From J. M. Russell, Chairman of the Council of the South African College, praying for leave to introduce a Private Bill to amend the South African College Acts of the late Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, Nos. 15 of 1878 and 10 of 1904.

appointed Mr. Alexander and Mr. Vosloo to be examiners on the petition, and specially to report on the reason for the presentation thereof after the thirtieth day of the session.

From J. B. Jolly, the Cape Police.

From the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, and farmers in Potchefstroom, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped (three petitions).

From W. H. Perry, Railway Department.

From A. J. Turner, steam-shed foreman, South African Railways.

From A. Winder.

From G. F. Smith, sanitary inspector, Railway Department.

From George Turner, late Medical Officer of Health, Cape and Transvaal.

Praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped (seven petitions).

Extracts from Government Notices, Volunteer Force, 1906 (Cape of Good Hope); Conciliation and Investigation Board (Transvaal) to investigate the dispute between the United Operative Bricklayers’ Society of South. Africa (Pretoria branch) and the Pretoria Masters’ Building Trades Association.

Approximate cost of fencing erected, or in process of erection, by the Government in connection with the East Coast fever in Elliotdale district, along the Kei, and from the Kei, eastwards; number of cattle dipping tanks, spraying machines, etc.

Proclamation No. 172, 1910, in regard to the Irrigation Act, Transvaal; regulations for hire of Government drills for boring for water.

Reports of railway experts on which was based the scheme for a new railway station on the west side of Germiston; names of railway officials on the Northern line from De Aar to Vryburg who have been fined or punished since the appointment of Mr. More as Divisional Superintendent, with the reason for such penalty or fine, etc

Reports for year 1900, Civil Service and Widows’ Pension Funds and the Public Service Guarantee Fund (Cape of Good Hope).

Application by the Anglican Church for a church site at Ntseshe, Location 12, Hobo, Nqamakwe; proposed grant of site for Wesleyan church and school on Fort Beaufort Commonage; site for undenominational public school at Delport’s Hope, Barkly West; lease of farm “Chepstowe,” Maclear, Griqualand East, to A. J. Goodman; lease of farm “Hoek Plaats,” Victoria West, to C. S. van Heerden; exchange of land between the Railway Department and the owner of the farm “Bakovend,” Malmesbury; lease of foreshore of subdivision of farm Soldaten Post called “Brandhuis,” Malmesbury; lease of foreshore of farms “Ganze Kraal” and “Modder Rivier,” Malmesbury; exchange of land at Port Elizabeth between the Government and Estate of Blaine; letting of farms, under section 6 of Act 26 of 1891, by the Railway Department; proposed letting of various Government lands and buildings, under section 6 of Cape Act 26 of 1891; exchange of land between Railway Department and owner of farm “Grootfontein,” Prince Albert; proposed free gift of portion of the village hall site at Amalinda, East London, for school purposes; grant of land to the Village Management Board of Rooigrond, Mafeking; lease of fishing sites on farm “Otterdam,” at Lambert’s Bay, Clanwilliam; Orange River Islands, between Kenhardt and Gordonia.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF LANDS, seconded by Mr. P. G. KUHN (Prieska), these papers were referred to the Select Committee on Waste Lands.

