from N. P. C. Raaff, Messenger, Resident Magistrate’s Court, Bloemfontein, previously Sheriff of the High Court,

from residents of Malmesbury, for construction of a 6-aiLway from De Rust Siding, via Riebeek West, to Hermon Station.

from Councillors of Philippolis, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from residents of Jagersfontein. O.F.S., praying that the status of the local Post and Telegraph Office be raised to that of a second-class office.

from W. L. Turpie, late Civil Servant, Cape Colony.

from G. A. Northcroft, ex-Director of Public Works, Orange Free State.

from inhabitants of Bloemfontein North, praying for the construction of a railway to-the Salt Pans in Bloemfontein (five petitions).

from residents of Tarkastad, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped,

from the committee, of the Orange Free State Medical Society, for the repeal of section 36 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1910 (O.R.C.), imposing an annual licence of £15 on medical practitioners.

from citizens of Graham’s Town, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from Women’s Associations in the Transvaal, praying that the age of consent as fixed by law in the Transvaal should not be altered or lowered, and that the provision of the Transvaal law he made applicable to the rest of the Union.

from W. J. White, stationmaster, Highlands Station.

from Municipality and Chamber of Commerce of Ladybrand, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped (two petitions).

as chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

moved, seconded by Mr. H A. WYNDHAM (Turffontein), that the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday, the 22nd inst.

Agreed to.

Departmental report on the recent medical examination of school children in the Transvaal.

withdrew the following amendment, which he moved on Wednesday last: In lines 39 and 40, to omit, “or opposed to (as the case may be).”

moved to add at the end of proviso (a), proposed by the Select Committee: “And provided further that any consistory or consistories, congregation or congregations, deciding not to accept the interpretation of any doctrine as laid down by any Synod, may separate from such United Church without losing the right to the possession and enjoyment of any funds, endowments, or other property or rights by law belonging to the said consistory or consistories, congregation or congregations”; and to add at the end of the clause: “Provided that no such alteration in the constitution or composition of the Synod of the said United Church, as is in sub-section, (b) set forth, shall be made; and no such creation and constitution of Provincial Synods as is in sub-section (c) set forth shall have effect by which, in either case, the rights at the commencement of this Act appertaining to any congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church shall be annulled or in any manner abridged, except in accordance with a resolution of the said General Assembly, carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.” The speaker proceeded to say that he understood from the Speaker’s ruling, if they wished to make an addition to the proviso, they would have to do so now. He had said the previous week, when the proviso was under discussion, that he objected to it entirely. Clause 7, as it stood, was bad enough, but, as he understood; it, it permitted an appeal under certain circumstances. Now he understood from the proviso that the whole question of appeal was ruled out, and the decision of the Synod was final. As far as his addendum to the proviso was concerned, he, found it rendered necessary by the decision of the House of Lords on the Scottish Churches’ case. By that decision, in accordance with the law, the small minority in the Free Church were declared by the House of Lords to be the real owners of the whole property of the Church. That decision, although it was technically right, did not commend itself to the commonsense of the House of Commons, and the consequence was that the House of Commons ordered a Bill to be brought in for the appointment of a statutory Commission, with power to allocate the property of the Church in some kind of due proportion to the numeric strength of the congregations. Concluding, he said he reserved to himself the right to negative the proviso.

supported, and said he hoped the promoters of the Bill would accept the amendment. The position had been clearly defined by the Commission, which sat in connection with the Scottish Churches, and reported on the principle that the Churches should be allocated property according to the strength of the congregations. The proviso would not touch the Colleges, and such property as the Huguenot Hall. It would only touch local property. It was the duty of Parliament to see that the rights of the minority were protected. History showed that it was the minority that generally stuck to the old doctrines. It would be a greater hardship if a clause, coming from the sons of men who came to this country for freedom of religion, was put in to deprive them of their every right, and to force them to carry on a religion which they did not accept. Ho hoped the House would accept the amendment in justice to the minority, and to protect their rights.

said that anyone listening to the discussion must have felt that the difficulty facing them was one of property. The Church had every right to define its own doctrine, but it was just according to the definition of the doctrine that the rights to the property were decided. As he had endeavoured to point out, there were in the Dutch Reformed Church two parties. One consisted of those who held to the rigid interpretation of the old doctrine, and the other those who were in favour of the free and more liberal interpretation. There were those who believed the majority would be in favour of the rigid interpretation, and those who believed the majority would be in favour of the free interpretation. He appealed to hon. members opposite who belonged to the Church to see that no injustice was done to one or the other side. Surely the duty of Parliament was to hold the balance of power evenly. They should say they would pass this law in such a way as to protect the rights of the minority. The proviso put it in the power of a majority of one in the Dutch Reformed Synod to say what interpretation should be followed. He hoped Parliament would accept the amendment as being fair to both sides. He had said that as matters were, he would move the omission of the proviso, but if the amendment was carried, the reason for its omission would pass away. Proceeding, he referred to clause 2 of Act 9 of 1898, which dealt with the interpretation of the doctrine, and said the same clause in the Act of 1843 was broader. In 1898 the lines were drawn finer. The interpretation was more rigid, and yet it was said the movement of the Church was in the direction of a more liberal interpretation.

said that if the hon. member only reflected, he (the speaker) did not think that he would insist on the amendment. He said that where a majority of the Church interpreted their Church doctrines in a certain way, and there was a minority who declined to accept that, the minority might walk away with such property rights as they had. He did not say what the views of the minority might be. Those views might be in conflict with the doctrines of the Church. The only thing the amendment asked was that the minority should differ from the majority. He would always stick up for minorities, but this was putting a premium on dissent. It did not matter whether their views were in conflict with the principles of the Church, but so long as they differed they could walk off with whatever property they had in the Church. The hon. member also said that if a Consistory or congregation declined to accept the interpretation of the Church, they should retain whatever property rights they held. Continuing, he pointed out that there might be a difference in the Consistory. What would be do with the majority and minority in such a case? He forgot the minority when he came to such a case. If they were going to deal with minorities to seven points of decimals, then they should carry it thus far not only in one but every case. The poor minority in such a case would be simply shoved aside, and he thought it would be best if the amendment were dropped.

in referring to the amendment, said that the first, use that would be made of the Act would not be to cut off the heads of the minority, but of the Church. That was what he wanted to guard against. They could only raise points and refer to difficulties, and it was for those in charge of the Bill to provide remedies. In this case he had tried to provide a remedy. He regretted that, he could not follow the Minister; he thought his reasoning on this particular point was better than that of the Minister.

said the Minister had stated that in no case had the rights of minorities been protected. But he would point out the case of the Scottish Church, where the minority got rights of property equal to their numbers. He thought the House could not do better than follow the example set by the Commission of the British House of Commons in regard to the Scottish Church.

said that the only right given to the Synod in the Bill was the right to interpret the documents contained in section 7. They could only interpret these documents, and not lay down new doctrines. The point was that according to the amendment there was no restriction as to the size of the minority.

said it seemed to him that the hon. member who had introduced this Bill had been ill-advised in putting in clause 7 at all He had asked that House to lay down what was to be the Confession of Faith of the Dutch Reformed Church. That, he said, this House was wholly Unfitted to do, and ought never to have been asked to do. Was it too late, he asked, to appeal to the hon. members in charge of the Bill to see whether they could not leave out clause 7 altogether? If it were impossible to avoid laying down by Statute what the doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church were to be, it seemed to him they should give the supreme governing body of that Church power to alter it on such terms and conditions as might seem to them from time to time to be best. This question of property, he added, did not appear to him to be an interference with the civil rights of individuals.

said that he considered, from what some hon. members opposite had stated, that they knew precious little about the Dutch Reformed Church and its working. They had alluded to the “Dopper” Church, but there was no such Church in South Africa; there was certainly a Gereformeerde Kerk, which had nothing to do with the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, or the Dutch Reformed Church, which was concerned with that, Bill. As to what the last speaker had said, he must, reply that the Church had already agreed, together on the matter of union. Now they came to Parliament to obtain an instrument of union, just, as the four colonies of South Africa had, when they had decided in favour of Union gone to England and to the Imperial Parliament for an instrument of political union. They (the Churches) wanted the power to unify on the provisions contained in that Bill. If there were such terrible things in the Bill as some hon. members opposite seemed to think, and wanted to make out, and they think that the Churches would be so foolish as to desire, to go in for union? From what, some hon. members said, he thought that they could hardly be in earnest in their opposition. He could assure them that the Church was fully alive to its position. It seemed that some hon. members were under the impression, like the hon. member for Queen’s Town. (Sir Bisset Berry), that if that proviso were agreed to, the United Church could alter its doctrine. The doctrine was laid down, and could not be altered by the Synod Their doctrines had existed for hundreds of years without change, and there was no necessity for altering them. The United Church would not have the power of altering these three provisions laid down in the Bill; but would have to come to Parliament to ask for power to do so. All the Synod could do was to settle minor points, but always according to the tenets of the Church. Minorities, clergymen, widows, and orphans would retain all their rights. He opposed the amendment.

protested against the extraordinary speech they had just heard from the hon. member in charge of the Bill. He did not, he said, think the hon. member had taken an attitude which was becoming in him as the hon. member in charge of the Bill. Hr wound up by saying that, he did not think the hon. member who had suggested the deletion of this clause was actuated by honourable or straightforward motives. (VOICES: He said nothing of the kind.) I am only giving as well as I can a literal translation of the interpretation of the hon. member’s remarks. At least, he did not think proposals were brought forward from this side of the House in good faith. My hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) is an admirable scholar, an admirable Dutch as well as English scholars, but I find that even in the translation of Bills in this House, imperfections creep in, and if that is the case with experts, I am not prepared to take the translation of my hon. friend. The hon. member (Mr. Lon w) wound up by an insinuation that he did not think hon. members on this side of the House were really genuine in the proposals they brought forward on this clause.

repeated his remarks in Dutch.

