announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged the Rev. Mr. Hattingh from service on the Select Committee on Miners’ Phthisis Acts Consolidation Bill and had appointed Mr. de Wet in his stead.

I move—

I think that it will probably be desirable that I should say a few words this afternoon on the reasons for this motion. As hon. members will remember, I mentioned a few days ago what measures the Government thought ought to be put through during this session. Now I think that the feeling of hon. members in the House is that we should try at the end of July to complete the business of the House. As for the Government, I will just say that we are of course called upon to sit as long as is necessary to do the necessary work, but I do not think that the business which is still before us will require more time than I have mentioned, and that we shall be able to close at the end of July, or early in August, The business which I mentioned here a few days ago is business which must be completed, and let me here add that it can be put through if we are prepared not to talk unnecessarily much in the House. It will therefore be necessary if hon. members want to get home in time that they, as regards the deliberations, will be as business-like as possible, and that no unnecessary discussion shall take place. With the object principally, I may say exclusively, of attaining this, I have introduced the motion now on the Order Paper. As business is now proceeding I must say I do not think that it would be possible to adjourn the session by the end of August, I will not here go into the manner in which the time of the House has been disposed of lately except to refer to what took place a few days ago upon the Wages Bill, and now again upon the Amendment Bill of the Act on mines and industries, and which has also occurred in the discussion on the estimates, namely, that hon. members knowing that the sittings close automatically at eleven o’clock, for a considerable time, sometimes hours, beforehand, make speeches here which actually—that is the impression which I and other members have got—are calculated to only last till eleven o’clock’ in order to obtain the automatic adjournment and then to be able to discuss the same subject again on the following day. If that is so then hon. members can well understand—and they have already appreciated it—that this amounts to a hindrance to the expedition of the business of the House, and that there can be no question that it is the duty of the Government to see to it that all possible steps are taken to prevent the wasting of time in this way, and not only the waste of time, but also as I will show later by a few words, that the dignity and authority of this House should thereby suffer. If this motion is accepted then we shall be in this position that if members wish they can in a certain way possibly go on to lengthen the discussion, but we shall also be in the position of letting them understand that if they talk long they will have to sit long, and if the time of the House is wasted by them they must make up the time. I must say that the discussion during the last few days has certainly not been particularly edifying. We know that some members opposite came here in the expectation of having “lots of fun.” Now I feel that if, after the acceptance of this motion, they want lots of fun they must look for it in another direction. I do not grudge them their fun. They can have as much fun as they want, but they must understand that it will happen in accordance with their duty as representatives of the people in the House and that it cannot be permitted to happen at the expense of the State and the people. Hon. members opposite who agree with me that the time of the House has recently been wasted will also agree with me that it is right that we should now adopt this additional measure. Then I want to point out what the result of this measure will be. In the first place it will prevent hon. members after nine o’clock sometimes, from making their speeches with the eye continuously on the clock, in order as has already been said, to get to the eleven o’clock automatic adjournment. But it will also be of great help in two other directions in the expediting of business. In the first place the position now is that when special notice is given that the adjournment will be applied that day, if the business specially mentioned in the motion does not get finished, then the business remains limited to the special matter and the consequence is that hon. members, although they feel that the business can be completed before eleven o’clock, are prepared to carry on the discussion till eleven o’clock and other business is not proceeded with. Now under the new proposal hon. members will be prevented in this way from wasting the time of the House, but there is another point of great importance, that often when the rule is applied hon. members opposite are inclined to take offence and to regard it as a kind of insult and instead of the business being expedited it is delayed, and through a certain amount of excitement of the mentality the object of such a measure is sometimes missed by applying it. For these two reasons it seems desirable for us to take this step, and we will therefore adjourn the discussion as late as the House thinks fit and when a resolution is passed not to sit any longer. Now I wish to say that it is in no way the intention of the Government to make it a rule in future for the rest of the session to have late sittings before or after midnight. The intention is that it shall be in the power of the House when it thinks that there has been unnecessary delay of business or when it thinks that by sitting a few minutes or half an hour longer the business can be expedited, the House can go on after eleven o’clock with the business in the circumstances. Let me say further, that it has repeatedly appeared that the House had talked out subjects, but that literally in view of the automatic adjournment the debate was continued to get to the adjournment and to go on with the discussion again the following day. I think that if hon. members are so unspontaneous in the House as to talk only when it is inevitable, it certainly is not desirable, to give an opportunity to ferret out if there is indeed anything that they can or should say further in connection with a subject. There must be no misunderstanding about this proposal and therefore I only wish to add that the impression should not exist by the adoption of this rule that any encroachment at all will be made upon the rights of the House and the power of the Government to apply the closure when it is required. I want this to be clearly understood and particularly because the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as Leader of the Opposition expressed his dissatisfaction at the application of the closure without, as he said, a preliminary warning. I said on that occasion that such a warning in individual cases would lead to the greatest abuse if the utmost amount of good feeling and fellowship did not exist on the part of the Opposition and that it was clear that in existing circumstances such a thing was impossible. I therefore want with a view to his complaint to take this opportunity of giving a general warning to hon. members of the House that the Government does not in the least intend to abstain from the use of the closure if necessary. The Government retains the right to if necessary apply the closure and to prevent time being wasted. I hope that hon. members will not take amiss the moving of this resolution and what I have said. The intention of the Government is to prevent the wasting of time. I think that ought to be sufficient for each of us to agree with what I say and to co-operate to expedite the business of the House in a proper way and everyone will also agree with me that when delay of the business has taken place and if the conviction exists that there has been obstruction, it leads, and has always led, to loss of the authority and dignity of the House. We cannot possibly go on showing by our conduct that we are not prepared to be serious concerning the progress of business of the country without encroaching upon the authority and dignity of the House. And the authority and dignity of the House will always stand in the closest connection with the authority and dignity that individual members by their conduct are able to enjoy with the public outside. Let me add to this that there can be no doubt that the feeling of the majority of members of this House is that the impression which is created to-day outside is that the business of the House is not progressing as it ought to do and that it has appeared more than once from the debates that the object was not to advance the business but to delay it. I therefore make an appeal to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other members of the Opposition to see that more help is given to the Government and this side of the House to advance matters than has been the case in the past. I only wish to say that it seems to me that a wrong impression exists among the Opposition, and it is that they do not sufficiently appreciate that they are in Opposition, that they do not sufficiently appreciate that the Government consists of men who stand for and must carry out a policy which is different to that which they stand for, or would have done if they had sat here, and it seems to me, e.g., that last night again a great deal of unnecessary discussion took place not actually about the section under discussion but about the general policy of the Government. I admit that the Opposition can of course not approve that general policy, but they must not think that we for that reason will give up our policy and adopt theirs. If an Opposition only places its policy over against that of the Government, then no progress can be made in the interests of the country and the people as should be the case, and then the Government must see that its policy is, nevertheless, carried on and that the policy as regards laws and administration is followed in the way which is most in the interest of the country and the people. Unless the Opposition are prepared to work in this direction we shall get no Opposition which will be of any the least value to the country. I say this not because I wish to reproach the Opposition, but because I want the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other members of the Opposition to be helpful in advancing the business of the House and not to grasp at methods which are calculated to prevent progress. I move the resolution.

seconded.

This is a most amazing speech we have just listened to from the Prime Minister. He wants more of the time of the House, and instead of asking us for that he makes a speech full of groundless charges, and reprimands and accusations against the members of these benches. He also tries to teach us a lesson how to conduct an Opposition, and he puts forward this amazing theory that we are not the Government, that the Government sits on the other benches, that the Government has a definite policy, and that we should help the Government to carry out that policy. If the Prime Minister thinks we are here to help the Government to carry out its policy he has entirely mistaken either the Opposition or the conception we have of our duties. We know what our duty is, and we hope to continue to discharge it as faithfully as possible. The motion which the Prime Minister has brought forward is entirely unprecedented. He talks about the dignity and authority of the House, but let me say this—that the Government is taking every step possible to reduce Parliament to a farce and to undermine the dignity and authority of Parliament in every way possible. We are threatened in other directions. The Prime Minister apparently does not think you, Mr. Speaker, have any discretion in the matter, and that you and the Chairman of Committees have anything to do with the application of the closure. Your dignity and authority are flouted, and the Prime Minister speaks as if the application of the closure was not a matter for Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, but is a Government measure. That shows the attitude of the Prime Minister. We are threatened in every direction—the closure, and now the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule, and under the latter we shall never know when we shall be able to retire at night. I admit this has been a very barren session—the most barren session I have seen so far. But who is to blame for that? Not we on these benches. We are—

that has ever been seen. Hon. members opposite have been saying all over the country that this is the weakest Opposition they have ever seen. The fact that the Government has been reduced to practical imbecility is not our act, but is their own doing. It is quite easy to see how that has been brought about. We have before us the most amazing list of Bills I have ever seen brought before any Parliament in this country. You have only to look at the Order Paper to see the list of measures we have to face, and it is not merely the number of them, but the contentious character of them. I have never known such a number of contentious measures brought forward by any Government in one session, and the Government is not serious about them. Spokesmen of the Government have repeatedly said that this programme is not to be passed, but to show what the Government could do, what the policy of the Government is, and we do not know what the legislative programme of the Government really is. We are working in the dark. We know we are confronted with an enormous list of contentious measures, but we do not know how far the Government is serious or not. If this has been a barren session, it is the fault of the Government in bringing such a hopeless undigested programme, and it is due to another step which I must mention, even if I stir the wrath of the Prime Minister, and that is the hopeless mismanagement of the Order Paper. Take the colour bar Bill, the Mines and Works Amendment Bill. We started in February, and this Bill has been off and on at intervals, like a serial story before the House, and every time the discussion begins anew. If this Bill had been put down and had been prosecuted to a conclusion, you would have had a continuous debate and the amount of time spent on it would have been small in comparison. The Government brings it forward, it is discussed, and a snag turns up. It is then shunted down, and we are put on other work, with the result that there has been an enormous waste of time, not only on this measure, but on other measures. The strain on hon. members, particularly on this side of the House, has been very great. I have watched for days now the empty benches of the other side. Day after day we have been discussing the most important measures, and I have watched the depleted state of the benches over there, whilst we have been discussing Bills which will bring about an economic revolution in South Africa. I saw very few members on those benches.

There were seven once.

There have been from half-a-dozen to fifteen, whilst most important measures were before the House.

They were in the card room and billiard room.

Hon. members on this side have carried on the discussion because the economic future of the country depends on the details of that Bill. Now the strain is going to be increased. We sit in the mornings on select committees, and have other necessary Parliamentary duties, we are here the whole afternoon, and every night until 11 o’clock, and now the Prime Minister threatens us with further night sittings. We are glad to hear him say that as a rule we shall not sit after midnight, but he tells us that we must not build hopes on that. How is the work of the House going to be done? Even if members are physically capable of standing the strain, what about the officials of the House? How is their work going to be done? They start quite early in the morning, getting the papers in order, and their work is continued all the day, and even then they are here after we have left. How are the officers going to conduct the business of the House? The staff cannot do the work. Take the press. I consider them to be an important part of the whole machine of government and legislation in this country. It is necessarily so. The hon. member smiles, because the hon. member has a great contempt for public opinion. The public of South Africa is profoundly concerned in these proceedings. We are not only speaking to the small public in the galleries, but the whole of South Africa is listening to the speeches in this House. Unless the proceedings are properly reported, the people of South Africa will not have a knowledge of what is being done here. How is it possible, with sittings all day, and more than half the night, how is it physically possible to conduct the business of the House with proper decorum and dignity and with the justice which is due to the public and everybody concerned? I hope the Prime Minister will make arrangements for the transport of members after 11 o’clock. Not only the staff of the House, but members live all over the Peninsula. How are they to get home? Are they to walk after midnight? I hope the Prime Minister will do some real staff work. Having given orders to the House, let his staff work out proper arrangements, otherwise most members will not be able to reach home, and he will have to provide accommodation in the House so that they can sleep here. The Prime Minister has assured us there has been no obstruction in the House. The Prime Minister said so himself, and there has never been obstruction, but we have had to deal with important measures, and they have had to be discussed. The Minister of Labour, at a meeting the other night, said he knew all about it. “Set a thief to catch a thief.” He knew about the methods of prolonging debates and wasting the time of the House. He was speaking for himself, but let me say, I do not think, as the Prime Minister has admitted, that any charge can be made against us that there has been undue protraction or delay from this side of the House. If the hon. Minister is, metaphorically speaking, a thief, he has learned very bad habits. The other night he moved the closure on a clause of a Bill which will have a far-reaching effect in the country, Clause 3 of the Bill which dealt with an important aspect of the civilizing standard. I waited for one phase of the debate to reach a conclusion, so that we could discuss it further. The Minister was in a huff, and closured the debate. I was not going to continue the debate under those circumstances. I know what is due to the authority and the dignity of the House. The petulance of the Minister was unworthy of the House, and of the position he occupies.

I am looking after the thieves.

The hon. member need not think we are guilty of wasting the time of the House in the same way as he did when we were in office. The Prime Minister may take it from me that we are not obstructing, nor are we going to obstruct. We are all getting very tired of this enormously lengthy session, and so far as lies in our power we shall give the Government all the facilities we can with due regard to the proper discussion of measures. The business of the House has been so arranged that with the best will in the world a great deal of time will necessarily be spent. The financial measures and policy brought forward by the Government this session, are sufficient to occupy the whole time of the session, yet so far we have had nothing but the Budget discussion. Seven or eight Bills are to come, and they are of a character that will remodel the fiscal custom of the country, and they will have to be discussed by the House during the few weeks when members’ minds are exhausted by the struggle of the session. It is grossly unfair to the House, and unfair to the country. It is not fair to the country, it is not fair to this side of the House, and the result is that we shall create not only an economic revolution, but also a fiscal revolution this session without any proper discussion in this House. When, therefore, we raise these points, do not let the Prime Minister or his colleagues get impatient. Do not let them forget that they are out for a fundamental change in this country, a change which has been camouflaged, but which it is our duty to make the country realize by proper debate and discussion in this House. If it is necessary for the carrying out of our duties to sit for months more, we shall do so. We do not want to obstruct, we do not want to unduly delay the proceedings of this House, but points crop up from day to day which must be threshed out with a certain amount of fulness in this House and, whilst we are not going to obstruct, we are going to give them as full discussion and consideration in this House as our weary minds and bodies can give to them. I am very sorry the Prime Minister has taken this step. I can understand that where a measure has reached the last stage of discussion he should give notice of the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule for that measure, but this general suspension of the 11 o’clock rule is, I think, such an invasion of the rights of free deliberation and discussion in this House that we cannot agree to it.

