from W. H. Whitney, gaoler, of Elliot, who served on garrison duty, in Pondoland, from November, 1899, to November, 1900, praying the House to condone certain break in his service from April, 1905, to June, 1903, and to recognise his previous services for pension purposes, or other relief.

from M. P. J. Moyle, who served as a teacher in the Education Department for 38 years, and resigned in 1909, owing to ill-health, on a pension of £52 per annum, praying for an increase thereof, or for other relief.

from J. A. E. Markus, formerly Commissioner of Police, Bloemfontein, and Commandant of Police, Orange Free State, who served under the late Governments of the Cape and Orange Free State for about 15 years, praying for consideration, or other relief.

from O. J. Truter, of Kroonstad (and supported by 144 signatures from inhabitants), who served for nearly 15 years in various capacities under the late Government of the Orange Free State, and who was awarded a monthly allowance of £1 10s., praying the House to consider his age of 72 years and weak; state of health, and grant him further relief.

from A. J. Parsons, construction engineer, who served in the Railway and Public Works Departments, with certain breaks, for about 50 years, until December, 1910, from which date he will be retired on pension, praying for special consideration, or other relief.

from C. A. H. Kotze, who served as a teacher in the Education Department from January, 1906, praying that a break in his service from April, 1907, to June, 1909, may be condoned, or for other relief.

from T. J. Kotze and eight others, styling themselves inhabitants of Klerksdorp and electors in the division of Potchefstroom, Transvaal Province, drawing attention to licence fees payable on stands owned by them within the municipal area of Klerksdorp, whereas by Act No. 34 of 1908 of the Transvaal, stands in certain other townships have been changed into freehold properties, praying for favourable consideration and relief.

from Anna Tucker, widow of the late E. M. Tucker, who died in May, 1908, when sergeant of police in Kimberley, after ten years’ service, praying for an increased pension or for other relief.

from S. A. Roberts, late Chief Inspector of Native Locations, Gape Colony, who after 12 years’ service was retired on a pension of £275 10s. 8d., praying for further consideration, or other relief.

announced that the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Ordens had appointed Mr. E. N. Grobler to be a member of the Select Committee on the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bid in the stead of Mr. Wilcocks.

as chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Ordens, as follows lows: Third report of the Select committee, appointed by orders of the House of Assembly, dated November 7th and 8th, 1910, on Standing Rules and Orders, land to consist of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Merriman, Dr. Jameson, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of the Interior, Sir Bisset Berry, the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Juta, and Mr. Watt. Your committee, having considered the question of the rules to be framed for the payment of members of Parliament, beg to recommend the adaption of the following rules, viz.: (.1) Subject to the deductions, if any, there shall be paid by the Clerk of the House concerned, at the end of each month during a session to every member of Parliament a sum at the rate of £60 per month, the balance of such member’s annual allowance to be paid at the end of each financial year. (2) Before any payment is made to a member during a session of Parliament, he shall furnish to the Clerk of the House of which he is a member, a certificate signed by him showing the number of days during the month on which he attended, and the number of days (if any) on which he was absent, land the reason for such absence. (3) “Absent,” in respect of a member, shall mean absent from the House of which he is a member, or from any committee of which he is a member during the whole of a day of the session for any cause other than his own illness, or upon the subpoena of a competent Court.”

Chairman. Committee Roams, House of Assembly, November 118, 1910.

moved, seconded by Mr. P. G. W. GROBLER, that the report be considered on Monday.

Agreed to.

(1) Government Notice promulgating Rules under Law No. 48, 1884 (Natal) relating to passes to natives; (2) list of chiefs in Zululand who are paid stipends, Act No. 37, 1897 (Natal); (3) reports by Council for Native Affairs (Natal), upon matters specified in section thirty-two of Act No. 1, 1909 (Natal), February 3rd to October 7th, 1910.

moved the second reading. The Bill, he said, was in the main la consolidating measure. The object was to prohibit the export of ostriches, ostrich eggs, and angora goats. Two new provisions had been made, however. Clause 2 made certain exceptions in favour of certain places to which export would be allowed. Clause 3 provided that ostriches or angora goats, leaving Union ports by vessel, could not be transshipped. At present negotiations were being conducted with the Government of German South-west Africa with a view to preventing the export from that territory.

pointed out the importance of ostrich-farming to the Cape. Unless the export of birds were absolutely prohibited, the industry would suffer. He welcomed the Bill, but regretted that the door had been left open to such an extent. Once export was allowed they had to make up their minds to face a condition of affairs in the future such as existed in Turkey now. Owing to the Turkish export of angora goats, South Africa at present occupied a position of preeminence. There were some ostrich-farmers who considered it advantageous to export birds, but even if £200,000 were realised by the sale of ostriches, the advantage would be a negative one if South Africa lost an industry yielding £2,000,000 annually. The Government proposed to allow the export to such countries as passed similar legislation, but what could prevent German South-west Africa from repealing such legislation afterwards? In that country wild ostriches roamed about, and if the people wished to establish an industry, why did they not catch those birds? The same thing had been done originally in Cape Colony, where it had taken forty years to bring the breed up to its present perfection. Stringent measures should be taken in order to prevent such a calamity as the ruin of the Cape industry would be; yet, it would come to pass within eighteen months unless the export were stopped. If the Government obtained the power sought in this Bill to permit the export by proclamation, he was afraid that fraudulent actions would be resorted to, because money was very powerful. He was in favour of deleting that provision lest America should manage to obtain its birds from the Cape. It was eager to compete, which he knew from personal observation.

hoped the House would set its face against giving Government vast powers to deal with affairs by regulation. (Cheers.) In the Cape Act of 1907 it was made unlawful to export ostriches or ostrich eggs, but the Bill before the House said the Government might make regulations to that effect.

