presented a petition from W. Howe, head turnkey, Cape Town Gaol, praying that he may be allowed to contribute to the Pensions Fund for the period January 1, 1892, to December 51, 1893, during which he was on daily pay previous to his being placed on the fixed establishment, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. ALEXANDER, seconded by Dr. HEWAT, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from A. G. Dalton, of Rondebosch, who served under the Cape Government as assistant engineer, district engineer, and afterwards as assistant engineer-in-chief, from 1875 to November, 1910, with two short breaks, praying for special consideration of his case, and relief.

On the motion of Sir H. JUTA, seconded ‘by Dr. HEWAT, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from E. Kelly, lately gaoler, at Humansdorp, who served from 1896-1909, praying that a break of four months in his service may be condoned for pension purposes, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. MARAIS, seconded by Dr. NEETHLING, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from D. A. J. Beattie, who served under the late Cape Government for nearly 25 years in various capacities, and was retired in 1909 on a pension of £45 owing to ill-health, praying for an increase of pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. SEARLE, seconded by Mr. OLIVER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Mary Macdonald, who entered the Education Department as teacher in 1902, praying that a break in her service of one year and a half may be condoned, or for other relief.

On the motion of Mr. LOUW, seconded by Mr. VAN EDDEN, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from T. C. Mulligan, who served as a blacksmith on the Cape Government Railways and Table Bay Harbour Board for over 15 years, but in 1905, owing to a paralytic stroke, was discharged with a gratuity of £54 2s. 8d., praying for a pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Sir H. JOTA, seconded by Mr. JAGGER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from C. G. Rush, tablet foreman,: Gape Government Railways, who entered the service in 1897, praying that a break of one year may be condoned, or for other relief.

On the motion of Dr. HE WAT, seconded by Mr. ODIVER, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Boyce Skota, who served as police constable and interpreter in several Magistrates’ Courts from 1877 to 1880, when he was dismissed, and afterwards as a letter-carrier in the Post Office, Kimberley, from May, 1889, to March, 1906, when he was retired on pension, praying for recognition of his previous ten years’ service and an increased pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. OLIVER, seconded by Dr. HEWAT, the petition was referred to the select Committee on Pension, Grants, and Gratuities.

presented a petition from Henrietta Cullinan, widow of the late J. J. Cullinan, who served in the Cape Mounted Rifles and Cape Police from 1880 to 1901, when he was retired on pension, and died in 1907, praying the House to consider her circumstances, and grant her a pension, or other relief.

On the motion of Mr. OLIVER, seconded by Dr. WATKINS, the petition was referred to the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

announced that he had appointed Mr. H. S. van Zyl as Parliamentary draughtsman. (Hear, hear.)

read a return dealing with the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Transvaal Police who had been retrenched or who had resigned between May 51, 1910, and November 1, 1910: Retrenched, 2; resigned, 1; purchased discharge, 67; time expired. 9; deserted. 9; died, 7; discharged as unsuitable, 34; discharged as medically unfit, 5; discharged for false particulars in affidavits and statements, 17.

(1) Of land surrendered in terms of section 21 of Act 40 of 1895 (Gape), (2) land resumed in terms of section 22 of Act 40 of 1895 (Cape), (3) of church, school, and trading sites granted in the Transkeian Territories in terms of Proclamation No. 103 of 1900, as amended by Proclamation 126 of 1905 (Gape).

said he found that the preparation of the return would not take quite so long as he thought it would, but the cost would be £20. Whether the mover thought that the information would be worth £20, he did not know.

said he did not lay much stress on the expense, as the return would a valuable one.

The motion was agreed to.

in moving, the second reading of the Interpretation Bill, explained that at the present time there was an Interpretation Act in each of the four colonies. It was necessary that these laws should be assimilated as soon as possible. There was no provision in the Bill which was not contained in one or other of the four Acts, unless it be, perhaps, one or two provisions which had been taken over from the most recent English Acts. It was really necessary that there should be an Act of this kind, one-reason being that in the past it had happened through oversight that technical terms had not been defined, with the result that this led to litigation.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Monday next.

asked what the estimated cost of the Census would be.

said his hon. friend would be able to see that when the Estimates were laid on the table; he had forgotten the amount for the moment.

