I move—

seconded.

Does that mean that we shall sit after six o’clock possibly on Saturday?

No, I do not think so. It is only intended in case we may require it to-morrow morning and at the utmost to-morrow afternoon.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is the Bill to give effect to the pensions already approved by this House, and then sent over to the other place and approved by the other place too. The Bill is introduced to give effect to these recommendations of our own select committee as approved by the other place.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On the schedule,

Look at Item 76. That seems rather a large grant. Then there is also Item 77. There are nine awards under that, and under Item 78 there are 28 awards. Can my hon. friend tell us what these are going to cost the country?

No, it is altogether impossible to frame an estimate of these pensions, because they depend on the particular case. I have specially asked the department, but they tell me it is altogether impossible.

Cannot they give it approximately?

No, because in all these cases they are all varying amounts, and it depends on each particular case what the pension will be. One of the items here is in connection with a number of pensioners in connection with the Anglo-Boer war that, up to the present, have been paid by the Imperial Government, but they are also entitled to the benefits under our Act. We have already taken over a number of these cases, but the balance has, up to the present, been paid by the Imperial authorities. They have now represented that we should undertake the liability. These pensions we are taking over from the Imperial Government now will cost us about £4,000 per annum. The others are all cases where the people did not apply within the period prescribed by the Act. Up to the present, they have been in the habit of sending petitions to the House. These were referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, and were, as a matter of course, accepted, and the department had to deal with them. These are really extra-statutory grants. It is altogether impossible to make a calculation.

Schedule put and agreed to.

The title having been put and agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

When this clause was ordered to stand over on 13th June, an amendment had been moved by Mr. Munnik in line 13, after “Act” to insert “or under a prior law,”.

I will accept that.

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 73,

This is rather complicated: will the Minister not give us an explanation about the clause?

This clause has been before the House for weeks and weeks and weeks. Surely the hon. member can put a specific question. It is a question of eliminating syndicates and companies, and the standpoint of the Government is that, under the existing laws, nobody else but a natural person should be interested in alluvial diggings. No person could be an alluvial digger without a certificate, which would be on his character and qualifications, and, therefore, a purely personal question. These syndicates and companies supervened since the 1st of July last. Before that they were an unknown or a negligible quantity. Syndicates and companies have sufficient scope, as far as other mineral wealth in the country is concerned. This is the small man’s only chance, and we want to confine alluvial diggings, next to the interests of the State itself, to the small man. But we have made provision in Clause 74 for leasing, and under that, provision where the ground cannot be worked by a small man, it could be let to a small company or syndicate under conditions to be fixed from time to time.

The Minister said that the amendment was introduced long ago but the matter is so complicated with all the amendments that we cannot understand it. The Minister has another amendment on the Order Paper this morning. He refers to “natural people” and “natural diggers.” I hope the Minister will explain to us what a “natural person” is. The Minister wants the diggers to understand that he is making a law for the small man, but here the small man is being cut out and everything is being taken out of his hands. I think that the rights of landowners and of the small man are being taken away. I have never yet seen a Bill put before the House in such a slovenly manner, and I have never yet had so many insults. Rather let the Minister say that he is afraid of the development of diggings and that, notwithstanding his statement, that he wants to protect the small man, he really wants to protect the big people. He says that the syndicates have bought the ground, but the ground was bought from the small man. The small man on the diggings may be too poor to work his claim and may sell them to the syndicates.

The position seems to be making confusion worse confounded. I have never known a Bill in such a chaotic state as the present one; there are amendments to amendments, and amendments to amendments to amendments. We do not know where we are. I have a string of amendments too, but I frankly do not know what the position of my amendments is, if the Minister’s amendments go through. If the Minister’s amendments go through, do the other amendments go. It transcends the wit of man to understand the position. On the general principle, I cannot understand the Minister’s attitude. He has been playing ducks and drakes with private interests right throughout this Bill; here again, I cannot understand why ordinary legal rights should be upset as they are. Why this one exception? The Minister has told us he is out for uniformity, but there is no sign of uniformity in this particular clause. Why the discrimination, and why should a partnership be excluded?

A partnership is not excluded—limited liability companies.

What is the difference in principle between a registered and an unregistered concern? There ought to be some rational, some reasonable basis, for legislation in this country. Why can men register themselves as a company, and take up platinum, gold and any mortal thing in the country, but diamonds are sacrosanct? All through the Bill the Minister has been upsetting land laws and private rights held for generations.

You give the right afterwards to include partnerships of small men. This is the only way you can regulate it. At the second reading the point was conceded by my hon. friend opposite that alluvial diggings should be confined to small men.

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the diggers themselves over the Bill. Why should not the diggers be allowed to pool their resources, for they have to raise money?

That is the chance for the big man.

I have never known a Minister to be so obstinate and unyielding as the Minister of Mines has been throughout this Bill. He has upset a number of ideas that have prevailed in regard to private rights, and when we have called attention to them, he has tightened them up. He did this in the case of civil servants holding shares in syndicates, and when we drew attention to the matter, he extended the provision to the civil servants relatives, and I suppose their mothers-in-law will come next.

Perhaps the civil servants will be glad of the exclusion of the mothers-in-law.

I would like to see the Minister move the clause out altogether. The whole principle on which prospecting work has been built up is being eliminated entirely. The Minister says a wrong use has been made of these prospectors’ certificates, that companies have got hold of them and that the small man has not got a chance. But our present practice has been followed from time immemorial, and if the same procedure had not been adopted under the Gold Law, it is highly probable that there would have been no Witwatersrand. If the Bill goes through in its present form people who have invested their money in diamond syndicates will lose it. If we were going to protect the diggings for the small men, I would heartily support the Minister, but I do not think we are going to attain that end because there are 101 subterfuges that will be resorted to.

Clause put and negatived.

New Clause 73,

I move—

1. 73. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 74 no corporate body or association or more persons shall be capable of holding a claim licence or digger’s certificate, or any right or interest in or in connection with any claim, and any such licence or certificate issued under this Act or any other law to any such body or association shall be void, and no person shall directly or indirectly hold any such licence or certificate or right or interest for the benefit or on behalf of or in trust for any corporate body or association of persons.
2. (2) Any person contravening the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for every day upon which such contravention continues, and any precious stones won in the course of operations carried out by any person under any such licence or certificate obtained or held contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) or won for any corporate body or association of persons in contravention of those provisions shall be forfeited to the Crown, and any such certificate so obtained or held shall ipso facto become null and void and shall be cancelled by the diggers’ committee concerned In the case of a corporate body the chairman, secretary and any director, and in the case of an association of persons any member thereof shall be held liable for any contravention of sub-section (1) or for any act constituting such contravention purporting to be done by such corporate body or association of persons.
3. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) or in Section 66, any corporate body or association of persons may hold a right or interest in or in connection with any claims—
   1. (a) which were held by such body or association prior to the first day of July, 1926; or
   2. (b) which are held by such corporate body or association under a certificate issued to it as discoverer or owner in terms of Section 13 or 19 or under a certificate issued under a prior law if such certificate was not issued in respect of land which in the opinion of the Minister pursuant to Section 20 was divided with the object and effect of increasing the number of discoverers’ and owners claims; or
   3. (c) which being discoverers’ or owners’ claims granted under Section 13 or 19 are situate in an area in which the Minister is of opinion that digging by individual diggers is not feasible, in which case the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 74 shall where necessary mutatis mutandis apply:
      Provided that in every case under paragraphs (a) and (c) the permission of the Minister in writing has been first obtained. Such permission may state the time for which and the special conditions, if any, upon which it is granted.
4. (4) If any holders of claims desire to form a partnership to carry out in connection with such claims operations which cannot be conveniently carried out by individual diggers, the Minister may, under such conditions as he may think fit, by certificate under his hand, exempt such holders from the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2).
5. (5) The Minister may delegate his powers to grant permission and exemption under sun-sections (3) and (4) respectively to any official in the Department of Mines and Industries for such periods and under such conditions as he may deem expedient.
6. (6) The provisions of Section 51 shall mutatis mutandis apply in regard to any claim on a proclaimed alluvial digging the holding whereof has been rendered illegal by the operation of this section, and no such claim shall thereafter be open to pegging until it has been dealt with under Section 51.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) complains about the difficulty of the position, but he understands the Government’s intention with regard to Clause 73 quite well. The Bill was introduced early in April, and this new clause on the 19th of May.

What about the amendment this morning?

It is a small addendum, and I can easily explain it. It is simply to provide that if the Bill becomes law and the syndicates and the companies are cut out, then the claims of the syndicates and companies will not ipso facto, be opened for pegging until the formal steps have been taken. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has said that he does not know where he stands, but his amendment shows that he knows exactly where he wants to insert the words.

I know now.

I want to remind the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) about how many Bills were introduced by my predecessor after which a large number of amendments were also made. In the nature of things new points arise and the Government is not able to settle everything finally at the first attempt.

I am afraid we shall have to take the amendments of the Minister on trust because we do not follow them. I now move—

Under this clause as it stands companies which are owners of land will see their rights confiscated.

The hon. member ought really, when he saw on the 19th of May this new clause, to have put the amendment on the Order Paper again amending the new clause.

The Minister will recognize things have been very difficult to arrange through the chaos and the way the Minister has messed up this Bill.

I don’t agree it is messed up.

Then I have another amendment—

That is covered by (d).

Very well, then I don’t move my second amendment.

The point of the hon. member with regard to the addition of the words after “person” is met by sub-clause 3 sub-paragraph (b) of my new clause because I say—[Sub-clause read.]

I think there is some misunderstanding, because it does not seem to me that the section referred to by the Minister does cover the point. If the Minister had not introduced the words “to it” in that section it might be different. A corporation, as the Minister knows, cannot hold a discoverer’s certificate and cannot even get a prospector’s licence. They would have to get one of their servants to prospect for them. As I understand the position it is this—this clause says that unless a company takes claims as owners or discoverers, and unless a certificate has been issued to the company, which is an impossibility, as they cannot hold a certificate, those claims are forfeited.

The hon. member misconceives the position. A company cannot hold a digger’s certificate, but it may be issued to its secretary or a director, and, in that way, therefore, it can be issued in certain circumstances. There is no difficulty about that.

After all, if you are connected with a large corporation these men go and look after everything. You take out a licence in their name. If anything is discovered you keep it in the man’s name, and you do not transfer it.

There will be no difficulty about that in administration. If a company say that they are the owners of this farm, they employed a man to prospect, and the licence was in his name, there will be no difficulty about that. If we were to put it in the law it would simply open the door to fraud.

At a previous stage I asked the Minister what the position would be of companies or rather of small syndicates all over the country which have bought portions of places that have been cut up. As far as I can see, they have got to surrender or forfeit any rights they may have acquired, quite bona fide, without any idea of this law coming in. Then I want to know why it is necessary to make it retrospective to the first day of July, 1926. Would it not be fairer to make it retrospective to the day when the Bill was first introduced and when everybody then knew what the subsequent position would be?

Perhaps it would be better for me to answer in instalments. One cannot with a complicated measure like this remember all these points. In Clause 20 we went back to the first day of July, 1926, and passed that. The reason why we insert here—

is because this evil, as we consider it, rightly or wrongly, has taken place since the 1st July. Before that syndicates and companies were practically non-existent. There were these small partnerships which we do not intend to discontinue in future, only now, to keep syndicates and companies out, the discretion is vested in the department to allow partnerships. I do not know what the hon. member means by a syndicate. If he means a registered syndicate or company, the intention is to exclude them.

These are just a few private men who get together.

If they are small partnerships their position can be met under the law by the discretion of the Minister. The whole idea is to eliminate big money. Rightly or wrongly, the Government has taken up the attitude that alluvial diggings are the only chance for the small man in the country.

I move—

In my constituency small syndicates were formed—I do not know whether they were registered or not—and I should like to know how things stand with them. Twenty-five farmers constitute such a syndicate, and half of them go and dig while the others look after the farms. Then they relieve each other. In certain cases leave will now be given, but when the Minister is in Cape Town he is far from Namaqualand, and at Pretoria he is still further away. How will the people ever get consent if they have to go to Pretoria?

Provision is made in paragraph (5).

The places are too far off, and the people cannot go there all day long. They come with their difficulties to me and ask me to see the Minister because I have a free pass. They are my constituents and can ask me to look after their interests, but in those circumstances I should be constantly on the train to Pretoria and back, and ray life would be a burden. I want something reasonable. They are not people who have off-loaded shares on to the public, but they have invested their money and formed a small syndicate. The Minister possibly knows how many have been registered. I should like to know what provision he is making for them.

The hon. member will see that Clause 73 (5) says—[Paragraph read]. Therefore, the magistrate in Namaqualand will probably be appointed as mining commissioner. His permission will then have to be obtained, and it is not necessary to come to the Minister. Proper provision is being made to meet such cases.

I think, in that amendment, “January, 1926” should be “April, 1927”. The Minister has accepted this in his own amendment to sub-section (1), Clause 2. I submit unless we accept this date there is a short hiatus in the case of a certain number of people who, quite unwittingly and bona fide, have been drawn into this measure. It is a case of the acquiring of rights for large sums of money by companies which had every right to do so, and had no reason to contemplate that such action would be made illegal. I submit it should read April, 1927, and I would like to move—

It seems to me it would be better if we dealt with each sub-section in rotation. Would it not be better to stick to 73 (1) first, and finish with that?

I am quite content.

