I move—

The measure amends the law relating to customs practice as the result of the convention recently entered into between the province of Mozambique and the Union. The convention came into force immediately, except as regards two articles which were to come into force after ratification of the convention. These articles relate to customs, the most-favoured-nation treatment being accorded to the province of Mozambique. In other words, that article will fall under the provisions of our Customs Act of 1925, and in that case the approval of both Houses of Parliament is required by resolution. Seeing that so far as the amendment to the Customs Act is concerned, we have to have an Act of Parliament, we have also included the ratification, which merely requires a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. These articles are 45 and 51 of the Convention. Article 46 of the Convention also deals with customs matters. It provides for the free reciprocal importation into the Union and also into Mozambique of certain products of the soil of the respective countries, and also certain articles of manufacture, but that article does not require parliamentary approval, because it is in terms of Section (10) of our Customs Act which enables the Government to enter into such an agreement with a country contiguous to the Union. Consequently this does not require any further legal sanction, and, therefore, only the other two articles, 45 and 51 remain. Section (1) of the Bill lays down that the duties, so far as importations from Lourenco Marques into the Union are concerned, shall be computed on the values in the country whence exported to Lourenco Marques, but the values shall be those values obtaining at the time of exportation into the Union. Hon. members will see the necessity for this. If we do not make this provision, importers importing through Lourenco Marques will be put to a disadvantage compared with imports through Union ports because these goods can be stored in warehouses for some time at Lourenco Marques and when they are ultimately imported into the Union, as our legislation now stands, the values would have to be computed on the values obtaining in Lourenco Marques, and they would, therefore, include freight and other charges. Clause (2) merely deals with adopting most-favoured-nation treatment to the products of Mozambique. That will fall within the provisions of the Customs Act of 1925, and would require merely a resolution of both Houses, but, seeing we have to bring a Bill forward to amend the Act, so far as Clause (1) is concerned, I have included that also.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has had representations from the Portuguese authorities asking that the Government should put them on the same favourable terms as those on which it is proposed to place Germany.

I should like to ask the Minister under what clause is the ratification of the agreement by Parliament required.

The reply to the question of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) is no. The point to which he refers formed the subject of discussion when the convention was negotiated, and the convention in its present form was deliberately entered into in this way. In reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), the relative section is 57 of the convention.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

When is it proposed to ratify the convention?

These are the only legal steps required to bring the convention into force. Hon. members can discuss any of these provisions on the usual financial measures. I do not propose to bring forward a motion to approve of the convention.

Has it not been done in the past?

It has been our invariable practice to bring these agreements before Parliament. This very Mozambique convention of 1909 was brought before Parliament, in the old. Transvaal House, and this is the one which is now replaced by the present agreement. Since then it has been the invariable practice, whenever we had a treaty or agreement with this country, to bring it before the Legislature. This new practice of the Government is reactionary, and hon. members opposite will one day be caught in their own net; some day they will find that others will follow their example, and they will deeply resent it. It is they themselves who have set a new precedent. Why should they flout Parliament? Here is a convention which profoundly and vitally affects the economic interests of parts of South Africa. This convention is looked upon, for good or evil, as a matter of extreme gravity in the Transvaal. Now the Government takes up this attitude and shelters itself behind the prerogative of the Crown. The Government is making a great mistake, and is flouting public opinion and the constitutional practice which has obtained. I think the day will come when they will rue the practice they are now establishing. I can only protest against the departure which the Government is making. If it were a matter which did not affect the country in a special way, as for instance, the Kellogg treaty, I could understand it, but there is no doubt that the Mozambique convention does affect the trade, economics and industry of the country in a vital way. We are not to have an opportunity of discussing a matter which has been discussed ad nauseam in public. The Government ignore, and seem to have a contempt for, Parliament. For the other House they have an unmitigated contempt. If this is going to be the practice, the country and we all can come only to the conclusion that the Government are showing contempt for this House. It is a great mistake. I should have thought that a Government which poses as being democratic and as resting on the will of the people, would take extra precaution to consult this House on a matter like this. What the Government do not hear in this House they will hear outside. If public opinion cannot find a proper outlet in this House they will find it outside.