Read clause 2.

But it is in the hands of Government. Continuing, the hon. member maintained that the committee of that House should decide if there were to be exportation of ostriches and Angora goats, and to what places they might go. He suggested that the committee stage should be deferred for 10 or 14 days, because there was a large number of people in the country who took a deep interest in the matter. It was only fair that the people who had invested a large amount of capital in ostrich and goat farming should have an opportunity through meetings of their associations to express their opinions on this subject. (Cheers.) If they were to protect the ostrich-farming industry in any tangible manner they must have a clause in the Bill which would make it impossible under any circumstances to export ostriches by sea. He had been informed that a short time ago two ostriches left the Cape consigned to German South-west Africa, but that owing to weather conditions those birds were not landed there. Could the hon. member (Mr. Malan) say whether that was correct or not? Why he (Dr. Smartt) was so opposed to the exportation by sea was that if birds were put on a steamer consigned to other ports in Africa there was no guarantee that they would be landed at those ports. His idea was that with the large border between the Cape and German South-west Africa it would be impossible to prevent birds being” smuggled across. It would be well worth the House considering whether it would not be better to continue the exportation to German South-west Africa, and interest the people there in the industry and get them to agree to the prohibition of the export of ostriches from that territory. Such an arrangement should also be entered into with British East Africa, where, he heard, there were some very good birds.

said that in 1907 an Act was passed by the Cape Parliament which provided that ostriches and ostrich eggs could be exported to certain other parts of South Africa where similar Acts had been passed. Now, the ostrich farmers in the Cape did not wish to embarrass the Government in their relations with friendly Governments on their confines, hut he thought he was expressing the opinion of the great majority of ostrarich-farmers when he said that they would like to see the exportation of ostriches and ostrich eggs prohibited altogether outside the Union. However, the fact remained that at the present time ostriches and ostrich eggs were being exported to German South-west Africa and Portuguese East Africa. The ostrich industry was of vital importance to a very large section of the people of the Cape Province, and they wanted as, far as possible to prevent other parts of South Africa outside of the Union sharing their prosperity.

Selfishness.

It may be selfishness, but it is a very good policy. Proceeding, the speaker said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) had stated that it would to advisable to postpone the committee stage for 14 days, and no hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill Would see Iris way clear to do so. With regard to regulations, the Government would have to consider the other Governments with whom they had reciprocity, lie referred to German South-west Africa and Portuguese East Africa. The regulations would have to be framed subject to their approval. He hoped that the House would have an opportunity of seeing the regulations before they were promulgated. He would like to see the power of the Governor-General in Council to enter into reciprocity with other Governments done away, as he considered that before reciprocity was agreed upon the House should be asked to deal first with the matter. As regards the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) with reference to British East Africa, he wished to say that the people there must be alive to their own interests. They had wild ostriches, but it would take another 40 years before they reached the state of perfection which had been attained in the Cape, and why should the farmers in the Cape give them the advantage of their dear experience? The people of British East Afrca must be alive to their own interests, and should pass legislation to prohibit the export of their birds.

asked why ostriches should not be exported, if it was right and proper to export wool and sheep? (Oh, oh.)

said that it was well that the House should know what the actual facts were to-day. Ostrich feathers were an article of luxury. There was not a market for feathers as there was for wool. They could not increase the production of feathers to an unlimited extent and expect people to go on buying them. He had taken the trouble to go into figures, and had found that in 1908 they exported from South Africa feathers to the value of £1,700,000, and that in 1909 they increased that amount to over £2,000,000. The production was still going up in South Africa within the Union, the farmers were producing more and more, and it was perfectly obvious that the world was not going to buy an unlimited quantity. The price would fall, and when it did, no one knew how low it would drop. Feathers, which fetched £2 to-day might drop to 5s. That happened twenty years ago, when there was a crisis in the ostrich-feather trade, and numbers of farmers were ruined. Continuing, the hon. member said: Let them keep the production as far as possible in their own hands. Let them take steps to prevent the export of birds and ostrich eggs, which would only help other countries to come into the market, and perhaps ruin them in South Africa. He need not tell hon. members that if, instead of getting two millions from ostrich feathers, that market were practically ruined, and that amount were taken away, they would get absolutely nothing in return; and they might get to a point where ostrich feathers were absolutely unsaleable. If anybody would take the trouble to get the views of those engaged in the trade, they would tell the same thing. There was at present a state of anxiety as to the production. He hoped that the Minister of Education would take to heart the remarks of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. (Mr. Schoeman) and the other members who had spoken to the sarnie effect. There was a feeling of anxiety amongst ostrich farmers at present. If the Bill passed through the House, and did not give them the protection which they (the ostrich farmers) thought they were entitled to, there would be grave discontent throughout the country. The credit of these people would be shaken.