I hope it is clear that I am adhering to the whole of my amendment as printed on page 634. I am not satisfied that (b) meets the case. The Minister says it does. If so, my amendment can do no harm. I understand the Minister to say that the latter half of my amendment is covered by (b), but it is not covered by (b), unless the Minister will accept the amendment which I have on the Order Paper with regard to (b). I hope the Minister will accept my amendment. As he is apparently willing to have it covered, why not pass my amendment to sub-section (1)? It can do no harm. At the worst, it can only be a repetition, but I do not think it will be found to be a repetition.

I considered the point the hon. member has in view, and I met it, as stated, in sub-section (b). I am not prepared to go further than that. I do not want the case of a company that would be entitled to discoverers’ and owners’ claims, and which transferred to another company, and that company comes along and claims the discoverers’ and owners’ claims, because then there would be speculation in the meantime. I am quite content to give the original company or syndicate its discoverers’ or owners’ claims. When I say “I”, I am declaring the policy of the Government. I am not doing this off my own bat. These are important matters. I realize that they are important, and these things have been discussed with my colleagues.

I think the Government do not realize the full repercussions of this. From the very words of the Minister I am satisfied that my amendment is not met. I have specifically said, in the third line after under” to insert “or in pursuance of”, and in the same line after “law” to insert “or by virtue of any assignments thereof.” These amendments are printed on page 847. Perhaps it would clarify matters if I moved all my amendments on page 847. I move—

Are you moving all your amendments?

I am moving all the amendments standing in my name because I am not convinced that the Minister’s attitude is right when he says that my amendment is covered by paragraph (b). Therefore I hope that the Minister will accept my amendments. I understand the Government wants to reserve rights for the small man but it ought nevertheless not to take away the rights the big man already possesses. If a company has rights as a landowner then the Government ought not to stop it from transferring the ground to someone else. A company may be in the position of not being able to exercise the right the Minister gives it unless it is transferred. A company, e.g., may go into liquidation and it may be the chief asset of the company. In the case of a company owning such an asset becoming insolvent it would not be fair towards its creditors if there were no power of cession.

In the Transvaal, at any rate, there were practically no syndicates or companies before the 1st July, 1926. Under the old Cape law there was only one, that of Mr. Frank Smith.

What about the companies that always held ground?

I am not talking of landowners. Such companies obtain the owner’s rights and discoverer’s claims. In Lichtenburg also there were no less than 468 sub-divisions and of those 468 there are no less than 320 companies with limited liability registered and floated. That is since the 1st July. It is a thing which never existed before and the facts speak for themselves.

That is since it was known that diamonds existed. That is surely not wrong.

It was always the field for the small diggers and as I have said the Bill only protects natural persons, and not companies and syndicates. The hon. member must distinguish between owners, even if it is land companies and syndicates that are entitled to the discoverer’s and owner’s claims. All these companies I am speaking about are responsible for the sub-division. The ground is cut up into small blocks and further companies formed in respect of the blocks. I told hon. members the other day about the farm Doornplaats being cut up into no less than 60 strips. At Welverdiend an intensive sub-division took place and a company with limited liability was floated in respect of each piece. That was never intended by the existing law, because the diggings were intended for natural persons. That was the de facto position until 1st July.

I want the Minister to understand that I am not pleading for the people who have cut up their farms, although the Minister has no right to take away the rights which they have obtained under the old law. Does the Minister intend to take away all the rights of the small companies that have been referred to.

Yes.

But then there is no longer any protection in the country.

Frauds have been committed.

The hon. member knows nothing about it. The people went there and it is the fault of the Minister that they were not stopped. The Minister intervened in Namaqualand. Does the Minister know how many small people hold shares in companies?

How many shares were given away gratis?

I do not wish to plead for fraudulent speculators, but there are small people who have taken shares in companies and it is not right to take away their rights. Will they not have the right of going to the court? Can we adopt a provision with retroactive force? In that way a country cannot progress. The Minister must understand that if there were no people of that kind then all the development would not have taken place at Lichtenburg. Many poor people have been assisted through the money being invested. The Minister must regard the matter from all sides. He says that the owners’ claims are not included, but I want to know whether owners will subsequently have the right of selling, otherwise the owner in many cases will have to let the claims drop.

He can dispose of them under the law, of course.

The mere fact that some small syndicates have been floated is a sign that in the nature of things they have been established on account of local necessities. I cannot see why the Minister is so hostile.

Not hostile.

I do not mean it in an offensive sense. My contention is, however, that the small syndicates have arisen out of the nature of things.

I am entirely in sympathy with the Minister’s object in helping the small man, but I think there should be two things that underlie legislation in this direction —existing rights should be protected, and you must be sure you are really helping the small man. I have always protested against the abrogation and taking away of existing rights. There are two fallacies underlying the whole of the Minister’s argument; one is that if you are an individual you must be a small man, and the other is that syndicates are all syndicates of rich men. I know of many syndicates the members of which are quite poor men. In his effort to help the small man the Minister is really going to injure him. If the rich man cannot make his money in this way he will do so in other directions.

They are not fallacies. Nothing in the world is absolute—everything is relative. My information is that these companies have a total capital of over £2,500,000 and the shareholders are mostly of the class which participated in the “Sally” and platinum booms. Some of the companies have capitals of £137,000, £50,000 and so on. As regards the fallacy that the big man is not excluded individually, I would like hon. members to suggest in what way I could exclude the big man. The big man with the big money is too careful to operate individually, so he invests his money in limited liability companies. Most of the big men on the Rand operate through such companies.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) asks what protection there is in the country if the Minister has the right to give retroactive force to the Bill. I think the hon. member will admit that it is clear if anybody does anything which is considered to be in conflict with the existing law that it is necessary to prevent it happening again. That is clearly what is now happening. I hose people are doing things which they know to be in conflict with the spirit of the law They do it intentionally and it is the duty of the Government to introduce legislation not only to prevent it in the future but to make it apply to the past. That will teach the people not to evade the law in order to make temporary profit. As for the shares we have seen how many people have invested in them. There is the case of Welverdiend where a syndicate divided a farm into 50 portions. It was so divided up that there was not one claim left over for the public. They created syndicates for every portion of the sub-divided farms and all the syndicates were in fact the same syndicate. They did not sell shares except to a few of their friends. When this Bill was introduced they felt that they should use their influence to prevent its becoming law. They went to people not in the House who had influence with the various parties and gave them some of the shares gratis in order to use their influence to prevent the Bill passing. The hon. member is afraid of shareholders being injured. On one portion of Welverdiend they issued 500,000 shares of 5s.—that is on a small portion of the sub-divided ground. If the Government permits that kind of thing they would not only rob the public of the diamond-bearing ground, but of an amount of at least £500,000 with regard to that portion alone. We know what alluvial ground is. It is quickly worked out. They will work this rich strip of ground which contains many diamonds with the result that the 5s. shares will immediately jump to £1 and the public will buy them at that price. But when the ground is once worked out the shares will not be worth the paper they are written on. Is it not better then that those people should suffer a lot now than that 20,000 or 30,000 people should lose through worthless shares? We know how the alluvial syndicates’ shares are dealt with but we also know that thousands of people do not know how the thing is done. They only look at the production. It is pure speculation on the part of the public. As for owners’ claims—the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that the owner would be able to sell his claims. I agree with that, but the Minister must take care because the syndicates who have bought ground with the object of sub-dividing it are also owners and they are really trying to evade the Bill now before the House. They are afraid that the sub-divisions will not be acknowledged and they are selling the claims to the public, and not only to the public but to dummies— to themselves. That is easy speculation. The syndicates are formed by a group of people and sell a number of claims to one of their members. They sell their own claims, so that if the Bill passes then the claims have been sold to people who are really the same syndicate, and that is what is happening to-day. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that it was possibly necessary to form syndicates to work the ground because the diggings were too deep for one man to work. Such syndicates exist but the Minister is making provision in the Bill to legalise such syndicates. But the syndicates which we want to attack are those out to rob the public and which of set purpose sub-divide the farms. The same applies to the “poor syndicates.” The Minister provides for them continuing. If members are not trying to protect the speculators I cannot understand why they are against the Bill. The people on whose behalf they say they are acting are already protected under the Bill.

Is the hon. member in order in saying that certain members have received shares gratis on the condition that they obstruct the Bill going through?

I did not say that.

That is how I understood the hon. member.

I did not refer to hon. members in the House

I hope the members will not carry on an indefinite discussion on this clause. The main principles of the clause were perfectly plain at the second reading and the new clause tones down the provisions of the old clause.

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister which I hope he will accept and which will remove a hardship and make the clause more reasonable. The principle that the alluvial diggings should be reserved for the small man is admitted, but syndicates did acquire discoverer’s and owner’s claims during the last six or twelve months, and it is probably true that a lot of them did not mean to subdivide. Supposing the Minister was chairman of a company and his legal adviser told him he was legally entitled to subdivide his farm and look after the interests of his shareholders, would the directors say, “We must not do that, because we might annoy the Minister.” If they did the shareholders would bring an action against them for negligence. Claims were acquired straightforwardly and the syndicates were not responsible for the subdivision. A group of claims came into the market and were bought by the syndicate at whatever price was agreed upon. Surely it seems very hard that this company should be now told that as soon as this Bill is passed their claims are forfeited. I think the Minister will agree that if it had not been that I brought to his notice that at the selfsame time someone else could peg the claims the amendment would not be on the Order Paper to-day. We submit that, in view of the bona fide way in which these companies secured claims, they should be given time to liquidate their assets. The Minister should give the companies a few months in order to liquidate their assets, and I would therefore move—

I had not an opportunity last night of adding my protest against this principle of taking away vested rights without compensation. I would like to add my protest to those who object to this clause as being another and very serious inroad on the principle of registered and vested rights. I wish to record that I am one of those who dissent very strongly from the doctrine that because the Government thinks that a bona-fide or actual course of action taken under the law perfectly reasonably should, for reasons of policy, afterwards be changed, they should come along and invalidate and declare illegal what was done perfectly validly under the law at the time. I wish to say that this is most unfair to a large number of people who have put their hard-earned money into these concerns.

You do not know your Rand.

I, for one, resent the general aspersion cast by the Minister on one of the four provinces of the Union, though I think the Transvaal may be safely trusted to look after itself.

I am speaking of the speculative element that exists in the country.

I do not see why people should be dealt with in this way who have invested their money for the development of the mineral resources of the country. Why should the Cape and the other provinces suffer for that? Why should the general principle of law, which is much more important, suffer for that? That is the principle that you do not expropriate without paying compensation. That is a just and proper method of dealing with it. If the Minister is embarking on a policy of confiscation, he will answer for that to the people of this country. What about all these transfers in good faith? What about the people who have paid good money and got their transfers in good faith?

They are all companies.

Supposing they are, they have bought registered rights. What is the object of registration in our law? It is to give security to the person in whose name the property is registered. The whole object of our system of registration, a system which is envied by other countries, is to give the most absolute security of tenure to the man in whose name the property or right is registered, and the people who deal with that man.

He remains the owner of the ground.

My hon. friend misses the point. The man who buys from him may not get transfer of the rights which he assumed he had bought.

There is no transfer of alluvial claims in the Transvaal.

I would like to add another couple of amendments.

The Minister is giving a protection of rights. I welcome that as far as it is a limitation of his invasion of right. That provision is not quite sufficient. Under a prior law people are entitled, to discoverers’ claims who have not yet obtained their certificates. What I wish to have protected here is where people have rights but have not yet got their certificates. This clause seems to protect only those who have already got their certificates. My object in moving to delete the proviso is because the Minister is making a concession in the way of protecting certain classes of rights, which he admits ought to be protected, but with that proviso, a Minister might be able to put such additions in as would entirely nullify the rights which are protected. Where no royalty at all was attachable to the rights which are to be protected the Minister might, for instance, attach heavy royalties which would make the rights, if not valueless, certainly of very much less value. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments on the ground that they really are carrying out the spirit of the concession he is making in this new amendment. The clause, as it stands, apparently only protects those who have got their certificates already.

It is quite right there should be complete Government control because the essence of this Bill is control of diamond production, but the whole question will turn on the administration of such an Act. It is a question whether the Minister’s object could not be attained by his proposed clause, but in Clause 4 he could put in what would give control over all combinations and partnerships for working and holding claims. If in subsection (4) he would take out “in a river bed” and further on the words “such claims,” and make it read “if the holders of claims forming a partnership, syndicate or company.”

That has already been met by the new clause as printed. I think we ought really to come to a vote now.

If so that is satisfactory.

What about the amendment?

I am sorry, I cannot accept it.

I think the Minister might have accepted the amendment, because it gives an opportunity of liquidating the assets of a company legally formed. Under the liquor laws a man under certain circumstances gets a three months’* licence, if his licence is taken away, in order to liquidate his business. As an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), I move—

I accept that.

I cannot put the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). There is a limit to amendments to amendments.

Can I change the date in my amendment?

Yes, the hon. member can do that.

