particular objecting to everything that comes up for the farmer. Did I speak for or against the Drought Distress Relief Fund? I spoke strongly in favour of it, and made a special point of being present when the Bill came before the House. There is nothing that has come up for the benefit of the farmer that I have voted or spoken against. Here in this case last year there was £80,000, and the Minister called attention to that vote having gone through without a word of protest. Here we have another Vote when we have had a year’s experience. There was clearly a loss to the public funds. The Minister told us that the advance that was made to the co-operative society was 24s. 6d. per bird. He found it necessary, in order to avoid that loss, to say that the advance should be only 15s. per bird. If that means anything, it means that the Minister sees that there will be a loss of 9s. 6d. a bird upon the advance made last year.

It won’t be the first loss we have made. If it is lost, it will be very unfortunate.

Surely that does not prevent us from being careful about making, the advance now. You made an advance last year. When you come to do it a second time, and see a loss staring you in the face, surely if one is a prudent man, and takes any interest in the finances of the country, you must endeavour to find upon what basis the advance is being made. The Minister told us he had been to the general manager of the Land Bank and had remonstrated with him for reporting upon this matter. The Land Bank has the handling of this, and also the handling of the Drought Distress Relief Fund, both guaranteed by the Government, and if the Minister concerned is to go to the officer and say to him, “We do not want you to report on this; we do not want Parliament to know about it—”

He has never said that.

I understood him to say—

You understood wrongly.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say what I understood the Minister to say, that he had spoken to Mr. Herold and asked him whether he reported upon this, seeing that it was guaranteed by the Government. I say that it is a most dangerous thing if an officer who is a servant of the Government and of Parliament is to be told that he could not report upon certain matters.

He never said that.

Then I will sit down. I would like to know what he did say.

I am sorry that this attack has been launched today against the farmers, especially from the party that pretends to love the farmers so much. The whole attack this afternoon has been against the poor unfortunate ostrich farmer, who has done a lot of good for this country. Now hon. members want to come and not advance these poor unfortunate farmers a certain amount of money to try and get them over the crisis at present existing. The hon. member has gone so far as to say—

The hon. member was not much concerned about the taxpayers’ money when they lost a quarter of a million on the grain elevator at Durban. He was not much concerned about the taxpayers’ money when they threw away £75,000 on that irrigation scheme which was never built near Keimoes. They were never concerned about those matters—

Oh, yes, they were.

They were not concerned about farms that were bought and money that was lost. To-day they come forward and launch an attack against the Government because they advanced £112,000 to a co-operative association which was formed in order to save the ostrich farmers from becoming poor whites. The Minister of Finance last year stated that the Government was trying to help those farmers, and the experiment might turn out successful, but we could never say there won’t be a loss. I still doubt whether there will be a loss in advancing that money to the ostrich farmers. If the farmers can only hold out a little bit, there might be an improvement in the market, and we are advancing so little to-day that I think it will equalize the position, because last year we had advanced 24s. 6d. a bird, and this year we are advancing about 15s. a bird on the average. Of course, where the birds have a better quality of feather, we advance a little more. Where the birds have not such a good quality of feather they might get as little as 7s. 6d. The average this year is 15s. a bird. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) says that I have approached the manager of the Land Bank as to why he should make a report like this. I saw the manager of the Land Bank after a certain article in the “Cape Times.” He said—

That is what I have stated here this afternoon, and that is what I am being attacked on—that I have gone to the manager of the Land Bank and asked him not to make such a report. I have never done such a thing. The hon. member wants to put words into my mouth which I have never said. I can only say it would be a sorry day for the farmers if the farmers had to look to that party to help them over this difficult position, over the crisis which they have to face. These ostrich farmers went in for irrigation schemes; they have paid a lot of money towards the upkeep of this country, but unfortunately the position is now that the feather market has gone to pieces. I hope these farmers will take notice of the discussion in the House this afternoon and note who are the friends of the farmers and who are the enemies of the farmers.

I did not intend to speak in this debate because I thought that there would not be much discussion. I am, however, sorry that hon. members opposite are now trying to attack the ostrich farmers who are in such a state that they were obliged to go to the Government for assistance. I expected that all the members of the House would approve of that assistance by the Government. Now it is stated that the assistance that was given was not the best, and was not granted on a good financial basis. The Government first ascertained what the best way would be to help the ostrich farmers. An economic commission consisting of three persons in the public service who are acquainted with economic matters, with land and other matters, was sent to Oudtshoorn to inspect the ostrich area and to find out what would be the best help. They made a report, and if the Government had carried out the scheme which they suggested to effectively assist the farmers it would have cost a few million pounds. Obviously that could not be done, but at the same time the further request was made to the Government, if it could not assist in that way, then to help to keep alive the existing industries, viz., the tobacco and the ostrich industries. The Government then saw that that assistance would be cheaper and assisted the farmers, while it insisted that the money which they made out of the ostrich feathers by that means should as far as possible be invested in another kind of farming. I do not know whether the general manager of the Land Bank advised against giving that assistance or not. I know, however, that he had nothing to do with it because it was a loan by the Government, and the Land Bank was only used to allow the money to go to the Ostrich Feather Co-operative Society. The Land Bank had no authority to make the advances to the society, and the Government, therefore, lent the money to the Land Bank for the purpose. The general manager, moreover, had no reason to make that report and I think he did wrong because it is a Government matter which the Government is prepared to defend in this House. When the matter was brought here hon. members remained silent and now they do not wish to give further assistance. It is not actually a case of two loans, but only of one. The £112,000 was available last year. That was the sum which was calculated to be necessary for advances on the basis of £1 10s., but by the careful management of the Ostrich Feather Co-operative Society, only £1 4s. 6d. instead of £1 10s was advanced on the feathers, thus effecting a saving of £28,000. They could have taken the whole amount but they only advanced £87,000. The Co-operative Society went to work in a business-like way, and to-day it is only asking to be allowed to spend the balance of the amount. It goes without saying that with this small amount the same advances as were made last year cannot be given, and the Minister therefore gave instructions that the advances were to be less. The Government and the Ostrich Feather Co-operative Society in this way tried to go to work on a sound financial basis. Time will show whether it will mean good business in the future. I myself think that if care is taken it is quite possible that the State will not lose a penny. With regard to the amount for advances which are to be made this year, I should, if I were as strong financially as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and if I wanted to make a good speculation, buy up all the feathers at the price advanced. Whatever happens the money will in any case be doubled. But the loan of last year was also based on a sound financial principle. The loan was based on the recent sales in London and at the next succeeding sale—after the loan had been granted—the prices were still at the same level. The Government, therefore, did not calculate on an unsound basis. After that time, however, there was a further drop in the market and there were no more sales, but during the last few weeks there have been indications that the price of feathers will rise again. The body feathers were sold recently at a profit of about 30 per cent. or more. Therefore we hope that a better position will exist and that white feathers also may be sold at a profit. The Government will in such case lose nothing. I want to thank the Government once more on behalf of the ostrich farmers for what it has done for them, and just to say that I very much deplore the attitude of hon. members opposite, especially that of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I did not expect criticism from them because they are essentially people who have much to thank the ostrich farmers for. The ostrich industry during the good years produced at least £3,000,000 per annum, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) should just ask himself where he would be if it were not for the ostrich farmers. I certainly think that he made most money as a broker for ostrich feathers, and now he criticizes the Government because the ostrich farmers are being assisted on a sound financial basis. I deplore this, and I hope the country will note the attitude of the Opposition, and its criticism of a Government which is going out of its way to assist the farmers as much as possible. I am also sorry that the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) made those objectionable interjections that the Treasury was now going to spend money which would possibly be lost. What about the sugar planters at Umfolozi? When they asked for help the hon. member did not oppose, or does he think that sacred Natal should only be considered when assistance is being given by the Government? I hope the country will note that hon. members opposite take almost every opportunity to put a spoke in the wheel when an attempt is made to assist the farmers.

It is difficult to understand the psychology of some of the members of the S.A. party because when one heard them putting up a plea for the farmers a few days ago one would have imagined they would have been anxious to come to their assistance in a case like this, but when a proposal is made to assist an industry which has gone far towards making Port Elizabeth the wealthy city that it is, we find members of the S.A. party, including the member for the constituency which has largely benefited, taking up this attitude. I cannot understand it unless it is that they are really only interested in the interests of the importers of this country and perhaps the Chamber of Mines. Only a few days ago the Public Accounts Committee sent forward a recommendation to this House as the result of a recommendation of the commission which was appointed by the S.A. party in connection with the Cinderella Mine and the E.R.P.M., as the result of which an amount of £45,000 is being handed to these two mines.

Order! the hon. member should confine himself to the question.

I am putting that point to show that, on the one hand, where we are handing over £45,000 to an industry, and I would be very surprised if I found any objection to that—and I do not object to it because I want to assist that industry and see it go ahead—on the other hand, where the Minister asks for £20,000 to assist a struggling industry we have criticisms from the South African party. I want to know where their logic is, unless it is that in the past their policy has been to attack the workers, and not satisfied with that, they are now including the farmers on account of the political arrangements that at the present time exist.

It is a pity the hon. member could find no other argument. He knew perfectly well that the money was keeping these two mines going, whereas our complaint against this advance is that it is for a dead industry, as stated here in the report. Is the E.R.P.M. or the Cinderella dead? Not exactly. We have had many charges brought against us, to which I would like to reply. The Minister accused us of being enemies of the farmer, which is absolutely untrue. What we object to is the form it is in, and that for two reasons. First of all, what is going to be the step next year when there is no advance in the price of feathers, or there is no movement in the feather industry? Are you going to make a further advance, and will not the farmers be worse off?

We will have to await circumstances.

You need not await circumstances. If these advances have been made by the Land Bank Board for the purpose of helping them over from one industry to another, which they may come to yet, it would be sounder and sounder if the farmers of Oudtshoorn had other industries on which to depend

The birds have been decreased by 50 per cent. already.

They are killing them off. My hon. friend cannot get over this report.

That report is not the last word on the subject.

I would rather take this report than the view of any hon. member on that side.

That is a matter of opinion.

I hope the Minister is not degenerating. I heard him remark, “This is not the only loss.”

I will have something to say about losses, too.

Is it going to make the position a bit better? Then the Minister admits it is a bad case. What is the good of abusing us and calling us enemies of the farmer? I would have no objection if any attempt was made to get farmers into another branch of agriculture.

That is exactly what we are doing.

It does not say so here. Whatever the Minister may have said, Mr. Herold, whom we have had before the Select Committee, did not go back on what he says here.

It was the policy of the Government to help them.

The whole of the wisdom of the country does not rest with the Government; other people have ideas, too. That it is the policy of the Government is no recommendation as far as I can see, knowing all the circumstances. To say that we as merchants are enemies of the farmers is just an absurdity. I say that the interests of the farmers and of the merchants are bound up together. How can you differentiate between the two?

It is true; if the farmers do not make money, you do not make money.

I was in Oudtshoorn in 1881, and there was a slump in 1882 and 1883, when the birds were turned out into the veld. If there was some plan in the policy of the Government we could accept it and have no criticism to offer. It is the first time we have heard that they have some ideas of turning these farmers to other branches of the industry.

I am very glad about the sympathetic attitude the Minister of Agriculture has taken up to-day. I put a question to him yesterday about the state of Sundays River Valley, and I think the Minister will admit that, while there was a good deal of the Minister, there was very little sympathy, and the sting was in the tail of that answer.

If it had not been for the ostrich feather industry there would have been no Sundays River.

I did not hear what the hon. member said, but I do not think I lost much. With great respect to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I do not think it is a dead industry. I wonder if the hon. member has not seen that ladies are getting the skins made into boots.

About 12s. a skin.

When the hon. member speaks of commerce, he leads me into paths that I know not of. The answer of the Minister yesterday was not the answer of a sympathetic man towards fellow-farmers. The people asked for an aeroplane, and he said he would assist them with it; but then he added that it is a dangerous occupation, and you must pay for any loss which may be occasioned thereby. It is like putting so much stuff in the aeroplane that it will never rise above the Sundays River. I am sorry the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has gone. Where does he get the foundation for the attack he made? He always makes it. I have always heard the speech he makes in the House: “We represent the workers.” I am sure my hon. friend, this horny-handed son of toil, must represent the workers successfully. All the work he has done in his life would not need a hand barrow to carry out. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has done more for the workers in a week or a month than my hon. friend has done in the whole of his political career. I challenge him to state what he has done for the workers—before he joined the Labour party. Give us the gospel, not when you took up your living, but before. I can name half-a-dozen hon. members on these benches who have spent a lifetime for the workers. I invite the hon. member to come on a public platform, either in Port Elizabeth or in his own constituency; I am not the light weight I was 50 years ago, but I am not afraid to meet him, the subject being “What I have done for the workers.”

When is the election!

Well, my friend, after the election I shall not be able to look upon your happy countenance.

A loss to the country!

A loss to the country, and a bigger loss to you! I hope the Minister will take a larger view of the Sundays River question, and give the matter attention. I refer to the rain-making experiment. If it is a failure he will have the knowledge of having done something to assist them. And America claims that the aeroplanes have been a success.

I think hon. members opposite have been rather unreasonable in the manner in which they have raised the question. It is all very well speaking as they have done at this stage. If they had to deal with the position that we had to deal with eighteen months ago, when the people of Oudtshoorn came and told us of the parlous state of the industry, they would have acted as we did to keep these people on the land. Before we took action the Minister of Agriculture sent a departmental committee to go into the whole question. Certain proposals were put before us, which would cost a very large sum of money, and we could not accept those provisions; but the Agricultural Department impressed upon those people to switch on to some other kinds of farming which would be more stable and permanent. The Government decided to give assistance in this form in order to keep the people on the land. The weak point of our policy in regard to these matters is that we are very liberal and generous when a man is down and out, but very often we are not prepared to give that sympathetic assistance which will enable people on the land to remain there. It is quite true that the manager of the Land Bank condemned the scheme as a business proposition, but the Government decided to embark on the scheme to enable the people to tide over their difficulties before changing over to some other branch of farming. We found ourselves in the same position as we did in regard to the Umfolozi scheme, which the Land Bank also said was not a business proposition.