I would not have intervened had it not been for some of the remarks of the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts). I would ask him to reflect on the history of some few years ago. There were many occasions at that time when what appeared to some of us sitting on that side of the House, as altogether unnecessary discussion, appeared to the right hon. gentleman, who was then responsible for carrying measures through the House as altogether unnecessary discussion. That is a difference of opinion which will always prevail between members who sit on that side of the House and those who sit on this side. I guarantee that if by some malevolent accident of fate or a malignant misfortune to South Africa, the right hon. gentleman and his friends were on this side of the House to-morrow they would take exactly the same view as they did a few years ago and as we do today. I will give a few instances. The hon. member referred to the Wage Bill. Where was the blundering in regard to the Order Paper there?

It was your autocratic blundering on that occasion.

The second reading of the Wage Bill was discussed at three sittings. It went to select committee and it came back here and it was an open secret amongst hon. members over there that they were not going to let it go through if they could possibly help it. They took ten hours in discussing three clauses.

Of course.

Yes; 170 hours, at the same ratio of discussion, for 17 clauses of the Bill. The trouble was this, that when we came to Clause 1, they said that that was the kernel of the Bill and it must be discussed at length. Then when we came to Clause 2 they said this was the real turning point and it must also be discussed at great length, and so on. Then let us take the Mines and Works Amendment Bill. The Opposition have just as rooted an objection to that Bill as they have to the other. They had the fullest discussion on the second reading debate and, after it had been sent to select committee, we had another full dress debate on a motion for an instruction to the select committee. It comes into committee stage of the House and we have another debate for long weary hours. On the vote of the Minister of Native Affairs we had the same discussion. It seems to hon. members over there absolutely essential and in the interests of the country to have the fullest possible discussion and to take advantage of every point upon which that discussion can be raised. It seems to them a necessary full discussion and it does not seem so to us, and if hon. members opposite were sitting on this side there would be the same divergence of view upon that point as exists to-day.

That is what Parliament is for.

It is also the business of the Government and the hon. gentleman who leads this House to guide the House and prevent the useless and unnecessary waste of time, in the opinion of the majority of the House. When the right hon. gentleman was sitting here he had a far less regard for the feelings and views of private members than we have. I think we shall bear this blame possibly before the country, that we have not made sufficient use of the rules of this House in moving the closure. On many occasions we should have moved the closure, and it is probable that the chairman or Mr. Speaker would have accepted it, but we have refrained from it out of consideration to hon. members opposite. I am sorry if this motion is going to inconvenience hon. members, but there is an easy way of getting out of that, and that is to confine our discussions and not insist, by your taking up all the time of the House, upon our own members having to remain silent, so that the newspapers and the public have only your views in the matter and we, perforce, are obliged to closure ourselves and our own members to keep silent when they would desire to controvert your arguments.

I must say that I dread these all-night sittings. I think some consideration should be shown to hon. members who are not so youthful as some of the hon. members on the other side. If this proposal of the Prime Minister’s is accepted by this House, it means that, through no fault of my own, but through the way the business of this House has been conducted, I will have to come here every night. I might call your attention to the Diamond Control Bill. The last time that that Bill came before committee of this House was on the 16th March. That is over three months ago. It is now high on the paper and may come forward at any moment. I do not think hon. members over there would question that I always express myself in as few words as possible. That Bill is down for the committee stage. Hon. members have forgotten all about it; I had really almost forgotten all about it myself. I thought it was dead and buried with a tombstone erected over its grave. This means I shall have to come down in the middle of the night. If I must do so I must, because I shall regard it as a duty to my constituents, a duty which I take very seriously, especially in regard to the Diamond Control Bill. This position is in consequence of the action of the Government, which I look upon as a team. There may be some good members, but as a team I cannot say much of it. When this comes into committee we shall have to go into the whole thing almost on the lines of the second reading, because it is a highly technical and very delicate measure. That Bill in committee will take three times as long as it would have taken if it had been followed up day after day. I say that is not fair. If I must come I must. I cannot keep away, because there are so few members who understand the intricacies of a matter of this kind. I shall see the Bill through, and I shall oppose it with all my might and main.

I am very glad to hear my old friend speak like that, because it gives me a fine opportunity of just pointing out on what slight grounds, or want of grounds, complaints can be raised. I am coming to the’ right hon. member for Standerton later on, but for the time being I want to speak to the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), who must have forgotten that it was upon his own request to me once that I had the Bill put down. I may also tell my hon. friend that there was another member on that side at whose request for a third time I had this Bill put lower down. I am always prepared to meet his wishes. I think we have always shown that. In the first place the fact that the Bill is not further on to-day is due to requests from the opposite side.

Surely not.

Surely hon. members do not expect that we shall arrange the Order Paper on the basis of consulting their interests and convenience. No, of course not. When hon. members come to us we are only top glad to oblige them where we can, but they cannot expect the principle upon which we are to work is a principle of suiting their convenience. I am afraid that is exactly what it amounts to. Now, in regard to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) making a complaint that the Mines and Works Bill has not been more advanced, really he seems to have forgotten all about the discussions that have followed from time to time. He has even forgotten about the select committee.

We have not forgotten the action of the Minister in regard to the evidence.

May I ask what blundering there is? His only complaint appears to be this—

That is exactly the reason why I have brought this motion. The right hon. member for Standerton has evidently forgotten that that is the very ground of complaint against him, although not so much against him as against those who sit behind him, that instead of being satisfied with matters that do matter and with arguments that are arguments, they are constantly fishing about for matters which do not signify and for arguments which lead to nowhere. It may be blundering on the part of the Government, but there certainly is no malice on the part of the Government.

It is not malice it is muddle.

No, of course the malice is not here; it is on the other side. My hon. friend says they have not been obstructing. That might have been so long ago, but since that time the closure has been applied.

I wish someone would move it now.

I take it the closure was accepted because it was found there was more talking than was necessary. It may not be obstruction from the opposite side but I must say that if it is not, it is something of the same kind, and you can give it any name you like, but the result is the same. I want to point out how it is done. I want to quote the words of the right hon. member for Standerton. Take the Wage Bill—

This is so typical; they have so many aspects on the other side. What is so characteristic of these aspects, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not the most important that are brought on first. No, the most insignificant they can possibly find is the first to be put in, and they waste on that aspect hours of debate, and the moment they see there is a chance of the closure being applied, immediately jumps up another aspect. Now they go on with that aspect until again they find that patience is getting exhausted and the closure may be applied, and then up in that corner jumps up another aspect! And they try always to have the most insignificant one, the most trifling one, to lay before the House, until the closure is applied, and up they rise, and are wroth, and say: “Look at all our aspects which we have still to lay before the House.” I am asked to say that the other hon. gentleman I referred to, at whose request I put the Bill lower down—I did not mention the name—but the hon. member for Kimberley says that he didn’t ask. Then I must say that my hon. friend here suggested it to me, and I took it that it was the case that it would suit the hon. member for Kimberley. I hope that hon. gentleman will not think I mentioned that as a complaint against him.

He tried to help you.

The hon. member for Kimberley was really on a mission, for which we owe him the greatest debt of gratitude, and I was only too ready, the moment I heard of it, to say that the Bill shall stand lower down.

Is that the case with the Attorneys Bill?

Has the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort forgotten what he is going to say on that Bill? It has not been on the Order Paper except for the second reading. Hon. members cannot complain that they have forgotten the lesson there, and that they must re-learn it. I said that is typical of the manner in which that process which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does not want to have called obstruction, but which I leave to him to name as he thinks best, is carried on in this House, and through which the time of this House is being wasted. There is only one point I wish to make mention of.

Another aspect?

The right hon. gentleman has another complaint against me and the Government, that we have appropriated the closure, as a measure, to such an extent that we have excluded the authority of the Speaker.

It was a small correction I made.

I just want to correct the right hon. gentleman by saying that when I speak of the closure, and what the Government is going to do with regard to that closure, I intend no more than what the rights of the Government are under the rules of the House, leaving it to other officers to do their duty with regard to their rights. It does show a bit of pettiness—the right hon. gentleman will excuse me for the word—which I do not think he ought to avail himself of when we have to do with a Bill of this kind. As to the other remarks that the session has been barren, and so forth, if it has been so, that is all the more reason why we should try now to make it fruitful.

Motion put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager), who is sitting behind me, rose to ask for a division. You may not have seen him, but he rose a second time and, under the circumstances, it is rather hard that the hon. member should lose his right of calling for a division.

I am sorry I did not see the hon. member. I am afraid it is too late now.

House in Committee:

[Progress reported yesterday on new Clause proposed by the Select Committee; upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Gilson: To insert the following new sub-paragraph to follow paragraph (c), sub-section. (1):

I think, perhaps, the Prime Minister has advanced one of the best arguments in favour of this amendment. He said it had been the policy of the Opposition to deal with smaller amendments first and keep the large ones to the last, and I hope the Minister will regard this as an important amendment. After all, it has been the policy of the Government to say to the coloured man that if he attains a standard of civilized living he is regarded as the equal of the white man. There is no doubt that these people I have been speaking of have a right to rank themselves alongside the coloured people of the Cape province.

I hope the hon. member will not press this amendment. I understand that some time ago—I do not know if I have the facts correctly—the hon. member questioned the Prime Minister, in the House, with regard to the supply of liquor to Griquas in. Kokstad, and that he was anxious that provision should be made whereby they should not be supplied with liquor, and that he had found that liquor could not be kept away from them, at present, because they were not regarded otherwise than as “gekleurde” (coloured) people. I do not know if I am quite correct in regard to these facts. Why does he not let sleeping dogs lie? I understand further that the Griquas are not only a race, but they include people of other races who join their religious society—whatever it is called—and call themselves Griquas. Pure blooded natives have become known as Griquas. I certainly do not propose to exempt that class, but as far as the ordinary Griquas are concerned. I conceive they have always been regarded as Cape coloured, and therefore they will have the benefits attached to the Cape coloured. When we come to the regulations, I am quite willing to consider the special case of the Griquas.

I am quite willing to accept the assurance of the Minister, and I shall not press the matter further. I did not, however, raise the question of Griquas being supplied with liquor at Kokstad, but I said that a certain number of Cape coloured were allowed to have liquor in the Territories, while the Griquas were excluded from doing so.

I beg pardon. I was under a misapprehension.

Amendment put and negatived.

I do not wish to discuss the principle of the Bill again. I have indicated clearly my opposition to it at previous stages, but I would like to say that a great deal has been said recently about the position of the natives, but very little has been said in regard to the feelings of the Asiatics in reference to this Bill. I wish to emphasize the fact that meetings have been held everywhere, and grave concern and indignation are felt by the Asiatics over the Bill. An unanswerable case has been made out as to the non-applicability of the Bill to the Cape Province. The regulations framed by the late Government were only applied to the Transvaal and the Free State, and although the wording of the Act made it possible in the opinion of the late Government, to apply the regulations to other provinces, it did not do so. I think, therefore, we ought to limit this Bill. We have heard that there is very little likelihood of the measure being applied to the Gape Province, but should that ever be fought in a court, the courts will have to interpret the Bill according to its wording, and then it will be possible to apply the regulations to the Cape. I move—

Of course, the Bill is purely an enabling one, and the applicability of any regulations that may be issued to the province of the Cape of Good Hope, has been argued both implicitly and explicitly, and I do not wish to say anything further, because that would be repeating arguments already advanced on this side of the House. I am very sorry that I cannot see my way to accept the amendment.

There are two classes of coloured people who are not mentioned in the schedule and who ought to be recognized, the people known as the Mauritius Creoles, largely represented in Natal, not born in the Union, but born in the British Empire outside. They are a law-abiding people, highly skilled, many of them are certificated engineers, others are blacksmiths, carpenters, bricklayers, sugar boilers, etc. There are also the St. Helenas. They are not mentioned. What is the position of these people? I move an amendment—

The Hon. member cannot go back to section (c) as we have already negatived an amendment after that.

Then I move it as a separate clause.

I move—

I now put the question.

What question?

That the question be now put. It is a motion on new Clause 1, as proposed by the select committee.

Where is the amendment of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott)?

That amendment was out of order.

On a point of order—

The division is on now.

Has a member no right, on a point of order, when you tell him to move an amendment as a new clause, to frame that amendment accordingly and bring it up to the Table.

The hon. member did not move a new clause; nor did I direct him to do so. There is a new clause moved by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). That new clause has to come on still. What the hon. member for Natal Coast moved was to insert after (c) the peoples known as Mauritius Creoles and St. Helena people. This was not in order.

On a point of order, is it not a fact that he had only to put “paragraph (d)” in front of it to make it in order?

No, not after the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) had moved an amendment at the end of the whole clause which had been negatived.

Was it not competent to move another new sub-clause to the clause?

I must now put the question.

On a point of order, the committee would like to know upon what question you are applying the closure’?

Nobody knows.

Upon new Clause 1, as proposed by the select committee.

I would ask you what has become of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Natal Coast?

No amendment has been moved, except the amendment which I ruled out of order.

Will you kindly answer my question?

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, didn’t you tell the hon. member for Natal Coast that you would take his amendment in another form?

I said I would not take it in that form, and I got it in no other form.