That is what I stated.

I will take my own interpretation, which I believe is “a liberal translation of what my hon. friend (Mr. Louw) said. His explanation is this— that he can hardly conceive that hon. members on this side of the House are in earnest in the proposals which they make in connection with this clause, especially the proposal made by the hon. member for Fordsburg.

The member for Queen’s Town.

Consequently, my hon. friend (Mr. Louw) does not agree with the hon. member for Uitenhage. Proceeding, Sir Thomas said that what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) suggested was that the House should take the clause out of the Bill, and what the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) asked the House to do was to lay down the interpretation of the doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Bill. He asked the House to affirm what were the doctrines of the Church, and, further, to legislate as to how these doctrines should be altered. Surely, in these circumstances, the members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House had a right to see that every reasonable safeguard was introduced to protect the rights of minorities. That was all they proposed to do. They did not desire to presume to dictate as to what should be, or were, the doctrines of the Church, font surely they had a perfect right, when the Synod might rule as to what the doctrines of the Church were by a majority of one, to say: “Are you in doing that absolutely and entirely protecting the minority of members of the Church?” Surely they were not alone within their rights, but simply doing their duty, not in opposition in any way to the Bill. As a matter of fact, he had already said that he considered the Dutch Reformed Church had a perfect right to legislate, because he recognised that as it was a large owner of property if would be impossible to carry out union without statutory authority. But he contended that the rights of minorities should not be unduly sacrificed.

said he thought it was a great pity that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), had exaggerated what the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) had said He regretted it all the more in view of the speech which came from the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan), because it was quite clear that the latter was actuated by nothing but the highest motives. It seemed to him that the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) was not altogether within the bounds of historical justification when he said that there was no chance of declaring conservative doctrines unorthodox. That had been done. He understood him to say that there was no likelihood of declaring the doctrines of the Church for a long period heterodox. Synods had so declared and had driven out from; their Churches—he was not talking of the Dutch Reformed Church—men who bad held to the old established doctrines of the churches concerned. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Louw) was taking the Church into an unknown country. There had never yet been a part of South Africa where a Church had the uncontrolled interpretation of the formularies, and his hon. friend ought to be very careful in looking at the history of other Churches. To-day was a most satisfactory time to legislate when there was no great tempest of theological agitation, and when they could legislate in calmness. On the question of minorities he could not unite himself with the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir Bisset Berry), because the congregations were now free. They had the fullest, right to say whether they would go into union or not, but surely if a body decided to go into union it could not be allowed to come out afterwards and take all its property with it.

said that he was opposed to the whole provision, because it had not been submitted to any Synod or any congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church. It was a provision which had been put in by a Select Committee of the House.

said that the Bill was not a Bill to unite the Churches, but simply to allow Churches to unite if they wished to do so, and although congregations had not had the provision before them, they could have it brought before them after it left Parliament. The House ought to do its very utmost to secure a fair and just interpretation of the formularies. If hon. members could satisfy themselves on that point, and so work in the interests of justice in regard to the interpretation that was laid down, surely it was only right that the minorities should bow to the majorities in this case as in others He sympathised with the hon. member opposite, but be was not able to vote for his amendment. He knew what his hon. friend had at the back of his head —that the Select Committee had suddenly established an entirely new system never tried before in South Africa, and he could not satisfy himself that the committee had made a success in the haste with which it went about matters. He hoped the House would try to secure a judicial, impartial, thoroughly competent religious body to decide on these questions of doctrines. When such a body had decided, it seemed only right and fair that the minority should bow to the majority.

said that when he first read the Bill, two considerations came to his mind, and as the discussion had advanced these two considerations had become more and more defined and clear. Firstly, he considered that the (practical effect of the Bill would be to reimpose upon the consciences of men— same of them had paid a big price to be delivered from it, some of their forefathers had purchased their freedom at a great price—the connection between Church and State, which had been so disastrous to religion in the past. Supposing it was right that a Bill should be framed for the purpose of legalising the union of various bodies which wished to be united, it appeared to him that the Churches themselves should first agree, and then come to Parliament with a finished document, and ask Government to take the necessary steps, whatever they might be, in connection with the agreement which had been come to by the people themselves. He thought the Bill ought to be withdrawn. A new start should be made on a totally different basis to the one contained in the Bill. The principle embodied in the measure was wrong and as to religious beliefs they constantly were changing.

said there were two different classes of property mentioned in the aemndment, of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. (As far as property belonging to congregations was concerned, it was absolutely protected—either before or after Union—by the second proviso in clause 4. If that were so the whole of the (first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town was unnecessary. (Hear, hear.) He did not see that any congregation which separated from the Church should retain its right, to joint property.

The amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town was negatived.

called for a, division, hut subsequently withdrew the demand.

The committee then agreed to the proviso as printed.

moved the addition of the following further proviso: “(b) Provided, however, that no resolution declaring any such doctrine, matter of doctrine, or statement of doctrine, to be opposed to the doctrine of the Church, shall be adopted by the Synod, unless and until it has been approved by a majority of two-thirds of the Judicial Committee of the Synod appointed under the provision of the next succeeding (section.” The mover explained that as the matter stood before there was the right of appeal to the ordinary courts of law. He did not wish to say a word in favour of that system. He believed that the ordinary courts of law were not altogether suited in all cases to decide matters of doctrine, but he did think that suddenly to sweep that away and to put nothing in its place was a grave mistake. No evidence had been taken on this point by the Select Committee. In proposing his amendment, he was not hostile to the Dutch Reformed Church, and all he wished to do was to make it certain that the Synod did not declare any doctrine to be heretical except on most careful consideration. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said that if he had been drafting a clause simply with his English Church experience, he would admit be would have liked to see the matter in the hands of a secular committee, but would now entirely waive that, not only in deference to but in full sympathy with, the feeling of the Church. He believed there was no support in the Dutch Reformed Church for any proposal which put the supreme judicial power in the hands of a secular Court. It did seem to him that they ought as far as they could, to proceed according to the constitution of the Church itself. He found, according to the 88th article of the Church, there was a Judicial Committee, and if they were thinking of creating a Court he thought they could do nothing better than create a Court which had actually been created by the Synod, and which had been working for some time. This (Court was one that (Should command the respect of all those who knew the working of the Synod. Men were chosen for it, and were kept on it from year to year, and the result was that the Judicial Committee was generally well trained in judicial practice; and they had in this body one to which they could safely trust the arbitration of a delicate case of this kind. There was one other point. He thought it was very important that all institutions should be elastic as far as was possible, and there should be a provision for altering the institutions according to the changing conditions of the country. The legal position was extremely involved, so far as he could understand. He wished to put it before the committee. This article was an article made by the Church under the powers of the old Ordinance of 1843. That Ordinance had a peculiar history, because it lapsed, or was believed to have lapsed. The Queen’s assent was not given to it, and the result was that it was found necessary to re-enact that Ordinance eight years later, in 1851. Now it was proposed to alter it. But the Ordinance of 1843 was repealed with certain exceptions, while the Ordinance of 1851 was not repealed at all. Therefore the only Ordinance in working was that of 1851, and he did not understand why his hon. friend did not put it in the Bill instead of the Ordinance of 1843. The 1851 Ordinance was the operative Ordinance, and not the 1843 Ordinance. But it was not at all clear that the Church had got the power to change its institutions. Under the old Ordinance of 1843 it was clearly laid down that the Church should have the power to change its institutions, but he found nothing in this Bill to allow that. It was only brought in incidentally in sub-section (b), section 4. That, as far as he could make out, was the only place where provision was made to give the Church power to alter its institutions. What he proposed was to give legal sanction, to make this committee a statutory committee. It was already in existence, and nobody proposed that it should not be in existence. It was a committee which had gained in force and power and authority in the Church, and which was likely to grow in the future. Therefore, he understood that it would be the very smallest alteration to give it statutory existence, and he did not think they were in any way altering the rights of the Church in doing so. The only alteration would be that they give the committee statutory authority, that they made it impossible to abolish this committee, and that they insist that the Church should do what it was doing at present, which was to submit all cases to a committee of this kind. He had taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain the opinion of those responsible, and he wanted to be perfectly candid with the committee when he said he understood most of the Ministers who were concerned with this Bill were afraid that the amendment was not satisfactory. One of those gentlemen said to him that one of the objections against the amendment was that the Judicial Committee was not a committee of sufficient authority. That might be an excellent objection, and he thought that if a committee could be thought out, it would be well to put it in the place of the Judicial Committee. But it would be well, in the interests of the freedom and life of religion in this country, that they should have something rather than nothing at all, and there were those connected with the working of this Bill who were entirely in favour of an amendment of this kind. He had sent the Rev. Mr. Pienaar, the Assessor of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province, and a most respected gentlemen — (hear, hear)—his original motion, and mentioned also that it was proposed to set up some special ecclesiastical court, if possible to consist of members of the Church itself. He received the following telegram in reply: “Our Church against Erastianism, but to avoid possible injustice, I favour appeal to competent and impartial court.” Continuing, he felt that it was the judgment of the Dutch Reformed Church in this colony that this was a competent court to deal with matters of that kind, because habitually it did deal with matters of that kind. He, for one, believed it was an entirely impartial court, and, therefore, commended the amendment to the favourable consideration of the committee. If it was carried, he would propose a new section, giving statutory existence to the committee, which existed in any case at the present time, and would move to add to the 7th clause: “No resolution declaring any doctrine contrary to the doctrine of the Church shall be accepted, unless it has been commended to the Synod by a two-thirds majority of the Judicial Committee.” He did not believe there was any danger at present, but they knew how suddenly great changes came in ecclesiastical matters. They knew what incalculable damage could be caused, and they should guard against any such happenings.