Nobody is preventing you from discussing it; you can move to reject it.

We have no opportunity of doing so. There is not a minute of the time of the House of which the Government have not taken control. If we are to have an opportunity the Government should set it down by way of motion, which I advise, and we can discuss it then.

This is again the usual loose way in which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) entertains the House. Let us just look at the matter. In the first place, according to the hon. member, it is a departure from established practice. I asked him to mention a case where another Government followed a different practice, and all he could do was to mention one in 1909, that is, before the establishment of Union. Notwithstanding this, he repeats that it is a departure from the established and existing practice. We see at once that there was no such practice, and that, therefore, there can be no departure from it. Then the hon. member says that we are hiding behind the prerogative of the Crown. No, we are only going to work in the customary manner. That is, in the case of administrative matters like this agreement, the Government and the Government alone is responsible. We must take the responsibility, and if that does not suit the Opposition in any way, then the Opposition has, at any time, the right to call the Government to account. Now the hon. member says that he has no opportunity. Well, I will prove that he has. He can move a resolution to reject the agreement, and I will go so far as to give him precedence for the motion over all other work. We have here to do with one of those irresponsible statements behind which there is no seriousness. The hon. member says that he has no opportunity, but I am now giving it to him, so let him introduce his motion. But when the financial measures are on, and the Bills which still have to be introduced are discussed, he will have a full opportunity of criticizing. I only hope that the hon. member will make his criticisms in this House that he wants to make outside, so that I can answer them here at once. He need not be afraid that there will be no reply if he makes them in the country, but it is always so difficult to know what he says outside, because at one place he says one thing and at another place something else. If he were in earnest he would accept my offer either to discuss the matter when the financial Bills come before the House, or, if he wants it to be rejected, let him introduce a special motion. I will give him every opportunity of debating it.

Surely it seems necessary to bring this before the House. It is to the interest of the Government itself. The Minister of Finance will recollect very well that I have seen him with a deputation on the one point. There is also the question of the number of natives which are to go to the gold mines. Is it not far better, in the interest of the Government themselves, to bring it before the House. I was very well satisfied with the explanation offered by the Minister of Finance in reply to the deputation which waited upon him, but I certainly think the matter should be discussed.

I cannot understand the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister. He apparently throws the onus on the Opposition. He is forcing us to take up the attitude that we must either swallow this treaty as a whole or reject it. It is surely for the Government, having entered into an important commercial treaty of this kind, to bring it before Parliament and ask Parliament to concur in what they have done. Under the old arrangement by which natives were repatriated to Portuguese territory, they were allowed to take back all the belongings they had purchased in Johannesburg free of duty. But I cannot go into the details of the treaty; I am merely formulating one of the points we would like to have discussed. That arrangement has disappeared, and we would like to have an opportunity of discussing it. Then there is the question of the deferred pay. The Government might say: “We had to agree to these things and make the best bargain we could under the circumstances.” For the Prime Minister to say that in the course of a financial Bill we can raise this matter is quite beside the point. What we want is an ad hoc discussion on particular matters. You cannot get that coherent discussion if you had a motion dealing with one particular point. Only one Minister would be able to speak, and you would not get that frank discussion which you would have if a formal motion was put down. The House adjourned on Monday a little after 3 o’clock, and we shall probably not sit at night, but suddenly the Government has the excuse that they are busy with other matters, and that there is no time for discussing this matter. That means either that they do not wish to face criticism, or else that they are inclined to treat this particular Assembly with contempt. We on this side of the House represent all the commercial and mining people in South Africa. [Interruption.] I do not see a single commercial man on the benches opposite, and surely our views on a commercial and mining treaty such as this would be of the greatest value to the Government. In the Ministry there is not one man with business experience, and yet the Government is trying to bind the country to a treaty which in many ways is most irksome. Many will tell you that the Portuguese have secured the thick end of the stick, and that we have an exceedingly thin end.