But you didn’t give him time.

The closure has been moved and I have accepted it, and there’s an end to it.

I Beg to move—

These are people, many of whom hold very responsible positions, orderly people, sober, law-abiding people, who come over from Mauritius mostly. Large numbers have been born in the Union and are employed very largely in the sugar industry. It is very necessary that these people should be protected and that they should be allowed to continue as they have been doing. They are people receiving civilized rates of pay and are living on a civilized scale, but they are coloured. I beg to move it.

The amendment is an amendment to Clause 1. As that clause has already been debated and decided upon, I cannot accept this amendment.

I understood the Minister in charge to say that this Bill does not apply to these two classes of persons. Is that so?

What two classes?

St. Helena people and Mauritians.

Upon what clause is the hon. member now speaking?

It has been ruled out of order.

I put Clause 2.

May I move the amendment in my name, which is printed on page 701 of the “Votes and Proceedings”? viz.—

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the application of this Bill can have no reference to the agricultural industry. When this question was raised in select committee I understood the Minister to rule that neither this Bill nor the Mines and Works Act, 1911, could be held to apply to the agricultural industry, and when that ruling went to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker held a contrary opinion which made it necessary for me to move the clause which stands in my name in the proceedings of the select committee. I was disappointed to find in the select committee that the Minister was unwilling to meet my request for the exclusion of the agricultural industry from the scope of the Bill, and I hope, having heard those who are identified with framing interests on this side, he will be more reasonable towards it. In the present position of the agricultural industry it would be a very severe tax upon that industry if everybody were required to have skilled men, skilled certified white men, to be employed in attending to engines and small mechanical appliances which are used in the more progressive kind of farming, especially in the province I represent. I am sorry that the ruling of the Chairman of the select committee did not admit of my calling evidence on this subject. It was my intention to have called evidence from agriculturists who maintain that the exclusion of agriculture is necessary, but the ruling of the Chairman was against me, and when a favourable ruling from Mr. Speaker was given, then the motion of the select committee debarred me from calling that evidence. If that evidence had been available to-day, I am sure the committee would have been satisfied as to the necessity of this clause. I have had numerous telegrams from the farmers’ associations in my constituency impressing upon me the desirability of moving for the exclusion of the agricultural industry from the application of this Bill. It is in response to these requests that I move the motion. I am not entirely wedded to the wording of the amendment, and if the Minister considers it is too far-reaching, I shall be quite willing to frame it in such a manner as he, out of the wealth of his experience as a draughtsman, may suggest, but I do press upon him the desirability and the wisdom of excluding the agricultural industry from the operation of this Act. A similar exclusion has taken place in the Wages Bill, and my amendment has followed the wording by which agriculture is excluded from the Wages Bill with an additional reference to agricultural factories. I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept this. I move it.

I do not propose accepting this amendment, because I consider it absolutely unnecessary. It has been considered unnecessary since 1911, and what the hon. member now wants me to do is to go further than the immediate purpose of this Bill, and to rectify what he considers defects in the legislation of 1911 that have nothing to do with Clause 4 of Act 12 of 1911. That that is his object appears from page 8 of the select committee’s report, where you will see that—

At the end of the page Mr. Speaker ruled as follows—

It is obvious, from the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that the definitions of “works” and “machinery” in the already long existing Act of 1911, can be made to include farming operations. Well, the farmers have never been apprehensive since 1911.

They are to-day.

Well, I am not going to give effect to that apprehension. If they could trust the previous Government for all these years, they can trust this Government, and, for these reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment. Leaving the Cape Province entirely aside, I will admit that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition never contemplated issuing regulations for the Cape Province; but, at any rate, for the Transvaal he did issue regulations, and did he ever issue a regulation affecting the farming community in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick)?

No.

But he could have done it. This is a purely enabling Bill, and there is no ground whatsoever for suggesting or hinting that this Government is going to interfere with farming operations more than the right hon. member did. I cannot accept the amendment, which is quite unnecessary.

I do not follow the Minister’s argument. To-day the agricultural industries are very apprehensive in regard to this Bill, and surely the Minister might accept this amendment. It is only consistent with the Wages Bill, and the Minister must remember that many of these industries dealing with raw products have to compete in the world’s market, and they are expanding to-day to a greater extent than ever before. Taking the wattle bark industry: all the mills are being worked with cheap coloured labour, and if this Bill is put into operation it is going to put us out of the world market. We are getting communications from all over, expressing apprehension at the Bill in its present form, and if this amendment is accepted it will allay all this apprehension.

Read us a few.

The Minister clearly stated that the Bill could be applied to agriculture.

That has been the case since 1911.

We trust that the present Government will not apply the Bill to the farmers. But who will say that a Government may not come in the future that will apply it to the farmer? For this reason it is necessary and desirable to adopt the amendment. I do not object to this section, but why is the farmer now dragged in here into something which is not intended for him? Let the farmer be released from the danger hanging over him. Many things are done on the farms for which we require machinery and if this Bill is applied to the farmer it will hurt him a lot.

I just wish to mention a practical example to the hon. member. There are regulations regarding the colour bar in connection with this matter issued by his leader. Regulations in regard to this Bill have been issued.

Are they applied to the farmers?

Yes, the hon. member perhaps does not know it and his hon. leader perhaps also does not know it. The farmers welcome the regular inspection of boilers, etc., because the inspectors meet the farmers and advise them with reference to the repair of machinery, etc. If we are now specially to insert this amendment the farmers will be deprived of those services. Then it will not be possible to make any regulation and the farmers will no longer have the help which they received with open arms. I hope my hon. friend will see this. He says that the Bill can be applied to the farmers. This has been the position since 1911 and no one has ever worried about it yet.

The hon. Minister of Mines and Industries has quite a wrong view of the amendment. We have no objection to the threshing machine of a farmer being inspected. The amendment is as follows—

That is what we want. We do not want the Minister to have the power to issue regulations that natives may not work on a threshing machine, a dairy factory, or at tobacco cutting, etc. That is the kind of work regarding which we want to be guaranteed against such regulations by the Minister. The Minister says that it is a right which the Government has had since 1911. I can tell the House that there is a strong feeling of unrest among the farmers about the Wages Bill and we are here to guarantee to the farming population against such danger as far as we can. Under the Wages Bill the farmers do not know where they stand. There we stated that it would not be applied to the farmers. Here we have other legislation and Mr. Speaker decides that it can be made applicable to the farmers. I read from his ruling—

Then we have the evidence of Dr. Roberts on page 14 where he answers to question No. 4—

The Minister of Mines and Industries says that the Bill will not be applied to the farmers because the former Government did not do so. But what is the position to-day? The political position has entirely altered. The Prime Minister has said that it is his policy which has been laid down in the Wages Bill and this Bill, and that he is going to carry it out. If we look into it then I say that the farmer is not certain what his position is. The Labour party will use its influence to the utmost. The Prime Minister does not love this Bill. It is a Bill of the Minister of Labour. It is the Labour party that want this Bill and with their influence behind the Minister it is our duty to see that this guarantee which has been proposed by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) shall be incorporated.

The Minister forgets that the party in power in 1911 had the farmers’ confidence, but to-day the Nationalists are not ruling South Africa but the hon. members on the cross benches. They are the real rulers of South Africa to-day; that is why the farmers feel apprehensive. They know that there is a Government in power which is not sympathetic to them and that the hon. members on the cross benches don’t care a rap if the farmers’ industries go to the wall. Let the Minister accept this amendment and allay all this suspicion and unrest which is rampant in the Union. South Africa is now occupying a very important part in the world’s production of wool, cotton, wattle bark and sugar. These industries are being built up through cheap labour, and if the Bill is applied to them, they will be put out of the market

It is necessary to remove a few false impressions. In the first place I want to assure the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that this Bill has my approval from beginning to end, and not merely my approval, but I have for years taken up the point of view that the field of employment should be retained for our white lads in South Africa.

On the farms too?

Everywhere.

And now I come to the farmers. Where it is desirable in other industries I say the farmer also will be just as willing as is necessary to also contribute his share to assure the white sons of the land a proper existence. I have nowhere yet found the farmers standing back to other people in bringing about that care should somewhere be taken that our young lads can hold their own in the unequal contest between whites and natives. And here I just want to say that if industries are developed in farming, industries that are not farming, then I say the farmer will be prepared to carry his share just as he was prepared in the past to contribute his share when the mineral rights were transferred to the State, and just as the farmers did in the Free State where they were prepared to keep out Indians while the other provinces were prepared to use and to allow the Asiatic to come in for the sake of profit, until we have the position to-day existing in those provinces. But a farmer has hitherto always been prepared to do his part and this Bill will only be applicable in exceptional circumstances. Take the cotton ginneries in Natal. Will the farmers object to certain work there being given to Europeans? If there are farmers that have machinery or such a ginnery then the farmers are actually a company and no longer a farmer. He will then employ 50 to 100 people and such a person will not be averse to have certain work done by white men. Just as little will farmers, in any other case if it becomes necessary, be unwilling to permit of the application of this Act to an industry. As soon as it concerns industries the farmers will be ready to also contribute their share. But now I ask further on what grounds it is proposed to exclude the farmers. Must an industry on a farm be excluded irrespective of whether it is ten times as large as one in the town? And I only wish to refer to one thing, and it is very strange to me that hon. members opposite lose sight of this, namely, that they have for days been fighting because according to them the Bill is intended in favour of the whites against the natives, but now they suddenly turn round and say where farming is concerned it goes against the white men and then the natives must come in. The whole Bill is intended to assist white men, and farmers no less than other people, to assure a living for their sons. What justification is there then in the statements of hon. members opposite? How can they now propose that when an industry arises in a town that then the law must be applied, but that on a farm certain work not directly connected with farming but of an industrial nature should not come under the law? Why? I say again that such a farmer is just as prepared to contribute his portion as other persons in the towns to see that our sons have the means of existence in the country. I go further and say that it ought to be so. Must we then go and draw an arbitrary line and exclude all farmers? Then we shall have to exclude other persons and bodies as well, even if it is not on the ground of farming. It is clear to me that we cannot accept the amendment, and let me repeat what the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries has said, namely, that nothing else is done here but to give power to take action if it is found that it is in the interest of the whites in South Africa, and if it is acted upon then, in proportion to the interests, regulations will be issued, and if the Government finds that the regulations should also be issued for farming operations there will be enough time to mention the matter here, and there will still be enough time to say whether it will be in the interest of the farmers or not. If it is not in the interest of the farmers the Minister will not issue the regulations, or if he issues them he will be in such a position that he will say that we can get along without the farmers in South Africa, and that time is not only far away, but I dare say almost with certainty that it will not arrive for the first few hundred years in South Africa. Then, moreover, the farmers will be strong enough to defend themselves if an unfair burden is thrown on them.

The Prime Minister has now come out into the open and I think it is a good thing. Don’t let us try to shield ourselves behind another Government, but let us come frankly out with the matter and with our intentions. The Prime Minister has spoken quite differently to the Minister of Mines and Industries who sits just behind him. He has taken up the position that regulations could be issued under the Act of 1911 to apply to farmers, but that it was never done.

It took place to the extent that I have indicated.

Yes, but the colour bar was not applied there. The inspection of boilers, etc., was applied and carried out in the interests of all, but the colour bar was never applied there. The Minister of Mines and Industries says that it was never yet applied by the former Government on the farms and therefore the present Government will not do so either. The Prime Minister rises and takes up quite a different position. He says: No, this has been the policy of the present Government for years that there should be no distinction. The farmer must contribute the same as the man in the town in the interest of the State and that no difference can be drawn between him and the mines. He says that that has been his policy for years and that it will be carried out. That is just what the farmers are afraid of. The Prime Minister has made it clear to us that where a colour line is drawn in the towns in connection with machinery it will also apply to the farmers. Mr. Speaker has given a ruling that this can be done. The Minister of Mines and Industries says that it will not be done. The Prime Minister says that it is the policy and that the farmer must contribute his share. Now we know where we stand and we know what the policy of the Government is. The object of the Bill is that where technical work is concerned it will not only be applicable to the town and to industries and businesses in the towns, but also to the farmer on the farms where machinery is used, such as wind pumps, etc. That is the reason why we are afraid. Politics will be indulged in, and that makes us afraid. We are indeed going ahead fast, and the farmers know that we now have a Government in the country which is going to apply the colour bar on the farms just like that in the towns is applied to industries. The farmer wants security, security and therefore we ask that this amendment should be accepted.

I think that the apprehensions of the farmers, voiced by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), are proving to be well founded. I wonder if the Prime Minister ever considers the position of the farmer as contemplated by him. Undoubtedly the effect of applying this Act to farming operations will be that the farmer’s cost of production will be largely regulated by the Government. We shall have pay the wages decided upon by the wages board, who will carry out the Minister’s wishes. The logical sequence will be that the Government should guarantee the prices that will compensate the farmer for the increased cost of production. It is one-sided from an economic point of view, and from what the Prime Minister said, there is little doubt the Act will be applied before long to farming operations. It is going a long way from the original intention of the Mines and Works Act. Whatever case might have been made out to apply these regulations to one of the most dangerous and difficult industries, —mining, surely there is not the same difficulty in one of the most simple and primitive industries—farming. Surely the Act was designed to ensure the safety of mine workers, and it cannot be contended that it should apply to farmers who use a simple, primitive class of machinery, and therefore they should not come under the operations of the Act. I doubt the Prime Minister’s laudable intention to extend the employment of white workers to farms will be materially advanced. It is a very real danger that the Government may be compelled, through force of political circumstances, to go much further. We find them allied with a party now who, no doubt honestly and sincerely, have made it a cardinal point in their platform to get control of all industry, even the farming industry, with a view to the ultimate achievement of a democratic and socialistic commonwealth. So the Government may be compelled by force of political circumstances to go a great deal further than the Prime Minister sees at present. This is calculated to arouse the very greatest misgivings amongst the farming community. The farmer, after all, whether he be right or wrong, would be the last man to be converted to socialism, and the process of converting him is likely to be a troublesome one.

