from W. Paterson, Railway Department.

from J. H. Sobey, late foremen Table Bay Harbour Board.

from the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of the Orange Free State, re annual licences of £15 as notaries and conveyancers.

from J. W. Goldsworthy, porter, Railway Department.

Correspondence on the subject of the admission into the Transvaal free of duty of sugar produced in the Province of Mozambique.

pointed out that if the words, “or relationship by marriage,” be struck out of the clause, as proposed by the hon. member for Barkly, it would stultify the whole Bill. Those words should remain. But he would move, as an amendment, that the word “affinity” be inserted in place of the word “marriage.” Marriage was not, the correct term to use, and would really tend to mislead the public.

asked whether a definition of affinity was not needed.

said he did not think that it was necessary. The amendment of the Minister of the Interior was agreed to:

The amendment of the hon. member for Barkly dropped.

amended his amendment, and moved the deletion in sub-section C of the words “prohibition relating to the marriage of cousins.” Proceeding to deal with the medical aspect of the question, he said the law was this, and he was anxious that they should not make themselves ridiculous. (Laughter.) It read: “When a determination of characteristic is absolutely absent from both parents, it will be absent from all their offspring, and when it is present it will be present in all their offspring.” Regarding America, he said that there they found 300,000 insane, 150,000 blind, two millions annually’ in hospital, 80,000 prisoners whose intelligence is below par, and 100,000 paupers, and all through following the “good old way” advocated by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). Referring to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Lionel Phillips), he said that there was one race in this world that brought an argument in defence of what he (Dr. Haggar) contended, and against what he (Mr. Phillips) had contended; it was the race to which he (Mr. Phillips) belonged. In Russia they found that the Jews always beat the Russians in intellectual pursuits. The last thing he wanted to say was this. (Cries of “Hear, hear,” “Go on,” and “It’s the best of the debate.”) “This,” said the hon. member, “is a question for the nation, and not for nonsense. It is a question with a solid foundation. I am ’quite as anxious as anybody else to make the Union of South Africa a conspicuous and brilliant success. Our wealth consists not in money, but in men.” Concluding, he moved the amendment that the lines relating to cousins be deleted.

said there was no demand in the Cape for a Bill such as the one now introduced; this he could state after due enquiry. The measure went too far, in more respects than one. Morals should be independent of legislation. It was all very well to legislate, especially with the pretext that the people’s interest was being served, but they should place themselves in the position of those whose actions would be made penal by the Bill. In principle, everyone was opposed to the marriage of cousins, but the Roman-Dutch law did not prohibit it, and it would not do to make criminals of people —it was grossly unfair. It was hopeless trying to make people moral by Act of Parliament; nature would have to attend to that. Legislative interference would have the effect of increasing evil, not of diminishing it, if it tampered with the liberties that had been enjoyed for years past. Liberty should be above politics and above legislation. If some hon. members had their way the only practical effect would be that inhabitants of the Union would go and marry elsewhere, or else they would not marry at all; this would lead to an estrangement between church and people. He trusted the Minister would drop sub-section (c).

said that if legislation did indeed create criminals, one might as well stop legislating altogether. The marriage of double cousins was an insidious danger to the nation, and it was the sacred duty of Parliament to guard against that. The Free State Act had worked very well. Whatever might be the consequences of marriages between cousins in the Pacific, they would be detrimental in South Africa; it was a matter of climate, perhaps! He opposed the amendment moved by the hon. member for Potchefstroom, while supporting the clause as printed.

said he could not follow hon. members at all. So many amendments had been moved that, if they passed, the clause would be torn to rags. When the present Free State Act was introduced there was a considerable amount of agitation. People resented the prohibition of marriage between cousins, but now that it had been in operation for a few years there were families who recognised that it meant the salvation of the race. The comparisons made between men and animals were useless.

supported the clause as printed. Unless it passed, people in the Free State would object very strongly. He would not go so far as to say that the “authorities” quoted by the hon. member for Roodepoort were worthless but they were certainly not worth very much. The hon. member for Denver was right. It was better to restrict a people’s liberties than to watch its degradation without, interfering. He knew of a family, the members of which had inter-married for the last forty years, with deplorable results. Though Roman Dutch law permitted marriages between cousins, it had to be remembered that the population was not so large when those institutions were established as it was now. He would like to see all persons belonging to one section of the community compelled to marry people belonging to the other section. That would soon put an end to racialism.

pointed out that under the Cape Act of 1892 only a widower could marry his deceased wife’s sister, whereas under the present Bill a widow could marry her deceased husband’s brother. That, he considered, was a good extension, and on the whole the clause was a satisfactory one.

said that as one who had seen the results of marriages between cousins, he would say, and he thought that every leading medical man would agree with him, that the results were often most deplorable, leading to imbecility, lunacy, and sickness. In this country one saw far too much of that, sort of thing, and there was a great difference between the conditions existing when he was a boy and the present time. He held that in passing a Marriage Act, such as that, for the Union, one could not be too careful in a matter like that, if they intended to build up a strong, healthy race in South Africa. Before 100 years were past it was going to be one of the biggest questions to be dealt with, how to cross nations so as to produce the best progeny. As to what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Dr. Hagger) had said, and the quotation from Darwin’s work, no doubt Darwin was a great authority, but in listening to it he had a great doubt in his mind and he felt that there must be something attached to what Darwin had written. The hon. member went on to quote from Westermarch’s “The History of Human Marriage,” which stated that although the results of these cousin marriages were, to a large extent, conjectural it was noteworthy that of all the writers who had discussed the subject, the majority, and certainly not the least able of them, had expressed the opinion that the marriages of first cousins had been more or less unfavourable to their offspring. Among the nations of to-day the general tendency was to prevent the marriage of cousins. England to-day allowed such marriages; Spain did not; Russia, only first cousins; amongst barbarians and amongst Mohammedans, first cousins; but they had to think of the condition of things in uncivilised times.

said the present state of affairs, which permitted cousins to marry, should be maintained. In his constituency one would note that very healthy people were found particularly among families where intermarriage had been the rule. It was not the duty of Parliament to fight consanguinity; the question belonged more properly to the domain of the home and the Church. Doctors disagreed, as often happened. Prohibition legislation usually led to an unbearable position. The Free State Act had been praised, but could hon. members conscientiously state that cousins were kept apart more effectually by that Act? Not a single proof in favour of prohibition had been adduced, and, if it were carried, hon. members would live to regret their action, because the people would refuse to bear the burdens imposed. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort.

supported the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He had travelled almost through the whole of South Africa, and the deplorable results of intermarrying were everywhere apparent. The case of the Zulus had been quoted, but he could point to numerous native tribes among whom intermarriage was forbidden. Possibly those tribes were so “narrow-minded,” because they had not yet attained to a knowledge of Darwin’s theories! But nature was their teacher. Experience taught them, and nothing more conclusive could be brought up. In justice to future generations of South Africans, the Minister should accept the amendment.