I think that part of the country which I represent will be very greatly disappointed that there is to be no discussion on this matter. There is a very strong feeling about it, and it was fully expected that there would be an opportunity for discussion.

In my opinion there is very little doubt that the Portuguese have made rings round the Minister. The commercial community on the Rand alone lose something like one and a half million per annum owing to this treaty. The Prime Minister says: “Bring a motion against it.” We are not necessarily against it, but we want to know something more about it. This is a most burning topic that has been exercising the minds of the farming community. It has already resulted in a very serious shortage of native labour. It is an extraordinary thing simply to throw this treaty on the Table and not allow us to discuss it. I think the Government are afraid to face it because the Portuguese have had the best of the bargain. I hope that the Government will realize that that is not the way to run things in a democratic country.

It is really extraordinary to hear hon. members opposite. The Prime Minister has given them an opportunity of moving a substantive motion.

Something for nothing.

I thought it was a most valuable concession. The Prime Minister states the position accurately when he says that all this opposition is pure bluff with a view to the election. The party opposite has no real desire to discuss the matter.

Is the hon. the Minister in order in describing a speech by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as “pure bluff,” implying that the speech was not sincere.

It would be better if the hon. the Minister refrained from using such an expression.

Of course I bow to your ruling, sir, but the public outside will read what the right hon. gentleman said, and what the Prime Minister said, and will be able to form their own conclusions. I want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who has said that there is dissatisfaction with the treaty, that I would like to know where it exists. Does it exist with the mining industry? The representative of the mining industry was associated with the Minister of Mines and Industries in the conclusion of the final agreement in Pretoria. The hon. member opposite is much concerned about the citizens of the low veld. Now that the citizens of Port Elizabeth have intimated that the hon. member is no longer a persona grata with them, of course the hon. member is now very much concerned with the low veld. He will be concerned with the low veld until the citizens tell him he is not wanted there, and then he will be concerned about people and interests elsewhere. The hon. member knows perfectly well that this agreement protects the interests of the whole of the country, including that of the low veld. Did the hon. member wish the negotiations to be conducted as his leader conducted them on many occasions when he failed? Let the hon. member tell the House how the interests he referred to are not protected. I can assure the House that the feeling engendered between the Union and the Portuguese authorities by the methods adopted by the leader of the Opposition were such that the whole of our relations were at first beset with difficulty and suspicion. Those are the facts.

They outmanoeuvred you.

It is very easy to say that the Minister concerned was outmanoeuvred, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. For the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) to say that he is not concerned with the mining aspect of the matter, but very much dissatisfied with the agreement because of the manner in which the railway aspect has been dealt with shows that he does not recognize that the Government was under an obligation to face the whole position. We had to consider the interests of the whole of the country, not only special interests.

Open the flood-gates!

I know there are certain hon. members who would open the flood-gates.

You want to close them.

We have not closed the gates. We have agreed to allow a certain number of Portuguese natives into the country. Those members who are in favour of opening the gates know quite well that there are a number of hon. members on their side of the House who do not share that view. We found such a condition of affairs that it required great tact to restore a feeling of confidence. Once that feeling of confidence was restored, a satisfactory agreement was concluded. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) said that the mining industry was not consulted. Let me assure the House that the mining industry was consulted. Who does the hon. member say that we should have consulted?

The farmers.

The interests of the farmers are safe in the hands of the Government. We knew what the position demanded. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) says that the interests of the farmers are not protected. Let him move a motion, and say where the interests of the farmers are not protected. Hon. members are on the run all the time. They have been running during the last few weeks, and it is time that they now made a stand. I think the House will agree that under all the circumstances, the country has no reason to be dissatisfied with the agreement. After the preliminary negotiations were concluded, the Chamber of Mines had every opportunity of intimating to the Government that they were not satisfied with the preliminary basis of the agreement. I personally have no doubt that they are satisfied. If they were not satisfied with the preliminary basis, why did they not object?