said that he was glad to have heard the remarks of the Minister for Education. He was always one of those who said that agriculture was one of the most important things in the country, and that the Portfolio of Agriculture was one of the most important in the Cabinet; but unfortunately, in the last Cabinet, it had always been considered as a Portfolio of minor consequence. (Laughter.) Now that the Portfolio was in the hands of the Prime Minister, he expected great things in South Africa, for agriculture was one of those things which would remain after other industries had been forgotten. There was no doubt that the most important market for their ostriches was America; and they were always anxious about losing that trade. Unfortunately for them, they had ostriches already in the U.S.A., and in his travels there some years ago he saw quite a number of them—a couple of thousand even on one farm. He had no doubt that the ostriches had originally been exported from South Africa, before they had shut, the stable door; but it was a grain of comfort to know that these American ostriches were not at all as good as the South African, because the Americans, with their methods of hustle, had not been as careful as the South Africans, and consequently the birds were of inferior quality. But if the production of feathers in the U.S.A. increased, it would undoubtedly have an effect on the price of feathers exported from South Africa, and they would not be able to obtain the high prices which they had obtained hitherto. If they saw to it that no more birds were exported, they could still be at the head and front of that trade, but they must be very careful. As to Angora hair, they had to compete with Turkey, and it would be a bad thing to allow their angora goats to be exported. There was not that danger, as far as the U.S.A. were concerned, as there was with regard to ostrich feathers, as America was not as good as South Africa for breeding Angora goats. With ostriches it was different. They had alfalfa hay in the U.S.A. as well as in South Africa, and so they could compete better in America with South Africa in the ostrich-feather trade. He thought that in the 3rd clause of the Bill they should clearly lay down what, the limits of “South Africa” were, because if they could export ostriches right up to Central Africa, he thought that was not right, and that the boundaries should be more restricted.

said it might be very well to make agreements with foreign States as to the exports, but what guarantee had they that legislation would not be altered in those countries, and that exports from these territories would not be permitted? It would be too late to shut the door after other countries had acquired our best stock.

said there was only a limited demand for ostrich feathers. There had been a decline in the last sales, and he believed that, in view of the largely increasing production, the price would go down. The ostrich farmer was entitled to ask protection from the House in the same way as the wine and grain farmer asked for protection by way of Customs duties. It was possible to retain a valuable monopoly to this country. To a large extent they had to thank the ostrich industry for the great advance made in many districts in regard to irrigation. If they were now to create competition, they would be lowering the standard price of ostrich feathers until, perhaps, it would be no longer profitable, and in that way they would be discouraging irrigation.

referred to the trend of legislation in the past at some length, and said that farmers in the country—farmers really interested in the progress of the industry—were opposed to its being extended in any degree. Their attitude, he thought, should be such as to preserve the industry within the borders of the Union of South Africa, and if any extension was sought for them, Parliament should decide. If they went on extending at the rate proposed, they would never stop until they got to the Mediterranean, and then it, would be out of their control. With regard to Angora goats he pointed out that Turkey had stopped their exportation. He urged the Minister to delay as long as possible, to consult those who had the interests of the industry at heart, and consider amendments in the direction proposed by previous speakers.

pointed to the number of people who were dependent on the ostrich and angora industries. He was opposed to all export, because he feared it would spoil the market As it was it was no easy matter to find a market for feathers. The attention of the Trade Commissioner in London should be drawn to the matter, and fresh markets should be looked for. He appreciated the interest shown in the matter by the Government, but trusted that they would go a step further and prohibit the export altogether.

said he would vote for the second reading, but he trusted the committee stage would not be taken until after the New Year, so that he might consult his constituents. (Laughter.)

said that the Bill did not merely consolidate. It had for its object greater stringency in connection with the restrictions imposed, and if it was thought desirable the provisions could be made even more stringent in committee. It was not desirable, however, to limit the industries concerned to the Cape Colony. There could be no question of imposing restrictions on Inter-Colonial trade. Further, some of the Provinces had treaty obligations towards other countries, and it was impossible to cancel these. It was necessary to prevent ostriches that were shipped from reaching any place except the real port of destination. The whole of South Africa would, however, have to be considered as one family, though some parts did not belong to the Union. The prohibition of export to neighbouring territories involved real danger, because it would lead to smuggling.

I would like to give an explanation.

The hon. member has already spoken.

said there were three points that struck him that had not been dealt with by the Hon. the Prime Minister, and, therefore, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, he would like to point them out. The first of these points that had been raised was that there was some talk of legislation by regulation. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) fell into the trap.