moved that the words “or to unemployment” be inserted at the end of subsection 5 of clause 8 (Regulations). He said he thought that it would be convenient for the Governor-General to have power to make regulations providing for statistics from time to time of unemployed, and more particularly those who were dependent upon the unemployed.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether or not the Government intended to appoint a statistician in connection with the Census.

said he thought it would be necessary sooner or later to take into consideration the question of appointing a competent statistician

On clause 8,

moved the following amendment: In line 40, after “Act,” to insert “and such regulations shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament, and shall not become law until ten days have elapsed after the date of such presentation, provided always that any amendment within such ten days brought forward by way of motion in each House shall first have been inserted, modified, or rejected by both Houses.” He said that he wished to put himself right with the House, and the Minister of the Interior in regard to the objection he made the Other day that firms should he called upon to make a return of their capital. He had since found that the Minister of the Interior had got the suggestion from the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, but, nevertheless, he did not agree with it. The object of his amendment was that the regulations should be brought before Parliament before they became law. They were very far reaching, and the House should have an oportunity of expressing an opinion upon them if it wished to. The last Census regulations in the Cape were laid on the table of the House, and it was quite right that they should be, because it was found that as a rule the officials wanted to go into tremendous details, and perhaps it would be advisable to have some check.

supported the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Those in the Transvaal had had home experience in regard to regulations. In the case of the Transvaal Education Act, and the Police Act, two very important measures, the Ministers took to themselves the power of making regulations when, where, and how they liked, and if it were necessary he could quote some of them to show now utterly unfair they were. Before they agreed to any regulations being enforced, the House ought to know what they were Mr. E. H. WALTON (Port Elizabeth, Central) said he would suggest that the Minister of Justice consider the amendment with a view to applying it to the Interpretation Act, and so make it general. They had been accustomed in the Cape to have their regulations laid on the table, so that members might have an opportunity of seeing them before they were enforced.

said that he would be pleased to hear any amendment that might be made, but, of course, he could not say whether he would be prepared to accept it.

said that in spite of what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had said, they in the Transvaal had passed laws in connection with which regulations were essential. He undertook that before these regulations were put into force they would be laid on the table of both Houses. He hoped that that would satisfy the hon. member.

said that in view of the assurance given by the Minister he would withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was thereupon withdrawn.

Before the schedule was put,

said that he would like to ask a question which appertained to clause 5. It seemed to him to be rather an awkward position that the Government should have the power to proclaim a Census in the “Gazette,” a power which he thought too large, and which should be by resolution of Parliament.

asked whether the right hon. member referred to clause 3, because they had passed that clause.

said that he was prepared to answer the question.

said that that could be done at a later stage.

When?

At the third reading.

The Bill was reported, with one amendment.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that the amendment be at once considered.

The motion was agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to.

repeated his question.

The right hon. member will be able to put any question on the Bill at the third reading.

The third reading was set down for Friday.

I would now like to ask whether it is intended by this Bill to give power to the Government at any time to proclaim in the “Gazette” that a Census should be taken without obtaining the consent of Parliament? That is, as far as I can make out, the intention of the Bill.

The answer to the question asked by my right hon. friend is that far the ordinary Census it would be quite right and proper, if necessary, to settle it by resolution of Parliament, but here, as I have already stated, at the second reading of the Bill, we are dealing not only with the decennial, but with the quinquennial census, which, under the South Africa Act, is to be held at stated intervals, beginning in 1911, and every five years thereafter. Therefore, it may be necessary to take a quinquennial Census in future without waiting for the consent of Parliament. I dare say that no Government in South Africa will abuse-its power, and hold the Census in the seventh or eighth year instead of every fifth.

asked whether the centennial Census would to taken on the same date as that of the rest of the Empire.

I am always willing to fall in with the rest of the world. He was understood to add that maybe the Empire might be wrong, and then they could go one better. (Laughter.)

moved the following amendment: “And the absence from duty on any such non-business day of any person whose services are engaged in any commercial, mercantile, industrial, or other business employment shall not afford legal grounds for the dismissal or suspension from service of such person, or for any other disciplinary or corrective treatment, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the contract or agreement under which such person’s services were engaged.”

asked whether the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment would explain his object?