said that he was sorry that such an amendment had been moved. It was not a question of doctrine, but of protecting the property of the Church. What, he asked his hon. friend, would be gained by referring such a matter to the Judicial Committee, which was elected by the Synod? It would interfere with the doctrines of the Church, and he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the amendment.

asked that the amendment should stand over until they saw the new clause. He thought they should get some amendment to the Bill that, would protect the rights of the minority.

said that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) were of such a nature that they would have to take into consideration whether it would be of benefit to accept the amendment. He would move that section 7 should stand over until the other sections of the Bill had been dealt with. He was in favour of giving the Church as much freedom as possible. He did not desire that they, as a Parliament, should have anything to do with the matter of the doctrine of the Church or anything that concerned the governing of the Church itself. But there were certain safeguards which they must take into consideration, which concerned persons who might find themselves outside the Church. They found that, according to the present law, certain persons had become members of the Church in the Cape Colony, and by virtue of the present law were members of the Cape Church. One of the guarantees, as far as these members were concerned, was that they could not be excluded from the Church by the Synod on a matter of doctrine, unless the Law Courts were approached, and decided in favour thereof. Now it was said: “Leave that to the Synod.” If the Synod laid down that a certain doctrine was a false one, Persons belonging to the Church, who held that doctrine, could be excluded from the Church. He felt that there was some objection to that. He could see that if that power remained, some day there might be a schism, and evil passions would be roused, which would be a deplorable thing, and would do great injury to the Church itself. If there could be an appeal to some body or other, they would have a kind of safety valve. He thought that there might be some body which would hear the same relation to the Synod as a Second Chamber or a Senate to the Assembly. He would agree to the Judicial Committee being appointed as such a body, but unfortunately the committee was elected at the beginning of every Synod, so that that committee would not quite answer its purpose. He wanted ministers and members of the Church to come to their assistance, for they could enlighten them as to certain matters, and they members of Parliament) could mention what difficulties were facing them, so that they could be dealt with. He therefore moved that the section stand over.

said that the Minister had stated that there should be a Court of Appeal, but it would certainly not be the case that the Judicial Committee of the Synod (which was only a body for examining matters, about to be dealt with by that Synod) would be a Court of Appeal. He hoped that the Hon. Minister would withdraw his proposal.

was also of opinion that members of the Church were quite satisfied with the decisions of the Synod, and did not desire a “Court of Appeal” from a decision of the Synod.

said lie did not think the hon. member (Mr. Louw) quite understood the proposal of the Minister of Justice, which was brought forward not to try and induce the ministers of the Church to accept this amendment, but in order to see whether some amendment could not be brought forward according to the judgment of the leading men of the Church. It was the feeling of some of the leading men of the Church that it was desirable that something of the kind should be done.

The motion to postpone the further consideration of the clause was negatived.

said he thought it unfortunate for this Bill that the hon. member in charge of it should have taken up such an attitude on this clause. It would be wise for the promoters of this Bill not to set their faces like iron against any amendment in this clause, but they should take up a reasonable attitude, and minimise what may be the evil effects of the clause. There were two sides to this question, and it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the Church itself to introduce some further proviso than had already been inserted. No responsible member of that House could allow this clause to go through, which might have the result of excommunicating the most liberal and progressive thought in the Church at some future time, without raising his voice in warning to hon. members against the possible consequences of passing the clause simply as it stood. He hoped the hon. member for Colesberg would resist what he (Mr. Long) might call the malign influence of the hon. member for Caledon, who seemed to have set his face against any amendment of this Bill.

said that he did not understand the amendment, because it did not take them a step further. If the Judicial Committee was to obtain the power which the hon. member said it should have, it would be elected at the beginning of a Synod as a committee which would not be impartial. The views of the possible members would be known and members would be elected accordingly. If there were a dissatisfied minority in the Church, what was to prevent them from leaving? They would retain all their property, as congregations, excepting only their share in the general Church funds. If the appointment of an entirely new body had been moved, he could have understood it.

said he thought that that was so, but still the hon. member seemed to be quite willing to run the risk of schism in his Church.

You have to face it in any case.

said that, in view of the history of the Church in this country, it was obligatory on the House to minimise the risk of that schism as much as possible.

said he hoped the amendments would not pass. He feared that hon. members were confusing two things which differed greatly, namely, doctrine and interpretation. He pleaded to the House to allow the Synod to do its own work, and the interpreters of the doctrines of the Church to do their work.

said that the amendment, if agreed to, would give more power to the Judicial Committee (which was of less importance (than the Synod) than to the Synod itself.

referred to the constitution of the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, and its democratic organisation. He thought that the whole matter of doctrine and property could be safely left in the hands of the Synod, which was so representative of the whole Church. Its government afforded the utmost degree of safety and representation.

said in reply to the remarks of previous speakers that the question of property was connected with the decision with which they were now concerned. The question of property was involved, and it was in that way that it came before the committee. It ought to look carefully, therefore, before it deprived a man of his rights to property. He believed that a competent Court ought to be established, and he believed that the Synod could be trusted to elect such Court. As to the remarks of the member for Fauresmith (Mr. Wilcocks), did he consider that the Synod was a satisfactory body as a Court in these matters? The House was asked to take a grave step, and he would implore hon. members not to take that step, and so preserve the future life of the Church against the dangers which they might not be able to foresee, but which might have disastrous consequences to them and their children in years to come.

suggested that the consideration of the matter should be postponed, as they appeared to be getting a little confused. (Hear, hear.) Instead of the clause helping the Church, it would lead to a great deal of litigation.

said the practice of the Dutch Reformed Church at the present moment’ was based on a judicial decision. It was a standing rule of the Synod that no matter could come before it before being adjudicated upon by a Judicial Committee. What the hon. member proposed was now being done. The hon. member (Mr. Fremantle) was afraid that a reactionary spirit might arise, and that someone would get up an agitation and assert that a certain minister was preaching heresy. With the safeguard that now existed—that a minister was in the first instance responsible to his Kerkeraad, and in the second instance to the Ring—“any smelling out of heretics would be prevented. There was a safeguard in the Bill which did not exist for any other Church in South Africa at the present moment. Any other Church could alter its doctrine by a declared majority. When the Dutch Reformed Church said it wanted to be placed on the same footing, why should Parliament go out of its way and insert so-called safeguards which the Church did not ask for?

said his hon. friend (Mr. Malan) was entirely wrong about the other Churches. The English Church had made an authority for itself, but he did not think that anyone on that side of the House wished to follow the history of the English Church in that respect. (Hear, hear.)

They cannot change their doctrine—they must stick to the Confession of Faith.

said he feared the Minister of Education was voicing, not his own views, but those of hon. members on the Government side of the House in this matter. He could not but think that if the hon. member (Mr. Malan) would say what objection he had to the proposal it would be a very small one indeed. The House was trying to create a possible crisis in the future, and when that crisis came he (Mr. Fremantle) would be glad that he persisted in dividing the House on the amendment, as he would persist, if necessary.

said the debate had shown how wise it would have been if the House had referred that Bill back to the Select Committee. (Opposition cheers.) According to the Bill, if one member of a congregation kept faith as laid down by the Synod and the rest of the congregation objected, the one who remained in the Church would take all the Church property. (Hear, hear.) It was not yet too late to end all that discussion, which could not be in the interest of the Dutch Reformed Church itself, and refer the matter back to the Select Committee.

said that if a congregation seceded as a congregation, then, in his opinion, it would take the whole of the property with it, but if one member of the congregation stood out he would become the congregation. (Laughter.)

said he objected to a minority ruling, and he abided by the old Republican principle that the majority must rule, even though it were a majority of only one.

said he had to point out how wrong the hon. member was to his own views. If a majority was to rule, then surely the one man who stood down was not going to be allowed to get the property. Suppose, of a congregation of 500, one man abided by the doctrine as against the remaining 499, according to the Bill that one man should get the property of the Church.