said that, though he was not an expert, his experience had convinced him that it was Parliament’s duty to prevent cousins from marrying, if the people were to be protected. If the Act had worked well in the Free State, it would be equally beneficial in the Cape, and he would support the clause as printed.

opposed all amendments. Though he was opposed to the marriage of cousins, the hon. member for Fotchefstroom appeared to overlook the fact that a nation’s customs could not be altered by a stroke of the pen. Much as he respected the medical profession, he could not take his cue from their widely differing opinions on this matter. By tampering with the people’s liberties and prohibiting the marriage of double cousins, the Bill went far enough, and he would oppose any amendment going further than that. Caution was essential in this matter.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Potchefstroom. Marriages between cousins were extremely harmful. Four members of a certain Transvaal family, in which intermarriage had constantly taken place, were very weak, physically as well as mentally. Idiots and lunatics were found among its members. How could the Bill create criminals, as had been alleged, seeing that no marriage officer would tie the knot between cousins if it became law?

opposed the hon. member for Potchefstrooms amendment. He (the speaker) had married his cousin, though he was opposed to the marriage of double cousins, owing to the degree of consanguinity in their case. He supported the clause as printed.

in reply, quoted authorities in support of the arguments which he had advanced. A great number of opinions had been expressed, but in face of all the scientific evidence that had been brought forward, there was not a particle to prove that marriage between parties with blood relationship, provided they were healthy, did not tend to weakly offspring.

said he would support the clause. There was no doubt that children born of parents of close blood relationship were physically inferior to those of parents who were of more distant relationship. With all due respect to the authorities, he though that practical experience should rule.

said that he must say that in the country the feeling was against the intermarriage of cousins. It was said that this was going to increase the burden on the State, but he thought that it would tend to diminish that burden.

said that he had not heard a single good excuse for the Bill. Books had been quoted, but he knew of only one book: the Book of Books, written by the King of all Parliaments, and nowhere had he found a prohibition against cousins marrying in that book. If the Bill were carried it would be necessary to pass amending legislation within a few years, and he trusted that the Minister would consent to a postponement, which would give hon. members an opportunity of consulting their constituents. He knew of families in which intermarriage had largely taken place, but they were strong and healthy. He moved to report progress.

hoped the motion would not be pressed. They had had a long discussion, but it was not unproductive, because when they proposed legislation that put restrictions on people, those restrictions should be carefully discussed.

The hon. member for Piquetberg has moved to report progress.

I hope he will not press it.

withdrew his motion.

proceeding, said they had had a great deal of discussion as to the question of the advisability or not of first cousins marrying. But the Bill introduced by the Minister for the Interior (General Smuts) did not lay down anything to prevent them. What it did was to provide that double first cousins should not marry. The argument had been advanced that marriages of close blood relations was detrimental to the progeny. Anyone who had given any attention to the matter would know that it did not have that effect. Unless the union was of persons physically unfit. The question was whether, the majority of the classes in this country were likely to become unfit if such marriages were allowed, or not. If they had a union of double cousins physically perfect, the progeny, he maintained, would be better than the parents—(hear, hear)—but, if they, had a union of closely related persons who had mental or physical defects, those mental or physical defects would be intensified to an alarming extent in the progeny. The committee had to decide whether it should take the risks that the offspring of unions between close blood relations would, be unfit, or whether they should put a check on the community, or say, “Though we allow first cousins to marry, we will not allow unions of double first cousins, owing to the possibility of producing a physically unfit class.” He was opposed to legislation that put restrictions on people that might be unjust. He had listened to the discussion with a great deal of uncertainty, but had come to the conclusion that for the general protection of the classes of the country the clause introduced by the Minister for the Interior should be accepted. (Hear, hear.)

said that doctors had been twitted about never agreeing. Well they all agreed that if normals married normals, a good progeny would probably result. But that was just the point. What they, as doctors, objected to was the marrying of abnormals, and they had a better opportunity of seeing the results of such double-cousin marriages than the ordinary laymen. He hoped that the opinions of doctors would be treated with greater respect. The sort of people whom the hon. member for Piquet-berg (Mr. De Beer) was accustomed to see or meet could be classed as normal, but doctors saw the abnormal too.

That paragraph (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the committee divided:

Do I take it that my amendment drops?

I shall make it clear: the committee has now decided that the whole sub-section (c) shall stand.

You can have a good law and make it better.

You can give notice, it you like.

Cannot the hon. member move a new sub-section (d)?

Yes, he can do that.

accordingly moved a new sub-section (d) to clause 2, to the effect that marriages between first cousins should be prohibited.

said that he was not in favour of preventing what was customary throughout the whole of South Africa and all over the civilised world, and they could not put themselves on a pedestal of virtue, to which even the hon. member for Roodepoort (Dr. Haggar) did not aspire. (Laughter.) It was allowed under Roman-Dutch Law, which had been in force for over a thousand years, and which, in experience had been found to work well. There might be countries where such marriages were prohibited, but he did not think that they were very progressive or advancing countries.

The amendment was negatived.

moved that a rider be added to the end of the section, to the effect that that provision should not apply to persons who had notified the Minister of the Interior before the date on which the Bill came into operation.

hoped that the Minister would agree that the section should not come into operation before a certain time

The Bill does not come into force before July, 1911.

said that in the Cape Province they had not been accustomed to that law, and therefore it was quite possible that in the Cape Province there might be some hardship inflicted upon people who were within that prohibited degree. There might be cases of such cousins who were or who intended to be, betrothed to each other.

said the law would not came into operation (before a certain period, so there would not be the risks or dangers to which the hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) had referred. (Laughter.)

The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) was negatived.

The next clause debated was as follows: Provided that the relationship: (a) Between a widower and his deceased Wife’s sister; or (b) between a widow and her deceased husband’s brother; (c) between a widower or widow and any person related by marriage to him or her in the collateral degrees more remotely than as deceased wife’s sister or as deceased husband’s brother— shall not be within the prohibited degree (unless the deceased wife’s sister has been married to a deceased brother of the widower or the deceased’s husband’s brother has been unarmed to a deceased sister of the widow).

moved an amendment having for its object the prohibition of marriage between a widow and the brother of her deceased husband. In 1892 a Bill was introduced into the Gape House, allowing marriage with a deceased wife’s sister6. It evoked a great deal of opposition, and he saw no reason why the present Bill should allow marriage with a deceased husband’s brother, especially in view of the fact that there was a considerable difference between the two classes of marriage. Allowing marriage with a deceased wife’s sister was going quite far enough. The right hon. member for Victoria West had opposed it in 1892, and to be consistent he should certainly support the amendment. It was not so easy to demonstrate his point, because a delicate question was involved, but competent authorities had stated that, though the female sex did not leave its imprint on the male, the male sex did so affect the female. If that was correct, the Minister was un deniably demolishing, in the present subsection, what he had built up in sub-section (c)

said he could support every word of what the previous speaker had said. Even though science did not object, sentiment was opposed to marriages of the nature referred to, because the effect on the race was far-reaching. If they allowed marriage with a deceased husband’s brother, it might happen that a woman’s brother-in-law would be obsessed by the wish that his brother should die as soon as convenient. Such things would tend to cause domestic infelicity, and should be prevented at tall costs.

strongly objected to the amendment. The previous speaker had appealed to sentiment; was not the same kind of sentiment involved in a marriage between a man and his deceased wife’s sister? It was not a question of in-breeding, because there was no consanguinity in this case. He urged the Minister to adhere to the clause as printed.

hoped the amendment would be accepted. There was, be said, reasons for the amendment which would commend themselves to every hon. member who had given the matter careful thought. The conditions of (a) and (b) were different, but one could not discuss them publicly in the existing conditions in the public gallery (in which there were about half a dozen ladies).

said that it was not one of those things on which he felt very acutely. It was quite a detail, and hon. members on that side could vote as they liked.

