I wish with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House just to make a few remarks on a certain incident which occurred the other day, much to my regret. It is with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) as to what was said by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) in regard to the Empire Parliamentary Association. As chairman of the Empire Parliamentary Association, I wish to say that I cannot too strongly condemn the remarks made by my friend the hon. member for Pretoria (West). They were entirely uncalled for. The association is strictly a non-political body. It has absolutely no politics. Its object is really to promote good feeling among members of Parliaments the empire over. Anything said or done to get away from that principle is strongly to be condemned. On behalf of the association of which I have the honour to be chairman, I wish to say that quite frankly and sincerely. I very much regretted that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) should have said these words about the hon. member for Winburg, because he entirely misinterpreted the real objects and aims of our association. I hope my hon. friend will agree to withdraw them, and restore the harmony which existed before.

Nothing will be wanting on my part in expressing regret at introducing the Empire Parliamentary Association into the arena of debate. I should indeed be sorry if anything said by me in that regard precluded even the most sensitive member from making the fullest use of the Empire Association. Those who were present may remember that I proclaimed its catholicity, assuring them of a reciprocal welcome and hospitality free of party prejudices. So far as the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is concerned, I am sure he will be the last to complain of “a Roland for his Oliver” in the conflict of politics. I trust not to offend again any members of the Parliamentary Association.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

During the whole course of this long debate I have studiously avoided saying anything that I considered might have a tendency to revive the old animosities of the past, but I consider I would be wanting in my duty even at the eleventh hour if I did not make a strong appeal to the Prime Minister to realize the seriousness of the feeling throughout the country which the introduction of this Bill has brought about, and even now to ask him in his responsible position as Prime Minister if he does not think he will be better serving the interests of the country, if not perhaps the interests of his party, were he even now at this late period to withdraw and postpone the consideration of this measure. During the course of the debate the Prime Minister gave his reasons against postponement in the following words—

I would ask the Prime Minister if that is a correct statement.

Totally.

Surely the proposal of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the Union Jack and the flags of the two old republics should be embodied in the national flag of the Union does not leave the Dutch people of this country without any representation in the national flag? Instead of welcoming this proposal, the Prime Minister unfortunately covered it with ridicule, said it would be an insult to the Dutch-speaking people of this country and that it offended his aesthetic taste. Does the Prime Minister really believe that a large section composed of English and Dutch people in this country will be satisfied with a flag which represents nothing of the real history and the traditions of both races of this country, traditions of which neither race has cause to be ashamed? An emblem—as it is stated in connection with this flag—solely of past history in a shield on the flag cannot be considered to meet the sentiments of both sections of the people in this country. And I would ask the Prime Minister, in all earnestness, if this is a time, because the hon. gentleman has a majority in this House that can push through a measure of this sort if he so desires, simply for the sake of getting a party advantage, that he should continue on the course on which he has embarked. I would say to my hon. friend, the Prime Minister, even if, in the referendum provided for in this Bill, his ideas should be adopted, does he think for one single moment that this will be a settlement of the question? The Prime Minister, during the course of this debate, talked very warmly and very excitedly about unworthy suspicions. Is it any wonder that these suspicions should exist? I need not refer to the actions of the past which, to a certain extent, have caused those suspicions in the minds of a certain section of the people; but I would refer the Prime Minister and the House to the suspicions which have been justly engendered by the speeches that have been made in the House and in the country, and statements that have been made by the Government representatives on the Flag Commission during the last few months. In this House, shortly after the assembling of Parliament, the hon. member for Piquet berg, the Chairman of Committees (Mr. de Waal) made a speech in which he strongly advocated the continuance of the agitation in favour of a republic, and not one word of disapproval was heard from the mouth of the Prime Minister in connection with that unfortunate speech.

He spoke for himself.

He is an important member of that party, and surely it was the duty of the Prime Minister to give a most unqualified denial to statements of that character, and thereby allay any suspicions which statements of that character might have engendered.

How many agreed with him?

I will not ask that. I understand the hon. member represents a section—I hope a small section—of hon. members who sit on the other side. In one of the statements issued by the delegates of the Flag Commission occurs the following—

But my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van d’er Merwe) in a speech he delivered at Swellendam not very long ago, gave expression to the following sentences—

Does the hon. member consider that a statement of this sort is not likely to engender suspicion, and very justly to engender suspicion, in the minds of a certain section of the people of this country, and when the hon. gentleman, in the course of his speech, referred to the evolution and improved status of the Union, surely he realizes what we all recognize—the course of evolution and the improved status of the Union—I would ask him what is the reason for our improved status, and what is the reason for the conclusions arrived at the last Imperial Conference? Is our improved status not entirely due to the sacrifices which both English and Dutch made on the battlefields of Europe, and the other quarters where the great war was fought out; and without those sacrifices would it have been possible for the Union to find itself in the proud position it now is in—sovereign independence within its own borders, and a portion of that commonwealth of nations to which we are all so proud to belong?

made an interjection.

I will not refer to the interruption of my Sinn Fein friend, because I do not think it expresses the feeling of the country. From the Prime Minister to the youngest citizen we rejoice at the magnificent services which the young manhood of South Africa has rendered on the stricken battlefields of the great war, and it is unworthy of the hon. gentleman to issue a retort like that at a period of this sort, and to say that we should not be filled with the deepest admiration at what these young people have done. Are we to forget that the great sacrifices which our heroes carried out were made under the Union Jack, under which flag they were proud to serve? I am glad to see the Minister of Finance is here, although I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not; I would like to ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness why this change of front since the hon. gentleman spoke at Capetown and Pretoria immediately after his return from the Imperial Conference? When I landed from Australia at Durban—and we have heard a great deal about Natal in the course of this discussion—I met many of the important citizens of Natal, and every person to whom I spoke was full of admiration for the sentiments that had been expressed in Capetown and Pretoria by the Prime Minister. I was told that the whole of this question of the disturbance which was likely to ensue in the country in connection with the pressing forward of the national flag had entirely disappeared, and I state without hesitation that the feeling of the whole of the prominent citizens of Durban whom I met was that the Prime Minister was going to abide by the character of the remarks that were embodied in those speeches, and that the Flag Bill was going to be dropped. I said, in reply, that I was extremely pleased to hear of the improved situation, but that I could not forget the history of the past, and that though nothing would give me greater pleasure than to realize that the Prime Minister, on his return from the Imperial Conference, was going to embark on that course, still I could not forget the fact that on previous occasions the Prime Minister had been full of pious opinions, and it was quite possible that, as in the past, if he had spoken the word he would have saved the country from an enormous amount of trouble and disturbance, but he said he had not done so because he feared to lose his influence amongst his people. I said that though I would regret it, I would not be surprised if we would have an exhibition of the same feelings by the Prime Minister, and that he would yield to the Minister of the Interior and to that section of the party which sits behind him, who are determined to press this Bill, although the country did not ask for it, and did not desire it. I would again like to ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance if it is not a fact that shortly after their return to Capetown from the Imperial Conference, the Prime Minister discussed this question with his colleagues, and he was so impressed with the manner in which he had been received in England, that in the interests of good feeling and good fellowship, he was desirous of dropping this unfortunate flag Bill. In that opinion he was supported by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of the Interior demanded that this Bill should go forward regardless of consequences, and that if the Prime Minister were not prepared to adopt that attitude, he could accept his resignation.

Nonsense!

I am not speaking of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), but of the four Ministers I have mentioned, and I would like a denial of the statement I have made. Why are we opposed to the Government flag?

Because you are opposed to the Government.

We are opposed to the flag sincerely and conscientiously, because we believe a flag—and not an emblem as an inset in the flag should truly represent the history and the traditions of the people. Several times during the debate the Prime Minister stated that when we on this side of the House press for a flag of a different character from that proposed in the Bill, we are influenced solely and entirely by the spirit of domination. May I ask him if the Union Jack which, under the latest proposal, is to be flown separately, why its combination with the official flags of the two late republics would show any spirit of domination of any sort whatsoever?

You demand a dominant part in the flag.

We do nothing of the sort. We demand, and we have a right to demand, that the sentiments and traditions of the English-speaking section should be embodied with the sentiments and traditions of the Dutch-speaking section in the national flag. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines have said, we have a perfect right, as a large section of the people who have done our share in developing the country, to demand an equal place in the national flag with the Dutch section, as an emblem of our unity and common citizenship. Hon. members opposite have asked why we are alarmed at the present position. Is it any wonder, seeing that prominent representatives of the Government on the Flag Commission have stated that the Act of Union is no longer a sacred treaty, but that since the new status was reached, it is a dead letter? I was a member of the National Convention. I, and others who thought with me, accepted at their face value the solemn statements made to us that when we came to a final solution in connection with the union of the four provinces, that the unfortunate history of the past would be blotted out for all time. Members of the National Convention who are in this House will remember that we stated unmistakably that although we knew the English-speaking section were in a minority, we were quite prepared to place our destinies in the hands of the Dutch, and, thank God, we had such patriots as the late Gen. Botha, who gave us no cause to regret the step we then took. Towards the conclusion of the National Convention, we were told that there was one matter which still prevented perfect unity. The late President Steyn addressed the convention and said we had come to a decision upon every point but one but the Dutch people would not be satisfied except by having every possible right for the Dutch language; but the moment you say in the Act of Union that you will recognize Dutch as being equally an official language with English, then all the differences of the past will have disappeared and they will never be raised again. The English section of the convention accepted that statement, and I am surprised to see that there are people in this country who have been appointed by the Government to responsible positions in connection with this flag question who have publicly stated that, owing to our sovereign independence, the Act of Union is really a dead letter.

Who said that?

Professor Smith and a couple of other people whose names I do not wish, under the particular circumstances, to mention at the moment.

They said that only on one point in regard to our constitutional position.

Is that what the hon. member said at Swellendam, that our constitution was such that step by step we should depart from the sacred undertakings then entered into? Is that the idea of the hon. gentleman? Whatever may have been our unhappy differences in the past, ever since the peace of Vereeniging, the Union Jack has stood for liberty and freedom unexampled in the long roll of history. A national flag should be chosen for its associations as the symbol of common sentiment reminding men of the past resolves, past heroes and rally to enthusiasm those sentiments of esprit de corps and patriotism which are so essential as the integral portions of a national flag. If it were necessary to add more eloquent words than I can to a statement of this character I would like to be allowed to read a portion of an article written by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) which was referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) at a late hour last night. The hon. member for Umbilo in the “South African Nation” wrote as follows—

Surely they do not. The English-speaking section are as willing and free to acknowledge the magnificent and heroic sacrifices the Dutch-speaking people of this country made under their flag as we desire the Dutch-speaking people to recognize the sacrifice the English-speaking people have made under their flag—

What has caused the hon. member for Umbilo to depart from those sentiments, which are the sentiments we have been trying to express on this side during the whole debate? The Union Jack has been the flag under which a vast majority of the permanent population of this country and their fathers and grandfathers before them have been born. It is a flag which for 126 years floated over the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. It is the only flag known to Natal.

No, no!

Well, the only flag known to Natal for many, many years, for 80 years. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) gets excited, but 80 years ago his forebears were not in this country at all. His forebears came from Ireland and he knows nothing about the traditions to which I refer.

That is no disgrace.

Certainly not.

Why therefore a combination of these three flags as an integral portion of the national flag of the Union has been considered an insult as the Prime Minister said, I cannot for the life of me understand. I believe a combination of those flags in the national flag of the Union not alone represents the sentiments of the English-speaking people of the country but represents to the world, as a national flag should represent, our position as an integral portion of the British empire. Might I tell the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) the commonwealth of free nations of which we form a part is a partnership and no portion of that commonwealth can go from it without the consent of the other partners of the commonwealth. What effect has the flag? There are in this House members of the Empire Parliamentary Association, my hon. friend over there for one, who went to Australia and in Australia they recognized in every public school on every Monday morning the flag is broken, the children assembled, voicing allegiance to their Creator, to Australia and to the flag under which they live, and do hon. members think if you force on the people of this country a flag which a large number of people consider, and justly consider, does not recognize their sentiment, that the children of this country will grow up to love, revere and honour a flag which has been so forced upon them? Nothing impressed me more, or the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) more, than that extraordinary ceremony which took place every Monday morning in the schools of Australia. I would like to see the acceptance of a flag in this country which conveyed the conditions of both sections of the people, traditions which, as I have earlier said, no section has any reason to be ashamed of, and when the rising youth of the country see the flag flying over them as a national symbol it will revive in their mind memories of the heroes of both sections of the people who have done so much to develop this country. I do not want to trespass too long upon the time of the House. I hope I have said nothing which would offend anybody’s sentiments but I want clearly and unmistakably to say that the course upon which the Government has embarked of forcing a flag of this character on the country, which is not a flag of consent, instead of leading to unity is going to lead to disunion and will sever the people in a manner in which they have never been severed before. I say unhesitatingly I believe in expressing these sentiments I have behind me the support, not alone of my right hon. friend, but of a large section of the Dutch people of this country who showed their love for the flag by standing to the last ditch in its defence, and under these circumstances is not the best means of uniting the people of the country to combine the common sentiment of both races and let us have a flag we can all look up to and respect on account of the traditions and past history it embodies? I say unhesitatingly to the Prime Minister, in his position of responsibility, if he, with his majority, continues to press a question of this sort and force it on an unwilling country, he will be doing one of the worst day’s work he has ever done in the course of his life. There is no greater influence, among the people than the influence of sentiment. When I remember the sentiment the Dutch people have for their flag surely they will acknowledge the sentiment we have, and have a right to have for our flag. How do they possibly consider that we ever can have a settlement which is going to bring unity and loyalty to the flag, except it is brought about by a better feeling in this country and brought about at a time when the people of this country will be prepared to accept it? No flag can possibly be the flag of a united people that is forced upon a section of the people of this country, and, whether rightly or wrongly, a large portion of one section in this country consider that this flag has been forced upon them.

So has the Union Jack been forced upon them.

The Union Jack was not forced upon the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. The Union Jack in 1801 became the flag of this country by common agreement amongst the Powers that were then at war and, notwithstanding the differences of opinion and the mistakes that have been made, I ask my hon. friend if the Union Jack, certainly during the last 24 years, has not stood for liberty and freedom in this country.

What did it stand for before?

I ask my hon. friend again, is there any slight recognition of the manner in which that flag handed back to the Dutch people of this country their full liberties in self-government, and if ever since the National Convention every responsible person representing the English section of the community in South Africa has not wholeheartedly and honestly and conscientiously tried to abide by the understanding that we arrived at at the convention? If such is the case, whether the hon. gentleman thinks he is right or wrong, whether he thinks we are misguided —if such is the case, if he desires a united South Africa to grow up in the future absolved from all the differences which have, unfortunately, separated us in the past, notwithstanding the majority that his Government has at the present moment, does he not think that it is in the interests of everybody to drop a contentious subject of this character if they cannot meet the sentiments of both sections of the people and that it would be advisable to wait for a better period than embroil this country in a strife which the hon. gentleman himself knows cannot lead to that unity which, I believe, he and I desire. I can do nothing more than protest. I protest in what, I consider, has been very temperate language. Ever since the Act of Union was signed I have done in my small way my little to show that I want no difference between a South African, whether he was of Dutch or English descent, that I was desirous of seeing grow up in this country neither English nor Dutch, but South Africans, but still recognizing, some by sentiment, others by interest, that it was to their advantage to remain an integral portion of the British commonwealth of nations of which we happen to form a part. The destinies of this country lie in the hands of the Prime Minister. It is for him to decide with the majority behind him, but I will tell him this, that he must not be guided by the people who sit on the cross-benches as representing the section of the people of this country for whom they presume at this moment to speak. I say this, that since Joseph was sold into bondage by his brethren a greater act of betrayal has never been made for political reasons than that which has been made by the hon. gentlemen who sit on the cross-benches. I say unhesitatingly that the Government and the Prime Minister will find that those hon. members do not represent the sentiments of the people of the country for whom they presume to speak and I ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), in the extraordinary amendment which he proposed to the Bill, which, when you read it, you can see that as he drafted that amendment or it was drafted for him the last clause has been struck out— the last clause of which, to make any sense of it, would have been that the Union Jack should be flown on every occasion when the national flag shall fly—I ask the hon. member whether they agreed to the deletion of that portion of the clause because they knew it would not be accepted by the small coterie that is represented by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). I feel deeply on this question; I am desirous of seeing a real union between the two sections of this country and I believe that in forcing a flag of this character upon the people for party purposes you are not going to have a real union, but you are going to do an act which will prevent that union which, outside a few agitators, is taking place from day to day and you are going to put back the clock of progress in this country many years by the course upon which the Government has embarked.

When we notice what feeling this Bill has aroused in the House and the country then we can ask what good it has done to the people of South Africa. I am convinced that the Bill has contributed to do damage to the material and national interests of South Africa. That is the reason why we on this side both in the House and in the Select Committee have pleaded for a postponement in the true interests of South Africa. The plea for postponement was actually rejected roughly by the Government. Through its crude handling of the matter during the last two years the Government has made a peaceful solution impossible, because from the beginning it has disregarded the feeling of the people. The Government has vacillated so much—

The matter is being left to the judgment of the people by a referendum.

The Government has vacciliated so much that I am not surprised that the people outside are tired of the matter.

The people were tired of the S.A. party at the last election.

The people are not only tired of the matter, but have been absolutely confused about the actual position. The people are disheartened and confused on a matter which ought to arouse a noble effort and feeling among them. The Government has done more, because it has brought our Parliamentary institutions into contempt. I want to ask the Minister of the Interior what has been done this year in Parliament in the interests of the people. During the past two years, and especially during this session, a spirit has prevailed on both sides of this House which has hampered the handling of matters of practical importance. The result is that nothing has been done for the development of the country except that we have voted large sums for administration.

What about the Iron and Steel Bill?

The hon. member must not get excited.

Not about your speech.

It is worth looking at the history of the Flag Bill. It was introduced for the first time in 1925.

It was started in 1919 by resolutions of S.A.P. congresses.

I am speaking of parliamentary history. The Minister of the Interior introduced a Flag Bill in 1925 which gave him the right of designing a flag as he wished. Did we on this side try to make political capital out of that?

Yes, always.

We approached the Prime Minister through our leaders to say that it was impossible and that the people would never leave such a delicate matter to the Minister of the Interior.

The reverse is the case.

The result was that the Bill was withdrawn and the subject matter was referred to a conference last year. Did the Minister learn wisdom from the result of the conference? It became clear there that agreement was not possible, but the Minister did not learn wisdom. He came from the conference to the House, and introduced a second Bill which contained the so-called Walker design as the proposed national flag. The Minister at the same time signed a report in which he praised the patriotism shown by the members of the conference.

I still stand by that.

The Minister, however, at the second reading contradicted everything he has said in the report by the strong speech which he made in the House. He attacked the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and our party for having allowed ourselves to be dictated to by the Sons of England and the Empire Group. He said that that was the reason for the attitude which the S.A.P. representatives had adopted at the conference.

The Government will introduce a new Flag Bill in the Senate.

The Minister said that the Sons of South Africa stood behind him and that the Bill would be passed. He made a speech on the Flag Bill and the Walker flag to justify it on national grounds. He made a first-class speech and announced what a flag meant to a people and I agree with every word he said on that point. It was, however, all bombast on the Minister’s part and he only raised a smoke screen. What has become of the great necessity of a national flag? There is a split in the Pact because hon. members on the cross benches, the Minister’s allies, would not swallow the Walker flag.

That is quite wrong.

I know the position. The Minister found out that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) one of the chief supporters of the Government was an exchairman of the Sons of England, and that there were four other members of the Sons of England in the Labour party. Yet here he comes to tell the House that the Sons of England were behind us. The Prime Minister proposed the postponement of the debate and it disappeared from the scene notwithstanding the excellent high-toned speech made by the Minister of the Interior. He became frightened when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) said that if the Bill were passed not one of the Labour members would be re-elected in Natal. The Minister got a great fright, and the Prime Minister then gave the Walker flag a kind of burial.

Now you want further postponement with a view to another funeral.

What happened thereafter is strange and interesting. After the Bill had disappeared the Prime Minister before leaving for the Imperial Conference suggested that a Crown should be placed on the national flag. What happened to that?

You would not have it.

The Nationalist press and the Nationalists themselves immediately refused to accept that Crown—

No, we were willing.

… and the Crown was dead. We did not kill it.

Yes.

No, the Nationalists and the Nationalist press themselves protested. The proposal was accordingly dead and the first kite of the Prime Minister did not rise. When the Prime Minister returned from the Imperial Conference he said that the Crown was dead and he then suggested the Royal Standard.

That you would not have either. You wanted nothing.

The second kite also would not fly because the Nationalists would not accept the Royal Standard. It was therefore stillborn.

No, we were willing to accept it.

No, you refused both the Crown and the Royal Standard and dropped everything like a hot potato. This session the Minister introduced a fifth design, the red cross flag. It was coldly received by his own party and the whole people. No section of the people wanted to adopt it as a national flag.

That was the “friendly gesture.”

The Minister was prepared to drop it but he could not do so in the House. He had to have a select committee to get quit of it. That was the motive for appointing a select committee. The result of the select committee was that the Minister introduced the sixth design and it is now in the Bill as subsequently amended in the House as the national flag.

There was evolution.

In the meantime conferences were held and flag committees convened, and to distinguish them the one was called flag committees and the other national flag committees. Is the Minister surprised that our poor people are confused to-day with regard to the motion, and do not know what the position is, irrespective of parties? I am not surprised that the people to-day want rest and peace because one section is being incited against the other by the Minister. The people have not been given a lead and do not know where the Government stand regarding the flag question. I tell the Minister that the people are sighing for peace and rest.

The people have had peace and rest since the present Government have been in office.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the S.A. party was disturbing the rest in order to catch votes. I would like directly to ask whether the vacillation of the Minister and his party on the flag question has not been due to wanting to catch votes. It was not done to meet the Opposition.

Yes, certainly.

No, we know what the reason is. The Minister need not think that we are so green. We know that vacillation has taken place for the sake of consolidating the Pact and that the object has been to catch votes. I shall not be surprised if the foreign flag which is now proposed—

It is a beautiful flag.

…. is sacrificed for the sake of consolidating the Pact. I just want to say a few words about the new proposal. The new design is really conceived in an atmosphere of dreariness and gloom. The flag, orange, white and blue, is dead so far as the traditions of our people are concerned. It is unknown and has absolutely nothing to do with the traditions and history of our people. A small shield is being placed on the flag. It contains the three old flags, the Union Jack, the Transvaal. Vierkleur, and the Free State flag, but how are they represented? They appear in a hanging and dead position.

They represent the past.

They are dead. Hon. members opposite are already trying to run away. This is not yet the final proposal. The three old flags are represented in a dead form and even the four stars give the impression that they are crying.

Are they crying about the attitude you are adopting?

They are full of tears. The whole flag and everything on it show that it is a dead flag. What is the dead flag to represent which is not a symbol of our past and tradition. A flag ought to represent a living people who are striving for a living and beautiful future. It is not only an insult to our people—

What people?

There is only one people.

I ask hon. members to allow me to finish my speech.

To finish your sermon.

I say that it is especially an insult to the aspirations and the noble history of the South African people. We are a small people, Dutch and English-speaking combined, but we have a history of incalculable value behind us and our worthy history must live in the future of our people, and must not be represented by a flag which shows that we are ashamed of our history. We must not have a national flag which contains a small circle, which has nothing to do with the traditions and history of our people. This flag is just as stillborn as the other proposals of the Government because it does not reflect what the Minister said last year a flag should stand for. Why does not the Minister carry out what he preached last year? I do not wish to attribute unworthy motives to him, but I ask whether he is now ashamed to utter the opinions of last year about our flag and whether he is ashamed of the people’s past? We have a great history behind us and the Minister and his party who always speak so much about their love for the people and its traditions and who say that they represent the Dutch-speaking people, ought to respect this.

The past is being represented on the shield.

Two of the provinces in the past were always under the Union Jack.

Not always.

In so far as my ancestors and I were concerned we were for more than 126 years under the Union Jack.

You can wrap your self in it; we do not mind.

It is the same in Natal. In the other two provinces republican flags used to float, and I say that a policy which does not keep count of those facts in the past with reference to the flag, and with history, will never be acceptable, or be in the interests of the real welfare of South Africa.

Your ancestors were born under Van Riebeeck’s flag.