The Minister who has just spoken is an expert in the tactics of covering a retreat with a loud discharge of artillery. The Minister has with a great deal of success managed to obscure the issue raised by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The right hon. member did not raise the question of the goodness or badness of the treaty, but the question whether this House should not be consulted where treaties are entered into by the Government of far-reaching importance. How many interests are affected by this treaty —the mining industry, commercial interests and the farmers and other employers of labour. All these interests are touched to an important extent by this treaty, and the Government concluded it, and say it is a mere administrative act; there is no reason why it should be brought before Parliament. My contention is that that is an entirely wrong view of the relations between the Government and Parliament.

What is your contention?

My contention is that while the Government is no doubt constitutional in pressing for a right to conclude treaties, without the consent of Parliament, yet, as a matter of practice, they ought to recognize the obligation to bring these things before Parliament. Parliament is not here merely to pass laws. Parliament is not merely a legislative body. The most important function of Parliament is not to pass laws, but to bring to bear the voice and the feeling of the people.

Has this treaty to stand over all the time?

No, we do not say that the application of the agreement should necessarily have been delayed in order that Parliament should be consulted, but Parliament is not here merely to register the decision of the Government or to do what Government wishes it to do.

You want us to make it a registering machine.

The Government should have brought the convention before Parliament, for the convention affects, directly or indirectly, very many interests. It is useless for Government to attempt to draw red herrings across the trail.

What conclusion would anyone who is not a member of the House come to in regard to the procedure the Government is adopting on this occasion? The only possible conclusion would be that Government is afraid to debate the matter. The Convention was published in a Government “Gazette” Extraordinary on September 17th, 1928, and we are now told that we can move its rejection if we do not like it. But that is not the way to run the country’s business. Is it not the Government’s duty to give everybody an opportunity of considering the convention? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has pointed out that there is a very strong feeling against the document. Surely the people who entertain these feelings should be given an opportunity of placing their views before the House. The Minister may have discussed the matter with the mines, but I am not sure that the mines expressed their approval of the convention. Trading facilities, so far as the Union is concerned, are considerably curtailed by this agreement. One would imagine that there is something at the back of all this. The Act of Union lays it down definitely that where there is a difference between the English and the Dutch versions of an Act of Parliament, the Act which is signed by the Governor-General shall prevail. Well, this convention is printed in three languages—English, Dutch and Portuguese. In the event of a difference of opinion arising, which version is to be considered the deciding one? The Government would have done the right thing if this House had been taken into its confidence and if the Government had given the whole country an opportunity of going into the matter carefully.

I wish to raise my voice against the House being refused a continuance of the privileges which it has possessed in the past. We seem to be getting very autocratic now-a-days, so much so that I fail to see the use of Parliament at all. If the people’s voice cannot be heard on a vital matter like this, there is very little use in members attending Parliament. Article (3) of the convention provides that the number of Portuguese natives employed in the mines on May 16th, 1928, shall be reduced to a maximum complement of 80,000 within the five succeeding years from the date of the convention, the number to be reduced to 95,000 in 1930; and by annual reductions of 5,000 each until 1933. The Government is thus pursuing a policy of reducing the number of Portuguese natives employed on the mines without being able to replace them, except by taking them from the farms. Recently the Chief Commissioner of Native Affairs toured Natal holding meetings, at which he told the farmers that his instructions were to see that more labourers were to be provided for the mines. Thus the farmers are to make up the deficiency of labour created by the Government itself. This is a nice state of things if the farming industry of this country is to be restricted in its operations. It seems to me the farmers ought to have been consulted before such steps were taken. In the treaty only the mines have been considered, arid it is well known that natives have come over Portuguese territory for years past to work on adjacent farms, and no one knows it better than the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Finance. I believe they both have farms in the neighbourhood of the Portuguese boundary. They know that a number of farmers adjacent to Portuguese territory get natives from over the border. Under this treaty every native not actually recruited for the mines has to be sent back to Portuguese East Africa, and, therefore, a considerable amount of work performed on the farms by this Portuguese native labour will not be performed at all. Who is going to take the place of these natives? I say before this treaty was entered into, the farmers ought to have been consulted, and should have had an opportunity of discussing a matter of such vital importance.