said that in spite of the assurance given him by the Hon. the Minister in charge of the Bill the other afternoon, he preferred a bird in the hand rather than two in a bush. Their contention was the workman had as much right to enjoy a public holiday as anyone else. He had endeavoured to go upon the lines of clause 5 in framing the amendment. They desired to establish (he principle that a workman had a right to absent himself from his business on a holiday, without his principal having ground to resent it. They had been told that all the mines paid their men on Christmas Day and Good Friday, but, as far as his information went, this was not correct. Some paid for Christmas Day, but hardly any for the other holiday. His hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Lionel Phillips) would probably tell them that the mines and the country would lose so much per year on this account, and that his (Mr. Creswell’s) interest was measured by the amount they got out of the mines. But he did not pretend to argue that they were without interest in this matter, even if it was not as large as the interest of his hon. friend the member for Yeoville. These were the views of the men on the gold-fields, who did not’ get all the enjoyment they should out of life. They wished to make a beginning to establish that a public holiday was a public holiday, and put the employee on the same footing as his employer.

said that while he sympathised with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell), he did not think it the right time, if he wished to attain the object in view. He would say however, that he did not agree with these spasmodic holidays, and would be pleased to support, at the proper time, a prolonged holiday for these employees each year.

said that he claimed to be a representative of labour just as much as his friend the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell). He was in favour of a prolonged holiday, rather than a lot of spasmodic holidays.

Might I ask if the Government is going to accept the amendment? (Ministerial cries of “No.”)

said he would like to ask a question. The Minister of the Interior told them that an opportunity of discussing this question would be given when the mining regulations were before the House. But he pointed out that the Mining Bill only affected part of the community, and this amendment was more general in effect. He would like the hon. gentleman to realise this position. Supposing on a public holiday, the driver of a vehicle decided to have a holiday, he could not be dismissed for that. Then if, on the railway, the man in charge of the signals decided ‘to have a holiday, it herd could be no redress. The amendment was all very well from a theoretical point of view. He believed he represented the employees at the Pretoria Printing Office, whose holidays were taken away from them by the Government of which his hon. friend was a member. They had not got these holidays back. He would like to know if the Government would put sympathy into practice, and give these men their holidays, and pay them? He would like to know if the Government would take into consideration the position of the porter and the policeman who worked harder on holidays than other days, and who, when they did get holidays, wore not paid for them?

pointed out that there was a large number of people in the country engaged in providing food. He believed in miners having holidays, but the proposal must be made in a practical fashion.

said it had been suggested that miners should have holidays on full pay. He found that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), who was very anxious that miners should be paid for holidays, was the editor of a newspaper in Cape Town. Well, the compositors in Cape Town were paid weekly, and when they took a day’s holiday, they lost their pay. (Laughter.) Thus, the hon. member while being very solicitous regarding the miners, when it came to his own interests, was very careful to see that the compositors, when they did not work, did not get any pay. (Laughter.) As to the railway men, the Cape system did treat its men fairly and liberally, but the Transvaal Railway, with its enormous surplus, sweated its men.

Three-and-four pence a day.

said he believed the administration of the Cape Railways by the hon. member opposite (Mr. Sauer) was certainly an example in regard to the men, which the late Government of the Transvaal should have copied. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) had had a good deal to say about the mining industry and the representation of white labour in that House. He (Sir George) believed that, white labour had more representatives in that House that the three hon. members on the cross-benches, and he would advise the born member for Jeppes to learn more about labour questions and holidays. (Laughter.) The mining industry, so far as holidays were concerned, would fully compare with any private trade and with the Transvaal Railways. If the matter were dealt with under the mining regulations and if one or two more days were required, he was sure that those who represented the mining industry in that House would offer no objection. There was, however, no colour line in this matter, and if the proposal were agreed to, every farm servant could take off his hat to his employer and say: “I am going to have 14 days’ holiday.” The proposition was practically impossible.

maintained that the amendment was not an unreasonable one. It seemed wrong that Government should proclaim a holiday, and then debar a man from having it. Surely 12 days in a year were not too long for a man to have as a holiday. He took exception to the remarks made by the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir G. Farrar) as to the people they on the cross-benches represented; but he would tell the hon. member that they represented the majority of the voters in their constituencies.

said that the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir Geo. Farrar) had said that he (the speaker) was an employer of labour, but he wished to say that his position was not that of an employer. He was an employee when he was not out of work. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Georgetown had also referred to the printing trade and he (the speaker) should like to say that when he was in his constituency he had a good deal of printing to be done, and wished it to be done by one of the best offices in Port Elizabeth. He was informed by the Typographical Union, however, that there was not a single office in Port Elizabeth that was paying the proper rate of wages.