Oh, no, he didn’t.

said the Government regulation spoken of here was for foreign powers. The South Africa Union could not legislate for German South-west Africa. They first had to have an agreement with them. The second point was the advisability of taking in German South-west Africa, Between that territory and this was a border of hundreds of miles. What was there to prevent men who wanted to from smuggling ostriches over the border? It was much better to have their protection at the seaports, Swakopmund and Delagoa Bay than at such a border. If they brought those neighbours in with them to assist them, then they need not take the difficult matter of land border into consideration They could say to their neighbour, “You are interested in the same matter as we are; you have only two ports, and you can control them very much better than we can.” Then there was the question of by sea. He admitted at once there was something in that. On the other hand, if a man wanted to break their laws, whether he broke it by land or sea, he was a lawbreaker. They entered into negotiations with German South-west Africa, and they had an agreement with them that ostriches and Angora goats would not be allowed to be exported to German South-west Africa except on a certificate from, the German Government that the importer was a bonafide farmer and fit to import, and that the birds or goats would be consigned to the German Government or the British Consul. Another clause agreed that one or two steamship companies would alone have the right to export these articles. It was much better to control them at the seaports, because they could concentrate their energies there better than on the land borders. The last point was the question of British East Africa. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) was rather inclined, he took it, to think that they Should take that part into the family of South African nations. Well, it was not a neighbouring State. The agreement did not apply to British East Africa, and, further, it ran up so far north that it would be practically impossible to control it at all. On the whole, he thought they would be wise in limiting it to South of the Zambesi. When it came into committee he would move to amend it by naming the Territories. German South-west Africa, Portuguese East Africa, and Rhodesia, and then they would know exactly what they were in for. He was quite prepared to allow a fortnight to elapse before committee stage was taken, so he did not think the charge that the Government was not alive to the importance of this matter could be true.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage put down for Friday, December 2.

said it was of the greatest importance to the House to know whether the motion was merely a financial motion, or was one of want of confidence in the Government, as would appear from some of the speeches and articles on the question. It would appear that there was an attempt to embarrass the Government in this matter. As to the phrase, “as soon as may be,” he held that that had a different meaning from the word “immediately.” What would the position of the Government have been supposing the Commission had been formed on May 51, and the House had a report before it from the members of the Commission to say that the facts were not before them, and thought it was not possible for them to proceed with their work? It was impossible for the Commission to get to work until Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing the matter, and until Parliament had laid down what the functions of the Provincial Councils were to be. He wished to be certain as to what was the scope of the motion. It would be impossible for the Commission to consider the question of equalisation of taxation without a discussion on the subject by that House, and the Commission could not get to work until there was a far clearer idea as to the scope of its inquiry. There were three ways of financing the Provincial Councils. One way was to provide the whole of their income out of the State Exchequer, but he hoped that would never be done, because it would bring upon them difficulties—

was understood to complain about the appointment of the Commission being postponed indefinitely.

Not indefinitely.

Take the answer of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister never said that it was to be postponed indefinitely; neither did the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister has not yet spoken on the subject. (Ministerial cheers.) The second method of financing the Provincial Councils, continued the speaker, was also one which he hoped would never be adopted. That was to hand over vast revenues, and to say that they should be under the entire control of the Provincial Councils. The third method of solution, which his hon. friend for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) was in favour of two years ago, was the Canadian solution, not a very happy one. That method was that the central Exchequer should provide the bulk of the revenue, and that if the Provincial Councils wished to finance themselves comfortably they would have to impose taxation of their own, and certain sources of taxation would be handed over to them. If the Commission had to consider a question of that kind it was impossible for the chairman to proceed unless he knew what was going to come before the Provincial Councils. He was astounded when he read the Estimates presented to the House. He had no expectation at all that such large estimates would be made in the case of the Provincial Councils for such matters as buildings, roads, and bridges. He wished to point out that if the Commission were appointed immediately, their financial expert from England, who was to be chairman of the Commission, would arrive in the country knowing nothing at all of the special circumstances of the country. Take the matter of scab. He supposed that all Would feel that a matter of this kind was a matter of national importance which, would necessarily come under the Union Government, but nothing of that kind would be known to the chairman of the Commission Therefore, how was it possible for the chairman of the Commission to get to work when he did not know whether such a great question was going to be dealt with by the Union Government or the Provincial Councils? Under section 85 of the South Africa Act they found that enormous latitude was left to the Union Government. Unlike the Canadian system, the Provinces had not exclusive powers whatever. As far as he read the Act, all powers were within the control of the House and the Central Government, and if the financial expert came out from England there would be nothing to guide him as to what were the intentions of the House. Nothing was reserved to the Provincial Councils under the Act, and if the financial expert came out from England now he would stand by the document. He would say: “What powers were given by this document to the Provincial Council?” and he would be bound to say: “Nothing.” The whole power was given to the central Parliament. That Parliament could take every power into its own hands, and, therefore, however he read the Act, it seemed that if the chairman of the Commission had been appointed soon after the 31st of May, he would have said that he had nothing on which to proceed with his work, and would have returned to England, promising to come back when they had decided what they would leave to the Provincial Councils. He thought that the Governments had made a perfectly correct use of the discretion left to them in not taking action as early as the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) desired. The Minister of Finance had referred to the time which he supposed was likely to be taken by this Commission. Now, it was believed that education would account for quite half the expenditure of Provincial Councils. That question was to be left to the Provincial Councils for a period of five years. Well, this Commission was going to sit for several years to decide what was going to be done. It was bound to know what was the policy of the Government and of that House in regard to this important question, and he thought the Government had acted wisely in giving the House a full opportunity of discussing the question before appointing the Commission. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had accused the Government of being autocratic in that matter. Well, if there were anything more opposite to the truth than that he (Mr. Fremantle) would like to hear it. Was it autocratic for the Government to defer the appointment of the Commission in order to give the House full opportunity of discussing the matter? Through that discussion hon. members had been enabled to hear a good deal of each other’s opinions, and he thought the Government was triumphantly vindicated in having put off the matter until the meeting of Parliament. He believed the Government, had the approval of the country in the course they had taken. The Government had already made three dear state-merits of their policy in the matter. He hoped the fourth statement of the Government’s policy would be more successful in conveying the meaning of the Government to hon. members opposite—(Opposition laughter)—a meaning which was quite clear to hon. members on the Ministerial benches. The Government might be well trusted to do what, was right in regard to the future conduct of this matter.