This question is of the gravest possible constitutional importance. When the Kellogg treaty was passed in this Assembly, and not presented to the other House, some of us felt considerable surprise. When the German treaty suffered the same fate, not only were we surprised, but we expressed our indignation. Now we come to the culmination in the withholding from this House of a proper discussion of the Mozambique treaty. I want to put a plain question to the Prime Minister. I want him to tell us exactly what transpired at the Imperial Conference of 1926, and that of 1923, on this question of the right of a Government to frame a treaty and to pass that treaty into law without submitting it to Parliament. If I remember rightly, it was laid down in 1923 that, whereas a Government had the right of entering into a treaty of a purely administrative nature, if what was proposed by the treaty was of a legislative nature in that case the treaty had to be submitted to Parliament. That is my recollection of what was said by Mr. Baldwin in 1926 and also in 1923, when this question of the right of the dominions to negotiate treaties with foreign nations was discussed. I begin to become more than nervous at the attitude of the present Government in connection with these treaties. There is only one construction to be placed on this matter, and that, I feel, is that, because the Government know they have done wrong in withholding the German treaty from the Senate, they are now trying to justify their position by taking a similar action in connection with this Mozambique treaty. I raise a grave protest against the statement of the Prime Minister that he is entitled to enter into a form of treaty of any description, however important, whether dealing with purely administrative matters or with matters of legislation, and that he and his Cabinet have the right to decide whether they will submit that treaty for the consideration of Parliament. If that is truly the position as laid down by the Imperial Conference, then some Britishers will begin to doubt whether there is anything left of this great empire of which we are all so proud. I cannot believe for one second that that is the doctrine laid down by the Imperial conference. My recollection, speaking from memory, is that while the right was acknowledged of a Government to pass treaties of an administrative nature, those partaking of a legislative nature would have to be submitted to Parliament.

The Minister of Railways, in his speech, said that the farmers would not be affected, and therefore they were not consulted.

I never said that.

That was what I understood. The Minister asked us to say in what way they would be affected. The result of this treaty has been that the Prime Minister has given instructions to the Chief Native Commissioner of Natal to comb Natal with the object of opening up areas for the recruitment of natives for the mines. Take the effect on the wattle industry, for instance. Practically none of the labour used in this industry is ordinary farm labour. It is practically all obtained from locations in native areas. The result of the Prime Minister’s action is going to have a very serious effect upon the wattle industry and also the sugar industry. The wattle industry supplies the railways with 400,000 tons a year of material for the railways to carry. If the wattle farmers have to come into competition with the mines so far as labour is concerned, it is going to affect them, and also the sugar industry, very materially in Natal. The opening up of further areas for recruitment for the mines is a matter which the farmers in Natal regard with serious misgiving. There is a tremendous agitation against it right throughout Natal. The Minister of Railways and Harbours will realize that the ordinary farmer cannot compete with the mining industry and pay on the farms the same wage as the mining industry pays. The Government should have allowed the agreement to be discussed in this House, so that the whole matter could have been gone into and particularly as affecting the further development of farming in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said in his speech here that we on this side represent the interests of the mines and the traders. According to him we protect the commercial side. His whole argument was to show that this side of the House does not protect the farmers’ interests. How is it that he so suddenly takes up the cudgels for the farmers?

What do you know about farming?

The hon. member will never learn what I have already forgotten. It is strange that on a motion for the second reading of the Bill, when the principle has not yet been adopted, the whole Opposition sit without speaking a word. They allow the second reading to pass, and do not think about farmers or traders’ interests. When the second reading is passed the principle of the Bill is adopted. But now we come to the third reading, and the leader of the Opposition suddenly wakes up. Now they come at the eleventh hour and, as the Minister of Railways said, we must ask if they are actually in earnest. It seems to me that they are not all in earnest. My idea is that the whole thing is artificial. It seems to be merely election talk, and we are beginning to think that they merely want to waste the time of the House. If they are not awake at the proper time then they have missed their vocation as an Opposition.