Is this socialism?

I was saying where this Bill is leading—it is leading to the—

That is the platform of the Labour party. The Prime Minister has adopted it, or he purports to adopt it to a considerable extent.

It is the antithesis of socialism.

The control of each industry or service. Isn’t this the—

Doesn’t it lead to the control of the farming industry, and is not all this State socialism? If certificates and wages are controlled, that is a very serious control indeed of that industry, raid the object of that is “the ultimate achievement of a democratic or socialistic common-wealth.” I do not really see the necessity for rejecting this amendment of the hon. member for Illovo. I had hoped that the Minister of Mines and Industries, having definitely stated that it was not his intention to apply this to farming operations any more than the Act of 1911 was applied to farming operations, could safely accept this amendment and reassure farmers, but my hopes fell to the ground after bearing what the Prime Minister had to say, in which he outlined his definite policy as leaning towards that—it may not be to-day or tomorrow—but as leading towards that and to that extent fulfilling the main plank of the party that he will admit keeps him in power. As a farmer I cannot view this without very grave apprehension indeed. Anyone who has been engaged in farming operations, anyone who obtains his living from farming operations, a man who is dependent upon farming for his livelihood, knows that, under present conditions in this country, it is very difficult indeed for a small farmer to pay for skilled labour at all. He is not able to pay the wages demanded and paid for skilled labour in the populous centre. We know that very often he receives most excellent and skilled help from natives in many of the machines that be uses. We know very often that a native is a much safer man to put in charge of a machine than a white man. They find that in dynamite factories. They find that it pays to put the native in charge of certain operations, because they know that he will not take short cuts. I think we have reached a very serious pass indeed and that the apprehensions of the farmers have now been advanced almost to the point of certainty.

This is the first time I heard or knew that a Bill like this was socialism. I thought it was just the opposite of socialism. Still, we won’t argue that point, because I think the hon. member is rather talking with his tongue in his cheek. He says he is a farmer and makes his living out of farming—

On a point of order, is the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) entitled to say that an hon. member is speaking with his “tongue in his cheek?”

No; the hon. member is not entitled to use that language.

I withdraw that. I don’t want to say anything against the hon. member in that way. I want to remind him that how was an old farmer of the Free State, and that while he was a farmer of the Free State he was not allowed to use a native on his threshing-machine, and he knows that his neighbour, who was a native, was not allowed to employ one of his own sons on his own threshing machine. He knows that that native has to employ a white man to drive his machine. He knows that the farmers of the Free State have always had to employ white men to drive their machinery, and yet he comes to this House and says that if the farmers have to do this they will be ruined and all due to the socialistic wing of the Government. For years in the Free State the farmers have had to employ white men on their threshing-machines. The leader of the Opposition gets up and says “de boere is bang” (the farmers are alarmed). The hon. member went to Klerksdorp. I went after him. He told the same story there. He said—

What was the result? The farmers voted against him. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. “De boere is nie bang nie.” He went there and said—

His own party laughed at him. He came to a certain place, and made a statement, and I challenged him to get on the same platform as myself. It was at Hartebeestpoort. The challenge was sent to the right hon. gentleman. He telephoned back and said “No.” It is all very well to talk; we wanted to nail his stories to the mast. He was afraid to stand on the same platform with us. No, it is not the farmers who are frightened, but the right hon. gentleman who is frightened.

Always frightened of you.

There is no reason to be nasty about it.

Who is nasty?

The chickens are coming home to roost. Hon. members opposite are frightened. They are going through the country and trying to frighten the farmers, but the farmers are not frightened. It is purely party, purely political—I was going to say humbug, but that would not be fair—it is purely party work. The farmers will not be frightened. The farmers in the Free State want to get as many white man on the land as possible to carry on all the machinery of the farm. They have done so for years and years. I cannot speak about the Cape, because I have no knowledge of Cape farming, but if you went up to the Free State you would not find one native doing the work.

It is not a question of socialism; the question is this, that the Prime Minister is now determined to carry on the white labour policy of the Minister of Labour. Do not let us drag herrings across the path about socialism. The clear question is that the Prime Minister has now nailed his colours to the mast, and those colours represent that he is going to carry out the old-established policy of the Minister of Labour, the white labour policy. I am not against white labour; with me the question is entirely a matter of economics, and it you force white labour on the grain farmers in the Caledon district it would be an absolutely uneconomic position. Why cannot the Minister accept this proviso? Whatever you have done in the Free State or the Transvaal it is an entirely different position in regard to the Cape Province. In the Cape Province we have never known interference in our agricultural system. Take the threshing machine, for instance. Where a large number of natives and coloured people have been employed on threshing machinery, if the Government is going to carry out its policy of preventing these people from attending to this machinery, then I say the farming industry in Caledon and in all south-west districts is going to suffer. It is asked why should we exclude the farming industry from this Bill. Why did you exclude it from the Wage Bill? It is the same principle. Let us protect the farmers as far as we came in regard to this question. For these reasons, and because of the declared policy of the Prime Minister, I heartily support the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

I hope that the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries will not accept the amendment. If he does so, then I shall make the same request with regard to the diggers, because they stand on the same footing. But I am convinced that the hon. Minister will not accept the amendment. After having seen the regulations which the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) himself helped in 1911 to prepare, I am convinced that they are the same that will be brought into operation now, and those regulations of 1911 were from that time to the present never yet applied to the diggers. I can speak of the Cape Province. Other members have spoken of other provinces, but the hon. member for Caledon knows quite well that in the Cape Province white or coloured people are always employed at machinery or work of that nature and never natives, and where there are individual natives on the farms, it occurs because they are a penny cheaper, and this results to-day in the fact that hundreds of coloured people are walking about Cape Town unemployed because they are pushed out by the natives who, owing to their lesser demands with reference to clothes and housing, are cheaper than whites and coloured people.

Are you speaking about the diggings?

No, I am speaking generally. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said the other day, when he was talking on behalf of the diggers, that I was only thinking about catching votes, but since he sustained his defeat, he has done nothing else but try to catch votes. He is like a rooster whose head has been chopped off, but still jumps about. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has spoken as if we are now doing something quite new, but the regulations have existed since 1911. They have just been declared ultra vires and, therefore, this amending Bill is necessary. He says that it is one of the measures which have come up owing to the amalgamation of the two parties by the Pact. Let me tell him that we are not at all afraid of his frightening talk. Hon. members opposite, who allowed themselves to be swallowed up by the Unionist party, should be much more frightened. There are only thirteen of the South African party and 40 Unionists.

Were you not originally a South African party man’

I was a South African National party man, and I am glad that we are quit of that crowd. I never had time for people who twist about like the hon. member. He has already been a Bondsman, and I don’t know what else. I hope that the hon. Minister will not accept the amendment, otherwise I must ask for the same privilege for the diggers.

The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) knows nothing about what the Prime Minister said. If he had been in the House, he would not have made that speech. When we got the assurance from the Minister of Mines and Industries that the Bill would not be applied on the farms we began to think, on this side of the House, that we had possibly been unnecessarily uneasy. After the speech of the Prime Minister the matter is, however, very clear. He has said that his policy was always what he announced here. I do not think that it always was his policy, but it only became his policy subsequently. We know that the Prime Minister said that if a donkey pulls a man out of the mud, it does not follow that you are yourself a donkey. It follows, however, that one will favour the donkey a little if he pulls you out of the mud. It seems to me that the donkey is getting the forage this session, especially because the Prime Minister knows that one may require the donkey again on a future occasion to help drag you out of the mud. This Bill is a little of the forage. The assurance of the Minister of Mines and Industries means nothing, because the Prime Minister announces that it is the policy of the Government to apply the Bill to the farmers.

What did the Prime Minister say?

He said that the farmers must bear their share of using white labour.

Be honest. He also said coloured labour.

The Prime Minister did not speak about coloured labour. I listened to him. If the Prime Minister wishes to make out that the farmer, as a rule, is not willing to do so, then he is wrong. The farmer, who can do so, employs white labour. But the circumstances are so different to those in the towns. In the town the white man comes into your service and, at night, he goes to his own house. On the farm I make a house to provide accommodation for him and his family. The hon. member for Barkly must remember that we shall not only have the colour bar, but also the Wages Bill, and the farmer will also have to pay the wages laid down. It is not the case that the man on the farm gets so much money, but he has so many other privileges. When the Wages Board is appointed those things will not be taken into consideration. They will simply fix the wages at a certain amount. If there is a time when we should be uneasy, and should ask the Minister to accept the amendment proposed, then it is now. The Prime Minister said that certain things would not fall under the word “works.” There is often a salt pan on a farm which is developed, and it is not excluded. There are also farmers who have mills and they are also not excluded. The whole argument employed by the Minister of Mines and Industries thereby completely falls to the ground. He said that the Act of 1911 was not applied by the former Government to the farmers, and that that would not be done now either. That doesn’t follow in the least, and the statement of the Prime Minister removes all doubt on the subject. I hope that, after the statement of the Prime Minister, he will appreciate that we cannot accept his statement, and that he will go so far as to accept the amendment.

I just want to call the attention of hon. members a little to what a lot of nonsense can be said about a subject. I was on the point of asking the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) what the farmers actually had to be afraid of, but what we are doing here is only applicable to section 4 of the Act of 1911, and the matters and things mentioned therein and included therein. Are the farmers then afraid that if they have machinery on their farms for the treatment of salt (the hon. member for Colesberg mentioned that one case) if they thus have a large industry for the manufacture of salt, that the regulations which are issued will direct them to appoint a white or coloured overseer for the machinery?

It is not only overseers.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is getting restless. I am coming to him in a moment. He is just as short-sighted as the hon. member for Colesberg. I am prepared to meet hon. members with regard to the farmers when it becomes necessary again. We shall then see if they are frightened. Let us see what the farmers have to be afraid of. The hon. member for Colesberg has mentioned the salt industry. How many farmers now will be afraid of it? How many farmers are there who have so developed their salt industry that they have put up machines for the manufacture of salt? And if they have got so far will they then be afraid of a regulation providing that the overseer of the machinery should be a coloured or a white man? What nonsense. Let me now, for a little, show what this Bill refers to. The regulations were issued in the first place with reference to artizans. Will the farmers now be so very frightened of saying that the artizan on the farm must be a white or a coloured man? No. 2: The engine-drivers must be coloured or white men. I am thinking of the case where the farmer requires engines on his farm for which engine-drivers are necessary, and the farmers will then be obliged after the issue of such regulations to employ as engine-driver a white or coloured man. Can anyone allege that the farmers will be frightened of such a provision? Is that what the hon. member for Standerton is so afraid of in regard to the farmers? I am prepared to meet the hon. member for Standerton again on a platform to ascertain whether the farmers are afraid of that. Then we come to point No. 3: The Governor-General can, from time to time, lay down that persons with a certificate of competency must be white or coloured men to be permitted to perform certain operations. Will the farmers be afraid of it that it is provided that a job for which a man is required, who must have a certificate of competency, should be a white or a coloured man? If the industry on a farm is of such a nature that such persons are required, will the farmers then be afraid that it will hit them badly? I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said quite rightly that the farmer or other person who employs such a man with a certificate of competency will, as a matter of fact, find that it is better for him to have a man who is industrious and capable and possessed of initiative, so that when he is away the supervision can be left to the former. I say that all the opposition to this is nonsense. As soon as the hon. member for Colesberg can give me an instance at which the farmer should be frightened, I will do my best to meet him half way. But we must surely not fence in the air without any cause. It must surely be clear that where the Bill will apply there, an industry is of such a complicated and technical kind—whether it is in the town or on the farm—that it will be in the interests of the industry itself that a white or coloured man shall fulfil the duties that I have mentioned and the farmers will not, for a moment, be afraid of this measure.

I just want to make clear where the Prime Minister went wrong in his statement. The Prime Minister thinks that the Act on mines and works of 1911 only applies to engineers and actual experts.

Show me anything to the contrary.

That is just where the Prime Minister went wrong. The Act provides in section 4—

Then we get at the end of sub-section 1—

Then we come to (7)—

Is that (n)? We are here busy only with (n).

Of course, I am reading from sub-section (n). This section, therefore, gives the power to the Governor-General to issue certificates with reference to those who are working in connection with the mines with machinery, etc., and this Bill now goes further, and says, with reference to these regulations—

1. (i) The regulations under paragraph (n) may provide that in such provinces, areas or places as may be specified in the regulations, certificates of competency in any occupations referred to in that paragraph shall be granted only to the following classes of persons, namely —
   1. (a) Europeans;
   2. (b) persons born in the Union and ordinarily resident in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope who are members of the class or race known as “Cape coloured” or of the class or race known as “Cape Malays”; and
   3. (c) persons born in the Union and ordinarily resident in the Union elsewhere than in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope who would if resident in that province, be regarded as members of either of the classes or races known as “Cape coloured” or “Cape Malays.”

Thus it amounts to this, that in connection on a machinery which is now used on the farms —it is coming more and more into use—the Bill provides that the Governor-General can make regulations to divide the work in connection therewith between the classes of persons that are mentioned in this Bill. It is thus in the power of the Governor-General to make regulations that certain work shall be done by certain persons irrespective of the place where work is done. I do not know where the Prime Minister gets the idea from that the Act of 1911 only referred to engineers and other technical men. There is now no longer any doubt what the result of this Bill will be and that it is the policy of the Government that this Bill shall be applicable to all machinery and those who are engaged in connection with it irrespective of the place where the machinery is erected. The Minister of Mines and Industries admits this, but says that the Government will not do it because the former Government did not do it. Now comes the Prime Minister, and he does not confirm this statement, but he asks why should a difference be made for the farmer? If the industries must make their contribution why not the farmer as well? He states that it has been his policy for years that the farmer must make the same contribution. For this reason it is clear that what the Minister of Mines and Industries has said is not the policy of the Government and we are faced with the danger that the Government will make regulations that only whites and coloured people can be employed on machinery on the farms. The Government will be able to issue regulations that only white and coloured people can work on threshing machines. That is the clear wording of the Bill, and the Prime Minister is quite wrong in thinking that it only refers high technical people.