said that unfortunately these “triumphant vindications” of the Government were of constant, every-day occurrence, and they lost their value through being picked up at every street corner. The hon. member who had just spoken seemed to find in this motion a vote of no confidence in the Government. Well, so far as he (Mr. Duncan) could read it, it conveyed nothing of the sort, and the hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) seemed to be the only person who imparted that meaning into the motion. The hon. member seemed to have done so in order to lead the debate off the track, away from the main issue. He had dealt with the proposal as though it conveyed a vote of censure on the Government, for not having appointed this Commission on the 31st of May. Well, everyone in that House knew that the Commission could not have been appointed then. What was asked in the motion was that the Commission should be appointed now. If the Government were to adopt the line of defence taken up by the last speaker, then it would mean that the time for appointing the Commission would not arrive until all the duties and functions of the Provincial Councils had been fully defined. Well, he was afraid that would not be for years. There were many difficulties that had to be considered. Parliament might at any time delegate certain duties to the Provincial Councils. The Government could do so, too, but he hoped it would not. They could not hope to get everything until the Constitution of the Union had been in working order for some years. If the Government adopted the line of defence it seemingly proposed to take up, it meant that the appointment of this Commission was going to be indefinitely postponed. And what they wished to know was, whether the Government intended to adopt this line of defence? But he hoped they would adopt the line of defence indicated by the Minister for the Interior, who said that the Government hoped to appoint this Commission within a short space of time. If the Government intended to postpone the appointment of this Commission for an indefinite period, then he thought that they were justified in bringing up this question. As to the duties of this Commission, it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) was a real reason for the immediate appointment of this Commission, and that argument was that, until this Commission issued recommendations as to the financial relations between the Provincial Councils and the Union, the Provincial Councils would have to live on grants from the central Government. That was, he thought, a most unsatisfactory method of financing the Provincial Councils. It was quite true that the Councils would find it necessary to get grants for a time, but the records of government in this country should teach them that the period should be curtailed as much as possible. If they once started this custom, and allowed it to run on too long, they would find it a matter of great difficulty to wean the Councils from it. He was not so much impressed by the centralisation of government argument, though he quite agreed that there was this danger. The present system of financing the Provincial Councils would prove a radically bad one if it were allowed to go on for any time, and for that reason alone he thought they should press for the immediate appointment of this Commission. It was not as though the Commission was to have executive powers— it was merely a commission of inquiry— The Union Act, as a matter of fact, defined broadly the duties of the Councils. At any rate, he urged upon the House not to accept the answer of the Government to put off the appointment of the Commission until the duties of the Provincial Councils had been defined.