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided.

agreed to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Barkly.

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

On clause 3,

moved the addition of a new sub-section, as follows: “The marriage between Europeans and coloured persons, of whatever race, is prohibited.” Many hon. members, he said, had promised him their support because they felt that in the Transvaal things were as they should be in this respect; hence, it was desirable to introduce that state of affairs into other parts of the Union. If intermarriage between whites and coloured people were legalised they would soon have a piebald population such as now existed in one of the provinces. Purity of race was a desideratum. That it had been attained in the North was attributable to the law no less than to human sentiment, both of which opposed the mixture of the races. It was true that the feeling was not so strong among newcomers. It had recently happened that white women had married Chinamen and Indians, and it was highly desirable that repetitions of such marriages should be prevented. The Transvaal had passed a law as far back as 1871. Clause 25 of Act 3 of that year said: “The provisions of this ordinance apply only to white persons both as regards marriage officers and contracting parties, coloured marriages being subject to separate legislation.” In 1897 an Act was passed, deliberately prohibiting mixed marriages. The final part of clause 17 of that Act said: “Provided that marriages between whites and coloured people are prohibited.” He felt convinced that every member from the Transvaal and the Free State would support the amendment. When members of the Convention went round to explain the Constitution, attention was drawn to the difference regarding native policy between the Cape and the Northern colonies. People were anxious, and repeatedly asked whether Cape ideas on the subject were to prevail within the Union. The answer always was in the negative, and without the constitutional provision that every province was to maintain its own status in this connection, Union could not have come about. His constituents would be extremely dissatisfied if the Bill passed in its unamended form. He fully realised that he had raised a delicate question, which would lead to a deal of discussion, but Parliament was the place where thorny problems should be discussed. He supported the hon. member for Roodepoort who had argued that Parliament’s task was to build up a strong nation. In order to attain that object the white race had to be kept pure. Natives with a proper sense of pride, however, were just as desirous of preserving the purity of their race as the whites were. They were proud of their descent and despised other natives who had sexual relations with whites. If they waited too long before tackling the questions, it would be growing too big and too complicated. A solution should be looked for at once. He had been urged not to refer to “coloured” people in his amendment, but to mention natives only. He wished to include Indians and Chinamen however. It had been said that “natives” should be defined. He referred the curious to the report of the Native Affairs Commission, which was composed of the best people South Africa contained. It gave the following definition: “Native shall be taken to mean an aboriginal inhabitant of Africa south of the Equator and shall include halfcastes and their descendants by the natives.” In his amendment he had referred to “coloured” persons because that had always been done in the Transvaal, so as to include Indians. There were numerous definitions of what a “coloured” person meant. The Transvaal Liquor Law of 1908 said: “Coloured person shall signify any African or Asiatic native or coloured American or St. Helena person, coolie or Chinaman, whether male or female.” That definition never led to any difficulty. The Crown Colony Government laid down in clause 1 of Ordinance No. 39 of 1902 that: “The term ‘ coloured person’ shall include any person who is manifestly a coloured person, and whose marriage on that account cannot be solemnised under the provisions of Law 3 of 1871.” The Gold Law said: “Coloured person shall mean any other person who is manifestly a coloured person.” Sir Jas. Rose-Innes had recently said, in a liquor case serving at Johannesburg, that a person was a coloured person when his colour was apparent, and that, in case of doubt, the person in question should be considered white. It was necessary, the hon. member proceeded, to use one’s commonsense in matters of this description. He urged the Minister of the Interior to accept his amendment. Though the question bristled with difficulties nothing should be left undone to keep the white race pure. He trusted that the Government would adopt that policy in the future. Unless Parliament took the bull by the horns, the question would before long become a burning one throughout the Union.

said that he entirely associated himself with the amendment, because he thought it was a good one, and he believed one in the best interests of the white races in South Africa. He might be mistaken, but to the best of his recollection during the recent elections in the Transvaal the majority of hon. members declared in the most positive terms their determination to make this a white man’s country, and it did not appear to him that there would be any consistency on their part if they supported the present Bill in its unamended form. Now, during a very short sojourn in this city few things had impressed those from the North so unfavourably as the almost Oriental character of Cape Town’s population, and the object of this amendment was to determine whether it was wise, or even expedient, to extend this undesirable condition of affairs to other parts of the Union. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought it would have been wise had the Minister of the Interior given the Bill greater publicity before introducing it in the House, because he felt sure that there were many sections of the population outside the Cape Province who would desire to express some opinions, and perhaps some very strong opinions upon the Bill in its unamended form, and in the course of his remarks he hoped to prove that the majority both of white and black in this country were distinctly opposed to the mingling of the races, as this Bill would confer on South Africa. Now, in a matter of this kind before any others, the women of South Africa ought to be heard. No one had done so much for the purity, the virility, and morality of the races as the white women of South Africa, and if they in a matter of such great and grave importance failed to interpret their most sacred sentiments, then he thought it was time that they gave them the franchise, so that they could speak for themselves. Now, would any hon. member stand up in that House and declare on behalf of the white women of South Africa that they accepted that Bill in its unamended form? He thought not. He would take it upon himself to say that every pure-minded white woman in Africa would oppose a Bill of this character, which sought further to degrade the races and to destroy their position as the dominating factor in South Africa. (Ministerial cheers.) Now, he would pass on to the next. Was there any man who had made any sacrifices for the education of his children who was prepared to advocate a measure such as the one before the House? Was he prepared to see his children go down the scale of civilisation by these mixed marriages, which brought nothing but dissatisfaction and discontent? He did not think there was a man of that character, a man who was married, and who possessed children, who could reasonably support a measure of this kind. On one occasion the old native chief, Sigananda, had said to him: “You will never have peace in South Africa until you give our women the same protection that you give to your own.” (Cheers.) When white men succeed in luring native women from their homes, we feel it as much as you do when assaults are made by natives on white women.” He also said that, according to native custom, whenever a woman was bought by a man, she became his wife, and in their eyes, when a native woman was acquired by a white man, she became his wife. The natives (proceeded the hon. member) were absolutely opposed to any form of assimilation between whites and natives. There were in this country a number of missionaries for whom personally he had very great respect, but if they held that mixed marriages should be allowed, he was prepared to test their sincerity by asking them if they were prepared to give daughters to natives. In the hundreds of cases he had come across of white men living with black women, he had found that of the former those who were South African by birth were very much in a minority. (Cheers.) The offenders were principally new-comers. He would say to the newcomer who preferred a coloured or black woman that he offended against civilisation, he offended against all ideas of propriety, and offered an insult to the colour of his mother. (Cheers.) If such men were unable to judge of the rectitude of such matters, it was high time that the law should prevent such occurrences In East Griqualand there were many such cases of white men married to coloured women. He had spoken to many of the former, and many of them had said that if they had known of the consequences, they would never have acted as they had done. It was quite right coloured people should have aspirations after a higher civilisation. He did not think that sufficient had been done for them, and thought that we might have encouraged those aspirations. He was prepared to do all that was equitable in providing for their due rights, but when they asked to share our hearths, homes, and blood, he said it was time to halt. (Cheers.) In 1852, when the first Constitution was granted to this country, it was unfortunate that the word “colour” was eliminated. If that word had been included, it would have saved us many difficulties and trials, and to-day we were face to face with the same position, with a law which permitted of mixed marriages. The white race had a great duty to perform, and one of its principal tasks was to build up a great strong, and permanent race, and it could never be one or the other if we insisted on the introduction of this infusion of black blood. A coloured population was growing up which was neither good to us nor a credit to the natives, and if the House were unable to take a serious view of such a serious subject, and was not prepared to do justice to those who would come after us, then the House would be failing in its duty. He did not know the feeling of the House on this matter, but he hoped it would go in the direction he bad indicated. Failing that, he hoped the Minister of the Interior would give the people of the country an opportunity of discussing the law as it now stood. The law bristled with difficulties, and the people should be well-informed on the matter before Parliament passed the Bill in its unamended form. He hoped a division would be taken on the matter, so that the people should be able to see who were trying to make South Africa a white man’s country, and those who were prepared to make it a black man’s country. (Cheers.) The time had come when hon. members bad to carry out their promises to the electors, and to assure South Africa that they were all in earnest when they said, “This shall be a white man’s country.” (Cheers.)