I move—

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

1. 74. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law contained, the Governor-General may, after the discoverer and owner have selected the claims to which they are entitled, deal with any land proclaimed an alluvial digging under this Act or a prior law in any of the following ways—
   1. (a) he may lease the right to win precious stones from such area or any part thereof to the discoverer or to any other person holding a digger’s certificate or to any company on such terms as he may deem fit and subject to any regulations framed under this Act and on such royalty or share of profits as he may decide in addition to claim licence moneys as provided in this Act;
   2. (b) subject to the payment of claim licence moneys as provided in this Act he may in accordance with regulation sell the right to win precious stones from the whole or any part of such area to the discoverer, or to any other person holding a digger’s certificate, or to any company at a price fixed by him, or by public auction, or he may dispose of the same in such manner and under such conditions as he may think fit.
2. (2) The surface owner shall be entitled to one-half of the licence moneys in respect of any land disposed of by lease or sale effected under this section.
3. (3) Any area the subject of any lease or sale under this section shall mutatis mutandis be subject in all respects to the provisions of this Act relating to alluvial diggings.
4. (4) In the case of any lease or sale under this section to any company, the chairman or secretary of such company shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, be entitled to obtain a digger’s certificate and claim licence and shall obtain such certificate prior to the commencement of any working under such lease or sale.
5. (5) The Governor-General shall before exercising any of the powers under this section obtain a report from the Mining Leases Board established under Section 1 of the Transvaal Mining Leases and Mineral Law Amendment Act, 1918 (Act No. 30 of 1918).
6. (6) The Governor-General may deal with any unalienated Crown land in any of the ways set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) and in that case sub-sections (4) and (5) shall apply.

I should like a little information about this clause, the principle of which I mostly strongly object to, because the companies are being protected at the cost of the smaller digger. In the previous clause the Minister excluded the companies and syndicates, but here he provides for them leasing or buying diamond ground. This means that companies or syndicates are being revised, and this is wrong towards the small digger. I have here two long telegrams from the chairman of the diggers’ meeting, and another telegram in which the clause is being protested against. I am not afraid of the clause while the present Minister is in office, but the position may possibly change and what then? In a few years or in five or ten years, the big capitalists, like the member for Kimberley, may possibly be Minister of Mines, and what will the position be then? The small digger will then be entirely squeezed out. I move the deletion of the clause.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Ventersdorp, but I hope he will stand by his protests and not run away. I can see the Minister’s object is to squeeze out the small people. Where are the hon. members for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) and for Christiana (Mr. Moll), who said that I was not speaking the truth about the diggers’ meetings? Where are they now? The Government said that they do not support the capitalists, but this is a clause which enables the capitalists to squeeze out the small digger. The Government is afraid of too many diamonds being found, but if the alluvial diamonds had not been found, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of poor people for whom the Government would have to provide. The Government can be very thankful that the alulvial diamonds were discovered.

It was very amusing to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). He is a capitalist, and he attacks the capitalists here.

Where did the Minister hear that. He may say it because it makes my credit better.

I cannot understand the argument of the hon. member. The Government clearly stated what the position was, but the hon. member has interests in the diggings. The hon. member is an interested person—

That is not true. I have no personal interest in the diggings.

Does the hon. member say that he has no personal interest in the Lichtenburg diggings?

My children work there and are earning money in an honest way; no one can say anything against it.

I do not say that it is not honest. But the diggers need not be afraid that their interests will be neglected. If they think so they are under a misunderstanding. The Bill is in their interests, and they will appreciate and acknowledge it. When did the hon. member for Ventersdorp suddenly notice that he ought to protest against this clause. The clause has been in the Bill for months and now he suddenly speaks of telegrams that he has received. I also have received such telegrams. The position is as follows: Hon. members urged that we should bring it under the Mining Leases Board so that any leases of diamond ground should be submitted to the board. There is nothing in this clause which would prevent leases being granted to individual diggers. I have made this provision expressly, and if there are any leases to big companies then the House can rest assured that the State will receive a high rent, but if ground is leased to small diggers the rent will be low.

This measure is a consolidating measure, and this Clause 74 has never been the law in any of the provinces. It is an entirely new principle. We are dealing here with special alluvial restricted areas, as a result of very rich finds made recently, and we are taking restrictive measures on the same basis as under the gold law to make revenue for the Government from that alluvial area the new clause put forward by the Minister is practically the clause dealing with the East Rand Area under the gold law. In Clause 73 we were anxious to take these repressive measures to close down, and now, in the next clause, we are trying to extend those principles. This is an encroachment on the rights of the prospector. I agree with the principle of getting revenue from it, but we are embarking on legislation to gather the rich plums in future from diamond mining. The position in future will be that the State will finish off prospecting, and my hon. friend over there is the man who will get all the plums. He will get the large areas which are comparatively rich, and he will probably have to pay 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of his winnings to the State. The State is going to make a large revenue from any rich finds that may be made. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) is right in saying the small man in the past could exploit the plum when he found it, but in future it would be dealt with under this clause, and that is what we are legislating for here. This is not a consolidating measure. It is entirely a new principle, and, as far as I, personally, am concerned, I endorse the principle that these very rich areas shall go and swell the coffers of the State in future.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North), after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff), congratulated him on what he had said, but I think that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) should by now have learnt a little caution as to judging by what hon. members on the other side say how far that is an indication of what they will do. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), who has made several irate incursions into this debate, was not to be found where one might, perhaps, have expected to find him after what he had said when the division came.

I think the hon. member may reserve that for a third reading debate.

I was trying to say that we Will, perhaps save the time of the committee if hon. members do not fall into the mistake that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) made. The same thing has happened in the case of the hon. member for Vredefort.

I suppose my hon. friend the hon. member for Rondebosch, who feels very strongly on this clause, will have an opportunity of pointing out to the hon. member for Vredefort the necessity of not doing in connection with this clause what he has done in connection with other clauses that is speaking against the clause and then, on the crack of the party whip, vote for it.

Why shouldn’t he?

Does my hon. friend the Prime Minister mean by his interjection, why should not an hon. gentleman express his opinion strongly against the clause, and then, at the behest of the Government vote in favour of it, in the best interests of the country?

I think the hon. member had better confine his remarks to the clause.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Vredefort that, holding such strong views as he does as to the possibility of this being embodied in the Bill, I hope he will not do what he has done on other clauses. I do hope that we shall have the support of the hon. member. Many members on this side, who hold strong views on this clause, have absolutely refrained from expressing their opinions when they heard them so strongly expressed by the hon. member opposite, and then, to cur dismay, we found that when it came really to the testing point the hon. gentleman was wanting.

I move—

I cannot understand it. In the previous clause syndicates are excluded and here they are admitted.

Clause 74 is the adoption of the general principle of Clause 73. In Clause 73 the principle, laid down in Clause 74, is referred to. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) provision is made for what he wants in my amendment.

The amendment of the Minister only deals with a part of my amendment.

I was under the impression that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) had not moved his amendment, although it is on the Order Paper. Now I will have to put it.

Amendment put and negatived.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clause 75 put and negatived.

New Clause 75,

I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

On Clause 76,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 114,

When I saw the Minister’s amendment I was reminded of the story told by Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone. Lord Salisbury took exception to something Mr. Gladstone had said or done, and he compared his methods to those of a pettifogging attorney. His friends told him he ought to apologize, and the next day he said: “I want to apologize to the attorney.” It seems to me the Minister has made the clause worse, because a public servant may now have nothing to do with a mine either, and neither he nor his wife is to be directly or indirectly interested. The Minister has strengthened the thing in many ways. In the original clause it only applied to alluvial diggings. It now includes an interest or share in a mine. My first objection to this is this, you have established by your Act of 1923 the principle that all matters connected with the public service should be considered by the advisory council that has been expressly set up. It is working very well. Yet you take away valuable rights from them without consulting the advisory council or consulting the civil service organizations or trying to find out in any way what their wishes are. The clause goes far beyond what can be in the public interest. This clause is deeply resented by the public servants right through the country. I will read extracts from two letters I have received, one from a magistrate and the other from a highly-placed civil servant. They are a considerable distance away from each other, and they write quite independently. The magistrate says—

The other gentleman says—

The Minister will realize that this is a very serious thing as far as public servants are concerned. They look upon it as a stigma. I would refer him to Section 20 of the Public Service Act which enables him to deal with possible mischief. [Section read.] You have the law to deal with a man whether on a field or not who uses his official position to unfair advantage. What is the use of putting a black mark against the public servants? Not only do you say he is not to be trusted, but his wife is not to be trusted. I say this clause is a stigma, not intended to be such—I do not suggest for a moment that the Government could have realized what they were doing—but it is undoubtedly felt throughout the country as a stigma on the public service. It is not necessary to deal in this way with the trouble you apprehend, because you have the existing powers under the Act of 1923. I do appeal to the Minister to allow this clause to be deleted, because he has all the powers he wants under the Public Service Act. It will be accepted throughout the service as a black mark against them, and as saying that they are the one section of people in South Africa not to be trusted to invest their money as they choose.

I am glad the hon. member at the end of his speech admitted this was not a deliberate stigma, although earlier he said that the public service regarded it as a deliberate stigma.

No, not deliberate.

It is not intended as a stigma or a black mark, and is not, in fact, such. And if we look at the schedule, it will be observed, that it does not deal with civil servants exclusively. It deals with members of the Electricity Commission, members of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, members of the Phthisis Medical Bureau, members of the Phthisis Medical Board of Appeal, most of whom, in fact, I think the vast majority, are not civil servants at all. I am moving an amendment to add, for instance, “licensed diamond dealers,” so the civil servants are not picked out. The Civil Service Act does not deal adequately with the matter. As a matter of fact, a deputation came to me and these gentlemen had to admit that there was an undue tendency to speculate in gold and diamond concerns, especially diamond concerns. Not as far as the public service is concerned only, but generally, there is a tendency to speculate. They admitted that freely. Will hon. members be surprised to know that I have information from civil servants in my own department who have recently written to me to say that they hold certain interests. Is that a sound thing? The hon. member refers to a letter from a magistrate in the country districts. The magistrate is the person with whom a prospector has to lodge the finding of diamonds for instance. The magistrate has to issue the discoverer’s certificate. I know of a case where a discoverer of diamonds had to go and lodge with a certain official indicated by the law his discovery and register his diamonds, and that official was the partner of the discoverer. How can such things be sound? Surely it is wholly unsound that civil servants should be interested? The grievance of this deputation was why did we pick out diamonds or precious stones. They said we should go the whole hog, and I am heartily in favour of that, and if ever in my time the gold law were to be revised a similar provision would certainly be inserted. But because it has been allowed in the past I do not see any reason why it should be continued. As a matter of fact, the deputation suggested to me that I should alter the regulation, in consultation with the Advisory Council. I went to the trouble to see the Minister of the Interior, and we came to the conclusion that you could not do it by regulation. The instances given under Section 20 of the Act are not sufficient. It is a sound thing in the interests of the whole public service that there should be a prohibition by statute; then every public servant will know where he stands. I was very sorry to hear the hon. gentleman quoting from a letter from a civil servant, in which the writer stated he considered the civil servants “fettered slaves,” which shows that he has not a proper conception of the position of public servants in the country. To say they are “fettered slaves” is a gross exaggeration. Under Law 22 of 1898 of the South African Republic, President Kruger made provision against public servants being interested in alluvial diggings, and also prohibited their wives, because it is an easy thing for a public servant to speculate through his wife. It may be said that you should confine the prohibition to the Mines Department. As a matter of fact—I do not know whether it rests on a legal foundation—it has been an understood thing in the Mines Department for years past, and there are circulars under the previous Government prohibiting public servants in the Mines Department from being in any way interested in mining matters. You can’t pick out a particular department, because the departments are so interlocked that it would be invidious to pick out a certain department. In the schedule the hon. member will see we do not confine the prohibition to public servants.

Surely my hon. friend must realize that he has no more right to say to a member of the public service that he cannot take part in legitimate industry than to a Minister of the Crown, who has access to a great deal more information than a public servant, or to a member of Parliament. I know, as a fact, that it is very often the ease, when young public servants get their holidays, for them to go to these fields to have a life in the open, and have an opportunity of coining into contact with humanity in a way they would not have in their offices, which in very many cases has considerably widened their views and ideas. Why protest against this clause is because I do not think it is fair to public servants to say that you do not trust them sufficiently to allow them to invest as an ordinary citizen is allowed to invest. If my hon. friend were a member of the public service he would consider a statute of that kind to be a stigma on his bona fides.

I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) because I feel very strongly that if Government officials are prevented from having shares in alluvial diamond concerns they will consider it an insult. On the other hand, I shall be pleased to hear the Minister say that the issue of any licence to a Government official will be prohibited. That ought to be prohibited. It is felt on the diggings that no official whatsoever should have a licence to dig there. To put it in the Bill, however, means a lessening of the status of public servants and of their rights. The official can be prevented by means of administration, regulations or instructions from taking part in transactions of this kind. Under Clause 74 certain portions will be granted to companies under a contract and the presumption is that there are certain areas which will not be able to be properly worked by diggers. The exploitation is presumably being done by companies, and I think it is unjust for public servants to be prevented from buying their share when they come on to the market. Why cannot they invest their savings in them? It is the State which autorizes companies to dig and the shares the worth something. Are all the railway and other public servants going to be prohibited in other respects from investing their savings in such undertakings? I feel strongly that this is a reduction in the status of officials and shows distrust in the officials. It looks as if they are prevented from buying shares because they are distrusted. When the Bill is in another place I hope the Minister will take to prevent licences being issued, because the man in receipt of Government pay ought not to have licences—whether they are diggers —or liquor licences. Just as it is prohibited in the case of liquor licences, so diggers’ licences ought not to be issued to public servants. This will meet the wishes of the diggings generally and I make a strong appeal to the Minister to do so. It is, however, true that many officials will consider it an insult not to be allowed to hold shares in such undertakings. Although I am convinced of it that the Minister does not intend it is an insult it will be regarded as such. What would be said if members of this House were prevented from holding shares in such comparties? We are surely also merely public officials. The Minister should consider the matter before the Bill is sent up to the Senate.