in moving the second reading of the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill, referred to previous legislation in the Cape in connection with the Dutch Reformed Church. In the old days there was a bond between the Cape Dutch Reformed Church and the State. The State was always represented at the Synods. The regulations in connection with the Synods dated back to 1804, but it was only in 1843 that the Fathers of the Church asked the Cape Parliament to ratify a Bill recognising the Church. In 1898 an Amending Bill was passed. He said that the feeling that there should be closer union between the Dutch Reformed Churches of the Cape Province, the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and Natal, had grown, and there had been some discussion by the four Churches in question with reference to the desirability of union, the result of which was that a committee had been appointed to go into the matter and report on it. The reason why it was felt that there should be such closer union was that the Churches were practically one as regards creed, interests, and the like; because union would give the Church better opportunities with regard to the training of teachers, missionaries, and ministers; because the Church would be able to exercise more spiritual influence as a united church; because the members of the four Churches had the same ancestors, the same languages, and the same interests; because it was felt that South Africa, having become a Union politically, it was only desirable that the Dutch Reformed Churches should also become united. It had been felt that the Cape Ordinance of 1843 should be repealed and something else substituted. It was unnecessary to say much about the Bill, which had been in the hands of hon. members, and before the country, for some time. Everyone could read it for himself. What he did wish to impress upon them was that if that Bill became law it would not force union on the Churches, but they could unite if they so decided. It would simply give them the power to unite. If the Bill were passed, the matter of the proposed union would have to come before all the Kerkeraden, and union could not be brought about between the four Provinces before there was a three-fourths majority of all the Kerkeraden and of all the Synods. If there were a three-fourths majority of the Kerkeraden of two Provinces, union between these two Provincial Churches could be brought about if there were also a three-fourths majority of the respective Synods. There were a number of amendments which had been introduced by the Select Committee and approved by the committee appointed by the four Churches to go into the matter. There might be some matters in the Bill which would be objected to, because it was said that the colour question was mentioned in the Bill. That was certainly the case, but no rights would be taken away from any of the coloured members of the Church. For although it was laid down in the Bill that no coloured member of the Cape Province Church would have any right to demand membership of any of the Churches of the other three Provinces, there was nothing to prevent any of these other Churches deciding to admit coloured members. As to the Church in the Cape Province, the rights of coloured members would remain as they were. As to the incorporation of Churches outside the boundaries of the Union, that was no new thing, for the Cape Church became entitled, under the Act off 1898, to have Churches outside the Cape incorporated with it. It was said that there might be certain difficulties with regard to properties belonging to certain missionary congregations, but they were vested, and would remain so, in the hands of trustees; and he thought that there would be no danger. The property would remain the property of the missionary congregations, and no wrong at all would be done.

rising after a pause, said that he was sorry he was not able to follow closely the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Louw) in introducing the Bill. He thought there were some features in the Bill that required a little more attention from this House than the House seemed disposed to give at that particular moment. He did not for a moment suppose that there was any member of that House who would be at all inclined to belittle the importance of the Bill. He did not want it to be understood that he belittled the importance of the Dutch Reformed Church or of this Bill. He had very great regard for the Church. As an old historical Church, not only in Europe, but also in this country, he thought that the Dutch Reformed Church was entitled to the greatest respect, not only from the members of that House, but also from every professing Christian in this land. (Hear, hear.) He thought, however, that in the Bill now before the House there were some points that it would ill become members of that House to pass over in silence. In the first place, he must say that he had some considerable doubt as to whether a Bill of the importance of this Bill ought to have come before the House as a private Bill. He thought it ought to be seriously considered whether the Bill should not be withdrawn and re-introduced as a public Bill. The property interests of the Dutch Reformed Church were enormous. The area over which the members of the Church were diffused was co-extensive with the Union itself. He would also say that if it were to be regarded as right that this Bill should go on as a private Bill, then he thought there were some ether difficulties would arise. For instance, in one clause it was proposed to repeal Ordinance No. 7 of 1843. The importance of that Ordinance was this, that it dealt with matters not confined to the Dutch Reformed Church. In section 2 of that Ordinance an important point of public policy was brought forward, viz.: that it should he the law of the land that no religious body should be of right entitled to any subsidy or moneys or grants from the public Treasury of the country That provision applied not only to the Dutch Reformed Church, but to every religious community throughout the length and breadth of the Cape Province. This Bill proposed to repeal that Ordinance in toto. That was a matter for very serious consideration in dealing with a private Bill. He wanted to know by what right a private Bill could repeal an important piece of public policy of that kind? Then he would like to know why, this Ordinance having been repealed, another Ordinance—that of 1845—also dealing with the Dutch Reformed Church, was not repealed? This latter Ordinance provided that the Governor of the then Cape Colony should have the right to nominate ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church where a grant was made from the Treasury of the Colony. That Ordinance was not mentioned in this Bill. He also thought that a private Bill should not give authority to any community to exercise jurisdiction outside the Union. According to this measure, the Dutch Reformed Church would have jurisdiction extended into countries which were not even under the control of the Crown. There was another important point which should be considered in connection with this Bill as a private Bill. He remembered that some years ago a Bill was introduced into the Cape House to facilitate the transfer of the Grey Foundation School. That was a private Bill, and all the properties to be dealt with were set out in a schedule to the Bill. In the present measure also he contended that there should be a schedule. He considered further that the rights of minorities were not sufficiently safeguarded. Clause 2 provided that three-fourths of the Consistories — the congregations — must agree, but it was not provided how they should agree. There was no provision other than that they should agree by a simple majority. Then in clause 7, the Dutch Reformed Church took upon itself the power to alter its whole constitution, but the Bill give no indication of the direction in which those alterations should take place. Some indication should be given of the changes it was proposed to make. It would be right to give the Church the power to interpret the old-established doctrines, but the Bill went further. He reminded the House of the difficulty which arose some eight or ten years ago in connection with the Free Church in Scotland, and of the decision of the House of Lords that, though the Church might change its doctrines, it might not change the destination or application of the Church property. In this Bill it was provided that the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, when it came to a resolution interpreting a point of doctrine, should be considered the ultimate court of appeal. Now, the original clause seemed to contemplate a right of appeal, but the amendment made by the Select Committee apparently did away with that, and it was provided that with that decision should go the right to the property involved. The minority might remain as Calvinistic as it now was, and the proviso was a very dangerous one, as far as the interests of the minority were concerned. The House ought to consider very closely whether it should agree to the proviso or not. If it did so, it would, in all probability, be paving the way for very serious and continuous litigation, so far as the affairs of the Dutch Reformed Church were concerned. There were some other points in connection with the Bill which he did not like. For instance, there was the colour clause, and as an ordinary citizen he was disappointed that a clause of that kind should appear in a Bill introduced in the first session of the Union Parliament. The Christians of Africa should not forget the warnings that had been made by missionaries and others as to the religious influence that was spreading from the North of Africa to the South. Another clause in the Bill, proceeded the hon. member, stated that property was to mean any sums paid out of the Colonial or public Treasury of the Union. He wanted to know what the meaning and implication of that was. Did it mean that they in that Union Parliament could not, without a special Act, withdraw any moneys they at present voted for that particular Church?