Not true. (Laughter.)

My friend save “not true,” He is perfectly correct, and that was just what I was going to say. Proceeding, he said that it was perfectly true that there was one small office, but the great daily press of Port Elizabeth was sweating its men at the present time. He was sorry to say it, and if the hon. member for Georgetown wished to refer to the printing trade instead of casting his eyes over to his (the speaker’s) side of the House, he should cast his eyes at right angles to himself. As regards the railway men he said the hon. member for Georgetown was for some time a member of the Inter Colonial Council and Railway Board, and having sweated the railway men in the Transvaal, he now came here and tried to complain on behalf of the men he had sweated. The member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) was in exactly the same position. Did he try to put the matter of holidays right? No

rose to a point of order. He said that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) was wandering from the point under discussion, and was wasting time.

said that he was only referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Georgetown. In fact, he had only been courteous enough to follow the hon. member for Georgetown in his meanderings He (the speaker) was not wandering, he was dealing with the question before the House, which was the question of holidays for two sets of men— the men employed in the printing trade and the men employed in the railway service. As far as the men in the printing trade were concerned, they were paid by piece-work, which was an unsatisfactory system, and one which should be got rid of as soon as possible. As far as the railway men were concerned, neither the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir George Farrar) nor the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) had done anything for them when they were in power, but he was confident that the Minister of Railways would see that the matter was put right. He wished to point out to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) that his amendment would be unworkable. There was no general rule in regard to railway men’s holidays; he did not think that such a rule would be workable. He trusted that the amendment would be brought up at a later date, and hoped that the privileges which prevailed on the old Cape Railways would be extended throughout the Union. He did not think that the amendment in its present form was practicable, and, therefore, hoped the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) would withdraw it, and bring it up at a future date.

said that the informant of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) was not correct when he said that there was no standard rate of wages in the printing trade in Port Elizabeth. The whole of his printing in connection with his election bore the stamp or the Typographical standard rate of wages. As regards the dispute in one of the printing firms in Port Elizabeth, he was in a position to say that that was only temporary; and that the standard rate of wages was paid.

said he took exception to the statements made by the hon. member for Uitenhage.

said that the hon. member for Georgetown could hardly be held responsible in the matter of railways in the Transvaal, in view of the fact that he left the Railway Board four years ago. He wished to point out to the mover of the amendment that his proposal would have no effect.

said he would like to know whether the Government had any views on this question at all. They had heard nothing from them as to what their views were. He thought that the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Creswell) could serve his purpose better if an amendment were moved to the effect that trades and businesses which were not absolutely necessary should not be carried on such public holidays, just as they were not carried on Sundays. He would like to know whether the Government had any voice on the matter at all; would they vote in favour of, or against, the amendment?

said that the view the Government took was that however much they might sympathise with some of the objects which the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) had in view, the present amendment was not a workable one, nor did he think that was the proper place for such an amendment. Hon. members would see that there was no penalty clause in the Bill whatever, and what happened on these holidays was left to the common-sense of the people. They did not say that on those days everything should come to a dead stop. In England there were only four statutory holidays, because it was felt in a country like that, with important concerns going on, one could not call a halt every time. It was not possible for the Government to accept the amendment.

said that he took it that the opinion just expressed was the collective opinion of the Government, which had sat silent up till then. They on the Opposition side were anxious to hear the voice of the Government, and glad to have heard it, because the previous afternoon they had heard three voices from the Government—and they were all different. (Laughter.) The hon. member hoped that there would not be any recriminations, because if they were going to turn themselves into a mutual recrimination society they would do very little business, and much had to be done.

in reply, said that he intended to press the amendment, which did not mean that ell work was to stop on a holiday, hut that those workmen who wished to have a holiday could have one. The amendment expressed the right of a workman to have a holiday as well as the man who employed him. As to what the hon. member for Georgetown (Sir Geo. Farrar) had said as to their (the Labour members) having changed ground, that was not the case at all, for they contended most firmly that these public holidays should not put a loss on a man. The workman bad to pay his bills at the end of the month whether there had been any holidays or not. As to what the hon. member had said about his (the speaker’s) “impracticable schemes,” he remembered that one of them had been the repatriation of the Chinese from the Rand. (Minsterial cheers.)

said that they would have to take into consideration that the effect of the Bill would not be for a few days, but for years. They had not only to deal with white labour, but also with coloured labour, and in the country districts they depended almost solely upon the latter. But they knew that when they got one holiday, coloured labourers generally made three of it—(laughter)—land so if that amendment were agreed to, he saw great difficulties in future and grave consequences to the landowners. They all sympathised with the labouring people of the country, but the effect of the amendment would, he thought, be extremely harmful.