I think that we all sympathize with the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) because he finds himself in great difficulty to have to show what the farmers have to be afraid of. I ask again, what the farmers have to be afraid of first part of the Bill, section 1 (a), (b) and (c) only deals with sub-section (n). There are only three possibilities under which the Act can be applied to the farming industry, and they are, as has been said, mechanics, engine drivers, and other persons who require a high qualification. Thus the whole argument in this respect falls away immediately. Now we come to No. 2. It is here laid down that regulations can be issued by which the hon. Minister can say that for any occupation or industry certain operations shall be divided between natives and white and coloured people. It is clear that as regards farming it can only apply there if there is an extended industry on the farm which embraces a certain number of persons of whom some who do a particular work must be white people. Now I ask again: What has the farmer to be afraid of? Where is the farmer that runs any danger, where is the farmer who in the future will run into danger of having such an industry in the future? If he falls under the Act then he must possess a very large business, an extended industry or a factory, and if it is applied to certain operations, then they are operations of such a nature that it will be in the interest of the farmer himself that the operations should be done by a responsible person, and if the industry on the farm is so extended then the farmer is actually no longer a farmer but a manufacturer or the possessor of an extended industry.

I should like us to be quite clear about the matter, because it is of great importance, and I do not want that there should be any misunderstanding. I think that the Prime Minister does not pay sufficient attention to the provisions of the Bill. Paragraph (ii) of section 1 says—

This is in connection with sub-section 1 of section 4 of the Act of 1911. In that sub-section the paragraphs occur which are mentioned in the Bill before us. Let us take one of them, namely, paragraph (d), from the Act of 1911. This says—

The paragraph refers to any overseer, owner, manager or any other person who is engaged about machinery. The position is that if we come to the provisions of the Bill then it refers to any person who is employed on machinery, and the Government can make regulations whether the person shall be a native or one of the persons mentioned in paragraph (i). That is clear. It can now be debated whether the Government is carrying this out or not, but it has nothing to do with the wording of the section. According to the Bill the Governor-General can in the future make regulations about persons who are employed on any machinery. All that we ask in the amendment is that it shall not apply to the farmer. That is all we want.

The right hon. gentleman is going on to the same point he tried to establish in the second reading debate which was knocked to pieces by the Minister of Mines, that the previous interpretation of the law was confined to these certificates under sub-section (n). I am talking of the law he administered. You hold that, compared with the law of 1911, there is a profound change here. Your point is this, that the old colour bar only referred to sub-section (n). Am I right? And that the extension of this under sub-section (2) is an extension which was not covered by his interpretation of the old law.

Let me put my hon. friend right. The point now has nothing to do with that point. That was a different point. I may have been right or wrong; I don’t argue it now. The question now is what is the scope given by the regulations that may be made by the Governor-General under this Bill? The first sub-section refers to regulations in paragraph (n) dealing with engineers, and so on. Sub-section (2) goes further and says the Governor-General may make regulations which assign duties. I take one, paragraph (d), which says—

My point is there is no limitation of machinery to industries only. It may be machinery such as a steam engine or a threshing machine, or any other mechanical appliance on a farm. There can be no doubt about it. All we ask for is that so far as the farming industry is concerned there should be an exclusion. We have made an exclusion under the Wage Bill in spite of the policy of white labour. We ask for the same exclusion here. I don’t know why it is conceded in the one Bill and so strongly fought for in this Bill. The law is perfectly clear in the Act of 1911. The limitation intended by this amendment should be carried on through this Bill so that on farms, just as much as anywhere else, the Governor-General may make regulations in future which will say what work shall be done by white men, coloured persons, or natives in connection with machinery.

The right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) will excuse me, but I was not so very far off the point. Again he has come back to say that this is a great extension of the general law.

No, I am not arguing that.

Then my understanding of the English language is very faulty. That seems to me to be the only point. He says—

But I say that under his own law, sub-section (2) which he interpreted as giving him power to differentiate in regard to certificates of competency, was a power that equally applied to everyone of those regulations. There is no contesting that. Sub-section (2) says “different regulations”; it does not say “different regulations under sub-section (d)”.

What is your conclusion?

I say this is no extension. It is putting into words what the right hon. gentleman thought was the power that he had under his own Act. Here is a question not of certificates of competency at all. I will read the regulations—

It does not say machinery in mines—

No certificate of competency required—

This is merely an enabling Act. Under his interpretation of the power which he had under his own Act, he issued this regulation, which is completely outside sub-section (n). Section 179 does not apply only to mines, but it applies to operation of and attendance upon machinery. The right hon. gentleman himself is going completely astray on his own interpretation.

That only applies to mines.

No, that is not the fact. This does not apply only to mines, but it applies to everything within the scope of the Mines and Works Act. Where is machinery in agriculture excluded from the the operation of this other Act? If it is not so, on what grounds does he insist that we should exclude it from the operations of this Act?

I can really not understand why the debate should be protracted so much. The members of the Opposition are now suddenly concerned about the farmers. They now want to protect the farmers. Why are they now so much concerned? When a tobacco tax or an income tax was put on the farmers then the members were not concerned. What is the difficulty now? There are hundreds of coloured men walking about the streets unemployed, The people have nothing to live on and are looking everywhere for work. We want to give these people a chance of getting work. We want to give them a means of existence and now the Opposition are against it out of concern for the farmers. But the farmers do not agree with them, not at all, not even the farmers amongst them. There are two farmers of the Transvaal amongst them but they do not agree. We want to provide work for the coloured and the white people and the Opposition are against it. Now the members of the Opposition are keeping up the discussion just to frighten the farmers. But the farmers will not let themselves be frightened. The discussion has now lasted long enough and I shall be glad if it will stop. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) understands the Bill just as well as I do, because it is a simple one. A stone almost could understand it. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) complains that we can no longer employ any native as a chaff-cutter. We can always use him to pass along the sheaves and to do such work, but if it is a question of seeing whether the steam is high enough then we do not use him for it. The member is now only talking at the natives. The whites and the coloured men can go to the marines so far as he is concerned.

I am very sorry the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) thinks we are only trying to make political capital out of this. I can assure him that there is nothing of the sort. As far as the Minister is concerned he has gone completely off the rails in regard to the amendment. We who support this amendment are not concerned with legal dialectics as to whether it does or does not apply to the farming industry under the previous Act. We are asking that that industry shall be specifically excluded now. I would like to ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) whether he really means that the farmers of the Union want this Act to be applied to their industry. That I took it was his argument; but if he puts such a thing to any agricultural union or farmers’ meeting where such matters are discussed he will get a very emphatic “no.” The Prime Minister told us we were rather prolonging the discussion. I think this discussion is one of the most necessary we have yet had. When the Bill was introduced by the Minister he told us it was merely introduced to legalize the status quo on the Rand; to put right the Hildie-Smith judgment; but now the Prime Minister is advocating the extension to agriculture. That is a very different state of affairs to the speech of the Minister when he introduced this Bill. The trouble is that this Government does not seem to be able to take a long view. It is all very well to say the farmers need not be afraid; and to say that it is not intended to apply to the farming industry. I grant that, in regard to the Mines and Works Amendment Bill, and the Wage Bill, the farmers are safe in the hands of a Nationalist Government; but what proof have we that the Nationalists will be in power forever? If once these Acts are passed, the courts will administer them. These inspectors will not come to the House and ask for a definition; they will take a definition from the courts, and as far as the actual wording is concerned, it is wide enough to embrace from the north to the south pole. The definition of works is—

Is not that wide enough?

It was the same under the old Act.

Certainly; but does it mean that we want the old Act to apply to the farmer? You are fond of referring to cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government. We hope you will clean up this mess if there is one. If this Bill is going to be put in force, all machinery used on farms is going to come under its operation. Even if it is applied in a small way to the agricultural industry, it will ultimately embrace the whole industry, and once you have the colour bar applied to the farming industry, it won’t be long before you have the Wage Bill applied also, and the farming industry will be saddled with burdens it is not able to bear. I hope the farmers on the other side will say: we pass this Bill, but we will make absolutely certain with burdens I this not able to bear. I hope the future, to the agricultural industry. We do not want to leave the application of the Bill to the lawyers. Put it down in black and white, that the Bill does not apply to the agricultural industry, and have done with it. I hope, in spite of the accusation of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) that we are stampeding the farmers, that, when it comes to the vote, he and the other farmers will stand by us.

I merely rise to substantiate the argument of the Minister of Labour. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that section 179 of the regulations only applied to mines. That is the section affected by the Hildic-Smith judgment. I want to read what Mr. Justice Tindall said in his judgment. Mr. Justice Tindall said—

That effectively disposes of the arguments of the right hon. member for Standerton: (Gen. Smuts).

As simple and unsophisticated farmers we are absolutely in a fog. We have heard the legal disquisitions, and a certain interpretation has been put on the Bill with which we cannot agree. As I read it power is given to set aside certain classes of work for certain individuals. But this goes much further than: merely giving a certificate of competency, for it enables regulations to be issued setting aside certain spheres of labour for certain persons. Machinery is defined as a means for the transmission and development of natural power. The question is what is “natural power I am advised on very good legal authority that “natural power” can be held to include power by water, hand, animal or wind. Thus a team of oxen drawing a mowing-machine would come within the scope of the Bill. I am not sure that a plough does not come under it.

Or hot air?

That is very cheap on the part of the Minister! And the trouble is

ERRATA.

Mr. Gilson’s speech, Col. 4731. The first few lines of Col. 4732 should begin—

he has so much hot-air that he does not know how to get rid of it. I am asking for information as a farmer representing a number of farmers. If we can be assured that the legal interpretation is not what we think it is we have nothing more to say, but I am advised that “natural power” means by hand or animal, so that there is scarcely an implement used on, a farm which does not fall within this category. The argument may be used that the Government does not intend to apply the Bill to farming operations. Perhaps it does not, but the law would be there, and we are not discussing what the Government’s intentions are. A certain road is paved with good intentions. As the Bill stands I maintain that it does apply to farming operations.

The speech of the Prime Minister, when he said the farmers must bear their fair share of the burden and make their contribution, shows the Prime Minister clearly has it in his mind that these regulations should apply to the farming community. He says that if you are running an engine on a farm you must have a competent man to drive it. If a man treads his grapes with his feet it would be a farming operation, but if he uses a hand crushing machine it would then be no longer a farming operation, or when he uses an engine to pump his wine, or to grade his dry fruits, these would no longer be farming operations. Take a small farmer like myself. I grade my fruit by hand, but the bigger farmer grades it by machinery; in the one case the Act would apply and in the other not. I would like to know from the Prime Minister when is it a farming operation and when not? Nothing shows us more clearly that the Prime Minister does not know what goes on farms. I run a couple of engines, not every day, but only one or two days a week. I may run them three consecutive days, and then not use them for a month. I could not employ a skilled mechanic as provided under the Act.. I am employing a native. I use my white man as an overseer to supervise the whole of my work. You cannot think of employing a skilled mechanic on a farm when your machinery runs at intervals in the same way you do in a factory in a town, where your machinery is in constant employment. When the engines are not running the employee is engaged on ordinary farm work. I don’t see why there is this difficulty in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) which I think is a very necessary one. We should not argue from the point of view of what the Act of 1911 was. We must do the right thing now. I would like to see this put right to-day, and for that reason I think it would be wrong not to accept the amendment.

The Prime Minister told us yesterday he got a mandate from the country on the colour bar Bill, and that it was one of the planks on which he was returned. If it was one of his planks—

When the House adjourned I was referring to the statement of the Prime Minister when he told us yesterday that he had received a mandate from the country on the colour bar legislation and that it was one of the planks on which the election was fought. Now I put the question to the Prime Minister did he ever, if this was a plank, tell the farmers of this country that the colour bar Bill was going to be applied to them? Has the farmer of this country had the least suspicion or information that the colour bar Bill would ever be applied to any works which were carried out by him on his farm? We had it this afternoon from the Prime Minister that the farmer would have to bear his burden, which will be imposed under this colour bar Bill.

Nonsense; he did not say that. You are twisting, as usual.

I am not twisting anything. I clearly understood the reference made by the Prime Minister. He said that the farmers would have to bear their fair share of the burden in giving effect to this colour bar Bill.

Nonsense.

Now there is no doubt that in its present form this Bill can be applied to the farmers and can be applied to them with very detrimental effects.

Your party applied it to the farmers in the Free State in the past.

This Bill will have a very detrimental bearing on the farmers if given effect to.

Read your own regulation, No. 179.

If the hon. member will keep quiet and give me a chance he will have an opportunity of speaking later.

I will keep quiet if you will not twist the expressions.

There are a number of cases where the application of this Bill can with very detrimental effects be, applied to the farmers. I want to give a few practical instances. Quite a number of farmers in Natal and other parts have found that owing to the smallness of their farms they cannot, due to lack of grazing, use draught animals, and they are to-day using tractors and engines, especially the German farmers. What is going to be the effect if these farmers are to be compelled to employ only Europeans on these tractors? There are many cases where to-day natives are driving these tractors, and very successfully. Take the case of a farmer who has only two or three hundred acres of land. It will be impossible for him, economically, to carry out any application of the colour bar Bill. Then you also have a number of farmers who are using machinery on their farms. They are cutting their wattle bark and wood with native labour. To-day there is a very small profit in the fire-wood business; the only profit is made on the cartage from the plantation to the station. That is done by natives, and if you are going to force the farmer to employ Europeans instead, it means he will be compelled to give up that business. The same applies to wattle bark chopping. Many farmers have small engines on which they employ natives. What is going to happen if they have to employ Europeans instead? It would be impossible for them to meet the extra expense that would be necessary. Then you also have many farms where engines are being used for grinding mealie meal and for cutting up chaff; and these engines, petrol and steam, are in many instances being run by natives. If these farmers have to employ Europeans to regulate and carry on the engines what is going to happen?