said he would like to associate himself with the observations of the last speaker, particularly with regard to the colour clause in the Bill.

said he did not wish to go over all the points raised by the hon. member opposite (Sir B. Berry), who had criticised the Bill fairly and temperately. The difficult question to know, whether the subject matter of the Bill should have been dealt with by public or private legislation, he (General Smuts) need not consider, as no doubt the Speaker had carefully considered and finally disposed of it. The hon. member opposite desired to see a schedule of the property belonging to the Dutch Reformed Churches enumerated in connection with clause 4. He (General Smuts) assured the hon. member that if an attempt was made to set out in a schedule all the properties of the Dutch Reformed Churches which would be included, it would be a regular volume. (Hear, hear.) The properties, however, were registered in the various Deeds Offices in the names of the various churches and congregations. The two funds ought to be perfectly well-known, and were lodged in a bank of repute somewhere in the O.F.S. There should be no difficulty in identifying them. He now came to the really important point the hon. member had raised, and that was: the question as to the rights of minorities in so far as they were affected by that Bill. The hon. member was right when he said that Parliament should consider this question carefully. When he (General Smuts) first read the Bill, he came to the conclusion that the rights of minorities were so strongly safeguarded that, in his opinion, it was practically impossible to bring about the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches. Not only had three-quarters of the members of the Dutch Reformed Churches all over South Africa to vote for this change, but there was also to be a three-quarters majority of the members of the four Synods. He did not think it would be possible to go further in this direction. Then his hon. friend raised that other very thorny question on section 7, and he found fault with the proviso added by the Select Committee, which constituted the Synod of the Church, the ultimate authority in the Church as a Court of Appeal on all questions of doctrine. He did not think that it was possible to make a more salutary provision than that, and be based his argument on the very case that the hon. member had mentioned, viz., the case of the Scotch Church. There was a question of faith involved—not a question of property, but ultimately a question of faith. On that question, a purely theological question, first the Scotch Courts had to decide, and finally the House of Lords had to decide, and some of the judges who took part in the House of Lords in coming to this decision belonged to quite a different persuasion. It seemed to him that it made an absolute farce of the Church. The final decision arrived at by the House of Lords was practically reversed by legislation. He thought the provision which had been made in the Bill in regard to this matter was a perfectly correct one. He did not think it was necessary to say much with regard to the question of colour dealt with in section 10. He found it very difficult to understand section 10, but, so far as he understood it at all, it did seem, to him that no case could be made of unfair treatment on the part of coloured people. This clause simply said that a coloured member of the Church in one Province should not have the right to claim membership in any other Province of the Union. This clause was rendered necessary by the same circumstances which rendered something similar necessary in the South Africa Act. If they wanted to bring about the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches of South Africa, they had to put in a clause of that kind, although its meaning was not very clear, which would make it palatable in other parts of South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