said according to the Bill the one man or ten men who abided by the resolution of the Synod would get the property of the Church.

said he would like to point out to the hon. member who said that a majority of one governing was a Republican principle, that the greatest Republic in the world did not go on that basis. (Cheers.) It was precisely contrary. The altering of any fundamental laws was safeguarded by a very large majority—a certain defined majority. (Cheers.) He was not able to speak of all Republics, but knew the principle of the greatest was that.

moved to report progress. He did not think from what they had heard that the House was in the humour for going on with a Bill of this kind. Hasty legislation was not likely to be very successful, and he thought it was about time to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The motion, on being put, was declared to be negatived.

then put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle), and declared it to be negatived.

caled for a division, which resulted as follows:

moved the following Proviso B: “Provided, further, that no resolution of the Synod declaring any doctrine, matter of doctrine, or statement of doctrine, to be opposed to the doctrine of the Church, shall have any legal effect unless it shall have been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the total number of members of the Synod.” He said he wished to submit this further proviso to the committee as a combination of the amendments which were moved by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. Maasdorp) and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle). The amendment as it stood meant that so long as the Synod simply interpreted the doctrine of the Church—that was to say, that certain doctrines were consistent with the doctrine laid down in section 7, then they could do it by a bare majority; but when the Synod said it was opposed to the doctrine laid down, then it should only be done by a two-thirds majority. He said he hoped that such a reasonable amendment would be accepted. The effect of the amendment was perfectly clear, and perfectly sample. He repeated that progress could only be agreed to by a bare majority, and excommunicate on or exclusion by a two-thirds majority.

said he was afraid that the amendment Would lead to a deadlock, and thought the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage a more practical alteration.

said he did not see how any deadlock could be created. He was simply keeping the status quo as it existed in the Synod at the present time. If it was not carried by a two-thirds majority, there would be a deadlock.

said that the result Would be that the Jaw courts would be introduced. That was exactly what the House wished to avoid.

ruled that the substance of the amendment had been voted upon, and declared it out of order.

moved the following: “Provided that no such alteration in the constitution or composition of the Synod of the said United Church as is in sub-section (b) set forth, shall be made; and no such creation and constitution of Provincial Synods as is in sub-section (c) set forth shall have effect, by which in either case the rights at the commencement of this Act appertaining to any congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church shall be annulled, or in any manner abridged, except in accordance with a resolution of the said General Assembly, carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.” Sir Bisset quoted from the evidence given before the Select Committee, and said that here they had a piece of downright slimness to get rid of the difficulties in connection with the coloured congregations. They were entitled at the present time each to send a delegate to the Synod, hut in order to get rid of the difficulty, which seemed to interfere with the union of the Churches, it was proposed that henceforth, when the Churches were united, the Presbyteries alone should send delegates.

said that the hon. member seemed to be under some misapprehension. When union had taken place Provincial Synods would be formed. To these Provincial Synods every congregation would have a right to send a delegate. In the ease of the Cape Province there never was any difficulty because on several occasions a coloured elder had been sent to the Synod, and he took his seat, there, but they knew that in the other three colonies it had not been customary, and they objected possibly to a coloured elder being sent to the Synod. He could not accept the amendment. In the past the Church had been, if anything, too liberal to coloured members.

The amendment was negatived.

Is it common ground in this House that if the majority of the Synod decided to make an alteration, and a single congregation, by a majority of 99 to 1, declined to accept that alteration, the one man would take the whole property, and the 99 would have to go out?

If the Churches agree to join, those congregations that agree to stand out retain their property intact, but once union has taken place and the Synod has to decide on the question of doctrine, then any man or section or congregation dissatisfied with the decision of the Synod can leave the Church, and they take no property with them.

put the question that clause 7 stand part of the Bill, and declared that the Ayes had it.

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

said that it seemed as if the Dutch Reformed Church was about to set up a Star Chamber, or even something worse. He could not conceive the necessity or right to insert this clause. Whether a man was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church or not he ought to be made responsible for what he said about his neighbour. He thought they were going a little bit too far in the matter.

said that this was no new thing. The clause had been taken over verbatim from the Ordinance of 1843, which the House was now repealing.

said that what the hon. member (Mr. Krige) had said about taking the clause over from the old Ordinance was no argument. Surely they were advancing in legislation since 1843. He went on to say that in up-country villages persons might be prevented from exercising their ordinary liberties as citizens by the penalties and disabilities which a clause of this sort might bring upon them. No Church had the right to protect people who give evidence which might materially affect the status and character of the people of whom they spoke. He thought that people ought to be made responsible for what they said of other people in a court of law.

said he agreed to some extent with the previous speaker. He, personally, had no strong feeling in regard to the clause, and allowed it to remain as the representatives of the Church desired. It only protected bona fide statements, and mala fide witnesses would be liable to punishment.

hoped that the promoters of the Bill would withdraw the clause, which would interfere with the liberty of the subject. There was a difference between Church and Parliamentary privilege. Anyone who had experience of the small dorps must recognise the danger of the clause. (Opposition cheers.) The clause was unnecessary, and was an anachronism.

said it was disgraceful that a girl charged under the clause would have to prove malice before she could obtain damages against persons bringing the charge.

said there was a good deal of ill-feeling against the clause in the country. He felt strongly that it was unnecessary, and he appealed to the promoters to consider whether it would not be wise to withdraw the clause before any further discussion on it took place.

said the power was a very old one—a remnant of the Church temporal power over the State, and it was time that such a tyrannical power should be swept away (Cheers.) He would oppose the giving of such a power to any Church, no matter of what denomination. The power came down from the Dark Ages. (Laughter.) It had been abused, and was a disgrace to South Africa, in which there was more scandal than in any other country he knew of—(laughter and cries of “No”)— judging by the abject apologies that frequently appeared in the advertising columns of the newspapers.

hoped the clause would be withdrawn. (Opposition cheers.) Such protection as was given in the clause was not afforded in the Transvaal. He mentioned a recent case in the Transvaal where a careless Consistory had damaged the reputation of a family without due cause.

said he did not feel disposed to give the Dutch Reformed Church the power it sought in this matter, and he hoped the hon. member for Colesberg would withdraw the clause.

said he would be prepared to abide by the decision of the House in the matter.

The clause was negatived.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he would like to ask the hon. member in charge of the Bill what necessity there was for this clause? By what right was the House of Assembly called upon to legislate in respect of matters concerning territories outside the Union altogether?

said the Court had ruled before that congregations outside the Cape Colony had no right under the old Act to belong to the Church in the Colony. Now there were certain congregations outside the Union—in Rhodesia and German South-west Africa— and unless this clause were included in the Bill those congregations would be left outside; they would not belong to (he Church, nor would they be able to send representatives to the Synod. These congregations, moreover, had certain rights in the Church, of which it would be wrong in this measure to deprive them.

said that the Dutch Church surely had power to extend its work and organisation outside the Union. They should not ask the Parliament to legislate for them in that respect, and extend their jurisdiction over the sea. It seemed to him to savour of the principle of an Established Church.

saw no reason for putting such powers in the hands of the Church. The Union was now hemmed in by foreign Powers, and it was just possible that through putting a provision like this in the law, complications might arise. It was in the power of the Church to have organisations outside the Union, and to accord those organisations all the privileges of membership.

said that the Church came to Parliament now for a statutory incorporation of the Church. Unless this charter said they could extend beyond the bounds of the Union, it would be impossible for them to do so. The Synod would be composed of representatives of bodies in the Union, and there could be no representatives from Rhodesia or German South-west Africa in the absence of this clause. The Synod was a body legally constituted by law, and it was set forth in this Act how this body was constituted, i.e., by the congregations in the Union. That had been decided by the Law Courts. When an effort was made to send representatives from the Orange Free State to the Cape Synod, the Law Courts decided that the Ordinance under which the Synod was constituted was a territorial ordinance.