I wish to support the protests that have been made. I should like to know whether the deputation to the Minister was representative. At the annual conference of the Public Service Association in Cape Town they discussed the matter, and deeply resented this stigma that had been put upon them. The Minister of Lands, in replying last Tuesday to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), said why should he interfere —they had not bought these men body and soul, and they were entitled to do what they liked after office hours. The Minister is singling them out for special notice in putting this on the statute book. The conference thought it quite possible that some regulation might be made to apply to members of the public service who were connected with the Mines Department, as these officials were in possession of information which the ordinary public did not have.

There are no regulations that can be binding.

Surely you can put them on their honour.

How can you cover this matter unless you have legal foundation for it?

Is it not possible for the Public Service Commission and the Advisory Council to frame regulations?

Which will have no legal binding effect.

Do you want to prevent public servants from investing their money in De Beers?

And do you want to leave them free to speculate in aluvial diggings as they like?

You can trust them to use their brains. They are not going to waste their money.

The Minister is trying to prevent fraud by putting the whole of the community in gaol. At any rate, that is the way the clause appeals to me. What have railwaymen, for instance, to do with a mining matter? And the whole of the employees of the provincial administrations are involved. Why not extend the clause to include municipal employees as well. The clause is very much more far-reaching than the Minister gave the House to understand. What should be prevented is a public servant using official information for his own special advantage The honest man will be penalized by the clause, but the dishonest man will evade it While we give the Minister credit for not wishing to cast any stigma on public servants, they will take it as a stigma on their honesty and integrity. The Government have no more right to infringe on the personal liberties of their employees than have ordinary employers. The clause is highly unjust.

Will you move an amendment?

I suggest that the clause be amended to deal directly with men employed in the issue of licences and the proclamation of diggings. I would not say apply it to the whole of the Mines Department, because there may be people in that department who have no concern whatever with diamond diggings.

If there is a strong feeling in the House I am prepared to limit the operation of the clause, but it is most unsound for anybody in the public service to be interested in this way, whether he is technically in the civil service or not. I have been informed that some of the members of my department are interested. Can that be justified? It is very difficult to draw the line. Perhaps the Chairman can tell me whether the clause can be deleted now and a new clause inserted at the report stage.

The committee may adopt the new clause now, or the old clause may be deleted altogether. That will not prevent the Minister moving in an amended clause later on.

The clause as it stands is impracticable and unjust, and it casts a slur on all the men mentioned in the schedule. There should, however, be some means of preventing certain officials doing things which may lead to suspicion or something worse. I suggest that we should have a clause stating that it shall be lawful for the Public Service Commission to frame and to amend a list of officers as to whom the Commission shall consider it is desirable in the public interest that they shall not do anything prohibited by the section.

I will consent to the clause going out.

Clause put and negatived.

On the Second Schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

Fourth, fifth and sixth schdules put and negatived.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I opposed this clause very much on the second reading. Now it has been amended, but even in its amended form it is so vague that it seems to me to include a number of things not intended. For instance, it it is discussed at a meeting of the natives that they should receive more wages than they are receiving and if you discuss the colour bar and tell the native that such a measure should never have been permitted, that will not produce friendly feeling and because it might provoke unfriendly feeling it might be held that a person does something with intent to create hostility. It would so stifle discussion that it would be impossible to discuss matters affecting natives and Europeans. I can understand the feelings of members who object to agitators going round to incite the natives to do anything of an unconstitutional kind. I am against that. But my point is that the existing law on the question of incitement is already sufficient to punish such a person. Under this clause if a native leader was holding a meeting for the purpose of forming a trade union and he told them it was to better their conditions because they were not being properly treated by the Europeans, he might be charged under this section. It is because the clause is so bad and there is a possibility of quite a number of innocent acts being roped in under this clause, that I for one shall vote against it. Under the clause any native leader could be taken before the court and if he is not born in South Africa he might be charged and then deported. It is perfectly right for them to use constitutional means to better their conditions and this sort of thing will cause more disaffection amongst the natives than the law you have at the present time. You already have an Act making incitement a criminal offence.

Whilst recognising it is necessary to have some legislation to deal with the difficulties arising in the country, I must say I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Capetown (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). The Prime Minister said it was urgently necessary to have some legislation to deal with the position which has Natal and the Free State. I want the Minister to advise us what action he and the Native Affairs Department are going to take in connection with these troubles in the farm areas. Will he get at the leaders of the natives tinder this section? I do not see what charge he will be able to bring against the native because the section is so vague. The Secretary of Native Affairs in his evidence last year said there were different associations of natives but the one he chiefly referred to was the I.C.U., which had carried on active propaganda in order to organize the natives from an industrial point of view to form a trade union to secure better wages and improved conditions of employment. I do not see in this clause how you are going to get at that type of native because it is a legitimate sphere of action on their part. We must realise the cause of the unrest and deal with it. The cause is, I think, because they have no organized body to make their views felt and heard in this House and in the country. The Secretary of Native Affairs and many leading officials have told us the natives are underpaid and underfed in farm areas. If that is the case I ask the Minister what possible methods have the natives in this country of having these facts put before the House or the public. The result is the I.C.U. agents go about preaching these gospels and getting the natives to sympathize with them and consequently we have this feeling of unrest. It is impossible to legislate against that in this section or any other section. The only way to do it is by propaganda. Either to help them to organize legitimately or to form native councils. The Minister knows in Johannesburg to-day you have societies, controlled by Europeans, swindling the natives right and left. They have a savings bank and thrift society and they sell certificates to these natives and recently they had invested in one of these societies £40,000. I know one native myself who put £76 in one society and it has gone phut and he has lost the money. I ask the Minister, is there anything more calculated to create bitterness and ill-feeling between the white man and the native than cases of that kind? We do not prosecute those people. I know of cases in Capetown where natives have lost large sums of money under similar circumstances. These Europeans are never prosecuted. It is actions of that nature which are creating the trouble between white and black in this country, and, as I said, the native never sees the white man punished. I have been told that native teachers, who are Government-paid officials, have been selling these certificates, getting a commission from swindlers in Johannesburg. They have been selling these certificates amongst the natives at sums varying from £5 right down to 2s. 6d. The Minister must realize that the position to-day as far as the natives are concerned is serious in this country. We hear hon. members on the crossbenches tell us how much contentment there is amongst the working-class, the European working-class. Let me ask hon. members opposite whether it is not an absolute fact that you never had so much unrest, so much discontent and so much dissatisfaction as you have amongst the natives, the real workers of this country, to-day. Are you going to empower the Government to take steps to prohibit meetings amongst the natives to urge for better conditions? Hon. members on the Labour benches are protecting their own colour, I must admit, but I do say that they are failing in their duty towards the natives.

Go steady.

I accept that challenge. The hon. member knows that in one section he has given the Minister power to remove natives from Pondoland or anywhere else and to send them to Robben Island or any other place without trial, and in the next breath he protests against the deportation of Europeans who come to this country and preach these dangerous doctrines. I think if the Minister had acted as we advised him last year and put into force the Prevention of Disorders Bill—

That contained this clause.

It contained many other clauses. The Minister has picked out one clause …. [Time limit.]

I want to say at once that I do not think that all these dangers that my hon. friend (Mr. Payn) draws attention to exist. After all nobody will deny that there has been trade union agitation in England for a large number of years, and this Act has been in force in England all those years. It is part of the English law of sedition. That law has never affected legitimate trade union activities, and it cannot be used to affect legitimate trade union activities. It can be used where they go beyond legitimate trade union activities and against anybody using language of such a nature as to drive Europeans and natives into camps against each other. I am surprised at that attitude of my hon. friend, because this is the law of England, and perhaps my hon. friend might have been better occupied in trying to persuade the English people to revise their laws on the subject.

You have not got white and black there.

There has never been any attempt to repeal this law in England. Where a law of this kind is necessary in the case of a civilized community such as you have got in England, why should it not be necessary in this country where a large proportion of your population are barbarians?

It is a centuries-old law in England.

It has done no harm in England, and is still on the Statute book in England. I should explain that the language used in the English Act is “between different classes of the communities.” Here we speak of “hostility between natives and Europeans.” Why should it be said that different principles will apply to the interpretation of this clause here from those that apply in England? It is not only the natives who are working for farmers and other employers in South Africa to whom doctrines of hostility are preached, but the same doctrines are preached to the natives in the kraals who are not working for anybody. They are being stirred up. Surely they cannot be stirred up from the trade union point of view.

They go up to Johannesburg to work.

A proportion of them go up. Those activities are spreading amongst natives in Natal who do not do any work to-day. It is easy to distinguish between your ordinary political activity and cases where something quite different is being advocated. For instance, confiscation of property and things of that kind might be advocated among natives where it would act quite differently from what it would do if you were to advocate those doctrines in a Fabian kind of way amongst Europeans. With regard to the point my hon. friend made as to thrift certificates and matters of that kind, I hope that has been submitted to the police and has been gone into, because no complaint has been made to me. However, that has certainly nothing to do with the scope of this section, because it is either a swindle, or else it is something which is done in terms of the law of the country which gives rise to civil action. I quite understand the point my hon. friend makes that there is a great fault as far as a certain type of European is concerned, and that that causes great unrest among the natives. The time is past when the native was treated in an absolutely honest way by white people in this country. In many cases they are being swindled, and the sooner white people get back to paths of honesty the better.

I consider this clause is absolutely necessary. Up to recently the natives in Natal were quite content with their lot. They have had their wages increased 100 percent in the last five years, but bear in mind the bulk of these natives are semi-barbarous, and this I.C.U. organization is not keeping to legitimate trade union propaganda. They are going beyond that, and they are stirring up the country to such an extent that farmers are meeting and passing resolutions. They realize the possibilities of this danger. Here is an extract from one resolution sent to me—

I can verify that. It is true, and we need a clause such as this to check these gentlemen in their unlawful intentions. The Minister is correct when he says that in Natal the natives have been so content that the provincial authorities have had to recruit their labour from outside the province. The natives in Natal are better off than the white workers who are excavating the hospital site at Groote Schuur. They earn from 2s. 9d. to 4s. 9d. a day, and they have proper rations thrown in. I would like to know where the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) gets his information that agricultural farm labourers are underfed and underpaid. It is certainly not so in Natal. They have no claim to be discontented there. We have more demand for native labour than the supply will meet. Everything was going splendidly until this propaganda started. The position to-day is that our maize crop is not being reaped. They will not turn out unless they are paid 1s. an hour, which is impossible. I hope the Minister will not listen to the criticism directed against this clause by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), who would not speak as he does if he knew the position in Natal.

The Minister two or three times justified this clause on the ground that it is part of the English law of sedition. It is one of those very specious arguments which the Minister puts forward with a twinkle in his eye. The Minister knows perfectly well that the whole distinction is that in England that law is applicable to every person, class and colour, whereas our objection to this clause is that it is put in a Bill which deals with native administration only.

What difference does that make in principle?

That instead of having it part of the general law of the land, in respect of which no question of class or colour application arises, you put it in a Bill confined specifically to the natives of the country. Not only would this give rise to a good deal of uneasiness among people, but it has already done so. Why did the Minister depart from the Bill before the select committee last year, which would have been quite acceptable? We had the evidence of the Secretary of Native Affairs, the Attorney-General, Col. Trew and Maj. Trigger of the Johannesburg police, and then evidence was clear, and the evidence of Mr. Landsdowne was of particular importance, that in consequence of a judgment in the Appellate Division the law of sedition which he had thought was suitable and sufficient, was found, on that appeal, to be defective in the very respects which were dealt with in the Sedition Bill last year. The result was the Sedition Bill was introduced by the Minister, and certainly there could be no objection taken on the ground that this singled out any section, class or colour of people for special treatment.

It does not. It is all the people in this country.

If the Minister wishes to deal with all the people, why does he not bring in a Bill applicable to all the country? He actually brought in a Bill on the evidence of the Attorney-General, who gave strong evidence to show the need for a Bill of the kind we had last year. All the parties of the House were represented, and all the members of the select committee were unanimous in getting this Bill before the House. I should very much like to know what it is that has caused this departure from the original plan. I am quite sure the Minister will frankly tell us why it was that a thoroughly good resolution to introduce a Sedition Bill last year approved by the select committee unanimously, representing all parties, why that Bill was withdrawn, and why that fragment of it based upon English law, is put into this particular Bill. I join also with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). My objection is not only on the specific grounds I have mentioned, but also on the ground that this clause is very vague indeed. It either means very little, or it means a great deal indeed. Any of us, in giving expression to our deepest convictions on matters relating to questions between Europeans and natives, might be subject to a charge, and might be run in under this. To find anything more vague than what is stated here is difficult to conceive. I ask the Minister to withdraw the clause, and to bring in a Bill in which there is no tendency to deal with one particular race.

I hope the Minister will not Be induced to withdraw or water down the clause. The matter is more serious than generally thought. I recently had information from Piet Retief that the I.C.U. was doing much harm there and that the farmers had been obliged to hold a meeting. I think the resolutions passed were sent to the Minister of Native Affairs. With the exception of the hon. member or Tembuland (Mr. Payn) hon. members who are talking on this matter know nothing about natives. We who represent constituencies containing thousands of natives know the position, and know that innocent natives often have to suffer for the acts of the agitators. There are not only native but also white agitators, and I think the latter ought to be punished more severely. I hope the Minister will be cautious in appointing magistrates in districts containing a large native population, because it has been shown in the past that magistrates who know the natives are better able to deal with them. If a magistrate is too easy-going then the matter is lost. To-day the natives are getting more and more cheeky, even on the high veld farms in the Transvaal. The Government should take action to stop that kind of thing.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) accused us of having voted in favour of a clause in this Bill empowering the Government to deport natives from South Africa.