said he thought the Minister who had just spoken had made it perfectly clear what clause 10 was. If it meant anything at all, it meant that if a coloured man who had been received as a member of the Dutch Reformed Church in this Province happened by any chance to go to another colony, he should not be received as a member of the same Church there. (“No.”) If it did not mean that, in view of the facts as we knew them in this country, it meant nothing. They knew perfectly well that in other colonies, except the Cape, they would not have the coloured man as a member of the Church.

What is the position to-day?

asked what authority there was for this exclusion? After all that the Minister had said, one fact stood out that by this Bill they were deliberately saying to a member in this colony, who professed to believe in the same teachings and the same doctrines as themselves, by this clause that he should not sit behind or sit with his fellow-professing Christians in any other colony in the Union. How could they expect any blessing upon a law dealing with Church affairs when they did a thing of that kind? For they were going to do it: they would not do it if he could stop it. It was a clause which denied every teaching of the Founder of the religion they professed. He could quote to them any number of passages to show them that they were doing a wicked and an improper thing. It was a disgrace to the Statute-book; it was a disgrace to their Church, which was infinitely worse.

said that if they had had the Act No. 36, 1909, passed by the Natal Legislature, before them instead of this Bill, it would have passed the second reading. As to the protection of the rights of minorities, they had to remember that the members of the Dutch Reformed Church were not going to vote on this question, but that it was in the hands of the Consistories or Kerkeraad As to clause 4, which purported to repeal Ordinance 7, 1843, he found that Act 2, 1851, re-enacted Ordinance 7, 1843, which had never received the Queen’s confirmation. He did not know whether clause 4 of this Bill would repeal the Ordinance of 1843. Section 7 was, of course, the same as Act 7 of 1843, with the amendment which was made by the Act of 1898, with regard to confessions and so forth, on which the Church based its doctrines. To take the whole of section 7 with the proviso which had been added by the Select Committee, they had the strange position that the section laid down that the people who held these doctrines as enumerated should at all times be the true congregation and the holders of the Church property. They had not the slightest objection to the Church asking them to pass that, but there was something jesuitical in Parliament being asked to carry on anything jesuitical in regard to such matters. They were asked to uphold that as a foundation of the Church; and the Church was to be at perfect liberty to explain away that catechism and expressions of faith in any way they liked; and if they liked, they might even say that the canons of Mohammedanism were in concord with those of Dort. Personally, he was in favour of the elasticity of religion, and he felt very much inclined to vote for that proviso, in order to give the Church the opportunity to escape from the hard, iron-bound fetters of 300 years ago. Had he a right in that Parliament to say that a minority which stuck to the strict interpretation of the Canons of Dort and all the other confessions should be debarred? They would do so if they passed that section. As to section 8, which provided that anybody who give evidence before a Consistory should not be liable to be brought up before any civil court in regard to such statements. Now this special provision had existed in Act 7 of 1843. That Act was to be repealed if this Bill went through, but that provision was to be included, and he thought the Church would have been well advised if it had been dropped. As to section 9 and the extension of the Church’s field beyond the Union, the Act of 1898 had so extended it beyond the confines of the Cape. He did not see the necessity for it; let the Church make a rule for itself and abide by it. He quarrelled with several of the provisions of the Bill because they ought never to have come before Parliament. As to section 10, it was not the case, as he had understood the hon. member (Mr. Louw) to say, that the coloured members had more privileges than they had had before. When the union of the Churches was brought about, these coloured people would have certain rights in the Union Church of the Cape Province, but not in the Union Church of the other Provinces. A church was not to be run on the lines of a political body; it was built on different foundations. He knew the difficulty the Church had had, because the Church in the North said that they would not have union if coloured members were to be admitted. At the Synod, 81 members had voted against union and 99 for, so that he might say that in speaking he was representing that minority. The Church went further than the Act of Union, because in the Act of Union they had the right by a majority vote to extend the franchise, whereas the Church could not alter this position. At any rate, the Church should retain the right by a majority vote to remove the disabilities now inflicted on its coloured members. If there was to be anything like justice done, this Bill would have to be altered in that respect. He thought, the Select Committee did not have very accurate information before them on several points. For instance, the evidence was conflicting as to the number of coloured members of the Church. It was also stated in evidence that almost all of the coloured people in South Africa were adherents of the Dutch Reformed Church. That was not borne out by the census returns. He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn, and reintroduced in another form. If that were not done, he would have an opportunity of moving certain amendments in committee.