said that he agreed with the hon. member who had moved the amendment, that it was time to cry “halt” in regard to the question of mixed marriages, because if they did not, instead of getting a white South Africa they would have a Creole nation growing up. He admitted that there was a difficulty about race, for they could not class what were called the coloured people with the natives, and he thought the solution of that was to have a division into three classes—white, brown, and black, whose rights should be fully respected.

said that with regard to this amendment by the hon. member for Rustenburg, he would like to clear the way with regard to he own by repeating what he had said the other day. He would repeat it, because a newspaper in Cape Town, which seemed to take a malicious pleasure in misreporting him, had made him say the other day the very opposite to what he did say. What he did say was, that if there was anyone in the House who felt strongly that it was for the best interest of South Africa that the European and the native races should keep themselves as pure as possible, then it was he But he thought that this state of affairs—this keeping of the races as pure as possible—would not be brought about by prohibitory laws, but by the good sense of both nationalities. The natives, he pointed out, were as much opposed to the intermarriage of the two races as the Europeans. That should point out to them that the better way of dealing with the matter was to leave it to the good sense of the races, instead of passing laws of this nature. But to compel, by means of this law, was to interfere with that freedom of action which every human being had a right to claim. This was not a question of political rights; it was a question that went down to the fundamentals of humanity. Continuing, he said he never could consent to preventing this intermingling of the races by prohibitory laws. The few instances in modern times of racial intermarriage showed that there was no necessity for any law of this sort. And he urged that the House should keep the debate on a higher level, and have nothing to do with prejudices. The hon. member for Braamfontein (Colonel Sampson) made an eloquent speech on this subject, but he based his argument on prejudice, which he (the hon. member) thought should not be allowed to enter into the debate.

continuing, said he had not mentioned the state of affairs in the Transvaal, in the year 1886, in older to cast a slur on the people in Barberton at that time, but had mentioned it for the purpose of showing the immorality between white men and black women. His point was that prohibition of marriage would not have remedied that. On the contrary, the prohibition, or understood prohibition, for there was no real Act, actually helped forward that state of affairs. They would find that the prohibition of marriage in-evitably tended to an increase in immorality and the loosening of the bonds of matrimony. The law in the Transvaal (No. 21), passed in 1897, to prevent immorality, inaugurated a state of things—at all event in Johannesburg—that had scarcely any parallel in any other part of South Africa, and it was no wonder that the Government made attempts to combat that immorality. He found from further investigation that Law No. 2. of 1897 was repealed by Law No. 11 of 1899; but the main provisions were substantially the same. In order to fight immorality the, Transvaal decreed that the white woman who wilfully committed an immoral act with a coloured man would be punished, and that the coloured man who committed an immoral act with a white woman, with or without consent, would be punished. But there was not a word about the white man who committed an immoral act with a native or coloured woman, and yet they were asked to believe that the object of all these laws was to prevent that intercourse between white men and coloured or native women. He did not suppose the proposer and seconder of the amendment would dream of saying it had any other object than the prevention of the extension of the half-caste population. It was proposed to put down immorality by prohibition, but when that prohibition which had been held up before them endeavoured to put it down, they never even took the trouble to lay an embargo in the remotest degree on white men who practised immorality with coloured women. And they were asked to endorse that system by passing the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Grobler). All honour to the Government of the day and the Minister for the Interior who had seen the necessity of taking these things into consideration, and he agreed that something must be done in the right direction, but the right direction was not prohibiting marriages between the white and coloured people, but in having some stringent laws to prevent immoral intercourse between white men end native women. That was what they should do if they wanted to do it by means of those drastic laws which had been proved to be ineffective, because the evil those laws were meant to combat was still in existence on the goldfields, and was very little reduced. It might be asked what his idea was with regard to the future of the country and the races. The proposer of the amendment told them that they were going downhill, degrading the races, and, at last, there would be no white race in this country. He did not believe anything of the kind. It was bosh—rubbish. (Cries of “Order.”) It was a mere bogey, and the more they went into the matter, and statistics, and 1 facts, the more they would find there was no need for the alarm which had been shown. He could not do better than quote the motto of one of the grandest men that South Africa had produced or contained, and that was—“Equal rights to every civilised man.” If they acted on that he believed the native question and colour question of South Africa would find its solution. If they used their endeavours to keep the races as pure as possible, and acting upon that great principle and using their position as the superior and most civilised race, and giving the natives every opportunity of lifting themselves up even to their (the Europeans) level, if it be possible, there would be in South Africa two great parallel streams of population; the one the white population formed by the combination which was now happily on its way of fulfillment—the Dutch and British races, which had been very much at loggerheads in the past—and the other the native population; the white population civilised, cultured, educated; the other population allowed every opportunity of striving to become civilised, educated, and Christianised, and he did not see any reason why those two streams should not go straight along, and be found in the future of South Africa. He had heard much about this being a white man’s country. He contended it was impossible to make it a white man’s country.