The Land Bank never said that was not a business proposition.

Yes, certainly. We have had to guarantee the amount. The bank said an initial mistake was made there.

They are wrong.

Does the hon. member think the advance would have been given unless we guaranteed it? The Land Bank thoroughly investigated the matter, and reported to the Government that they would not advance anymore because it was an unbusiness-like proposition. We said that in that case we will guarantee the advance. That is exactly what was done in the case of the ostrich feather farmers. We impressed on the ostrich farmers that theirs was a waning industry, and that they should use the advances to switch over to something better. At the time the advance was made there was a very big margin on the price of the feathers, but unfortunately since then we have had a slump, and it is possible if the price of feathers falls still lower, there may be an eventual loss. This was one case in which the Government was prepared to take a risk in order to keep a number of farmers on the land. It is, however, by no means certain that there will be a loss, and it is rather unreasonable for members to criticize the advance. Let us see what the ultimate result will be, and if it is not so satisfactory as we had hoped this will not be the first Government scheme on which a very big loss was made. I agree that because losses were made in the past that is no excuse for going in for reckless schemes. We deliberately embarked on this scheme with the object of keeping these people on the land, and we told the Land Bank so. This is not a new advance, but a refund of money voted last year. It is quite possible that in the end there will be no loss at all, but unless we continue the grant the original advance will not have the satisfactory result we had hoped for.

It is a mistaken idea to think that we, on this side of the House, intended to do anything not in the interests of the farmers. The way we look at the matter was that last year without the least demur, we voted £80,000 for this purpose. In the meantime the Land Bank gives an adverse report.

They had given that report before.

Now the Government asks for £28,000 more.

It is the balance of the scheme.

You cannot expend the money unless the House votes for it, and we have a perfect right as guardians of the public purse, to ask for information. It has been said that members here have not the interests of the farmers at heart. That is not so. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is entirely impartial in these matters, and ask for information in the interests of the taxpayers. Although I represent farmers, I shall not refrain from asking whether money to be voted is to be properly spent. In the ultimate result the landowners will have to bear the burden, and it is the duty of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) not to be so prejudiced. We shall not vote against any proposal which we consider to be in the real interests of the farmers, or any other class of the community. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was perfectly correct in raising the point, whether it is in the interests of the farmers themselves to continue this industry. I agree that the Oudtshoorn farmers require time to tide over from one branch of farming to another, more particularly as they are handicapped through the high price of ground in their locality—paid at the time when the ostrich industry was at its height.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L, “Electricity Supply Commission”, £1,700,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M, “Labour”, £75,000,

Will the Minister please explain how the sum of £20,000, expenditure in connection with the general measures to be taken to meet unemployment including development works and the purchase of land, etc., is to be expended?

That is mainly to be spent in providing housing and other accommodation on our training farms in the Hartebeestpoort area. Although provision is made for the purchase of land, I don’t think any will be bought, but provision is made here in case the money is required for this purpose, as the Minister of Lands will not put the amount on his vote.

Will the Minister kindly explain the item, “Maintenance allowances to families, £20,000.” Are these allowances to be repaid, for if so that affects the position whether they should be made from loan funds or revenue. Under this vote £55,000 are provided as advances to tenant farmers, but under Loan Vote K, £15,000 are put down also for advances to tenant farmers. Why are the advances split up like this?

I explained last year that the latter was an extension of an old scheme in the Transvaal for supplying bij woners in the maize belts with trek gear and oxen. The people were on the land, but they had no implements with which to work it. The scheme worked very successfully in the days of the late Gen. Botha, and we are extending it. This is practically a revote to carry through the scheme. But the £15,000 do not form part of the scheme of the Department of Labour.

Do you get the money repaid?

Oh yes, it was very successful in the old days. It is one of the best means of assisting to keep people on the land. The Land Bank is very enthusiastic about it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N, “Defence”, £52,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote O, “Relief of Distress”, £400,000, put and agreed to.

On “Defence Endowment Account”, £150,000,

I should like to ask the Minister what is being done on a matter of policy under this head. Last year we asked the question, but owing to the late stage of the session, we got very little information. Do the Government propose to spend anymore money for defence purposes? There does not appear to be much on the estimates we have before us this year. There is this commission for oil fuel, but there is very little else in the way of co-operation with the naval authorities.

The hon. member will see this matter was dealt with at the Imperial Conference. I dealt with the question there, and the position we took up was that we could best assist in any matter where joint co-operation would be necessary by us by extending our land defences. As far as naval defence is concerned, a commission will be sent out later to go into the whole question of coastal defence. Until we get a report from the Admiralty nothing definite will be done. There is a possibility that the Union might be called upon to spend a large sum of money on the re-arming of the coast defences, but it will depend upon the report of the commission which will investigate the position and advise the Government. In the meantime, we must concentrate on keeping our land defences up to the mark. This, broadly speaking, is the position and the policy laid down and agreed to at the conference.

I should like to ask the Minister about the amount down for quarters, kasernes, etc. I called the Minister’s attention last year to the deplorable conditions of the non-commissioned officers’ quarters in Pretoria, and I should like to know whether they are now going to be improved. The men complain about the condition of the buildings, and the women and children are becoming ill. Complaints have been made to me which I investigated personally and then brought to the notice of the Minister.

I may say that this amount is intended for alterations at the hospital and the buildings for married officers and men. The intention is to build houses.

I would like to ask what is this about ordnance stores and other accommodation on which we are asked to vote £64,000 on the last page? Where is this?

I may tell the hon. member that these buildings are entirely obsolete, and that they must be repaired and improved. That is the object of the amount on the estimates. Some buildings will be reinstated and others will be replaced by new ones.

Vote put and agreed to.

Estimates of expenditure from loan funds (including the Defence Endowment Account) to be reported with an amendment.

House Resumed:

reported that the committee had agreed to the estimates of expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund with an amendment, the supplementary estimates without amendment, the estimates of expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds without amendment, the estimates of expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours without amendment, and the estimates of expenditure from loan funds (including the Defence Endowment Account) without amendment, and that he would bring up a report to-morrow.

Is the Prime Minister not coming here to take charge of the Bill?

I have taken charge.

I wanted to ask the Minister to give some explanation regarding the necessity for this clause. I see it is provided that the Governor-General shall be supreme chief of all natives in the Union, and shall be vested with such powers and authorities in respect of all natives as are, at the commencement of this Act, vested in him in the case of the natives in the Province of Natal. It may be a compliment to the province I come from, but I do not know the position of the natives, their state of development in other parts of the Union, especially in the Cape Province. The Governor in the old days in Natal was supreme chief of the native population, but the legislature legislated with regard to native affairs, so that the powers of the Governor as supreme chief were rarely exercised, and when exercised it was entirely in the case of natives living in their tribal state. We know that in other parts of the country, especially the Cape, we have a great many detribalized natives who are living in the towns, and are engaged in industries and have cut themselves adrift from their tribes and chiefs, and in the case of these natives, there is not the necessity for having the supreme chieftainship created by law as for the natives living in the tribal state. In the case of many of the natives in the Cape Province who are living under chiefs, they have reached a degree of civilization which, it has been thought in the past, should free them from the necessity of control by a supreme chief. I was not a member of the native committee, and I am only wishing to know the necessity for extending the Natal system to the rest of the country. There may be ample reasons, and the committee will be glad to know what those reasons are.

I see an amendment on the paper and I want to ask the Minister in charge to explain to the House what is the reason for this amendment. Section 147 of the Act of Union says—

It seems to me this clause is interfering with this section of the Act of Union. If the Minister will read the report of the inner history of the National Convention, he will find the matter was dealt with in great detail. Col. Stanford brought up a substantive motion on page 296 of Sir Edgar Walton’s book, in which he moved—

This mater was discussed in great detail, and Gen. Smuts moved that this matter be referred to a committee consisting of the president, the four prime ministers, Sir Lewis Michell and Colonel Stanford, and the result was this Section 147 of the Act of Union. It was realized by this committee that it was impossible to have absolute uniformity in native administration, and compromise was arrived at and the result was Section 147 in the Act of Union. Seeing the matter was discussed then, I should like to know why this select committee which sat the other day took upon itself to alter the Act of Union. I do not think they had the power to do so, and I do not think it was right. When this Bill was referred to select committee this clause was not included. I can only come to the conclusion—I did not sit on the committee—seeing the way in which this section is worded, evidently some of the hon. members from Natal asked that this power be included. I do not desire to raise controversy in the House as between the powers of Natal, Transvaal and the Cape Province, or upon the merits or demerits of the different systems, but I simply want the position to remain as it was fixed in the Act of Union. Let the powers that Natal holds to-day under the Act of Union remain, let the powers exercised in the Transvaal remain, but here in the Cape, where we have been governed by proclamation for many years and where the Government have, or are given under this Bill, as great powers as they really need, let the position remain as it is. I do not know of a single instance in which the Governor-General could or should have acted in his capacity as supreme chief in the Cape in over 25 years of wide experience.

I do not want this House to think that this is a clause for which these benches in the select committee are solely responsible. I may say there was a very great degree of unanimity on this clause in the select committee, and that all sections of the House must bear the responsibility, if there is anything wrong in that clause. I entirely agree with the provisions of the clause. The real reason why, I think, that clause is necessary, and one of the great reasons which influenced the committee, was this—that we want to secure unanimity on this point in the Union. The Transvaal and Natal law on this point is very similar. The Free State has no protection of that kind, nor has the Cape. As far as the Native Affairs Department is concerned, it is a very invidious thing for them to exercise certain powers in the Transvaal and Natal when they know that those powers cannot be exercised in the Free State and the Cape. The result very largely will be that these powers cannot be used. I think it is a pity that those powers conferred on the Governor-General as supreme chief in the Transvaal and Natal are not more used than they have been used in the past.

What are those powers?

The powers to appoint chiefs, to divide or amalgamate tribes, to remove chiefs, to call out levies for the suppression of disorder, to remove natives from one part to another, to exercise the powers of upper guardian of orphans and minors, to define the composition of the kraal and tribal units, etc. The supreme chief gets the power in the fullest sense of the word that a chief would have if there was one chief for the whole of the natives. I regard it as of the very greatest importance that those powers should be conferred upon the Governor-General, not only in respect of natives who are living under the tribal system, but also over detribalized and exempted natives. Now take the power in regard to exempted and detribalized natives, who, in many cases, are the principal agitators in South Africa to-day. If you have the power to remove them from one place where they do mischief to a place where they do not do mischief, what a useful provision that would be. Just imagine for a moment. I am going to a certain extent into the realms of fancy. Imagine taking a farm and placing upon that farm all the agitators who are going about the country and letting them hold meetings with each other in that farm. In three months’ time how many of them would survive? Just think what the result would be of that sociological experiment. I am now speaking from the point of view of the select committee, and not the point of view of the department. Quite apart from that particular aspect, I believe that powers of this kind are essential in South Africa, and that they are going to do more good to the natives than any other portion of the community. You are going to find that your natives are going to be dragged into trouble as a result of what is taking place in South Africa to-day. It is quite obvious I think that those powers would be used for the benefit of the natives. I think I am voicing very nearly the unanimous opinion of the select committee—there were two members of the committee who voted against the section— when I say that we all felt that this section was essential. The difference that this section makes as compared with the section quoted by my hon. friend, is that you will secure uniformity all over South Africa, and you secure uniformity on the basis of the best legislation on the subject in South Africa. The best legislation on this subject in South Africa is the legislation of Natal. That I freely concede. I sincerely hope that this section will be unanimously accepted by the committee.

I am very sorry indeed to see that the Select Committee has put in this clause. As the Minister has rightly said, two voted against it, and six for it, but when one sees the implications of this clause I think one must regard it as an exceedingly dangerous clause. Can you have uniformity in the case of natives when you have natives in different degrees of development throughout the Union? In some parts natives have the right to vote if they comply with certain qualifications; in other cases they have not. In some cases they are living under tribal conditions, while in other cases they are detribailzed and earning their livelihood in industrial centres. You cannot treat them all on the same basis. If you are going to treat them all on the same basis, it is wrong to ask Parliament to level down and not to level up. I would like to read some of the powers of the Supreme Chief. I suppose they are those contained in Natal law No. 19 of 1891. The supreme chief for the time being exercises all political powers and authority. What does that mean? Does it mean that he will give orders to the natives in the Cape as to how they shall vote at an election? May I point out—also to my Labour friends—that the supreme chief under Clause 36 has got the power to call upon natives to supply labour for public works—

In other words, the supreme chief may compel natives by force to work and under whatever conditions he wants. That is what the law of 1891 says. He may remove any chief found guilty of any political offence. Exactly what does that mean? If he votes in a particular way? All political power and authority are vested in the supreme chief. He may call upon the chief, the district headmen and other natives to supply armed men for the defence of the colony for the suppression of disorder and rebellion within its borders, and may call upon chiefs to personality render military service. I object to the natives being treated any differently from white men according to the state of civilization they are in. Matters of defence are dealt with upon the Defence Act, but it is a different matter when you give one man supreme power—

You may have large numbers of voters removed from one part of the province to another. My point is that from a state of affairs in which a native is treated, if civilized, equivalent to Europeans he is now brought back to where he was a primal native. In fact his status is very much degraded—

Then comes one thing which I submit no man in this House could possibly agree to—

He is not subject to the law and the supreme chief will be able to do what he likes and no illegality can be questioned in a court of law: I say that law of Natal is suited to a state of barbarism. It is not suited to natives who are living in a state of civilization. So long as they are still living in a state of barbarism some of these regulations may rightly be applied, but when natives in any part have risen from barbarism and are living on a higher scale of civilization I say the laws of Natal are not adequate to deal with them, and now to apply that right through the Union is going to make the native realize that no account is to be taken of those who have risen in the scale at all but all are to be treated as if they were in their aboriginal state of 40 or 50 years ago. I hope the House will realize the implications of this clause and not put in something which was not there when it originally came before us.