said he agreed with very much that had been said by the Minister of the Interior, and he was very glad to hear the testimony which had been paid to the work done by the Dutch Reformed Church. He did not suppose the Dutch Reformed Church was infallible, but it certainly had done a very great work, not only among the coloured people, but among the white as well. He was not going into the question of whether this should be a private Bill or a public Bill. He did not think that the Church gained any advantage by trying to obtain what it wanted by a private Bill. As regarded the point taken that the Synod was the sole and only authority on questions of doctrine, he entirely agreed with the Minister of the Inferior, that it was the only possible tribunal. He had for years wondered at the almost comical position of the Law Courts in England dealing with these matters, for on the Bench there were men who did not belong to any Church, and the agnostic was often very fully represented. And these were the gentlemen they got to decide questions of doctrine. The only thing that could foe urged in justification of that was that there was an Established Church in England, but here that was not the position. He might say he often thought the Churches had too much doctrine, and it would be better if there were a little less doctrine and a little more practical Christianity. As to the question of the rights of minorities, that was one upon which he always felt very strongly. That was why in Parliament he had always leaned to the side of the minority —(laughter)—in fact, he had spent most of his life in the minority, and he was never so sure he was right as when he was in a minority. (Laughter.) Of course, there were exceptions. (Renewed laughter.) It was the duty of Parliament to see that the rights of minorities were protected, but he agreed with what the Minister of the Interior said on this point. It was more difficult to get a majority under this Bill than it was to get a majority under the South Africa Act, when the rights of the coloured people were concerned. He thought that the rights of the minority were amply safeguarded in this Bill, and furthermore, he believed that if a minority under these circumstances suffered a loss of property, they would be no less potent as a spiritual force on that account. He must admit at once that he regretted the exclusion of people because of their colour. At the Convention that principle was accepted, because it was thought—and he believed rightly—that otherwise there would not be Union. He was one of those who hoped it was a temporary arrangement. But he must say that when they came to Churches they expected something different; they expected that a broader and a more Christian view would be taken of these things. It was to him difficult to see how such a provision could find place in the law of a Church which was based upon a belief in Christianity. It was almost, to his mind, a travesty of religion. Whatever they might do as politicians, when they came to these eternal questions he thought they ought to be true not only to their professions, but to the principles of their religion, and nothing, to his mind, was more foreign to the Christian religion than to adopt a provision like this. As a well-wisher of the Church—in which he was brought up— he regretted to see such a provision, and he regretted it all the more because the Church which had done so much good in South Africa would suffer because of it. (Cheers.)

said that before one criticised what a Church did they ought to understand exactly what the members of that Church felt (Hear, hear.) If the members of that Church wished to exclude A, B, or C, they had a perfect right to do so, but when it came to dealing with property that House should pause. He differed from the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sauer) when that gentleman said that the rights of minorities were protected—they were not. It seemed to him to be a great injustice that if coloured congregations had spent money on property for the Dutch Reformed Church, that property should now go over to the United Church, of which coloured people would be told that they could not be members. Some provision should be made to safeguard the property of the coloured people. The next point was, what was to be done with the property of those Churches which would not join the Union? He thought the Minister of the Interior was mistaken when he said that the members of the congregations were to be asked whether they would join; only members of the Consistories would be asked. What was to become of the landed property of those Churches whose Consistories would not join? Then there was no appeal from the Consistories to the members, of the Churches. He also differed in toto from the member for Aliwal North, who said that so long as the members of the Churches were protected in regard to doctrine it did not matter whether they were protected with reference to their pockets. He was afraid the hon. member was not very well acquainted with Churches or their pockets. (Laughter.) There was a further point—the House was asked to legislate for persons outside its jurisdiction. With reference to the precedent of the Bill of 1908, that was first introduced when he (Sir Henry) was Speaker, and referred to a Select Committee. When the Bill next came before the House, his hon. friend (Sir B. Berry) was Speaker, and the Bill was taken up by him. He (Sir Henry), when he was Speaker, always struck out all clauses from Bills which purported to deal with matters outside the jurisdiction of that House. The precedent of 1898 slipped in because of the change of Speakers. In conclusion, Sir Henry said he had never known the libel clause to be abused.