Why not?

Why? Because before we set foot here the natives wore here—the aborigines were here. We did not bring it about; it was brought about by a Higher Power. Proceeding, he said they could not get away from it. Let them not talk of making this a white man’s country: but let them realise that they were the superior and civilised race, and were here to go alongside those other people, and help them on the path of civilisation, education, and Christianity, even if they reached that position, which they (the Europeans) had reached, after hundreds of years of probation. That was his ideal of the future South Africa, and for it he would do much. But there were great difficulties in the way. If they have these two great streams of population they must, of necessity, touch in the middle, and there would be Some intermingling in South Africa: that was to say, they could not keep the races altogether pure; but that mingling need necessarily only be in respect of an infinitesimal portion of those streams, and it was his point that it was the height of folly to try and prevent that small intermingling from taking place. The two main streams would remain, on the whole, the same. He wished to say that the intermingling of the races that had taken place in South Africa had not all been a curse. One could point to many men in South Africa who had splendid intellect, who had been fitted to be rulers almost over their fellow men, and who had filled some of the highest positions in the country, whose lives arose out of the intermingling of these two streams. When they had these examples he asked how anyone could dare to say that there should be a law to prevent or even hinder the intermingling of these two streams. He did not believe that such intermingling was all for evil, and not at all for good. Mention had been made of the Transvaal legislation on the subject, and he wanted to make his point, that there was never absolute prohibition in the Transvaal of marriages of white and coloured persons. The difficulty was got over by the passing of a law, No. 3 of 1871, which applied to white people only. It was provided, however, that a law would be brought into force to arrange for the marriages of coloured people, but there was absolutely no prohibition of marriages between white and coloured persons. He wished to make that point, because they proposed to follow the custom or belief of the Transvaal in this matter. He wished to point out that in the Transvaal it was 25 years after the passing of the law No. 3 of 1871 before they even attempted to provide for the marriages of coloured people. It was only in 1897 that a law was introduced to regulate the marriages of these people. The Free State followed the same example; as also did Natal, to a certain extent he thought. That was to say, there was a separate law, regarding the marriages of coloured people. In none of these laws was it absolutely laid down that such marriages were illegal, and they were now asking the Union Parliament to pass a more stringent daw. Whilst this was the case in the Transvaal and the Free State, the Cape Colony, they must remember, had never had the colour line introduced in legislation on this subject, or scarcely on any other subject, and surely the experience of the Cape Colony was pretty valuable on this point. They had the example of the Cape Colony for the last half century with which to compare the conditions in other places. He knew what the proposer and seconder of the amendment would say, They had complained of the condition of affairs in the Cape Colony, and had referred to the Oriental character of Cape Town, It had also been stated that the coloured population of the Cape Colony existed here because of the fact that fifty years ago there was no prohibition of marriages between white and coloured people. Now, he denied that statement altogether. The coloured population of the Cape Colony went further back in its origin It dated back to the days of slavery. That was the foundation of the coloured population. Wherever slavery had been permitted, there had been uncontrolled illicit intercourse between the masters of the slaves and the women slaves. There was a very great difference between the laws passed in the Transvaal and those in the Cape Colony, and it was too much to expect, he thought, that in view of the policy and system which had prevailed in the Cape Colony for the last half-century or more, and which, despite many blemishes perhaps, on the whole, had given them a wonderfully good solution of the proper way to treat the coloured people and the relations of white people to coloured people. They should set that policy aside all at once. He knew that they were not considering a political question; they were considering a fundamental question that appertained to every human being, and if they began now by saying that no white man should marry a coloured person, and that no coloured person should marry a white person, under penalties, then he said that they were not going forward; they were going backward in the history of the world—backwards in the history of the nations. (Ministerial laughter.) The speeches made by the mover and seconder of the amendment proved incontestibly the difficulty of carrying out this prohibition, because they could not define what a coloured person was. That had been the difficulty of every Parliament, and he contended that they had not got the A B C for such legislation as was being proposed, because it was not proposed that they should not only prohibit marriages between white persons and the absolute aboriginals, but between white persons and coloured persons. Now he had travelled through the south of Italy, Spain, and France, and he had come across people, not low people, but people of standing, whom, as a South African, he could only call coloured, and here they were actually asking power to prohibit all marriages between people whose skin was white and people whose skin was coloured. They would know some of these men that he referred to, some of their families were of such a nature that they could not with justice be called anything but coloured people. Here, for instance, were two children of the same family; the one might be put into the highest position of State, because he happened to be corn with a less tinge of colour than the other. The one might marry because he was white; the other might not. This was justice run mad. There was no justice in it at all. They had no business to inflict injustice in this way. There were some sitting in the House that night who were prepared to sacrifice everything that was dear to them for their fellow-men—surely they were not going to do injustice to other men because of the colour question—because men were not pure whites. Who could define this matter of colour? If the principle had been laid down to prohibit marriage with aboriginal natives, then nothing might be said about it. But who wanted to marry an aboriginal native? He would say that these coloured men were not uncivilised. They were men who, in intellect, in manners, and bearing would hold their own with hon. members in the House Were they going to put a stigma upon them? He wished to God that the man who used to sway that House was still in the world—the man who lay upon the top of the Matopos. He would say: “Don’t inflict that stigma; don’t because of the colour of a man, place this stigma upon him.’’

Is it within the rules of the House to read out speeches?

He is not reading it.

I am not reading it. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that this amendment although it sought to prohibit marriages did not take away the instincts of a human being, which were the same in both races, and would simply give an incentive to immorality. If a man misconducted himself with a white woman, his duty was to marry her and give her his name, but he could do what he liked with a coloured girl, and the law would say he must not marry her. Although he was opposed to mixed marriages for certain reasons, still he had known marriages of this kind that had been nothing but blessings to white men. There were a great many white men, he was sorry to say, who had been wasters. They married coloured women, and by these marriages they had been turned into respectable members of society. All honour to these high and honourable coloured women who had been instrumental in rescuing the white men they married. Another point was that as this amendment was of such a serious nature, the Government ought to adopt the principle as set, down by the National Convention. The question was of such magnitude that before it was finally decided there should be a two-thirds majority of both Houses. It was stated that if they did not pass this amendment they would be swamped by the coloured population. He believed there was no fear of that. Continuing, Mr. Schreiner said that in the prosperity which they hoped was to dawn on South Africa he thought that they could expect a large amount of immigration; and the proportion of the white to the native races to become a large one. He was an optimist on that. He did not believe there was the slightest danger of the white man being ousted. Was it seriously proposed that the Union Parliament should endorse that law of the Transvaal, which had said that there should not be equality between white and black in Church and State? That was not right, and he was glad that that provision was not contained in the Bill which the Hon. the Minister of the Interior had introduced. They had got above that, and he hoped that they would never endorse what the Transvaal had-done, or what the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Grobler) had advocated. They had understood that, it was agreed upon in the Convention— although he was not in the secrets of the Convention—that native matters should not come before the House at an early stage. “Give us time,” added the hon. member. When the hon. member for Braamfontein (Sir A. Woolls-Sampson) in his earnest speech had said that if that amendment were not agreed to there would be a union of the black and white races, well, that was begging the question. The hon. member had appealed to the young men of the country, and he (Mr. Schreiner) appealed with him to those young men of the country, who indulged in licentiousness with coloured women whom they did not wish to marry. He agreed with the hon. member that in that matter the newcomers in South Africa were greater sinners than the South Africans themselves, and he did not think that the guilt could be placed on the shoulders of the moral South African, but rather on the newcomer. The coloured people should be advanced in every way, but he did not think that they were so very anxious to marry white people. He had lived amongst the native people, and he knew that there was not that eagerness amongst them, or even the coloured people, for intermarriage which some hon. members seemed to think. Hon. members were in that House as a result of being given equality of opportunity; and being in a free country under the British Empire. Was not that House going to give a lead in regard to these principles of liberty?