I am afraid the hon. member who has just spoken has read a deep dark purpose into this clause which does not exist in it. This clause is found to be necessary in native administration in order to deal with cases which occur in tribal law for which there is no legislation, such matters as tribal inheritance and so forth where native customs and law differ in different places and where it is necessary for the supreme chief to have this power. The powers already exist in the Cape but have fallen into disuse. I will give my hon. friend the chapter and verse. We will go back to the barbarism in the Cape, to the laws and regulations of the British Kaffraria and to the proclamation issued above the signature of H. G. Smith, High Commissioner. This is how it reads in the latter part—

What is the date?

The date is 1847. There is the repository of all native law and custom in the person of the High Commissioner and the Government. In the Government of natives it is necessary in their condition to be able to administer things on the spot, and it is necessary to take action which cannot be immediately applied by proclamation. It is necessary to instruct the native commissioners to do things in the general interest of natives which cannot be done unless authority is referred to the supreme chief. In Natal you have the supreme chief; in the Transvaal you have the paramount chief. There is no supreme chief in the Free State as far as I know. In the Transkei it really exists through the power of proclamation. But in the Ciskei the power of supreme chief-tainship has fallen into disuse. It is because these powers of the great chief have fallen into disuse in the Ciskei that you have the deplorable state of affairs there referred to by the department which describes the condition as being the worst in the Union. It is in order to lift these people out of the trough into which they have fallen that it is necessary to have these powers reposed in the supreme chief. I take it these powers are being imposed primarily in the interests of the natives and only secondarily in the interests of Europeans.

I was hoping that we would not have a controversy on the merits of the Cape and the Natal systems. The hon. member (Mr. Nicholls) has quoted 1847, but in 1879 the proclamation system was promulgated in this province, and it has never been repealed. We did not find it necessary to have a supreme chief. The Minister said the supreme chief will have the power of removing men from one area to another; under Section 4 you find provision. Personally, I think it is a mistake to give this power. You might as well not have the Bill. The Minister has not dealt with the fact that this position was considered at the time of Union, and the four Prime Ministers, together with Sir Walter Stanford and: Sir Lewis Michell, went deeply into the case. This particular section was not even discussed at the second reading, and I do not think it is right for the select committee to come forward with a clause of this sort and insert it in the Bill. We have the system of government by proclamation, and it meets every one of the instances quoted by the Minister. If he wants uniformity, why does he exempt the Transkei from the operation of certain clauses?

We can cut that out, if you like.

In the Act of Union you find that the Prime Ministers and the men who dealt with this realized that it is impossible, in this country, to have uniformity. The supreme chief, as far as the natives are concerned, is an unknown quantity. The one power supreme chiefs had was one of might. I do not think we have reached the stage of government by might. What was the cause of Chaka’s death? He tried to rule by might, and so did Dingaan, and they both died by violence. The third brother. Mpanda, ruled constitutionally, and he died a natural death. The days in which we can rule by might are past. We have to rule by right. Then, again, this particular clause was not put before the natives when they went to Pretoria, and this has been slipped in since. That creates a suspicion that they are not being dealt with properly. They went through this Bill and approved of it, and you slip in this clause, and a sedition clause, that was never referred to them, and you say. This is the Bill we are giving you.” That is not right, and we do not want to create suspicion in the minds of the natives. The powers the Minister thinks he is getting he has already in his power by proclamation in the Cape Province. I do not know a single instance where this power was required, and why create a feeling of suspicion in the minds of the natives? If Natal and the Transvaal think they want that power—

The Free State, too.

—let them have it.

Those hon. members who are criticizing these powers in this clause should compare the conditions of the natives of Natal with those of the Ciskei, and if they did so their argument falls to the ground. In Natal, under these powers, our natives are content and prosperous. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) forgets that there is such a thing as letters of exemption, and natives who are the holders of exemption are under the common law. Forced labour has been abolished in Natal. Surely, the hon. member knows that.

Under the supreme chief?

There has been no forced labour since it was abolished since Union. The hon. member objects to the chiefs having courts for trying minor cases. In the name of common-sense, how is a chief to maintain law and order in his tribe if he has not that power? These are only minor cases, and these natives can have recourse to an appeal to the magistrates. The hon. member objects to the power of the supreme chief for the removal of natives. That power has acted beneficially in connection with the prevention of sheep-stealing. I hope the Minister will not listen to the criticisms, and keep these powers in the clause.

What the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has said to the effect that the powers which are given to the supreme chief are very drastic is quite true. They appear very great on paper, but these provisions have already existed since about 1847 in Natal, and I do not think anyone can state that the natives in Natal have ever been ill-treated or badly treated under them. I can well understand that the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) thinks that the powers are not necessary in the Cape Province where natives do not actually live any longer under the tribal system, but I want to point out to him that in a part of the Cape Province, viz., Bechuanaland, there is a large number of natives that still live in the same way as the natives in Natal and the Free State, who still follow tribal practices and have chiefs. The powers which are being given under the definition “supreme chief” are powers which are exercised every day, but if we go into matters we shall find that when we have to do with tribes, and there is no definition of “supreme chief,” difficulties constantly arise and the natives then go to the courts to settle their cases. I therefore think that it is absolutely desirable to have something of this sort. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) thinks that all the powers are laid down in the law, but he surely knows that in connection with natives still belonging to tribes, many complicated matters arise with reference to inheritances, family relationships, etc., which can never be dealt with in the law, and in those cases of “supreme chief” should have the right of saying what the right thing is. If that is not done there will constantly be difficulties. I am not afraid of any abuse under this clause, and I believe the natives in the Cape Province who no longer adopt the tribal life will in no way suffer in consequence.

I quite understand that where natives are still living under tribal conditions a clause like this may be necessary, but, at the same time, to give to the supreme chief power over all natives in the Cape Province, no matter how civilized they may be, is a backward step of a very serious nature, because it will be interpreted as meaning that you are denying these men the right to civilization, and you practically tell them that, no matter what their position or training or education may be, they are natives, and, therefore, subject to the arbitrary powers of the supreme chief. They may obtain letters of exemption, but, even if they do, they are still subject to the powers of the Governor-General, which means the Minister as laid down in Clause 1. I think this is a most retrograde step. It is part and parcel of this policy which is proceeding on the lines that you are going to class natives by the colour of their skins, and not by their civilization or attainments, and that they will be dealt with on a different footing from other civilized men, and that they will be subjected to arbitrary powers with which no civilized man would be content. It is all very well to say that these powers will very rarely be exercised, for we know that although it is said that certain powers in Bills will not be exercised, yet, when the measure becomes law, they are put into execution. Let us look at the matter from our point of view, and see what we would think if we were asked to give to any Government the powers over our lives which are contained in this clause, which makes the Governor-General the supreme chief for all the natives. There is no doubt what our answer would be. Do not let us drive these men who are rising in the scale of civilization back to barbarism, and tell them that they must work out some kind of salvation for themselves. Let us recognize that there is one civilization and not two, and let us make it easy for these people to rise up, and do not act on the principle that because they belong to the native races, it is impossible for them to rise in our scale of civilization. This is a serious step in a retrograde direction in our native policy.

I hope the House will accept the clause, for it is very necessary, under present circumstances. These powers will not be exercised unreasonably or capriciously, but the department will see that they are exercised fairly. Although Natal has had these powers all this time in Natal no acts of injustice or repressive measures have been taken under them. The powers have always been exercised reasonably and fairly. Only a little tithe ago when a certain individual went to Natal and started an agitation, the Native Affairs Department refused to exercise these powers so as to deal with this individual as they said they would create ah invidious distinction. It is necessary in the interests of the natives themselves that these powers should be given for use in times of emergency. A little time ago some natives in Natal told me that unless the agitation there is stopped, it will cause a lot of trouble to the natives themselves. If these powers had been available for use throughout South Africa, the propaganda which is causing unrest could have been stopped. I hope the clause will be accepted.

The last speaker told us that although these powers had been in existence for a number of years in Natal, still agitation amongst natives has been going on. I ask the Minister to leave the position as it is to-day. I am sorry the Minister of Native Affairs is not present, as the Minister of Justice looks at the matter purely from a judicial point of view. I move, as an amendment—

The Cape system is satisfactory, and under it an agitator could be kept in gaol for three months. What greater power than that does the Minister require? My experience is that Government departments take as many powers as they can get, because they want to be autocratic. So far as the Native Affairs Department is concerned, once a thing has been done it is impossible to get it undone. The natives have held meetings protesting against this proposal, the carrying of which will give the Minister nothing. What more powers does he want?

The hon. member cannot move the amendment now. I will first have to put new Clause 1.

I was not in the House this afternoon so did not get the benefit of any explanations that may have been made, but this clause seems to be a reversion to the “great white chief” business. It is extraordinary to subject seven to nine million natives to the whim of a single Minister. Does it mean the Minister can order the natives to do what he likes, even against the existing laws? It seems to be so under the clause as it stands and surely the laws of the country are for everybody, white and black alike. It is an extraordinary proviso to put every native in the country, even my houseboy who is detribalized, under a great white chief he does not know. There is a great deal of unrest in the country amongst the natives, and I see in the “Argus” this afternoon there are wires from the Free State about this unrest. If the Minister would tell his colleagues to stop the speeches which are making for this unrest, it would be better. Take Port Elizabeth. There are thousands of town-bred natives in Port Elizabeth who know nothing about chiefs and why should they be put under a new system they do not understand? It seems to me we are going to run the country in two Water-tight compartments in which the natives will be subject to a great white chief and not subject to the laws of the country.

There is a great deal of confusion about the principle underlying this section. This section is based on the salutary principle that personal rule is the ideal form of government for the natives, and that administrative and legislative power is implicit in the highest authority in the land. The system has worked well from time immemorial, and has never been abused, and I speak from 20 years’ personal experience of native administration in the Transvaal and Natal. The whole conception of the position of the supreme chief is that he is the paternal head of the natives from whom flows all authority. That position has never been departed from. It has never been exercised, except in a wise, fatherly and paternal manner. The detribalized natives are the biggest problem we have to consider. Hon. members make a mistake in thinking the detribalized native is a paragon of virtue and the finest example of native you have. The detribalized native that I have in mind is generally the most terrible fiend you can find. I am speaking of the men who have forsaken their people, gone to the towns and have come into contact with the lowest type of every race—the man who is inflamed and debauched by every vice and crime you can think of, and who is the most difficult man to govern, because he sets at defiance his chief and the Government. The position of the supreme chief has availed in the past for the repatriation of these people to their homes where, in some cases, regeneration takes place. The same authority has availed for the repatriation of women who have drifted into the towns, and in respect of whom there is no proper control under the ordinary European law. The Urban Areas Act, it is true, provides for turning them out of the town, but then they are probably dumped in some other town which is worse. The whole principle of tribal control by the supreme chief has been one of the most beneficent methods employed by the Europeans of this country for native government, and we shall be trifling with the matter if we only allow it to prevail in certain provinces, and we do not carry it further and see that the same authority prevails in native matters throughout the Union. It is idle for the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) to frighten people by quoting the full and drastic powers of the supreme chief which he may exercise if he thinks fit. I ask him to give examples where they have been exercised. To-day we have had evidence from some of the oldest tribal chiefs in Natal to the effect that the detribalized native is the worst feature of native society, because he does not show obedience to the chief unless they are empowered to control him. The unloosening of the tribal control of the native in insubordination to beneficial rule is the worst thing we can allow to take place. It seems to me the objection raised by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) is that we already possess these powers under the Bill. That is not so. There are certain powers possessed by the supreme chief which will serve to rehabilitate in the native mind the proper recognition that the Governor-General is the repository and source of law and authority, and when once that position is restored we shall hear less of treason and sedition and of conspiracies against the Government. Instead of vesting the Government with these powers and placing them in a position of dignity towards the native, you are going to employ an undefined thing which is not understood by the natives, that is the power to issue proclamations which, like sausages from a sausage-machine, come from a source which the native knows and cares nothing about. Whereas, if the natives understand that the Government is in the inherent position of supreme chief of the native population that carries with it a certain amount of constraint, it carries with it the tradition of the dignity of Government to the native mind, and it renders the native less liable to conspire and to be insolent and impudent and get out of hand and be insubordinate in relation to the Government itself. I think it would be a great mistake to let the Government degenerate into a sort of proclamation-making body, without retaining in the minds of the natives the authority of the Government as being on a parity with the authority of their own supreme chiefs, which they themselves have recognized from time immemorial.