speaking as a member of the Select Committee on the Bill, said the intention of putting a second proviso in clause 4 was to safeguard each congregation. With regard to clause 9, the fact that there was such a precedent as that of 1908 weighed very strongly with the committee in consenting to the inclusion of the clause. The effect of the clause was not to impose rights or duties on the citizens of a different country qua citizens, but as members of a Church to which they voluntarily adhered. The only practical effect of the clause was to enable the Dutch Reformed Church to have congregations in countries outside the Union, which congregations could be represented in the Synod. As to the rights of minorities, having referred to the requirement of a double three-quarters majority, Mr. Long pointed out that this was only a permissive measure. It did not impose union upon all the Churches of the different Provinces. It simply give an opportunity to the Churches of the different Provinces to enter into union if they liked. Such being the case the fact was material that in the Synod of the Cape Province, when the resolution approving of union in terms of the draft Bill, upon which this Bill was framed, the resolution was only carried by a majority of 99 to 81 members of the Synod. Unless there had been a great change, there was small chance, therefore, of this Bill being adopted by the Synod of the Cape Province. Referring to the provisions in regard to questions of doctrine, Mr. Long put it whether it was desirable that there should be left to a bare majority of the Synod the absolute right to decide, without any possibility of appeal, what were the true doctrines of the Church. He urged that better than this was a solution which said that a Court of Law, constituted of impartial people who were trained in the investigation of legal questions, should decide points of this kind. In regard to clause 10, he confessed that at the outset he did not favour this clause, but that as information was imported in regard to it, he began to see what were the perfectly sincere and obviously well-considered views of those who put forward the opposite attitude to himself, and that there was something to be said on the other side. He thought those who held the opposite view should toe given credit for sincerely holding that view. Another point was that, as a whole, the coloured people of the Cape Province, perfectly free as they had been to join the white congregations of the Dutch Reformed Church in this Province, had only done so in very small numbers, and had preferred to join the mission church of the Dutch Reformed Church— (Ministerial cheers)—and had a separate coloured Church, for which they had their own Kerkeraad and their own governing body. In conclusion, the hon. member said that he could see no necessity for that clause being put in. In the Orange Free State, as he understood, there was no law or church regulation preventing coloured people from becoming members of a European congregation, therefore, was it necessary that that clause should be put in at all? If, however, it was necessary, he could not see that it was so opposed to the sentiments of those who desired the welfare of the coloured population in that Province.

said that he was not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, hut he heartily welcomed that measure, which, he felt, would be one of such moment and importance to the welfare of South Africa. He made bold to say that had it not been for the hold which their Church and their religion had upon them, there would not have been produced such a class of people in South Africa as they had to-day. The union of the Churches was bound to be an influence for good. He was unable to agree with the point made by the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir Bisset Berry) with reference to the law courts deciding on questions of doctrine, which the Synod of the Church should decide. A great deal of alarm had been expressed by the hon. members for Queen’s Town and Cape Town (Harbour) with regard to the question of property, but surely the Bill preserved the rights of every congregation.

asked what about the property of particular Churches which would not join the Union?