The motion was then put.

declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, which was taken, with the following result:

had the following new clause 6 on the paper: “No public servant shall be deprived of his pay in connection with public holidays merely on account of being on leave immediately before or after the holiday in question, unless the period of such leave extends over a period of more than one week.” Mr. Fremantle thought that possibly it would be better if he moved in this direction when a Superannuation Bill came before the House. If the Minister thought that course better he would withdraw.

replied that such a Bill would be before the House shortly.

said that this was one of the promises which the hon. member for Uitenhage had given his constituents; but though personally he (the speaker) did not see what the Superannuation Bill had to do with the deduction of holidays, the principle propounded in the amendment was a sound one, and if the hon. member kept it on the paper he (Mr. Walton) would give it his support.

said that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Mr. Walton) thought he was going to embarrass him (Mr. Fremantle) by embarrassing the Government, he was making a mistake. He (the speaker) would not forget the matter, and would bring it up at a future date, when he hoped he would get the support of his hon. friend (Mr. Walton). He believed that so long as his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) was in office, the matter would be all right; but it was possible that circumstances might alter cases. (Opposition laughter.) He (Mr. Fremantle) would bring the matter up before the end of the session.

said that if the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) was not going to move that clause he would. It was not fair that a man should be deprived of the advantage of a public holiday if it happened to occur during his period of leave.

supported the proposal, which he pointed out affected all public servants, and not only railway men.

also supported the proposal, which he described as a practical one.

asked the Chairman’s ruling on the following point:“If the motion is put, and is rejected by the House, will it be competent for the House or Committee to reintroduce the same motion in another Bill in the same session?”

Yes; I think it is quite competent in another Bill.

said he would not accept the amendment. It was impossible to deal with that matter on a question of holidays, and it must be dealt with in a Railway Bill.

Will you accept the principle?

I think it is a fair principle, but this Bill is not the right one in which to make such a provision. On behalf of the Government, I find it is not possible to accept it, and I hope it will be moved on another and a better occasion.

said he was not in a position to say whether Government would, or would not, accept the principle. However, the matter would receive fair and—he might say—sympathetic consideration, and quite on the lines on which he had dealt with similar matters. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) thought he would score off the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) in this matter, but the former would not be serving the cause of the railway men in the attitude he had taken up. When the matter came up it would receive full consideration. He had seen the Auditor-Ceneral about the matter, and that gentleman told him that the law prohibited railway men being paid under the circumstances. He hoped that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) would see that the best interests of those concerned would best be served by not pressing the matter.

said that if the hon. member for Uitenhage had not moved in the matter he would! have done so himself. He wanted to see that the promises the hon. member made to the men at Uitenhage were kept, and that was an opportunity to give effect to what was a fair proposition. Therefore, he was not prepared to withdraw. He did not consider that a Superannuation Bill was the correct Bill in which they should deal with a question of this kind.

Railways Service Bill.

Well, I have not seen it. Where is it? I don’t know whether we are to have a Railways Service Bill.

was understood to say that the Government intended to introduce a Railways Service Bill.

said that if he could get a definite assurance from the Minister of Railways or the Minister of the Interior that he admitted that this principle was a fair one, and that it would be embodied in the Railways Service Bill, then he would be prepared to withdraw the amendment. Promises were given on the platform, but were not being kept in the House. If the principle was considered a fair one, why should not it be embodied in legislation? But if the Minister now refused to say that it was a fair principle and refused to embody it, where were they? He would not withdraw the amendment, but leave the Government if they approve of the principle, to vote for it, and if they did not, to vote against it.

said he did not know where the promise was made. Certainly no such promise was ever made by him. He was understood to say further that the House would be given an opportunity shortly to consider the question.