said he much regretted the debate. He was glad that the hon. member for Fordsburg had made it clear that the Opposition were divided among themselves on the question at issue. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had made it appear as if the Commission ought to have been appointed immediately after 31st May, whereas the previous speaker had admitted that the Government did have some discretionary power. If the Opposition had from the start taken up the attitude it was taking up now there would have been no difficulty; but the difficulty had arisen because the Opposition wished to do something which no Parliament of the people ought to allow. He welcomed a debate on any work, or any administration, on the part of the Government, because a public debate such as that gave publicity to the work of the Government, which was just what it wanted. He was very glad to see that publicity was given to matters affecting the country; but he must add that he entirely disagreed with the mover of the motion (Mr. Jagger). The matter on which the difference of opinion had arisen was this: Had the Government any discretion in the matter or not? He did not think the motion was justified, because, as a matter of fact, the Government did have discretion. The words dealing with the matter in the South Africa Act were “zoodra mogelijk” (as soon as possible). If what the Opposition contended were correct, the word would have been “ommiddelijk” (immediately). His-reading of that matter was that the Government had not failed, Recording to the letter and the spirit of the law, because it was certainly given discretion. Therefore, the appointment of that Commission had not been unduly delayed. The Government was fully sensible of the importance of the Commission, and because; it wanted to make the Commission as effective as possible, there had been this delay. There was no intention at all of unlimited delay, and it was their intention to appoint the Commission as soon as possible—(cheers)—because there was no particular reason for waiting any longer. (Cheers.) What he did regret was that the mover of the motion had not withdrawn it after his (General Botha’s) colleague had spoken on the matter, and made it clear that the Government had that discretion. The hon. member’s failure to do so had given him the impression that there might be something more behind the matter than on the face of it. (Government cheers.) If there was any idea at all of desiring to move what amounted to a vote of no confidence in the Government, he could understand the motion not being withdrawn after the explanation which had been given. He hoped that the hon. member Would withdraw the motion, because if he did not, and the motion was agreed to, which would be tantamount to saying that the discretionary power given to the Government by the Constitution had been wrongly exercised, it would be a matter of want of confidence in the Government. The Government had tried to act fairly to everyone in South Africa, and for that reason it was impossible for them to accept that motion.

said he was only sorry that the Prime Minister had not risen the other day instead of the Minister of Finance. He welcomed the speech of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, because—he would not say because it put a different aspect to that put by the Minister of Finance—but certainly it put a different interpretation on what was no doubt intended by the Minister of Finance. So far as he could make out, the Minister of Finance first answered the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) that the Government did wish to appoint this Commission immediately, but on communication with the Imperial Government, it was found impossible to find a chairman Next the Right Hon. the Prime Minister talked about the discretion of the Government. (Laughter.) He could not see that the motion interfered at all with the discretion of the Government. But the Minister of Finance commenced splitting straws as to the meaning of “as soon as may be” or “as; soon as possible.” He (Dr. Jameson) thought they were the two phrases used. (Laughter.) That was the second line of defence. Unfortunately for the Government, his hon. friend the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) came to their rescue at that stage. (Laughter.) As the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) said, he generally did come to the rescue, but sometimes not very adroitly, as on this occasion, with his recently-acquired and exact, he (Dr. Jameson) was sure, knowledge of Dutch. He found that the different Dutch translators of the Union could only express the two different expressions put forward by the Minister of Finance by the same Dutch words. Well, of course, they might not be good translators; but, as far as he remembered, the Minister for Education was responsible for that translation. (Laughter.) The Minister for the Interior also had something to do with it. So he thought on this occasion the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) must be accurate, and so the second line of defence absolutely broke down. They had heard during the past fortnight a good deal of autocratic government, for which, perhaps, the Minister for the Interior, who had said he was fond of Oriental methods of legislation, was responsible. That had put one on the qui vive to see whether the Eastern potentate might not be found creeping out, and only that afternoon there had been an instance in the Bill before the House a few minutes ago. He (Dr. Jameson) did not think there had been any intention of the kind, but some of his friends, might be excused if they were a little suspicious. No doubt the reasons given by the Hon. the Minister of Finance for delaying the appointment of the Commission made some of this friends alarmed lest the Government was anxious to carry on the financing of the Provincial Councils without the advice of the Commission of Inquiry. He felt sure that his hon. friend (Mr. dagger) had never had the least idea of denying the discretionary powers of the Government and he thought his hon. friend would be well advised if he withdrew the motion, after the statement made by the Prime Minister, which, so far as he could understand, meant that this Commission, notwithstanding the little differences as to the interpretation of “as soon as may be ”, or “as soon as possible,” would be appointed at the earliest date possible. (Hear, hear.) With that assurance he thought they might be content.

begged leave to withdraw his motion.

Leave was granted, and the motion withdrawn.

moved the adoption of the report by the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

The motion was agreed to.

said that when the matter was last before the House the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger) stated that, notwithstanding the idea of having an Imperial Conference, at which the naturalisation of aliens would be discussed, Canada passed a Naturalisation Act. He (General Smuts) had since found that the Canadian Act was assented to in January. 1907, but the Imperial Conference was not held until the following May. The Imperial Conference considered the question of naturalisation, and he supposed the subject would be brought before the next Imperial Conference. Under the circumstances, he thought we should not adopt a procedure of our own in this matter. His real objection to the amendment went further. They said that he was not going to naturalise Asiatics. If this amendment were adopted there was no doubt that the final result would be that the House would give power to the Minister of the Interior to naturalise Asiatics. They had only to go to Mauritius to find that there was no bar on Asiatics, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), were adopted, they could come here, and it would be entirely in the discretion of the Minister of the Interior to naturalise them or not. Now, he thought that the House ought not to put such a weapon into the hands of any Minister. They had an Act in the Cape Colony which said that Chinamen might not be naturalised in the Cape Colony, but they had no such legislation in any of the other colonies. It showed in what direction the mind of the people was turned it showed that they did not want the naturalisation of Asiatics, but the amendment would open the door to that. He was very glad that the discussion had been so full. The subject would be discussed again at the Imperial Conference next year. Clearly, the door had been closed in the Cape Colony by the Chinese Act of 1906, and that contained the provision to which he had referred, viz., that a Chinaman might not be naturalised in the Cape Colony. But that provision was no longer in force, and his hon. friend —a distinguished member of the Cape Bar (Mr. Alexander)—would agree with him that it was no longer possible to naturalise people in the Cape Colony because the Cape Colony did not exist any longer. Consequently the bar had gone. They might have tomorrow a Minister of the Interior who would say that he was not going to naturalise a person and they might have a Minister the next day who would say that he was not going to draw this invidious distinction. He might say he was going to naturalise Asiatics because he was simply carrying out the instructions of Parliament, and he thought it would be well for them to go slowly, and await the solemn deliberations of the Imperial Conference and the action of the Imperial Parliament upon that Conference, and not introduce amendments which had far-reaching effects.