We are repealing that ordinance

Yes, to make a more adequate provision. Continuing, the hon. member said that, supposing the Church should combine by voluntary act, then this would not be necessary. This section was simply intended to carry out the wishes of the Dutch Reformed Church to have representatives from other parts of the world in its assemblies.

said all that they had heard from his hon. friend (General Smuts) was very interesting; but what they would like to know was whether it would be impossible for other religious communities outside the Dutch Reformed Church to have any authority in South Africa with statutory powers. He believed that the Church of England, although they had no statutory powers, had branches in this colony, and that in fact, the best living in South Africa, as far as the Church of England was concerned, was in the gift of the Bishop of Hereford. Was there, therefore, any justification for saying that if they did not grant these statutory powers in this Bill, that the branches of the Dutch Reformed Church outside the Union could not affiliate if they wanted to?

said doubtless his hon. friend would recollect that there had been trouble about the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authority outside Great Britain. The case of Bishop Colenso was one in point. As laid down by the Courts, the Churches of the Dutch Reformed Church beyond the borders had no right to sit in the Cape Synod. It was true that Churches could be affiliated outside the Union, butt the word was not a legal expression. It was simply one of these poetical expressions. (Laughter.) If they wanted these branches of the Church to be recognised, then it was necessary that they should pass this clause.

said it was impossible to compare Churches with companies. The Wesleyans were not incorporated, but if they wished they could combine with Rhodesia and other parts, and the representatives of the Churches there could come down to Cape Town and take part in the Synods there. Why, therefore, could the Wesleyans do this on a purely voluntary basis and the Dutch Reformed Church could not? By passing this particular clause it seemed like establishing a State Church, and giving it powers that other Churches had not got. (Hear, hear.)

said if there had been anything in the Bill to give colour to the idea of establishing a State Church he would have been the first to oppose it tooth and nail. The present Bill became necessary because actions might arise, and there was no doubt that in the law courts one man could pit himself against a million. (A VOICE: “Why not?”) That was the very point in the case of the Free Church of Scotland, where a small portion of the Church was able to win against the great majority.

said they had been discussing this point ever since the Bill had been before the House. This clause 9 was not a very serious one, and as they were all agreed that the union of the Dutch Reformed Church was necessary, he thought they ought to let it go through now. Seeing that branches of the Dutch Reformed Church were established in other parts of South Africa, it seemed to him that there should be some law to enable these outside Church communities to come in upon the same terms as those inside the Union. (Hear, hear.) If this Bill were necessary, then he saw no danger in passing the clause before them.

said that every clause they had dealt with had afforded more and more evidence of the unnecessary character of this Bill. (Hear, hear.) As they passed from clause to clause, they found more and more evidence that exceptional treatment was being given to one Church, and that for this there was no precedent or parallel in South Africa. As far as he could see, there was no particular harm in this clause but, again, it seemed curiously unnecessary. Every other Church in South Africa got on without it. There was no feeling of hostility on the part of members on that side towards the union of the Dutch Reformed Church. All they wished, and with the utmost sincerity, was that hon. gentlemen would manage their own affairs. (Ministerial laughter.) One statement made was that this Church was authorised or supported by statute. (Hear, hear.) Every discussion that had taken place on every clause had gone to show that it was a mistake. “You had,” proceeded Sir Percy, “better remedy it; you are only getting deeper and deeper into it every time. Every fresh clause is another plunge into the mire.”

said that the hon. member (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) had referred to other Churches in South Africa, but they were on a different footing from the Dutch Reformed Church, which had a statutory charter. The Dutch Reformed Church had statutory powers in the Cape Colony. It really looked as if there were an objection to the union, of the Dutch Reformed Churches, because without statutory powers they could not unite.

They can repeal the statute.

rejoined that the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Colony could not unite without statutory powers, because their charter was statutory. If they wanted the Church to unite, it was a sine qua non that there should be legislation.

considered that it was very unkind on the part of the Minister to insinuate that hon. members on that side were against the union of the Dutch Reformed Church. They considered, however, that the Churches should unite without asking the House to legislate, not alone upon their property, but also upon their dogma. They did not want statutory powers, save and except in regard to the vesting of property in the Cape Colony. They had no statute in the other colonies.

said that he did not want to be misunderstood. What he said was that, as the Charter of the Dutch Reformed Church was a statutory one, it was not possible for them to go into union, unless they first came to Parliament.

said that this clause was certainly one that was absolutely necessary to the Bill. The Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Colony had got a special history of its own, different from the other Churches. It was incorporated by Act of Parliament in 1843, and was practically a State Church. According to its history, the Church was called the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. Subsequently, congregations were formed in Natal and the Orange Free State as part and parcel of the body corporate of the Church of South Africa. There was a close division, which was carried by the outside representatives. There was an appeal to the Court. The Court (held that the Church could not legislate outside the borders of Cape Colony, although it was known as the Church of South Africa. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that all that was necessary was to repeal the Ordinance of 1843.

Oh, no.

You have to come to Parliament in any case.

For property rights.

For property. Continuing, he said that even if the Church came about property a statute was required. That would apply to the Union, and the Union only, and if they wished to deal with the Church in Rhodesia, special legislation would be necessary. So long as they had any Act, and it was admitted that a statute was required if they wanted to give the centres outside the Union a say, they must have this clause.

observed that it had been said that the longer they discussed this Bill the more they would get befogged. He thought that the other side had got befogged on this point. It had been argued that all that was required was the repeal of the law.

Oh, no.

I thought that was the argument.

said that he argued that what was needed was a measure to deal with property to allow the Churches to enter union. No statute was needed for dogma.

said that other hon. members had argued that the repeal of the Ordinance was the only thing that was required. There had been a lot of talk about the rights of the minority, but the rights of the minority would go if they did not have this Act. But the property rights of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province were conferred by statute, and were linked in legislation with dogma. If all depended on dogma. If they departed from the dogma, their right to the property was gone. Dogma was bound up with the property, and so they must introduce this clause in order to protect these property rights. If the Bill was required, this clause was necessary.

said he maintained that even if the Dutch Reformed Church had no charter, if was a wise thing for the Churches wishing to unite to come to Parliament, But, as had been pointed out, the question of dogma was mixed up with the rights of property, and so the trio came into the Bill, and it was Parliament which should see that a proper union was formed, so that there might not he any dissension in the future.

asked whether they were not all out of order. They were dealing with the clause, and not discussing the advisability of union. They wanted the Bill, it was said, to protect the interests of minorities. If there were no Bill there would be no need to protect the interests of minorities. Every member of the Church had a vested interest in this property, and even by a majority he could not be deprived of it the question was whether they were going to legislate for places outside the borders of the Union. It was said that they Could not do that because of the Ordinance and the Court’s decision. He admitted that, so fine only thing left to do was to repeal the law. If they repealed the Ordinance they could do as they pleased.

It is admitted that a new statute is required to enable the Churches to unite.

I am dealing with clause 9, and not the union of the Churches.

I am not arguing about any other point. This clause is necessary. This property—

I have nothing to do with property. Clause 9 was necessary so long as they had another Act of Parliament dealing with this Church, whether it was the Act of 1843 or of 1911.

said that the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Burton) had made a remark about him, but if he had honoured the House with a little more of his presence he would have understood that for the last few days the members had been talking about property, and not dogma. The Minister of Native Affairs had explained that it was absolutely necessary for this clause to be dealt with by statute, and the Minister of the Interior (General Smuts) had told the House that the clause was necessary to avert lawsuits. Now, why should this House absolve anybody from lawsuits? The law was made to apply to everybody, and if it was competent to deal with this question of property then there was a complete answer to the whole Bill. “In the name of goodness,” he concluded, in the name of common-sense and of ordinary practice, go to the law courts first, and if you find insuperable difficulties, then come to this House for relief.”

asked if a Church were established in German South-west Africa, and wished to get out of the Union, would the Church here have power to sue by edictal citation to recover the property?

put the clause, and declared it agreed to.

said that he should like to hear from his friend in charge of the Bill whether, since the discussion which took place on the second reading of the Bill, the had consulted with his friends with a view to withdrawing this obnoxious clause. (Cries of “Oh, oh. ) In the opinion of many members of the House, certainly in the opinion of the majority of the country, to pass this clause would be a blot upon the religious institution with which they were dealing.

said that if they took Clause 10 out they could have the whole Bill. (Cries of “No, no.”) If they took the clause out they would not have union. With regard to the clause being a blot, be thought that if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thos. Smartt) reconsidered the matter he would withdraw his words.

I say it is a blot.

continuing, said the circumstances were peculiar, and if hon. members knew the facts they would not offer opposition and call the clause a blot. In olden days in the Cape Colony there existed no mission churches, and coloured people were allowed to become members of the Dutch Reformed Church The descendants of these people were still members, and in response to their request they were allowed to remain members. Mission churches were subsequently started, and several people joined them from the Dutch Reformed Church. Nothing of the sort had been done in the other Provinces. They knew of the strong feeling in this matter in the other Provinces, and they knew they would never get the Churches in these Provinces to consent to the deletion of this Clause. As had been said over and over again, the passing of the Bill did not mean the union of the Churches, but simply give the Churches an opportunity to unite. After the Bill was passed it would be laid before the Consistories and Synods, and they would find that not one Consistory or Synod in the other Provinces would accept the Bill if clause 10 were removed. The retention of the clause would mean no hardship. The position at present was that if a member of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province went to any of the other Provinces, (whether he was white or coloured, he could not claim the right to be accepted as a member of the Church in the Province to which he proceeded. He wished hon. members to understand that if a coloured member of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province removed to the Transvaal and resided there for ten years, and then returned to the Cape, he would still remain a member of the Church in this Province. Under this clause the coloured person was not going to be deprived of any rights, and was not going to suffer any (hardship.