Our history is a peculiar history full of discord and division. It is even a history of war. A time, however, came when our leaders said: “So far and no further.” They said that it was impossible on economic and national grounds for South Africa to go on as in the past. Thousands and tens of thousands of the inhabitants of the Cape and Natal sympathized with the republics in the great struggle and showed their sympathy towards their compatriots to the north of the Orange and Vaal rivers openly and many of us suffered in consequence. In 1909, however, our leaders said that the struggle of the past should cease. We went to the National Convention and they said that the time had come that the people in national matters must become one people. We advocated that Briton and Boer should co-operate in the future for the true development of South Africa. We people of Dutch descent in the Cape Province accepted the advice. I am an example of those who followed our leaders of 1909 and 1910. They were President Steyn and Generals Botha, Hertzog, Smuts and de Wet, all republicans, and not originally British subjects. I shall not tell the House what course I followed during the second war of independence because I was a British subject. We were told in 1909 that we must extend a brotherly hand and turn our eyes to the future.

That is just what we want to do.

In that spirit of forgiveness I extended a brotherly hand to my fellow South Africans.

Give the hand to Dutch-speaking South Africa now as well.

I am still clasping that hand because English-speaking South Africa has remained true to its word given in 1909 and 1910. They have not departed one jot or tittle from the promises then made. This meant a new future for South Africa as a result of co-operation between the two races. The English-speaking people have never yet withdrawn their hand, but remained by the 1909 spirit. That is the only spirit in which South Africa with its great difficulties and its races and classes can develop. We talk of the white civilization being maintained in South Africa and the maintenance of the 1910 spirit is the only way it can be done. I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior why they have departed from that spirit

The attitude of the South African party.

Have you so little patriotism that you want to break up the whole people for the sake of the South African party? Is that the extent of your patriotism and of your statesmanship? I did not intend to touch this point, but when the Minister gave up his pulpit at Graaff-Reinet he said that he wanted to unite the people and bring them together.

The flag will do it.

I hope the Minister will think back to the promise which he then gave the people. We must live in the spirit of 1909, and not depart from it. If there is to be one people as a saviour in the future, then I ask why English-speaking people are nut to be given the right to have the Union Jack together with the republican flags on the national flag.

They are now getting it.

I say that if the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) still has the spirit which he announced before he came into the House then he will adopt a different attitude. I hope that the clerical element which is coming into the House will stand by the spirit that they formerly exhibited. If we live in the spirit of 1909 why then cannot we design a flag in that spirit? If the National Convention had had to choose a flag in 1909 in which the three historical flags were represented there would have been no one who would have selected this flag as the symbol of a United South Africa. I listened to the speech of the Minister of Mines and Industries and it reminded me of the time when he went about my constituency. With him secession was the cardinal and radical principle of the Nationalist party. That has now apparently been postponed indefinitely.

On conditions.

Just listen to that, and hon. members opposite want to talk about suspicion. Now it is said, “under conditions.”

So long as there is no domination.

In other words the question of secession is a party matter, and if hon. members opposite were to be in the Opposition to-morrow, then they would again stand for secession.

Oh, no.

I say the Minister of Mines and Industries must remember what he did in my constituency. Yesterday he gave me the idea that the cardinal and radical principle of the Nationalist party was a fear of domination, that if the Union Jack were put on the national flag then it would be a sign of domination. I want to say that the Minister of Mines and Industries the Prime Minister, and the Minister of the Interior have no respect for Dutch-speaking South Africa. Are they going to allow English-speaking South Africa to dominate them? It is merely an insult to our people to say that that will happen.

It has always happened.

English-speaking South Africa has never yet dominated me.

They have converted you.

It will not be domination if the Union Jack is put on the national flag. To me it does not matter where the Union Jack is put in the flag, whether in the top or in the bottom corner. It will be surrounded by the Transvaal Vierkleur and the Free State flag and will not indicate domination. Does that not rather connote a defeat for the Union Jack? The greatest defeat which the Union Jack ever suffered was on the plains of South Africa. The national flag should be a mirror of the whole of the past history on both sides. We cannot get away from that. The plains of our country are full of graves of Britons and Boers, and why can that not be reflected on our national flag? They feel that something must be done to satisfy the English-speaking element of our people, but what are they doing now? The Government is now proposing two flags. I say if it is to be the future of South Africa that we must handle everything on a two-fold basis, then our future will be unsatisfactory. There is only one future for South Africa and that is national co-operation. South Africa must have one national flag in the future, and not two.

We are only going to have one national flag.

We must have a national flag which will prominently represent the history of the past, and it is only along the way that the foundations were laid in 1909 that we can build up a united people. I fear that that will not be done by this Flag Bill. It will rather break down everything which has been done since 1909 for the up-building of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), and what seems so strange is that he reproaches us for not wanting a national flag which unites the people. I want to ask the hon. member whether the Union Jack which flies to-day will unite us. It is not only a sentiment which exists among us only, it is a matter which has existed among the people since the second war of independence, and I may ask the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who started the thing. Was it not a South African party congress which first said that we ought to have a national flag Apart from the speeches in 1920, which I did not hear myself, but only read in the newspapers—

He was sensible enough to drop everything and not to go on.

It may be that he dropped everything because he was too careful, but it shows what feeling existed among the people, and that it was not we— as the hon. member said—who brought up the matter. At a meeting at Rustenburg a South African party supporter asked the hon. member for Standerton after he had explained the higher status when South Africa was going to get its own flag. The hon. member for Standerton admitted that there were many unpleasant associations connected with the Union Jack, and he said that we were going to get a national flag. That was applauded by the whole meeting. The matter was begun at that time and anyone who has followed the movement can come to no other conclusion. I do not wish to insult my English-speaking friends, because there are many of them for whom I have every respect, for what they are doing and have done in the interests of the country. They also know that I am no racialist. There is, however, a certain group—the Empire Group and the Sons of England—who have used the sentiment among the English-speaking people to stir up an Agitation. The agitation actually is that those people do not want a national flag. They do not want a national flag in which the Union Jack is included. They only want the Union Jack, and that is why they repeatedly say that the flag question should be dropped. They always insist on that because they know that if the Bill is dropped that they will still have the Union Jack, but then we shall have nothing. They will not admit that we are on a footing of equality with Great Britain, and they will not admit that sovereign independence has been obtained. When the Prime Minister made his speech at Stellenbosch before he left for the Imperial Conference to get independence for South Africa, he was hooted, and it was said that he would come back with a flea in his ear.

He wanted an international declaration.

The Prime Minister obtained exactly what he aimed at. Everybody said that he would not succeed, but when he did, and he came back, then they were, of course, in the difficulty that they could make no fuss, because then they would also have to do so against Great Britain and the other dominions. It was, however, a bitter thing to them that the Prime Minister had obtained what he had always stood for. Because it cannot be denied the Empire Group and its kindred spirits demanded that a symbol of our domination should continue to wave.

This side of the House does not take up that attitude.

Now I want to say why we are opposed to having the flag proposed by the Opposition which will contain the three old flags as an integral and substantial part. In the first place it is impossible to put them on an equal footing. It has repeatedly been tried, and designs were prepared in the Flag Commission and afterwards published. The composition was monstrous, and a Chinese scarf looks a beautiful thing in comparison with it. Suppose, however, that it were possible. Then the Union Jack must always predominate on the flag, come what will. The Union Jack stands for a great, strong and mighty nation, but what do the republican flags stand for? If you have a portrait of your friend then you do not keep it because you love the portrait itself, but because you love your friend. The two republican flags represent two states that are dead, and they cannot, therefore, take the same position as the Union Jack. The Roman emperors were accustomed to take conquered princes to Rome, to take part in the entrance to the city. If we incorporate the republican flag with the Union Jack as integral portions of the national flag then it will make the same impression upon me. There is only one way in which the matter can be done in a fair and honest way, and that is as has been done in the flag proposed in the Bill. There the historical flags are not for the purpose of representing a part of our future, but to represent the history of the past. The shield with the historical flags on it indicates our history, and the flag itself shows that a new nation has arisen. That has been done without any of the historical flags having a predominating position. That is why I am in favour of it. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asks if I have felt nothing for the Union Jack since 1910, and what it has done. Yes, certainly. The Union Jack is a flag for which I have the greatest respect, because, apart from what it has done in South Africa, he would be a fool who denied that the greatest democratic freedom in the world has arisen under it. I can well understand the feeling of the English-speaking people and to show that we are not unreasonable we are prepared to acknowledge the Union Jack for what it stands for in South Africa. It does not represent a national flag and can never do so, but it represents our connection with the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is why it is put into the Bill. We acknowledge the Union Jack fully and what it stands for, but it cannot be regarded as our national flag after the history of the past. I should like to explain a few things as to why we cannot agree that the old flags should be substantial parts of the national flag. In the first place, the two republican flags must necessarily occupy a lower and lesser position than the Union Jack. In the design contained in the Bill all three are nut on a shield in an absolutely equal position to indicate the history of the past, and the flag, as a whole, is a new flag which shows that a nation has been born. I think that every reasonable man will be satisfied with it, and will accept it. It is not that we want to detract from and minimize the Union Jack, but we must meet the desires of our people. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they think that the Union Jack can be regarded as our flag. No, that cannot be done. We must have a national flag if we want a united nation, one that will indicate the birth of a new nation. If the four states had been voluntarily united, then a combination would, perhaps, have been possible, but history has, unfortunately, been what it was. The Union did not take place voluntarily, because two of the colonies, that entered into the union, were conquered states, and they were conquered in a way which my hon. friends opposite must not forget. I do not wish to be bitter and to cause pain, but the conquest took place by methods which Sir William Campbell-Bannerman described as methods of barbarism. Therefore, we cannot agree to have that flag. We Dutch-speaking people are not inspired by a feeling of bitterness, but we want a flag which will bind together the population as one people. Friends of hon. members opposite in Johannesburg acknowledge that we have gone very far in order to meet them. The hon. member for Caledon states that we ran away. We went that length as a result of our honest and inward desire to meet the opposite side, and not to hurt our English-speaking friends. Because we did that we are now ridiculed, but I can assure the hon. member for Caledon that this design will not be altered, and if it is approved at the referendum, it will be the flag of South Africa. I did not actually intend to speak, but after certain things which have been said in the debate on the third reading I wanted to explain what feeling inspired me and all the Dutch-speaking South Africans of my party as well as a large number which belong to the party opposite.

The debate is drawing to a conclusion, and I have no desire unduly to prolong the discussion, but there are one or two points I would like to touch on. In the first place, I have been accused, it seems tome for political purposes, of having made an attack on the House of Orange. I have not attacked the House of Orange, but I have attacked the historical ineptitudes of the Minister of the Interior. I look upon the House of Orange as one of the few reigning Houses on the continent of Europe which has made good, and which has not left behind it, as so many have done, a nation in suffering and sorrow. My ancestors served for 200 years loyally under the House of Orange, and I am sorry to see my words being misconstrued in that wav. I did not need to be reminded that the House of Orange had granted the Free State its name, or the name of the Orange River. I remember with gratitude the generous hospitality afforded to President Kruger after the war by the House of Orange. If the Minister of the Interior had based this design on these incidents, there might have been something to say for it. We asked him what, this new design represented. He told us it represented the flag of Van Riebeeck, and in the second place, he said we ought to remember that this was the very flag with which King William III landed in England. I pointed out that both these statements of his were historically quite incorrect. I merely mention this because I do not want it to go forth that more especially a man like myself should have launched an attack of that sort. While I still do not understand why this particular design is being forced on the people of South Africa as their national flag—it has nothing whatever to do with the past history of this country—my quarrel is not so much with the design, my quarrel is first of all with the manner in which the Government has pushed this matter forward, and, above all, the effect of this Flag Bill in the country as the result of the way in which they have handled this matter. During the last election the Government issued a programme of the issues on which it was fighting this election. Not one of those issues was of half the importance as this flag issue, yet not a word of it was mentioned, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister told us that for 17 years he has been labouring under this burning grievance of not having a national flag. I hat, from the start, created a wrong atmosphere in which to bring forward a national flag. The Minister of Lands seems to think we are against a national flag. We have never been against it.

I said the Empire Group was against it.

The Empire Group seems to be an obsession with the other side. Some insignificant group of busybodies has been trailed across the debate. If that is the only argument they have, it is a very poor one. I do not know a single individual in South Africa who belongs to this Empire Group, and, as I say, they seem to me to be a tiny coterie of busybodies. They have been dragged into prominence by the hon. members on the other side, not by us.

And these patriotic societies?

I do not know what these patriotic societies are. I had not heard of them until the hon. gentlemen on that side dragged them into the limelight. Let me emphasize that we on this side of the House and the people of the country are not against a national flag. Where I join issue with the Government is not in their wanting a national flag, but the way they have introduced the matter, the spirit they have shown, and the bitterness they have created. Having suppressed this issue during the election, and coming to the country without a mandate on so important a matter, they at the start created the wrong atmosphere to deal with the matter. The least we thought the Minister would do when he introduced this Bill was that he would start in a quiet, generous spirit, but to my horror he started at once with a violent tirade calculated to breed ill-feeling. The Government mishandled this thing in a most shocking degree, and went out of their way to create the wrong atmosphere. How can you expect a symbol of unity to come from such an atmosphere? If the Prime Minister on his return from Europe had told the people that he would drop this thing for a few years and consult them later, he would have had the people of the country with him It is not so much the design or the contents of the Bill that is causing mischief, but nothing has shocked the country so much as the bitter tone of the other side. There has been a disastrous reiteration on the part of the Government that in their belief there are two races which must in all eternity stand in hostility to each other. I never once heard the Prime Minister or any of the other gentlemen on the other side express so much as a hint or desire that the two races should be merged together and form one united race. All through there was the deplorable repetition of their belief that there were two streams, pitted the one against the other. In glancing through the Prime Minister’s speeches one finds time and again such expressions as—

and so forth. Instead of the Prime Minister taking up the attitude, as head of the Government and the first citizen of the Union, that we should govern the country, not in the interests of one party or one race or another party or race, all through he seemed to be holding a brief for one section only. All through he seemed to think that he was in duty bound to contrast the two races and to stress their differences. Never did he mention any spirit of friendship and the many points of contact there are between the two races. I ask the Government what they have achieved by this Bill. They have perpetuated the two-stream policy for all time; that seems to be what the Government have achieved. The Minister said that the national flag should be a symbol of unity, and that is Has the Minister put a stop to the Dutch people having one flag when they foregather, and the English another flag when they foregather as he said his flag was intended to do? He is perpetuating two hostile sections in the country. I do not say this two pole formula nevertheless. Wherever there is a function in the country in future you will see two sets of flags, and this is going to perpetuate the division which we all so much deplore I would like to make it clear to the country and the House that we have never at any stage been against a national flag, but we do hold that there comes a moment in the life of a nation when alone matter of national sentiment can be dealt with. We do hold that that time has been postponed for at least another political generation by the blundering tactics of the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister. No good can emerge from forcing the Bill through the House and setting the country by the ears by a special session or a referendum," for whatever flag emerges will be a political flag, and the private house flag of the Nationalist party. We have tried to be reasonable all through I don’t think any member on this side of the House has said a word—the Minister of Finance shakes his head which will create ill-feeling, but that is more than I can say for hon. members opposite. The Minister of Finance himself has been very bitter over it. He has been surpassed by the Prime Minister himself. Even if we had been unreasonable we are not children. Let us recognize two schools of thought on this subject, and hon. members opposite have freely accepted that position. No amount of argument will shake either side, and that being the good of going on with the Bill The flag that we are now going to create will stand for all time as a symbol of disunity, We are going to show the world that we are a house divided against itself. If there is one European community in the world that ought to stand shoulder to shoulder it is the white men in this country. But we are piling up a day of wrath against ourselves. We are antagonizing each other; we are pitting one section, one race and one community against each other. Sometimes I look with a certain amount of trepidation to the future of the white race in this country, if we are so blinded to our own interests. There is scarcely a section which has not been pitted against each other by the Government, although I do not say they do it deliberately. I have never indulged to excess in that species of self-glorification called race worship. I am proud of the race to which I belong, but I believe that country comes before race, and that the nation as a whole comes before any particular section. I ask hon. members opposite if it is not possible for them to adopt a broader South African patriotism It is very human to stick up for the race to which you belong, but the thing can be overdone and it is being overdone. There is a wider South African nationalism than this insistence on the rights or wrongs of one particular section. I make this final appeal to hon. members opposite. They seem to think I am a sort of outcast to the people I belong to. I have noticed that feeling—very often hon. members opposite walk out when I speak.

You bore them.

No, I don’t think I have bored my audience this morning. I will not say it does not hurt me, but I do hold that this narrow insistence on the purely sectional issue as opposed to a wider South African patriotism has caused great harm, and I am afraid that we are on the eve of another great upheaval. How long is South Africa to be torn asunder by this sort of thing? In the last 15 years we have had six upheavals founded on an exaggerated feeling of race consciousness. We remember the two-stream policy, the secession policy and the days of 1914. In essence they were all based on this exaggerated race consciousness. This Bill is in essence the same unhappy business all over again. It has again a racial basis. At the eleventh hour, although I know it may be useless, I once more appeal to the Government to postpone the Bill and to guide the ship of state into calmer waters. We have no wish to obstruct the Government in having a national flag, but we are not going to create a national flag out of this uproar and turmoil. I hope the Government will take warning.

Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Industries referred to an authority he relied upon to show that the flying of the Union Jack was confined to certain people, and he mentioned an incident at Panama on the authority of an American professor. He either wilfully, or without sufficient investigation of the matter, overlooked a sounder authority on this question, and I propose to show how much at fault the Minister was in submitting that contention to this House. Keith, in Volume III of “Responsible Government in the Dominions,” says—

That is the point I want to make; “there is no restriction.” In a footnote Keith points out that Lowell, the American writer quoted by the Minister in his work on “Government of England,” doubts this, quoting the Panama flag incident referred to in the “Times” of September 17th, 1903, and Keith’s footnote continues—

That statement made in the House of Lords places the matter beyond doubt. The question was raised, and the then leader of the Government in the House of Lords, the Earl of Crewe, speaking on behalf of the Government said—

That leaves no room for doubt, and it is surprising that a legal authority like the Minister of Mines and Industries, on insufficient information, should have made himself responsible for the statement he made last night. The Minister of Justice conveyed a similar impression. There is one point I insufficiently made in regard to the standing of the Labour party to the flag question. One of the soundest men who ever belonged to the Labour party left it on a declaration that the Labour party under its present control, was a party which did not stand for labour principles. He has been followed by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) who, in this House, has indicted the Labour party on the same ground. There is no doubt that the financial control of the Labour party, as I indicated in a speech which I quoted yesterday to the House, is in the hands of an element whose influence is much resented by the more moderate and the best elements of that party. They have indicated that the alien element in the party is an element that has most voice in the control of its affairs, and Mr. Eaton, who left the party, was one who declared that the control was in the hands of people who had not the best interests of the Labour party at heart. Those are the people whose interests are being served by the Labour members when they adopt their attitude on this flag question, which is regarded by the public at large as a betrayal of confidence.

You are absolutely wrong.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), however, considered Mr. Eaton’s influence in the Labour party so great that he wrote to him asking him to use his influence in getting a position for him in the Cabinet, and he did that because he recognized Mr. Eaton was an undoubted power in the party at that time.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I was dealing with the question of the reasons which induced Mr. Eaton to leave the Labour party, and I was linking up those reasons with the unfortunate attitude of that party towards the flag. Before he left the party, Mr. Eaton made a public declaration in which he used these words—

Now that was said by Mr. Eaton before he left the party when he realized what was the dominating influence within the party itself, and that was borne out by the leader of the party, the Minister of Defence, who remonstrated against certain members of the executive using their political position to feather their own nests and he instanced the grant of the four liquor licences to these individuals in Johannesburg. Mr. Eaton finally did leave the party, and what he said on that occasion indicates that he was perfectly consistent when he decided to leave—

There is no doubt that what he said about the party having become a Pact party is perfectly true, and the attitude of the party in regard to the flag is dictated by that circumstance. The affinity of a number of Labour members with the red flag is well known The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs during the last Parliamentary recess, said at Benoni he was a “red flagger,” that was in reply to a question asked there. The Minister of Labour has also declared his adherence to that symbol and the principles of the Soviet, and I believe the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) also belonged to that well-known movement in Durban which was described by a prominent colleague of his, Mr. Harry Haynes, as the Durban Soviet, a movement responsible for pulling down the Union Jack to put up the red flag. The hon. member believe took a very prominent part in this and was associated with Mr. Haynes as one of the party who took control of the town council of Durban at that time I am simply indicating the general complexion of th Labour party on the flag question. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) last night reproached me for having indicated how closely he was associated with the Public Holidays Bill that aimed at doing away with two empire holidays, Victoria Day and the King’s birthday. He said that he took part in that matter before it was known that the Flag Bill was going to be introduced. That is not so. The Flag Bill was announced in the Governor-General’s speech of 1925 and the announcement was repeated in the Governor-General’s speech of 1926. The hon. member himself did not introduce the Public Holidays Bill until the middle of 1926. His reasons for consenting to the abolition of Victoria Day are of some interest. He suggested that it was the Labour men in Cape Town who had given evidence on that point who had some objection to the celebration of that day. He relied upon that evidence which showed that the Labour representatives objected to the celebration of Victoria Day because Queen Victoria had died a long time ago.

There has been no objection by the Labour party to Victoria Day.

If there has been no objection the hon. member is not in agreement with the evidence that was given before the select committee by Cape Town Labour men to the effect that there was objection. That evidence was referred to by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) in introducing his Bill. There can be no doubt that the preponderance of feeling among Labour members in regard to this question is that they have a strong leaning towards the red flag as compared with the claims the Union Jack has upon us.

It would be rather difficult when listening to the remarks of the last speaker to know what point is being debated. To hear the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) one would have thought that his continual strictures on the Labour party formed the subject under discussion, and it is only because he has made an attack on the Labour party under the pretence of discussing the Flag Bill that one is compelled to get up and answer him and rebut some of the things which he said. If not contradicted they might gain some credence outside. The remarks which have been made by him could far more fittingly have been made from an election platform. I think a speech of that kind had been far better left out. It would have been far more consistent with what has been said repeatedly by the Opposition, that not one word has been said in order to make strained relations.

Take the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge).

I am pleased to hear that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) joins us in our criticism. Apparently the basis of his (the member for Illovo’s) criticism of the Labour party is that some members of the Labour party at some time, somewhere, have done something which is not consistent with what the hon. member considers to be a political Simon Pure. I would like to commend him to the greatest champion of the Union Jack on his side today, that is the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I am quite sure English-speaking people look upon him as the Sir Galahad of the English people of this country, and there has been a consistent refraining on the Government side of the House from indulging in any such criticism regarding the past of the right hon. member as has been voiced by the right hon. member for Illovo in relation to members of the Labour party. If we go back through the past political history of the right hon. member we will find a very variegated political career also. We shall find that he was born under the Union Jack; brought up and educated under the Union Jack as a British national; and we may remember that after that he became a republican, and as a republican he fought against his own nationality. He did not fight as a rank-and-filer, but took a very high command and he fought to defeat his own nation. Then later on he became again the political opponent of those who succeeded the jingo pirates who wrecked the republics. Later on again he became a Unionist and a Unionist he is to this day. If a humble member of this House like myself, of South African citizenship, has at some time done something which does not please the hon. member for Illovo, and the only ground he has for his criticism is that I was not then what I am to-day, or he criticises the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) for the same reason, I would recommend him to look into the past of some of those on his own side. The only thing which can produce one line of thought continuously through life without interruption is an ineradicable prejudice such as characterises the hon. member for Illovo. We know that his opinions have always been what they are, and will always continue to be what they are. He has gone exhaustively into internal domestic matters of the Labour party, which has its own methods of maintaining discipline within its own ranks, and there is no necessity for the hon. member to go into the methods of the Labour party in dispensing with is undesirables. The hon. member has certainly not got the courage of what he wants the House to believe are his convictions; but with reference to the alien influences in the Labour party which he says threaten the stability of the Union Jack in this country should the Labour party attain to any degree of public influence in the country, when he says “alien” he means “Jewish”—sometimes referred to as southern European and sometimes as Russian. I myself happen to be one of those who are inside the councils of the Labour party, and I am not aware of any hon. members in it who are not natural South African nationals, except Jews, and they are South African nationals, being naturalized citizens. The hon. member for Illovo may quite profitably look along the ranks of his own party again, and see whether his Jewish colleagues are apologizing for the fact that they are Jews. Those hon. members in their conduct in this House are an outstanding example to the hon. member for Illovo. Those Jews are not going to apologize for being Jews, or that they were born in Russia or anywhere else. What the Labour party does require in an individual that belongs to it and takes an active part in its activities is that his actions shall be above board; that he shall help to establish the civilization we are trying to set up and maintain in this country, and furthermore, be tolerant towards others whatever their race or nationality. I commend the example of those colleagues of his on those benches who belong to the Jewish faith. The hon. member took occasion to make references to myself, and thereby to convey to those inside and outside the House that the Labour party were imperilling the safety and the stability of the flag. The best friend the Communists of South Africa ever had was the hon. member’s own leader. The Communist party was a flourishing party while his own leader was Prime Minister, and if he was Prime Minister to-day they would be still more flourishing. The day he returns to the premiership will be a happy one for the Communist party, because the violence that characterized the action of the ex-Prime Minister during the time he directed the affairs of this country was such that it was driving people who were most moderate in their views and law-abiding in their nature, into revolt. The consequences were, when that regime came to an end and the present Government took over, that the Communist party lost power, and to-day it is carrying no weight in our national affairs, and very little weight in any other sphere of public activity. If the hon. member for Illovo wants to do his country a service during the time he ornaments a bench in this House he could render very material service by not contributing that sort of criticism which leads nowhere, helps no one, does not help his party, and holds the weaknesses of his party up to criticism and obloquy in most cases. I think that he, with those gifts of his, if he cared to do so, could assist in solving those very weighty and involved problems to which he himself contributes so much, in the conduct and effect of native and Asiatic policy in this country. If he would do so, he would be contributing something towards the constructive handling of affairs in this House, instead of being a disintegrating influence such as he is now, and which is of no help whatever at this critical juncture in the affairs of the country.