Why not have coloured men?

There is only a very small profit to the farmer. Farmers are suffering more than any other section of the community. Can anyone say they are a wealthy class; that they are in a position to pay high wages? How many to-day are in a prosperous condition? Very few indeed. The majority of farmers are struggling from hand to mouth and are having great difficulty in keeping themselves above water, and it is only the man with courage who can withstand the many difficulties they have to contend with. The farmers in South Africa have greater difficulties to meet than in any other country in the world. Take the wattle industry. The wattle is indigenous to Australia, but they were not able to carry it on. We in Natal have carried it on by cheap labour, and to-day we are actually exporting bark to Australia. We are to-day exporting one million pounds’ worth of wattle bark. If we are to increase our overhead charges; if we are to be put on the same basis as the man in Australia, then the wattle industry is going to the wall. [Time expired.]

I am puzzled to know what members of the Opposition really want, because the other day, when the Minimum Wage Bill was under discussion, hon. members over there moved an amendment asking for the inclusion of the farming population, the agricultural community.

You mean “exclusion.”

They were asking for the inclusion.

No, no.

Yes, A member of the Opposition asked for the inclusion of the agricultural community in the Minimum Wage Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) taunted us on these benches for not voting for the inclusion. Does the hon. member want the agricultural community included in that Bill?

No, I do not.

Why did you advocate it then?

I did not advocate it.

The members of the Opposition wished them to be included the other day. Now they come forward with an amendment to exclude the agricultural community from the workings of this Bill, when they know it is absolutely impossible to get this Government to apply this particular measure in all its bearings to the agricultural community. They know there is not the slightest danger of this Government applying it to the agricultural community. What are the hon. members over there out for?

Why not vote for the amendment then?

Because, in spite of the crocodile tears shed by the hon. gentleman in connection with wattle and other industries, I say you are not going to build up a huge and prosperous nation in South Africa until the hon. member and other citizens of this country realize that a large white population, well paid and maintaining a high status of life, are the real lifeblood of the nation. It is never going to be built up on a body of exploiters.

We will never build it upon measures like this.

The attitude of the Opposition is quite obvious. On one measure they wanted the agricultural community included—or they pretended they did—in order to obstruct the Minimum Wage Bill. Now they raise a hue and cry, and pretend that they are putting up a gallant fight on behalf of the farmers when they know all the time it is a hollow cry. There is no clanger of the farmers being included in the regulations that may be promulgated by the Governor-General-in-Council. The whole business of the Opposition, in spite of what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other hon. members over there have said, the whole aim and object is not to put up a fight in the way of real constructive criticism, but to carry on a dreary lot of talk about things that do not matter.

The hon. member should not accuse other hon. members of obstructing.

If it was not out of order, I would accuse them; but as it is out of order, I withdraw it. We have a lot of cheap sneers about the soap-box from that side of the House, and in time hon. members got away from that position. I have heard men on a soap-box make more dignified and gentlemanly speeches than we have from some hon. gentlemen in this House, and, as far as I am concerned, I am not going to apologize for having stood on a soap-box and spoken to common people.

Are you the criterion?

No, but the hon. gentleman pretends to believe in Christianity, and he has his criterion there. What we ought to do in this country, with our huge black uncivilized population, is to try and develop this country to provide avenues of employment for white people, by employing machinery and intelligence and if, when you introduce machinery, you still say that the machinery must be run by the uncivilized section of the community, you are not going to advance this country or bring about up-to-date methods of production. I do ask hon. members opposite to try to place the interests of the great masses of the South African people before themselves and before any party in this House.

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken told us that there is not the remotest idea that this Bill will be applied to farmers. I do not think he could have been in the House during the speech of the Prime Minister, a little while ago. The Prime Minister’s deliberate policy, as he expressed it, was that the provisions of this Act should apply to our rural districts; that it was the duty of the farmers, as of other sections of the white population, to carry their brethren on their shoulders. That was the effect of his statement. I do not think that coincides with what the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has stated. It is the exact opposite. Another point upon which the hon. member made great play was accusing this side of voting in favour of a minimum wage Bill. He knows that the whole body of the members on this side are opposed to that Bill, and if it happened that an individual member on this side expressed himself in these terms, surely common sense should dictate to anybody that that would not be sufficient to fasten that statement upon the other members on this side of the House. Well, the hon. member exercises a considerable influence in this House, and went to the extent of getting the closure put on us when the vote on agriculture was under discussion, and when only one out of forty items had been discussed. It shows how little he appreciates the position in this country. I believe he is perfectly honest; but, according to his idea, we had devoted sufficient time to the discussion of this very important question.

We did not discuss agricultural questions.

We were discussing one item of the estimates. The position is that we cannot, without serious injury to the farming community, impose upon it conditions which may be suitable to the gold industry. It may be alright for the gold industry, but when it is applied to the farming industry, it is unjust and dangerous, and I regret very much that the Prime Minister should not be prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick); because I am confident that the farming community of this country cannot bear the extra burden which that would impose upon them.

No extra burden is to be imposed.

I will explain what that extra burden is. If the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), had read this Bill, he would have seen that natural power is included, and that means your bullocks which you use for ploughing, and also a number of other methods which are in operation on the farms. For instance, I have a Delco engine which I work and, if this Bill is put into operation, if I set that working. I would have to have a certificated man, and a European at that, in charge of it, and I could not afford it and would have to close down my engine. I might give other instances in connection with putting up buildings on farms and so on. I do not think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) was here when the Prime Minister intimated that it was his deliberate view or intention that this Act should operate in rural areas. I think the step contemplated by the Prime Minister, to apply this to the farming community is going to do an immense amount of harm. The farming community is in a bad way, and if the Prime Minister would consult the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or the Commissioner of Taxes, I am sure he would be surprised—if he does not already know it—that money invested in farms, for farming, only produces some 2½ per cent. It is one of the poorest investments, from a financial point of view, that a person can go in for. Hon. members must not judge of the financial success of farming by the fact that a few farmers, who have succeeded above the majority of their fellows, are able to spare time to become members of Parliament The farming community is a struggling one, and it is only a few who have the leisure which we farming members of the House enjoy.

I think that the amendment has now been discussed long enough. As I stated at the beginning I do not propose to accept it. I therefore propose—

called for a division, upon which the committee divided:

Resign!

Proposed new Clause 2 put,

Mr. MARWICK called for a division, upon which the committee divided:

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 2 and 3 put and agreed to.

New Clause 4,

I have a new clause to follow Clause 3. Hon. members will find it on page 770 of the orders of the day, viz.—

I think hon. members will recognize the necessity for this clause. It is intended that all reports of the board shall be laid on the Table of the House. Owing to the form of the Act the Minister under the Bill is ultimately responsible for every wage determination in every trade throughout the Union and as a servant of this House the House is ultimately responsible for confirming this determination and therefore it is apparent fuller information of the reason any determination is arrived at should be laid on the Table of the House. The reports of the wage board will be entirely different from the reports of the board of trade and industries which are dealing with questions of finance, tariffs and so on and which cannot be disclosed until the Minister of Finance has decided whether to act on them or not, but in these reports determination will be arrived at and the reports will be put on the Table of the House and hon. members will be able to judge of the reasons that prompted the Minister to arrive at such determinations. It will be advantageous in this respect that if any complaints have been proved to be well-founded it gives the employers and employees an opportunity of remedying the defects and of putting the matter in order and thereby restricting and preventing friction in the trade which is one of the objects of the Bill, that is, to make commerce and industry work more smoothly. I don’t think either employers or employees will mind publicity in this matter because they have nothing to hide and are willing that any determinations made and the reasons for which they are made should be entirely public. If the investigation is fair no decent man on either side has anything to fear owing to the fact that these reports are put on the Table of the House. For these reasons, I move the amendment standing in my name.

I have no objection at all to the amendment. The only suggestion I would make is that it should read—If it thinks fit, make interim reports.

And I do not think it is necessary to put in the words—

Perhaps the hon. member will move his amendment in that way, because I think there is a sort of insinuation in putting in the words “(including every minority report)

I thank the Minister for his suggestion and I am perfectly willing to adopt it. I, therefore, move my amendment with the substitution of “interim” for “preliminary” and the deletion of the words “(including every minority report)”. May I just suggest that, in order to make the matter clear, the words “within fourteen days of its next ensuing session” should read “within fourteen days of the commencement of its next ensuing session”. I move, with leave—

seconded.

That is not in order.

I will have that put right in another place.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 4 to 10, the omission of Clause 11 and the amendments in Clause 12 put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I desire to move the amendment standing in my name, viz—

The intention of this amendment is to substitute the clause that was carried by the select committee for the old clause which was in the original Bill and which was not deleted when we were in committee of the whole House. The original Bill imposed three penalties on an employer who contravened this particular clause. It imposed a penalty of £50 damages payable to the employee, three months’ imprisonment and also the necessity of re-instating the employee if the case had been tried and had gone against the employer. When this matter was discussed in select committee it was decided that it was infinitely preferable to double the fine on the convicted employer, still make him subject to the imprisonment of three months, but to delete the reinstatement part of the clause. That amended clause was carried in select committee by nine votes to two. The nine votes included all the members of the select committee, except Mr. Madeley and Mr. Kentridge. This was not at all a catch vote in select committee, but a vote come to after very considerable discussion, after each witness who appeared before the committee had been cross-examined on the matter and given his opinion and then again after a further discussion before we came to the final vote. Hon. members have the evidence of these three gentlemen and I think they must come to the same conclusion as the committee if they read that evidence. The fact of an employer being found guilty of contravention of this clause would lead one to suppose that that employer was a man of somewhat harsh temper, not a man inclined to be kind or reasonably careful in handling his employees. If you insist on that man reinstating the employee, I think it was felt by the committee, you were not doing any good to the employee whatever and you were setting up cause for further friction and trouble. It was further felt, and I think it was a very strong point, that probably the employee would eventually drift over the margin of discipline and he would then be discharged for another reason on which the employer himself would be wrong and which would only be caused by the fact that he had been irritated beyond his self-control. We did feel that on the whole it was very much better to give that employee double the damages and once and for all part these two people who were in disagreement. I may say also that if that employee after committing some act of indiscipline had been discharged the second time, he would have a very greatly decreased chance of getting employment because he would have been discharged for some act of indiscipline for which he would have no excuse except that he had been constantly irritated by his employer. Mr. Andrews in giving his evidence, stated that if a man had been discharged and had had damages given against him after going to court he would have very little chance of getting further employment. Surely there would be even less chance for the man who had been reinstated and had afterwards been discharged for indiscipline and thus moved out of employment for a second reason. Whichever way you look at it from the employee’s point of view you are not doing him any good but you are likely to do him a great deal of harm. From the employer’s point of view the two witnesses who gave evidence were very clear; they said it would only lead to an enormous amount of friction and trouble and it would be undoubtedly better to make the employer pay damages rather than have a man who might cause a great deal of indiscipline. I suggest it would not be so troublesome in the very large works where a great number of men are employed and where the employer does not necessarily come into such close contact with his men, but I can foresee in small places, where probably most of these cases will arise, it would be an absolutely impossible position for two men who have been in the court to ask them to go back the next morning and work together in the same workshop. So I think the committee—and as I say it was by a majority of nine votes to two—really decided on a sane, sound and sensible course, and I trust that the Minister, who I know takes a great interest in this point, will share that opinion now and will reinsert the clause that was recommended by the select committee. I may say that one or two members have asked me why I did not move this amendment when we were in committee in the whole House. Well, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the House, but you will recognize that on that occasion there was a certain tension in the House which made it seem to me that the House was in no condition to calmly judge this case, which I believed ought to be judged calmly and dispassionately; and I thought it better to postpone moving in the matter until a later stage. I do hope the Minister will now see his way to accept the amendment.

I want to second and to very cordially support the amendment of my hon. friend. The object, of course, is to take out this about reinstatement.) I think the Minister, when he put this in, probably had in mind the mines where they employ thousands of men. But take the small establishments, and when all is said and done more than 50 per cent. of the industrial establishments of this country do not exceed 10 men. As a matter of fact 65.5 per cent. of those establishments work with 10 men or less. Well, my hon. friend can easily see himself the enormous amount of feeling that would be caused in a case of that kind if you send back a man who has quarrelled with his employer. How is it possible to maintain discipline in a case of that kind? It will be bad for the employer, who will have his knife into the man, and it will certainly be bad for the man. I quite agree with my hon. friend that if damage is done it is far better to pay that man, and to pay him well as far as that goes, but do not impose him on the employer again, because that is bound to lead to friction and you cannot get an establishment to work properly and well as it ought to do in such circumstances. I have looked into the matter from the American point of view and I have looked at all the minimum wage laws in the various states in America. In every case there is a clause dealing with this matter of dismissal, and they all go in for a rather heavy fine. In Massachusetts they fine anything from not less than $200 up to not more than a $1,000. In every case—the Minister will know the book; it is the report of the Department of Labour of the United States—and I cannot find that in any case they re-impose the man back on the establishment. In every case the employer is subject to a fine. I think under these circumstances it would be far wiser if the Minister were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and do away with this. Do not cause continued friction, because it must lead to nothing else but friction, and the man will certainly be got out of it, especially in a small establishment. It would be far better to give him fairly substantial damages and let him go. Any man on a farm can understand that if a man is sent back to a farm to work under these circumstances they cannot possibly get along; it is bound to lead to friction. It must lead to friction, and the smaller the establishment, the more the friction.

I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. He will have much less trouble if he does so, in administering the Act. As the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has said, the matter was fully discussed several times, and it is the Minister’s own amendment. He saw it was necessary to bring in an amendment in that direction, and the Minister suggested that he should draft an amendment to be brought up at a later date, and that was what was accepted and inserted. I cannot see why we should to-day go back on that, and no valid reasons have been given for the changes. The select committee voted for it, with the exception of the two members (Mr. Madeley and Mr. Kentridge). To reinstate a man will not lead to smooth working. It may give the man satisfaction, and that is all, but will be to the disadvantage of both employer and employee.

I think the principle contained in the amendment is correct, though I would like to move a further amendment to that amendment. As the Bill stands, the court is not bound to reinstate and also to award damages. The board can do one or other, and the practice before the courts is to give judgment in the alternative. It is only in the rarest cases that the court orders a person to do anything without the alternative. Although you may have a right under a contract to compel a person to do a thing, the court leans to giving you the alternative. In more than 90 per cent. of the judgments, the alternative of damages is given. The result would be that, under the clause as drafted, the man will not get reinstatement, and will get a lower amount of damages than as suggested by the hon. member’s amendment. I do not think the hon. member is right in limiting the damages to £100. Why should there be any limit? The amount of damages suffered might actually be £1,000. If it does not amount to £1,000, the court will only order such damages as a man has sustained. If the amendment were amended to leave cut “not exceeding £100”, I think it would be an improvement on the clause. Do not put any limit; leave it to the court.

It has always been done.

The point is that minimum and maximum amounts as to damages are not good in legislation. Does not the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) see that it is unjust that, if a man suffers £500 damages, he can only get £100? Who ever heard of passing any law saying you cannot award more than a certain amount of damages. It may be that is so in America; but we have no such law in South Africa to limit you from getting what you have suffered. Although I support the hon. member for Newlands. I would move an amendment to this amendment—

You want a man vindicated, and if he gets the judgment of the court, for damages, that is his vindication, it is the best vindication he could have. It would really be no help to a man to be taken back after having had to fight with his employer, and appearing before a judge, and having appeared in the witness box, against his employer and his employer also having appeared in the witness box, and various witnesses, members of the staff, having been ranged on either side. If that man goes back to that business, it is going to be most unpleasant for him. You can only expect friction and heartburning, and it is for that reason the courts do not grant such things but they do grant the alternative of damages.

I should like to say that the select committee had no objection to the amount. In the first place, it was limited to £50, and we have nearly doubled the amount; because we thought it a better way to deal with the matter; and after a good deal of discussion, the Minister concurred. I see no objection to the amount. The question of the amount of damages that was suffered by any employee was one that should have been left to the discretion of the court, and I am quite agreeable to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), and therefore will second it.

What the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said is perfectly correct. We did discuss this at very considerable length at the early part of our deliberations and my opinion at that time was very much what has been expressed here. In the meantime, while I was away, evidence was taken on behalf of the Employees’ Association and that was very definitely in favour of the reinstatement of the clause. Let us grant the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite, but does it not occur to them that almost all of us are speaking largely from the employers’ point of view? We should put ourselves in the place of the employee. Personally I feel that if I were sent back to any employer by the order of the court I should make up my mind that my life in that establishment would be a very short one. But that is not the view the representative employees take. Neither the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) nor the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) I am quite sure would dismiss a man because he gave evidence and did his duty as a citizen. Take the position of the employee. And we all agree that we need not study the feelings or convenience of any employer who acted in that manner. When you go into the wage earning ranks there is not the least doubt that reinstatement is a matter they very dearly hold to. I speak from memory but I think one of the biggest strikes in the Belfast engineering trade all depended on the insistence of the men for the reinstatement of one of their fellows. I feel safer in taking the opinion of the employees on this point, and they prefer that the clause should be restored. An employer who deprived a man of his livelihood because he has done what the law enjoins him to do is a man for whom we ought to have no consideration.

I scarcely think the Minister has given sufficient reason for the alteration of the clause which was agreed to by nine votes to two in the select committee. It is quite true that the evidence of the employees was in favour of the provision for reinstatement. On the other hand, both the representatives of the Employers’ Association, who must be presumed to have spoken with experience of industrial matters, were very strongly against the proposal, and I think there is very good reason for the position they took up. The proposal to keep in the provision for reinstatement as a concession to trade union feeling is not really justifiable, because it leaves out of consideration what the employers and employees ought to aim at, and that is good feeling in their particular industry. There is another point which has been overlooked and that is, assuming a case of this kind occurs and it has been proved that an employer acted wrongly and unlawfully, he is subject to a fine or imprisonment. Strikes on the principle of reinstatement would only occur where large numbers of people are employed, and then it would not very much matter, but in this country the number of very large employers is inconsiderable. Take the case of a small employer who has first of all been fined or imprisoned. This must lose him some influence over his men, and consequently the business may go to pieces, and the men would suffer. What will be the result of the employer having to take the man back? The employer will look on the man as a constant source of annoyance as he reminds him of a very unpleasant episode, while the man himself will always be looking out for something which he thinks the employer is going to do to him unfairly to get rid of him. The man’s presence would have an evil influence on discipline, and it would not lead to good relationship or to efficiency. It would be in the interests of both sides that the man should not go back. I don’t quite follow my friend’s. Mr. Alexander’s, argument because the court has the alternative of giving damages. The section expressly says the court that tries the offence in addition to any sentence that may be imposed may order the employer convicted to reinstate the employee discharged or give damages not exceeding £50 or it may order both.

They use their discretion and do not do it.

I think the Minister would be wise to accept the amendment. I have no objection to increasing the amount of damages, but I think it would be better to have some limit and any reasonable limit in excess of £50 I would not object to.

The amendment I put on the Order Paper is exactly the same as that moved by the Minister in committee. It was an agreed amendment and the question of damages did not come up. We decided the man should have more if he did not have the right of reinstatement and therefore we double the damages he could get. I see the point of view of the hon. member for Hanover Street and it is quite acceptable to me that the question of the amount of damages be left out. I don’t quite agree with the Minister, when he spoke to this amendment, in saying in this matter we only have the employee to consider. I am afraid that is where I join issue with the hon. Minister. The whole way through this Bill we have both parties to consider and it is up to the House to keep the balance level.

I was referring to this clause on offences of an employer.

Mr. Andrews emphasises two objections—

The hon. member cannot reply on the main amendment.

I feel that the apparent tendency of the House to accept the amendment removing the limitation on the amount of damages may be without its precise effect being realized. Take the case where you have an employee like a ship’s officer. There might be a determination affecting wages of employees in the shipping trade. Supposing a ship’s officer’s services were terminated where an employer felt (but it was shown wrongly) he had good cause for terminating his services, where the remuneration was £40 a month. The only test to determine the damages in such a case would be the same as in the case of other employees, namely, how long would it be before he secured re-employment. In that particular trade employment might not be secured for twelve months or eighteen months. The amount of the damages would be in such case calculated for the period of such unemployment. There was a case of this kind in the courts, where the evidence showed that it might be eighteen months or two years before the officer concerned could secure employment. I think his remuneration was £40 or £50 a month and the award in his favour was £600. Suppose there were a dozen employees who had their services terminated wrongly, because an employer in anticipation of in six months’ time there being a shortage of work, had got rid of them, but where, at the time when he dismissed his employees, he was still earning his customary rate of profit, they might be entitled to the benefit of a determination and, if the court held the reason given was not a “good cause,” the maximum liability of the employer might be a serious one. Could he provide against it by insurance? I doubt it. I feel, where you have an Act which can be applied to any trade, however high the remuneration in it may be, to lay down there is no limit whatever to a liability of this kind, would increase the burden upon employers unwarrantly. It seems to me that we are asked to lay down a principle which may be fraught with very great danger. We must remember that in a well-regulated country, as the Minister no doubt intends this to be, where a conviction of this kind is recorded against an employer, it may have other consequences. It may have the possibility of causing him very great difficulty in securing employees. We are here dealing with an offence and in effect dealing with a penalty which may involve a considerable confiscation of that employer’s goods, for he will be liable to have a writ issued against him. When we are dealing with an offence, when we are creating an entirely new state of affairs imposing upon an employer a liability entirely unknown to our common law, surely this Parliament is not going to say that there shall be no limit whatever.

I have not accepted the hon. member’s amendment, whether amended or unamended.

I thought I should just point out that these are possible effects, and in a clause which merely imposes a penalty, which is intended to be no more than a sanction designed to assist the working of a determination, to say in effect that there shall be an unlimited penalty upon an employer is going a very long way indeed.

Will I be in order, now that the House has decided not to create a blank, in moving an amendment in the clause itself?

No; the House has decided to let the clause stand at it is.

Amendments in clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

after “juvenile” to insert “or person Mr. B. J. PIENAAR seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 17 and 18 put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On the title,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

Seeing this is not a very contentious measure, I hope hon. members will not object to the third reading being taken now.

Oh, we do very much.

Third reading on Monday.

The Minister will remember that I put a question to him on the second reading of the Settlements (Committee of Management Act), which empowers him to authorize the constitution of a committee of management for the better administration of the commonage, as may from time to time be assigned by the Minister for the owners and lessees of lots on any settlement laid out on Crown lands other than settlements laid out under the provisions of the Land Settlement Act, 1912. I asked him whether he intended to bring Winterton within the scope of the Bill, as that settlement is desirous should be done. The Winterton committee of management has no statutory authority, and for that reason is not working so satisfactorily as it might otherwise do. I hope the Minister will take the earliest opportunity of bringing that settlement within the scope of the Bill and intimate when he replies when he intends to take steps to do so.

The question put by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson). I am not quite certain about the matter. I am making investigation, and if it is possible to do it I shall do so if the settlers decide to come in under this new Bill. The hon. member put a question the other day as to when I am putting the papers of the revaluation of Natal settlements on the Table. I hope to be able to do so next week. I am having them translated. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) put to me a series of questions about tenant farmers and about Piet Retief and Mr. Newton. I will first deal with Mr. Newton. I may say I have no objection to his sending that petition to the Crown Lands Committee, but I cannot give him any hope that he will get the result he expects. Mr. Newton was allotted a farm years ago, and after the allotment that area was declared a native area and the Native Affairs Department began to put natives in the area and he objected and asked for an exchange of farms. Col. Reitz refused to agree to this exchange and pointed out at the time that hundreds of farmers were in the same position and that he could not do the same with all of them. Mr. Newton left his farm and the Land Bank sold him up, so that the farm does not belong to him anymore. My hon. friend wants us to give him compensation.

He petitions for relief.

I have no objection to it being referred to the Crown Lands Committee. With regard to the tenant farmers. I ask him to put it later to the Minister of Labour.

Will the Minister promise not to put on the closure?

With regard to Piet Retief, I may say the settlement has not been given up. I have given instructions for a survey to be made. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked me two questions. One was as to fencing and the other was as regards Crown lands for forestry. The Forestry Department have an amount on their vote for that purpose, to buy land if they require any. As far as I am concerned, if the Forestry Department approach me for any Crown land for that purpose, they can get whatever they want. I agree with the hon. member as to the importance of forestry. As regards fencing, I may tell him and the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton), who put the same point to me, that the Government is considered in the same relation as an ordinary private owner by the Act. Section 42 of the Act makes the Government liable like any private owner and in any area where fencing is obligatory we have to comply with the law like any other person, but we also go further even in non-compulsory areas, as far as our money allows. When a proprietor fences in his farm we do our share as far as the money we have on the vote will allow us. We cannot go further than that. My hon. friend (Mr. Sephton) wanted us to go in for vermin-proof fencing. That is a very expensive business, and I do not think we will be able to get money enough from the Treasury to go in for that kind of fencing. I think my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) Mr. Jagger) would object to that. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asked me what is being done in London now, and who is able to give information. That point has received my attention already. The previous Government appointed Mr. Boshoff. Then he was brought back to South Africa and Mr. Mason was temporarily appointed, but he has been transferred to the Wembley Exhibition and since that time the post has been vacant. I then wrote to the High Commissioner pointing out to him that there is nobody there now, and, although there are associations like the 1820 Memorial Settlers Association and others, these are unofficial bodies, and I would like to know from him before going any further, whether the officer is in a position to give information or whether he thinks it is necessary to appoint a special officer there to give this information. I have not had a reply yet, but as soon as I receive a reply I will consider the matter further. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) puts a question to me as regards the Sundays River Settlement. If he looks at the Bill which recently passed through this House and the Senate, and which, I believe, has now become an Act, he will find that I make special provision to meet the settlers who are there now. In the ordinary Settlement Act I make very liberal provision for the ordinary settlers, but these settlers at Sundays River do not fall under that Act, and I have, therefore, made special provision for them. I can inform the hon. member that I will treat them as sympathetically as I treat all the other settlers. They are a good stamp of men and I think they deserve every consideration, and I will show them as much consideration as I possibly can. Everything in connection with the Sundays River scheme is complicated. The difficulty in one respect is that they have to pay water rates from 1918 in agreement with the company. They never got the water. Some of them paid and others paid under protest. They said—

So the whole thing is rather complicated. I intend to send to get a report as to particular cases. My hon. friend will remember that I cut out certain irrigable lands and made them nonirrigable, about 300 or 400 morgen. I am not going to do anything further at Sundays River at present. There is good land below Barkly Bridge but that land has to be cleared of bush. It is no use my spending money to clear land and afterwards finding that I have no water for it, so I am leaving it over for the time being. In regard to what he said about the company, I know of no imputation except perhaps what has fallen from an hon. Senator in another place about that company. I said that the directors of that company lost far more than they got back. The land is very good and the whole difficulty was the water. I do not think there is enough water for all the irrigable land, in fact I am perfectly certain there is not. Otherwise the settlement is quite a good settlement. As other members who asked me questions are not here I will reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who put to me a question in regard to probationers. I will tell my hon. friend first of all—and I want to make this particularly clear because I know he will be greatly interested as he has always taken an interest in our finances—that the probationer scheme is a very costly scheme. It is an experiment which we are trying and we want to see how it works out; and I think from what I have seen that it will work out very well. There is no doubt, however, that it will cost us a lot of money, because these people are without any capital whatever and without experience, and houses have to be provided for them. Under these circumstances, my hon. friend can quite understand that this is a very costly scheme. I have, at present, at Hartebeestepoort 60, and 60 have just been approved of, which will make 120, and I hope, before long, a further 60 will go, bringing the number up to 180. The first six houses were built departmentally, and cost £340 each. Then I called for tenders, and the price was £318; so that, the tenders being cheaper, I am calling for tenders for the other houses. The other question put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was in regard to Oliphants River. There is also this difficulty which we experience everywhere, of the water. The scheduled area is 10,500 morgen; but I am told by the engineer, who went carefully into the matter, that there will only be water for 2,800 morgen. That, of course, is in the summer months, and that is when the water is most required. In winter, there is plenty of water. As soon as the Ebenezer Bill was through, I put the matter to the board, and asked them to go into this scheme and to tell me what they proposed. They then proposed that I should use as a probationary settlement the present two farms, in extent 277 morgen, and portion of the Ebenezer, which we have got from the coloured people, amounting to 350 morgen, on our side of the river. We are keeping back another portion, to see how it develops as regards water. On the other side, we have 450 morgen, which the board advised me to give out under the Land Settlement Act. Then, in regard to Kokenaap, the difficulty is the water in summer. The board advised that the land should be leased to the present lessees, for five years, with right, on my side, to renew, if necessary, at a very low rental, and in the winter they must look after themselves as regards water. We can see, afterwards, how the water question develops, and if there is enough water, we can give it out under the ordinary land settlement scheme.

Where are the probationers coming from for that scheme?

Of the last lot, about 14 came from the Cape, six or eight from the Free State, and two or four from Natal, and the rest from the Transvaal. It is advertised in the “Gazette” and newspapers that there are so many plots available, and applications are sent in, which are dealt with by a committee of control. Hartebeestepoort had a special land board of five members, having all the functions of an ordinary land board. I did not think that was right. There was far more expense, and a land board is a very important body. I thought it better to abolish the board and appoint a committee of control, with limited powers. There are only three members and one is without pay, so there are practically only two members getting pay, to look after these probationary lessees.

†*The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) asks me a question about revaluation of ground in his district. The land board refused to revalue the ground, but I just wish to say this, that since that time private ground has been sold at higher prices than what the Government ground costs. If a new land board is appointed (it is probable) the matter will probably be gone into again, but I doubt whether they will revalue the ground. About the dry bore holes, I should just like to make it clear to the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) and other members, that if private owners go and bore holes or even if they go to the irrigation department, then the land board can do nothing in the matter if they get no water. If the lessee of the ground applies to the land board and the land board approves of the making of bore holes, then if no water is found the expenses to those people can be written off under the Act. The settlers can therefore be assisted if they come to the land board, but the land board can do nothing with regard to things that happen beyond its control. If, e.g., various holes are bored and water is only found in one then the cost is divided up between the various holes and a partial refund can take place.

Do you think that that is just to the private individual?

It does not fall under my department. I have alone to do with cases under the Land Settlement Act. When the irrigation department was under me, hon. members will remember I did my best to reduce the burden of the bore holes as much as possible.

What the Minister has said here about the irrigation scheme at the Olifants River is important. I think we ought to have more information about it. It seems that only 2,800 morgen can be irrigated, and it is a serious matter. According to the irrigation schemes there will be water for 10,000 morgen. It is very disappointing to hear that only 2,800 morgen can be put under water. If I mistake not, the Government has built a special railway there to transport the produce. No one will find fault that work has been given to the people, but one of the reasons mentioned in favour of the railway was that it would transport the produce which would be raised there. It seems to me that the cost is very high for the irrigation of these 2,800 morgen. Then there remains the cost of the railway.

On what point do you want information?

Whether there is not double expenditure now, for an irrigation scheme which has been a failure? I should like to know what the total cost will be, seeing that the present Government has granted a special railway.

I will only say that I of course found the position so when I took over. I do not know what the intention was before I took over. The original idea of the old Cape Government was to build a kind of dam and to distribute the water over the alluvial ground. This idea was altered and changed and a large dam built which ultimately cost £560,000, although originally the estimated cost was much lower. The area to be served by this dam was originally estimated at 10,500 morgen, but when I met the engineer recently there he said that after careful consideration they had come to the conclusion that by evaporation—the water goes through a very dry and sandy part—there was only sufficient water in the summer, when the water is most needed, for 2.800 morgen. In the winter there is enough water even for 10,500 morgen. Now I understand from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) that the furrow to carry the water is too small to take the water. I do not know if this is so. It is a question for the irrigation department. In connection with the train, I am not able to give the information as to the cost.

I just want to ask what is being done in connection with the prevention of burning down the bush and the veld. What use is it to plant forests on Crown land if the Crown forests are burnt down through fires? It is a serious matter. The position to-day is scandalous. The drought commission made a report that the jackals were great offenders in South Africa, but I think that a second great sinner is the man that burns the veld. It is heart-rending how sometimes the best plantations and wild bush and trees are burnt, and that just for a few scabby goats. If the veld is burnt, then all the seed of the soft trees and grass is burnt, but the seed of the hardest and prickliest and worst bushes only have the tops burnt, and as soon as the first rains come they shoot lip again, but the best bushes stop away. This is of great importance with reference to evaporation and drought. The ground becomes worn out and it is blown away by the wind and washed out by rain. As far as I know nothing is being done by the Government to prevent this, and I just want to call the attention of the hon. Minister to it.

Perhaps I can answer that. The building of the railway along that ground was simply a question of the direction, namely, whether it would go through fruitful parts to the other cultivated parts of Namaqualand and whether it would go through dry and less productive areas. The railway would anyhow have come and the object was not to build it only for the transport of that produce. In connection with the irrigation scheme I will just say that it is not a difficulty which has been caused by the Minister of Lands. The Olifants river has more than enough water but the engineer who had to carry out the scheme made a sort of experiment with a storage dam This dam is only large enough for 2,800 morgen, but if it were 20 times as large then there is still sufficient water for it. There is also twice as much ground which can be brought under irrigation. If that be called a failure then it is a failure by the director of irrigation. His figures and everything were wrong. It would have been better for South Africa if he had never been born. There can be a change now. If the sloot cannot be made wider then we can make the lower bank higher.

What will it cost?

It is not a question of cost. The question is whether we must make those people pay for the blunders of the State. The fault does not lie with the Government, the curse of the country was the railway and other engineers who came to the country and experimented upon us with an irrigation scheme. If they had taken the advice of farmers it would have been much better. They of course had technical advisers on whom they depended and these gave them bad advice. The dam can also be raised four feet higher so that there will be enough water for 5,000 morgen in all. If the dam is altered there can be enough water for all the ground. We must understand that we cannot allow the and owners to suffer if the Government does not carry out its part in the matter of seeing that sufficient water is made available. If a charge is made we shall have water for just as much ground again.

What will it cost?

It is not a question of cost. That is a question that rests on the shoulders of the State, because it is the officials of the department who have been the cause of all the costs. But if the water is made available for the ground the extra cost will be covered. The State itself possesses about 6,000 morgen there.

It is interesting and I am thankful for what the hon. member for Namaqualand has told us but it still leaves us in the position that we do not know what the policy of the hon. Minister is. Is he going to spend more money? It seems to me that it is necessary to spend more money on that scheme. It is not enough to merely say what the position is we also want to know what will be done in the future. Does the hon. Minister intend to spend more money or to leave the matter as it is, the failure that it is. I am speaking on behalf of the tax payers who have an indirect interest in the matter. If these large sums are spent and further a special railway is built in this case to help matters forward then we should very much like to know what the position is and what the hon. Minister thinks of doing. There are further schemes for irrigation works but the tax payer would like to know what the position is with reference to this scheme. A railway has been built there, everything has been done to be able to transport the produce and to take the people there, but now there is not sufficient water to irrigate enough ground because what is 2,800 morgen even if every inch of it is cultivated? It will not bring up enough for the building of a railway to carry the produce. I am not looking for a scapegoat, but I should like to know what the intentions are for the future. £500,000 or £600,000 have been spent on the dam and a further enormous amount on the railway and I should very much like to know what the Minister intends, what he suggests, doing with this scheme which is half completed.

The hon. member cannot come and say here that I have no policy in connection with this matter. It is a matter of irrigation and he must bring it to the notice of the Minister for Irrigation.

I just want to repeat that there is enough water for 10,000 morgen and for very much more not only in the winter. The engineers only talk of the three dry months but for more than nine months there is a superfluity of water.

We all appreciate the Minister’s courtesy and the painstaking way in which he replies to our enquiries. I think there is only one other point. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) asked the Minister one or two questions. Unfortunately he is absent; but perhaps the Minister would not mind letting us have the information.

I am glad the hon. member reminded me of that, because I think it is my duty to say something about the Zululand business, the more so because there seems to be some misapprehension about it. The hon. member in the first place asked me whether I had converted seeing you could only put a certain class of people there. The other point was, that I have stopped development now. First of all, I am not converted. That was never necessary. My policy as regards Zululand, has always been the same. Why I stopped the further publication, and withdrew the further allotments of these farms, was not, as was stated, that I was going to allow poor whites into Zululand. I stated at the time that that was not so. I wanted, first of all, to find out whether there were not a number of farms suitable for closer settlement, as in the Transvaal, and as soon as I knew that, I said, in the interview I had, that I would then allot the farms in the ordinary way. When I was attacked last year on this subject, I made the same statement in the House. I am quite satisfied that you cannot settle a poor man there; but in these closer settlements, you can place comparatively poor men, as they can get advances, and so on. In regard to stopping development—no development has been stopped. I think, if anything, I have accelerated development in Zululand. At the time I withdrew the farms from further allotment, a hundred and three had been allotted and there were eight applications for the other hundred and thirty-two farms. That is to say that, after advertising these hundred and thirty-two farms, we only got eight applications. I would have had to re-advertise these farms for some weeks, which would have meant that it would be August or September before the allotment could take place. It was in July that I stopped the further allotment. You cannot bring people in at that time of the year (August or September). You must bring them in in July. No development was stopped, as there were no applications for the farms. I told the allottees of these farms that they must work the farms. There seems to have been an idea that they were not expected to occupy the farms when they applied for them, and that they could wait until the railway was finished, but I said the law was clear, and that they had to go. I think I can claim that I have accelerated development. Another reason why I withdrew these farms was that I noticed that farms were being bought by men with from ten to twenty thousand pounds capital. I think the Land Settlement Act was never intended for these people. Men like that should buy land for themselves, and that is what the board is doing now. The land should be given to men who are, comparatively speaking, poor men although they have a certain amount of capital, and not too many capitalists. I am going to Zululand shortly, and intend to have further surveys made, so that other farms can be allotted as soon as possible.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to say how Zululand appreciates the interest in, and the great attention the Minister has paid to it during his tenure of office. Many of my constituents are Government tenants, and I am brought into close touch with the Lands Department. I have met with the utmost courtesy from him and from his department in everything connected with Zululand. The Minister has told us that he is going to allot further lands in Zululand, but the Government has adopted a policy of excluding from Zululand the very people who can work these lands, namely, the native workers. The whole of that part of Zululand, where the Crown lands are located is malarial, and is sparsely inhabited. The Zulus proper live on the high lands where it is free from malaria, and go to work on the mines and farms of the interior, but they will not work on the coast. The labourers most suitable for work on the coast and who are more or less immune to malaria come from Portuguese East, just over the border of Zululand. Recently the Government closed the Portuguese border, and prevented the entry of natives, who had been coming over to work on the cotton and sugar plantations. Thus the settlers will be under the necessity of recruiting labour in the Union, perhaps somewhere down in Pondoland, and maybe they will have to pay £5 a head for their transport and recruiting. The natives from Pondoland will get malaria, and then they will return to their homes and give Zululand a very bad name, and we shall be receiving reports from their magistrates, as is the case at present, painting in the blackest terms the condition of employment. At the start the settlers, as well as their natives, live in huts. The settlers will be told that they must erect mosquito-proof houses for the workers, but the settlers cannot afford to do that, and even if they did, they could not prevent the occurrence of malaria, as the mosquitoes are very prevalent in the early hours of the morning when the natives are at work. Once a native catches malaria, he thinks he is going to die; he becomes very ill, and you can do nothing with him. The cutting off of the supply of suitable native labour is a very serious question, and affects most injuriously the livelihood of all the settlers. We cannot produce cotton by white labour, and the Minister should consult with his colleagues to see if something cannot be done to stop this process of forbidding natives to come over the Portuguese border. They come over voluntarily when they are given the opportunity, and we should welcome them. There is one other question. The Minister recently sent around a committee of investigation to enquire into flood losses in Zululand, and I would be pleased if he could tell the House what the report is.

I am sorry I have not received the report regarding flood losses, but I am expecting it every day. As regards the other question, it is a very ticklish one, and I will consider the matter, and see whether anything can be done.

It is a very serious question.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 34, “Deeds,” £48,189, put and agreed to.

On Vote 35, “Surveys,” £63,960,

I notice under this vote is native location surveyors. Last year I asked the question as to what the policy of the Government was in connection with the survey of native land in the Transkei. These native location surveyors are occupied up there surveying a considerable amount, but a large portion of the Transkei has not been surveyed. One portion was Surveyed a number of years ago and a commission sat 18 months or two years ago dealing with this particular question. I would like to know what the policy of the Government is.

The hon. member cannot discuss the policy of the Government on this vote.

What has been done in connection with the extension of the survey to the other districts which are unsurveyed?

That is a matter for the Native Affairs Department. The question of policy is one which they decide and then they approach me if they want any surveys carried out, and I give instructions. I do not decide the question of policy. Since Engcobo was surveyed we have not had any further surveys made. The hon. member (Mr. Payn) should have brought this matter up on the Native Affairs vote, because the Minister of Native Affairs has to give instructions where and when and what surveys his department wants, and then I carry them out.

Vote put and agreed to.