said that they were dealing not only with the harbours and railways, but also with temporary daily-paid men in the public service, and some provision should be made for them. Provision could not be put in a Superannuation Bill. He appealed to hon. members not to throw away their election speeches. He also appealed to the House to go beyond railways and harbours, and include every man in the employ of the Government.

explained to the House that the point raised was due to him, and he wished to state that temporary men did not in any case get paid for holidays, and he did not propose that temporary men, who were not now considered to have a right to be paid for holidays, should be paid. He was not aware that there was any need to deal with any section of the public service other than the railways; and he proposed to deal exclusively with the railways. He only hoped that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Mr. Walton), would accept the assurance of the Minister of Railways that a full opportunity would be given shortly to the House to decide on this question. He (the speaker) accepted that assurance, and if it were not carried out, it would be very easy for one to make an opportunity by introducing a Bill. He intended to see that the matter came before the House this session, but he saw no reason for pressing the matter at the present stage. If it had not been for him, nothing would have been heard of the matter.

The amendment was put and defeated.

moved to delete Ascension Day, and substitute the 1st of May.

said that he refused to take the amendment seriously. If they considered that the bulk of the people were in favour of observing the day in question, and that this was a Christian country, surely they would refuse to pass the amendment.

said that having regard to what the Minister of the Interior said in introducing the Bill, he had no alternative but to ask that Ascension Day be deleted, and the 1st of May substituted. He referred to the observance of the 1st of May as a holiday in other countries, and said that in some parts the workers absolutely refused to work. He hoped that the workers of South Africa would not be compelled to refuse to work on the 1st of May.

said that they were in South Africa, and were not providing for holidays which were observed in other countries or in France. He hoped that the amendment would be withdrawn.

asked whether the mover would like to see South Africa converted into another France, where the Government had to order out an army so as to be able to keep those Who celebrated May Day within bounds. He extremely regretted the fact that such an amendment should have been introduced, and trusted that it would be rejected by a large majority.

said that they merely wished to provide for a day which was more convenient than Ascension Day—a day which was not observed by many.

The motion was negatived.

moved, as an amendment, that King’s Birthday be celebrated on June 3, and that Victoria Day, May 24, be eliminated. He thought that they should celebrate King’s Birthday on the proper date, and as to Victoria Day, while they all revered the memory of Queen Victoria, yet if they celebrated the birthday of one of their former rulers, why not that of others?

hoped that they would not interfere with May 24, by which they revered the memory of Queen Victoria. He had originally intended to move that Ascension Day should be eliminated, but as he found that the feeling of many members of the House was so strongly against that elimination, he came to the conclusion, in consideration of their feelings, that he should drop his amendment. His suggestion was that they should add June 3, for he held that the King’s Birthday, if observed at all, should be observed at the proper date. To his mind, it was most improper to put it back to May 24. If there were twice as many birthdays to celebrate as there were at present, he would still urge June 3 being celebrated as King’s Birthday. If they added that day, they would have 11 days altogether. Well, let it; there would be no outcry either from the English or the Dutch people of the country. If they could not observe the day on the proper date, let them rather not observe it at all.

said that for once he was able to support the hon. member for Troyeville because that hon. member knew the wishes of the commercial section of the community, who were the people complaining about too large a number of holidays. The Committee would therefore be on perfectly safe ground if it took the hon. member’s advice on a matter such as this. He trusted the Minister would provide for Victoria Day, Union Day and King’s Birthday.

said that it was the commercial community that had to bear the burden, and the complaint was that there were too many holidays, and that several of these came about the same time. If this amendment was carried they would have another bunch of holidays in close proximity to each other. He thought that May 24 should be retained, though he deprecated the inclusion of June 3 in the list. In conclusion, he said he hoped that the Minister of the Interior would stick to the schedule which he had placed before the House. (Hear, hear.)

said that though he was somewhat in favour of the inclusion of June 3, he was of the opinion that those who had spoken in favour had not made out a very strong case. It was only right, however, that the birthday of His Majesty the King should be celebrated seeing that His Majesty was the living symbol of unity in the British Empire. He would say that if he saw that sentiment on the question was especially strong, he would be prepared to fall in with the wishes of the majority.

said that if the House was not altogether wishful of observing the King’s birthday on the King’s Birthday, why should not the day of celebration be moved further on, say, some date between May 31 and the end of October.