said that when the matter of Union was before the people, the question was raised in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and Natal as to what would be done with regard to the coloured people of the Cape. The answer was that there would be no equality with Europeans. Instead of being convinced by the arguments of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) he was confirmed in his previous view on this question. He would not enquire into the merits of the Cape system. His constituents had instructed him to oppose equality. In the Transvaal the position with regard to colour was such that it could be tolerated, and the people insisted on its being maintained. He did not advocate transferring the Transvaal system to the Cape, but neither should they foist the Cape native policy on the Transvaal. Not a single Transvaal member would dare to tell his constituents that he had voted for the Bill in his amended form. It was curious, when Europeans from the South came to the Northern Colonies, they came to the same views on the colour question as those held by the people in the North, who were quite opposed to any intermarriage of the races. There was a great fear in his mind, and bethought, in the minds of others, that the result of that Bill, if it became law, would be a bad one, as the native would know that he was placed on an equal plane with the European; and the intermarriage between coloured and white which would take place in South Africa would lead to regrettable results. He could not possibly vote for that Bill as it stood, and if no alteration could be made to it, he would rather have that matters should go on as before in the different Provinces. By the operation, of that law they would destroy one of the best traditions of South Africa, because as the result of the inter marriage of white and coloured, the race would not keep its present level. He had to pay a tribute to his ancestors, who had gone forth into the wilderness and kept themselves entirely separate from the blacks. The worst offenders were newcomers. The Bill purposed to prevent undesirable marriages from being consummated, for there was one provision in it which prohibited the marriage between double cousins, which had led to a good deal of discussion that afternoon. If that were so, why not prevent still more undesirable marriages? If these marriages between white and coloured were prohibited, they would not create a new offence, because there could be no contraventions as, if it were laid down in the law that such marriages were unlawful, a white man could not marry a coloured woman, or a coloured man a white woman. If was said that no son or daughter would marry a person of another colour, but how could the parents prevent it when their children were of age? Why did not the Bill contain the usual punishments for contravention? Unless they maintained the supremacy of the white race, the vast native tribes in the north would be unfavourably affected. Everyone was opposed to mixed marriages. Why not, then, clearly prohibit them? The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had said that the law of the Transvaal gave rise to immorality, but that had not been the case. The defect in the law there was that although a coloured man was punished; if he cohabited with a white woman, a white man could cohabit with a coloured woman; and he would be glad to see the law in that respect altered, and made the same for both white and black. (Hear, hear.) There had been much talking during the recent elections of a “white South Africa.” What he understood by that term was not that the natives should be exterminated, but that white and black should be rigidly separated, and that each should have their rights and privileges. In the towns there was a class of poor whites whose daughters were exposed to temptation in various shapes, and it was the duty of the State to see that these young people upheld the national traditions. It had been urged that the amendment placed a restriction on human liberty, but what law did not?

who rose amid cheers, said that he spoke with some reluctance on this subject; but he did not intend to treat with the subject as a faddist, nor a missionary. But he claimed to be a Liberal—not a man who wanted to break down everybody to a level—who wished to give equal opportunity to everyone, without regard to race, skin, or colour. That was a Liberal. People who held that view had to suffer many things in that country. A few years ago they had to protest and stand up for certain things, and for that they had to suffer. He remembered the time when his hon. friends opposite tried to make this a white man’s country by introducing Chinese.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise to a point of order. I was one of those who opposed the introduction of Chinese, tooth and nail.