I said from Pondoland to Robben Island.

The hon. member went farther. He said we were against the deportation of white men, but not of natives. What we do in connection with the previous clause is to have control over natives in South Africa, and in their interests also. If any Government abuses the powers under this clause, it will not last very long. Any words said against us are not going to affect our attitude at all. I put it to the Minister where the word “European” is used it may be interpreted in this direction—supposing for the sake of argument that the native workers in any particular industry were not getting a square deal and were out for an increase in their pay or an improvement in their conditions, if we took up the case of the natives, we might be charged by a reactionary Government with “intent to create feelings of hostility between natives and Europeans,” because the word “European” means any European. If the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) is agreed to, it would mean definitely “stirring up feeling against the European race,” and not against a European. When you come to the powers conferred on the Government, that the decision of the magistrate in connection with confiscation shall be final, and not subject to appeal or review, I feel it should be subject to appeal. In connection with deportation, we have here a differentiation between two sections of the South African people. A man may be a good South African citizen, and yet not have been born within the Union, and another man may have been born within the Union and be a bad South African citizen. If both committed the same offence, one might be deported and the other not. It is entirely unfair. I speak with a good deal of feeling on this question, because I know what I am talking about. Although I am not South African born. I may be married to a South African lady, and if I can be deported my family might have to go too. I do not think there is any member of this House who wishes to see anything in the nature of real sedition, but we want the Minister to distinguish between real sedition and legitimate agitation.

We know that the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) knows the natives well. I have always thought him a sensible man and given him credit for working in the best interests of the natives. I want to ask him what made him use the words he did in connection with Clause 1. He said that according to the clause the Governor-General has the right to transfer a native from Tembuland to Robben Island. That is the way to raise bad blood. Was that his object? I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) if he would be so glad now to have a conflict between the whites and the natives. We are just as anxious as he is to pass laws in the interests of the natives, but we are also just as anxious to avoid a conflict between them and the Europeans. It pains me to see the people in the Cape so selfish. They sit here at the land’s end protected by thousands of people in the north who have to fight against all the trouble in the world and now it is made out as if our purpose were to oppress the natives. The remark was made that the farm natives are underfed and underpaid. If hon. members know of such cases let them mention the names, but they must not talk generally. They only make the natives suspicious about the intentions of the Europeans. The farmer in the north is getting the impression from all the speeches that hon. members have no sympathy with him at all. They think there is too much onesidedness. If members only knew what was going on in the north they would agree that precautions should be taken. If that is not done then a conflict cannot be avoided. We want to give the Government the power to restrict the agitation that is going on. We will not allow the agitators to create unrest among natives who have always been contented on the farms. The natives themselves ask that that kind of person should be removed. The people who go about with those tickets make the poor native pay for them, and he does not know what he is paying for. It is a kind of speculation. I appeal to the Government to take powers to deport the people who were not born here and who are causing trouble among the natives. It is a good thing that the Government is getting that power even if it is never used, because it will serve as a warning to those people to be more careful.

The unrest among the natives has increased of late years, and I cannot understand what hon. members have against the clause. We notice that the large meetings of natives are conducted by persons who have not long been in our country and do not know the natives. They are all people from abroad. The native to-day is still so backward that he is very amenable to agitation by other people. I think it is criminal to stir up natives to demand conditions of service which the circumstances of to-day cannot allow. The natives are told what payment they ought now to demand. It is the custom with us farmers when we need a native and one comes to our farm to ask how much he wants. The native says 2s. or 2s. 6d. a day, and if we are agreeable to pay that then we engage him, and if we are not he leaves. I usually pay 2s. 6d. a day. The farmers cannot pay more. The natives must understand that we are acting in their own interests. If the newcomers who do not understand the natives incite them then the natives suffer in consequence. These people do a great deal of harm and I fully support the Minister on this clause. An end must be put to this agitation. The people must be punished and, if necessary, deported as a warning to others. The native himself is not in favour of white people speaking seditiously at meetings. The natives on my farm, e.g., will not allow them there at all. This Bill will put an end to the agitation. Most of it is taking place in the Free State, and doubtless because the Basutoland boundary is so near. I hope the Minister will stand by the clause.

I wonder whether the hon. members for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and Tembuland (Mr. Payn) appreciate the effect of their speeches will be. They ought to know what the condition in the north is to-day. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) has apparently never been on a farm in the north.

There you are wrong.

If he has been and if he knew things there he would be much more careful with his speeches in the House. Much of the unrest among the natives is due to speeches in this House. The hon. member for Tembuland said that the law was intended to prevent natives from organizing for higher-wages. The hon. member knows that is not so. He knows that the clause is intended to put an end to agitation, but not to interfere with organization for higher wages. If he says that, he is doing harm to the natives and to the Europeans. The hon. member also said that the natives cannot sell any certificates, but that the white people might do so without penalty. In saying that he is sowing suspicion among the natives. Why is he doing it? We must be careful what we say here. A speech like that does much harm. The hon. member also said that the natives are underfed and underpaid.

I did not say that. I stated that reports had been made by police officers to that effect.

Just so. It is not true. The native in the north lives on the farm, has his hut there, run his stock on the farm, has his own vegetable garden and free milk. He lives better on the farm than some people in Cape Town, and if the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) wants to do a good thing, let him first look after Cape Town. Let him not talk about things he knows nothing about. He makes remarks which do a great deal of harm owing to which his children will possibly suffer. If an end is not put to what is now going on it will mean the destruction both of the natives and of the whites As guardians of the natives it is our duty to protect them against this wrong agitation.

I advise the hon. member who has just spoken to remember the old motto: “Do unto others as you would others do unto you.” I have listened to a torrent of abuse against me. Let me tell the hon. member that I have been in South Africa since I was three years old, and if I differ from him it is not because of ignorance. Let me assure him also I have been hundreds of times beyond the Hex River. It is clear he did not listen to my argument. I said the Bill was framed so badly that it will deal not only with the guilty people but with a number of people who act innocently. If he had listened to me he would have heard that I condemn such agitations as he referred to, and I pointed out we had an existing law to deal with that. Let him remember abuse is not argument, and be must deal with arguments and not throw a lot of mud about. This law is supposed to deal with sedition, but a lot of things are brought under it which are not sedition The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) was quite right in pointing out that the law which is proposed by the Minister of Justice in this Bill is not the same as the English law. Again, when I said that it was a centuries-old law, I did not mean that was good in consequence. When those laws were made they dealt with an entirely different state of society from what they have got now in England. The law of England speaks of trying to promote hostility between different classes, but it does not name a particular section. If the Minister had introduced a general law in those terms I do not say that I would have supported it, but at any rate there would have been no particular objection from the native point of view had it been made a general law.

I listened very carefully to the arguments of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), but I have not been able to gather from him what lawful act this clause prohibits from being carried out. That apparently is his objection—that if this sedition clause becomes law, lawful acts, such as discussing the question of the colour bar or other troubles that the native mind may be disturbed about, will become unlawful. I cannot see that this clause will prevent any lawful act from being carried out. The state of affairs to-day is this, that we ask ourselves on whose behalf are we legislating? We are legislating to-day for a vast majority, in tact practically’ the whole of the native population of South Africa, who are a peaceful and law-abiding people, and who have been a peaceful and law-abiding people for a long time, and who do not wish to be made the victims of agitators. It is only within quite recent times that, owing to a movement which is taking place, a number of persons are spreading this over the face of this country, and spreading into the minds of certain people who are perfectly happy and contented that if they combine and use unlawful means, i.e., refuse to carry out their contracts, or refuse to recognize the constituted authorities, they will achieve their object. These agitators are not educated people. They are the paid emissaries of others who have told them to go out and stir up the native mind, and in order to achieve their object they do not mind exaggerations; they are men speaking without responsibility. We know that if this is not stopped the punishment is not going to fall so much upon the heads of the people who carry on this agitation, but upon the heads of tens of thousands of innocent people. This clause is for the protection of those people as a whole. All the decent natives I have come into contact with deplore this state of affairs. They say that the agitation which is going on appeals to the young bloods who are always looking for trouble so I hope that the Minister will not budge, and that he will pass this clause through, because I am perfectly certain that if it is passed through a good deal of the trouble and a good deal of the damage now being caused will come to an end.

I did not intend to speak but after hearing the hon. members for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), I feel compelled to reply to them. I have always regarded them as wanting to avoid conflict, but this afternoon they have insisted on the clause being deleted, and that will certainly lead to a conflict. I hope the Minister will not accept that foolish advice because if he does so he will find that within a few weeks he will have to resort to more drastic measures than are contemplated in this Bill. I assure him that the position is much more dangerous than he thinks. If anything is to be done to the clause then it should be drawn still nearer. I shall not move in that direction, but shall be content with the clause proposed by the Select Committee. I hope the Minister will remain firm and not concede a jot or a tittle or allow any watering down. I cannot agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). He wants to widen the clause and to protect the people who are causing all the unrest in the country. They are just the people who have nothing to lose, but want to fish in troubled waters. I shall strongly oppose any amendment intended to water down the clause. If hon. members knew what a heap of telegrams and resolutions from societies were lying in my drawer they would be surprised. If it had not been for members of whom I count myself one, then things today would have been much worse. Hon. members who want the clause to be deleted do not know what they are doing. They are safe in the Cape and forget that when unrest comes then we must be the human buffer which keeps them safe in the Cape. When once the fire is alight you cannot remain quiet in Cape Town because you will also get into hot water. It will not then be the case of the farmers bearing the brunt while you remain outside.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Hon. members who make such speeches do not know what harm they are doing. Speeches are made here which are quoted to the natives as examples of what they can do themselves.

As a supporter of the Bill I find the Minister has made it rather difficult to argue in favour of it, because he reminded us a few days ago that we belonged to a party that differed on this matter, and I was arguing on the understanding that it was a non-party Bill. So far as I can understand the argument by those from the Cap who are against this clause, the argument is carried on in the sacred name of trade unionism; but, surely, there is a vast deal of difference between trade unionism in civilized countries and trade unionism in barbarous countries? I propose to give the House a sample of the trade unionism which is being preached in South Africa. I have here to-day’s “Argus” in which there is an article headed “Vehement speech by native, a speech made at Graaff-Reinet by a secretary of the I.C.U. It was made in the presence, I may say, of members of the C.I.D. and a location superintendent—

Further down he says—

And later on he adds—

Is there any member of this House who can really say he stands up for that sort of trade unionism?

That is not trade unionism, anymore than the speech of Dr. Abdurahman.

The point is this, that the vast majority of natives in this country are the very people who are going to be moved by such talk as this. This speech is made by a native trade union organizer for the purpose of inducing natives to join the trade union. It is because the I.C.U. have such an opportunity throughout the country of imposing upon credulous natives that the movement is growing as it is in the country to-day. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) opposed this as unnecessary.

I did not say unnecessary— out of place.

This is a Native Administration Bill, and we are not dealing with sedition as a whole. The Bill is to arm the administration with power to carry on native affairs. If we were dealing with a Sedition Bill, to deal with the whole of the land, that would be an entirely different matter. I, for one, would welcome a Bill which would prevent sedition in any form, wherever it is uttered. In the Transkei everything that is in this Bill could be put into operation tomorrow. The Minister of Native Affairs can draw up a proclamation, get it signed by the Governor-General, and do what the supreme chief can do under this Bill. Such a pro clamation can be issued and put into force at once without the safeguards provided in this Bill. It is because disaffection is being spread that it is necessary that the Government should be armed with certain powers, at any rate to prevent the credulous from being imposed upon by so-called trade organisers. Amongst credulous people you can spread trouble at any time. Although there are a number of educated natives, we should not be blind to the fact that there is a large mass of barbarians behind them, and we should protect them while opening up avenues of advancement to those who are removed from the barbarian strain. We have Kadalie, the secretary of this union, affiliated with the Union of Amsterdam lecturing to-day to European populations about the conditions of the native; and what kind of picture is painted for the European working man? It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Here we have a large section of our population just emerging from barbarism, and we are the guardians of these people, and yet from some feeling of prudery or some feeling of political justice or otherwise, we close our eyes to their present conditions. [Time limit.]

I am sorry the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) is not fair, because he made a direct attack on the hon. member on my left and the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I do not know whether he understands English, but neither the hon. member here nor the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), nor one of us, attacked this clause on the ground that it was not necessary. I, perhaps, more than anybody else in the House, realise that you should have a clause of this nature, which is in the interests of the natives themselves who are being led astray by these agitators. We realise that the people who preach these doctrines should be punished very severely. The point I made is that you are not going to get at these people under this particular clause and that it is not in its proper place. I think you should tighten it up, and I think the Bill of last year would meet cases that arise better than the present Bill. I hope the Minister will bear us out when he replies, and that he will satisfy members on his side that there is no intention on the part of members on this side to create trouble, and that there is no unfairness in our criticisms. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) always harps on the Transkei. The only clause I objected to was Clause 1. You have to give no account at all under Clause 1, while under the proclamation system you have to put the proclamations on the Table of the House. On the question of deportation, I say that anybody coming from a foreign country, whether England or any other country, to stir up trouble whether between European or native or in any other way, should be sent away from this country, and I have no complaint if he is. But what I said was that it is more serious to take a Pondo away from Pondoland and put him on Robben Island than to take a European and send him back to Europe, because the European goes back to his own country. I think Port Nolloth is the place the Minister has fixed as the place of banishment; and it is more serious to a native to send him there, and it effects him more than to send a European back to his own country. Punish the agitator no matter who he is, but a South African realizes the danger of these agitations more than an overseas man does and is therefor more careful. If a native is to be subject to deportation I cannot see why a European should not be liable to the same penalty.