The original complaint. I take it, was the action of the Government in not submitting this treaty for approval by the House. I think that was a very simple issue—the duty of this Government towards Parliament—and I thought that was an issue we could determine ourselves; but it was very amusing to hear the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) suddenly discovering in the action of the Government that the whole British empire was in danger. No, this is one of these attempts to stir up feeling, and does the hon. member really think that an argument of this nature in a discussion like this is really helping to promote better feeling between the various races of this country—dragging the British empire in in a question of the duty of the Government towards Parliament? We have heard the complaint that not a sufficient opportunity was given for discussing this treaty. I think, Mr. Speaker, you have allowed a fairly wide discussion of the treaty on this Bill. If the opportunity was insufficient, that is completely covered by the offer of the Prime Minister to give the House an opportunity of raising the direct issue. We have heard that every section of the community is dissatisfied with this treaty; we heard from the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) the other day that the mines are dissatisfied; the merchants of Port Elizabeth, of course, are dissatisfied; traders of Johannesburg and farmers are dissatisfied, and most wonderful of all, the sugar farmers of Natal are dissatisfied. Well, there was an alternative, of course; and what was it? No treaty at all. That is the issue; and what would have been the position of South Africa under those circumstances? The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) talks about the shortage of farm labour as the result of this treaty. Just imagine, when he knows that before this treaty was negotiated, there was an actual decree which had to come into force on my hon. friend not negotiating the treaty under which every native would have been stopped from coming into the Union from Portuguese East Africa, except those who came in clandestinely.

They would not have cut off their nose to spite their face.

I am sure of one thing, and that is that if no treaty had been entered into, and we had allowed things to develop, we would not have been without a remedy; we would also have a remedy, but both Mozambique and the Union would have been ruined as the result of the fight that would have been entered into. I do not think the mining industry would have thanked us if we had adopted the policy of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and made it impossible to come to an arrangement. No, we entered into the treaty, and had to make the best of the situation as we found it, and all the time we had before us chiefly what the interests of the mining industry required, and through that industry what the interests of South Africa required. The traders of Johannesburg are squealing now because they think they will have a little less trade. What would have been the economic consequences to South Africa and to the trade of Johannesburg if the mines had to go without labour? And then the sugar people complain! We have the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) speaking in Natal and discussing this treaty, talking of that “stupid Government.” Well, I think if the interests of anybody were protected in this treaty, they were the interests of the sugar industry in Natal. One of the most difficult points we had to deal with and study in the final settlement was whether we were to have Mozambique sugar. Of course I saw the complaints of the mercantile community of Port Elizabeth and what the Chamber of Commerce said. They condemned the treaty on account of the railway arrangements; fancy the Government entering into a treaty and using the railways of Mozambique instead of solely using Union ports! We did not look solely to the interests of Port Elizabeth, we also had to consider the interests of the commercial people of the Eastern Transvaal and the interests of the whole of the country. We had to face the one fact—whether there should be no treaty at all. We had not only to protect the interests of Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg, but we had to face the issue that if the decree came into force there would be no natives at all for the mines. That was the point. In these days I do not hear any expression of opinion that the Government should take any steps to make such an arrangement. We have protected every part of the community as far as possible. Let me point out that if there is a debate on a motion laying down once and for all that the Government should not have the right to conclude a treaty of this nature, unless Parliament has first approved, then Parliament will have to pay the penalty. What was the position here? We found that we had to come to an agreement on points which were to come into operation at once. If we had not come to an arrangement there would be no natives coming in at all. If the views held by hon. members opposite had been followed, it would have meant that there would have been no agreement until we had consulted Parliament. That would have been an impossible position. We agreed to all matters of an administrative nature.

Is the treaty in operation?

Yes, it came into operation because it dealt with matters which had to be settled at once. The main point was the introduction of natives for the gold mines, which had to come automatically to a stop. We are only asking Parliament to agree to those provisions of the treaty which require its approval. We are bound to take the treaty, which will be in exactly the same position as any other contract which the Government has entered into.

Then we cannot help ourselves?

Yes, the treaty is in force. Unless we can be allowed to continue on that course, and enter into arrangements of this nature, it is the duty of Parliament to lay down specifically that the Government shall not be entitled to enter into any treaty before it has been approved by Parliament. I do not know that this House is prepared to go to that length, and I do not think that the Government would be prepared to support such a course.

I move—

Hon. members will no doubt remember that the Agricultural Holdings (Transvaal) Registration Act, 1919 (Act 22 of 1919) was passed in consequence of the judgment in the Geldenhuys Estate case, in which it was held that any subdivision of an area of land into portions exceeding 15 in number traversed or intersected by, or abutting on, roads or streets constituted a township within the meaning of the definition in the Townships Act, No. 33 of 1907, irrespective of the areas of such portions or the purposes for which they were used. Under the 1919 Act the Minister of Lands can, acting on the recommendation of the board constituted under the Act, which comprises the Townships Board, plus the Secretary for Lands and the Secretary for Agriculture, grant a certificate that an area of land divided into more than 15 lots for the purpose of forming agricultural holdings shall not be deemed to be a township within the meaning of the Townships Act. The statutory effect of the granting of the certificate is to make the title of the land subject to the following conditions—

1. 1. No holding may be less than one morgen in extent.
2. 2. It must be used solely or mainly for the purpose of horticulture or agriculture, or for breeding or keeping domestic animals, poultry or bees.
3. 3. The lay-out of any small holding, as shown on the general plan, may not be varied except with approval of the board.
4. 4. No lot or portion thereof may be leased or disposed of without the approval of the board.
5. 5. No sub-division of a lot may be effected if such sub-division will render it unsuitable as an agricultural holding.

The board in recommending the grant of a certificate has the power to recommend additional conditions. Typical examples of conditions imposed by the board are—

1. 1. Not more than one residence with necessary outbuildings may be built on the holding, except with the approval of the board.
2. 2. No place of business or canteen, etc., may be opened or conducted on the holding without the approval of the board.
3. 3. The holding may not be transferred or leased, etc., to coloured persons or Asiatics and no coloured person, etc., other than domestic servants or farm labourers, shall reside on or occupy the holding.
4. 4. A right of way (as described in the relative condition) shall be granted to A.

Development in portions of the Transvaal, particularly in the vicinity of the larger towns, has been so rapid that some of the agricultural settlements established a few years back are now well within urban areas, and, in some instances, surrounded by townships erven. The position of these settlements is such that the land comprised within them constitute in effect portions of the surrounding townships, but the conditions upon which these settlements were established effectually bar the use of the land for any purpose other than that originally contemplated, thus preventing natural development. On other settlements in which no question of a township is involved, cases have arisen in which it is desired to obtain sites for school or church purposes, or where the plotholders have combined to acquire land on which to erect a recreation hall, co-operative store, packingsheds, etc., only to find their way blocked by the conditions under which the land in question was transferred or the settlement established. The difficulty seems to have been contemplated when the Act was drafted, as will be observed on reference to Section (6) of the Act which enables the Minister, on the recommendation of the board, to cancel the certificate in certain circumstances, but, unfortunately, the proviso to Section (6) renders the whole action nugatory, because it lays down that no cancellation of the certificate may be effected if the area concerned would, but for the provisions of Act 22 of 1919, constitute a township. It is obvious, however, that if the land had not been so divided there would have been no need for the Minister’s certificate under Section (1) of the Act. Moreover, there was no provision that on cancellation of a certificate the statutory conditions or the special conditions imposed on the recommendation of the board would lapse. The present Bill repeals Section (6) of 1919 Act, and enables the Minister, on the recommendation of the board, to cancel the certificate in respect of the whole area affected or portion thereof. The certificate may be cancelled unconditionally or subject to special conditions. On cancellation of the certificate the title of the land will cease to be subject to the statutory conditions, as I have explained, and it will no longer be subject to any of the special conditions imposed by the board, unless the Minister stipulates that some of these special conditions are to remain operative against the title. For instance, a condition in regard to a right of way may have been imposed, and it may be necessary to retain this condition, or it may be deemed advisable that the condition restricting occupation by coloured persons should remain. Under Section (3) of the 1919 Act, land set apart for educational or other public purposes had to be transferred to the Governor-General. Provision is made in subsection (4) of Clause 1 of this Bill for the retransfer of this land in the discretion of the Governor-General to the owner on cancellation of the certificate. This will, of course, only be done if the land is not actually required; for instance, a school may already have been erected thereon. It may in certain cases be desired to lay out a township on land in respect of which the certificate has been cancelled. Any application to lay out a township will, of course, be dealt with by the Townships Board and the Administrator of the province under the townships law, but it may be necessary in approving of the township to remove from the title of the land conditions imposed by the Minister on cancellation of the certificate or conditions, originally imposed by the board when the certificate was granted, which were retained on cancellation of the certificate. For example, a right of way, which was necessary before a township was laid out, may become unnecessary or require to be altered when it comes to the laying-out of a township. Power has, therefore, been given to the Administrator to cancel any of these conditions and substitute other conditions therefor. I may say that the draft Bill has been considered by the Townships Board and the Administrator, who are in entire agreement with the terms thereof.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I want to call attention to the last four words “and any other substance”. That seems to be very wide indeed. Do not you think that is going too far?

There is no amendment to this clause on the paper.

I can give the information to the hon. member that the deletion of these words was moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), but the House was against it.

I am sorry.

Omission of Clause 36, new Clause 37, and amendments in Clauses 37 to 42, put and agreed to.

On Clause 43,

Amendments in line 30 on page 44 put and agreed to.

On amendment in lines 31 and 32 on page 44,

I move—

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to an old saying, that you can drive a coach and four through Acts of Parliament, and this may happen with the one we are now dealing with. This Bill came before the House last year and went to a select committee. Amendments were moved by the Minister, who went through it very carefully, and yet to-day the Bill is once more amended by amendments which the Minister has thought fit to bring before the House. True they are not important, but it indicates carelessness. In a Bill which is to become an Act of Parliament the greatest care in drafting should be exercised. I do not blame the Minister, and I presume he is not responsible for all these amendments having to be moved, but I think he will agree with me that greater care and attention should be paid to the drafting. Legal men have to be very careful in the drafting of documents. Here is a Bill of 40 odd clauses, and any amount of amendments moved at the last stage. When the Bill was passing through committee, I moved two amendments which appeared to be small and unimportant, but the people who manufacture soap consider they are of great importance. The Minister could not say he had consulted the manufacturers, but I want to ask him to consult manufacturers and all interests interested in the manufacture of soap. I am referring to Clause 35, new Clause 36. I was requested to bring the matter before the committee by a fairly influential section of the community. The Minister mentioned a letter sent to me. Some people seem to think that there is a good deal of self-interest in that particular letter. Will the Minister be good enough to say that in respect of soap he will, as far as manufacturers and consumers at large are concerned, consult all the interests affected, so that before any regulations are issued, the matter will have been gone into fully and carefully.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendments. On general matters dealing with the Bill, he can speak on the motion for the third reading.

I just wish to say that I do not want to prolong the discussion.

I have given the House the assurance the other day, when this Bill was considered in committee of the whole House, that, as far as the department and I are concerned, we, in making the regulations, are keeping in touch with the trade, and I can now only repeat this assurance. As far as the drafting of this Bill is concerned, I do not think any complaint can be made, either as against myself as Minister or against the department. Hon. members must not forget that this Bill has been before a select committee and that these amendments which have passed the committee stage are not drafting amendments, but amendments as far as the subject is concerned. That accounts, I should say, for about 95 per cent, of the amendments. As far as the amendments moved by me to-day are concerned, they are merely drafting amendments introduced by the parliamentary draughtsman, who, I think, was not available to the select committee when they took their decisions.