If the Dutch Church, as a whole, agrees to union, where does the injustice come in? If a particular Church does not by a three-fourths majority agree to union, it does not join, and, its property is absolutely protected. If they took Colesberg, he continued, the Church property was vested in the Kerkeraad of Colesberg, and under union it would still remain vested in that Kerkeraad, so where was the injustice? As to clause 10, he entirely agreed with what his hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) had said upon that matter. He could not help thinking, although he had a feeling of the greatest possible respect for the Church—he could not help regretting most deeply that it had been found necessary to introduce such a clause; the adoption of which conflicted with the foundations laid down by the Master Himself. He thought a great error had been made in introducing that clause, and he deplored it from the bottom of his heart. Much as they felt it, however, they must not let it run away too much with them. As to what the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) had said about the coloured members of the Cape Church, he thought that it was an argument which went in exactly the opposite direction. If there was a feeling that there Had been no presumption on the part of the coloured people—if that had been the experience of the last 100 years or more—then was it not rather an additional reason for omitting that clause? (Opposition cheers.) Was that not the case from a practical, as well as from a sentimental point of view? He would vote for the Bill, because he thought that the union of the Churches, with that clause which he regretted had been included, would be better than no union at all. They were not imposing any fresh disabilities than before; and they were leaving matters as they were, as far as the coloured members were concerned. He thought it would be right to say clearly in the Bill that a coloured member of a mission church in the Cape Province should be entitled to be a member of a mission church in another Province. It appeared to him that that was not at present provided for. He welcomed the Bill, which he felt could bring nothing but good.

said he wished to protest emphatically against matters of doctrine or church politics being left to Parliament or to a court of law. Parliament, he held, was not a competent authority on these questions. He hoped that they would not go on asking that a court of law should discuss theological questions. History showed that those Churches had prospered which managed their own affairs, and that those Churches had been torn with dissensions into which political influences had crept.

supported the Bill. He would point out, however, that the “Nederduits Gereformeerde” Church of the Transvaal was referred to, whereas there was no such church in the Transvaal. What corresponded, in the Transvaal, to the “Nederduits Gereformeerde” Church in the other colonies was the “Nederduits Hervormde of Gereformeerde” Church. He foresaw difficulties until this matter of nomenclature was attended to.

said that the Transvaal Church had decided to adopt the name now existing in the other colonies, if union were accomplished. The fears expressed by the previous speaker were therefore unfounded. If clause 10, defining the status of coloured members, were amended, he would not be able to support the Bill. It did not detract from any existing rights. The example of the South Africa Act had been followed—that was all. The Church by no means intended to reject coloured members. Every Transvaal consistory made separate provision for coloured worshippers, but they refused to sit side by side with them in church.

said that political union would not be thoroughly effective unless it was accompanied by church union. The objections raised against the Bill would vanish on closer examination.

said that hon. members opposite displayed a touching degree of anxiety concerning church property. The rights of minorities had been dwelt upon, but it was the rule all over the world for minorities to submit to majorities. If dogmatic questions were to be settled in the law courts he would like to know what became of the Synod. In the Transvaal they had always had ecclesiastical disputes. He would vote for the Bill because it was a permissive one. Personally he was not in favour of union at the present stage because he thought the matter had not been treated with sufficient care.

who heartily welcomed the proposed union of the Dutch Reformed Churches and the introduction of that Bill, said that it might be said that the colour question was raised, and it was better to leave it alone. But if they looked at the history of the country they would see that unless some provision were made as in that Bill, they would not get union of the Churches. Were the Churches, however, to blame for that state of affairs? No, it was the politicians who had drawn that colour line, and the Churches had to follow. The feeling had grown in South Africa with regard to the colour line, and if they did not have that clause in the Bill he did not think the projected union would go through. It had been the same with regard to political union, and, they would not have had union if that clause dealing with the colour question had not been in the Act of Union. As to the feeling with regard to the colour line in the Province he came from, it was there, and he was not going into the question whether it was right or wrong. It had been the feeling which existed from the beginning of their history in that part of the country. From early times the coloured man had been excluded. The coloured man was excluded not so far as creed and belief were concerned, but he was not allowed in the same congregations as the Europeans. They were given the opportunity to develop in their own way, and there was certainly much to be said for it, and against the intermixture of white and brown. It could not be said that the Dutch Reformed Church had neglected the coloured man, for it had certainly done very much for him. It wanted the coloured man “to be and remain himself,” and not for two different races to grow up together. Each race was given the same opportunities, and they had to develop apart. He would vote for the Bill, notwithstanding that clause, because they had brought about political union in South Africa, and if their Churches also became closer and closer to each other and combined, it would tend to cement the Union still further. If they allowed a Cape coloured member of the church to attend Communion in a white Free State congregation, there would be trouble.

replying on the debate, explained that the Dutch Reformed Church had several funds, such as those for the support of Theological Seminaries, widows of clergymen, etc. It was incorrect to say that 81 members of the Cape Synod had voted against union, and only 94 for. The question before the Synod at that time was whether it should decide upon union then, or postpone it for another year.