I am bound to say when I first saw this Bill I thought it would be a good thing if the powers of the Governor-General were extended in the manner proposed, but on further consideration I think it would be a mistake to extend the powers that the Governor-General has as supreme chief in Natal to the natives of this province. In certain territories the element of personal rule of the natives is no doubt a good thing, but down here we have a different state of affairs. We have a large number of natives who, whether we like it or not, have attained a very considerable measure of civilization, and to bring in at this stage in their development legislation of this kind, which puts them back or will be thought, at any” rate, by them to put them back in the stage of development and bring them back into the position of mere tribal natives, is, I think, a step which is bound to cause dissatisfaction and distrust amongst them. If this law stood alone I think there might be more to be said for it, but there is the fact that the select committee proposes to make certain other amendments to the Bill, the effect of which seems to me to be the same, to aim at putting the native back in the stage of development. I see that the safeguards that there were against the powers to proclaim pass areas in any part of the country it is now proposed to take away and, further on, there is the provision which my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) alluded to just now, expressly putting the natives, who have received certificates of exemption, under this clause, which it is proposed to make Clause 1 of the Bill. There is no getting away from the fact that the legislation that has been brought in dealing with native affairs in this country during the last two years has not been legislation which is calculated to reassure the native mind, because there has been, so far as I can see, very little, if any, inclination on the part of Parliament to recognize that the native is advancing in the social scale, and that allowance must be made for that fact. We have passed legislation—the matter has already been discussed in this House—which compels a native, however civilized he may be, though he cannot talk a word of a native language, to pay a poll tax, the greater part of which will go to the improvement of the native territories, though he has not, nor has his father ever, seen those territories. It is the accumulation of all this legislation which it seems to me is going to cause a great deal of anxiety in the native mind. I do not see that any case has been made out to apply these provisions to the Cape Province. In the native territories the Governor-General has power to legislate by proclamation. There is a safeguard there, because all the proclamations have to be laid on the Table of the House within a certain time, but so far as I can see, there is no safeguard in regard to the acts which the Governor-General may do in pursuance of Clause 1 of this Bill. There is no doubt that it gives the Government very arbitrary powers which they would not otherwise have. The answer of my Natal friends to that is that the Government have in effect had these powers in Natal, and they have not been abused. I quite admit that, but I do not think that is a sufficient reason for applying these powers to the Cape Province, because the natives in this province have not been accustomed to this system. In Natal the natives have been accustomed to it and apparently it has worked quite well. If the Cape natives had been equally accustomed to it, I would have said by all means let it remain in force. We know that the native mind has been made exceedingly anxious by a good deal of legislation which has been passed in the last two years, and to bring legislation of this kind in now is, I think, going to administer a shock to their confidence and, therefore, I say that until a much stronger case is made out for it, I think it advisable to vote against the inclusion of this clause.

I am very much indebted to the hon. members who have risen and pointed out the implications of this clause. I hope that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) will not, in discussing this matter, further refer to it as if it was only a personal idiosyncrasy of mine to raise this question, nor is it any answer to me for the hon. member for Zululand to quote what happened in Kaffaria in 1847. Eighty years have passed since those days. The hon. member is a kind of Rip van Winkle. We have advanced very far since 1847. In those days there was no Parliament in South Africa. If this clause, which is now proposed, were confined to natives living under the tribal system, it would not have any opposition from me. The hon. member for Zululand seems to lose sight of the fact that it is going to apply to native clergymen and to natives who have been educated in the university. In future, they will have to acknowledge the Governor-General as their supreme chief, and he will have power to punish them, and they will have no redress in a court of law. He seems to forget that many of these natives who have risen in the last 80 years to a state of civilization will have all their rights taken way from them. Their political status may be taken away from them. These natives are going to be reduced again to the state their fore-fathers were in in 1847. Surely it is a most extraordinary thing that any such legislation can be seriously brought before Parliament, and supported by hon. members. The hon. member said this was only going to apply in the case of inheritance and such like matters. It is going to apply in all cases and to all natives. We have had bitter experience since Union of being told that laws are going to apply in this way or that way. These things are not binding and, as members of Parliament, we have to look to the actual statute, because that is what the judges will look to in administering the law. The language of this is very serious indeed. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) referred to the supreme chiefs only having this power in minor cases. My point is that the supreme chief has the power under Natal law in all cases. He referred to the case of the sheep stealer. The ordinary law deals with the sheep stealer. There are two conflicting arguments in regard to this clause. They say these powers have never been used. Others say they have done such wonderful things in Natal that you ought to have them in the rest of the Union. These arguments are mutually inconsistent. If they are dead, let them remain where they are; if they are still alive and dangerous, they should not be extended to the rest of the Union. If you have stopped all the agitation in Natal, why all these complaints? When we hear it said that native administration in Natal is so wonderful, there is another side to that question.

What side?

The side that you have had all these rebellions and native wars in Natal. There has been no part of the world where the relations of the natives and the white people have been of such a lastingly good character as they have been under the old Cape system. The old Cape system has nothing to be ashamed of. It has a record over long years of most peaceful development of every kind. The Natal members do not apparently believe in hastening slowly, but I believe the slow policy of the Cape, in this respect, has been the best. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) says that personal rule is best. But so far as the Cape is concerned the native registered voter has got away from the personal rule. He has been allowed, by law, to get away from it. He has been specially exempted by what is known as the Hofmeyr Act from any disqualifying laws. To ask us to put him under the personal rule of the chief is to ask us to put the clock back for more than 50 years. We cannot do it with the development that has taken place among the natives, and it is unjust to ask us to do such a thing. If Natal wants these laws they have them now. Why you should attempt to force this drastic law on the Cape, to which it is absolutely unsuited, I cannot understand. The whole basis of the Natal native law is on the basis of natives living in their kraals In Section 90 they are classed either as kraal heads or subject to the head of a kraal. The whole of this system deals with kraal natives, and must be applied only to them, and now the contention is made that it must be applied to all natives, no matter what the state of their civilization may be It is absolutely wrong, and will work untold mischief, and I hope will be strenuously opposed by all lovers of fair play in this House.

I was one in the Select Committee and one who there opposed this clause. We are told that one of the reasons for the necessity for its introduction into this Bill is to check the unrest and agitation among natives to-day. We are told the times are very critical; we are told this I.C.U. movement is endangering the whole peace of this country. If the times are critical, if we are faced with a certain unrest and agitation among natives, then it is only another reason for being careful as to what legislation we introduce at a juncture like this. The native will simply look on a clause such as this as martial law, which it is, in effect, and from which there is no redress whatever and no appeal. There is no appeal from it. Up to now in the present industrial agitation the natives, where they have a grievance, have only a grievance against the employer in the direction of getting higher wages and improving their position generally, but if we are going to pass legislation of this sort then the natives will immediately transfer their grievance against the individual to a grievance against the Government of this country, and it then becomes very much more serious. I notice no voice has been raised from the Transvaal as to the necessity for this clause; it is only Natal which is emphasizing the necessity of retaining these powers. I would like the House to compare the state of affairs in Natal with the condition of the natives in the Transkei, under entirely dissimilar legislation. I do not think Natal can claim greater prosperity and advancement among natives than you have in the Transkei, or greater contentment. I believe to-day in the Transkei you have a more contented body of natives, more easily governed, with a greater faith in the Government than you have in any other part of the Union, and Natal in particular. You have in the Transkei a system which has gradually grown up and has proved’ successful, and you now want to apply drastic powers of this nature. We have the power of proclamation, it is true, but the proclamation option does hot contain the powers which this clause is going to convey. I repeat the vote I gave in Select Committee, and I hope this House will realize the advisability of remaining content with the powers of proclamation which it is conveyed under this Bill. It is probably true that these powers of the Governor-General in Council will not be used or will very seldom be used, but nevertheless they take from the natives of this country all protection from the laws of the land. I would further point out that any proclamation can only apply to native areas, but these drastic powers of the supreme chief may be applied to any native no matter where he resides. The Cape laws have always provided that as a native rose in the standard of civilization he could become exempt from the operation of native law and custom, but now we propose to take from such natives this privilege and protection and to treat them as if they were absolute barbarians. I do hope that the House will not accept this new clause.

This Clause 1 seems to me to disclose a typical slave state mentality. It is not the sort of clause that ought to be passed by any enlightened community in this century. I have before me the old Transvaal Republic law of 1885. Even in those days the legislators were enlightened enough to realize that a law like this Natal law was suited only to the raw natives. I agree that to give tribal natives a picturesque figure-head may be useful and necessary. As early as 1885 the Transvaal law-givers, realizing that there would sooner or later be a civilized element to which this sort of thing would not apply, passed a law which started off somewhat characteristically by saying—

And then it goes on to say—

The old law givers of the republic, who understood the mentality of the natives better than any others, understood that there would be an element among the natives to whom the old primordial laws would not apply. The Natal laws was passed to deal with tribal savages, and I agree with the hon. member Illovo (Mr. Marwick) it was a very useful law; as these conditions hold, it will be a useful law; but we cannot close our eyes to facts and that there are many thousands of civilized natives who are detribalized to whim this law would be a provocative and an unnecessary grievance. How is this law going to affect the native voter in the Cape? How is it going to affect him when he is no longer amenable to the laws of the country How is it going to affect him when he has to obey a chief whether he likes it or not. Surely we must look facts in the face, and we must see we cannot do these things in these days. The supreme chief is entitled to make a war of his own, as far as I can see, under this Act. Surely the Government does not contemplate extending a law like that to the rest of the country. The law was passed in 1881 when Zululand was in a raw state; and to extend a retrogressive act like that to the Orange Free State, and to the Cape Province especially, seems to me to be putting the clock back considerably. In the Orange Free State there are practically no tribalized natives. Are you going to put them under the vague figure-head of a paramount chief. There are tribes at Witzeshoek and Maroko, but the rest have fallen under the ordinary law of the State, and the average native and the average farmer do not understand this law. If you tell the average farmer that the native will fall under a separate white chief he will not like it, nor will the native; they will not like it in the Cape. I hope the Minister will modify this clause or withdraw it.

There seems to be an impression in the House that there is only one code of law in South Africa, and that is the white man’s. Under native law there exists a large body to be administered of detribalized and tribalized natives alike. The hon. member who has just spoken imagines that every native will be put under a chief; that is an absurd contention. In the Ciskei there are natives living without chiefs under the ordinary native law which has no authority behind it. The administration of native law should be under a supreme chief, but in the Ciskei native law is administered extra legally. There are detribalized natives throughout the whole of the country who acknowledge the native laws of inheritance. That they live amongst the whites does not mean that they have given up polygamy or lobola—because they live in the towns. In order to administer native law amongst those natives correctly, according to native tradition and custom and their own ideas and desires, it is necessary that there should be some authority reposed in the supreme chief. Because we have not had that authority, the whole of native administration has gone to chaos. They have tried to apply the white man’s law, and they have not yet arrived at the white main’s stage. In the Cape native law is not codified as it is in Natal, and it is not administered by a supreme chief. One would certainly imagine we were living in the dark ages if all that has been said in this debate about the powers of the supreme chief were of any practical consideration; if this House and public opinion had nothing to do with native administration. These powers are very necessary to meet the defects of administration, which cannot be settled by legislation because the natives are not under European law. The majority of natives in this country still lobola their wives, and different tribes have different customs, needing different interpretation. It would be impossible for this House to lay down a simple law of inheritance applying to all natives. The same law applying to the Cape would not apply to the Zulus. There must be diversity in every district, but it is necessary that there should be uniformity in principle, and that there should be a repository of powers of native government in the person of the supreme chief.

I do not think we can possibly lay down an inflexible law without doing an injustice to certain section of the natives in this country. I do think that hon. members from the north and who represent Natal, do not appreciate the progress that has been made in the Cape Province with regard to the development of the natives. It is essential that we should make use of the old system of controlling natives mainly through their chiefs. I have before pleaded that in native matters we should go very slowly. The natives are emerging very gradually from barbarism into civilization, and as they are able to throw off and emerge from their old customs so in proportion can they be brought under western civilization conditions. It would, however, be a mistake to unduly hasten the process and to discard the old system of native control before they are ready or ripe for the new system. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) I can quite understand his attitude. There is a great conflict of outlook between him and men like myself, for instance. He is opposed to natives advancing along the lines of western civilization, and in place thereof contends that they should evolve their own laws. In other words, a complete reversion of all that has been done in the past to civilize these people. We must not allow our vision to be obscured from what is taking place under our very eyes. The natives in consequence of certain legislation, such as the Mines and Works Act which imposes a barrier to their progress, are feeling that they are being deliberately kept back, and I think their suspicions are justified. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) under that we should be adopting the best possible method of controlling natives in their various degrees of civilization and advancement.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) said that he would like to know what the Transvaal members thought of the matter. I do not wish him to be under a misapprehension. I shall support, and strongly support, the clause. We feel, in connection with the matter, that what is good enough for the Transvaal and Natal ought to be good enough in the other provinces. It may sound a little strange, but the Transvaal public are so concerned about the native talk which is now going on in the country that they are prepared to give any powers to the Government, and then to hold the Government responsible for maintaining right and peace in the country.

Can the Minister explain how it is that this clause was not in the original draft of the Bill? I assume that draft was submitted to the Native Affairs Commission which was specially appointed to consider questions of this sort. Has the Government obtained the opinion of the Native Affairs Commission on this clause? The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) said the natives had not got the vote. Are we to infer from that that they shall not get justice? What will the position under the clause of the civilized natives of whom there are large numbers in the Cape Province? Do hon. members realize that under the Bill the natives will not have the right to obtain redress from the courts, a right which the Cape natives have enjoyed for many, many years? I understand, however, that if Clause 1 become law, a native may be tried without the right of appeal to the courts and be punished without trial by the courts. It may be said that civilized natives may be exempted from some of the provisions of the Bill, but I understand that exemption does not apply to the principles laid down in Clause 1. Many hon. members fail to understand that the position in Natal and the Cape is entirely different. There are thousands of natives in the Cape Province who know nothing about tribal system, and as the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), who is an authority on native matters, says the powers of the chiefs have deliberately been taken away by Cape Governments. Yet it is now proposed to deprive them of rights which they have enjoyed all their lives.

The Select Committee has taken care to put an amendment in Clause 30 that every native, whether holding a letter of exemption or not, comes under the provisions of Section 1. Why has Natal exempted the native who is educated and who owns land from the operation of native law? Because Natal recognizes that whilst they remain entirely under the native law they are in some measure still in a state of barbarism, and they have exempted them because they want to encourage them to develop to a state of civilization. Are they to be forced back under the native law? I want to refer to a case which illustrates the fair method adopted in the Cape on an historic occasion regarding a native chief. It will be found in volume 12 of the Cape Supreme Court reports. The case of Sigcau v. The Queen is a sound case; but if it arose today after this law is passed, the same course could not be taken that was taken then. We should not be able to deal with it. The facts in Sigcau’s case were that under an Act passed by the Parliament of the day a proclamation was issued that Sigcau had disregarded the law and had rendered himself liable to arrest. Sigcau made an application to the Supreme Court for release and it was held he was entitled to release.

Order, order, we cannot hear a word.

The late Chief Justice said that “the Parliament of this colony has never yet passed and is not likely ever to pass a Bill for the condemnation of an individual without any form of trial.” Unfortunately the late chief justice was reckoning without some members of this House. Every native in the country who disobeys an order of the supreme chief may be punished without a trial by the supreme chief, and the supreme chief knows that no court of law can interfere with him. The legislature is now trying to do what the late chief justice said the Parliament of the colony had never done and was never likely to do. We are taking away all safeguards in this legislation because you are taking away the power to appeal to any court. In Sigcau’s case the court eventually held that the Government did not have the power to issue that particular proclamation. In the past it has always been a sound thing in the administration of justice in the British empire that no man shall be condemned without a trial and that he should always have redress in the courts of the country. Both of these principles are in conflict with Section 1 of this Bill. They will no longer have the rights of appeal to the courts.

You are wrong.

It distinctly says in the Natal law that the supreme chief is not subject to the Supreme Court or any other court of law. If you give that power over the native in the Cape—I am referring to the law as it is proposed to be under Clause 1— that the supreme chief will be able to deal with every native in the Cape, whether a voter or not, and will be able to punish him without trial under the powers conferred on him and there will be no power of the Court to interfere with any action of his, it is autocratic as far as all natives are concerned. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) made an attack on all detribalized natives and on all Christian natives.

Oh, no.

He said they were the most impossible type of natives and he made it clear they were the worst type of native.

On a point of personal explanation—

No, I shall not give way to the hon. member; he can speak afterwards and he will have every opportunity to correct what he said afterwards.

There is no need to correct what I said. I specially excluded the Christian natives.

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

When this Bill came up on the second reading stage I was one of those who asked that a select committee should be appointed to deal with it. I want to congratulate the select committee on the manner in which they have dealt with this Bill. I think it has been very considerably improved, and that, generally speaking, had this Bill gone through the Committee of this House—

The hon. member must adhere to the clause.

I am coming to that clause now. Had the committee dealt with the Bill as it was presented to this House and not introduced any fresh matter of this sort, I would have been quite satisfied. Had I had any idea that a clause of this nature would be introduced I would not have suggested that we should have a select committee dealing with this Bill. I would have preferred that the Bill should have gone through the House without any amendment at all rather than such a clause as this should have been introduced. In 1887 the Hon. J. H. Hofmeyr introduced a Bill into the Cape House known as the Hofmeyr Act, in which he extended certain privileges to educated and civilized natives. One of the privileges was that no native who held a certificate from the Education Department, or was a graduate or undergraduate of the university and so forth, should be in any way prejudiced by any legislation introduced into the Cape Parliament, and that these natives should have the same privileges and facilities as Europeans. Forty years ago civilized, educated and respectable natives were given facilities in the legislation of this country, which to-day are taken away by this Bill Such a man as Professor Jabavu, a B.A. of London, a man who is recognized as one of the leaders of the natives in this country, a man who occupies a responsible position, is to be put under the operation of a clause of this nature. I say it is not right. If this House wishes to go back on the policy of the old Cape Government, if it wishes to push the natives back and say that detribalized, educated and civilized natives should be placed on the same footing and treated in exactly the same way as the tribal native, who has no civilization at all, I say that legislation of this kind is not going to do the natives any good in this country nor the Europeans. It is wrong, and I am afraid it is going to create such a feeling of aversion on the part of these people that repercussions will ensue which hon. members opposite do not realize. I regret that the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be the guardian and protector of the natives of this country, is not here to listen to this discussion.

He is here. Withdraw.

I am glad that he is here. I did not see him. He was not here this afternoon. One of the clauses of the native Bills now before us tends in this direction, that the chiefs and headmen who represent the people shall have the right to select the European representatives in this House. If you are going to create clauses of this kind, where, as the hon. member for Capetown (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) points out, the political situation is entirely in the hands of the Minister, surely that is going to react against, shall I say, the fate of those Bills? I would like to ask the Prime Minister, is he, under this clause, going to deal with the tribal native, or the detribalized native? We have, in a later clause, the sedition clause, as it is called, a measure dealing with a particular aspect of the native question. If the natives in the towns, as the chiefs admit, are causing trouble, and if that clause is insufficient to deal with that aspect, is he relying upon this clause to deal with it? In the Urban Areas Act he has sufficient powers to deal with a particular class of native, the dissolute or disorderly native and the vagrant. I want to bring a legal point before the Minister. The 1913 Land Act was declared ultra vires in the Cape, because it interfered with the rights and privileges that natives have in the Cape Province of obtaining the franchise. One of the qualifications for obtaining the vote was the right to purchase land. This clause is distinctly a menace to the native who wants to obtain franchise rights. Surely the Minister recognizes that if he, the Minister of Native Affairs controlling this Bill, has a right to interfere with the residence of natives, because that is what it amounts to—if any native creates trouble in one of the towns or cities and the Minister has a right to order that native to remove from that particular area, or to enforce many other disabilities, that is directly interfering with the qualifications under Sections 134 and 135 of the Act of Union, and if the courts of this country held that the 1913 Act was ultra vires, because it interfered with these rights and powers and privileges, then I say that this Act interferes in an infinitely greater degree with the possibility and probability of natives obtaining franchise rights in this province. I have no hesitation in saying that if this matter comes before our courts of law, the judges will hold the same as they did in regard to the 1913 Act. That this particular clause does interfere very directly with the rights of natives to acquire franchise, and, therefore, it is ultra vires. I ask the Minister again, is it worth while continuing with this clause, seeing the great difficulties that arise in connection with this particular aspect? Let us get on with the Bill, which has a great deal of good in it, but let this clause stand over until the end of the Bill.

If the last argument is correct, then it does not matter if the Bill goes through, because the Courts would not allow it to be enforced on the ground that it is ultra vires. The principles in the first clause are principles of the kind that run right through this Bill and through all our legislation. The only question is question of degree, and this section is to cover cases that are not dealt with specifically in this Act, and other Acts. If I were a native, I would not regard it as an insult to be placed in the framework of the native people of South Africa. I would regard it as a compliment. The civilization of your native is not in bringing him into the town and training him in the way in which he is being trained. Then the argument used proceeds on the basis that the kraal native is an uncivilized native. If you take 20 natives from the kraal whom you have in your service and you take 20 detribalized natives who have never seen a kraal, you will get out of the first 20 better men than from the last 20. A large number of complaints against this clause is as to the Governor-General exercizing political authority over the native. That means authority by the State over the natives. It does not mean authority by political parlies. Then there is the argument that all kinds of impossible things may happen. I will say at once that I think probably this clause will be of greater value with regard to your detribalized natives who have thrown aside all restraints than in connection with natives living in tribes. As far as your detribalized native is concerned, you want, as far as possible, to take him into that system and to control him. I say you have not sufficient control over him, and you have the control here. There is nothing whatever as far as the native is concerned who is law abiding to interfere with him, but the natives who are causing unrest in South Africa to-day are not your kraal natives.

What about the sedition clause?

That will help to a certain extent. You may have cases that verge on sedition, but which cannot be proved in a court of law. That is possible, but we are providing where natives are possibly causing unrest and where your Governor-General may easily say in that case a man should be removed to another place where he cannot do mischief. It must not be forgotten that this horrible state of affairs, as it is suggested to be, prevails in Natal and in the Transvaal, and this horrible state of affairs, if that law of Sir Henry Smith still operates, prevails in part of the Cape Colony. Then we are all living in a barbarous state in these other provinces. Speaking from my knowledge of the Transvaal, and also of Natal, I do not think we are anymore barbarous than the Cape Province, and our natives are no more barbarous. I do not believe all this talk about the natives in the Cape Province having risen to a higher state of civilization than the Free State, the Transvaal, or Natal. I absolutely disagree with it. If I were to compare the natives, I would be much more in favour of taking your Zulu than taking some of the natives in other parts of the country. I do not believe any Government of South Africa would ever use this in the way it is suggested it could be used by taking a number of voters away from the person who wanted them in Cape Town, and placing them in Worcester or any other part. If you wanted to do that, you already have the power in Section 4. I think we are going rather far when we are going to accuse the Native Affairs Department of treating the natives with undue severity. I personally think it is altogether too soft in its actions. Before Union the Natal Government used this power much more frequently than it has even been used since Union. I submit it is in the interests of the country that a power of this kind should be used in these cases, and the Department should not be afraid of using these powers because the legislation of South Africa is not uniform, and it appears invidious to use powers in Natal which cannot be used in other parts. Take your point of a native who is entitled to say anything he likes in the Free State, and in the Cape. He may excite public opinion as much as he likes. Nothing can be done to him, but the moment he goes back to the Transvaal and Natal he is placed somewhere where his actions will not cause bloodshed in South Africa. I want to emphasize that we are drifting to a state of things in which your white man is not going to suffer as much as your native. In the past, as far as natives are concerned, even your innocent native has suffered after native wars. Land has been taken away from innocent and guilty alike. We must not be too squeamish in regard to an article like this, because if we are, it will result in a state of affairs much worse than if you did not put such a provision in. Provision of this kind is necessary to cover up any defects in the Act. It is obvious that wrong use of its power would not be made.

Why has it never been necessary in the Cape?

The position is not specially good in the Cape as far as I can see, and it certainly has not made the native a better man. At all events, none of us are going to convert the other. The men who come from Natal and from the Transvaal will not be converted, and the men from the Cape will not be converted, and I suggest we should vote on the matter and see what is the prevailing opinion in the House. The prevailing opinion in select committee was certainly not a party opinion. It is the opinion of all parties expressed in this section. I trust hon. members will not saddle me with the full responsibility of this clause, although I would like to have the responsibility, but will remember it is a clause put into this Act by all the parties in this House. So I submit we are only beating the air and repeating the same arguments. I believe this is a right section to put in, and I think the opinion of the House should be taken to decide it.

The Minister has just told us that in select committee it was not a party matter. No more is it a party matter at the present moment, but there are certain matters of conscience which some of us feel we must oppose, party or no party. Listening to the Minister one would imagine we were back in the middle ages. In the middle ages this sort of thing was done. The fundamental difference between this Bill and the Natal Bill the Minister has himself told us. The cat is out of the bag. He told us the Natal Bill dealt with the tribal native. He tells us this Bill is designed to catch the detribalized native. That is what I object to in this Bill. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) told us he was speaking as a Transvaaler, and he believed the people of the Transvaal were solidly in favour of controlling the natives. So are we all, but if any native in the Transvaal or anywhere else is breaking the law, prosecute him. If he indulges in subversive propaganda, which is not covered by any law, pass the necessary legislation, but do not pass this sort of omnibus Bill which will simply leave the native with a sense of grievance and will certainly not put a stop to the sort of agitation that is going on, but will simply lend a spur to it. It seems to me that clause 1 is more particularly directed against this I.C.U. agitation. The Minister has practically told us that. It seems to me the intention is to suppress the I.C.U. movement, and the activities of men like Kadalie and others. I would be the very last to support those activities, and I would support any law within reason which would suppress those things, but it is an elementary principle of justice to find a man guilty only under a definite law. Do not give wide powers which enable one Minister to have control of over 6,000,000 natives, and to say what is a crime and what is not. If there is a native in this country breaking the law, prosecute him. If there is a native indulging in dangerous agitation not covered by any existing law, bring forward a law and we will pass it, but do not pass mediaeval legislation of this sort. There is an old saying that to have unlimited power but not abuse it, to raise the natives without lowering ourselves, are the supreme triumph of the spirit of a nation. I do hope the Minister will accept an amendment in the sense already proposed, and will delete this.

Is it not as immoral if you confine it to Natal?

The principle is totally different. The old principle which was the basis of the law was to control the savage, untutored tribal native. He has told us that this clause is to down the educated tribal native. We all know that there are dangerous, subversive elements abroad to-day, but I would draw the Minister’s attention to the tact that the present agitation going on by the I.C.U. is not caused by the lack of power such as is conferred by this section, but it is largely fomented by indiscreet utterances of the Minister of Post and Telegraphs. We have it on record. I do not say he is solely responsible, but that sort of thing breeds more agitation. The Natal law is a very drastic one, and even in the very drastic Natal law provision was made for excluding civilized natives. It states—

As I understand this, we are extending the drastic provisions of the Bill, but there is not attached to that as a corollary this saving clause in which the civilized native can be excluded. We are passing unfortunately a more drastic law for the civilized native than the old Natal law was for the uncivilized native. I do not think any other civilized nation has such a drastic law, so harsh and so unjust, on its statute book, and we would be degrading ourselves in the eyes of the rest of the world if we passed such a clause.

When this clause was before the select committee I was one of those who voted against it, and I did so very largely on the grounds that the full powers and authorities of the Governor-General under the Natal and the Transvaal Acts were so wide that one was not able to appreciate the full implication of that clause. Another reason which influenced me was that no reason was given why these drastic powers which were vested in the Governor-General under the Transvaal laws should be extended to the Cape. I have heard nothing which has made me alter my mind as to the desirability of altering the clause. I am more and more convinced that this clause is a very dangerous departure from the law, as it is at present, in its application at the Cape. What is the necessity for this clause; and why did it come into the Bill at such a late stage? It was not before the Natives’ Affairs Commission. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) said that what was good enough for the Transvaal and Natal ought to be good enough for elsewhere. I am prepared to admit, from my limited knowledge of the Transvaal and Natal, that if it is good enough for them they might be allowed to keep it. But I do think there is no reason given as to the necessity of extending this clause to the Cape. That is the fundamental reason which the Minister ought to have given to the House. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has said that the necessity for it was that there is no authority over the natives, and because of that native administration has got into a state of chaos. Where is it in a state of chaos? Not in the Cape Province. That is the one place where it is not in a state of chaos. It may be in Natal; if so, that may be a good reason for taking away that power there. I challenge any hon. member from any part of the House—this is not a party question—to show that the native administration of the Cape Province is not in an admirable state. Neither of the magistrates of the Transkei and of the Ciskei suggested that this clause should be put in owing to a state of chaos. We have the Secretary of Native Affairs, a very experienced official, who never made an iota of a suggestion for the introduction of drastic powers of this kind to the Cape Province. We want something more than these generalities, or that the administration of the Cape Province has got into such a state of chaos that we want a supreme chief. As to what the Minister of Justice said, I did not like it when he said: “We must not be too squeamish.” It did seem a significant expression to be used by the Minister, and coming from a Minister holding the high position the Minister of Justice does in the country and the Cabinet. It seemed to me as if the effect of what he said was that it did not matter if injustice was done, provided we saved our own skins. If that is so, I am sorry for Parliament and the country. We have not had a single word of evidence or suggestion from those qualified officials who assisted us so excellently in the select committee, and I want to pay a tribute to the officials I have mentioned, and I must also mention the Chief Native Commissioner of Natal and Mr. Garthorne. They had different points of view, but they assisted us fairly and impartially throughout. Not one of them suggested that there was any need for this clause on this ground. The Minister of Justice said it seemed unfair that the Transvaal and Natal should have powers that can be used there, whereas quite different powers are used in the Cape. What is the unfairness of it? Has the native ever said that he is conscious of this unfairness?

These powers are not used in the Transvaal and Natal.

Then why put them into this Bill?

Because they are necessary.

We have extracted from the Minister the most complete condemnation of the clause and the most complete explanation why the clause was not inserted in the original draft.

I made it quite clear: it is necessary to have the power.

I challenge any hon. member, any members of the House who know the two systems, to support the Minister in his suggestion that the natives of the Transvaal or Natal are better administered than those at the Cape. I will take the opinion of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), who is a thorough and sound expert on this, and whose evidence alone is the most convincing in this House, because he knows what he is talking about. I am afraid the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) may know a lot about Barberton and I am not even sure about that, but I do not think he knows much about Tembuland, the Transkei or the Ciskei.

What does the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) know about Zululand?

Although comparisons have been made and I challenge their correctness, it is not material to make these comparisons. In the Cape, so far from there being administrative chaos, it has been most excellent according to the testimonies of people who know the province and have examined the conditions. I have opposed the clause because its implications are very serious and the proper authorities have not been consulted. To the natives in the Cape Province this will amount to a very serious change indeed. The principle of our native administration has been to consult the natives and let them know what changes are to be made, so that no alterations are made which they do not understand and of which they are suspicious. The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland is a fair one, and leaves things as they are. How can you get satisfactory uniformity in connection with problems with regard to different races spread over a vast area, where they have been developing for one, two or three generations under different systems? What is the value of this application of uniformity for a thing like that? Far better let them have the system they know than introduce changes which, even if they are good, cause suspicion amongst them, and which from our knowledge and experience we believe are thoroughly bad for the natives themselves.

I feel compelled to add my protest against this clause, and I feel from many points of view that it is absolutely unjust and wrong. It is a most unfortunate fact that the legislation of the past year or two regarding native questions or policy—even although in itself useful and necessary and in the interests of the natives—has always had some clause or more detrimental to their interests, and unjust or unfair in their character. Can you wonder that the natives have their feelings stirred as to their future if they see a clause like that introduced into bills? What is the reason for this particular clause? I feel that we are going back to the dark ages and Star Chamber methods when we give the Governor-General power to carry out a native policy by such arbitrary methods. The clause will create a good deal of ill-feeling amongst the natives who hitherto have felt that justice would be done them. Are we to see the natives who are going through the transition stage from barbarism to civilization treated all alike? The natives are in various stages of civilization, and it is our duty to help them forward to recognition of the benefits of civilized laws and order, and we should not throw them back again to that condition from which well-wishers of the natives desire to see them emerge. This clause is retrogressive and will put back the clock of native advancement. The clause should be opposed in toto. We must assist the natives to progress and make them realize that civilized laws are for their benefit as well as for the benefit of the whites.

I would like to take up the challenge made by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that no one can give any evidence of chaos in the native administration of the Cape Province. Why the chief reason for the introduction of the Bill is the chaos in the Cape, as will be seen from the report of the Native Affairs Department for the years 1922-’26, page 3 [extract read]. The authority which existed in the proclamation of Kaffraria has been consistently ignored with the consequence that we have got into a state of chaos. Surely we ought not to allow our hearts to run away with our heads. We have a grave responsibility to the natives. What hon. members do not realize is that there are different native laws in the different parts of the Union. Some of my hon. friends cannot see the difference between uniformity in principle and uniformity in practice. Here is uniformity in the fact that the supreme chief is the authority which can put these various differences into effect in the administration of the various parts of the Union. Uniformity in principle and diversity in practice are requisite in native administration—I mean uniformity in the supreme chieftainship. Power is needed by the supreme chief to reconcile all these differences in native customs and laws, and that is why this authority is required. Why hon. members run away with the idea that this would give power to do the most horrible things or to behead people I cannot imagine. The Bill, as far as I can see, is designed in the sole interest of the natives, and the Native Affairs Department has been trying to get such a measure passed ever since 1911. Why has it not been done? The Cape have cast a glamour of romance over their native administration; they have held this up as being the best governed territory in Africa, and consequently everybody has come to believe it. Yet in spite of that we have the fact that there is absolute chaos in the Ciskei. The very fact that the Transkei is the most progressive portion of the Cape is because you have that power of the supreme chief to make proclamations.

That is all we want.

What is that but the supreme chieftainship? If you have power to make laws, that is the supreme chief’s power. There are many things which you cannot legislate for on the spur of the moment; for instance, where authority has to be given to a native commissioner to settle long-standing disputes. It is for that reason that this power should be entrusted to the supreme chief

I think the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) will find that a great many people who are opposed to the clause agree with a good deal of what he has said, but as the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) reminds me, he has been arguing entirely away from the point. I wish the hon. member for Zululand would spend a portion of the recess in going through the Transkei, and he would find there a country teeming with natives which is administered by a posse of police far smaller than would be required to deal with a similar number of Europeans. I gather from the Minister that one of the reasons for the clause is that it may be found advisable in case of agitation to be able to remove a native from a dangerous situation.

You could do it, although you could do it under Clause 4, too.

If that is the case, I am at one with him in trying to suppress agitation which may lead to serious consequences. But the Minister had other views on that question a year or two ago. He then held that agitation might arise from Europeans as well as natives, and he drafted a Bill to deal with the situation. It would be interesting if the Minister would tell us from what quarter representations came which made him depart from the opinion then expressed.

You still have that power in Section 24.

What the Minister and the hon. member for Zululand forget is that while we generally agree that you must have such powers in connection with certain sections of tribal natives, it is not right to vest in the hands of any Government the power of dealing with educated natives in exactly the same way as if they were raw barbarians. The policy of the Cape has been to raise the natives in the scale of civilization; that policy has been a great success, and were it followed by the other provinces it might be greatly to their advantage. Surely the Minister will acknowledge the Governor-General, acting in the capacity of the supreme chief, is the Government of the day. It will really be whoever is Minister of Native Affairs. Is it reasonable and fair to take from these people the rights they have held for generations and place them at the whim of any Minister who desires to punish them without legal trial and without the right of appeal to the courts of the country? And then the Minister thinks this will not have a serious effect on the minds of the natives of the country. We have Lad pinprick after pinprick, and the Government has been warned that they are disturbing the minds of the natives.

It is these discussions that do it.

It is no good saying it is a matter of administration. If this clause is embodied in the statutes of the country you can take it any native, however educated, can be punished without trial.

I said it was dependent on how it was administered.

I suppose the Minister will say that the Cheka is a very good system.

It would be for some people.

I should have thought the Minister would have thought it was twelve months ago, but the Cheka was too good for the Minister.

I have it in the Bill.

Does the Minister deny if this clause goes through you can put your hand on any native, no matter how civilized, and deal with him differently, simply and solely because he is a native? Does the Minister consider that is just and fair? Does the Minister consider the native has no rights?

No, I don’t consider that.

Then why introduce an arbitrary principle of this sort?

Should the educated native have the same right to drink in the Transvaal as the educated white man?

The educated native has not the same right in the Transvaal. I am dealing with the natives in the Cape of Good Hope, who have inalienable rights which the Minister is going to take away with the stroke of the pen. Is that fair? Does the Minister consider in the case of five or six millions of people, that it is not to our interest to do all we can to encourage them to rise in the scale of civilization? I do not object to this condition prevailing among natives in the tribal condition, but our objection is that conditions suitable for the tribalized native are grossly unfair to natives who have adopted detribalized conditions.

I ask hon. members who represent the Cape, if they think they have civilized natives in the Cape? I mean the highest form of civilization known to Western people; have the natives of the Cape absorbed the best of it, or have the so-called civilized natives of the Cape degenerated as compared with the Transkei? If we walk the streets of Cape Town we cannot be proud of the products of civilization amongst the natives of the Cape. Hon. members who have travelled through Natal, the Free State and Transvaal, I think, when they come back, strong Cape Colonists as they may be, cannot say the natives are not on a higher plane, as far as civilization is concerned, in the other provinces compared with the Cape. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) says: “Why save their skins and lose their own soul?” Can the hon. member say by not adopting Clause 1 and excluding the Cape, that he is not saving his skin and losing his own soul?

I was dealing with the Minister’s justification that we need not be squeamish about it.

Hon. members are willing to see this injustice in the other provinces if they can save their own skins in the Cape. If it is unjust and wrong for the Cape, it is unjust and wrong for any other province in South Africa. When the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) talks about throwing them back, well, look through the Transkeian territories and Zululand, and tell me where you have a better native—here in your streets at Cape Town, or in the territories? In the territories you have a better native who is not degenerating. The Cape should not be satisfied to be always flaunting this policy through the land, and holding up the Cape as a pattern for the whole of South Africa. It does not require experts to see the effect of the policy of the Cape. We have only to walk about your streets in the Cape to tell us that your policy is wrong. You have not raised the native; you have degenerated him. You have just used him as a machine to make more profits for the Europeans, and impartial judges will confirm the fact that the administration of the Cape has produced the poorest product of civilized natives that we have in the whole of Africa.

We want to get back to Clause 1, whether or not the Governor-General shall be the supreme chief as under the Natal law. The Minister himself said the whole thing depends on the administration. I grant that. Nearly all laws depend for their success or failure upon administration. All the powers set out in Clause 1 are provided for in the body of the Bill, and I don’t see why the alteration should be made. Take Law 19 of 1891 of the Natal laws, Chapter 2, supreme chief’s powers, and you will see they are almost unlimited. Take Clauses 38 and 40. [Clauses read.] Clause 40 says the supreme chief is not subject to the courts of law. I grant it is qualified. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) talks about the conduct of the natives here, but I can tell him I have seen far more insolence from natives in Pretoria than I ever have in Cape Town. The half-educated, insolent and swaggering, what is called “buck-nigger” walking about the streets here of whom he speaks is not the product of the Cape, and is not the man we are talking about. There are hundreds or thousands of well-educated, civilized natives in the Cape Province. We are not talking about those over-dressed, insolent natives, of whom he speaks, and who come down from up-country. They are not necessarily Cape Province natives; they most likely come from East Africa and Nyasaland, or the other provinces up north. Taking it all round, the Cape policy has proved very successful. I say again this Clause 1 is only providing for things which have been embodied in the Bill. If you take the Bill from old Clause 8, now Clause 9, onwards, you will find that it deals with native courts. In support of the argument for the need of Clause 1, it has been said that native law and custom have been neglected. All these matters have been provided for in the Bill itself by the native commissioners’ court, native appeal courts and so on. I can see an improvement there. Clause 1 is not going to put that right. I think it is a great pity that Clause 1 was added in select committee. It is obvious that that clause was added at the very end of their deliberations. I think it is a pity that it was introduced at all. We have just heard it said that the administration of the natives in the Cape is one that should be deprecated, one that should be held up to derision and contumely. I want to know why the rest of the African states are following the Cape policy as closely as they are, if that policy has been such a failure?

Natal policy.

There is too much watertightness altogether about Natal. Natal policy is based on Cape policy. In dealing with these questions, I wish hon. members would remember that there is a big Union besides Natal. We must treat this question with a broad outlook, not as regards Natal only or any particular part of the Union. We must recognize one fact, and that is that in this Union we have natives in various stages of civilization and development. Clause 1, to my mind, is unnecessary in the circumstances of to-day. All contingencies are fully met by the provisions of the Bill itself.