pointed out that his amendment simply said that a person naturalised in another British colony, on coming to South Africa, should be allowed to take out he naturalisation papers at once, instead of having to wait two years. He was glad that the discussion had taken place. In view of what the Minister had said in regard to Imperial action he would withdraw his amendment.

said that one of the Minister’s arguments was without foundation. He stated that the Act of 1904, dealing with the question of the naturalisation of Asiatics, was no longer in force in Cape Colony. As a matter of fact it was still in force, because clause 135 of the South Africa Act said that all laws in force in the several colonies at the establishment of Union should continue in force until repealed or amended. As the Minister had undertaken to bring the matter before the Imperial Conference, he was quite prepared to withdraw his proviso.

The amendment was withdrawn, together with a further amendment by Mr. Alexander.

On sub-section (a) of clause 4, particulars to be given by applicants for naturalisation,

moved that the paragraphs be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

moved to delete the words “two issues,” for the purpose of inserting “one issue.” He thought it was sufficient to require one publication in the “Government Gazette.”

said he would be prepared to agree to the deletion of the words “two issues of.” Then it would have the effect the hon. member desired.

amended his motion accordingly.

The amendment was agreed to, and the sub-section, as amended, was adopted.

On sub-section (b),

moved to insert after the words “Justice of the Peace,” the word “Field-cornet.”

moved further to add “or an attorney-at-law, a notary public, or a Commissioner of Oaths.” He said that applicants experienced many difficulties in getting certificates. In many cases a man might not be acquainted with a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace, whereas he might be known to an attorney or notary.

said he would accept the first amendment (Mr. Alexander’s), but as to the other amendment, he thought that went too far. There must be some reliable, independent person to certify to the character of the applicant. Attorneys would look after the interests of their clients, and they would really be interested parties. He moved to omit “or” after “magistrate.”

said he thought the amendment-deserved consideration. It must be remembered that many of these people were in humble circumstances, and he thought it would be sufficient to require a reputable citizen to certify as to character—say a Mayor or Town Councillor.

did not think there was any real hardship in requiring that a man should be known to a Justice of the Peace. It would be dangerous to go further.

moved the following amendment: In paragraph (b) in line 21, after “peace” insert “or field-cornet”; in line 22, omit all the words beginning with “the applicant” and ending with “and that.” He said that it would be difficult, for example, in a large city like Cape Town, for a J.P. to know personally many of the applicants, the Bill stating that a J.P. would have personally to know the applicant before granting a certificate of naturalisation. His amendment would not leave any loophole open to abuse, and would enable a J.P. to give a truthful certificate that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the applicant was a suitable person and a man of good character.

who seconded, said that if that amendment were not carried, the first business which a man had to do if he wished to become naturalised was to become personally acquainted with a J.P., otherwise he could not get his naturalisation papers. Before the Immigration Laws excluded undesirable persons, perhaps those words were necessary, but he did not think they were now.

said that he would be sorry to accept the amendment of his hon. friend, but he would rather drop the certificate altogether. In the Transvaal he had relied to a very large extent on the certificates of J.P.’s, but if it were no longer necessary to have a certificate, and such persons had merely to give negative reports, what good would they be? Every person was, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a fit and proper person for naturalisation, and such a certificate could be conscientiously given by a J.P. regarding a person whom he did not know at all. He thought that was going much too far. The Bill had for its whole object to simplify matters in connection with naturalisation, and now to do away with the necessary safeguards would be a great mistake.

thought it was a wrong principle that a person should first have to be personally known to a J.P. before the latter could grant him a certificate. A man who was quite a desirable person in every way might hesitate about getting naturalised, because he knew that there was no J.P. who was personally acquainted with him. He considered that the Minister was pursuing a wrong policy, and that he should waive his objection to these words.

The amendment of the hon. member for Gape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander)—-to insert “field-cornet” was agreed to. The remainder were negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was negatived.