When the Sedition Bill was being discussed last year, the Minister had no more active co-operator than one of the hon. members who has been attacked this afternoon by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keytor). And on this particular measure I think the Minister will be able to say that some of the members on this side loyally co-operated in endeavouring to make the Bill a good one. The hon. members who attacked some of us forget that the real blame for the Government not having the power that it requires is that of the Ministry itself. If after the select committee had brought in its unanimous report last year the Minister had introduced the Bill he would have covered everything that is wanted, and in form to which no person, no section and no race could have taken any exception. Hon. members on this side are going to express their views freely on these subjects, and if we criticise any particular line of action adopted by the Ministry, it is because we think they are not acting in the best interests of the State.

I hope the Minister will make it very clear that he regrets the attacks which have been made this afternoon.

I am not going to express any regret.

The more responsible and educated natives are as anxious as the Europeans are that there should be nothing in the nature of stirring up bad feeling and sedition, but the native resents that any legislation to deal with this unfortunate state of affairs for which, perhaps, the European is more to blame than the native, should appear in a Native Bill and not in a measure dealing with sedition irrespective of any particular race. Possibly the clause may be necessary. I have read in this afternoon’s paper of a speech delivered at Graaff-Reinet; the speech is of a most serious character indeed and the better class natives will realize that a speech of that sort is extremely detrimental to the interests of the natives themselves, particularly those who are not well advanced. If the Minister will say that in introducing the clause there is no idea of making any difference between the European and the native, then he would remove a good deal of false impression.

Why is not Section 15 of Act 27 of 1914 put into operation? It stipulates that any person who incites, instigates commands or procures any other person to commit any crime or offence shall be liable on conviction to the same penalty as that to which the principal offender is liable. That should meet the case mentioned by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). That law is not used nearly so often as it should be.

I believe that all the criticism that has been placed before the House has been perfectly fair. I make no complaints whatever about what has been put before the House. This section is of general application. The person whom I object to much more than the native agitator is the European agitator. Because in many cases the native does not know very much better, and very often education has gone to his head like new wine, and he becomes a little bit fresh under it. This clause is a general one. I have been asked why I did not proceed with the Sedition Bill introduced last year. The Native Affairs Department was going to introduce a Bill and I asked them to put in a clause to prevent duplication. Personally I think the section is a perfectly right one. I think the form in which we have put the clause was agreed to unanimously by the select committee. With regard to the deportation clause I think we shall have to go into the position of that question. We are going to be placed in a more difficult position in regard to deportations, than we have been in the past, especially in view of the Nationality Act where we allow people to acquire domicile in this country. We shall have to go into the question whether we shall have the right to deport these people, and I have in view that the time may arrive when we shall have to revise our laws in that respect. I have an open mind, and I am inclining to the view that deportation clauses are not a wise way of dealing with the matter, and I think I can give an undertaking this is the last time I shall have anything to do with deportation in a Bill.

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

Amendments proposed by Mr. Reyburn put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

On new sub-section (5) proposed by select committee.

I move—

I want to move the deletion of the amendment inserted by the select committee.

I agree with that entirely.

I have an amendment on page 26, line 3, to leave out all the words after “land.” I think there are cases where they should be exempted, particularly in the case of liquor, and the Minister provides for exemption in his new Liquor Bill. I think there should be exemption in certain cases.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) especially in regard to intoxicating liquors. The Minister has a Bill before the House now in which this exemption is likely to be provided for. I have often felt a number of natives who live in towns and pay the municipal taxes get no benefit, and I think the Government will have to consider this at a later stage. The Minister has admitted it will be necessary to make certain exemptions, and I think the Minister should leave out the portion of the clause proposed by the hon. member for South Peninsula, and that will facilitate dealing with the matter at a later stage.

I cannot do that, because it is perfectly right the exemptions granted to a native should not deal with taxation, or the provision controlling the sale and supply of intoxicating liquors. My own Bill, I hope, will pass next session with the help of the hon. members opposite. I oppose this amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls, in lines 3 and 4, on page 26, put and negatived.

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

I would like to raise a question on sub-section (5).

I agreed to its being deleted.

I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to frame general regulations dealing with the exemption of natives to apply right through the country. I think it would be difficult to have different conditions in different provinces. Could not the Minister frame regulations definitely exempting natives under certain circumstances? For instance, a native who is a registered voter in the Cape, and natives in the other provinces who have attained a certain position might be given the right to obtain letters of exemption.

The point raised is of some importance. In the Urban Areas Act a number of classes were given exemption and native voters were put in a separate class. The native voter is not specially mentioned in Section 30, and in the schedule the. Hofmeyr Act is intended to be repealed. The result will be that the native who is a voter and the native who is not a voter will be put on the same footing. Each one of them may not get an exemption. Would the Minister have any objection to putting into this Clause 30 a provision protecting the native voter and saying that in his case he will be entitled to a letter of exemption, otherwise you are taking away a right that already exists in the case of the native voter?

That point was raised in select committee, and the overwhelming sense of the select committee was against it. I cannot see, and I have never been able to understand why a native voter, for instance, should have greater rights to obtain liquor than a native who is not a voter. It has bewildered me to understand how anybody could pass an Act of that description, and I think it is high time that disappeared. In regard to exemptions, this is the form in which exemptions are granted in the Transvaal to-day. I do not see why you should say that your native voter is entitled to exemption. In anything that you may lay down, you will find that there are classes who are good, and classes who are bad in that particular class. You may have a native who is a kraal native who will be an excellent native to be given an exemption, and you may have another native of some education who would not be a suitable person to be given exemption. I know of no classes among natives, and, indeed, I would not have any classes amongst Europeans, who would be singled out for exemption. There is full discretion given in every case. A native may be educated or uneducated, he may be a voter or he may not be a voter, he may live in a state of civilization or not, in a state of civilization, in all these cases it is possible for him to obtain a certificate of exemption. I might deal with the amendment, at once. I think it is right that sub-section (4) should stand, with the full discretion to recall the exemption. It is obvious that an exemption would not be lightly recalled. I am strongly of opinion that the whole of this clause should remain as it is, apart from sub-section (5), to the withdrawal of which I have agreed. It was put into this Bill on the very strong representation of the member representing Natal on that select committee, the member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). He was strongly in favour of sub-section (5) being included. I am satisfied that sub-section (5) might well be dropped but I do not think we can go a step further than that.

It might be thought from the Minister’s remarks that the Hofmeyr clause was a mere accident. It was not. It was put there as an incentive to the native to become educated.

It looks more as if it was to put him on the voters’ roll.

It was laid down distinctly that the object and purpose was to provide an incentive to the native to become educated. There was an object in it, and it was an object which was perfectly good and sound. It may be true that the native does not always become in that respect the gentleman you wished him to be, but in the background the whole object was an incentive to him to become educated.

I do not agree with my hon. friend at all. I remember this Hofmeyr clause being put in. It was not a question of education. It was a question of a bigger market for the liquor. Certainly it was. All this fine and large talk about encouraging him to get educated is pure bosh. I hope my hon. friend will stick to the schedule and repeal out the Hofmeyr Law. It has never done any good but any amount of harm.

I am a little alarmed at one remark the Minister made in regard to sub-section 4. He said there might be natives who are very educated but still were very bad. Is this to be a kind of test not only of civilization but also of goodness or bad ness? Who is going to judge whether the native is very good or very bad? It seems to me this is putting in the hands of the Government very wide and undesirable powers. That is if the civilized native who has left all connection with tribal affairs for generations does something in the opinion of the Government bad then they are going to take this exemption from him and put him back under tribal laws. I do not think that is the right point of view. This test as I see it is the dividing line between the civilized native and the uncivilized native. If he is educated and civilized it seems to me he ought to be exempted. I know the Minister would like to see them all back into the kraals, but the whole trend of civilization is away from the kraal. It is no use trying to sweep back the tide. You cannot do it. The only question to my mind is at what stage is the native civilized enough to entitle him to be exempted from these laws which apply to the native in his tribal condition. I think we must get out of our mind the question of whether he is good or bad. We are all good, bad and indifferent. It depends upon the point of view you look at it from. I think this sub-clause 4 should come out.

I am troubled at the reassertion of this doctrine of “reservation”—“leave it to the Government: we will do what we think right.” It is dangerous, it is against the traditions of our civilization, it is against the labours of those who for a hundred years or more have struggled to uplift these people in the scale of civilization. It is trying to force down those who are rising out of bondage. Therefore I protest against the inclusion of this sub-section 4.

I hope the Minister will soften his heart and agree to the deletion of this clause. If the Minister was intimately acquainted with the native territories and the natives who are living respectable civilized lives he would realize they resent a clause of this sort very much. Surely when our policy has been for the last hundred years or more to encourage natives to rise in the scale of civilization the moment the native comes out from barbarism and the tribal system surely we should offer him some little encouragement, an encouragement to him and an inducement to others. I hope the Minister will realize this is going to cause an enormous amount of dissatisfaction in the native mind and more especially to the minds of those natives who are able to influence their less civilized brethren by making them believe that no matter how much they strive to live up to our civilization they are not going to get any consideration. Suppose under sub-section 1 you grant a letter of exemption the Minister would have one idea and I might have another. Where a native breaks the law so far as to encourage others to break the law you have a clause in the Bill with which you can deal with him. So in the circumstances I think my hon. friend might grant that small concession. I know the civilized natives resent extremely some of the clauses in this Bill and I hope the Minister will agree to the deletion of this sub-section.

We have many natives in Natal who enjoy the privilege of exemption. These powers have not affected them because they have always been law-abiding, but it is when the exempted native abuse that privilege by exciting the natives and there is no way of dealing with these people unless we have this provision in the Bill.

This is another of these innovations. In the Transkei the Hofmeyr Act has never been in force and the natives have not the privilege (if it is a privilege) of obtaining liquor and they have never complained about it. If you offered them this “privilege I don’t think they would accept it. I want to put this point to the Minister. There should be some incentive for the native to attain a better position. How are you going to tell the native what he must do and what standard he must rise to before he is entitled to come and ask for this privilege. I do not think there is very much substance in it. How is the educated responsible native to know what he must do to obtain this right of exemption. You want to make him realize that he has become what you might call a responsible citizen, a leader among his people, and that man should have the right to come and claim this right. That is where you are going to help the natives to rise. You want to encourage the best type of native. You want to make them realize that there is a status to which the better class can attain. If you are going to simply leave it to the magistrate then I say the native is not going to appreciate that what we are trying to grant him is a privilege. That is where the Government is wrong. I do not think the average respectable native wants to tear away from his people. It is these I.C.U. men who go round and it is the newspapers who do most harm by booming these men. I do believe that the publicity that is given to the native agitators by the press of this country really does more harm and creates more racial bitterness than many members realize. This publicity is really the lifeblood of these agitators. You want to get the respectable type of native to obtain exemptions who will condemn that action. You want natives to realize that they need not go on bended knee to claim that exemption, but that they may claim it as a right by reason of their advancement in what we call civilization.

I entirely agree with what my hon. friend has said about the booming of these native meetings by the press—not any particular section, but every section of the press, and because of that there is a wider publicity than there otherwise would be. We as a Department get the police reports, so that the newspapers are not telling the police, but they are telling the country and stirring up feeling, not only amongst the natives, but amongst white men. It would be the fault of the newspapers if there was an outburst in the Orange Free State. The press has made public there is a campaign there, and tell you in advance where the natives are going to hold meetings, and they freely advertize these meetings. I agree entirely it would be an excellent thing if the newspapers, and they are all of them sinners, left these absurd utterances of the I.C.U. alone. With regard to this section and the exemptions, I have consulted the Secretary of Native Affairs, and the practice of the department is to grant these exemptions to natives who have reached a certain standard of education; but it is of importance where you know they are men who generally get exemptions that you should be allowed to withhold exemptions. I could mention a very prominent agitator who, although an educated man, has not an exemption, and smaller natives have exemptions. I think my hon. friend has spoken for certain parts of the country, and I do not think exemption helps very much there. In the Free State and Transvaal it helps a good deal, and it means exemption from carrying passes, amongst other things. If we are going to give it to everybody you would have to give it to Dr. Wellington amongst others, and that would be a dangerous thing.

Why do you not say members of the Bunga?

I do not think it would be of much value to them. It is not much use to natives living under tribal conditions. That is a matter your department would work out, and even there must be exceptions. Eleven men might be first class men, and you would not like to extend that confidence to the twelfth man. If you leave the granting of a certificate to the discretion of the department, it is right that the cancellation should remain within that same discretion.

Why without any reason?