I took the figures from the evidence given before the Select Committee.

said that out of 280 members of the Synod only 32 voted against union. The Transvaal and Natal Synods had given a unanimous vote in favour of union. Clause 4, section d, provided for the safeguarding of the rights of congregations not in favour of union. In the Dutch Reformed Church the properties were not registered in the names of the Church, but of the different Consistories, Presbyteries, or Synods. The property of mission churches would not be touched. Clause 10 had been referred to as unchristianlike, but it was not so. The Chosen People refused to worship with the Samaritans, and when the Founder of Christianity was consulted on the point, He said it mattered very little where they worshipped so long as they did it in truth. Clause 10 was not unchristianlike, and was not unbiblical. The object was to promote the cause, and could a member of the Church better promote his cause by saving to a coloured member, “You can come into the church,” or by saying, “You can have your separate church to worship in, and we will assist you”? The hon. member for Troyeville would not like to join a church where one would have to take Communion alongside a coloured person. The Dutch Reformed Church was doing everything possible for the coloured people, and he made bold to say that it had done more for them than any other Church in South Africa had done. What was more, the members of the Dutch Reformed Church found the funds from their own pockets, whereas other missionary societies got their funds from across the water. (Ministerial cheers.) Who was, a greater friend to the coloured roan than the missionary? Recently at a conference of missionaries, at which all the different societies were represented, it was unanimously resolved that in the interest of the coloured man, it would be better far him to have a church for himself, and not to be mixed up with white people. (Ministerial cheers.) As to the rights of minorities, when the Union of South Africa was decided upon, individual electors were not called upon to vote on the subject. In this ease the Kerkeraden represented the members of the Church, and there was nothing to prevent the former consulting the latter on the matter.

The motion was carried.

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

asked who was in charge of the Bill?

said that he was

said he thought this matter belonged to the Treasurer’s Department. He thought the Treasurer should be there to explain the Bill. He should like to know why the term “High Commissioner” had been adopted, seeing that we already had a High Commissioner in South Africa.

said that they had adopted the same nomenclature as had been adopted by the other Dominions of the Empire.

moved as an amendment, after the words, “no appointment shall be made for a period exceeding five years,” “any person holding this office shall be eligible for re-appointment.” He suggested that subsection 2 should be deleted from the Bill. It seemed to him that if they appointed another officer they could, under that subsection, give him any salary they liked.

said that the thought the sub-section was quite safe, because any such appointment would be subject to the approval of Parliament.

Before or after the appointment has been made?

said that that was what he wished to guard against. It had become the rule for appointments to be made at considerably increased salaries, and then for the authority of the House to be asked.

was of opinion that it would be safe, and in the interests of the country, that there should be a certain amount of latitude preserved to the Government and to Parliament to revise the salary from time to time. That was all that was meant by sub-section 20.

said he had no objection to a decent salary being paid, but he objected to power being given to appoint a man to whom more might be paid, and then to come down to the House afterwards, and ask that that appointment should be confirmed.

said that he should like to know why the Government had adopted one policy in regard to the present occupant of the office, and a totally different one in regard to future appointments? He did not think an officer of that high standing should be placed at the mercy of a six months’ notice.

said that the provision had been taken over from the previous Bill dealing with the appointment of Agent-General. It was not to be expected that the Government would exercise that power of giving six months’ notice without ample justification.

If it is the right policy to pursue, why not extend it to the present occupant of the office?

said he would like to explain why the distinction was made. In the present occupant of the office they had an official with whose capacity they were well acquainted. But there might be cases where a man was appointed who turned out to be unsuitable, and it might be found to be necessary to terminate his engagement. In such cases the Government ought to have power.

moved an amendment to the effect that new contracts should only be made after Parliament had given its approval.

said that Government always made these appointments.

said that it was possible that a Government might be influenced by political feeling in regard to terminating these appointments. It would be unfortunate if this distinction were made between the present occupant of the office and any future occupant. They should extend the same protection to future occupants as they give to the present one.

withdrew his amendment in order that a similar amendment should be made in the following clause.

Mr. M. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

The clause was verbally amended, and agreed to.

On clause 3,

moved to insert the words “not more than” after the word “be.” He moved, but afterwards withdrew, an amendment to insert “calculated at a rate.”

The first amendment was agreed to.

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