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

Clause 4 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved that the last eight words of the clause be deleted, and the words “appeal shall be to the Governor-General-in-Council” be substituted.

moved in line 29 to omit “Minister” and substitute “Governor-General”; in line 30 to omit the words “with or without assigning any reason”; in lines 31 and 32 to omit the words “and no appeal shall lie from his decision,” and to add the following proviso to the clause: “Provided that the Minister shall from time to time lay on the table a list of applications refused, together with the reasons for such refusal.” The hon. member said it was offensive to see words of this kind in the Act of a free country.

said he did not think these amendments should be accepted by the House. The first amendment, substituting Governor-General for a responsible Minister, would make no difference, except additional work for the Governor-General. He thought the time had now come for them to consider most seriously whether they were going to continue to burden the Governor-General with a number of details of administration. All references to the Governor-General meant nothing else than that his signature was required. When they had the volume of business that was now passed through the Governor-General it had become absolutely impossible to consider the retention of the custom. That was why it was proposed that the Minister who was responsible should sign these documents. Why they should also be signed by the Governor-General passed his comprehension. The Governor-General was merely a formal authority, and that being so, he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Alexander) would be satisfied with the Minister. Then there was a further objection raised to the words “with or without assigning any reason.” Decisions, he thought, were always made without particular reasons being assigned. The hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir David Hunter), moved that there shall be an appeal to the Governor-General-in-Council, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) moved that the appeal shall be before Parliament. Well, it would be an impossible job for the House to deal with all appeals. Besides, the Governor-General-in-Council could not sir as an authority of appeal. It was well known that the Governor-General sat merely as a formal authority. So he hoped his hon. friend, on constitutional grounds, would not press his amendment. He also hoped the hon. member for Durban, Central (Sir David Hunter), would not press. A man might have been a perfectly honourable member of society in this country, and have done something wrong in another. Why should that be disclosed in the House? He thought it would be most invidious. He did not think it was a good policy that these applications should be made before the House.

said that if the proviso were not going to be accepted, he would rather the words remained in. It was not his intention that the papers should be published, but laid on the table. If the Minister had inserted the words, “No appeals shall lie to the Courts,” an opportunity would have been given of bringing the matter before Parliament. He hoped the Minister would not seek to arrogate such autocratic powers to himself.

asked if there was to be no appeal to Courts, what was the object of the words, “and no appeal shall lie from his decision”?

said the word “appeal” did not apply at all in this case. The object, he thought, was to prevent an appeal to the Law Courts.

said that if the Minister wished to remove any doubt, he should put in the words, “and no appeal shall lie to any Court from this decision.”

The amendments moved by Mr. Alexander in line 29 to 32 were negatived.

His other amendment and the amendment by Sir D. Hunter accordingly dropped.

On clause 8,

moved, in line 46, after the words “British subject,” to insert “born in the Union.” There was he said, a case now pending shawling the great importance of the amendment, for under certain Cape laws persons born in South Africa had greater Privileges than natural born British subjects, not born in South Africa.

said that he did not think the amendment was necessary.

said that if one was not going to give these people their rights, the whole Naturalisation Act would be a farce. Unless the Minister for Education put in the words, “born in South Africa,” there would be great difficulty under the Act. He (the hon. member) considered the amendment a most important one, because unless naturalised persons were given that protection there would be discrimination between them and natural born British subjects born in South Africa If the amendment were not accepted, the alien naturalised hero did not get the same rights as persons born in the country.

said that if there was anything in this (Mr. Alexander’s) contention, he ought to go much further. His contention, in a nutshell, was that a natural barn British subject born elsewhere did not get the rights which a natural born British subject in South Africa had The hon. member must now go a step further, or that natural born British subjects born in South Africa, should have the same rights. They did not have the same rights. They had a natural born coloured British subject, born in the Cape Province, who could get a vote in that Province, but not in other parts of the Union, so that even in South Africa they did not have natural born British subjects all having the same rights. It was impossible to go into all these inequalities. They knew that there were these distinctions, and there were special laws for each case; and these laws would apply.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 10.

moved the following amendment: Add at the end of paragraph (2) “and shall on application be entitled to receive a certificate to that effect from the Governor-General.” The hon. member pointed out that a large number of persons who became naturalised had their wives and families elsewhere. Say that a man had a son of five years of age living elsewhere when he became naturalised. Under the law that son would become naturalised, but what proof had he when he became of age? How could a man satisfy the Registration Officer that his father was naturalised, say, sixteen years before? He could assure the House that many persons were left off the register because they could not prove their father’s naturalisation. He contended that a child should be able to get some proof of his father’s naturalisation in addition to the papers given to his father.

said it was not necessary to provide for such a certificate by Statute. The difficulty could be met in another way. A naturalised person could at any time obtain a certificate that at the time of his naturalisation he had certain children, as stated in the particulars given in his original application. The Department would always be in a position to give any necessary certificate, but it would be unwise to multiply those certificates by Statute.

said there was no provision in the Act that a person applying to be naturalised should give particulars as to his children. They were giving the child rights, but they were withholding from him the opportunity of proving those rights.

said that to his mind the amendment was perfectly reasonable. As the matter stood, people (would have to trust to officials, and no appeal would lie.

said that the next proposal might be that the grandchildren should get certificates.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, and progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.