said he did not allude personally to his hon. friend the member for Braamfontein; he, spoke of his friends. (Laughter.) When they attempted to carry out Imperial ideas they had to undergo something at the hands of those whom they considered their friends; but they were asked in this law, by the amendment moved by his hon. friend, to enact something which was practically an insult upon five million people in this country. That was what they were asked to do. He wanted to ask any member, who had the future welfare of South Africa at heart, if that was a wise thing to do. Nobody had proved that there was any great danger at the present time, because nobody had given instances of any danger; but rather showed that any danger was diminishing as morality and education advanced. But they were asked to affix an unjust stigma upon five millions of the population. What would be the effect of this if they passed such an enactment at the very outset of their Parliamentary career? They could not say that they did not care. They could not afford not to care. They could not afford to do a thing like this, and affix a stigma upon these people. Now he recognised to the fullest the prejudice that existed; it would be idle to disregard it. It was a matter of prejudice. When he came in in the middle of the speech of his hon. friend he thought he was arguing upon a Bill to promote these marriages between the two races. What he wanted to point out was that that had to be guarded against; that was not going to be stopped by the amendment of his friend. (Hear, hear.) The only way of stripping that was by taking the advice of Lucio in “Measure for Measure,” and have a small law. That evil was only stopped by means of education and public opinion. It was deplorable, that they would grant. Had anybody ever reflected how they came to have coloured people in this country—what they called coloured people? They did not find them here. His hon. friend rather held up and glorified the old people, and said they had kept the race pure. Had he ever been up to Namaqualand, and up along the Northern border, and recognised the names of those people they called bastards? Where did they come from, and how were they produced? Were they going to stop that by saying that, they would not sanction marriages? Not at all. They, were not going to stop it, and: he must say that a law that simply forbade marriages between certain people without any punishment— there was no punishment for the man who solemnised a marriage, or for the man who contracted a marriage, or for the parties who contracted a marriage. There was no punishment whatever. All they said was that the children would be illegitimate. Was that wise? Was this such an evil that it should require legislation? He believed if they went to Kaffirland, they would find that they had a million and a half of Kafirs —he believed they could count the marriages between whites and Kafirs on the fingers of one hand. (Hear, hear.) Then why were they going to legislate in this way, and inflict a needless insult on a people when they could not bring forward an evil to fit the case? He would say this, that, he did believe in late years, from all inquiries he had made, that the intercourse between white and coloured people among the people in the country was very much less than it used to be. It was the newcomers who were the principle offenders, and, therefore, legislation, was not needed for that. There was just as much repugnance among the native people in regard to intercourse with white as there was among the white people, and even more. On every Native Laws Commission it had been a universal objection among the native men. They did not like their women to go into the towns, because they got corrupted. Legislation would not remedy that. They must do it by education, and having better morality. He would be sorry to see them adopting the laws in force in the Southern States of the United States of America. There were eleven States there who did not allow the marriage of white and coloured people. They made it illegal with heavy punishments. They were not like us; they forbade it under heavy penalties. Yet in those very States—if his hon. friend would take the trouble to read the account of what goes on there he would rise from the perusal with feelings of absolute disgust at the state of white women in the State of New Orleans. And, he did not think he need go there to find shocking examples of that evil. For very many years he and his hon. friend the Minister for the Interior (General Smuts) did their very best to put that state of things down in this country. Legislate in that direction. Clear the towns, and they would do more than all these laws to get people to get what was called the blessing of the Church, or the sanction of it for the Union. His opinion was that there were many things to which they should, much sooner, pay attention than the matter dealt with by the amendment. He did not know if he had ever read a more painful document, or one that filled him with more feelings of disturbance for the future than the report of the Transvaal Indigency Commission. What were they doing to remedy that state of affairs? Let them turn their attention to and spend their money for that, and they would be doing far more for it than by any law such as this. Now, he would like to make one more appeal, if he might. They must not think for one single moment that he wanted to encourage marriages of this sort—he abhorred them—but he thought the sense of both races was against them. They were actually getting less and less, and as they advanced so the two races would separate. (Hear, hear.) That had been the universal experience. Since slavery had been put an end to in this country, there had been fewer instances of this mixing of the races than there had been before. So in the United States. When slavery was put an end to, there were fewer instances of mixed marriages. But had his hon. friend reflected that if they passed a law like this he ought to be logical; he ought to tear two or three pages out of his New Testament? How would such a law as this have appeared on the shores of Galilee, because this was intended to be a bar, not against the getting of coloured children, but against giving the sanction of the law to the legitimatising of such children. Now he recognised that this was a very large question, and what those who called themselves liberal had got to do was not to try to force their opinions down the throats of other people—if they did they would do more harm than good—and he would ask his hon. friend the Minister of the Interior —it would shorten the Bill a good deal and at the same time carry out the principle —whether it was necessary at the present time, before they had made the acquaintance of each other and before his hon. friends had been down here any length of time and had had an opportunity of learning how things had worked in the Cape, to force upon them what they considered very distinct views upon this subject, and he would appeal to him, and ask him whether this was altogether the most judicious thing to do. It was not necessary. They had had a long and extremely interesting debate upon a very debatable question indeed, with which the people of this country had had no opportunity of acquainting themselves. Whether it was wise to introduce this subject at the present time he did not know, but he thought the best thing they could do at the present time was to adjourn the debate and think over the matter a little, so that they might come with some modus vivendi upon it. It would be deplorable if, by a narrow majority on one side or the other they decided the matter. It was unwise to affix a stigma upon the vast bulk of the population in this country. That was not the way they were going to make a white South Africa. He agreed that they could never make a white South Africa in the sense they balked about making a white Australia. They could not do it. Nature was against them but what they could do was to maintain the supremacy of the white races. They were not, however, going to maintain the supremacy of the white races by insulting and affixing a stigma upon those who were considered to be their inferiors. They must treat them with consideration and moderation, and he believed the time would come when his hon. friend who moved this amendment (Mr. Grobler) would see eye to eye with him on this subject. He did not do so now, and perhaps he smiled, but he (Mr. Merriman) also was once a young member. He also had very extreme views, but he was educated in this House. His hon. friend said depend upon it that there was no place like Parliament in which to educate the people upon sound liberal views, and free discussion was the best way of doing it. For himself he would say again that he doubted the wisdom of forcing a matter like this at the present time, and he would ask the Minister of the Interior whether he would not adjourn the debate now, with a view of giving hon. members an opportunity of talking the matter over and seeing whether they could not arrive at some modus vivendi. He moved to report progress.

said that he hoped the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) would not press his motion to report progress, because be thought the discussion was a liberal education to many of them. He hoped that his right hon. friend would see that it was really useful to have this discussion. He had looked forward to this discussion, because he knew that it would educate numbers of members of the House upon one of the most complex subjects with which they had to deal. It was a very early hour, and they had nothing more important to discuss, and he hoped, therefore, that the discussion would go on, and that the House would have more views upon the subject.

said he had no objection to withdrawing his motion to report progress if the Minister of the Interior thought it was good to continue the debate.

said he would like to support the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West. He wished to press the motion to report progress, for the reason that he did not think hon. members were there that evening to be educated upon the subject. A question of enormous importance had been sprung upon them in a small Bill, which the Minister of the Interior had stated was necessary to codify and bring into line the laws in the various Provinces. He had said nothing, however, about the question which had been sprung upon them. He would like to suggest to the Minister of the Interior that he withdraw the Bill at this stage, for the reason that those who came from the Transvaal had absolutely no mandate to alter the law in this important respect.

then put the motion to report progress, and declared it negatived, and the debate proceeded.

said it seemed hardly fair that this matter should have been sprung upon them. It was certainly discussed, and thoroughly discussed, in the Transvaal. If hon. members were not prepared to deal with it, they stood accused of negligence. The right, hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) said they ought to tear some leaves out of the New Testament. Well, they had done that. In some part of the Testament they were told that a man under certain conditions might marry his Own daughter. Well, they would not allow a man to do that nowadays. He was sorry to hear a reference made to equality of opportunity. He was sorry to hear that reference made by the Prime Minister in the Transvaal. The phrase meant too much or too little. How were they going to have equality of opportunity with unequal men,? The right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) said that the good; sense of the race was against these marriages. That might be true in the Cape Province, but it was not true of the other Provinces of South Africa. A good many years ago a great number of people were taken from St. Helena to Natal. They had now the fourth generation, and in many instances he was sure that these died just because they did not have the strength to draw the last breath. (Laughter.) St. Helena women had only one aim in life, and that was to marry white men. The progeny was very pretty to look at, hut there was no stamina. Proceeding, the hon. member said there were only three places in the British Empire where the polity of Great Britain in dealing with the natives had been successful, and these only where intercourse between black and white was absolutely prohibited. High anthropological and biological authorities had stated that these mixed marriages produced inferior fruit. He certainly believed in equal political rights for all who were on the same level; but that excluded the native. At the present moment they saw this growing dominance of the block over the white in certain raids of South Africa. In New Zealand they had a splendid illustration of the results of intermarriage between white and coloured, for the progeny of the whites and Maoris were not physically and mentally as strong as the progeny of either the Europeans or the Maoris. There had been rapid deterioration while there had been that intermarriage, but since it had been stopped there had been a great improvement, and the Maoris, instead of decreasing were now increasing in numbers. There was no comparison between a full-blooded Maori and a half-caste in New Zealand. Then there was the case of the United States of America. When the hon. member had spoken of education and what it would do, what had it done in the United States of America? He knew there were brilliant exceptions, but it was a scientific fact that these exceptions tended to die out in the first or second generation. One in every 284 of the negroes in the United States of America was a criminal, and one in 2,727 a homicide, while, in regard to the foreign whites who were said to be responsible for most of the crime in that country, only one in 7,633 was a criminal. Of the nine murders committed in the United States of America last year by (boys, eight had been committed by negroes. Experience taught them, science taught them, that the amendment should be agreed to. They could not eradicate every ill, but they could eradicate some, and they must do their best to eradicate all the evils they could. Hon. members were in that House to represent the people of United South Africa, and the voice of South Africa, as a whole, was in favour of that amendment. He supported the amendment to the fullest, and sincerely trusted that it would be carried. (Cheers.)