said he did not think it would be taken as a mark of disrespect if the King’s Birthday were celebrated on another specified date. He pointed out, however, that sentiment on the question of celebrating the King’s Birthday was particularly strong. At the same time, he did not quite agree with the suggestion that the celebration of the Sovereign’s birthday should clash with May 24. He was of opinion that Union Day might be moved to November 4, which was after all, the real day of Union, as it was the day on which Parliament met, and that the King’s Birthday should be celebrated on the first Monday in August, as an hon. member had suggested. He thought the wishes of everybody would be met if the Minister for the Interior would agree to add just one more day to the list. Perhaps the Minister might take the matter into consideration between the time the Bill passed out of committee and the third reading was taken.

said he was willing to meet the wishes of members on this point, and he thought that the first Monday in August would suit the purpose. As he did not think there was any necessity for delay, he would move that the words, “and King’s Birthday” should be struck out from the schedule in order that an amendment putting the matter right might be moved at a later stage.

said the King’s Borthday should be celebrated on the proper date, on Victoria Day or not at all. He did not agree with the suggestion of the Minister for the Interior that the King’s Birthday should be celebrated in August.

agreed with the last speaker.

said he differed from the Minister because, though the event had not yet occurred since Union, he felt sure that the Governor-General would proclaim a holiday in any case on King’s Birthday.

amendment was withdrawn.

The amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

moved that after Victoria Day be inserted “and Empire Day.” That would bring the fact to the notice of the school children that, they were connected with the Empire.

hoped that the amendment would not be pressed. All over South Africa the day was called Victoria Day, and thus bore the name of the Sovereign who reigned over the Empire when it went through its greatest crises. He trusted no invidious distinction would be made between Victoria Day and Empire Day.

withdrew the amendment.

moved the insertion, after Union Day, of the words “King’s birthday (second Monday in August).”

suggested that the day should be celebrated on the first Monday in August, which was a bank holiday in Great Britain.

suggested that the day should be called Arbor Day. (Laughter.) He was sorry that the hon. members so little appreciated the importance of having an arbor day.

once more pleaded for 3rd June.

said that August was the month for tree-planting and that therefore the holidays should be fixed at as early a date as possible in that month.

supported having the holiday on the first Monday in August.

said he was quite prepared to accept the suggestion. He thought they might fall into line over this matter. (Hear, hear.) He would, therefore, move that the Fling’s birthday be observed on the first Monday in August.

This was agreed to.

said that he supported the observance of Dingaam’s Day, on the ground that December 16 denoted the triumph of civilisation over barbarism and heathenism,

suggested that Dingaan’s Day be observed on the first Monday in October.

was opposed to the proposed change.

The Bill was reported, and the consideration of the amendments set down for Friday.

withdrew his proviso to clause one, which was as follows: “Provided that such’ appeal shall not affect anything already done or rights already acquired.” He stated that his amendment was met by the Interpretation Bill.

In clause 3.

moved as an amendment: In line 12, omit all the words from “at any time” to the end of the clause, and substitute “within five years immediately preceding the date of his application: (a) He has resided for a period of not less than two years in the Union or in any colony or territory included at the date of his application within the Union; or (b) he has been in the service of the Crown, or has obtained a certificate or letters of naturalisation in any British colony or possession, which certificate or letters remains or remain in full force and effect.”

hoped that the hon. member would not press his amendment, as it might lead to invidious distinctions. This was essentially a matter for reciprocity.

who hoped that the amendment would be accepted, said that as the Bill stood, the Minister might refuse to grant letters of naturalisation to anyone. In case reciprocity existed, the Minister would be obliged to grant naturalisation here to a person who had been naturalised, say, in Canada. There was a distinction between reciprocity and the provisions of the present Bill, and under the circumstances, he failed to see why any respectable person who came from other parts of the British Empire, produced his naturalisation papers, and who intended settling down here, should have to wait for two years.

said that the Minister of the Interior’s objections as to reciprocity could be met by the following proviso, which he would move: “Provided that such British colony or possession affords similar treatment to the certificate of naturalisation granted in the Union.” There was no question at all of “demanding letters of naturalisation.” The Bill would show hon. members that the whole matter was one of grace on the part of the Minister, and the latter might refuse the application for naturalisation from anybody, whether he was a Chinaman, or came from Hong Kong, or any other part of the world.

moved that progress be reported.

This was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.