I would like to do the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) the honour of meeting his point again. As I pointed out, the hon. member for Zululand developed as his chief justification for Clause 1, the necessity for having it because of the chaotic state of things in the Cape Province. As they have had it in Natal and the Transvaal, there should be no chaos at all there. His argument was that you require to extend it in order to deal with the conditions of administrative chaos. I made a challenge, and the hon. member was good enough to reply to my challenge. He said that since 1911 the Native Affairs Department have been seeking this power. When the Native Affairs Department, after all these years of incubation, brought out this Administration Bill, they did not think it necessary to put the one clause we are dealing with, Clause 1, into the Bill. The hon. member, in reply to my challenge, was good enough to quote from the Native Affairs Department report for the years 1922 to 1926. In that report I can find nothing about chaotic conditions prevailing generally in the Cape Province. It is true there is one passage in which it refers to the Ciskei—

Logically and legally there was no justification for that makeshift. Practically and in effect that court has been a most wonderful success, if the hon. member only knew it. Under this Bill we have made all the alterations which the hon. member has referred to as being required. We have dealt with it on the basis, which was approved in the committee, of giving discretion to the magistrate to apply native law when he chooses. The hon. member did not quote further on from the report. According to his argument, the chaos ought to be in the Cape, and not in the Transvaal. I would like to draw attention to this paragraph in the report —

That is where you have the supreme chief, in the Transvaal. In another case which is referred to, the report states—

This Clause 1 does not affect that position at all. These chaotic conditions are removed by the other clauses in the Bill. On the question of the success of the Cape administration, I happened to turn over a page in the same report and that same report, while dealing with the chaotic conditions elsewhere, says—

That is introduced into this measure as a matter of native administration throughout the whole of the Union. I take it that is a proof of the argument why on earth should this alteration be made when you have had a system, approved warmly by the Native Affairs Department which has successfully been carried on for years on this principle, and which deals with any of the difficulties that may be suggested? My hon. friend refers to matters of succession. That has been dealt with in this Bill otherwise than in Clause 1. The whole point is that the hon. member did not fasten his attention upon this that the other things in the Bill are wanted by the Native Affairs Department and were accepted by the committee as dealing with those various cases of difficulty that were referred to in that report, whereas this particular clause which we object to now is a clause that in no sense deals with these things, but introduces what, in our opinion, is a wholly unnecessary, dangerous and unjust position in the native administration of the Cape Province. We say if it is necessary at the present time to keep it in Natal and the Transvaal, do so. But do not extend it to a place where the administration is of such a nature that it has not only been copied, but extended to other parts.

I would appeal to the House to come to a vote. We are not going to convert each other. We have had a very long discussion, and I am very anxious to get through the Bill to-night so I hope we can conclude now.

So far as I know there are only one or two further contentious clauses in this Bill. The Minister will realize this is a very important matter and it would be very much better to allow the discussion to proceed. The Minister really crystallized our objection to this clause when he stated that he wanted a clause to deal with the natives where he cannot do it in a court of law. We do not want to give power to the Government to punish natives for things for which they cannot be punished in a court of law. It is much better to leave the matter alone and let the presumption of innocence prevail. That is the worst condemnation of the clause that could have been given by any opponent. The courts of law have every facility for proof, and if a case cannot be proved there then it should be assumed there was no offence. If we are drifting in South Africa as the Minister says it is legislation of this kind that is causing the drift to become wider and wider. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked what we were doing to civilize the native. I would suggest that he should not help to pass colour bar legislation; that is not the way to civilize the native. We in the Cape always want to give the native full scope to make use of the talent with which he has been endowed rather than keeping the native down in a position as an uncivilized man and putting him on the lowest possible form of work in the Union. I notice that this particular clause which is so important was not introduced by the Minister of Justice. I notice there were eight meetings of the select committee before it was introduced. It was only when the clauses were gone through seriatim at the ninth meeting that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) moved this clause. What I cannot understand is this: if this clause is so vital to the Government’s native policy how is it that not one of the Government members on the select committee thought of it? Why is it left to a South African party representative to propose something vital to the Government’s native policy? I would also like to point this out. The Minister, said this was a matter supported by all parties. The South African party representatives on the committee were divided. Two members voted for this clause and two voted against it. So you cannot say the South African party voted one way or the other. I think the hon. member for Brakpan was very unfair when he talked about the natives he met in the streets. Surely the whole administration of the Transkei is part of the Cape policy and it is the Cape policy that produced the Bunga. Undoubtedly the Cape policy has had the effect of civilizing the native. He mentioned liquor. There is no total prohibition, but it is surrounded with the most severe conditions. If he is referring to aboriginal natives there are few of them to be seen walking about any part of the Peninsula at night. It seems to me we have come back again to this, that the uniformity in principle the hon. member for Zululand wants we have in section 147 of the Act of Union—

There you have the uniformity. Why do you want this so-called uniformity in this particular Bill? Diversity of practice you must have, but he wants to have the same law for the grown-up person, for the adolescent and for the child. He says it is chaos unless you have one law for the developed civilized person, the person only half civilized, and the person absolutely uncivilized. I say it is absurd. There is no justification whatever for applying a drastic law that you would apply to the uncivilized man to all natives alike irrespective of the state of civilization which they have reached. For this reason I think this particular clause is a blot upon the Bill, and it is so drastic in its operation that the Minister might as well scrap the rest of the Bill, if he gets this clause through. What is the use of worrying your head about sedition clauses when you have a clause under which your Governor-General has supreme control over every native and can imprison him without trial and deal with him without any court being able to check him? You might as well scrap the rest of the Bill. It is only waste paper.

In rising to oppose this clause I would like to mention one or two things not generally known. We have natives of the fourth generation in Port Elizabeth, who have been educated there. Many are occupying positions of trust. They have never known what kafir location is, in the sense of living in the native territories. They live pretty much as Europeans do. One of the big wholesale firms in Port Elizabeth entrusted its keys to a native until he died. The natives are not agitators in any way. Do you want them to come under laws made by the Governor-General? That is a thing that should not for a moment be considered. The Cape is the only one of the four provinces that has developed a system of government that has been accepted by the native. Their own councils are working satisfactorily. The other provinces have dealt with the natives as chattels—purely as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Up to a few years ago what was spent on the education of the natives in those provinces? The natives should be given an opportunity to rise, and the European will always be able to hold his own. Is it reasonable to have a law for the natives and to put them on trial for something you could not bring them up for in a court of justice? If one thing would lead to agitation and raise a hue and cry, it is that a native could be convicted for something for which he could not be convicted in any court of justice. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice, who has a strong sense of justice, should be a party to this. Is it going to make the native respect us? Are we going to command that respect we had in the past? When the late Prime Minister was head of the Native Affairs Department and while the present Prime Minister is head of it I have no fear of maladministration, but you are not making a law that is to die with them; heaven knows the class of person who may occupy that post in the future. How this clause ever came to be put in one does not know. If it goes through it will be a clause in the hands of the agitators and those who are holding meetings amongst the natives, and they will be able to say “how can it be claimed that we are given equal justice?” We do not make the natives our social equals, but we have always said, and judges have said in addressing juries that we apply the same law to the natives as to the Europeans, and if we are going away from that policy the result is going to be that we will lose our prestige and influence in the eyes of the native. The laws of the land can be made to fit every individual, and justice should hold the scales evenly. The native scale is to be weighed down by special laws, enactments and proclamations. We are going to put in the hands of the natives an argument that will injure our position. I feel alarmed to know that I have lived to see the day when it was demanded of any parliament supposed to represent liberty and freedom to take away the liberty and freedom of those of whom it ought to be the guardians and by whom it ought to stand.

I have always found the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) a fair man with regard to native affairs, and I would like to reply to the points raised. He said that the Cape system was responsible for the scum we have in Cape Town. The detribalized native you have in Cape Town does not come only from the Cape Province. You have natives here who come from Central Africa. You have almost as many Basutos as Cape natives, and you have Zulus and natives from all over the Union. The detribalized native always drifts to the towns. The detribalized native is not the product of any particular province, but the bad product of all the provinces. The average men who are leading the natives astray are not natives. Recently a large deputation of unemployed—whom the newspapers described as natives waited upon the Ministers in the precincts of the House. I made a point of inspecting these men and of several hundreds I noticed very few natives— not more than twenty or thirty and exactly the same applies to these meetings on the parade and elsewhere. Yet these are the men who the hon. member says the Cape system is responsible for. At the outset I appealed to hon. members not to allow this debate to develop into an inter-provincial discussion, but to argue the matter in a fair and equitable manner. I pointed out that in the National Convention it was recognized that there were different systems of native administration. My hon. friend (Mr. Waterston) says we want the Natal natives to remain under the same system of chieftanship which he says we now condemn. Our reply from the Cape is that they have developed under that system, and Section 147 of the Act of Union lays it down that they should remain under it. I am not declaiming against the Natal system, but I contend that the Transkei system is the best. The Bill gives full power to deal with other native areas in the same way as in regard to the Transkei. We have Rhodesia adopting the Transkei system, and the Phelps Stokes Commission which recently visited South Africa from the United States reported that the Transkeian system was the best system of native administration in the world. If the Minister will take power to treat the whole of the Union on the same basis as the Transkei is treated, he will solve the whole difficulty, but to give him power in addition to create a supreme chieftainship and to allow him to legislate for detribalized natives is wrong. I am surprised at the Minister endeavouring to force through this measure, which was never asked for by the Native Affairs Department or the Native Affairs Commission, and it is surprising that the Minister should put up such a strong fight for it. Not one member on the Government side has spoken on the Bill.

We agree with the Minister.

No, but many hon. members opposite are prepared to follow the Minister blindly. How is it that the Labour members have not taken an interest in the debate? This particular clause gives the Minister more powers than are conferred in the sedition clause yet the Labour members will put up a fight against the sedition clause. This clause gives the Minister dictatorial powers greater even than those of Mussolini. After this debate I am quite sure that the natives will not have much respect for the Labour party.

Don’t bring the discussion down to a low level.

I wish the hon. member would debate the matter instead of mumbling the corner.

Leave the Labour party alone.

The fact that the parties comprising the Pact have kept quiet on such a serious debate as this, while the Opposition has debated it, although it is not in agreement on it—that we recognize that the native question is above all party consideration and do not seek to make any party capital out of the question— this I think will show the country which party has the interests of the natives at heart.

I wish to make a personal explanation. When the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander said that I had stated that the detribalized natives and Christian natives were the worst of all, he was doing me an injustice. I did not make any such statement. At any rate, I never intended to, and if I gave utterance to it must have been the most transparent lapse of the tongue that I have been the victim of. I uttered no disparagement of the Christian native. I did say, however, that among the detribalized natives you would find some of the worst fiends in native form. In referring to detribalized natives, I did not intend to put a slur on the people who have merely ceased to have a chief or to belong to a tribe or those who in the ordinary stage of evolution have moved forward from a backward to an advanced stage. I was referring to the class to which the term “detribalized is more commonly applied, those who have been cut off from the tribe often through their dissolute habits and have become permanent dwellers and very often loafers in the towns That is the type of man I referred to as detribalized, but not the enlightened native who has become educated and adopted an I proved form of life. As to the arguments of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in regard to the necessity for this clause, I maintain that the whole of the Bill is of necessity a mere outline of native law, and that the recognition of the Governor-General as the supreme chief is going to permit us to supplement the code of native law by other provisions which are implicit in the position of the supreme chief. By way of illustration, I will mention a case which occurred while I was a Native Commissioner in the Transvaal. A native chief who had been educated at Lovedale, when he returned to assume his chieftainship, found his authority set at naught by a number of natives, who among other acts of defiance ploughed up the communal pasturage. He punished them by fining them. The appeal came to my court, and I was obliged to come to the conclusion that there was no power under the law for the chief to impose a fine. In effect these people could go on destroying their tribal pasturage, and he had no remedy of any sort. From that time each successive legislature has been appealed to to introduce an Act making good these defects, and for the first time we have got within a measurable distance of passing such a measure. With regard to the suggestion that this section is only an afterthought, let me point out that the most experienced native administrators we have to-day were in attendance on the Minister and the select committee from day to day before the suggestion was put forward. I can only assume this was adopted as a result of consultation with them. That carries conviction with me. The proposal is in line with the whole principle of the tribal system, not with the idea of laying up drastic penalties, but with the idea of filling in the gap which must exist by reason of the fact that this Bill is a mere outline of the native laws.

Let me appeal to the sense of fair play of the Minister of Justice and the members for Natal. The Cape members are very strong believers in their own system. We do not like this paramount chieftainship which appears to be such a very good thing in Natal. We don’t want to interfere with your system in Natal, so why try and thrust that on us in the Cape? We, who represent the Cape Province, backed by men like Sir Walter Stanford and the Native Affairs Commission, say we do not want it in the Cape Province, so why, thrust it upon us?

Leave it to the House.

We know what that means.

I appeal to the Minister to take a broad view. Why not leave it to us to keep our own system and keep the system in Natal and the Transvaal as at present?

On a point of personal explanation I just want to say that I accept what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said, and I am sorry I misquoted him.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to sub-section (7) of this clause. It states that—

I want to ask the Minister whether he would make provision to enable these chiefs, if they have any reason to complain about their dismissal, to have some forum to which they can appeal. I have a petition from a number of natives in my district which I got a few days ago, whose headman was recently deposed. He is an old chief. He was charged with misappropriation of funds, a matter of £2 or £3. Owing to his important position, it was considered that the case should be heard before the circuit court and not before the magistrate. The case went to the circuit court and this chief was acquitted. He went back and the magistrate held an informal enquiry, but he adjudged then that the defendant was guilty and this man has been dismissed, although before the circuit court he was acquitted. The whole of the natives in that location are up in arms. They want to know who is the greater power, the judge or the magistrate. We have had similar cases where chiefs and headmen have been deposed under similar conditions. These chiefs and headmen have powers and obligations such as the police have, and it seems to me wrong that they should be dismissed without the right of appeal to anybody at all. The Bill says they have a right of appeal to the Governor-General, but we all know that the Prime Minister has no time to give attention to these matters. I think the chief should have the power of appeal to the Public Service Commission or some other body before he is deposed. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to accept an amendment to that effect.