said that he was well acquainted with different native tribes in the Transvaal. They were opposed to marriage with whites. That being so, surely there could be no valid objection to the amendment. The hon. member for Tembuland had admitted the aversion in which the natives held mixed marriages. Why, then, oppose the amendment? The bulk of the population was in favour of the amendment.

opposed the views of the right hon. member for Victoria West, who was inconsistent. If whites and blacks mixed, a population showing all the hues of the rainbow would result, which would rob the Union of its brilliant future. The hon. member for Tembuland had argued that the amendment was most unjust to the offspring of mixed marriages, but that was not so, because the Bill would not be retrospective. The statement to the effect that the Transvaal law encouraged criminality was a worthless one. Purity of the races was of prime importance, and he regretted the tendency shown in this Parliament to play at ducks and drakes with the laws of Nature. The line, drawn by Nature between the two races was visible at a hundred yards! The Mosaic law prohibited the Jews from mixing with other nationalities, and that law should be maintained, even though intermarriage should produce South Africans as large as elephants and as strong as lions. If any one of the seventeen Free State members opposed the amendment he had better stay in the Cape, because in the Free State his life would not be worth a moments purchase. When the Act of Union was published the people objected that the door had been left open for equality between whites and blacks. It was said, in answer, that the people of Cape Colony were even more opposed to equality than the population of the Free State. If the latter, however, had known of the tendencies now existing in the House, they would have refused to sanction Union. He would rather resign than vote for the Bill in its unamended form.

said he did not agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort, who spoke as if the law was passed without the amendment, the tendency would be to encourage these marriages. They knew that was not so. He did not suppose there was a single man in the House who was not in favour of keeping the blood of the white race pure, and prevent the mixing of the races. The whole matter resolved into this question: what is the best means to be adopted to preserve the purity of the white race of this country? His idea was that the amendment that had been brought forward was not the best means of attaining that end. Would they be able to prevent illicit intercourse by law? They could not do that; it would be impossible. And if that was the case, and if they passed; that amendment, one result would be an increase in immorality in this country; they would increase the number of these people who were living in an unmarried state in this country. Then, perhaps, they would be doing a grave in-justice to a great number of these children, who would, perhaps, grow up self-respecting men and women and useful citizens of the State. These children would grow up as bastards. What would be the attitude of these children when they became of age towards the State? He thought that men and women born under such a law would curse such a Commonwealth, and curse the dominant race because it had placed such an in-justice upon them. He pointed out to the Transvaal members that they were not legislating for the Transvaal, but the whole of South Africa, where circumstances differed tremendously. They had people in that neighbourhood of all shades, from next-to-white to black. And the point was as to who was to decide as to which shade could marry. They had no authority. The hon. member went on to refer to the fact that in some families they found children of different shades. In his experience as chairman of the School Board such instances had come to his notice. There were cases—he did not say that there were many—where a white child had been taken into school from one family, while another member of the same family had been rejected. And when they took it further, they found that while one child would be able to marry a European, the other would not. Let them imagine what a state of confusion and feeling would result. It would be an unjust state of affairs, and it would be an enactment that it would be found impossible to carry out. The only thing, to his mind, was to cultivate race instinct in both races— white and coloured. That was the conclusion arrived at in the United States, where all the laws on this subject had been found ineffective. They should encourage this racial pride, which would keep each race to itself. Once they got this race pride, no law of this kind would be necessary, they would have none of these mixed marriages, and they would have an end of that illicit intercourse as it existed at the present time. (Hear, hear.) †Mr. H. MENTZ (Zoutpansberg) said that the position of the white people of the Transvaal was being assailed by the Bill, and that it was the duty of hon. members representing that province to see to it that the status quo was not altered without good reason being shown. Transvaal representatives had thought out the matter and were quite prepared to assume responsibility for the amendment. The right hon. member for Victoria West had stated that five million blacks were insulted by the amendment, but the blacks themselves detested intermarriage. In the Transkei there was a large majority in favour of the amendment. As soon as questions in connection with native policy were broached, certain hon. members were always ready to state that the subject was too thorny to be discussed, and that it should be left alone. No one seemed to be prepared to take the bull by the horns. The previous speaker had said that immorality would be increased by a prohibition such as proposed by the amendment. If that were so, why had the hon. member advocated restricting marriages between cousins? The hon. member for Tembuland had repeatedly stated that in principle he was opposed to mixed marriages; if so, why was he averse to legislation? What was there to be afraid of? The hon. member for Braamfontein had clearly explained the whole matter, and had admitted that all restrictions might go as soon as white people were prepared to give their daughters in marriage to natives. Those who were not prepared to do so ought to have no hesitation in voting for the amendment. It had been said that the public should be consulted. If that were an argument, why did they not trust the public on other matters as well? Hon. members were wasting time and money in the House if the public had to be consulted on all affairs of state. In the Transvaal white women were living with Chinamen and Indians. They had married across the border. Cape members were evidently prejudiced against their Transvaal colleagues. They had heard that the amendment would lead to bad feeling between the races, but on behalf of half a million blacks he was authorised to state that those blacks would hail the amendment with gratitude. He had every respect for respectable members of the coloured races but they ought to be kept in their places, and should marry their own people. The people in the Transvaal might be young and headstrong but such as they were, they were in favour of the status quo and the purity of the races, the foundation of which should be laid by this Parliament in the interest of the coloured people themselves. They should take their courage in both hands and face the situation. He had expected the Minister to give them a lead during the second reading debate and to state his reason for omitting to re-enact the Transvaal prohibition. The Minister, however, had become as careful as his Cape colleagues and simply left the matter to private members.

moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned till Friday next.

said that, in the absence of the Prime Minister, he would like to put a question to the Minister of the Interior. It was a question of great public importance, and he would ask his hon. friend not to give an answer that night. The question had reference to the outbreak of cholera at Madeira, and when they considered the number of vessels calling at that island and at South African ports the matter was a serious one. He would like to ask his hon. friend (General Smuts) if he would be prepared to make a statement as to what steps the Government were to take to prevent such a scourge reaching South Africa.

If possible I will endeavour to make a statement tomorrow.