There is no reason given for granting. You must leave so much to discretion that I do not see how general rules can be laid down. This scheme is working well in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. I do not think the power of cancellation has been abused in the Free State. The question is what is the best uniform doctrines to lay down. I can imagine it being worked in a different way, and having the same success of this section. Many people think the Native Affairs Department is too prone to mollycoddle the native. They act to protect the native, which is a fundamental part of their duties. I do not think any case has ever been brought before the House in which the Native Affairs Department have acted unjustly or oppressively towards the natives. To meet the Committee I withdraw sub-section (5).

I do not know what is wrong but if what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has proposed takes place then we shall be doing the natives a greater injustice than what is now said to be in the clause. If we do not make provision in the Bill the natives will not have the right to exemption. Therefore, I think it is in the interests of the natives to leave the clause as it is. The Government ought to have the right of depriving an educated native, who lapses, of the exemption.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls to omit sub-section (4) and amendment proposed by select committee put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New Clause 35,

In connection with Chapter III a commission is to be formed in connection with the difficulties natives in the Eastern Province have in regard to land. Is it the intention of the Government to allow practitioners to be heard, as no provision is made for the native having legal assistance before that body? Very difficult land matters are involved.

There is no intention to exclude. There is certain land which the Hottentots have not been able to get in Namaqualand, and it is at their request that this has been made applicable to them.

I move—

Under your proclamation system at the Cape, proclamations go through the hands of the Prime Minister, who proclaims the laws. We have now a new system by which laws are made by regulations, and we have the Department of Labour imposing a regulation in the Transkei, of which we knew nothing, ordering a certain body to pay wages to ordinary native labourers, which has never been considered by any responsible body. A small printing corporation was recently ordered to pay natives £8 a month which would disturb the whole of our labour future.

They get £9 a week in Johannesburg.

This was found out only months after the proclamation was in force. We cannot go through all these proclamations from different departments and if all proclamations applying to natives were published through the Department of Native Affairs the public and the legal fraternity could keep in touch with the position. All I ask is that when Ministers desire to issue proclamations containing new regulations which will be enforced in the native areas, they should be issued through the Prime Minister’s department. Then they will appear in the Gazette in those pages devoted to proclamations issued by the Prime Minister, and thus they will be easily traced. To complicate things we now have proclamations issued by the Administrator. Under the present system it is impossible even for the magistrates to keep trace of all the proclamations issued by different departments which affect the native territories.

I think it will be rather awkward to discuss the amendment, but I have asked the Secretary for Native Affairs to approach his Minister so that the matter can be brought up in the Cabinet. It is very probable that any trouble of the kind mentioned by the hon. member will disappear, but if the regulations of ten or eleven different departments had to be administered by the Native Affairs Department, the staff of that department would have to be increased.

I accept that assurance and will withdraw the amendment.

It will be a little time before we can put the whole of the Bill into operation.

With leave of the committee, proposed new clause withdrawn.

On Clause 34,

I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Schedule,

I move—

If my amendment is carried this Act will not be repealed, as the Minister proposes it shall be. Act 39 of 1887 is the Hofmeyr Act and is looked upon by the Cape natives as their Magna Charta. That Act says that provided the native has raised himself in the scale of civilization and has the necessary property qualifications to become a registered voter, he shall have all the rights and privileges of a registered voter, irrespective of his colour. It the Minister will agree to the amendment the natives throughout the country would be gratified.

I support the amendment of the last speaker. If Act 39 of 1887 is repealed, all the natives will be subject to a supreme chief unless they have letters of exemption. It will be held that the whole of the civilized status of native registered voters has been swept by the board, and that they are in the same position as the aboriginal natives. Under the Bill the native has to obey the orders of the supreme chief, who may order him to live in an area where he will not be able to exercise his parliamentary vote. The courts have held that the Cape natives do not come under the Natives Land Act of 1913 as it might be possible under that law, to make it difficult for a native to exercise the franchise.

The Minister has nothing to gain by not agreeing to the amendment. Under the Bill a new system will be applied, and that will disturb the mind of the natives, although I think this Bill on the whole, is going to help the natives in the areas affected. You will, however, antagonize every registered native voter, if you take away from him the privilege of not having to carry a pass and to obtain liquor. I am not in favour of natives being able to obtain liquor, but that is a matter which should be considered when the Liquor Bill is discussed. The repeal of Act 39 of 1887 will raise antagonism in the minds of a very large number of natives, and that we cannot afford to do at the present time. At a later stage, when you have the whole of this machinery in force, I am convinced the natives themselves, when they have their councils, will come to the Minister and say they do not want liquor. Why not let them take it from themselves instead of forcing it upon them? You will create a feeling of unrest which we do not want at the present time, and I think it could be withdrawn without hurting the Bill and without any harm being done.

I want to appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). On the 31st December there were 14,000 natives in the Cape affected by it of whom there were about 3,000 in the Transkei. I have never yet heard of complaints about the privilege which native voters in the Cape have under the Act which is now being repealed, and I have been much in touch with the law courts. If it is necessary to pass a law then it must be done, but what good reason exists for the repeal of that Act? The Act was passed 40 years ago because there was a need for it and it has not yet been proved to-day that it is necessary to repeal it.

Let me point out to the Minister the amount of trouble we have now to know who is a registered voter. A man can go into a bar and say he is a registered voter, but he has no proof and the barman has to take his word. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) says the councils will call for the repeal of the Act in time, and that shows the best of the natives are against it. I hope the Minister will stick to his schedule, as printed.

I am afraid the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) does not know as much about native reeling in this country as he does about other things. The Hofmeyr Act laid it down that it was expedient to exempt every native voter, registered as such, for the election of members of Parliament of the colony from the operation of certain laws so far as the laws would operate in respect of any registered voter of European nationality or extraction there are six schedules referring to liquor, and restrictions for natives, but the native registered voters in the Cape of Good Hope were exempted. If the Minister consults the Native Affairs Department, he will find feeling among natives in this province in connection with this Act is extremely strong. They look upon this Act as a great privilege given many years ago, and the natives who are registered voters are proud of it, and realize, as long as they are registered voters, and live within the law, they are not subject to any restrictions for which the European voter is not restricted as well.

It is very much abused.

This buying of liquor for the natives is not so much abused by the registered voters as by other people this abuse of liquor amongst the natives is due to a certain class of white people who get the liquor for the natives. I speak from experience. I employ natives on my farm and when they get liquor, it is not from natives but from Europeans, who are bringing a large amount of drink to the natives. I maintain, and events will prove me right, that by repealing this law you will cause a great amount of dissatisfaction in the country, and I do not think it is a wise thing to do. I hope the Minister will give way on this question, and not repeal a law which has been in operation for 40 years, and which the natives view with the greatest favour. The name of Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr is looked up to by the natives of the country.

I understood the Minister to say it is not the intention of the Department to take away these privileges which the natives have had for many years, but where certain privileges have been abused, the department want the power to deal with these matters. I thought it was common knowledge that some of these privileges had been abused in the Cape. In many cases natives in the Cape area who have registration certificates have not only used the certificates to get liquor, but have sold the privileges to other natives who are not entitled to obtain liquor. That has come to me by first-hand information, and every decent, straight hotel-keeper endeavours to control this sort of thing, and he is opposed to it. What is to be done to control this traffic amongst people who have attained a certain stage of civilization, but have not yet attained that measure of responsibility and control which others have attained? Unless the Department of Native Affairs has some means of controlling this, we shall be in a very bad state indeed. The department feels by the repeal of this law it is fortifying itself against a very difficult position.

I should like to point out that these abuses which have been referred to took place when the sixth section of the Hofmeyr Act became a dead letter, and that has since been put right by Parliament. Owing to the fact that a native could impersonate another without being punished, the hotelkeeper had no protection, because he could not have the man arrested, but that was put right by Act 24 of 1920. These are the abuses the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to. To-day they do not take place. If to-day one native impersonates another he can be prosecuted. I would point out that the Minister has full control about liquor in clause 30. The letter of exemption does not include exemption for liquor. All that is already provided for by section 30. which you have passed. Now you are doing a far more dangerous thing—you are taking away the status of the native to which he is entitled under the Act of 1887. You have provided for every conceivable case and you are repealing what the native voters in the past have looked upon as their magna charta. It has rightly been looked upon by them as their magna charta and they value it very highly. Only recently Parliament passed a poll tax for the natives and a large number of natives in the Eastern Province are testing that matter as to whether it is right for Parliament without expressly repealing the Hofmeyr Act to pass, seeing that they are native voters, a poll tax that applies only to natives and not to Europeans. The matter is sub judice. The Supreme Court has decided against the natives but the matter may go on appeal. The Minister has got all the protection he wants in regard to liquor and everything else under the clause. Why then repeal this Act? It is going io be a dangerous thing to repeal this Act, because the status of these natives will be lowered and the Governor-General, as supreme chief, will be able to do with these natives as he likes.

Of course, there are various forms of abuse in regard to drink. One form of abuse of drink would be that your native voter who could obtain drink would buy it and distribute it amongst his relatives, who cannot buy it. Another form, and I should imagine a common form, would be where your barman who wishes to push the sale of drink is not going to be stringent about the provisions of the law being complied with. That is really the only important part of this Act which exists. A magna charta which gives a man the privilege of buying drink is one of the most curious magna chartas that the world has ever heard of. It is really bringing a big word into a certain amount of disrepute, if I may be allowed to say so. I would like hon. members to take the first difficulty that arises. There is this possibility where you make a Bill of this kind apply to natives, laying down useful provisions in regard to them, your native voter, if you do not repeal the Hofmeyr Act, will not be subject to the provisions of that Bill. We will not be able to put any native legislation right unless we repeal that Act. Apart from that there are a large number of other provisions in this Act and one sees the difficulty that arises at once because, if the Hofmeyr Act means what it says, they are exempted from all the provisions of this Act by reason of the Hofmeyr Act unless the Act applies to European voters also. This Act obviously does not apply to European voters and, therefore, you take the class of native voters clean out of the operation of this Act and you are probably going to cause them much more harm through their magna charta than if they did not have their magna charta. I imagine that this Parliament would never pass legislation in the form of the Cape Act of 1887, which said that the native voter in the Cape should not be subject to certain laws unless those laws applied equally to European voters. That is extraordinary legislation. It may have suited the circumstances in the Cape in 1887, but it does not suit us now. Your practical position is what we have exempted him from in terms of this schedule. In other words, is there anything from which he cannot be exempted by Clause 28? Your first exemption was Act 17 of 1864, certificate of citizenship. This statute has long been obsolete. The second point was Act 18 of 1864, the Native Succession Act. It is cumbersome, unsatisfactory and obsolete. Then there was Act 10 of 1864, the Kaffraria Native Succession Ordinance, also obsolete. Then the Act 22 of 1867 Pass Law. It has not been applied to the Cape Colony and has become obsolete. You can take it that of the six Acts five are obsolete. The only two things left are first your Liquor Act, and I think anyone will be glad to relieve the statute book of that. The goal was that the native could become a voter so as to get drink. That is the most extraordinary magnet to draw people up in the scale of civilization. Then the only other thing is the general exemption from all laws unless the European is equally subject to that law. Every law you make in trying to assist the native would be nullified by that general provision, and there is no reason why that provision should be made or why the provision to give drink to natives should remain. I should think there is a lot of truth in what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said, that underlying this Hofmeyr Act was a larger outlet for the sale of drink. If we keep this Act on the statute book we really make our exemption section rather absurd. Because we say in 28 it is a wrong thing that your native who is exempted should get drink. But we say if that man who has a certificate of exemption becomes a registered voter it is right he should have drink. This is in a sense a sort of consolidating measure, and if we do not repeal this Act we shall have a difficult state of affairs. I personally welcome the fact that we can repeal this Act a year earlier than we could otherwise do. I think it is an excellent thing for the natives to repeal it and also for the administration of law in the native territories, because it will assist the police very much. Under these circumstances I regret very much that I do not see my way clear to accept any deletion of this reference to the Hofmeyr Act.

There is certain Cape legislation dealing with liquor in which a special reference is made to this particular Act. This Act is now to be repealed in the Native Administration Act, but what is going to be the position of the hotelkeeper who supplies liquor to a registered voter? I cannot understand how you can prosecute any hotelkeeper for supplying them with liquor when it is provided for in other Acts. I impress it upon the Minister that this is not the right time to legislate on the matter. When this Administration Bill was placed before the Native Conference at Pretoria, this particular section was not mentioned. I do not think the Minister has the right to take this away from the natives, and it is not going to make the slightest difference in the administration of this measure. It is going to put 15,000 natives in this province right up against the Bill, and I think it is going to react against the good that is contained in the Bill. I believe the taking away of this privilege is going to stultify the very great benefits conferred by this Act on the natives, and I think the Minister is wrong.

I am as anxious as the Minister to do everything we possibly can to prevent the consumption of liquor by natives. I am perfectly certain the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) with his experience is of the same opinion. The proper way to prevent the natives getting liquor is in my hon. friend’s proposed legislation, and the repeal of this Act is not going to help him very much. My hon. friend says, and I believe it, that there is far more drunkenness among the native population in Johannesburg than there is among the whole of the natives in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. So what is the good of my hon. friend saying this is going to be of material assistance in preventing natives from getting liquor when such is the position in the Transvaal where there is total prohibition?

Should we allow sales, then, to the natives in the Transvaal?

I did not say so, but the Transvaal has not so far advanced to give native registered voters’ privileges. So far as abuse is concerned, amongst a certain section of coloured people, liquor is ruining and demoralizing them in the Western Province to a very large extent, and anything my hon. friend can do to diminish that will have no stronger supporter than myself. But I would say to my hon. friend, in repealing this Act you are going to engender in the minds of a large section of the native people of this country, the idea that there is a determination to try to prevent their having any privileges in proportion to their raising themselves in the scale of civilization. Is my hon. friend inclined to recant at all; is there no sign of conversion?