It is a question of administration. It would be very invidious, I think, if the Governor-General-in-Council was subject to appeal to anybody. The case that my hon. friend refers to of the misappropriation of money was sent to a magistrate for investigation, but I have no doubt the Minister will also go through those papers. Of course the real trouble is that the Minister cannot form full judgment on the record. He must have other facts before him. In this case the magistrate who tried the case would be the competent man to investigate the matter. I assume the trial was before a judge and jury. The man was acquitted by the jury. We know there are many cases in which a man obviously guilty is acquitted by a jury. I have no doubt this would be one of those cases. I do not think we should adduce any practice that took from the power of the Governor-General. I have no doubt that in every case the department would inquire into the matter very fully before the Governor-General was called upon to act and to depose the man. I do not think we can recall any case where there has been injustice in the matter of depositions.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

As the Minister knows much ground has been bought in the Transvaal by native chiefs and their tribes. Under the purchases the tribe is responsible for repayment of the purchase price of the farm, but I see from this clause that the tribe will not be held responsible for the purchase of a farm by a chief unless the whole tribe has been consulted. There are cases where I think the tribe has not been consulted by the chief. The chief buys the farm, and then goes about among the natives collecting the money. If the natives subsequently refuse to pay, and they should appeal to this clause that they are no longer responsible, then the chief will be left with the farm, but he cannot chase away the tribe and he has not the power to get in the money. There are natives living on my own farm who have to pay a certain amount every year to the chief in reduction of the purchase price of ground. According to the Bill they will now be able to refuse to pay, and the chief and the seller will be put to great trouble.

The position in the Transvaal to-day is that unless the Governor-General-in-Council has approved of the purchase by a native chief the purchase is not valid, and the court has decided that where the native chief has bought on behalf of the tribe he must prove that his Council cooperated with him in the transaction. This has caused much difficulty in the Transvaal. The only change in the present position which the clause makes is that the majority of the tribe instead of the Council must approve of the purchase, otherwise the transaction is not valid. Then no action can be brought against the chief unless the majority of the tribe have voted for the purchase, and the approval of the Government to the purchase has been obtained. Before he has obtained that he is not responsible for the transaction, and the contract is not binding in civil cases. The hon. member will appreciate the difficulty because how can one prove that that approval was given to the transaction of the chief? Consequently paragraph (2) has been added which lays down that a certificate by the native commissioner or his representative must be obtained to the effect that the majority of the tribe has approved of the purchase. What happens is that the chief calls together his tribe and the majority decide, whether the farm shall be bought. Then he gets the certificate of the native commissioner who will be there himself or send an official to see that that has been done. Then the certificate together with the approval of the Government is irrebutable proof that all the necessary steps have been taken. Until all the steps have been taken the tribe is not responsible, and the chief is also secure. The man from whom the land has been bought knows that he is only secure when the necessary steps have been taken. Today the seller has no security because it has to he proved that the Council has concurred, and it is difficult to furnish this proof. Now it is sufficient to have a certificate by the native commissioner that the majority of the tribe have agreed and that the Government has approved of the purchase, and nothing further need be proved in court. The obtaining of the approval of the tribe is somewhat more difficult than the present system, but it gives more security, and it will therefore be a good thing for the European or the native with whom the chief is contracting. I had the same objection as the hon. member in connection with paragraph (1), but I was satisfied by the inclusion of paragraph (2) which puts the whole matter on a proper basis.

If the matter were actually so, the explanation of the Minister would be correct, but to make the explanation agree with the clause, it will be necessary to delete the word “present”, because as the article now reads it is not at all certain that the majority will decide. At a meeting, such as is contemplated here, there may, for instance, be 200 men of the tribe, and only 100 may be present. If 25 of the 100 present are in favour of the contract entered into by the chief, then it is adopted, but the 51 persons do not constitute the majority of the tribe but only one-fourth of it. I therefore move to delete the word “present”. The certificate to be given is not satisfactory in my opinion. A native commissioner has to give such a certificate with respect to the majority of the natives present. He has to certify that the majority of those present approve of the contract, but that does not constitute the majority of a tribe. A chief or headman has often great interest in such a contract, and will do everything possible to bring about its acceptance, and to that end, e.g., may arrange for a large portion of his people to be absent, or for the meeting to be called at such a time when many are absent.

The position is that the certificate is given in respect of the majority of the natives present. It will not be possible to find all the natives of a tribe wherever they may be to obtain their approval, but I want to point out that the Bill will greatly improve the condition of things. In any case the Government will have to look into the position and to ascertain whether the conditions of the contract are suitable. Here we have a better safety valve in the majority of the tribe having to be present. The majority of the tribe is in itself a greater security than the majority of the council, and the fact that the Government institutes a thorough enquiry into the conditions of the contract is a sufficient security against intrigue and fraud on the part of chiefs and upper chiefs. Not only the supreme chief, but the tribe itself is protected now. It is impossible to always obtain the approval of all the members of the tribe, especially in the Transvaal where the natives work on the mines or on farms. The security is in any case greater than what it is to-day.

I should like to have a little information. This clause is connected with the previous one. There have already been cases in the past where a chief has bought ground but the whole tribe has not been agreeable thereto. It may happen that 100 members of a tribe may say that ground should be bought and that they will see to getting the money. According to this clause it may happen that a chief refuses to give to the men who have contributed towards the purchase price the land coming to them, and if he so refuses then the native who is expelled from the tribe has no case against the chief or the tribe. It occurs—as we, who know the natives, realize—that bad feeling is aroused against one family or another and that such a family is driven out of the location. It may be one of the persons who contributed to the purchase of the land, but he will not be permitted to bring an action against the chief or the tribe. I should like to know how such a native is to get justice.

The clause contemplates cases which have occurred recently in the Transvaal, and I think in other parts of the country as well, where natives have practically had no right of instituting an action. Actions are often instituted in the matter of internal tribal quarrels and difficulties. I know of a case where the costs amounted to thousands of pounds. It was a trivial case and eventually judgment was given against the plaintiff with costs. The result was that the tribe was saddled with the heavy costs and we want by this clause to prevent a tribe from being heavily taxed in that way and from even being exterminated. Actions will only be liable to be instituted after thorough enquiry. The new certificate will contain a guarantee to both sides. The certificate will show at once whether an action is justifiable, and it is a security against frivolous actions. We know what difficulties very often arise when a native wants another supreme chief and is not satisfied with the one he has. He then places all sorts of difficulties in the way of such chief, and we also know that the natives are very fond of litigation, and that money is wasted in that way. We want to protect the natives against that.

There is only one point and that is in regard to the land referred to in this section. There are two distinct classes of land occupied by natives in the Transvaal: In a large number of cases natives have bought the land by communal purchase. There is the other ease where a native tribe in the Transvaal has been granted land for their occupation under the London Convention or, in Natal, under the Natal Native Trust, and that land, although nominally described as Crown land, has been set apart under Section 147 of the Act of Union for the continued occupation of the natives. In the section under discussion the privately-owned native land is safeguarded against a contract being made without the consent of 50 per cent. of the natives.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

Amendment put, proposed by the Select Committee in line 33, to insert “or any native”.

I move—

I would like to know the reason for the insertion of those words by the Select Committee. In view of the fact that we have passed Clause 1 and the Minister says that was one of the powers granted to him in Clause 1, that is to remove a native from one portion of the Union to another, I doubt whether it is of any use discussing this matter at this stage.

I was really going to raise the same point. It seems to me that these words are entirely out of place in this section. The whole tenor of the section is that it deals with the removal of whole tribes. The introduction of the words “or any native” gives the Governor-General power to remove any particular native irrespective of the tribe. The words in the proviso at the end of the clause are—

That, of course, shows that the clause was drawn up merely to deal with the question of a tribe. It seems to me to be an attempt merely to slip into this clause the powers which if they are to be exercised should be given by a clause dealing with the sanctions applicable to individuals.

I do not think that this clause was intended to deal solely with tribal natives from the start. We had the position under old sub-section (c) which dealt with individual natives. I am prepared to assent to the proposition that in all probability the different provisions will fall under the powers of the Governor-General as supreme chief under Clause 1, but I think there is no reason why we should not state the powers given to the Governor-General by a clause of this description. I am speaking subject, of course, to correction, but I believe, If I read the Natal Act correctly, he has got those powers under that Act, and I think it is right to set out in this Bill what those powers are. I think this clause should stand in order to acquaint the natives with the powers that the Governor-General has.

I think it is desirable to propose an amendment, viz.—

I do not think it agrees with Clause 1. Clause 1 says that all authority, etc., shall rest in the Governor-General, and then one is referred for the authority to the Natal Act. In the Natal Act I see in section 37 the power is given to the supreme chief (that is, the Governor-General) to remove a native tribe from one place of residence to another. It seems to me that this authority of the Governor-General is being enroached upon by the proviso, because, according to the proviso, a native can appeal to Parliament, and then such an order of the Governor-General cannot be carried out until the House of Assembly and the Senate have approved of it. I think it is in the interests of the natives themselves to remove this proviso. I know of no case in which such instructions were given in which it was not through the fault of the natives, and the consequence will be that if such an order by the Governor-General can be cancelled by Parliament there will be an appeal to Parliament every time such an order is issued. In the second place there will quite probably be Europeans who will advise the natives to appeal to Parliament for cancellation of the Governor-General’s order. This will lead to disappointment on the part of the natives and also conflict with Clause 1 and encroach upon the authority of the Governor-General as supreme chief, if Parliament is actually placed above the Governor-General. I hope the Minister will agree to drop the proviso.

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, which seems to me to be quite reasonable. My difficulty is the interpretation of the word “tribe.” In what case would the Minister determine what number of a tribe would have to object? Say one quarter of the tribe object, and three-quarters were in favour of being moved, would an appeal lie to the House? Would “tribe” mean the whole, or a majority, of the members of the tribe?

I think the proviso should remain. I would urge the Minister to allow the clause to pass as it was before it went to the select committee. It would be much better if the Minister would negative the amendment made in select committee and reintroduce “C.”

The proviso of which the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) proposes the deletion is a matter which gave trouble in the select committee. There was a difference of opinion, and it was decided to retain the proviso, and to leave the matter for proper consideration by Parliament, and to avoid trouble by doing nothing in too great a hurry. I admit that it may do harm in some cases, but I do not think it will do so in most cases. We must surely make laws for the majority of cases. The hon. member also spoke about expense in connection with the resolution by Parliament, but there will be no expense, because the matter will not be brought before Parliament by the native tribe, but by the Government of the day. Then the hon. member for Newcastle said that one did not know which was the tribe. The tribe will ac through its chief, who will say that, on behalf of his tribe, he objects. The tribe must act through someone, and cannot act through the head of the natives. He will, therefore, have to make the objection against the removal of the tribe. If he does so, then the Government must take up the matter. It is possible that the tribe may also object in another way, but I do not think we should encumber the clause too much.

†The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) will be glad to know I am not accepting either amendment. Nobody gets what he wants, and everybody is satisfied.

A native might be ordered to move from Cape Town.

He will have no appeal.

It is grossly unfair that anyone should have the power to order a man to leave Cape Town for Durban, and that the man should have no appeal. You give the tribe the right to appeal, so why should the individual not have the same right? If we proposed to apply such legislation as this to Europeans there will be no hope of it going through. It would be better if you left the clause as it was originally. In the Urban Areas Act provision is made for the removal of disorderly or dissolute natives, but any native at all may be concerned here. To give absolute power of that sort without check of any kind is—

A suspension of habeas corpus.

These powers already exist in Natal.

We decided that point in Clause 1. I hope we shall not have the same discussion all over again.

I wish to add my objection to the clause, which looks extraordinarily bad, and is a blot on our legislation. The arbitrary power given to order the removal of a native from one place to another is a very grave inroad indeed on the liberty of the subject. If the Minister has the power under Clause 1, let him exercise it under that clause; why put it in her at all? To say the least of it, it seems most ill-advised and injudicious.

Amendment proposed by select committee in line 33 put and the committee divided:

Ayes—50.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Cost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—18.

Alexander. M.

Ballantine, R.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Gilson, L. D.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Reyburn, G.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; de Jager, A. L.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nieuwenhuize put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 9,

I move—

Perhaps I made a mistake in not pointing out to the Minister that he has a verbal amendment on the paper to Clause 7.

That does not matter very much. I will deal with it at a later stage of the Bill. This is new Clause 9. It was a matter raised in select committee about criminal jurisdiction. Apart from that clause there was no criminal jurisdiction conferred upon a native commissioner’s court, and the trouble for a native would be that he would have to go a considerable distance if charged with an offence which can be obviated by giving special powers of this description to native commissioners.

As this reads, you give him jurisdiction to try a murder case.

Yes, I will move it in an amended form. I move—

Amendment agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

Amendment put proposed by select committee in lines 9 to 19.

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Amendment put proposed by select committee.

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

This clause only refers to native appeal courts, para. 5 (a) provides: Provision is made that assessors can be appointed to assist in the courts of native commissioners, but there is no provision for the payment of the assessor. I may remind the Minister that I asked him a question about it and he referred me to this clause. It, however, only applies to native appeal courts, so that there is no provision made for assessors in the courts of native commissioners.

Payment of assessors cannot be proposed in committee. The approval of the Governor-General will first have to be obtained.

Then I want to ask the Minister to so alter this clause that provision is made for it.

The hon. member understands that the matter cannot now be raised, but I will see whether it can be introduced at a later stage.

I would like to ask the Minister why they propose to delete in sub-section (2)—

I understand the Appeal Court is going to consider cases that have been dealt with under native law and custom, and if that is so, why is it proposed to delete this.

The reason is that in the Select Committee we broadened the scope of the court not only to deal with native laws and customs but the ordinary law of the land. We felt we should give the Native Affairs Department greater scope as far as the appointment of men are concerned. They will have to be experts in the ordinary law of the land as well as native law. It is taken that the Native Affairs Department will generally appoint a person who is well acquainted with native law and custom and also with the ordinary law. In certain cases it is necessary to have a man who is well versed in the ordinary law of the land.

What is the meaning of the words “qualified persons”? Who is to determine what a qualified person is? Is he to be qualified legally?

It is very wide. I don’t think it means very much.

What will be the position in the event of the absence of the president through illness or other cause? Power should be taken in this Bill to appoint some one in the place of the president in that event otherwise the court will not be able to function.

I think that is a substantial point as far as I can judge at the moment. I will go into the question, and we will deal with it at the report stage.

You could insert the words “president shall include acting president.”

Clause put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.