said the Dutch Reformed Church had a very large missionary branch. The mission churches, although they had a measure of local self-control, had not been consulted on that matter. A good deal of credit of having so many mission churches was due to the fact that the Dutch Reformed: Church had had handed over to it the churches of the London Missionary Society. The Dutch Reformed Church, in effect, said that in the past it had recognised the membership of coloured persons, and it did not want to turn them out of the Church, but the Church asked Parliament to so tie the Church’s hands that it could not admit coloured persons to membership. That was not fair. It would have been better if the Church had further considered the matter of Union, and had deferred introducing the Bill until after the next Synod. It was as great an injustice to do a wrong to one man as to a thousand, so the mere question of the size of the minority opposed to Church union was not a material one—in fact, it was an insignificant one. The Dutch Reformed Church could have managed the matter without coming to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The coloured people were good, honest, Christian, modest, retiring people, and did not wish to force themselves forward. An hon. member had asked another in that House how he would like to sit by the side of a coloured man at the Communion table. He (Mr. (Schreiner) was astonished at such a question. In practice did the coloured members of the Dutch Reformed Church rush up to the Communion table with the white people, and crowd in on them? There was no practical difficulty about the matter at all. The excuse was made that in following the procedure in clause 10, the Church was only following the (political example set in the Union of South Africa. He did not think it, was, but surely the Church ought to be guided by other than political principles. The Union political example was a blot, but a blot on the political garment was not to be compared with a blot upon the garment of a Church. Then, the Convention made possible the removal of the political disabilities affecting coloured people by a majority vote. The Church did not do that. The Church in this Clause asked that Its hands should be tied so that it might not do that. It was a humiliating position that any great part of the Church of God should come to Parliament, and say: “Tie our hands, that we may put the responsibility on you, and not on ourselves.” He hoped that Parliament was not prepared to make this sacrifice; he hoped Parliament, would say: “We will not tie your hands; we will not have it go forth to the world that this Parliament does even more than was done in the act of Union, and that it will keep these coloured members of a Church out of their rights.”

said he wished to follow on the lines of the last speaker. It would be impossible for him to use the same eloquence, and to say what he had with the same heartfelt sincerity, but he would do his best. When this clause was before the House the other day, and when he ventured to express his opposition and objection to it, he was told that it was done for political purposes. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members cried “Hear, hear.” Well all he could say was that they did not know what they were talking about, and, therefore, they might be left to indulge in the same levity as they showed to the last speaker. The Right Hon. the Premier had said that this opposition to the clause was done for political purposes. Supposing that, wore true of him (Mr. Quinn), was it true of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Native Affairs? Did these two gentlemen gravely get up and oppose this for political purposes? The fact that they spoke about the clause as they did only showed how strongly they thought about it. When a question of this kind was before the House, do let them rid their minds of the idea that it was done for political purposes. They were asked how they would like to sit at the Communion table side by side with coloured men. They had never suggested that.

It suggests itself.

It does not suggest itself. Continuing, the hon. member said if they wanted to find a flimsy reason for supporting this Bill then it did suggest itself, but it did not suggest itself in the light of reason and fact. The Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province had certain coloured members. Were they were wise and godly men, who for the past 40 or 50 years were the guides and rulers of the Church, land had they been wrong all the time in allowing coloured people to be members of the Church? If it was right that they should have these people in the Cape Colony, it was right that they should have them in the other parts of the Union. What did they gain by this Bill? They were selling the rights of these coloured people for a mess of pottage. They had evidence that the Synod itself was not united upon this matter; in fact, some of the members were bitterly opposed to bartering away the rights of their fellow-members to whom they had been preaching the doctrine of Christianity. The rights of these coloured people went back to the beginning of things. Let him suggest a possible contingency. Supposing these coloured people decided to sever their connection, was there any provision in the Bill for their property? Was he to understand that they had no property, and if they had, how was it invested? Was he to understand that if they decided to sever their connection they would, not have the right to a single seat in their churches? Whatever else had been done, there had been no compromise upon this. Take this clause out, they said, and they might as well withdraw the Bill. They were going to have this union at the cost of truth and honour, and at the cost of the doctrines they taught every day. Let them go and tell these people that all men were equal. Then go and show them this clause 10. The thing was monstrous. He hoped at any cost that the House would throw out this clause. “Only numbers are against us,” said Mr. Quinn in conclusion, “not Christian teaching.” (Hear, hear.)

said that he must honestly say that he had never listened to a speech which had been so unpleasant for him to hear as that of the hon. member who had just spoken,

“I intended it to be unpleasant.”

If they went on in that way, what was to become of their corporate life in South Africa? They were now trying to live in concord in South Africa, and he hoped that nothing would be done to disturb that concord. If they were going to follow the example set by the hon. member, they were going to get a state of affairs in South Africa which would be deplorable, and which they would not be able to put a stop to. The hon. member (Mr. Quinn) had accused him of charging the Opposition, when the motion for the second leading of the Bill was before the House, with opposing the Bill for political reasons. He must say—and he thought that everyone must agree with him—that he had not said anything of the kind against any member of the Opposition. He only wished to say that when he was in a corner he did not fence, but hit out straight. (Opposition cheers.) At the second reading of the Bill, he had said that he hoped that the opposition to that Bill would not be of a serious nature, because they, as political leaders, had created a precedent by drawing the colour line, and that he hoped an impossible situation would not be created. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) had said that that clause was a blot on the Bill, a remark which he thought the hon. member should not have made, because if it were a blot, there was also a blot on their Constitution. They had laid down that a coloured voter in the Cape should not have a vote in’ the Transvaal or the Free State. What they had once laid down in the document on which the Union had been based, could not but have been followed by those responsible for that Bill. They could not have done otherwise than what they had done, for in the Transvaal there was such a feeling against establishing equality between white and black that a man who held such views would never be a representative of the people. In Johannesburg they did not want equal rights for white and black—they simply would not have them. He would guarantee that if clause 10 were taken out of the Bill, the Transvaal Dutch Reformed Church would certainly not unite. (A VOICE: “Quite right.”) The colour question was an extremely difficult one, and they could not solve it in that Bill. If they wanted peace and progress in South Africa they must treat the coloured people fairly, but the two races must be kept separate. If they forced that question now, disunion would only be the result, and this would be deplorable in view of the fact that so recently they had become united politically. As he had said before, the colour question was the most difficult one which they would have to tackle in South Africa, and if they went on as they did now, they would make their difficulties in the future all the greater. The Bill did not affect anyone’s existing rights, and it was unjust to denounce the Church in connection with this clause. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had stated that the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape had voted for that clause by 99 votes to 84; but the hon. member must have been misinformed, or the hon. member had misread the resolution which the Synod had agreed to. What had happened was that there were two proposals before the Synod; the first of which was that the question of the inclusion of that clause should be referred to the Federal Council, and: that had been agreed to by 99 votes to 84. But out of 280 delegates of the Church he had been informed that only 22 were against that clause. (Hear, hear.) They (hon. members) must not try to get kudos out of that clause; he thought they all agreed with him that it dealt with a very difficult matter; and the colour question was an extremely difficult one to deal with in South Africa, Different principles in regard to the treatment of coloured people had been adopted in the various parts of South Africa, and people had become used to their particular principles. In the Cape they had given the coloured man a 7ote, but in the Transvaal they had not, and there was a strong feeling against putting white and black on the same footing. In Natal the feeling was even stronger than in the Transvaal. If ever a change was brought about it would not be done by speaking heatedly; but they must act calmly and go soberly to work. The politicians having set the example in regard to the colour question in the South Africa Act, the Church representatives could not have done anything but what they had done in regard to that Bill. In the interests of the coloured people they should keep the two races apart, and that was what they themselves asked for.

complained of the opposition to the Bill, and said that they had had to fight their way inch by inch to get any of the clauses agreed to. He hoped that that opposition would not continue.

said that he did not attempt to claim equality for colour and white. (Cries of “Oh, oh.”) What he said his contention was, was against refusing to allow the coloured member of the Dutch Church to be a member elsewhere. He did not say a word about equality.