No.

I am very sorry; you are doing a very unwise thing.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

A person found guilty of the crimes mentioned in the first portion of the amendment will be deported under the Bill. There was an instance last year of a man being convicted of a particularly revolting offence of this kind on six children of tender years. I asked the Minister of Justice how it was that this person had not been deported, and the Minister replied that he had been convicted of what was not a deportable offence. In order to rectify that omission, I propose the amendment. The effect of the second portion of the amendment will be to do away with the restrictions upon the interchange of Indians between the various provinces. I maintain that this is a logical consequence of the agreement between the Union and India. As I pointed out of the second reading, if the policy outlined in this agreement is to be followed to its logical conclusion, we shall find ourselves at a very early date outnumbered on the voters’ roll by enfranchised Indians. In 1911 the Imperial Government suggested the abolition of provincial boundaries, so far as the movements of Indians were concerned. The Earl of Crewe was then Secretary of State, and he wrote—

The Minister of the Interior at that time announced that he was “unable to agree to the proposal at the present time,” but the proposal to do away with the provincial restrictions was supported by several members—the then hon. members for Durban (Berea), Weenen and Queenstown. This is a matter of great moment in our province. We feel that our position in regard to future representation of Natal is very much jeopardized by the tendency of the Indian agreement and the carrying out of the Minister’s policy is going to result in the development I have mentioned in the enfranchisement of the Indians and the outnumbering of the European voters by Indian voters.

I may just as well say as far as the first part of the amendment is concerned I am willing to accept that. We propose to extend the grounds on which persons can be deported from the country to include serious offences, and indecent assault can also be considered to be made a ground for deportation. As far as the second part of the proposed amendment is concerned I am sorry I cannot accept it. I have come to look upon the hon. gentleman as a confirmed pessimist but he shows himself an optimist tonight in thinking this House is going to agree to that, and allow the Indians of Natal free access to the Transvaal and the Cape Province.

Why not? What is the value of Union then?

We have had all these years since Union to think about it, and we are no further towards being persuaded. No amount of reasoning will persuade those members representing the Cape Province and the Transvaal to agree to open their boundaries to Indians from other parts of the country.

I wish to support the hon. member for Illovo’s (Mr. Marwick) amendment in so far as it relates to the breaking down of provincial barriers against the entry of Asiatics to other provinces. The agreement with the Indian Government is one that does not really afford any relief to the people of Natal in regard to the unfair competition by the Asiatic with the European which constitutes an economic menace to the white man and is undermining his position in that province. The position now is that our sons are compelled to leave the province in search of employment because there are no openings for them in trade or commerce and even the European artisan classes are feeling the ill effects of Asiatic competition. The position is likely to become worse in commerce in view of the proposal to curtail discretionary powers of licensing authorities in the matter of granting trading licences. We are flooded with licences already in Natal and if these discretionary powers are to be curtailed I suppose we shall have a good many more and the few remaining Europeans engaged in commerce in Northern Natal will have to put up their shutters and leave or seek other means of earning a livelihood. I have a resolution here from the Ladysmith Chamber of Commerce which I should like to read to the Minister because it supports the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). The resolution reads—

In view of the fact that the people of Natal are not to get the legislation that they were led to believe by hon. members opposite at the last general election would be introduced, I do hope the Minister will consider this proposal and, if possible, give effect to it. In conclusion I just want to say that there is nothing new in the proposal to remove the restrictions on the movements of Asiatics in South Africa. Sir W. Berry, addressing this House as the member for Queenstown as far back as 1913, said—

I have been much astonished at the speeches of the hon. members for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in coming to-night with a motion to allow the Natal Asiatics to go throughout the whole of the Union. I thought that they were in earnest in helping us to get rid of the Indians but now they want the whole of the Union to be plagued. We know that this is a great question and that the Indians are detrimental to the country, and we have now made an agreement with the Government of India with the object of finding a solution. If it does not turn out the success we expect then we can introduce legislation to solve the problem. I think the hon. members for Natal would act very sensibly if they honestly help us to make a success of the agreement.

It does not often happen that I find myself in agreement with any proposal of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in regard to the immigration law. I have always contended since 1913, when the Immigration Act came into existence, that it is an undoubted anomaly that there should be these provincial boundaries, and they not only apply Asiatics, but in theory they apply to the European too. You have got the Union and yet each province is a self-contained country, as far as the immigration laws are concerned. It seems to me that so long as we are a Union there should be every opportunity to all citizens within the Union to stay in or migrate from one part to any other part, whether they be Europeans or non-Europeans. I do feel that now, 17 years after Union, some provision should be made whereby citizens, whoever they may be, can pass from part to another part. To call this a Union and have four separate countries for immigration purposes is, I think, a grave anomaly.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that this amendment is entirely logical. It is one of the logical consequences of Union. I will go further and say that if this amendment could be carried out it would to a certain extent ease the pressure that now exists in Natal, but the hon. member must recognize and every hon. member must recognize that public opinion in the several provinces is dead against this, and there is no hope of its being carried at the present time. I think it is really quite useless to move an amendment like this until public opinion is far more ready for it, if it ever going to be ready for it, than it is now. I do not think there is any hope of that amendment being received with favour in any province outside Natal. However logical it may be, public opinion is not ready for it yet. I think it is hopeless to attempt to put that forward in this Bill.

I should just like the Minister to give us an indication of what he considers will be the result of his policy. He announces himself as being entirely opposed to my amendment. What, then, is going to be the effect upon Natal? If we are to wait upon public opinion, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) suggests, we may have to wait a very long time, and in the meantime what is going to be the position of Natal if the Indians are to be allowed to acquire land without restriction, and to quote the words of the Minister’s Indian agreement, they are to be “uplifted to the fullest extent of their capacities and opportunities,” as part of the permanent population of the Union? What is going to be the effect upon Natal? If he has any solution to our difficulty, it might reconcile us to the defeat of our amendment.

I can give that reply, and I hope it will satisfy the hon. member. The salvation of Natal lies in the agreement, and in co-operation to make it a success. The outlet for the Indians of Natal is not in the direction of the Transvaal or the Cape or the Free State, but overseas. The Indian agreement is not yet in full operation. That is to say, the arrangements made by the Government of India to co-operate with us on the other side are not completed yet, and the representative of the Government of India is only arriving one of these days, and on our side, too, the machinery is only just put into proper order. We appointed a commissioner for Asiatic affairs, to occupy himself with the carrying out of the agreement and with Asiatic affairs generally. The only part of the agreement that has been brought into operation is the increase of the bonus. That has been brought into operation not from the beginning of the year, but only from late in February. The results so far are very satisfactory. We can compare them with last year. Last year was, generally speaking, a very satisfactory year as far as the repatriation of Indians was concerned. From January to June we repatriated last year 777 Indians. This year from January to June, the same period, even with the agreement only in partial operation, we repatriated 1,177.

They are the wrong class of Indians.

Wait and see. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has got all the information with regard to that to be able to tell the House they are the wrong class. The number of those going is almost double, and I foresee within a very short time, a very much larger number of Indians will leave the country under our assisted repatriation scheme. So I think I am justified in saying that the salvation of Natal lies in a full and cordial cooperation in the agreement.

The first of the amendments proposed by Mr. Marwick put and agreed to, remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Cause 4,

According to the wording of that sub-section, it applies to persons brought into the Union within three years of birth.

I think the reading of the hon. member of this section is wrong. This particular point was laid before me by the Indian deputation, and when it was explained, they were quite satisfied. It does not interfere with the working of 4 (f) of the Act of 1913, which remains as it is.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

I would like to raise on this the question I raised on the second reading—whether the Minister would not put in some words which would prevent the question of the genuineness of a certificate being gone into, after a certain lapse of time.

I dealt with that. I stated that the matter could be dealt with administratively. I think the hon. gentleman, in similar circumstances, dealt with it administratively. I have had representations with regard to that matter from the Indian community, and I told the House last night that I was willing to consider that request from the Transvaal. I ran give no definite reply at this stage, for if I comply with the request I must make sure of the stopping altogether of the illicit entry of Indians into the country and of the co-operation to that end of the Indian community. There are organizations in South Africa and India for introducing Indians illicitly into the Union, and we can prevent that only if we have the hearty co-operation of the Indian community in South Africa. There is every hope of securing that co-operation, and I am negotiating with the Indians in regard to the matter.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

Both the amendments are a considerable improvement. I would just like to mention one or two points. Supposing a woman divorces her husband abroad owing to misconduct on his part, she will not be able to come back and surely the Minister does not intend a woman in such a case cannot get back to her own country.

The point has been laid before me and I pointed out under the Act the Minister has very wide discretion and would be reasonable in such a case and would allow the woman to come back. Generally, the deputation was satisfied that the position was covered.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

Before we go to the next order, I think the Prime Minister might have a little mercy on us now. We have got through a lot of work to-day, and the only thing on the paper now—

Take the next order It is only a little one.

If we do take the next order I suggest that we do not meet to-morrow, because there is nothing else on the paper that the Government intends to go on with.

Oh no, Parliament will always find something to do.

The House sat until an early hour this morning, and the machine will break if we go on at this rate. I suggest that the Prime Minister should allow us to adjourn now.

I understood the Minister intended to move an amendment to this Clause, but apparently it is not his intention to do so. I move—

This is a concise and effective clause, which, I think, is an improvement on the proviso in the Bill, which only makes provision for Asiatics who are introduced into the northern districts for employment, being compelled to depart therefrom on the expiration of their contracts the word introduced being objected to as being open to the interpretation that it does not include Asiatics who may have entered the northern districts on their own initiative as distinguished from those who, having been engaged outside the northern districts for employment therein, have been introduced by the persons employing them. The proviso in the Bill would meet my objection if the Minister would agree to a small amendment thereof that is to omit the word “introduced” in line 24, and substitute “who”, and after the word “time” in the same line to insert “entered”. A great deal might be found to turn on the word “introduced”, the use of which might have the effect of defeating the object and intention of the Bill. My amendment, which is couched in simple and effective language, seems to me more preferable, and I would ask the Minister to seriously consider its acceptance.

I have given a good deal of consideration to this particular clause, and discussed it with representatives of these northern districts. I have pointed out that the proposed amendment is not acceptable because it gives rise to a good deal of possible hardship. There might be a number of Indians who were actually born in these northern districts, and because they are not engaged in trade or any occupation of their own, but are employed in domestic service, for instance, they will be compelled to leave these northern districts, which would be a distinct hardship I do not think we are justified in enacting legislation of that nature. For that reason, I think this is too wide, and we cannot accept it. The hon. gentleman has suggested some other amendment to this, but that is wider still. Instead of using the word “introduce", he wants “enter at any time.’ That practically includes all the Indians of those northern districts.

No, no; they enter for contract of service.

They also enter in their own right because no law debarred them from going in and settling there. Under those circumstances both amendments are unsatisfactory, and, after all, the Bill as it stands is the more satisfactory. The hon. member evidently forgets that the great majority of Indians in those northern districts would not, under the Bill we have just dealt with—the Indian Immigration Bill—be domiciled in those northern districts, because to be domiciled you must have permanently lived there for at least three years.

I can see the force of what the Minister says in regard to Indians born in the northern districts, but what of those who have entered those districts on their own initiative, and are engaged in domestic service for example? Some safeguard should be provided which will prevent those Indians being entitled to registration.

It is just a question of whether they are domiciled or not. If they are domiciled you can do nothing; if they are not domiciled they must go.

If for more than three years, they are entitled to registration?

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

It is now a quarter to eleven Will the Minister agree to report progress? There is really no necessity to keep us sitting here so late to-night, seeing that some of us got to bed only at four o’clock this morning.

On Clause 3,

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

Clause 4 put and negatived.

New Clause 4,

I move—

1. 4. (1) As soon as possible after the receipt of any application made under Section 3 the registrar shall publish in the “Gazette a notice giving the full name of the applicant, the place where he resides, the places where he carries on business, if any the trade or occupation of the applicant and such further particulars as the Minister may by regulation prescribe.
2. (2) Any person may within one month after the publication of such notice make representations to the registrar with regard to any such applicant.
3. (3) The representations shall be in the form of an affidavit.
4. (4) The contents of an affidavit filed with the registrar in pursuance of this section shall not be disclosed to any person other than for the purpose of legal proceedings for any false statement made in the affidavit.
5. (5) As soon as one month has elapsed after the publication of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) the registrar shall consider every application for registration made under Section 3, and if he is satisfied that the applicant is lawfully entitled to registration under this Act he shall publish in the “Gazette” a notice that he intends to issue to such applicant a certificate of registration.
6. (6) Within fourteen days after the publication of the notice referred to in sub-section (5), any person who has made representations under sub-section (3) may note an appeal by letter addressed to the registrar against the decision of the registrar and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such appeal.
7. (7) If no such appeal has been noted or if such appeal having been noted it has been dismissed the registrar shall issue to the applicant a certificate of registration.

I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) with the exception of sub-section (4).

I will withdraw subsection (4).

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

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

Clause 13 put and negatived.

New Clause 13,

I move—

It is giving the Minister the same discretion as he has with respect to all other parts of South Africa. It brings this into line with the general discretion of the Minister with regard to the immigration of Indians and inter-provincial migration.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.