After the second reading debate I hoped that we should have come to an agreement in the select committee but I am bitterly disappointed. Before the select committee the Government design was unsatisfactory, but now it is worse. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is actually in earnest with regard to the flag. I want to ask him whether he knows that the country requires rest and peace and that there are parts of the country where misery, poverty and hunger prevail. Now a whole parliamentary session is being wasted about an insignificant flag which no one wants. I have had a considerable parliamentary career but I have never yet experienced a more fruitless session.

Who has done most of the talking?

The hon. member will have an opportunity of speaking but he must remember that he has grown big and fat under the Union Jack. To me it is a serious matter because the country cannot stand such a condition as that which exists to-day. The House and the country are seething with agitation, race hatred and discord, and it is undesirable for a young people. The bitter speeches which have been made here by the Prime Minister I most strongly disapprove of. As Prime Minister of the country he ought not only to think of Dutch-speaking people but also of the English-speaking people. His bitter statement was that he represents one section of the population, and he said things which I never expected from a Prime Minister. The object was nothing else than to force the people into two camps, and that is an undesirable thing for a Prime Minister to do.

You have been beaten and now you feel hurt about it.

I shall ask the Minister to rise and defend his flag. The Prime Minister accuses us that we are playing hide and seek and not manfully showing our hand. He is the man who represents only the Dutch-speaking people in South Africa. When he obtained his mandate as Prime Minister he did not say that he was only representing a section.

You could not understand his speeches.

The matter from my point of view is once for all that I cannot fight for any other flag than my own.

For the Union Jack?

The hon. member grew up under the Union Jack.

I went through the war with you.

I have not heard one word from hon. members opposite pleading for the Vierkleur or the Free State flag. The Vierkleur will, however, always live in my soul.

Now sing Tipperary.

You are afraid to speak yourself. It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here because I want to tell the House of my instructions. I represent a constituency which is almost exclusively Dutch-speaking, and they fought to the bitter end and not like many hon. members opposite.

How many bitter-enders are their in you constituency?

The Minister ought to know because when he came there with his speeches to deprive me of my seat the bitter-enders put him in his place. During the recess I made a report of the past session in my constituency. I did not mention the flag but at my first meeting which was exclusively attended by Dutch-speaking people one of those present proposed that we should have a Union flag consisting of a combination of the Union Jack, the Transvaal Vierkleur and the Free State flag.

You prompted them, did you not?

The Minister, motion was passed at ten or twelve meetings. I want it and if I cannot get it I want no other national flag. I want to carry out the mandate which I received from my constituents.

You mean Mr. Pitcher’s mandate.

I am not so petty as the hon. member. The Minister of Lands made a very flattering speech but he did not go too far before he let the cat out of the bag. He said that he was opposed to race hatred.

Of course.

The Minister, however, said that the House could take it from him that the Union Jack would never be included in the national flag. He went further and said that if the four provinces had freely entered into Union then there would have been a possibility to make a combination of the three historical flags.

I said it could be done.

He said that when he thought of what the Union Jack had done in the past then there could be no combination. If the Minister says that then I doubt his sincerity, and the public must do the same.

Although you doubt it he sits here.

When we were midst fire and flame he was in safety.

It is a shame to hear such a remark from you.

I fought to the end, and broke my stick to pieces, but when we made peace I made peace in no half-hearted manner. There the cat again came out of the bag and you could see that there was no sincerity. I have always been sincere.

You are now fighting for the Union Jack.

When I hear such speeches then I say that this flag-wagging is nothing else than camouflage.

Your action is camouflage.

I say that we ought to give the people what they want, viz., a combination of the three historical flags.

The referendum will show whether the people want that.

I shall come to the referendum. The flag which is created by the Bill has already caused much bitterness, and the end is not yet. To-day it will be passed by the steam roller.

Tell us what flag you meant at the congress.

The referendum has been referred to but it will be one of the bitterest and most unpleasant incidents that we have ever had in South Africa. It will stir up race hatred. Moreover it will cost the country £14,000 or £15,000, and the money could have been used for the poor people who are hungry to-day. What is the benefit of the flag to-day? What shall we gain by the matter before the House? I shall publish my feelings and make them known to the world. I am disappointed about such things and I can say that I have different feelings to hon. members opposite.

Naturally.

My feeling is that to get co-operation in the country such trash should not be introduced into the House. What will the people say when they see the work that has been done during the session.

What about the Iron and Steel Bill?

Nothing else but bitterness, discord and race hatred has arisen and the parties have been driven into two camps.

They surely were in two camps?

I deplore it and will make use of it on the countryside. I shall explain what the object of the Pact Government is. Because they have given up their republicanism they are now going to choose a flag by which they can give expression to their feelings.

I did not intend to speak but I have been reproached of having become so fat under the Union Jack. I am therefore obliged to follow the Transvaaler who has fought so bravely and is now so infatuated with the Union Jack. I will tell what happened to me under the Union Jack. I used to think a great deal of it and my father certainly, also, and we possibly even loved it.

That I do not believe.

Then the second war of independence came, and I, who was loyal, was arrested and banished from my farm for a year. I had to remain under the Union Jack guarded by bayonets and eventually I was put in gaol. Can I then love the Union Jack? Then the Sons of England who love the Union Jack so much each had a rifle to guard me. No, I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Bethal. The Minister of Lands made a moderate speech and clearly said that he cherished no race hatred. I do not know why the hon. member for Bethal is so worried. The Government has given the Union Jack and the hon. member can fly it every day. Moreover, the Union Jack gets a quarter of the shield and that the place of honour Why then is the hon. member still fussing? The Minister of Lands said so clearly and beautifully that we do not feel bitter towards the English-speaking people but that we want a flag for South Africa, and not the English flag. The Union Jack will continue to fly in South Africa but it will represent, to us, the connection with the British commonwealth of nations. The hon. member for Bethal does not want us who were born under the Union Jack to ask for a national flag, but we do ask for one, and I can assure the hon. member that the Transvaal farmers will be satisfied with the flag in the Bill. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says that we ran away but we ran to their side in order to meet our English-speaking friends. I should be ashamed to rise like the hon. member for Bethal and to fling accusations at the heads of persons who were born under a free flag. He is now fighting against them and is to-day the greatest jingo that I have ever known. It is not that we want to sow discord, but we have no love for the Union Jack. We now have the chance of getting a national flag for South Africa. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) would not be able to do so, because he has the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) at his side so that, just as in the past, he will not be able to tackle it. We now have our Labour friends to assist us.

What about the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay)?

One has now turned and they want to kiss him with love as if he were the best man alive.

It is the kiss of Judas.

Our Labour friends are just as much English-speaking people as the supporters of the hon. members opposite, but they are poor people, and hon. members opposite are capitalists. That is the only difference because their blood is the same. It is no sin for us to co-operate with hon. members opposite, but if we co-operate with our Labour friends then it is race hatred. The people in the Cape Province are going to vote for this design. The hon. member for Caledon talks about the tears of the stars in the flag, but the stars are crying about the attitude of hon. members opposite.

I have followed this debate with the greatest interest and I was sorry to hear that members now and then adopted such a bitter tone; it is generally known that the first flag proposed by the Government was actually a failure. The first flag had only to do with the colours, and it was not long before it disappeared. Thereafter further attempts were made by the Government to find a solution, and a flag was proposed as the Minister now himself admits which was not at all his own choice. I do not at all agree with the people who are trying to ridicule the flag. The first flag was called the “paint box” flag, thereafter we had the “hot cross bun,” and now the “coffin” flag. I do not at all agree with that. Let us now take Flag No. 2, which was not even approved of by the Minister the Minister acknowledges that he would not have chosen it. What was said when Flag No. 2 was proposed? It was said that no symbol of the past, no reminder of the history of the past, no reminder of the history of the Transvaal or the Free State must be on the flag, it must be a clean flag which had nothing to do with the past, and nothing to do with the history of the country. Well, Flag No. 2 has disappeared, and we have No. 3. But to my great astonishment I now see that the position is entirely reversed, because the flag which is now before us is one full of reminiscences and full of history. I am an ex-schoolmaster and with this flag before me I should see a good opportunity to teach the children all the history of South Africa.

What is wrong with it?

Yes, and also grown-ups. We must not forget that the flag waved for 150 years over the Castle here, and we may not forget that if the history of the van Riebeeck flag had not existed that we should have had very few Dutch-speaking people in South Africa, and that South Africa would then possibly have been a Portuguese colony. Still less can we deny that the Union Jack, the English flag, also has great history behind it in South Africa, and in the English flag here in South Africa we also find great reminiscences of the past, but we stand now before a difficulty. The South African party has always insisted that the flag ought to be a representation of the history of the country. The English flag, the Transvaal and the Free State flags, and if possible one symbol or other should be represented on the national flag. In our opinion the flag now introduced by the Government does not go far enough. Instead of being merely a symbol we wish the old flags to become the feature of the new one. The question now is if the difference is insuperable. Cannot we come to an agreement so that we shall have a flag which will be the result of agreement instead of a referendum? I hope that the prophecy that the two flags will fly in South Africa will not be realized. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior say that the old flag will be put on the national flag as a symbol, while we on this side say that we do not merely want a symbol but that the flag should appear there as an important integral part of the flag. The question now is whether no compromise can be come to between the two sides to come to an agreement, Cannot the one side possibly go a little further and the other side possibly recede a little, cannot we possibly find a flag which will give general satisfaction, because I must honestly say that in my heart I feel uneasy about the referendum. It is not that I am afraid that one side will win or the other side will lose, but I am afraid of the discord which the referendum will cause, and of the trouble. It is an apple of discord which is being thrown among the people, and I am afraid of it. We must not forget that the referendum time will be a time of discord and dissension. And what will happen after the referendum? Will there be contentment then? I believe not. There will be more discord and we shall be even further from the right road.

If we lose we shall be satisfied, and will submit ourselves.

If the Government loses the referendum then we shall again be without the flag, and I doubt whether the Government side of the House will be satisfied and will submit. I want to avoid the possibility and I would rather see that at the last moment we should come to an agreement, and that is why I appeal to the Prime Minister.

Make a proposal.

Chapter III of the Bill which makes provision for a conference being called by Mr. Speaker has been withdrawn, but that proposal was laid on the Table. The chief idea was that if the conference came to an agreement the flag passed by the conference would immediately become the flag of the country. The hon. member for Standerton thought that the question ought first to be submitted to Parliament. The chief point is that the main idea was the same. Let us now try to arrive at an agreement in some way or other whether by a conference or in another way, but do not let us go to a referendum. It appears to me that the Prime Minister is in the position of a ship’s captain who after a long and difficult voyage is returning to his Fatherland. He is about to enter the harbour, but there is a heavy fog in which he runs the risk of being lost. In these circumstances it is better for him to wait a little longer on the high seas until the time is favourable for him to enter. I am afraid that by a referendum we shall not get a flag such as has been so eloquently described by the Minister of the Interior. He described it as a flag which should fly on national festivals and on great national occasions, but also at half-mast in time of national mourning. As a standard round which the people can flock when the Fatherland is in danger and as a banner to fight under—a symbol of the upbuilding and the union of South Africa, but I am afraid that it will be impossible to obtain such a flag by the proposal before the House. If at the last moment we can still arrive at an agreement then it will be one of the happiest days of my life.

If the members of the Opposition in this House have the real interests of South Africa at heart, as they profess to have, they will bring this debate to a close as soon as possible. When the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) was administering a well-merited rebuke this afternoon to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), he omitted to tell him that there are no more loyal citizens of the Empire than the Jewish members who were responsible for initiating the new clause in the Nationality and Flag Bill which has been agreed to. The hon. member for Illovo refuses to believe that the first Bill I brought up in connection with public holiday reforms was introduced in the early months of 1925, before we discussed the flag at all.

In 1924.

Yes. The preliminaries to the introduction of that Bill took place in 1924, and when the hon. member persists, as he has done, in saying that I was “whiteanting” on behalf of the Government I cannot help retorting that the only thing that saves the hon. member for Illovo from being a bare-faced prevaricator is that small piece of fungus on his upper lip. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) during the second reading debate challenged the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) to resign and fight his seat against him at an election. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were here this afternoon, I would warn Rim to sit up and take notice of what the good people of Germiston did at a meeting held there last night and of the news conveyed to the hon. member for Germiston and myself from a telegram just received from the town clerk of Germiston. The hon. member for Germiston is suffering from a somewhat severe cold, but as I have also received a copy of the telegram I would like to read it to the House. It says—

I hope the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will realize what the citizens of Germiston mean by this.

Read what you have received from your own constituency.

I can do that; and I also read the reply you sent to a similar wire, when you stated you would fight the Flag Bill to the last drop of your blood. The hon. member will require all the blood he has in his body to keep his own seat at the next election.

I never used the word “blood.”

The telegram goes on—

It is signed by the town clerk of Germiston. I know a jingo like the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) does not like to hear that a section of the people have at last realized that the Government is doing what is best in the interests of South Africa. He is another one that wants to settle matters in this country from the business end of a rifle. There are many more such members, most of whom have never fired a shot in anger from a rifle in their lives.

Have you?

No, I have not. I do not want to fire a shot. I want to live in peace in South Africa. All I have to add now is that a word to the wise is sufficient.

I wonder the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) did not address himself to the Minister as to whether they had any regard as Ministers for the interests of South Africa when they brought forward this Bill. This Bill has not been asked for by the country. The backveld is not interested in the Bill at all, and the Minister of Justice has said this Bill leaves him cold. He is absolutely indifferent to it. Furthermore, the people of this country are calling out for peace and quietness. To-day we are troubled with the drought, which is affecting business in South Africa. I do not say this Flag Bill is seriously affecting business but it tends in the same direction. It is a thousand pities that when we are troubled with drought we should also be troubled with a matter like the Flag Bill. Was it worth while to attempt to bring this Bill forward at all? What have you done? As a matter of fact you have contrived to rouse the feelings of English-speaking people as they have not bee roused for over 20 years. And it is not going to die down in a hurry, that is quite certain. Every time an English-speaking man sees the national flag he will remember the fight there has been over it and the fact that he has not got a fair share in that flag.

It is a fair share.

Don’t let my hon. friend take everything for gospel that is said to him from the Labour benches. The English-speaking man will look with distrust on this Bill because he has not received a fair share of the flag. A proper adequate share in this flag was definitely refused him by the Prime Minister the other night. Is that right or fair? Will that not be borne in mind in the future by English-speaking people? There is no question about it. The consequence is the flag will not be recognized by them. They will take care when it comes to a question of flying the flag to fly the Union Jack, and I am not at all sure that the Dutch people will not go back to the Vierkleur, especially as far as the Transvaal is concerned and even down here, because it still lives in their affections. Furthermore, the English-speaking South African will complain the Union Jack is not being flown to the full extent it should—it rests with the Government. That is the state of mind you are bringing about. Is that a state of affairs which any statesmanlike Government wants to see? Of course it is not. Their business ought to be to be bring about peace and quiet and let the people get on with their work and their business. We are against the two flags because it can only lead to one thing and that is the two-stream policy. I suppose even the Minister of Mines will recognize that South Africa has no better or greater or wiser friend than the late Mr. Sauer. I know he was against the two-stream policy. His object and effort were to bring the two peoples together. The same with the late Mr. Merriman. The Minister mentioned the other night he was not against the two-stream policy.

I recognize the existing facts.

Exactly, but there is no reason why the two sets of existing factors should not come together in time. Surely he realizes that the sooner they form one stream the better for South Africa. But you have been wicked enough to put obstacles in the way, and that is why you have done a great wrong to South Africa. We know the two streams are there, but we also know they are coming together. Why should they not? It is not a difficult job; it is not so difficult for instance as in Canada, because here we both belong to the same Nordic race, and we have pretty well the same religion.

It will take centuries.

It is going on daily. Why should you prevent that process going on? It is entirely to the good of South Africa and there is no serious difficulty in the way. It is the work of statesmen to help this and not to try and stop it. The race that is formed will not be the English race or the Dutch race, but it will be a South African race.

Who is interfering with that?

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said this debate had been characterized by bitter racial feeling. It is absolutely untrue. I do not want to use unparliamentary language, though I would very much like to, but one of the very foundation principles of this party is—

Profit.

To bring together the two races on the basis of absolute equality of rights, absolute equality of opportunity and mutual respect. I would ask any impartial man if there has been the slightest tincture or trace of racialism from this side in this debate. How could there be with many respected members of the Dutch race sitting here? The hon. member for Troyeville also said we did not want a flag. That is absolutely incorrect. Have we ever opposed a flag for South Africa? We think it is not called for, but we have never opposed a flag as a flag. We think it is inopportune; we think it better to let it wait, but we have never opposed a flag. We have opposed the two flags—that we are certainly opposed to—because it is not on a sound basis and does not tend to the ultimate prosperity of South Africa. There is a matter which has been alluded to once or twice but which is an extremely important matter. With regard to this question of suspicion, the Prime Minister took offence the other day at the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) when he alluded to this matter. But it exists; there is no getting over it. Suspicion exists in the minds of the English-speaking people.

You are keeping it alive.

It is you who are keeping it alive; and this tends, as much as anything, to keep it alive. I certainly never doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister in whatever course he is taking; but his weakness is, if I may venture to say so, with very great respect, that he changes his mind too often. I believe in his absolute sincerity when he changes his mind; but he changes it too frequently. My right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) and I, as is well known to hon. members, were at the National Convention, and the present Prime Minister there said that if the language question was settled on a satisfactory basis he would go into Union heart and soul, and he did so, thoroughly, sincerely. He did his best to get over the difficulties, which were many and varied, and an incident occurred at the beginning of the document which I need not go into now, which showed he was proud of the part he took in it. Yet within nine years he had gone on a pilgrimage to Great Britain to endeavour to have the Union dissolved. How can you wonder at the English-speaking people being a little bit suspicious when they see a matter like that? It is a little difficult to understand, and you cannot blame the English-speaking people for being a little bit suspicious. Then we hear speeches made from time to time, which also give us grave ground for suspicion. We have the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who is sent out as a sort of missionary, I presume, who made a speech at Bethlehem, tending in the same direction. “Die Burger” says that Dr. van der Merwe delivered a strong republican speech at Reitz, in which he said—

It appears from that that the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) really emanated from the hon. member for Winburg. The report also states that the hon. member said—

When we see that from a gentleman who has a good bit of influence in the Orange Free State, you cannot be surprised that the English-speaking people are a bit suspicious. Do Ministers know that they are in some degree—I do not want to exaggerate it—driving people from the Union at the present moment? I saw a letter from a farmer born in South Africa, whose father was also born here, and he gives five specific cases where men had left, some to Rhodesia, some to Natal and some overseas.

Surely it is not due to this flag?

It is due to it. I am simply giving facts as they stand, and as they have been brought to me. This man is a landowner.

It was worse under the previous Government.

That may have been; trade was bad in those days. Now you are supposed to have got into a better state of trade affairs. I can give you an instance of what happened only recently—a man in my employ is leaving with his family to go to America. These men have money and capital to put into land in South Africa. We heard from the Prime Minister a good bit about the Union Jack and its dominating the national flag, if it were put in as we suggested. We heard a good deal about the two flags of the republics being dead. When it was pointed out that those flags still lived in the hearts of the people, and that they were brought out on special occasions, that talk about the dead flags was dropped. The “dead flag has not been mentioned for several days. Now mention is made of domination, when the Union Jack has one quarter.

Which quarter?

Never mind which quarter; I say one quarter, and the other flags are to have two-quarters; and I fail to see where the domination comes in. It is simply that hon. members on the other side get hold of a phrase and run it for all it is worth, and when that has been exploded another phrase is invented. The dead flag cry has been shown to be untrue and incorrect.

A flag represents something; in itself it is nothing.

It represents the traditions and the sentiments of a people.

Sometimes very much more. It also represents a State.

If people are fond of it why should they not be allowed to have it? You can judge of the life of a flag by whether people love it. The proof is, are people fond or proud of this flag? Will the Minister deny that people are fond of this flag; will he say that they deny their flag?

What does it stand for?

For the past.

For a republic.

We are not so narrow-minded as my hon. friend across the House.

You are terribly one-sided.

The Union Jack represents the sentiments and feelings of the English-speaking people. The fact that it represents the empire does not make the slightest difference. To say it is an injustice to the Dutch-speaking people—well, I cannot see it. How can it be an injustice when they have two quarters in the flag as against one quarter of the other portion of the population, which is considerably more than one-quarter of the total population? Again it has been said that Unionist politicians abused the flag by exhibiting it on every occasion. What is wrong in that? It is admitted that the Englishman is very fond of his flag; I do not know any race that is more fond of its flag, and that is because it stands to the Englishman for a glorious past. He is proud of his flag, as well as loving it. It stands to him for freedom and liberty. It is a thousand pities that, knowing this, the Prime Minister did not follow the example of the Canadian Government which had a similar idea to what the present Government has, to bring forward a Canadian national flag; but they discovered the mistake they were making and the feeling that existed amongst the English-speaking people of Canada. But the pity is that the Prime Minister of the Union did not make the same discovery and did not follow the example of Canada; and that he did not drop this flag business; if he had, there is no doubt he would have been consulting the best interests of South Africa.

The longer the debate lasts the more astonished we become at the attitude of our hon. friends opposite. I refer particularly to our Dutch-speaking friends. How they can take up that attitude I cannot understand, and that is the reason I have risen because I did not intend to speak. We do not all object to our English-speaking friends opposite wanting their flag, but if they think they represent all the English-speaking people, then they are wrong. There are quite a number of English-speaking people who feel just as we do and who are standing by us. I do not at all object to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) speaking with so much feeling about the matter. He has the right to feel strongly, but we have the same right. We are surprised at the attitude of the Dutch-speaking members opposite. How can they adopt such an attitude? If Mr. Speaker would allow me I should call it hypocrisy, but I know I may not do so. Every attempt of the Government towards rapprochement they have rejected. Do they not want any solution then? Do they merely want to stir up feelings? What does this long drawn out debate mean? Is it not merely to stir up feelings? We on this side of the House have sat still during the whole of the debate, because we did not want to stir up any feeling, and because we wanted to do everything that is possible to preserve peace. And what have hon. members opposite done? Have they tried to preserve the peace? No, they have merely excited feeling, and they are still doing so. They accuse the Dutch-speaking Afrikander of race hatred, but there is no people in the world that has so little race hatred as the Afrikander. Just look what occurred after the boer war. There was no race hatred then. We had nothing against the English troops, and our feeling against the Union Jack would be less if they did not rub the Union Jack under our noses on every occasion we talk about our rights and so again stir up and hurt the feelings of the Afrikaans-speaking people. If it is excluded from the flag it cannot be used to constantly call to mind the bitter past. We must respect each others’ feelings if we want to preserve the peace, and that is one of the reasons why I have not spoken. The Opposition, however, have not kept to that, and they have practically compelled us to take part in the debate. There is a friend opposite who mentioned with pleasure that he went with the English troops through the Transvaal and Free State The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) need not boast about that. We know that kind of person. We called them burners of houses and murderers of women. Those are the people who did most to lay the farms waste and burn down the houses and do as much damage as possible.

I did not intend speaking but the Opposition always refer to suspicion. They expect the Dutch-speaking people to prove that there is no reason for suspicion and that suspicion is not justified. The suspicion is that there will be secession later on. Hon. members must, however, understand that it is their fault that secession was spoken of. There would never have been any talk of secession if they had not done it. They misused the Union Jack and then we commenced with secession. We are satisfied with the position that we are in, but if they now begin again holding the flag under our noses then secession will start again. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) laughs. I ask him if he still has the morning coat and top hat in which he walked about Johannesburg during the boer war. I know how he injured some of my people. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) spoke this morning with tears in his voice but when he wanted to suspend the Cape Constitution and take away the people’s rights there was no question of tears. Some of our people have been insulted under the Union Jack. When during the war a two minutes’ pause was kept every day in Cape Town a few of my people in Namaqualand came here. They knew nothing about the custom, and when they did not stop their hats were knocked off and they were said to have insulted the Union Jack. They never intended to insult the flag. We do not want to do so, but the jingoes abuse the flag in order to hurt our feelings. They have frightened the Labour party against us by using the flag, but the Labour party now know better and are working with us. They now want the flag together with us. The Labour party will not betray us as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) after the war betrayed the rebels that he had created in Cape Colony. Some of the people lost everything and one of the rebels was shot close to my farm.

The hon. member is wandering far afield.

I am sorry. The people suffered very much. Their houses were burnt down and they suffered under the Union Jack. Now the Opposition are only pleading for the Union Jack. They do not talk about the other flags. Just look at the placard of this morning’s “Cape Times” which says that yesterday there was a 10 hours’ fight for the Union Jack, but not a word about the Vierkleur and the Free State flag. We want peace in our country. Our friends opposite must prove that they have changed. I can well understand that they are in difficulty because they have to do just what the old Unionists say

The hon. member must not wander so far.

I am sorry. We have a beautiful country, but some people only come here to fill their pockets and want to do nothing more for the country. Those are the people who are now opposing the flag. I say the time has come for a flag, and all the delay is nonsense. The countryside wants a flag. They are tired of all the talk and they do not want further delay. The Government has done what it could but there is no rapprochement by the Opposition. They reject everything but they are too frightened to make a proposal themselves. They only give the old devilish advice of delay, just because they want to have the flag for the elections.

I rise to close the debate. The House will be glad to hear it; after the long discussion we are tired of the subject. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) is right when he says that the people outside who want a flag want us to stop speaking and to give them a flag. I have listened carefully to the debate just to find out if a new point had been raised in order to answer it, but I was not so fortunate as to find one. The debate has been carried on on the low plains of Moab as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said, and that, of course, brought him as usual to Moscow. In the meantime the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) took us for a moment to Joseph in Egypt, but, notwithstanding the long debate by hon. members opposite, there has not actually been anything new said. A great part of the speeches of hon. members opposite amounted to what they have emphasized from the commencement, viz., that the Bill caught not to be proceeded with, but that we should withdraw it. All I can say to that is that if hon. members opposite had shown just as much zeal in co-operating in selecting a flag for South Africa as they have shown in their insistence on the withdrawal of the Bill, then there would have been no flag question to-day. We waited in vain, however, for that co-operation to attain the great thing for South Africa of having our own national flag. Let me, in connection with this, say that if we were to comply with the request of hon. members opposite, and were to drop the flag question to-day then there would not be an end of it as the Prime Minister repeatedly pointed out. The matter has been raised. The desire of the people, which, undoubtedly, has existed all these years, although it has been dormant, has awakened. The people have especially seen the necessity of having a national flag owing to the new status that South Africa has acquired, and if the Government wished to withdraw and not to go on to get a flag for the country, the people of South Africa would not permit it. If the Bill is withdrawn that will not be the end of the matter. The people will simply go on, and just because the reasonable and rightful desire of the people to have its own flag has not been satisfied, there will be more friction and unpleasantness than before over the flag question, even if there is nothing before the House. I want, further, to say that if we were not to go on with the flag then we may be certain that we shall not have a flag for South Africa for generations. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said on a former occasion—

In what way should we get it in a year or two years? If this Government does not go on along the way proposed in the Bill so that South Africa remains without a flag, will the hon. member for Standerton then give South Africa a flag supposing that he ever comes into power?

By agreement, not otherwise.

Then the basic principle of the hon. member is—

The basis which the hon. member has laid down is that the Union Jack shall’ be an integral and substantial part of the national flag. Does the hon. member see any chance of the section of the people represented by this side of the House accepting such a flag?

Yes.

If the hon. member for Standerton thinks that then I say he does not know the Dutch-speaking section at the people.

Will they accept it in the shield?

They will accept it in the shield because it clearly stands for the traditions of the past. It does not constitute the flag of to-day.

Does the hon. member for Standerton object to it being put in the shield?

If the hon. member for Standerton wants to stick to his basic principle then he will never be able to get a national flag for South Africa if he comes into power. The withdrawal of the Bill does not mean that the people will have to be patient for a year or a few years, but it simply means that in spite of our being a free and independent people we shall be the only people in the world who are independent and without a national flag. If we were to get into that position, who is it that will then dominate? The objection has been raised against us—

If it goes through and this is domination, then there is at least this to say for it that it is domination by the majority. It can only be objected to domination by the majority in a democratic country that it comes too soon, and that a little more patience should have been shown. If I understand the argument of the hon. member for Standerton and his supporters properly, it is—

The private opinion of the hon. member for Standerton is the principle which is laid down in the Bill. A few years ago when be spoke about the Bill he took up the attitude which we are now taking. There is no doubt that privately he thinks the same as we do. He only says that the Bill should be put in the wastepaper basket, because it is impracticable, and, consequently, he argues—not for his own view—but for a part of the people on his side which is not yet sufficiently educated.

The people must not be torn asunder.

If we were to withdraw the Bill then for years and generations we should get no flag. Then the majority will not dominate, but the small part which by implication are acknowledged by the hon. member for Standerton, to be not yet sufficiently educated up to the standpoint we adopt. In other words, the section which will dominate South Africa is the small unreasonable one. I am not prepared to adopt that point of view. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) particularly referred to the return of the Prime Minister from the Imperial Conference, and he said that the Prime Minister then had the opportunity of obtaining a feeling of peace and co-operation in the country, but that he had neglected that opportunity. That is actually the string which has been played on from beginning to end of the debate. If the Prime Minister had the opportunity then it was not only his opportunity, but it was also an opportunity for the hon. member for Standerton. If he had taken up the broad standpoint and said—

then everything was right. Everything would have been right if he had taken the course of saying to the Prime Minister—

The opportunity was not lost by the Prime Minister, but it was lost by the hon. member for Standerton. What is the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) with reference to the matter. Why has he raised this matter again? Because he wanted us to have peace and co-operation between the parties in South Africa after the Prime Minister returned from the Imperial Conference. The Prime Minister and those who think with me would have however, to pay the price, and the price we would have to pay was the principle that we had to have our own national flag. Because they acknowledged our independent status and because the principle is subscribed to by the hon. member for Standerton we have to pay a price for it. That is the old argument which we have so often heard from that side of the House. It is their old principle—

That is absolutely wrong.

That is so characteristic of the attitude of people like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) towards Dutch-speaking South Africa. They argue: “We have given Dutch-speaking South Africa equal language rights, and because we have acknowledged their rights, it is something which we should be credited with, not only as a virtue, but we also want something in return for it.” In other words they are merely acknowledging rights on the side of Dutch-speaking South Africa, but then there is still the assumption that Dutch-speaking South Africa must buy their rights from them. Here the flag question is precisely the same as it was. They say—

No, we want to have a recognized flag.

Just a few words about the very peculiar argument used by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) which shows me more clearly than anything else in the world that the arguments of hon. members opposite are actually exhausted. Because five, six or twelve English-speaking persons he knows have gone to live in Rhodesia or have returned to England—

No, they went to Natal.

Because that is the case the hon. member says that it was caused by the flag question, and because we want our own flag for South Africa. My answer to that was that more English-speaking people left the country during the former Government’s period of office than since the time this Government came into power. More English-speaking people are coming into the country to-day. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) wants to be consistent, then he should say that when there was no flag and no question of having a flag English-speaking people were driven out of the country, and that now that we want to obtain a national flag more English-speaking people have come here. That is consistent.

What an argument!

That is exactly the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) to prove the fact that more English-speaking people are to-day entering the country than during the previous Government. To return to the so-called history of the flag question as dealt with by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), I do not know where he gets his history from and whether he has obtained it from the Apocrypha. I want to rebut his statements because I do not want them to go into the country as the correct history. He says that when the flag Bill was introduced in 1925, which said that the Governor-General, after the passing of the Bill, could proclaim a flag for the Union in the “Government Gazette,” the hon. member for Standerton went to the Prime Minister to ask him please not to proceed in that autocratic manner, but rather to consult with him so that we could jointly obtain a flag. It was just the reverse. Let me say, with reference to the provision that the Governor-General was to proclaim a flag, that it was clearly understood that after the Bill passed a conference of the various parties should be convened to select a joint flag which would be proclaimed by the Governor-General. The intention, therefore, was to get agreement. As for the postponement of the Bill, it was not the hon. member for Standerton who went to the Prime Minister to ask that there should be deliberation about the matter. It was the Prime Minister who went to the hon. member for Standerton and, therefore, from the commencement we showed that we regarded the matter as above party politics. I hope the wrong statement of the hon. member for Caledon will not mislead the world. Another thing out of the Apocryphal books were the words of the hon. member about the attitude of the hon. members of the Labour party towards the Walker flag. It was stated that the Bill was withdrawn last year because the Walker flag did not receive the support of the Labour party, and that they forced us to drop it and to bring up another design the following year. This is the first I have heard of the Labour party being against the Walker flag, this news from the hon. member for Caledon. When he said it I thought that possibly one of his Nationalist friends had been pulling his leg and that he had taken it seriously. I can assure the House that the Labour party had nothing against the Walker flag. In any case, it was not communicated to us. Our friends of the Labour party have from the beginning tried with us to get a flag, which would secure as great agreement as possible in the country, if we could find it. They made no objection to any particular design. I can hardly understand the reasoning of hon. members opposite with reference to this definite design. When we brought up a design which had nothing to do with the past, but only indicated the future, then their whole argument here and on the platforms throughout the country was that we could not have a flag which contained none of the traditions of the past. Now we come with a flag with the traditions of the past and their objection is that it is nothing but traditions of the past. If we adopt the flag of the hon. member for Standerton, they will not be satisfied either. The flag which the hon. member for Standerton has suggested or the demands he has made for any flag which will be acceptable to him is also a flag of the past, but it differs from our design in that the Union Jack will dominate in it. When I look at the flag he has submitted then it appears to me—

That there is too much Union Jack in it.

Then it looks to me like a flag which is all of the past except that the Union Jack in it is a living thing which predominates. It must now represent as the hon. member for Standerton himself agrees our admitted status. It is no wonder that he has put a springbok on it which, as he represents it, is running away from the status. Let me say that if the Bill goes on the statute book and we have got a flag for South Africa, then it goes without saying that this Government will as much as possible in South Africa take full account of the fact that the flag has been obtained by very great difference of opinion and conflict, I said on a former occasion, and I repeat it, that for a large number of years we shall have to show the greatest tolerance towards each other with reference to the flying of the national flag and of the Union Jack. I am glad, as the Bill maintains the principle of one flag in South Africa, that the feeling in the country is being borne in mind. As for me, the national flag will, for a long time, at any rate, be nowhere hoisted while the Union Jack at the same time is hauled down. The principle of one flag is laid down in the Bill, but the Government is allowed freedom to take account of the feeling in the country, and we are prepared to make the acceptance of the national flag as easy as possible to all sections of the people.

What more do you want?

Appeals were constantly made on this side of the House in connection with the Flag Bill, but I now also want to make an appeal to that side of the House, viz., when the fight is over and everything is passed to allow it to be a struggle of the past. There are many matters in the country about which we differ, and if we do not differ about radical matters then there will be no parties sitting here and there. We all, however, adopt the sound general principle of a democratic country that when the people have decided then the decision of the people must be accepted and, thereafter, all work together to make the best of the people’s decision. There is much dispute about the flag now. The one wants this to be included and the other that; the one wants this to be left out and the other that. The day will come as in the history of the Union Jack itself that neither section in South Africa will say—

As for the Union Jack, when the people of England and Scotland look at it, then the English people do not say that the St. George’s Cross belongs to them and the Scots do not say that the St. Andrew’s Cross belongs to them. The Union Jack stands for them all, and they have now forgotten the tradition that the one portion stands for one section and the other portion for the other. The day will come that we shall no longer say that this is in the national flag for English-speaking people and that for Dutch-speaking people, but that it will be said that the whole flag stands for the whole of South Africa. I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite that they, together with us, must hasten that day. My hon. friends opposite have tried to ridicule us because we have made many proposals, and when they were not acceptable, we went back on them and brought forward a different proposal. I think in that tendency which they have ridiculed there is clear proof to the people of South Africa that we really intended to get unanimity and to solve the question on peaceful lines. Now hon. members opposite must not imagine that we did that every time without risk to our side. There are people who support us who more than once were dissatisfied when we took a step of that kind. That shows the difference between us and the other side of the House. With those on our side who say: “You are conceding too much,” we took the risk for the sake of peace and a mutual solution. The people of the Empire Group, of the Sons of England and of Durban say to hon. members opposite: “We shall never agree.” The hon. member for Standerton would not for the sake of his party take the risk of accepting our hand. We took the risk and are still taking it to-day because we are relying on moderate opinion in the country. If the hon. member for Standerton and his people there had relied on the moderate opinion in their party then a friendly and mutual solution would have been the easiest thing in the world. There is a battle to be fought, and I do not blame the opponents because they consider it right from their point of view and" have fought well. When the battle is ended they must, however, co-operate with us so that we can have peace in South Africa and can build up a great people with a common South African patriotism.

When this debate was adjourned the other night I was pointing out that evidence had been given before the select committee, and I quoted the case of the town of Krugersdorp, from which two representatives gave evidence before the select committee. They told us the town was overrun with Asiatics, and that the purchasing of property by Asiatics was increasing to a large extent. I also pointed out that other information with regard to licences held by Asiatics in the Transvaal proved wrong. The actual fact is, or was, that the number of licences in the hands of Asiatics there was decreasing. In Natal we were told Indians were capturing land and taking over huge tracts. We went into the facts, and the select committee reports will show that the amount of land owned by Asiatics in Natal amounted to only 18,000 acres. When one realizes what the actual facts are, the position is not merely so serious as it was thought to be, but there is an element of seriousness in it, if this growth of another civilization is unchecked. The way to tackle that question is not to segregate the Asiatic. I went with the legislative deputation to India and with my colleagues I saw one class of Indians separated from the rest. India has about 320,000,000 inhabitants and 50,000,000 of them—the oppressed classes—are i called the untouchables. These unfortunatepeople are put on one side. They are not allowed to take part in the social or industrial life country, and cannot even come within speaking distance of some castes. The existence of the untouchables is a canker in the whole of the Indian national structure. The best people in India are doing their utmost to break down that particular caste barrier. We don’t want to establish in South Africa a class of untouchables, and if we did we should perpetrate one of the greatest mistakes ever made in the history of civilization. I have more Indians living in my division than any other member of the House, there being five Indians to every European in the constituency. To oppress the Indians is not the way to solve the problem. One of our difficulties is the purchase of property in European districts by Indians, but very few Indians do that voluntarily. I have often found that persuasion will do more to stop Indians from purchasing properties in European areas than any legislation would do. I am sure that Mr. Sastri, who is one of India’s most brilliant sons, will, when he arrives here, do everything possible to restrict Indians acquiring property in European areas. I feel perfectly certain his efforts in that direction will be crowned with success. The question of Indians competing in business with Europeans is in process of solution. We have set up a Wage Board to stop that unfair economic competition, and the Indian in many trades is no longer an unfair competitor with the European. In trades where the Indian was obtaining an almost complete monopoly there has been a very large return of European labour at higher rates of pay. The best way to tackle unfair competition is by means of Wage Boards. I would suggest to the South African party that although Wage Boards may bear hardly in some cases but as they have a millifying influence on the Asiatic question they are well worth their existence. Efforts have been made in the past to expatriate the Indian, but with little success. Now, however, we have the voluntary co-operation of the Government of India to assist in that direction. Hitherto Indians who return to their mother country drifted back here again, because there was no place for them in India. Now, however, they will be welcomed by the people in India, and will be given an opportunity to make their living there. Many Indians have refrained from leaving South Africa because they knew that if once they went away they could not return, but under the agreement they will be given three years in which to ascertain whether they can settle down in India. I am heartily glad that the agreement has been arrived at. We have the blacks against the whites and the Indians against the whites, but if we can do anything to soften the relations between the two latter races the agreement will not have been made in vain.

As I spoke on this subject when the Asiatic agreement was before the House previously I do not intend to go very fully into the matter now, but one or two statements made by the last speaker are not strictly correct and I do not think they faithfully represent the feelings of Natal in connection with this question. To my mind I think the people in South Africa do not really understand the position in India. We are being led to believe by the agitation in India, principally through Mr. Ghandi, that the whole of India is keenly interested in this question of the position of Indians in South Africa. That is entirely wrong. Think of the size of India and its enormous population and very few of them know anything at all about South Africa or the conditions here. I know something about India. I have been there myself. The ordinary population of India is ignorant of anything taking place outside their own villages. These views are corroborated by a gentleman who has just returned here from India after a stay of six months during which he travelled all over the country and he tested the people as to what they knew about the question. He said—

I believe this agitation is confined to a certain proportion of officials. These people have no authority to come here and try to get better terms for the people in South Africa, But they have succeeded very well and have got better conditions than ever before, and if the provisions of this Bill are carried out there will be less inducement for the Indians of Natal to leave South Africa than ever before. The best point about this agreement is that it may induce more Indians to leave South Africa than previously. In that connection I would like the Minister to tell us whether there are more Indians going back now than before, and if so to what extent. If he would give us that information and the figures it would be very useful to us indeed. I think we are bound to give this agreement a trial although we do not approve of it. But I urge upon the Minister to see that every facility is given to the Indians to get back if they want to do so and not to keep them waiting long enough for them to change their minds. I would also like to mention another thing which is not exactly connected with the Indian question, that is Section 8, sub-section (4), a clause put in the Bill to alter the Immigration Law in connection with people suffering with tuberculosis. This sub-section puts the onus on the ship’s master or the owners to prove that none of his passengers landed is suffering from tuberculosis, or if any passenger landed from the ship develops tuberculosis with six months after landing then the ship’s owners are responsible for taking those people back to the land they came from and for the cost of their keep until the time of their departure. That is an unfair onus to put on a ship. If the owners watch the passengers and see that they are healthy during the voyage and when they are landed I do not see how they can be expected to do more. I think the Minister has promised to make an alteration, to put an amendment in the Committee stage, so that the onus will not rest entirely on the owners of the ship. If that is so we will leave it there in the meantime. I want to emphasise how serious the position is in Natal in connection with the Indian question. It is more serious than people, who do not live in Natal, really understand and they are inclined to think we are making too much fuss about it. Remember the total Indian population of the Union is 174.000, and of this total 152,000 are resident in Natal, which shows we have a very big problem there to deal with. So far from the ownership of land being, as stated by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), the land owned by Indians in 1925 amounted to 90,000 acres, and in Durban itself they possessed property to the value of one and a half million pounds. In these circumstances there was no wonder the people of Natal were getting alarmed at the conditions there, and at the great hold the Indians were getting on the Colony. If the Government prevent the Indians from going anywhere else in the Union outside Natal, the position is going to be more accentuated every year. I hope this agreement will have the result of sending more Indians back to India than in the past so that their numbers may be reduced During the last five years the population of Indians in Natal increased by 12,620, and we must get a bigger emigration than that to cover the increase.

We are very anxious this agreement entered into by the Union Government and the Indian Government should have a fair chance. My feeling is that with the cooperation of the Indian Government there is a fair chance of the population of Indians in the country being considerably reduced, and I hope hon. members will take every opportunity to see this agreement has a chance of working effectively. I notice that a steamer leaving Durban the other day carried between 400 and 500 Indians under this agreement. Well, of course, that is a beginning, but if we can reduce the number actually in the country by 5,000 a year I think that would be satisfactory. If 10,000 a year leave, and we have a natural increase of 5,000, then we have a net reduction of 5,000, which, I think, we may regard as being satisfactory. We know that this agreement is not for all time. If it does not turn out as it is expected, the Government is quite at liberty to revise their ideas in regard to it in order to reduce this menace. We, in Natal, have suffered a great deal more, so far as this question is concerned, than any other part. The acquisition of land, trading licences, etc. by Indians is not all to the good of the country, but at the same time everyone must recognize that it is only right that these people should be treated fairly. I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Sastri addressing a huge meeting in Durban, and he tried to impress upon the wealthy class of Indians that it is up to them to do something for the upliftment of these people, and I really do feel that if the Indian community, in co-operation with the Government, were to provide these people with better housing and better conditions of living, something could be achieved which will reduce the menace that these people certainly are to the country to-day. Mr. Sastri tried to urge these wealthy Indians that it is their duty to do something for their own people. I think that is the view that we have to endeavour to instil into their minds. They are here, and we have got to treat them fairly. We cannot turn them out, but I believe that the conditions offered by the Government are such as will very considerably reduce the number who are already in the country. I would like to support the suggestion which was made when the matter was last debated, that the rest of South Africa should not say: “You have the Indians in your province, and you must keep them there.” It seems to me that it would be only fair, and in the spirit of Union, that the rest of South Africa should not place a barrier on Natal to prevent these men from going to other parts of the country. It would show a better spirit, in trying to solve this great question. These people are allowed, under certain conditions, to earn a living and reside in other parts of the Union. I want to say again that I very sincerely hope, as one who is greatly interested in this question, that the agreement which the Government has come to and which I consider an admirable one under the circumstances, will have every chance of success, and it is up to all hon. members to do their share to enable this agreement to become the success that it is intended to be.

I was not present when the debate took place upon the Indian agreement some little time ago, and I was, therefore, unable to take part in the discussion of the question when the Minister first tabled that agreement. I propose, this afternoon, to deal with the first part of the Minister’s Bill to begin with, by which it is sought to amend the general immigration law of this country. It seems to me that the Minister should take this opportunity of placing on a proper footing the conditions upon which immigrants from other countries are at present admitted to our shores. The statistics which are published from month to month constitute a sweeping indictment of the policy, or want of policy which conditions our attitude towards this very important question. In saying this I do not suggest that the present Government is solely, or even primarily, to blame. I believe this question has not received sufficient attention from either side of the House to enable us to realize how it is going to affect the ultimate destiny of this country. I have been much interested recently in studying some documents that emanate from the House of Representatives of the United States, and I wish to commend the attention of the Minister to those documents. They consist of statements made by Dr. Harry Laughlin of the Carnegie Foundation before a Committee of the House of Representatives on the question of immigration in its widest bearing upon that country.

I have read them.

I am glad to hear that the Minister has read them. They treat of the subject in three separate parts—in 1920 the question of the biological aspects of immigration, in 1922 “An analysis of America’s modern melting pot,” and in 1924 “Europe as an emigrant-exporting continent, and the United States as an emigrant-receiving nation.” I want to draw a simple parallel between the immigration problem in the U.S.A. and our own problem of a similar kind. There is no question, I believe, that ought to draw us closer together, as members of the two main European stocks of this country, than the consideration of this very great problem of immigration. Personally, there is no question that makes me feel a closer kinship with the stock of the old Voortrekkers than this very question, because, unless we are able to reverse the present tendencies of the tide of immigration, then our history in this country and the character of the population of this country is going to be a very different one from the one we have always hoped it would be. We shall find the destiny of the people of this country taking an entirely different direction if we allow the unrestricted immigration of poor human stuff which our present laws permit of. In the United States, as in South Africa, the first theory of immigration control was that of the country being an asylum for the oppressed—for those oppressed either by religious intolerance or economic pressure in the older countries—and we find in those early days that everybody was welcome from those particular classes, the oppressed from either class, to come to this country. The theory worked well at that time. We found the hardier individuals venturing to this new country, and these gave us a selection of industrious frugal folk. In many cases, these people were well equipped, as skilled workers, for the struggle of life in a new country. They had high moral qualities and intelligence and honesty. We also received a large quota of immigrants in this country of people who had been financially ruined by the Napoleonic wars. With the spread of democracy in Europe and the freedom from religious persecution, the driving out of oppressed people has more or less come to an end. But the circumstances to which I have referred served to establish in this country families of Dutch and English descent of whom we can justly be proud. The second stage was the one at which we required immigrants to help us in the development of the country, and these came under different headings. A certain stream came for the army, numbers for the railway service and the police, and a limited number were introduced as skilled labourers. Latterly, the immigration from abroad of men for the services and skilled workers has been discontinued as in South Africa we have found we have sufficient men of these types. In the United States they were not long in finding out that this haphazard method of immigration was not producing great benefit to the future of America. One of their writers has said there was much splendid material, but on the whole it was a poor investment in humanity. In the United States the dominant national attitude has now changed to the third idea which is the one I wish to present to the Minister for consideration. The first was the asylum theory, the second was the economic basis, and now the third idea is the biological or eugenical basis. In 1917 the United States immigration law made the limitation more radical than ever, and no person likely to become a public charge would be admitted, and they laid down rules for the rejection of people of unsatisfactory character. In 1921 there was introduced the quota basis. This provided a basis of selection very largely upon family stocks already represented—a system which must recommend itself to our country. It is also legal, from the standpoint of international law, and no nation can complain that the most favoured nation rule is not observed. A very searching study of this question has been made by a select committee of the House of Representatives, and the exhaustive evidence of Dr. Harry Laughlin, of the Carnegie foundation, is published with the three reports. He has put forward the present basis of the immigration law in America under which a visa for admission to America is issued only after local inquiry in the immigrant’s own country. I should like to quote one or two of the conclusions he has come to, and in which he mentions South Africa, and South Africa’s interest in the problem. He says—

There we have an outline of a sound policy of immigration by which we should be guided in this country, and I hope the Minister will consider the improvement of the present immigration laws, on the basis of these principles. My feeling is that under present conditions, we are admitting too many of the wrong groups, people who do not belong to the right family stocks, and who are not as assimilable as they ought to be if we are to found a nation, having common ideals and moving forward on the path of progress in the manner in which a new nation should. Another comment is this one. Dr. Laughlin says—

I do press on the Minister the desirability of considering whether the present tendencies of our immigration policy are not in the wrong direction. The figures of recent years have shown a marked increase in the groups of nationalities which are not readily assimilable by the original stocks of this country, and there has been a disappointingly small number of those from the countries from which our forefathers originally came. For convenience of reference the figures have been grouped into certain classes. Amongst British subjects of purely European descent you find that while there" were 3,664 arrivals and 5,132 departures in 1924, there were 4,046 arrivals and 3,438 departures in 1926. We find in regard to the group which contains other Nordic stocks— Denmark, Germany and Holland—all people we have found to be excellent immigrants in this country, frugal, hardworking and well equipped in the matter of skilled trades, and of the best farmers you can bring to our country—that there were 665 arrivals and 447 departures in 1924 and 915 arrivals and 219 departures in 1926. When we come to the group, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Russia, you find there has been an increase from 707 arrivals and 22 departures in 1924, to 1,312 arrivals and 22 departures in 1926, thus constituting the chief source of immigration that is coming into this country at the present time. It would be quite worth our while, and certainly the expenditure connected with the matter would be entirely justified, if the Minister could avail himself of the sources of information that Dr. Laughlin commands on this emigration question, and ask him to prepare a report, which would prove invaluable to us in this country in formulating legislation. I do not ask the Minister to do anything of that sort during the present session, but I emphasize the importance of this question to South Africa. I am sure that the present tide of immigration is not in any way contributing to the building up of a sound European population in this country. I feel that our immigration policy is all wrong, and we need to get the best advice in the world. Personally, I see not better method of dealing with it than the quota system of the U.S.A. I have one or two remarks to make about the Minister’s Indian agreement, which falls under two distinct headings—voluntary repatriation of the Indians we have in the country or assisted emigration,” as it is now called, and the policy which the Minister has outlined for the upliftment of the Indian community. I think we must acknowledge that considerable good has been got from at least one of the matters which was suggested by a representative of the Government of India. The first proposal for voluntary repatriation from this country emanated from Sir Benjamin Robertson, who was the representative of the Government of India, and we should acknowledge that that has been certainly a very useful element in the policy of repatriating the Indians from South Africa; therefore I may be considered to be amongst those who appreciate the opportunity the Government had of consulting with the authorities from India in regard to this question. I wish to make it clear that I took no part in the Round Table Conference, nor were my views consulted. And I should like to sound a note of warning with regard to the agreement. It aims firstly at assisted emigration, which I think is nearing the end of its usefulness. The other part of the agreement aims at the upliftment of the Indian community—and provides for an enquiry into the question of the education available to Indians in South Africa, the provision for higher education for them, an investigation into sanitary and housing provisions, the appointment of advisory committees representative of the Indians, and the removal of the restrictions on the sale of municipal land. There is no doubt that within a measurable period the Indians who avail themselves of the Minister’s facilities for education and the purchase of land will be demanding the franchise on the ground of educational attainments and because of their being of the an owning class. It is no use mincing words and saying we welcome the agreement simply because the Minister has assented to it. The Minister must take a longer view than that and must tell us whether he will accede to the demand for the franchise when it is made. As tar as we in Natal are concerned, the enfranchisement of the Indians within ten years would mean an end to the predominance of European ideals in the representation of that province. We shall find Indians dominating the elections and Natal as a province would return a number of members representing the Indian electors. These are questions which the Minister must consider, and in doing so he should remember the question linked up with them—whether he is willing to allow the Indians at present confined to Natal to go to other provinces and be absorbed in the electorates of those provinces. It would possibly be unfair to propose any such admission of Indians into the Orange Free State which has always maintained their complete exclusion, but the Transvaal has been less restrictive, and the Cape has always been open to the Indian as an immigrant by sea. The Minister should consider the logical end of the policy he has outlined in the Bill. Will he tell us at what stage he can claim to be entitled to reverse the policy of the agreement and to adopt what was the policy of the former Government, namely, residential and trading segregation. Although the Minister emphasized the other night that he had promised to give only due consideration to the question of licensing conditions, I submit the inclusion of such conditions cannot be brushed aside and certainly must be assumed to mean that due consideration will be given with a view to the granting of trading licences. The Minister in his policy for the upliftment of the Indians has gone much further than the Government of India itself goes in relation to people in a similar state of life to those we are dealing with under the agreement. A book on Indian education by a well-known authority, Mr. Mayhew, points out that according to the census of 1921 there has been no increase of effective literacy in the number of persons over 20 years of age who can read or write as compared with the number for the preceding ten years. The percentage of male literates, that is people who can read and write, in India in 1921 was 13 and of females 3 per cent. So the average was only 8 per cent. That compares very unfavourably with the figures for Natal, where it has been alleged Indians have been treated with a lack of consideration. When I was in India I was astounded to find how backward the Indians of low caste were there in comparison with those of similar caste in South Africa. There is no comparison in the conditions in the two countries. In South Africa caste differences scarcely exist. Here an Indian of the lowest caste is able to advance his material prosperity without any sort of barrier, and his position depends upon his enterprise and the development of his faculties. Within his own capacity the Indian in South Africa has no restrictions at all upon advancement. The Minister seems to have been prevailed upon to go very much further than the Government of India is able to go. The Minister accepts in the agreement an acknowledgment of “the admittedly grave situation” in respect of Indian education. I demur to that. However badly equipped the service in Natal may be for indian education, it is not correct to describe it as an admittedly grave situation. In comparison with the situation in India the situation in Natal is almost ideal. I want to be perfectly clear in this matter. I am not referring to the state of education among the upper classes in India. They are a people whose culture and education will stand comparison with the standards of any people in the world. There can be no doubt, however, that those who correspond to the Indians we have in this country are in conditions of backwardness beyond description. In regard to the other points relating to the upliftment of the Indians in South Africa, there has been a want of proportion in dealing with that side of the question. In all the larger towns in India the conditions of the Indians are such that you will find in Bombay and Calcutta it has been necessary to bring to the aid of the municipal authorities a form of machinery especially designed to deal with the insanitary and overcrowded areas. In both Calcutta and Bombay an Improvement Trust had to be formed equipped with enormous revenue, for the purpose of reclaiming and buying out overcrowded and insanitary areas, and rehabilitating the position so that the Indians could be brought to adopt a better method of living. Millions of money has been spent by these Improvement Trusts in an endeavour to reclaim the areas, which have been rendered insanitary and overcrowded by the tendency of the lower class of Indian to neglect the ordinary rules of hygiene and to lay behind the progressive methods of life which should prevail in the towns.

What about District 6?

District 6 is probably bad, but it is nothing compared with what we saw in India in the larger towns.

What about Whitechapel?

I am not dealing with Whitechapel now. I am dealing with India. I want the Minister to realise that in making provision for the improvement of the sanitary and housing conditions round Durban he must not regard these things as peculiar to South Africa. He must not be led to believe that India, in this respect, is a paradise. The whole of the town-planning policy ill India has had to deal with the inevitable tendency of the low caste Indian to fall into the habit of overcrowding and rendering his place of abode insanitary and a danger to the public. The task of rehabilitating and reconstituting these areas in Durban is not going to be an easy one, and the Minister must not abandon from his mind the necessity at some future time of providing for the residential segregation of these people. [Time limit.]

I just want to reply briefly to some of the criticisms levelled against this Bill during the second reading debate. I must begin with the observations of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). He asked why, in this Bill, the Asiatic Registration Act of the Transvaal of 1908 was repealed, and he gave the impression that the whole of the Act was now repealed, and that thereby the Transvaal had lost something. That is not the case. If he looks at the Transvaal Asiatic Act and the sections of that Act which are repealed, he will see that it is merely the dead branches of the tree which are being cut off. Only those sections of the Registration Act of the Transvaal are repealed which are of no use anymore, because they had to do with temporary circumstances, when that Act was put into operation, and further, with provisions in the Registration Act of the Transvaal, which were really reenacted in our existing immigration law. The hon. gentleman has further pointed out that if this Bill becomes law Asiatics who have already left the country and have been in India for one or two years, will have to come back at once or within a short time, otherwise their absence from the country will reach the limit, allowed under the Bill for absence from the Union, otherwise they will lose their right of domicile and re-entry into the country. As far as that is concerned it would be a hardship, and the Bill is not intended for that, and I will move, in the committee stage, an amendment to deal with it. I will make the Bill apply in such a way that it will not have retrospective effect in those cases.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m

When business was suspended I was still dealing with some of the points which were raised during the second reading debate by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). There was one point which he raised in connection with the cancellation of certificates of registration fraudulently obtained in the Transvaal, and he represented that there were quite a number of Indians in the Transvaal who are in possession of such certificates, and that, with a view to the satisfactory co-operation of the Government with the Government of India, it might be advisable that we should let bygones be bygones and not cancel these certificates of registration which could not be cancelled under the then existing law before. Now in regard to that matter, I can only say that I can deal with it administratively. It is not necessary to put anything into the law in regard to that. The Minister of the Interior has got power to deal with it in another way. I have given the assurance that I am willing to consider such a proposal favourably if I am given the assurance that it will lead to the effective stopping, with to co-operation of the Indian community of the country, of all illicit entry from outside. For many years quite a number of Indians have entered the country illicitly and I am aware that there have existed or are existing at the present time, perhaps, organizations, I won’t say on a big scale, but organizations with ramifications both in India and here in South Africa for the introduction of Indians illicitly into the country. It is done for economic reasons. It is done very often because these Indians who are introduced are blackmailed and they work for their employers at very low wages. If they don’t, they are simply reported to the authorities and they get deported. That system, of course, must be broken, and I can break that system effectively only if we have got the hearty co-operation of the Indian community themselves. Now if action as proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville, in connection with the cancellation of certificates fraudulently obtained in the Transvaal can lead to this, I am quite willing to consider such a proposal favourably, but, as I say, this matter can be dealt with administratively. The hon. member has also pointed out that this provision in the Bill in regard to the loss of domicile after the three years’ absence from the Union, which is made of general application, would amount to a hardship. Now, as far as immigration is concerned, I cannot see how it will be a hardship in the case of any European. Of course, Europeans after all, do not come to the country because they are domiciled here; they are admitted to the country if they comply with the ordinary requirements of the immigration laws. It has got nothing to do with domicile at all. Your European generally cannot lose anything by this provision. But as far as hardship is concerned, I may point out that we fix a period of three years for loss of domicile, that is, three years’ absence, while countries which take a very large number of immigrants annually, the United States and Canada, for instance, have a similar provision, but there the time limit is one year. Any immigrant who has entered those countries and leaves again, however long he may have resided there, if he is absent for more than one year without special permission from the authorities loses his domicile in the United States or Canada. Now compared with that, I cannot see how any one can say that we are imposing a hardship upon any one by this provision, the hon. gentleman has raised another point in connection with the provision regarding immigrants suffering from tuberculosis. He says it is a hardship on the shipping companies. Now when I introduced this measure, I gave the House an assurance that during the Committee stage I would introduce certain amendments which will lessen the liability of the shipping companies for those cases, make it easier for them, and these amendments have been discussed with the representatives of the shipping companies, who, generally, have agreed to them. They are not quite satisfied, but anyhow they think we are going very far to meet them. As I pointed out before, these amendments come down to this, that if any immigrant who is afterwards discovered to be suffering from tuberculosis and who would fall under this provision, can be proved by the shipping companies not to have had tuberculosis when he entered the country, then, of course, they would not be liable. Another amendment I am introducing lays down if these shipping companies have reason to believe that any passenger coming to the Union is suffering from tuberculosis and they give notice to this effect to the port health authorities then in such cases they would also not be liable. We have agreed to these. There is one particular point in connection with which they are not satisfied and that is the period of six months for which they are liable and they say that is too long. I have gone into this matter again with the public health authorities and the immigration authorities and they point out that if this period is made shorter it would really make this clause of little use to us. The point is not this that we get these immigrants into the country and they are a public danger only; the point is that during the first two or three or four months it is very difficult to discover them. They do not become as a rule a public charge before the fifth or six month. As everybody knows, every immigrant coming to this country must possess a certain sum of money and as a rule such a sum of money as he has on his person will suffice to carry him over three or four months. If we shorten the six months to say three or four months then it is absolutely useless as far as these cases are concerned. They are usually discovered after they have spent the money and become a public charge. I am also willing as far as this goes to go a little further in meeting the shipping companies and to introduce another amendment to make them liable only in cases where the immigrant on entering the Union was suffering from tuberculosis in a clinically recognisable form. A definite stage of tuberculosis must have been reached. I hope that will satisfy the companies. Let me just point out in this connection that other companies safeguard themselves much more in this respect than we do as in the United States and Canada. In the case of Canada for instance a certificate of good health must be given by the ship’s surgeon to every immigrant going to Canada and if an immigrant cannot produce that certificate then he is not allowed to land and these ship’s surgeons must have qualifications which are recognised by the authorities in Canada. We have no protection whatever of that kind and I do not think that the provision as I propose to amend it can be considered in any way an undue hardship on the shipping companies. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has dealt with a number of points in connection with this measure which I think it is not necessary for me to deal with here. All these points have been made before me by an influential deputation from the South African Indian Congress representing the Indian community throughout the country and I have been able to satisfy them and very largely to meet their objections and to improve the reading of the Bill. These are small amendments that I am ready to make and I will make them in Committee stage so it is unnecessary for me to enter into these various points. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has criticised the Indian agreement and represented that the Provincial Council of Natal should have been consulted in this matter with regard to the agreement. I know that is the feeling in the Provincial Council of Natal itself, but the Provincial Council of Natal must know that it is not the only provincial council in the country that is interested in the Indian question. It may be more interested than the other councils but certainly the Provincial Council of the Transvaal is also interested and the Provincial Council of the Cape too, and surely hon. gentlemen will understand that when you have negotiations with the Government of another country and those negotiations are of a very delicate character and in the interest of the subject itself it is found necessary not to publish anything before the various Governments have had the recommendations of the conference before them and have approved of them, how absolutely impossible it is beforehand to go to the provincial councils and discuss the whole matter with them. It is never done and if it had been done in this case it would have been altogether unprecedented. Besides, what the views of the Provincial Council of Natal are generally with regard to the Indian question we knew, and only last year we had a select committee of the House which heard evidence with regard to the Indian question from all parts of the country and I do not think any consultation or any communications specially with the Provincial Council of Natal would have helped us another step further in coming to know what Natal generally thinks about the Indian question. Several members have again criticised the agreement which we have arrived at between this Government and the Government of India. I do not think hon. members will expect of me now to travel over again all the ground we have covered during the discussion on this agreement when the Part Appropriation was before the House. At the end of the debate I replied at length to every point that was raised. All I can do is to ask hon. members at this stage of the proceedings of the House to consult Hansard and they will find all the points they have raised again have already been dealt with by me. Let me just further say that as far as I can judge at present this agreement is going to work very satisfactorily. The agreement is not yet in operation. We are only passing the necessary legislation now. It is in operation only as far as the increase of the bonus is concerned for those who avail themselves of the voluntary repatriation. As far as I am informed by the department the increase in those who have availed themselves of these facilities is very satisfactory. Since January there has been a very steady and very satisfactory increase in the number of those who go to India. That in spite of the fact that the agreement is only very partially in operation now. I have telegraphed to Pretoria for the figures and it is possible during the committee stage I may be able to give the House more information with regard to them.

Do you give every facility for their getting away?

Yes. I have heard from time to time from the Government of India as to what the steps are they are taking on the other side to cooperate with us in connection with this scheme, and I do not think it is possible or advisable for me to set out in this House what the Government of India is doing, but as far as I am concerned, I can assure the House that the Government of India in their co-operation with us is certainly fulfilling all our expectations. I do not think there is any reason to complain about their goodwill and co-operation in this matter. They have sent over to us as their representative certainly one of the most distinguished men in India and the British Empire and I for my part, and I think the Government with me, are very glad Mr. Sastri is coming, because he took a very prominent part in the negotiations leading up to this agreement, and he knows the spirit and shares the spirit and knows the intention of the conference, and I think no better selection could have been made than Mr. Sastri. Everybody who knows Mr. Sastri knows that he is a man who is straightforward and honest as certainly few persons whom I have ever come in contact with have been. I have great hopes of hearty co-operation in the carrying out of this agreement when he is in South Africa. I am very glad to say, too, that we have not only the hearty co-operation of the Government of India in this scheme of assisted immigration but we are getting more and more, if not the cooperation, the goodwill, of the Indian community in South Africa. That means a great deal to us, and I think I ought to state on this occasion that we are very much indebted as far as that is concerned to the Rev. Andrews, a man who is trusted absolutely by the Indian community and who has remained in the country and has done his best in various parts of the Union to explain the agreement to the Indian community and to ask them for their goodwill and their co-operation with us. The hon. member for Durban and various other hon. members from Natal have again raised the point whether it would not be possible for the rest of the Union to share the sins of Natal of the past and throw open their doors to Indians from Natal to settle down. I think we are very far from that yet. Perhaps the day may come when not only the rest of the Union is sharing the sins of Natal but when Natal to a very much larger extent than she does now shares the spirit of the whole of the Union. When that day conies we may share to a larger extent the past sins of Natal, but anyway it is best, with a view to the general feeling of the country, that the present conditions continue. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has again raised the question of the introduction of the quota system into our Immigration laws. Of course, the hon. gentleman recognizes that, although it is possible, it is not advisable to introduce that into this Bill, which was largely introduced to give effect to the Indian agreement. If we introduce a contentious matter like this, it would only delay the passage of the Bill through the House. If at any time we might think of introducing the quota system it ought to be introduced in a separate measure.

I move—

This Bill is usually regarded as part of the Indian agreement. It has, however, nothing to do with it. The attitude of the Indians at the conference quite rightly was that it was entirely a South African question. It forms no part of the Indian agreement. The reason for the introduction of this small Bill is that two years ago strong representations were addressed to me by the inhabitants of the districts of Utrecht, Vryheid and Paulpietersburg. In those districts Asiatics were introduced in great numbers for the mines and cotton plantations, and the people say that if further Asiatics are imported there will shortly be no difference between those three districts and Natal. I have gone into the matter and as hon. members will remember I tried to give a little protection to those districts by means of the legislation I introduced last year. The legislation was in a somewhat concise form, but now I repeat it here in a more extended form. With reference to the three northern districts of Natal there exists with regard to the Asiatic question a great absurdity. When the three districts were annexed by Natal in 1903 it was clearly the intention that in so far as the Asiatics were concerned the districts should remain a part of the Transvaal. With that object the Transvaal Statute which was then in force and is to-day still in force was administered in those districts and that law is still valid there now. It is the old Transvaal Law of 1885, but in the provision that it should apply to the three northern districts of Natal no account was taken of the possibility of later amendments in the Transvaal legislation with regard to Asiatics, and no provision was made to make any amendment of the Law of 1885 applicable to the three districts. The Transvaal law has been amended in various respects. In the Transvaal, e.g., the provision has been repealed, that every employer of Asiatics must pay £3 a year for registration. In the three northern districts, however, the provision has remained in force although it is a dead-letter. In 1908 legislation was introduced in the Transvaal to protect that province against the immigration of Asiatics, so that not a single Asiatic could come into the Transvaal. While, therefore, the Transvaal was protected against the inrush of Asiatics the borders of the three districts mentioned, both in the Transvaal and on the Natal side, remained open with the result that hundreds of Asiatics streamed into the district. Then this House in 1919 passed an Act in connection with the ownership of land by Asiatics in the Transvaal. It was an amendment of the Transvaal Law of 1885. According to the Law of 1885 Asiatics could not own land in the Transvaal, but subsequently it was found out that if Asiatics formed a company amongst themselves and went in for partnership they could actually own ground. To make such evasion impossible the Act of 1919 was passed. But that Act although in force in the Transvaal was not made applicable to the three northern districts of Natal, with the result that Asiatics can still buy land there through a company. Altogether there are absurdities of a serious kind which must be removed. Another Act was passed in the Transvaal, viz., the Registration of Asiatics Act, an important Act which lays down that if an Asiatic possesses no registration certificate he cannot live in the Transvaal and cannot obtain a trading licence. The new Bill removes these absurdities. The Bill has been brought to the notice of the Government of India and also of the Asiatic community of South Africa. The Government of India has expressed no opinion and they refused to do so because they regarded it as a purely South African matter. The Asiatic community in South Africa made no objection so that no difficulties will arise from that side. We just want to make the amendments made to the Transvaal Law of 1885 apply to the three northern districts of Natal. The effect will be that the three districts for all practical purposes in connection with Asiatics will form a part of the Transvaal. The idea is held by some people that the Union Government will now make it easier for the Asiatics to get trading rights in the three districts. That view is groundless. The Union Government has nothing to do with trading rights because they come under the Provincial Council. We only lay down that no Asiatic can be granted trading rights there unless he is registered in the district by virtue of this Act. The powers are rather curtailed than extended. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked me for figures. The number of Asiatics in the three northern districts according to the latest census is 837 Indians and 1 Chinaman. Of these only 157 lived in the villages, and there were 680 in the rural districts. Most of them worked on the cotton fields. There were 773 on the mines alone. The Asiatics who work in the mines under contract and also those who work similarly on the cotton fields will be regarded as being there for temporary purposes, and if this Bill becomes law the Asiatics will have to go back to Natal. I shall, of course, not go to work harshly and unfairly, and I shall act in consultation with the employers, but eventually and as soon as possible all the Asiatics who are temporarily living in the northern districts will have to return to Natal. The Asiatics working as domestic servants will also have to go back. Even if we include those who, as domestic servants, will remain there, there will be only 64 in all remaining in the three districts. They must be registered according to law, and will for all purposes be regarded as living in the districts. The number is so small that there is no reason to expect difficulties and for the future the position of the three districts will be safe. The 64 Asiatics will, of course, be able to go into the Transvaal but they will not be able to go into Natal. They will be on the same footing as Asiatics in the Transvaal. The rest of the Asiatics cannot go to the Transvaal.

I should like to ask a question. Is it not possible that the three northern districts of Natal, according to this Bill, will be able to be used as a bridge by Asiatics to enter the Transvaal from Natal?

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) who was dealing with this matter is unavoidably absent owing to illness. I have had a cursory glance at his papers, which he has entrusted to me, and the points referred to by him can be dealt with in committee. I have the amendments here and will place them on the Table in order that the Minister may have due notice of them, I am not prepared to deal with the matter at this stage, but it appears to me it can be adequately dealt with in the committee stage.

What is going to be the position on the Candover Estates, if Indian labour is removed? Will they be allowed to contract for a second term, or when they leave do they leave for good?

If the Candover Estates part with their Indians, they part with them for good. The Candover Estates will be in the same position in which every other concern of a similar nature in Zululand is. No Indians are allowed in Zululand, and the Candover Estates will fall into line. In regard to the amendments suggested by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) I have had notice of them. There are one or two which I think I could consider favourably, but in any case I have promised that I will meet some of the hon. members representing these parts before we come to the committee stage, and I will discuss the whole position with them and see which of the suggested amendments I can adopt.

*In answer to the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize), I may say that the three districts, together with the rest of the Transvaal will be as well protected against immigration from Natal as the Transvaal itself.

I move—

1. (i) the single fare for any distance he may have travelled, plus
2. (ii) the excess charge or booking fee described in section 10.’

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move—

1. 2. (1) Whenever the Governor-General has, prior to the commencement of this Act, lawfully prohibited prospecting on any area on which immediately prior to such prohibition becoming effective any person was lawfully prospecting or was lawfully entitled to prospect, such person shall, on the withdrawal of such prohibition, be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to prospect on such area for a period not exceeding the unexpired period of his licence.
2. (2) Any person who, before the prohibition referred to in sub-section (1) became effective, lawfully discovered precious stones in payable quantities in any place, but was not granted a discoverer’s certificate in respect of such discovery, shall, on the withdrawal of such prohibition, be entitled to receive from the mining commissioner the certificate referred to in section 13 of this Act.

I am now moving this amendment because the Chairman on a former occasion decided that for my other amendment I needed the consent of the Governor-General. I therefore preferred to alter my amendment. In Namaqualand there are a number of people who have pegged off prospecting areas under the previous law, and in some cases they paid the rent for them for three, six or twelve months. The people have done no wrong, and have acted according to the previous law. Then the proclamation was issued prohibiting further prospecting. There are prospecting areas in various stages. On seven or eight, discoveries have been made. Some people have mined, but not made any discoveries as yet, whilst others have pegged off prospecting areas but have not yet commenced to dig. According to the proclamation the Act has now been suspended. I have never yet heard of a law taking away rights. By a Proclamation the rights under a former Act are dormant, but as soon as the proclamation is withdrawn I think that the man’s rights are the same as held under the previous Act. Now, however, we find another state of affairs because a new law is pending. My question is whether the proclamation will immediately lapse on this Bill being passed, and the old Act repealed, and whether the people will then get their rights or not. Or is the Minister going to issue a new proclamation to keep the people out of their rights? I ask the Minister to accept my amendment because it is very reasonable. If he does not do so then he is robbing people of their rights. Our party has never yet stood for the expropriation of rights. If the Minister says that he wants to control diamonds then I agree with him that it is necessary. But control and expropriation of rights are two separate matters differing as night and day from each other. I should like to know from the Minister what is going to happen. As we are now talking about proclamation I want to point out that we in South Africa are governed by legislation. That is why we sit five months in the year here, and give our best time to the adoption of legislation. Sometimes there is an exception, as in the case of martial law, but then there is a reason for the issue of the proclamation and the curtailment of rights under the existing law. These people have obtained rights under the existing law but then a proclamation was issued which took away the rights nobody knows why. They did no wrong and committed no offence but yet the proclamation was issued. What injury could have been done under the previous law? I want to know and the people in my constituency want to know and I hope the Minister will answer me. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment.

I would like to support the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) in this amendment. I think the inhabitants of Namaqualand have been placed in a difficult position. I am legally concerned, but I am not legally au fait with the position. In Namaqualand there are certain people who have statutory rights under statute law passed by this Parliament where a man can prospect under permit, and he retains a certain position regarding these prospecting rights. During the period of this prospecting the Government intervened with the proclamation, and the legal people tell me no proclamation is valid where it infringes on the statutory right in Namaqualand. Then to stop anybody by this proclamation in Namaqualand was illegal. These people have refrained from prospecting at the request of the Government, and the hon. member for Namaqualand says that when this proclamation was issued by the Government there were certain people in certain stages of prospecting under statutory rights, and they were stopped. The proclamation deals with persons who were lawfully prospecting and who were entitled to prospect for six months, and any person who discovered precious stones on the withdrawal of the prohibition would be entitled to the certificate prescribed under Section 13 of the Act. I want to point out the difficulty in Namaqualand. The whole of these regulations are directed against the rich discovery in this specific place, and if the discovery had not taken place, the legislation would not have been necessary, and these people would have retained the rights in law which the hon. member for Namaqualand has put forward at the present time. I ask the Minister to concede these rights which in law they were entitled to if this proclamation had not been issued these people would be in no worse position to-day if he had not been exercising these control measures under this Bill. They would have been in a better position, and the country would have been in a better position. We are in this position to-day that the hon. member for Namaqualand claims that a number of people had certain rights which they have exercised in Namaqualand, and which were arrested by this proclamation. I think it would be a breach of good faith if the Government were now to come in and say, We will take away from you any rights which you have up to that point and we cancel them in this Act.” I think those people are entitled to any rights that had accrued to them.

I consider the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) reasonable. I have already asked the Minister whether it is his principle to honour and respect existing rights under old laws, and I think the Minister answered affirmatively. I do not wish to anticipate but it seems to me to be a terrible offence if a man discovers diamonds. We understand that in the Namaqualand constituency fairly good diamonds have been discovered and I think the Minister ought to be thankful for it, and ought not to treat the people like rogues. I do not know everything about the matter but according to the speech of the representatives of the constituency the people are being deprived of rights. I understand that diamonds have been found at the mouth of the Kei River and that they were taken away from the man who discovered them, and I should like to know from the Minister by what right that was done. The new law is not yet in operation by which the Minister wants to take all rights. The principle surely has always been to throw minerals open as much as possible to the public, but recently it seems to me that people are much startled when diamond discoveries are made so that the people’s rights have to be taken away. I hope the Minister will give in and will alloy the people to retain the right which according to the hon. member for Namaqualand they have obtained. It is bad enough that these people have been prevented from prospecting and I should like to have a clear explanation from the Minister what his authority is for doing so. It seems to me that he had no right to do so, and I support the amendment.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) seems to be supporting the amendment in ignorance.

I should like to have information from the clever people, that is why I asked for it.

The hon. member is only asking for information.

Shall we be able to progress now?

If the Minister gives a civil reply then we will make progress.

What unnecessary indignation!

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) must not talk so much.

I have never yet seen such stupid self assurance as that of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North).

Thank you.

If the hon. member would just remain silent and give me an opportunity of replying civilly then I shall willingly do so, but I am hardly on my feet when he interrupts me. Where is the incivility, on my side or on his?

You had better sit down.

I shall not continue until there is silence. The second part of the amendment is entirely unnecessary because it is already contained in what has been passed in Clause 8 (5), thus where anyone has prospected in Namaqualand and discovered something and, according to his discovery certificate, is entitled to it, he is guaranteed and he would be guaranteed under the general principle of the Bill that unless rights are specifically taken away they are guaranteed. As for the first part of the amendment, I am sorry that I cannot accept it because the hon. member is here trying to benefit persons who had prospecting licences and had pegged off areas, but had not yet discovered anything. Prospecting licences in the Cape are issued under the clear provisions of the law for the whole of the Cape Province, but the persons to whom the licences are issued understand from the commencement according to the clear provisions of the law that a certain part of the province, a district or an area can be withdrawn from the operation of the licences. Namaqualand has recently become the resort of quite a lot of speculators, and I will not allow myself to be told that this action is being taken—I do not in the least doubt the good faith of the hon. member for Namaqualand …. There are a number of speculators in Namaqualand, the number of prospecting licences which were issued in Namaqualand up to the 28th February, 1927, was 260, under which a circle with a diameter of 1,000 yards could be pegged off. After the 28th February no less than 1,260 were issued, an increase of 1,000 in Namaqualand alone. I have here a list of the persons to whom the licences were issued, and if they were poor people of Namaqualand you could find some excuse for it, but you need only look through the terribly long list of persons to see that they are not inhabitants of Namaqualand.

Do they hold prospecting licences?

Yes.

Still they are people living in the country.

That has nothing to do with the matter. The hon. member who was a member of the Transvaal Volksraad knows just as well as I that under the old law of the Transvaal there was never such a thing as a right arising simply out of a prospecting licence. The right then also arose when the man had discovered something, and then he would be entitled to his discoverer’s claims. Until he made a discovery all his prospecting and pegging meant nothing. Here in Namaqualand licences have been issued under the clear provision of the law that although the licences are valid for the whole of the Cape Province, districts such as Oudtshoorn, Graaff-Reinet or any area which is described can be withdrawn. That is what happened in Namaqualand. In February last Namaqualand was withdrawn from the prospecting for diamonds.

Why so frightened?

That is quite another matter. It is a fact and we abide by it. It is quite legal according to the Cape law because areas can be withdrawn from prospecting whether they are private or State property.

Must private owners suffer through it?

It has been the law of the land for years.

This is a fine Government!

In the circumstances I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. member for Namaqualand talks about the unexpired time of the licences, but most of them will lapse within a short time and even if the amendment is passed this Government will certainly not proclaim the ground until the licences have lapsed. It is a well known fact that the poor farmers in Namaqualand have disposed of options for a mere song, and that the speculators went east and west, north and south through the district to obtain them. I am not going to assist that kind of thing, nor is the Government. Furthermore, people in the Transvaal have during the past 30 years spent thousands and thousands of pounds prospecting and lost it. If anyone was so unfortunate as to take out a prospecting licence during the past year in Namaqualand and the law subsequently prohibited prospecting in certain parts of Namaqualand then he ran the risk from the beginning. It will be unparalleled and unprecedented to provide in the Bill for these privileges. There is no need for it. The hon. member knows that he has come to see me repeatedly about the matter since the Bill came up. I constantly explained the position to him. I am pleased to see that he is so zealous for his constituency but I am sorry that I cannot comply with his request.

The Minister has not really dealt with the point raised. The Minister seems to say that if an area has been pegged by a prospector and his operations had been stopped by proclamation, that he would recognize it as reasonable that he should be allowed to continue when that prohibition was withdrawn. He said power to that effect lay in sub-section (5) of section 8.

I said nothing of the kind. I said that if he had been a discoverer it would entitle him to discoverer’s rights.

I can well imagine a case of some prospector who may have spent large sums of money in searching for precious stones, but who had not yet reported” discovery and having spent that money his operations would be stopped by proclamation and he would be held in suspense until the Minister withdrew that proclamation. Should not that man have an opportunity of continuing his prospecting?

No, because it is part of the conditions of his licence that it may be inhibited at any time.

I am dealing with the position of a man who has acquired the right to a discoverer’s certificate, and I am asking the Minister with regard to the right of prospecting which has been held and should be continued after the withdrawal of such proclamation.

He has no right whatsoever. The law never intended that he should have that right.

The Minister has taken away that right.

Certainly not.

I submit that is so. Under the old law a prospecting licence could be issued. The Minister issued a proclamation under the Act of 1907 and whether he did so lawfully or unlawfully that prospector was compelled to wait and in the meantime his licence was running out. Surely he now has the right to say: “If you withdraw the proclamation, I should be allowed to continue prospecting.”

He has no legal right.

Well surely the justice of the case must appeal to the Committee.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

I want to put the facts to the Minister. I do say this, that for the Minister to say that where he has issued such a proclamation prohibiting the continuance of prospecting and some other person can come along the moment the prohibition is lifted and enjoy the benefits of the other man’s labour is not justice. If the Minister says he is not prepared to concede that point, I would like to make the point that he is not acting fairly so far as the rights of that individual are concerned.

I should like the Minister to cool down because I am sorry that he is so impetuous. I asked for information, but the Minister looked as if he wanted to make me run out of the House. I did not receive the information I expected. I wanted the Minister to tell me whether he would respect the right which people got under the old law, but it appears that the Minister imagines he can do what he likes. He wants all the power in his hands. He says what a lot of speculators there are there, but I want to ask how they got hold of the ground. How many licences did the Department of Mines issue on Government ground and how many others did private owners grant the right to? Now the Minister says he is not going to work for those people, but has the Minister remembered that in that way he will curtail the rights of owners? If anyone comes to me and offers £100 or £1,000 for the rights on my farm am I then prohibited from selling them? Can I no longer dispose of my own property? The Minister is so frightened of the discovery of many diamonds. He ought to be thankful that in those parts where the people have suffered so much on account of drought, relief has been given by Providence, but now he wants to close up everything. In the old days in the Transvaal things were so bad that some of the old farmers wanted to shoot the prospectors, but when the proper goldfields were discovered they were glad to get the speculator’s money. If diamonds have been put into the ground by Providence to help the poor people then the Minister ought not to prevent them from having the benefit thereof. The Minister can exercise control in a sensible manner, but if he continues as he is doing to-night then he will have much difficulty in the future. We have now reached the end of the session and it is late in the night, but if the Minister is going to interfere with owners’ rights then he will get still more trouble than he has already. I can assure him that it will not be so easy as he thinks.

The Minister says that the injustice done to the people with prospecting licences is according to law. I cannot, however, agree with that. I am, however, glad that the Minister made his statement publicly that he is not going to cancel the proclamation. Now we know where we are. There are people who have taken out licences and paid for them; licences for a month, for six months or for a year. The licences have been paid, but owing to the proclamation issued by the Minister the people can do nothing under the licences, and they are not going to get their money back, either. The Minister issued the proclamation in February to put an end to the prospecting, and now it is June, and the proclamation still runs, and perhaps the Minister is going to continue it until next year, and then the licences will have lapsed. In this way the Minister is taking away rights from the farmers. I have myself taken a deputation of farmers who had taken out prospecting licences to the Minister. I am speaking now on their behalf, and not for the speculators. On behalf of the Namaqualand farmers I ask for the repeal of the proclamation, and that all the dormant rights shall be again reinstated. The Minister will not do so, and what am I now to tell my farmers? Must I advise them to go to law to get their rights? The Namaqualand farmers are poor people, and they cannot fight the Government in the court. Why was prospecting stopped in Namaqualand and not in Hopetown and Prieska? Prospecting is still going on there. The Minister said that the Government is a partner in the diamond mines, but is the Government then not a partner in the diamond undertakings in Namaqualand? The Minister then says that the control of the diamond industry is necessary, but a newspaper like the “Rand Daily Mail” says that it is not at all necessary. The Minister can, of course, get his way because he has the majority behind him. The Minister has been to Namaqualand and he knows the position there. Why then is he punishing the people in Namaqualand and preventing them from pegging. We have nothing to thank the Minister for, and we do not need to be thankful for anything.

It is strange that the hon. member for Namaqualand who accompanied me on my journey there never took so much interest in the matter until after we came back. Now he will not understand anything. I have already repeatedly explained the matter, for the information of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that I have obtained the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government about the proclamation, and that they agree with the Government as to the effect of the proclamation. The stopping of prospecting is the best thing we could do in Namaqualand in the circumstances, otherwise the ground would have got into the hands of undesirable people. They took out prospecting licences as one man. By means of the proclamation prospecting was prohibited, and when it is cancelled the prospecting rights will have lapsed unless the prospectors have made a discovery which has been registered. To protect Namaqualand and the people of Namaqualand it is not possible for me to accept the amendment. The number of prospecting licences has increased considerably. I have already said that in 1927, 1,260 licences were issued, or almost 1,000 more than last year. The prospectors are going all over. The magistrate is not taking a note of it. He only registers when there is a discovery.

I want with all respect to say that we have to do here with two things, with prospecting rights and with the principle of control. The Minister said that 1,260 licences have already been issued this year to prospect for diamonds in Namaqualand and he thinks it wrong. I should say we night to encourage it. Then possibly something might happen in such a dry country as Namaqualand. Say that all the licences were issued to search for base metals. Would the Minister then also disapprove? The Minister has now thought of taking legal advice. He has consulted the legal advisers about it who agree with him. That, however, does not alter the fact that he is taking away rights from the people who have already taken out prospecting licences. He did it by means of the proclamation, and I do not think he should take away any rights from the people who have already possessed them. The spot where the diamonds were found in Namaqualand is a miserable piece of ground, the most wretched you could find. It is quite possible that Namaqualand may become a good source of income to the State, and it is quite possible that if we permit the development of the country that Namaqualand would produce many benefits. Now, however, that is being prevented by the Minister’s proclamation. I know of companies that have obtained prospecting rights, but who have lost them under the proclamation because they have not made any discovery. I hope that the Minister will not stretch my party loyalty too far, and if the Minister nevertheless appeals to my loyalty in this matter I shall feel obliged to abstain from voting.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is really aggrieved by the Cape Act of 1907. He is now speaking of other minerals, but I have nothing to do with them. I have only to administer the law as I find it. It may be wrong or right, but it is the law. I think it was quite sensible of the Cape Parliament to give that power to the Government. What use is it to waste time discussing it. The member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) has spoken about practical farmers. The only case which has come to my notice is that of five farmers who spent £500 in prospecting. The people told me themselves that they went wrongly to work and that the money was wrongly invested. Now I am asked to give them a chance, but if I do so then I must do it for everybody, because I can make no exception. The only case which was brought to my notice of practical farmers was that one.

The Minister is therefore going to continue the proclamation until all the licences have lapsed. The proclamation deprived the people of their right, but they do not get the money they have paid for the licences back. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) apparently thinks that Namaqualand is a poor part. Does the hon. member know that Namaqualand produces a million bags of wheat per annum? It is not a desert nor a dry country, and the people belong to the most civilized people in the Union. I shall talk no longer because it does no good. I say that the Minister is doing an injustice to those people, not to the speculators but to the people who have to endure the bitter and hard times in Namaqualand every year. I must forgive him because he does not know what evil he is doing. His eyes will be opened some day and then he will see that he was wrong.

I would like to put the Minister right in regard to one point that he made. He stated that a number of speculators had gone into Namaqualand and they had taken over the rights of the unfortunate small prospectors who had gone into Namaqualand. I want to make it clear to him that that is not the position. Namaqualand from time immemorial has been prospected by small companies and small syndicates. Namaqualand is not a country where the small individual digger goes round and prospects as at Lichtenburg, and most of the rights that he is infringing to-day are held not by individuals, but by small syndicates and companies which are opening up that country. In regard to what the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) stated, I am sorry if I made any aspersion on Namaqualand, but I only knew the hon. member for Namaqualand, and I did not meet the other inhabitants.

I did not expect when this Bill came before the House to be interested in diamonds, but I see that recently in my constituency there have been discoveries of diamonds, and I want to know what the position really is. I want to give the Minister the information I have, the accuracy of which I do not vouch for. It is stated that large numbers of diamonds have recently been found there, and my information is that a body of mounted police appeared on the scene, camped on the ground and seized 140 diamonds in the possession of the finder, the owner of the land, presumably on behalf of the Crown.

The hon. member must now adhere to the clause.

I understand that we are dealing with the prospectors’s rights.

Not generally. The hon. member may proceed.

I have no interest whatsoever in this, but if this kind of thing is happening in the Transkei, where we are subject to rule by proclamation though we fall under the ordinary laws of the Cape, I think the Minister might give the House some information as to this particular matter.

I have no official report as to the action of the police, and, as the hon. member knows, the police are not under me, but under my colleague.

Did you ask that they should be sent there?

No. Diamonds are alleged to have been found, and if the particulars of the allegations are correct that have been sent to me, if they have been bona fide found, then it certainly is a wonderful find, but the Government has just issued a proclamation on similar lines to that of Namaqualand, prohibiting prospecting.

Proposed new clause put and negatived.

On Clause 2,

I move—

I trust I am going to find the Minister in a more merciful mood than he was towards the last amendment. When the Minister introduced his Bill and he announced his intention of practically confiscating the rights to precious stones of those landowners who hold them in the Cape Province, the only argument he adduced was the case of those Griqualand West farms which have been cut off from the Free State. He told the House that if those farms had remained in the Free State they would have lost their rights under the 1904 proclamation. While I am not admitting, for one moment, that that is a sound argument, that argument only applies to these Griqualand West titles, and here the Minister intends to take away the rights of a large number of farms in the Cape Province. He has given no earthly reason for that action; he has not justified it in any shape or form. I want to specially deal with this as it affects my constituency. There are about 600 farms in Griqualand East which will lose their rights to precious stones, which they hold to-day, if this Clause 2 is passed. I must take the Minister back to the history of those titles, to the days when the country was first allocated to the Griquas. They were originally located in Griqualand West, and the Imperial Government found it advisable to move these people, and they offered them what was then “no man’s land,” Griqualand East that is now, for the land they held in Griqualand West. They decided to accept that land in exchange, they came to Griqualand East and there an agreement was entered into with the Imperial Government by which they took possession of this land. It was not a portion of the Cape in those days; it was in the possession of natives. I want to read to the Minister a memorandum of the conditions under which his Excellency the High Commissioner thought it expedient that the Griquas should occupy a certain tract of land. It was arranged that the Griquas were to subdivide among themselves the land they received. Each burger was conferred a farm of approximately 3,000 acres, for which he paid 10s. title deed and £2 annual quitrent, which might be paid in kind, so long as there were difficulties in getting cash, and there were certain conditions with regard to military service. The Griquas issued their own titles, and there was absolutely no reserve whatsoever of any mineral rights and precious stones in those titles. Only servitudes for wagon roads and outspans were reserved. After a time it was found necessary for the Cape Government to take over the country, and to incorporate it into the Cape Province. A commission was sent up and entered into negotiations and took over this district. It was eventually taken over, and Mr. Orpen, on behalf of the Colonial Office, negotiated with these people, and came to a certain arrangement. It was specifically laid down that all bona-fide titles to the land would be confirmed —which was very plain—and one of the conditions was that the titles of the land would remain in the present position if, after due inquiry, they were confirmed; and the Government would deal justly and liberally with them. That was the treaty made with these people. The commission went into all the land grants and claims, and some 514 grants were confirmed and approved. All these original Griqua titles were handed in, and are in the Surveyor-General’s office. They were exchanged with titles from the Cape Province. Here is a copy of a title (the hon. member held it up), and there is no reserve on precious stones or minerals. I have a copy of a title under which additional Crown land was given out—about 1888 to 1890—and here you have a condition laid down that all rights to gold, silver and precious stones discovered at any time in such land shall be reserved to the Crown. As far as I can see, the only other claim under which the Crown could establish the rights to precious metals and stones is in Sir John Cradock’s quit-rent proclamation of 1813, when on all the quit-rent farms the right to precious stones and minerals was reserved to the Government. That proclamation could not apply to East Griqualand because no Act of the Cape Colony was at that time applicable to East Griqualand unless specifically extended thereto by proclamation. [Time limit.]

The hon. member appeals to me to be merciful, but that is rather unfair. We have to follow a certain principle. He will not take it amiss if I tell him he is really under a total misapprehension as to titles in Griqualand East. On March 12th, 1867, Kok issued a title which contained the words—

That tenure was not freehold, but quitrent. Later on the form of grant included the provision that the Governor-General should at all times have the right of resumption. All rights to gold, silver and precious stones found or discovered were reserved to the Crown, together with the right of ingress and egress from any mines or works undertaken for mining or prospecting purposes, but subject always to the provision of any law relating to mining or prospecting for precious stones or minerals. I have a report dated 1876 which was shortly after the annexation of a commission which was appointed to enquire into the affairs of Griqualand East. The Surveyor-General informs me the total number of farms in Griqualand East is 990. Some of them may have been subdivided since. In this Blue Book you find for instance a letter of the 22nd October, 1875, signed by the Commissioners in which they say—

On page 32 of the Blue Book the hon. member will see a list of land certificates, owners recommended for titles for grant of land over 3,000 morgen. It is a tremendous long list, and it was every time quit rent. Another letter of Adam Kok, dated 1875, from Kokstad, addressed to the Commissioners, says—

Then the Commissioners ultimately confirmed and recommended certain lists of farms, and these are quit rent throughout. They give the revenue, and the lists will be found at the end of the book, and from these it will appear the titles were obviously quit rent titles. The result of the nature of the title is there is no freehold, and therefore the mineral rights are reserved to the Crown.

Under what law?

By virtue of the words appearing in the title which I read in English and Dutch.

I have the words.

There is a total of 990 farms in Griqualand East of which 343 are old Griqualand East grants, and the land certificates granted by Adam Kok total 540, all quit rent titles, whether by the old Griqua government or otherwise, and the minerals are reserved to the Crown. That is all to be found in this report, and it is a very authoritative document. Let us go into the question more generally. In the Cape records, deeds registry office, we have further particulars. Each volume in the Cape records contains about 42½ titles or grants. These are statistics that I have got from the Registrar of Deeds. From 1652 to 1700 Cape and Stellenbosch districts, two volumes, 95 grants, the average of each volume being 42½ grants. From 1700 to 1813, 13 volumes, 552 grants. The total grants from 1652 to 1813, which may or may not have been in freehold, was 647. The number of volumes from 1813 to date was 2,268, containing 96,390 grants. Deduct grants in freehold between 1843 and 1856, 82 volumes equal to 3,344 grants. You get an ultimate difference of total quitrent grants of £92,877. If you make certain further deductions you arrive at a result which shows that the total number of grants to date is 97,037, the total freehold or doubtful grants 4,106, and the percentage of freehold and doubtful grants to total grants is 4.2. Tins, of course, confirms what I told the House on a previous occasion, that I had always been informed by the Deeds Office and the Surveyor-General that, although we have no exact list, they have always held that about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. only of the farms in the Cape Province have these freehold titles, that is titles with no mineral reservation to the Crown, the rest being all mineral reservations to the Crown. Now I come to the limited number of farms called the Free State title farms. They are derived from the old Free State. Originally the Free State, like the Transvaal, had absolute freehold title, that is to say, the owner of the land was the owner of the minerals, and also the right to mine and dispose of them. I have previously stated how these rights were infringed upon gradually in the Free State and in the Transvaal, and the result is now that you would have the absurdity that this very small percentage of farms would not be subject to the diamond Acts of the country. It is true that the hon. member is willing to apply Clause 115 as regards the limitation of the output, but otherwise, the Government would have no say or control over them. It seems to me to be unsound in principle that they should continue to be privileged. I have taken the standard of the Free State, and I have asked what are the discoverer’s rights and what are the owner’s claims in the Free State. The discoverer’s rights are 200, and the owner’s claims 400. I propose to bring all these farms with Free State titles under this. This will apply to the Cape Province. In Natal and the Transvaal the right of mining and disposing of precious stones is vested in the Crown. I propose giving in the Cape Province 200 discoverer’s claims, and 400 owner’s claims, and I think that is extremely fair. My attention was drawn last time by two hon. members, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) to the fact that in what appeared to be an addendum to the memorandum of Mr. Lucas, there was a provision in the aw which said that no condition should be presumed which was not specified. But they have misconstrued the law entirely. I have looked at these old Acts. I have given myself considerable trouble as I hope I always do when a question is raised in the House, in spite of hon. members thinking I am autocratic. I go into these things thoroughly. I have gone into this question and I find that in the Act No. 2 of 1860 which was referred to, the following occurs in section 3. [Quotation read.] As a matter of fact, in the very title deed, these conditions of sale which gave a right to the Crown to minerals, were embodied, and therefore, you cannot say that there is any condition about minerals which has not clearly been expressed in the title deeds in terms of the law. On the contrary, the title deed has expressly and explicitly complied with the requisite of the law. When you come to Act No. 14 of 1878, also dealing with Crown lands, you find what was previously put in a title deed is now put in the law itself. Section 10 says: [Quotation read.] Then you come to Act 15 of 1887, also dealing with the disposal of Crown lands. In the first section the Act converts leased lands into grants. You will find in (3) that the land shall be sold subject to such special servitudes, conditions, and stipulations as may be set forth in the conditions of sale; and in section 5 (b) that the Governor shall at all times have the right of resumption, and in (e) all right to gold, silver and precious stones found or discovered at any time on or in any land under this Act shall be reserved to the Crown; and so it goes on. Now the question has been raised whether the word “mines” applies to alluvial diggings. That was decided in the case of Swiegers and Pringle versus the Cape Government—that the word “mines” includes alluvial diggings. By far the majority of the grants in the Cape Province have this reservation, and we have to do, as regards absolute freehold title, with a small percentage. It is an unsound thing to keep these few exempt from the mineral laws.

How many farms are involved.

The number is 4,160. Assuming that they were ten per cent., still there would be no justification for privileging them above other farms, and it is desirable to subject them to our mineral laws; therefore, in section 2 of the clause, I move—

In other words, the Government does not propose to deal with recognised private diggings that have always existed. We could not get an exhaustive schedule of farms, but where it is proved that before or up to the 1st April, 1927, there has been bona fide discovery, bona fide mining or bona fide diggings there, these farms will be absolutely exempt, because you must either do that or include them in the Act. It would obviously not be right, where you have an accomplished fact, that you should include them. Where you have ground which, as regards mining or digging, is virgin soil, and no mining operation or digging has been carried on, it is quite just not to render them amenable to the mineral laws of the country.

Even if there are only 4,000 farms in the Cape Province held under freehold title, what right has the State to step in and take from a man without compensation a right, whether it is valuable or not?

It has been repeatedly done.

I sat in the Cape Parliament in 1905 and 1906 and it took two months in each session to pass the Irrigation Act, so strongly did the farmers feel that they insisted that their vested rights in regard to water should be preserved in every way. Whether it be water or mining the State has no right to confiscate private rights. Is it fair to take from an individual a right given by the State?

That is the history of the whole of the mineral rights of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal.

I am talking of the Cape. It would not be right, here in the Western Province or the Karroo, where the farms are held in absolute freehold for the State to say it was going to take away that freehold title without any compensations whatsoever. Should it be necessary in the interests of the State for a man to be deprived of his freehold title, he should be given liberal compensation.

The Minister referred to Natal and said the mining laws covered all farms, but there are many with Voortrekkers rights in Natal which are held without reservation of minerals to the Crown. There is an interesting position in the northern portion of Natal where, in 1884 when the Usutu called in the farmers of the Transvaal to help them, they gave 800 farms of 3,000 morgen each, which also had no reservation in minerals to the Crown, and that is 7,500 square miles in that area, besides the Voortrekkers’ rights which had been granted in the forties by the then Government of the day. I should like the Minister to tell us something of that position. If he is going to pass Clause 2 as it stands, it will take away rights which exist The Minister stated on the second reading that this would be provided for, but it is not, I recently learned from the Surveyor-General of Natal that this is the position, and I ask the Minister to look into it.

I do not presume to criticise the remarks of the Minister on titles in Griqualand East, but I know the circumstances in Griqualand West. There we have the Free State title, and the owners are entitled to the minerals in the ground They are entitled to gold as well as diamonds, and the taking of the right for diamonds does not bring about uniformity, because the right for gold remains. The reason advanced for taking away the rights in Griqualand West are not substantial reasons. We are told that in 1871 the law took away rights from the Free State and had Griqualand West been in the Free State then, their rights would have been taken away too. The same applied in 1904. The Minister says he has treated Griqualand West fairly, because he says if they had been in the Free State they would have been treated as the Free State farmers were treated. The Minister has not mentioned that he has taken compensation from the Cape. Under the old Cape law the discoverer of a mine on unalienated Crown Land received 50 per cent., and the Minister has reduced it to 30 per cent., and that is necessary, we are told, in order to secure uniformity. I hope the Minister will remember Clause 2 of the Bill, and that in order to have uniformity he takes rights away, because in subsequent clauses I want to appeal to him to give a little better rights in order to attain uniformity. He must level up in other directions if he wants to be fair. We are told if these farms had been part of the Free State their rights would have been taken away, but they did not belong to the Free State. They were a special province, Griqualand West, and their rights were continuously confirmed. Proclamations were issued confirming the people in their rights. A select committee of the old Cape House sat and confirmed the titles to the land in Griqualand West. Therefore I say it seems very hard that rights should be taken away now which have existed for many years, and which have been confirmed over and over again by proclamation and Acts of Parliament. The important thing to Griqualand West is really this. When I visited Kimberley recently quite a number of farmers came to see me and pointed out that their farms really had an additional value over and above their farming value because they had these mineral rights which’ belonged to them only, without interference. I am quite sure that I do not exaggerate when I say that the value of farms in Griqualand West with the Free State title will be reduced by at least 10s. per morgen if this law is passed. The total area held on Free State title there is 652,000 morgen, so that, on the basis I have mentioned there will be a loss of £326,000 to the farmers of Griqualand West.

Surely that is a pure guess

Farmers called upon me and told me that their farms were mortgaged, that the banks or building societies or loan societies had already given them notice that if this Bill is passed their mortgages would be called up or would be reduced. We were told that it was necessary to have equality of title because of the effect on diamond production. Everyone has admitted that section 115 should apply to these farms, so that the diamond production itself is not affected by them.

To what extent will that reduce their value?

Not at all. That will enhance the value of the farms. By limiting the production the value of diamonds is being kept up and the value of their farms is being maintained. But the position is still more curious. The Minister himself is convinced that a hardship is being done to these people because he says that where there are owners who actually work their diamonds he will protect their rights. If that is right in a Bill which purports to limit production of diamonds, surely much more reason exists for protecting farmers who lave not yet exploited their land. Is it just hat a man who has husbanded his resources should have them taken away from him?

I am quite willing to strike out the proviso.

The Minister should really meet the position in this case where the farmers have the mineral rights and leave them in possession of their mineral rights. I am quite sure that is the right thing to do. Let us talk about coal. In the Transvaal, for instance, there are enormous areas of coal which have not been exploited. How would the farmer like to be told “as you have exploited your coal you can keep it, but if you have not your rights are going to be taken away.” I think it is a very wrong principle, and I hope the Minister will go further and say that freehold title will be protected.

May I point out something that alarms me very much indeed. I can imagine this proposal is an administrative proposal, a bureaucratic proposal, from one of the departments and I will tell the Minister why. In 1922 or 1923 a proposal was made to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he was Minister of Railways. It was sent up to me for my information. It was a proposal by the Railway Department as an administrative bureaucratic department to give to the Railway Department the right of taking water wherever they desired for railway purposes without giving any compensation to the owners. I at once pointed out that you were taking away from people vested rights which they bad acquired in the acquisition of their property. If you are going to give away the principle in connection with minerals and where minerals are preserved by freehold title and you are going to take those rights away the Railway Department will be justified in saying that they will take valuable water away from the farmers as well.

The same thing has happened in every province repeatedly.

It has never happened in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. No more than you have the right to take away vested water rights have you any right to take away vested mineral rights which have been acquired in a fair and legitimate manner.

It has been the constant legislation in South Africa, and we are a Union today. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), introduced it in the gold law of the Transvaal. Look at Section 9 of Natal Act 43 of 1899. [Section read.] It is most undesirable that these farms should not be amenable to the ordinary mineral laws of the land. Why should you have privileged farms? You might have the discovery of a very big mine or very valuable alluvial diggings, and the Crown would not have the vestige of a right to control them. They are to-day held in Natal in a way that benefits them, by Natal Act 43 of 1899, whereas formerly they were under the Transvaal laws, which were much more strict. Does the hon. member by his amendment want to put them in a more favourable position to-day? I cannot accept the amendment.

Take the building of railways in the Cape of Good Hope. In all farms given out after 1860 the State has reserved the right of constructing roads and railways over the property, but if they go through developed property they have to pay compensation. In other freehold properties they have no right to build a line through them without paying compensation. We have found out from experience that as a railway line very much improves the value of a property, it is the proper thing for the railway administration to ask that as they are proposing to build a line through a person’s property and it will be an advantage to him, is he agreeable to waiving his rights? If they do not waive their rights, they have the fullest legal right to demand compensation.

Why should you take a man’s income away by means of an income tax? Is income not property?

The income tax applies to all persons. You have no right to say to a man who has an income of £5,000 that he shall pay income tax while a man with a, similar income escapes payment.

Property is property whether it is land, money, cattle or anything else, and any law which interferes with that may therefore be called an interference with the vested rights and confiscation. If the law levies a tax of 20 per cent. on my income, it does not matter whether the tax is also levied on the income of everybody else. It is an interference with vested rights, yet every day we legislate in that way.

I understand from the Minister that his sole reason for this drastic clause is a desire for uniformity, but this thirst for uniformity may be taken too far. I do not believe in the whole history of South Africa there has been a confiscation of private rights on such an extensive scale.

In the Transvaal.

If the desire is merely to secure uniformity, the price we are going pay is too high. The Minister can achieve all he wants under Section 115. We want no confiscation, but control of output.

Control of output is not the only control the State should have.

It was scarcely necessary to drag in this contentious clause at all. Would it not be better to accept the amendment and get on to things that really matter. When it comes to confiscating private rights on a big scale we must have something to say. We desire to assist the Minister all we can, but I think the Minister should show a, desire to assist us in this matter. Why is the Minister so insistent on this clause, which does not affect the main object of the Bill? The powers taken under Section 115 are all he wants. I admit in the general interests of the public the principle of expropriation has been admitted with compensation.

Never in the Transvaal with regard to mineral rights, and they amount to millions.

Our laws have always been that no private right should be taken away without compensation, unless it is in the public interest, and the public interest has got along now for 50 years with these rights as they are. Why then take away these rights to secure uniformity when, as the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) pointed out, uniformity is not secured?

It is difficult to follow the hon. members on the other side of the House on this particular clause. The Minister puts forward a clause in which he attempts to level up the different classes of mines to be discovered in the future with the object of control. There are a number of mines according to the evidence of Mr. Russell in the Select Committee on Precious Stones in 1924, in which the Free State title is the same as that in operation to-day. It was felt these farms should be brought on to the same level as those farms which belonged to the Free State, but which, in 1904, were proclaimed under the Milner regime. I cannot understand the hon. member for Kimberley. Supposing on one of these farms a second Premier Mine is found in the future, and is in the position to swamp the whole diamond trade without any control. What attitude would he take up then? We are dealing here entirely with mines to be discovered in the future, and surely the amendment is enough protection for the hon. member, that is that the rights which accrue in the future would be subject to the same penalties as the Free State farmers who had the same class of title before the ground was taken away from them in 1904. Hon. members opposite complain that we are putting disabilities on these grants. We are levelling them up and bringing them exactly on to the same position where they were before.

What about the rest of the farms in the Cape Province?

I am particularly talking about the class of farms where there is a possibility of diamonds being found. I would like to ask the Minister about the doubtful position in regard to rights which have been obtained under the existing laws of the Transvaal in respect of which I have an amendment on the paper to Clause 2.

There is not a shadow of doubt about that matter.

If the Minister is quite clear that these rights will be protected in his amendment, then I am quite satisfied.

I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). I would point out that if the distinction which has been drawn in the Cape Province is continued in respect of freehold farms, it does not mean that there would immediately be an unrestricted output of diamonds. The whole of the rights will still be subject to the general output clause. The Minister seems to decry our objection to his desire for uniformity. He seems to think there should be uniformity between the Cape Province and the other provinces of the Union. This craze for uniformity is quite a new development on the part of the Minister. Last year he had quite a different view on this point and he preserved the Cape rights.

Have you never seen a clause in a Bill altered under your leader?

What about the principle which underlies the attitude of the Minister’ When did he find that last year’s principle would not operate in this year’s Bill? I will show the Minister what the policy of his Government is on this point. They laid down a policy of not interfering with these rights in the Cape Province. Last year he introduced a Bill which was made law. I refer to the Reserved Minerals Bill. In the opening section it says—

The Minister will, I know, allow us to put to him the consequences that are apt to flow from a reversal of policy of this kind. Was it not eminently reasonable for people to infer that this represented the policy of the Government? What has occurred between this time last year and now to cause the Minister to change his policy? I would like to deal a little more fully with the question of the extent of the rights affected in this matter. The Minister, in dealing with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) seemed to think that all the farms in Griqualand East would not be subject to a reservation because of what we call the drag-net clause which is usually inserted in deeds of grant. He said that because that clause was there, the precious stones rights could be said to belong to the Crown. He will probably be acquainted with the case of the Kimberley council, where it was held by the Court of Appeal that if the proclamation of Sir Johan Cradock did not apply to Griqualand East this clause made no difference to the rights.

That is quite a different principle. The analogous case is the case of de Villiers.

The Kimberley Council endeavoured to take without compensation soil for the purpose of a toll gate. I say frankly I am not able to say whether the proclamation does not apply to Griqualand East, but the Minister’s answer to the hon. member for Griqualand is not sufficient, and some further inquiry is necessary before he can say these titles are not granted in freehold. I want to deal with the question of the land that may be affected by this. I have been endeavouring to ascertain what extent of land would be affected, and I have here an interesting report, the first report ever presented to the Cape Parliament by the Surveyor-General. It is printed as an annexure, or one of the annexures, to the Votes and Proceedings for 1876 All grants in the Cape Province from 1842 to 1862 were in freehold. The Surveyor-General, in making his report, made comment on the extent of the land affected, which shows that those hon. members on the other side, when they go back to their constituencies, will have a very heavy responsibility when they explain how they have dealt with this confiscatory clause, because it is confiscation, whether legal or otherwise. I cannot say what districts were affected by these grants between 1842 and 1862. Piquetberg, Clanwilliam, Namaqualand, and in a semi-circle right round to the Eastern Province would have grants between these dates. It comes as a surprise to me that instead of the number stated by the Minister with regard to the farms and the Free State, the number is 137, and the total area 650,000 morgen [Time limit.]

Look at Ordinance 66 of 1903 on precious stones in the Transvaal, which gives the State 60 per cent. straight off the reel. Do you say that is confiscation, and interference with vested rights? As regards the Act of last year, the explanation is that section 1 deals with rights to surface owners only. The Cape mineral laws give surface owners rights, so that there is no necessity to include the Cape Province, and that was why the Cape was excluded.

What about the Bill last year?

How many Bills has the hon. member not had drawn up which he has altered? When the Bill was drafted last year I had no time to go into every clause, and I knew when the Bill was printed that there was no chance of passing it, but it was printed to give the public an opportunity of making then comments.

Members on this side of the House have been asked what we propose doing about Clause 2. As hon. members know my constituency is greatly interested because there are two kinds of exempted farms, viz., farms with the Free State title and farms with other exceptions mentioned by the Minister. The position which I take up is not based on the interests of the owners only, but on the interests of South Africa generally. I ask the question: “What are the best interests of our country?” I regard the matter from this standpoint. I will not deny that an important principle is affected here. I will not deny the significance of the matter, and I also appreciate the responsibility on me. For that reason I have drafted an amendment almost in the same words as the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). It reads as follows—[Amendment read]. Hon. members will see that I suggested this amendment and that it will only apply to alluvial diamonds, because it affects a principle about which I have a definite opinion. I cannot say that the State is not entitled to the minerals. I am convinced in principle that alluvial diamonds ought to be in the ownership of the State, and not in that of the landowner. That is a sound principle. I held a different view about alluvial diamonds but in drafting my amendment I took into consideration the fact that account must be taken of the interests of the State, viz., uniformity in legislation. If, however, to obtain uniformity, rights are taken away then it cannot be done without compensation. I therefore approve of the principle; no objection can be made to it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) said that the 1842 proclamation applied to a large number of farms, probably more farms than the Minister mentioned. I acknowledge that I have obtained a little information from the hon. member, and I have gone into the matter as well. I found out that there was good ground for differing from the hon. member. The minerals are in fact reserved by the Crown. The proclamation deals with ground which has been exempted or with ground which is dealt with by the proclamation of August, 1836. According to that proclamation the rights to mine for precious stones, gold and silver is reserved to the Government. The proclamation mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) speaks of ground held under quit-rent, and privately owned.—[Proclamation read.] I imagine that this proclamation only applies to ground formerly held under quit-rent, and by virtue of that quit-rent the minerals were reserved to the Crown. I therefore think that I have good ground for differing from the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). I have already said that I shall support the motion of the Minister for the reasons given. The object of our legislation is uniformity and if a principle is applicable to all the provinces then better reasons should be given than what are now being given to allow exemption from the application to certain areas. [Time limit.]

The Minister bases his argument on the rights being taken away in the Transvaal, but I am glad that he admits that it was done illegally. The Minister quoted the case of the Premier Mine, where the State gets 50 per cent. of the profits, but he must remember that that agreement was got by the consent of the persons working the mine. The Minister must not forget that it was our principle not to take away the rights of landowners illegally. This is not a small matter because the Minister admitted that 4.000 farms in the Cape are affected.

They do not all contain minerals.

I agree with that, but we do not know where minerals may be discovered. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has expressed his opinion but other hon. members opposite who represent landowners, like the hon. members for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit), Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer), Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) and Ceres (Mr. Roux) have not yet said anything on this point. The Labour party in the past have always said that owners’ rights ought to be taken away, and hon. members opposite are now sitting quite quiet while it is being done. They will still have to give account. We in the Transvaal are already in the unfortunate position that the mineral rights have been taken away.

The Boer Volksraad took away the mineral rights in 1897.

The Minister wants to make the law uniform, but here we again have a difference in the number of owners’ claims between 500 in the Cape and 200 in the Transvaal. Why are they not made the same? I cannot remain silent when the owners’ rights are taken away.

I do not agree with the Minister in the analogies that he has drawn between the various provinces. The Transvaal Volksraad in 1858 first laid down the principle of State ownership of minerals. You then had the principle laid down that the State had an interest in the minerals, and in the following year a resolution was passed practically on the same lines as the present gold law. Therefore, the Transvaal does not stand on the same basis as the Cape. The Free State had its rights until 1904, when, under Crown Colony Government, those rights were taken away. I do not think any hon. member of this House will agree with that action of Lord Milner. That act of confiscation was not by the will of the people sitting in the Parliament of the country, but it was an arbitrary act supplied to what was then a conquered country. In Natal lands were given out subject to a specific reservation of minerals. I maintain that this clause of the Minister’s and his action in dispossessing these owners of land in the Cape Province cannot be compared to the mineral laws of the other three provinces of the Union. Those Cape farms stand on an entirely different basis. The Minister now comes forward and says that he is treating the farmers very generously. I put it to my hon. friends opposite—You do not know what you are giving away. You do not know what minerals or precious stones the freehold farms in your constituencies contain. The country is taking a very great interest in this question. Since I spoke on the second reading, I have had many letters from landowners not only in my own constituency, but in other constituencies as well. You have had one reply already. Hopetown has given its reply. The reversal which you sustained at Hopetown was very largely due to this clause which is embodied in the Diamond Control Bill. Interference with a vested right, interference with a title is a very different thing from taking 20, 30 or 40 per cent. for the State on the output of minerals. We, as land owners, are not going to submit without the strongest protest to our vested rights, our freehold titles, being interfered with in the way this Bill intends to interfere with them. We are now dealing with a case of emergency. We want to get legislation through as quickly as we can to deal with what threatens to be utter disorganization of a great industry in this country, and yet the Minister at the eleventh hour introduces what he must know is one of the most controversial clauses that he could introduce in a Bill. When he attacks land in this fashion, he knows he is stirring up a hornet’s nest. I say it is absolutely unnecessary at this juncture to introduce this clause into the Bill. I do hope the Minister will relax, and will see the reason of our proposal. I hope my hon. friends who own land, and who have to go back to their constituents and explain why they gave away these rights, will have a good reason to advance. It is only fair that they should have a free vote. There should be an unfettered vote. This should not be a party matter. What is only the confiscation of precious stones to-day may be anything in the future. You may take our base metals and even our surface rights, if we once admit the principle. I am not taking up this altitude to delay the passage of the Bill. The Minister does not seem very much interested in what I am saying. Perhaps he is more interested in reading his letters.

I am listening to every word you say. It is that blind prejudice that pervades you.

You should apologise.

I would apologise to my constituents if I were the hon. member for sitting still and giving away their rights.

Don’t worry about my constituents. I should be very pleased to see you there.

In order to satisfy my excitable friend I will apologise to the Minister, but I ask the hon. member whether he an proves of the titles of the vested rights in the Cape Province being confiscated in this manner.

After all, the whole thing lies in a nutshell. I hope we are not going to take up further time in discussing this clause. I want to point out to the hon. member that his amendment is most unreasonable. He proposes to exempt all farms in the northern districts of Natal as defined in the law of 1903, and to place them in the same position as the Free State, for instance, was in before.

Will you compromise?

No, I am sorry I cannot accept it.

I would like to deal with the point of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). He doubted whether the farms I referred to were granted freehold. The Minister has said they were granted freehold? I would like to refer to the report of the Surveyor-General in 1886. He pointed out this policy of selling freehold was adopted, because there was a shortage of money, and he said that vast estates fell into the hands of speculators. So without knowing the relative extent of land, we cannot say that 4 per cent. of farmers are affected. With regard to the Free State titles there must be some value in the specific assurance given by the Crown that the title would remain unchallengeable. The owners have enjoyed these rights, and have fought for them in every court in the country, and the Privy Council. In the proclamation of 1891 they were informed that Her Majesty had no intention of prejudicing those titles.

It is no good arguing in a circle. You will not convince me.

The Minister may be obdurate, but I feel the facts should be placed on record. They had a specific assurance given them on the highest authority that their title was and would be indefeatable. In 1924 the Union Government endeavoured to attack one of these title, and slip in a sort of “without prejudice” clause relating to the mineral rights. When this matter came before our own Court of Appeal not only did they declare it ultra vires, but the court took the exceptional course of making a recommendation to the Legislature. The ex-Chief Justice pointing out there was no right to interfere with these Free State titles, said—

The Minister, instead of responding to that principle laid down, now proposes to step in and take away those rights. How can he justify, merely on the ground of uniformity, his intention to take away those rights? I do desire to record my protest. I am sorry to find on the other side of the Committee, where you might imagine from what you sometimes hear, you might claim the farm owners are represented, that not one hon. member has stood up to express a clear and proper view with regard to this legislation.

I move—

called for a division, upon which the Committee divided:

I move—

To omit all the words after “breadth”in line 57 to the end of sub-section (2); in line 68. after “cease” to insert “or shall cease within such distance from the place of discovery as the mining commissioner may determine and no digging shall be carried on thereon until the land has been proclaimed”; to omit the proviso in lines 1 to 3, on page 14; and to omit sub-section (5) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

I move—

The amendment has two underlying principles. The one is that the reward for a discoverer is on a percentage basis, and the other is that the reward given to a discoverer is half of that given to the owner. The principle of adopting a percentage basis is very much sounder and easier to administer than is the giving of a fixed number of claims. The original recommendation of the Minister amounted to this, both on unalienated Crown land and on private land the owner was rewarded with the same number of claims, and the Minister amended the clause in the manner now proposed by reducing the number of claims allotted to the discoverer on unalienated Crown land to 20. This compares with 50 in the Transvaal, 20 in the Cape, 200 in the Free State and 50 in Natal.

It is all Crown land.

But the discoverer receives the self-same number on alienated Crown land or private land and half that number on unalienated Crown land. It is reduced from 50 to 20 in the Transvaal and my amendment is to make it 50 on unalienated Crown land. Dealing with alienated Crown land the owner will never allow any prospecting because the only reward he gets is 30 claims whereas he got 100 before in the Free State. The principle of giving equal rewards on alienated Crown land and half that on unalienated Crown land is a fair proportion. On private land the Minister has levelled up to some extent. He has given in the Cape, the Free State and Natal 200 claims and in the Transvaal he has increased it from 50 to 60 claims. If he had levelled up right through it would have been much fairer and I think no great hardship would have been created. The Minister found no difficulty in levelling up so far as mines were concerned, and a mine is more important than an alluvial deposit. If the Transvaal were levelled up in this matter it would mean an additional 140 claims and that is about 2½ morgen of ground. If he saw his way clear to part with this 2½ morgen of land to the discoverer and the owner it would make no difference to the State at all because in any case instead of giving it to the discoverer and owner he would give it to the public. There must be some consideration to the owner and the discoverer and the discoverer is entitled to better treatment for several reasons. He has to peg his ground in the proportion of two to one and the Minister can take a certain number of the finds and the discoverer cannot work the claim until the Minister proclaims the ground. There is no reason why all discoverers in every part of the Union should not be treated equally, and these remarks apply to the owner. I have adopted the principle of percentage basis. I am speaking without inquiry but the average proclamation has been about 500 morgen taken over a number of years, and therefore 1 per cent. corresponds with the figures the Minister is prepared to give to the Free State, Natal and the Cape. The position would then be the owners and discoverers would get 1 per cent. each on private land, and, on unalienated Crown land. 1 per cent. and ½ per cent. respectively. Ninety-eight and a half per cent. would go to the alluvial diggers, and no digger can say he is badly treated if that percentage is given to him. The department would be delighted because it is difficult to administer the law with so many varying figures and varying degrees of reward. By taking the percentage basis you overcome the bug-bear of the subdivision of farms which would disappear because if a man divided his farm into 100 parts he would get no advantage. I appeal to the Minister to give the Transvaal farmer the selfsame rate as he gives to farmers in other parts of the Union. What is the use of levelling up Natal? They have no diamonds. The Cape is levelled up, but the Free State title is taken away. So the levelling up is purely imaginary. I appeal to the Minister to adopt this principle of percentage basis. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member will not press the amendment for reasons that are well known to him. We have tried to work out the percentage basis and we cannot arrive at a solution. The amendment of the hon. member bears on Clause 19, and we found the percentage basis absolutely impossible. You have got to do with a man to-day who owns only 200 morgen or 100 morgen or 300 morgen. How are you going to treat him? You must have some starting point. The hon. member says I have given 400 owners’ and 200 discoverers’ claims. He is quite right, but that is only in respect of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of farms. It is not in respect of the vast majority of farms. I have taken the Free State, because that is the highest number, and I have taken Natal because we are bringing all Natal farms under this law. As regards the Transvaal, they have long ago been restricted, and that has been the law always. Under all the circumstances the Government has thought fit to increase the number of discoverers’ claims there from the existing 50 to 60. As regards Crown lands, there is really no grievance at all. Why should a discoverer be entitled in regard to a commodity about which the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is so apprehensive, he knows people are discovering diamonds all over the place, and they will be as cheap as stones presently—well, that is his contention, anyway, and yet he is anxious to increase the inducement for people to go and prospect on Crown lands. The 30 claims to which he refers are claims in connection With surface owners. We are now giving the surface owner 30 discoverers’ claims. Surely he has no reason to complain. Where up to now his discoverers’ claims have been nil, he is getting 30. I hope the hon. member for Kimberley will not press his amendment.

Why should the Transvaal be treated so badly?

I do not admit that it is treated badly.

I mean compared to the other provinces.

I may as well ask why the right hon. gentleman, in his time, treated the Transvaal so badly. When the Ordinance of 1904 was passed, the Transvaal Law, No. 66 of 1903 had been passed. There the owners’ and discoverers’ claims were far less. The Free State people revolted, as it were, and Lord Milner in his time thought fit to give them 200 discoverers’ claims and 400 owners claims. That is the only explanation I can give.

I am very sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment. He ought to approve of the percentage basis because that will prevent the people in the Transvaal again subdividing their farms. How many people will not still be dividing their land among their children? a man with so much sense as the Minister ought to be able to allow the grant of claims to be made on a percentage basis. The Minister says that he has moved an amendment that discoverers’ claims shall be issued after the proclamation, but to-day the discoverer can obtain his title at any time and commence working. If the rights of the owners of working on their own discoverers’ claims are withheld, then I want to know how long the Minister can delay the proclamation. Will he prevent the people for a year from working the discoverers’ claims? I hope the Minister will explain the matter, because under the old Transvaal law the working of these claims could commence at once. In this clause it is proposed that the owners and discoverers claims must be taken in one block. I understand that by an amendment this has now been altered into four blocks, but owners’ rights are again being taken away. Why cannot the owners select their owners’ claims?

To merely pick out the eyes everywhere?

Why should that be allowed to another man? It is laid down in the Gold Law that the block must be taken according to a certain length and breadth, but in this case the owners’ rights are being taken away.

I am increasing the number of claims.

By ten.

No, the owners’ claims are being increased from 200 to 220.

But then you deduct 20 from the discoverer’s claims.

No, the discoverer’s claims are being increased from 50 to 60.

But why cannot the Minister give the right to the owner to select his owner’s claims? The Minister knows how few morgen the owners obtain in claims. As for occupation farms on Crown land, it was proposed in the Bill last year that there should be 50 discoverer’s and 100 owner’s claims, but those numbers are also reduced in this Bill. I admit that the State formerly had all rights there, but this Bill is going back on what was proposed last year. There are people who have bought land but they could do nothing with it and have let it with the right of digging if this Bill is passed. The man on occupation farms has just as much right there as an owner on his private land, but now his rights are again being interfered with I want to ask the Minister to leave the position as it was last year, even if it is less than what the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) proposes. The ground on an occupation farm is surely also broken up by digging.

The man gets all the trading rights.

He had them as a part of his surface rights. He bought them from the Government.

Surely not the owner’s claims.

The Minister has made a concession in that respect and done something for the people. I should much like the provision with regard to blocks of claims to be altered.

The law always provided that the discoverer’s claims must be in one block.

Yes, that is right, but not the owner’s claims.

In this Clause 13 I want to point out a very serious defect and that is the absence of any determination of the law in regard to what determines discovery. We say “at any place.” Does the Minister not think it necessary to define how a discovery should be determined? We have a curious case arisen in Namaqualand where discovery has been granted by the Mining Commissioner on every prospecting area. Does the Minister not think it necessary to put in some distance as a determination of where discovery may be made? This is entirely in the air now. It would be very much sounder if a prospector when he was on Government land knew he could not go within a certain radius of a discovery already made. Similarly in the case of foreign boundaries. It should not be left to the discretion of the mining commissioner or the Minister or anyone else.

I move—

On private ground there are beacons, and the area of the farm is stated in the title deed, but Crown land is not surveyed. That is possibly done if it is situated in small pieces between private ground, but in Namaqualand there is a large extended area of Crown land without beacons. I want to ask the Minister how the discoverer’s claims will be granted on Crown lands. I should like every prospecting area to be regarded as a separate piece of ground, so that each prospecting area will get his own discoverer’s claims. The prospector ought to have the reward of his work because, after he has discovered diamonds, the public get the benefit of his discovery. The State suffers no damage if the prospector is met a little more. It may even be said that the prospector should surrender a part or should pay something. Now, however, the Minister is killing prospecting on Crown land in Namaqualand. If the prospectors are not encouraged, then subsequently there will be no prospecting. If the Minister wants no further prospecting in Namaqualand, he is now taking the course to attain his object. The people do not know to-day where they stand, and it seems to be as if the Minister himself does not know how the discoverer’s claims will be granted on Crown land. Except at Alexander Bay, the diamonds are very widely distributed, and when the discoverer has discovered anything he practically gets nothing, while the public can come in and peg off claims. If the Minister does not accept my amendment, then the Namaqualanders will have no chance of prospecting, but prospectors will come from other parts of the country where they have not had these lean years.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) is afraid that prospectors will be frightened away.

No. I am afraid that Namaqualanders will be frightened off prospecting.

Then the prospectors from beyond Namaqualand will also be frightened off. I receive numerous requests from people to go to Namaqualand, and I do not think that it will comfort the hon. member. I always stop it as much as I can, but I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to continue in that way. I have put into my amendment Clause 13 (5) the provision that if a dispute arises about discoverer’s rights it shall be settled by the Minister. The experience of the department teaches us that it is much better for the department to settle the matter. It is a very difficult thing to prove in court. I have sent Dr. Rodgers to Namaqualand, and he says that the deposits and reefs with regard to gold and diamonds cannot be geologically fixed. There are differences. The hon. member now wants, when a man has pegged off a circle and has discovered something, and possibly 50 other prospectors have also made discoveries in the neighbourhood, that 50 discoverers’ rights should then be given there.

But every area is 40 morgen.

It is, however, a distortion of prospector’s rights the way they are applied in the country. It is true that the man who has spent a great deal possibly discovers nothing, while the man who has spent possibly £50 makes a discovery. It is the same as the case with a man who for 20 years has been doing research work to be able to obtain a patent. Another man may do much less work and chance on the invention, and the latter takes out the patent and not the former, although he has worked much longer. That is the fortune or the misfortune of life. I think it is better for the matter to be left to the department, and that is also my answer to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). The department has hitherto always acted fairly, and so far there has practically never yet been an appeal. There was an appeal recently and the court gave a decision, but geologists say that the basis followed by the court may subsequently lead to our not knowing where we are. The department is rather generous than otherwise.

I want to support the remarks of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) on discoverer’s claims. I see that the Minister has an amendment that discoverer’s claims shall not be worked before the proclamation. I consider that very unfair, because then the owner who prospects and discovers diamonds will have to wait to start working until the Minister or the Government see fit to proclaim. Under the old law we had the right of working the discoverer’s claims at any time after the discovery. I think the Minister is encroaching a little too much on the rights of owners on alluvial diggings. I do not think that it is right to hamper the owner, who is usually the prospector, in that way. I say nothing about the owner’s claim, because hitherto one had to wait until the proclamation to work them. Rights which they have to discoverer’s claims must, however, not be taken away.

I want to ask the Minister how the law is going to be carried out in Namaqualand. In the past it was the custom to grant discoverer’s rights on every prospecting area but nothing is stated in the Bill. What is going to happen if all the ground in a rich strip is pegged off as prospecting areas? How will the Minister decide who possesses the discoverer’s rights’ Is the Government, e.g., going to lay down that discoverer’s rights must be granted for every fifth area or what? There is nothing in the Bill providing how far a discovery of a previous discovery must be so that discoverer’s rights shall be granted.

I think it will just cause difficulty if a strict stipulation is made in the Bill because then there will be no elasticity and the department will not be able to act according to circumstances. In connection with the discoveries of platinum there were possibly too many discoverer’s rights given, but the Department acts on the basis of an honest man, and this is better than laying down a specific provision. There are people who think that under the Cape law every circle gives a man the right to get discoverer’s rights, but we obtained legal advice and that view is not supported I may tell the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) that I gave examples at the second reading of the bother we had in the past as a result of owners prospectings making discoveries and then pegging on owner’s and discoverer’s claims. Subsequently there was no control. If proclamation is justified then the discoverer’s claims will anyhow be able to be worked but if it is undesirable to issue a proclamation why then should the small number of claims be worked

Might I ask the Minister to consider this point—the definition of “land” in line 46? Does that include unalienated Crown land?

I am not prepared to answer that straight off the reel. I do not know why the hon. member comes with these conundrums.

This is the stage.

The hon. member can ask, but I am not prepared to answer.

The Minister is, I suppose, in one of his intractable moods. I would point out that Crown land is not registered. Why should I go to the Minister and ask him in advance about an amendment?

You can adopt your own procedure.

This Section 13 does not touch unalienated Crown land, but land registered in the Deeds Office, and unalienated land is not registered in the Deeds Office.

I understand from the Minister’s answer that if a farm is prospected and diamonds are discovered, and there is not sufficient ground to proclaim, then the Minister asks why the small piece of ground should be worked. It is fair, if I understood the Minister rightly, if there is not sufficient diamond-bearing ground to issue a proclamation, to prevent the owner of the farm with a small piece of diamond-bearing ground from working it? That is surely extremely unfair. The Minister says he wants to protect the small man; but if the man is prevented from working, then it is just the small man and owner who is not being protected. The owner can surely get some of the smaller diggers to help him do the work, but, according to the explanation of the Minister he will not be allowed to do so.

The hon. member misunderstood my reply. Can he give me a case where there were 50 discoverers’ claims and no more? There is always ground to proclaim, and if it is fair to issue a proclamation it will be done.

The labourer is surely worthy of his hire. There are 1,400 claims in a prospecting area, and if the prospector gets one per cent., then there are sufficient left for the public. Prospecting must be encouraged, and the encouragement of prospecting is an encouragement for the man who comes to peg. It is easy for the Minister to give one per cent. of the claims in the area to the prospector, because if he makes no discovery then in any case he gets nothing. What does the State lose by giving one per cent? The State makes £350 a month out of the licences on the 1,400 claims, and the prospector also pays his claim licence money. Besides the encouragement of prospecting, the matter will in this way be made easier for the department and for the Minister.

I notice that the amendment of the hon. member is practically a repetition of the amendment which he had to Clause 1. I cannot accept it.

It refers to future prospecting.,

Under the very discretion which is here vested in the Minister you can act with more elasticity and grant more rights than what you otherwise could do. It is a matter about which the department will act on the merits of each case. It is better to have the provision elastic rather than unbending.

The Minister says that the provisions must be elastic and that he will act fairly. I will therefore withdraw my amendment.

The Minister may not be there to-morrow, but the law will be, and then you will not know where you are.

I would rather keep the Minister to his promise, because my amendment will, in any case, be rejected.

I am not yet convinced by the Minister’s answer.

The position is that the discoverer’s and owner’s claims will constitute a part of the proclaimed area. If it therefore becomes necessary in any case, you can proclaim a very small piece of ground, so that the owner or discoverer can work the claims. I do not know of a single case where a proclamation was restricted to 50 or 200 claims. If there is gravel on 50 claims, then there will be a fairly large piece of ground attached to it.

The Minister says that there has not yet been a case, but I know of various cases of the ground being too small to proclaim Owner’s and disciverer’s-claims will now as a result of the passing of the Bill amount to 280, but if there is no more diamond-bearing ground then there is no ground to proclaim for the public.

Then the small piece of ground alone can be proclaimed.

Will the owner’s and discoverer’s claims be able to be worked then?

I should like the Minister to be very clear on that point. Does the Minister honestly think that he will not give the owner any discoverer’s claims until the proclamation has been issued?

That is the basis of the whole clause.

Then the owner will have to wait even if it is for a year after the discovery?

Yes.

That takes away all the owner’s rights over his ground. I know the Minister is terribly opposed to speculators going there, but he surely knows well that owners work their ground themselves but can let the rights to the discoverer’s claims. Is his right of selling now to be taken away? I hope the Minister will accept an amendment at the report stage.

I am sorry but I do not see my way to alter the provision.

With leave of Committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Mostert withdrawn.

Question put: That all the words after “him” in line 27, to “Act” in line 29, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

I move—

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

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries—

The rights of owners under the existing law are being taken away, and therefore I think that it is no more than right that he should receive compensation. I hope the Minister will so far meet them as to increase the owner’s claims on private land from 220 to 250 and on occupation farms on alienated Crown land from 50 to 100. Under the old law owners were entitled to sub-divide their farms and in that way to increase the numbers of owner’s claims. I strongly disapprove of the intensive sub-division which has been so much abused, but it cannot be denied that the prohibition of sub-division is taking away an existing right of owners. Owners have hitherto had the right of selecting then owner’s claims as they wished over the area which is diamond-bearing, but the Bill says that he must select his owner’s claims in certain blocks. I am glad that the Minister on my representation has increased the original provision that the owner’s claims must be in one block to four blocks of which the length of each may not be more than double the width. I insisted on it being 6 blocks although it is really the right of the owners to select the owner’s claims as they wish. These are all rights which are being taken away, and I therefore think that the owner must get the further concession which I propose in my amendment. The owner surely is only getting a small number of claims when you remember that there may be from 6,000 to 20,000 claims on his farm. I therefore hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

I am unable to put this amendment without the consent of his Excellency the Governor-General.

I move—

I move—

My amendment only asks that the surface owners shall receive the same number of claims on alienated Crown lands as private owners. I know that the Minister will say that the former already receives more rights than what they have had in the past, but as the Bill is taking away many rights and aims at uniformity I ask the Minister to accept my amendment. We know that the owners of private land receive the owners’ claims as compensation for the destruction of the surface of their ground, but as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has said, the surface of the farms of owners of alienated Crown lands is just as much destroyed by the diggers.

I would like briefly to explain the object of my amendment. It is the same as in connection with section 13, namely to make this a consolidating measure. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice here, and perhaps he will support me in seeing that the Transvaal owners are treated as well as the owners in other parts. It this is a consolidating measure there is no reason why the Transvaal owner should not be brought up to the same figure as all the other owners.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits). There is also a great deal of alienated Crown lands in my constituency. The Minister has met the surface owners of such ground by giving them half the number of Owner’s claims, but I think there should be equalisation in respect of the destruction of the surface of the farms.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. We must not now take the matter out of the context of the Act which we passed last year. We are bound to have a reasonable relation between this Bill and that Act. We have taken the example of the Cape where the surface owners are entitled to 50 claims. In the Free State and the Transvaal they are not entitled to that and they are therefore now receiving 50 claims. I hope my hon. friend will not insist on the number being further increased because this will make it disproportionate with last year’s Act, and the people affected by the latter will say that the provision is not proportionate to the stipulation which affects them. As for the owner’s claims in the Transvaal I have already increased the number from 200 to 220. The hon. member now proposes to increase them to 250, that is a little high. I am willing to split the difference so that we put it at 235.

As the Minister has mollified a little I want to ask if he will also meet the surface owners of alienated Crown land a little. The Minister can safely also increase the discoverer’s claims a little.

We shall require the consent of the Governor-General to put the amendment of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff). The consent can be got before the report stage, but I cannot permit it now and it is out of order.

Is my amendment out of order?

The amendment of the hon. member for Ventersdorp is out of order. The number of claims can be reduced but not increased without the consent of the Governor-General.

Does the Minister stand by his reply?

I will consider it.

Cannot the claims on private land be increased now?

The Crown has the mineral rights.

The Minister ought to make the alteration.

I have made it clear that we must not make the matter inconsistent with the Act of last year.

Will the Minister obtain the Governor-General’s consent before the report stage?

I will consider it.

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

Amendments proposed by Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and Mr. Brits put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 20 put and negatived.

New Clause 20,

I move—

1. 20. (1) If the Minister is satisfied that any Crown or private land has at any time since the thirtieth day of June, 1926, been divided with the object or with the effect of increasing the number of the discoverers’ and owners’ claims he may notwithstanding the registration of such division in a deeds registry and notwithstanding any provision in any previous law or in this Act direct that such division shall not be taken into account in computing the number of discoverers’ claims and owners’ claims respectively which may be selected on such land and that the total number of discoverers’ claims and the total number of owners’ claims respectively shall not exceed the number set forth in sections thirteen and nineteen and such claims shall in that case be computed and allocated as if such land had not been so divided.
2. (2) The decision of the Minister as to such computation and allocation shall be final and should he deem it impracticable or impossible to make such computation or allocation the Crown shall not be liable in respect of such discoverers’ and owners’ claims.
3. (3) Whenever such division of land has been effected and discoverers’ and owners’ claims have been acquired under any previous law on any portion of such divided land no further discoverers’ or owners’ claims shall be granted in respect of any other portion of the land so divided, and the Governor-General may proclaim such land under Chapter IV. as if such division had not been effected.

I don’t think the clause in its amended form can go through without some objections. Not only is it a piece of retrospective legislation, but a number of innocent people are to suffer for the supposed wrongs of their predecessors. Then 150 less claims are to be allowed in the Transvaal than hitherto. To leave the settlement of these claims to the Minister without recourse to a court of law is not a principle which should be encouraged. I do not feel that the clause should be allowed to go through without some protest being placed on record.

I wish to add my voice in protest, for it seems to me that the last state of this amendment is worse than the first. It is an elementary principle of justice that it is better that 99 guilty men should escape punishment rather than one innocent man should suffer. It may be that some syndicates have evaded the spirit of the law, but there are a great many cases where people have bona fide put their money into these sub-divisions. Are they to be penalized? Apart from the fact that retrospective legislation is always exceedingly dangerous, it is certain that a number of innocent people will suffer.

As to the exercise of powers under Clause 20, I shall very likely appoint a small departmental commission.

Are you going to sit in judgment as to the motive?

I cannot tell in advance how the matter will be dealt with, but every case will be dealt with on its merits.