said that the Prime Minister had said that if this clause was called a blot on this Act— and he thought that the word came from an hon. member on his (the Prime Minister’s) own side—then they must also say that there was a blot on the provisions of the South Africa Act. They had said so. They had said so in that House over and over again. They had said it in England. They had said that it was an unfortunate thing necessitated by the circumstances of the case. That they still held. (Hear, hear.) But he was at a loss to find any sort of similarity between their political arrangements, faulty as they might be in many respects, and this clause, which dealt with a religious matter. What shocked them in this clause—what shocked him and his hon. friend who spoke the other night—was that it was totally opposed to the principles of Christianity which were professed by the Church for which they were legislating. What would the Master have said about this clause on the shores of Galilee? It was in the equality of humanity that lay the whole strength of the Christian religion, and he regretted that in a Bill dealing with the Church they should have a clause which put in legislative language that a man of one colour should not worship with a man of another colour. Arrangements were made in some cases whereby the coloured people worshipped in their own churches. That was, of course, a matter of convenience. But to put down in the Act, in the charter of the Church, the colour line, did seem to some of them right against the principles of Christianity. It was so different to some of the other Churches, so different from a Church which they despised, and which they thought infinitely below themselves—the Mohammedan Church. Therein lay the whole strength of that Church. A man, no matter what his colour, was a brother, and was admitted, and could worship with the Sultan of Turkey himself. That was why Mohammedanism was making such advances in South Africa, when Christianity was not. He deplored it. But it was a danger, and a danger which they had to face. As he had said, he would not have spoken about this clause in a Bill which dealt with the Church, only he felt that this was a Bill— and he thought that hon. members in their calm moments would come to the same conclusion—not for the union of the Dutch Church, but the disruption of the Dutch Church. But it was their own Bill. It was a private Bill. Why should they interfere? He rose to speak on this matter to say that they—he and his friends—recognised the blot on the South Africa Act, and that they recognised that the day the Bill was introduced. One could not help contrasting the feelings which they had heard expressed while that Bill had been before the House with the great liberality, the singular liberality, shown by the Dutch people in regard to their religion to the natives when they first came here. They were freed; provision was made for educating them and for teaching them Christianity, and they were admitted into their churches. How things had altered! They had not progressed. He had heard a great deal about progress, but in matters of religion it was difficult to say what was progress. There was another danger in regard to this clause. They had had constant complaints in the press and in Parliament about the Ethiopian Church, and the dangers of the Ethiopian Church. But what did they do? They told the coloured people that they could not belong to their Church, and that they could not be members of their Church. But when these people set up a Church of their own, it was said that they were a danger to the State, and there were loud cries to put down the Ethiopian Church. Clauses of this kind strengthened the hands of those who set up the Ethiopian Church and strengthened the most detestable principle upon which the Ethiopian Church was set up—Africa for the Africans. He deplored this clause very much indeed, and he could not vote for it. He deplored it because he thought it would do a great deal of harm, not to the coloured people—they could become members of plenty of other Churches, and failing that, if they were not taken into the Christian fold, they could become Mohammedans— but to the Dutch Reformed Church. It would be a stone of stumbling and a rock of defence which would be used against them all through this country and elsewhere. That would be held up wrongly because no one knew better than he did what the Dutch people had done for mission work. Hundreds, in fact thousands of people in this country, and he dared say a great many of those who listened to him, although not allowing the coloured people to worship in their Church, took them into their houses, and had family prayers with them. He did not see the distinction: it might be a nice one. They admitted them into their houses to take family worship, but would not admit them into their church. This clause was going to do harm to the Dutch Reformed Church. It was going to do harm because it would be used as a weapon with which to beat the people of this country. It was a pity, a great pity, and when the Prime Minister Said that because they did a political thing the Church was compelled to follow in their footsteps, all he could say was that he thought the whole object of the Church was not to follow politicians, but to lead them in the right way. What did the Founder of Christianity do? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He was afraid that that was not the doctrine of politicians. (Laughter and cheers.)

said that he was opposed to the clause. He was sorry that it had been introduced. It was a pity that the Church above all others should be the first to come to Parliament to have the colour line drawn.

said that he had always felt the presence of the cloven hoof in connection with the objections of hon. members opposite, for they were but pretexts—“ Cape lines!” It paid hon. members to see coloured members in the church, and they were going to the length of admitting that their harangues were deliberately offensive. The Church indignantly repudiated the accusations made. (Cheers.) In his constituency the white members of the Church had paid not only for a building to he used by the coloured members, they had even found the minister’s salary. The same congregation paid for a missionary in Nyasaland. When they did those things, they did not do them on “Cape lines”—there was no question of financial afterthought. Whence, then, the reproaches hurled at the Church? He would go further, and object to the Cape coloured members voting in the united Synod, because that opened the door for colour equality as the coloured people were increasing in knowledge and would not fail to wield all the influence at their command. In view of what he had just said he only supported the Bill with great reluctance, and if they deleted the clause under consideration, union was out of the question altogether.

said he understood the Prime Minister to say that the attitude taken up by certain members on the Opposition side of the House would prevent that better understanding which it was the intention of the Act of Union should be brought about in South Africa. He (Sir Thomas) regretted that statement very much. He did not yield to his right hon. friend in an earnest desire for a better understanding between the two great races in South Africa as quickly as possible, but that would not be brought about by making people sacrifice their honest convictions. The sentiments expressed by the hon. members for Troyeville and Tembuland were honest ones, which they felt compelled to state in the discharge of their duties. The Act of Union contained a provision for the alteration of the colour clause as people became educated on the point, but in this Bill it was proposed to give certain powers to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, but under no circumstances would the Synod have the right to repeat the colour clause in the Bill by their own authority. Surely his right hon. friend must recognise that one could not use arguments of a political character in dealing with religious questions. It was not correct for the Prime Minister to say that the Opposition was forcing this on the Dutch Reformed Church in the Transvaal. They were not forcing anything on them. What, however, was being asked from Parliament, and from a large number of people in the Dutch Reformed Church, was that, for the purpose of Church union, rights should be taken away from people in a Christian Church which those people at present possessed.

They don’t have the rights in the Transvaal.

But they have the rights in the Cape, and you propose to take away from them those rights to a certain extent. (Cries of “No.”). The Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape Province ceases to exist if the Bill becomes law. (Cries of “No.”) It ceases to exist under this Ordinance as the Church of the Province of the Cape, and it becomes a member of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa.

When they agree.

Surely the Prime Minister has some idea that they will agree, or he would not be a party to asking Parliament to waste a good deal of time in passing what would be an unnecessary measure. We are perfectly within our rights in giving the strongest possible expression to the conscientious objections to this clause, which I maintain, without any disrespect whatever, is a blot on the Church, and will be a blot on this Parliament if we pass it. A large number of the most responsible people in the Dutch Reformed Church, especially in the Cape, consider it will be most injurious to the best interests of the Church if this clause should become law. Under these circumstances, I still hope that the proposal to delete the clause will he accepted. (Cries of “No.”) I hope hon. members opposite will not think we have any desire to prevent a better understanding among the people, because we consider it our duty to register a protest against what we consider a blot on the Christian religion. (Opposition cheers.)

said the Prime Minister had rightly said that the people of Natal were conservative, as far as coloured questions were concerned, but they were not conservative as far as coloured martens were concerned in the Churches. They should deal with religious matters on a different plane to social and political matters. The Act of Union was not analogous.

said he was not a parity man, and did not speak from a party point of view. He was sympathetic towards the idea of the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches. It had been said that if this clause went out of the Bill, there would be no union, but they were not told why. The only objection that had been put forward was that the Dutch Reformed Church people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State had made up their minds not to sit in the same church as coloured people. That objection did not appeal to him. Proceeding, the hon. member said that the people responsible for this clause were going to do a great deal of harm to the Dutch Reformed Church, because it was a most serious matter to pass it. If this was a matter that simply concerned the Dutch Reformed Church alone, he would have no objection to it, but it affected greater issues than that. Unless better reasons had been brought forward, this clause should never have been introduced at all. He strongly joined in the appeal to withdraw the clause, because he believed it would be better for the future of the Dutch Reformed Church. He was informed that those who were in flavour of this Bill, and who were determined to force this clause through, would they refuse to go into church with the Twelve Apostles, and if these Apostles were to appear that night, Would they be considered coloured persons? If they were not prepared to withdraw this clause, let them adjourn the debate, so as to give a little more time for the consideration of the clause.

said the Prime Minister spoke upon the difficulties and dangers in raising the coloured question, but it seemed to him that the right hon. gentleman was running the risk of raising a new coloured question by supporting this particular clause. This Bill would have to be reserved for the signification of the King’s pleasure. Was it not running a considerable risk, not only here, but on the other side of the water? There was any amount of room for a very strong agitation against this clause and against this Bill. Did the hon. member in charge of the Bill not see that he ran some risk of losing the Bill altogether? The Imperial Government might refuse to give their sanction to the Bill. Was it not far better in the circumstances not to run that risk, and to drop this clause?

said he would prefer that the Dutch Reformed Church should settle its own affairs, but as the Bill was before the House he felt that he must record his vote against this clause on principle. The clause as it now stood did not mean what the hon. member (Mr. Louw) intended that it should mean, and that was that the coloured individuals who were members at present of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Colony would retain their rights. They would lose all their rights. They would have no nights whatever if this clause were passed as it stood. After referring to clauses 2 and 7, Colonel Crewe went on to say that clause 10 did not say that the coloured man would retain membership in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, because that Province would disappear, and there would be a United Church without a Provincial Synod in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. In order to give the hon. member for Colesberg an opportunity of consulting with his friends and of considering the weighty arguments which had been adduced in favour of dropping this clause altogether, he thought the wise course would be to move that progress be reported. (“No.”) It could not be expected of him (Colonel Crewe), who belonged to another Church, and who would be opposed to the introduction of such a clause in his own Church, that he would agree to such a clause being laid down in legislation. He moved to report progress.

The motion was put, and the “Noes” were declared to have it.

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

pointed out that the status of the coloured members of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape was now here defined in the Bill. He did not see how a coloured man could remain a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. It seemed to him that the clause was unnecessary, as they were told that in the other Provinces the coloured people had no Church rights. The clause was a stigma on the whole coloured race in South Africa, and the Dutch Reformed Church would be protected without that clause. He hoped that the hon. member would himself move to report progress, as they would not be able to go through all the clauses. Then what about the members of the Mission Churches? Surely a coloured man belonging to these Churches in Cape Colony should be allowed, if he removed to the Transvaal or Orange Free State, to join the Mission Churches in those Provinces. There was not a word protecting the rights of the coloured members of Mission Churches in the Bill.

said the hon. member for the Castle Division was labouring under a wrong impression. It was absolutely unnecessary to have these safeguards put in; as well might they ask to have provisions put in to safeguard the Europeans. What was required in this Bill give no privileges to the whites as against the coloured. Parliament did not tell them to unite. It simply told them that they might unite. He thought it was plain that what the Bill laid down was that when the native went out of the Cape Colony to the Free State, he would not be able to claim the privilege of membership in that colony while, as the Bill said, he was outside the Cape Colony. When he came back to the Cape Colony he immediately reverted to his former position. Some things had been said that evening which it would have been better to have left unsaid. They could not go at this stage and try and force upon the Dutch Churches—which means half the white inhabitants of South Africa—an equality which came down to a social equality that they would not have.

We are not forcing them.

said it had been said that this was a blot on the Bill, but this was more than any law, more than the Union law; it was a law regulating religious and social functions in the community. He said that if they desired that the native should participate in the religious and social functions in the other Provinces, they would bring about a resentment in the minds of the Europeans in South Africa which would be fatal to the interests of the native. He could conceive of nothing more fatal to the interests of the native than that they should start at this juncture in South Africa, when they knew that feeling was against any social equality, to force such a thing through. Hon. members appeared to desire that the natives should have the same right of membership. (Cries of “No.”) If that was not so he could not understand the position. Let them maintain the present status. But hon. members were not satisfied. They wanted something more. The Church was far wiser than hon. members; it knew what was necessary, and it went just so far. Don’t let them go any further. If they did they would find in a very short while that this question would be one of the most burning questions in South Africa. They had before them the example of the United States. Almost fifty years had passed since the Civil War, and they had to-day ten millions of blacks who on paper had rights which they dared not exercise. He felt that if they forced this matter, they would intensify feeling. He felt it was their bounden duty to give the native every jot of justice which was given the European, and in case they should find a millstone round their necks to drag them down in the future, they should have to see that the native was educated, and was brought to a higher standard of life in South Africa. But let him at the same time say that it did not follow that they must give the native social and political equality.

rose to a point of order. He wanted to know whether this general discussion about the franchise was in order in connection with this clause. (Cries of “Order, order.”)

ruled that General Hertzog was in order.

said that the House should do nothing which would bring the native into the position of claiming to enter a church and sit with the European on the same bench; otherwise it would be detrimental to the native, and infinitely more detrimental to the Europeans in this country. He appealed to hon. members to study the position in America to-day, and take a lesson from it. He was very sorry to say he thought that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House were not very wise when they refused to give an opportunity of considering a very important matter. They should not now, because one wrong or unwise step had been taken, do anything worse to this clause, which would lead to no good, but which might lead to a tremendous amount of harm. He felt strongly that they must go very carefully when they did anything with regard to the native question.

said whether the hon. members were wise on that side of the House or not time would show. The Hon. the Minister for Justice (General Hertzog) seemed to wander very far from the course. The question, so fair as he was concerned, was not political, but it went to the root of the belief in which he had been brought up, and his forefathers also; and he thought it was a very regrettable and unwise step for the Dutch Reformed Church to take when they came before the House and asked for a charter to force their views and their interpretations of their religion on members of other Churches, who interpreted it in a different way. And he said when the hon. member (the Minister of Justice) said that they were endeavouring to force equality in the Church—the Dutch Reformed Church—on black and white, he absolutely denied it. He knew the strength of the feeling of the North, and knew the foundation on which the industrial form of the Church was established in regard to this very question, and, knowing those great differences, he said this: is it absolutely necessary that the Dutch Reformed Church should— knowing these great differences on this vital question—is it wise and is it necessary, and were they prepared to go to this House showing this great difference between them, and asking us to express an opinion and vote on it? With regard to the Act of Union, the members of the National Convention had to endeavour to unite the various parts of South Africa, because they saw far greater dangers in front of the country disunited than united. The colour clause, which he admitted was a blot on the Act of Union, was a political expedient. Surely the Dutch Reformed Church did not want a political expedient. (Hear, hear.) After all, the members of the Convention put the colour clause in, trusting that those who came after them might, with greater wisdom, find a solution of the question. He thought the Dutch Reformed Churches would have been wise if they had followed that spirit and remained separate until they had found a solution of the question. He was a member of the Church of England, and he was asked to vote for a clause in the Bill which he would never support if contained in a measure introduced by the Church of England. The question was not a political one, but went to the foundation of religious beliefs, and the religion in which many hon. members had been brought up forced them absolutely to vote against the clause. For the good of religion and of the Dutch Reformed Church it would have been better to come before them not united than have this clause stand in the Bill.

opposed the clause. He could not see why this Bill should have been brought in at all, because it was possible for the Dutch Reformed Church to unite without it. It was said that they desired to force coloured people upon the Dutch Reformed Church. That was not the case at all. What hon. members in onarge of this Bill wanted was to make what was a custom into law. He regretted that there should be an attempt made to rush this matter through the House. They had no desire to change the position in the Dutch Reformed Church, but they maintained that the people of that Church had no right to shelter themselves behind Parliament. This clause was not essential to the Bill. Continuing, he pointed out that they should not mix up coloured people and natives, for they would find themselves in trouble at once. They should not deal with such a big question until they appreciated all that was connected with that question. There was almost as much difference between the coloured man and, the native as the difference between the European and the native.

said that the figures which he had given could be substantiated, no matter what the Prime Minister might say. They who were against clause 10 represented the 81 who voted against the question when the union of the Churches was being considered.

Mr. Chairman, I always thought the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) was an honest man, tout the way he has represented things in this House is not right. It is not right to mislead the members of this House. He was careful not to tell us—

I can’t hear you.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Would it not be better for the hon. member to repeat that, so that the hon. member for Tembuland can hear it?

I said I always considered the hon. member to be an honest man, and I said the way he has always represented the Churches upon this question before the House would only have the effect of misleading members.

In what way?

On a point of order. Is it not tantamount to saying the hon. member is not honest? I am taking no part in the debate, but I submit that is actually a statement to the effect that the hon. member for Tembuland is not honest, I suggest that the hon. member for Colesberg withdraws.

Not in the least. Why I used the term “honest” was because, a little while ago, he said I was a “religious member.”

Religious man.

I am sincere. (Hear, hear.) I do not mean in the least that he wilfully deceived people, but from the way he brought the figures before the House I got the Impression that members were misled. That was all I meant when I said that, and for this reason, that the hon. member has referred only to the voting which took place when the figures were in his favour, but never talked of the voting which took place in the Transvaal when the voting was unanimous.

I rise to explain. I never dealt with the Transvaal. I dealt with the four Synods.

said he was coming to that. In the Free State the voting was 58 for and 16 against on the same question.

said he challenged the hon. member for Colesberg to publish the figures quoted, and also publish the figures as they appeared in the “Cape Times.” He only referred to the figures in the Cape Colony Synod, not in the other colonies.

said that he would appeal to the Prime Minister to use his influence to agree to the adjournment. (VOICES: “No.”) On a private Bill it was surely unjust to keep the House sitting at this late hour. He lamented the attitude shown by the hon. member for Colesberg towards the hon. member for Tembuland. The hon. member (Mr. Louw) had introduced a spirit into the debate which certainly did not tend to the harmonious relationships of members. Sir Thomas moved that the clause should stand over.

said hon. members seemed to be under a wrong impression, and he was prepared to apologise to the hon. member for Tembuland—(hear, hear)—if anything he had said might have given offence.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

said the Minister of Justice had made charges which he would not have made had he heard the speeches. They did not want to volunteer or alter anything. The Dutch Church had come to ask Parliament to do a thing that it could not do itself. He objected to that, and he protested against the charge that they were attempting to force political equality through this channel. He had heard every member of the Ministry talking in favour of that clause, and now the Opposition was reproached with trying to cause trouble between the two white races.

Of course; you are.

Who says that? I would like the hon. gentleman to stand up and say that. Now, we are getting the real truth out that these are political motives. We are not prepared to be called upon to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for others, or to act as a screen for them, or to do a thing we don’t believe in. Let those who believe in it do it themselves, and not make insinuations against hon. members on this side of the House. (Hear, hear.)

said he was going to vote for the clause, for he believed that without it the Dutch Reformed Church could not effect union. He protested against the insinuations of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). For members opposite to try to gain political capital in the Northern parts of the Union in this manner was most reprehensible. Although he was in favour of the clause, the protest of the Opposition was simply their objection to the Dutch Reformed Church seeking to exclude the coloured people in this way, and had no ulterior motive to raise political capital throughout the discussion.

said that he was fully convinced of the Opposition’s good faith in opposing the clause. They could hardly be actuated by political motives, and no one accused them of harbouring such motives. On the other hand, hon. members opposite should give members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House credit for honesty of purpose in wishing to assist the Church by inserting the clause. There was no coloured franchise in the North, and no possible claim for it at present. He would vote for the clause, because it would facilitate Church union, whereas, without it, people in the Transvaal would be unable to unite.

said the right hon. gentleman appeared to have misunderstood him. He (the speaker) had tried to make it clear that he would vote for the clause, though he took exception to the interruption by the hon. member for Caledon, which might be taken to mean that the Opposition objected for the sake of making political capital out of the matter.

said he thought it was recognised it was not political reasons that made them register their solemn protest against the clause. They would agree to go to a vote if his right hon. friend the Prime Minister promised that progress would be reported ’immediately afterwards.

Clause 10 was put, and declared carried.

A division was called for and taken, with the following result: