from John Koonin, of Rogatzoff, Russia, to practise as a doctor of medicine.

from residents of Koffyfontein, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

similar petition from Mayor and residents of Vrede, O.F.S.

for extension of the Springfontein-Fauresmith Railway to connect with the Kimberley system.

for construction of a harbour at Kalk Bay.

from the Borough Council, King William’s Town, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from O. T. Meyer, for advalorem duty on imported yeast, and reduction of duty on grain spirits.

from Jagersfontein, for removal of the local gaol.

from the Municipality of Klerksdorp, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from J. F. Naalbracht, constable, Orange Free State.

from J. W. Howcroft, Civil Servant.

from the congregations of the Mosques at Port Elizabeth, praying that the clause in the Solemnisation of Marriages Bill relating to the marriage of cousins may be amended or omitted.

from the Mayor and Councillors of East London, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from the Chamber of Commerce and residents of East London, in support of the petition from Jacobsdal, praying for railway extension from Fauresmith, via Koffyfontein, Jacobsdal, to Kimberley.

said he had accepted the portrait on behalf of the House. (Hear, hear.)

moved that the House go into committee on the Dutch Reformed Churches Union Bill.

moved, as an amendment, to omit all the words after “that,” and to substitute “the order be discharged; that the committee on the Bill be revived; that the Bill be referred to the committee for inquiry, and report on the further safeguarding of the rights of the dissenting Churches and their ministers.” He said he had made certain inquiries, and he found, first of all, that the Bill made no provision in the ease of clergymen of Churches which did not join the union. The point had been put to him as to what was to become of such a clergyman, and he must say he could find no provision for the case in this Bill. Then another point arose as to what would become of such a clergyman’s pension rights. The clergymen had been contributing for years to the Pension Fund, which at present amounted to £66,000. What, was to become of the clergyman’s rights in that Pension Fund? He found, further, that the congregation had subscribed to the fund. There was another fund of £70,000 for the widows of clergymen. What was the position in regard to that? Then there was a good deal of property in Cape Town held in the name of the Dutch Reformed Church. That property, the Church being a voluntary body, belonged to everybody who was a member. There was no provision in the Dill as to what was to happen in the case of Churches which did not wish to join the union. It therefore seemed to him that certain matters were overlooked by the committee. It was only fair and right, before the House was asked to transfer the property of one person to another, that provision should be made for the rights of the congregations, of the clergy, and of the clergymen’s wives, and the only way in which that, could be done was by the Select Committee being revived and calling fresh evidence. He would move that the order for the House to go into committee he discharged that the Select Committee on the Bill be revived, and that the Bill be recommitted to the committee for inquiry and report on the further safeguarding of the rights of the dissenting Churches and their ministers.

seconded.

said that he must express his surprise at the amendment moved by so eminent a lawyer as the hon. member who had just moved it. (Hear, hear.) On the second reading it was common cause that the minority was amply protected under this Bill. If a congregation dissented, and did not wish to join the union, the congregation would lose its right to the common property of the Church as a whole But his hon. friend must understand that, as far as his (Mr. Krige’s) knowledge went, he thought there were very few churches belonging to the Dutch Reformed Church that, did not have property individually, and if that Church dissented, he should say that, under this Bill, the property was protected.

No one denies that.

went on to say that his hon. friend had not put forward one single instance where the Church, as a whole, held property for individual congregations, and now he wanted this Bill to be referred hack to the Select Committee. That merely meant shelving the Bill. That was the whole object of the amendment. As far as transfers were concerned, he was not aware that any transfer of property took place under the Bill. All the transfers remained as they were now. He thought the amendment was a most unfair one, and he hoped the good sense of the House would reject it by a large majority. (Hear, hear.)

said he quite agreed with the amendment, and he could not see that the hon. member for Caledon had advanced any effective argument against it. Referring to the proviso to clause 7, he asked what reason they had to suppose that that proviso would be acceptable to the great body of the Dutch Reformed Church? It was proviso which went to the whole foundation of the Belief, of the Articles of Uniformity, the Heidelberg Catechism, and all the rest of it. As far as he could gather from the report of the Select Committee, many of these points had not been brought before the Synod, and he submitted that they would be ill advised if they passed the Ball or even considered it further until these important matters had been considered by the elders of the Church. The Dutch Reformed Church was a Church governed by the elders, by the old men of the community. The only possible right of appeal that they could have would be to the congregations of the Dutch Reformed Church, but as far as he could gather, at the present time it was not in conformity with the constitution of the Church that the congregation should be appealed to. There lay a considerable difficulty. Under this clause there was no protection for the rights of a minority. He spoke last Wednesday on the second reading, not with any desire to balk union, but he did not wish to be a party to any legislation in that House which would have the effect, as he believed, of bringing about litigation to a very large extent in that very important community.

pointed out that the proviso to clause 7, though it was an amendment made by the Select Committee, had been inserted at the request of the promoters of the Bill. The Church is of opinion that the persons delegated to the Synod were worthy of being entrusted with the interpretation of dogma because they would have the requisite training. That was why the proviso had been inserted. If then, the Bill was referred back to the Select Committee it would be returned to the House with the proviso intact, or, if anything, in a more accentuated form. The Church government was based on the republican principle: the majority ruled. Members of congregations elected the Consistories; the Latter therefore acted as mouthpiece to the congregation. It was the Consistory that decided about property and if any given congregation refused to join the union that congregation would remain in complete possession of and control over its property. Clergymen had vested interests, so that even if a clergyman stood out his widow would be entitled to a pension, provided for under existing arrangements.

said there were indications of differences of opinion in the Select Committee, which justified them in asking that the Bill should be sent back to the Synod. He did not concur in the views of the last speaker that the rights of minorities were protected. The Bill did not, in his (Mr. Schreiner’s) opinion, protect the rights of a Church that desired to stand out from union. There was another question also, and one on which the Synod had expressed its opinion by only a majority of 18, and the figures that he put forward, although they were disputed, were absolutely correct, according to the Church journal of the proceedings and the reports in the newspapers. That most important provision omitted in clause 10 might also be referred back to see if some better plan might not be adopted. Surely this clause ought not to stand that the Church’s hands should be tied by this Union Parliament, and that they should never be able to remove that disability without the consent of Parliament. He did not want to do anything to hinder the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches, but he felt that the best plan was for the House to refer the matter back. The hon. member then moved the following amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour Division (Sir Henry Juta): “And to the provisions of the proviso to clause 7 and clauses 8, 9, and 10.”

seconded.

said he had been just wondering how far they would have got with the Union of South Africa if they had approached it in the same spirit as in the matter of the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches. He believed if there was one great regret among Christians who were not dogmatists, it was that there could not be a greater degree of union among them. The heathen could point oat with reason that before the Christians asked him to believe in Christianity, they ought to be united themselves. Was there a single objection that had been raised to the Bill that could not be met? He had not the least doubt that those who belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church would welcome suggestions. Difficulties could he met by amendments, and not by sending the Bill back to the Select Committee, and such a proposal meant trying to prevent the passing of the Bill. The House had to deal in this matter with Consistories, and not members of the Dutch Reformed Church. Surely the latter had signified in their rules that Consistories should consist of men to represent the Church. It was out of place for those who did not belong to the Dutch Reformed Church to try and prevent union. (Ministerial cheers.) The one great point omitted from the arguments was that the Bill was a permissive one. Surely if questions were not raised by the Synods it was not fair to have their, raised by people who were not members of the Dutch Reformed Church. (Ministerial cheers.)

said the Minister of Lands (Mr. Fischer) told then that they were not fit to discuss the Bill because they were not members of the Dutch Reformed Church. Then the Minister practically told them that they were heathens — (laughter) — and that, they who did not belong to the Dutch Reformed Church had no right to discuss the Bill. (Opposition cheers.) However, he (Sir G. Farrar) maintained that, those who belonged to other Churches had the right to express an opinion on it. The Dutch Reformed Church had laid down a precedent which any other church in South Africa could follow. The Minister of Lands had referred to Convention difficulties. He (Sir G. Farrar) said they had enormous difficulties in the National Convention, and if they had added religious controversy to their difficulties they would never have had political Union. They were now asked to drag the colour question into the Church. The hon. member for the Harbour Division (Sir H. Juta) had a perfect right to move his amendment. He (Sir George) took objection to the statement that hon. members were opposing the Bill for party purposes, and for the sake of obstruction He absolutely denied that. (Opposition cheers.) All such matters as that, were above party—(cheers)—and hon. members had a perfect right to discuss the Bill, and if possible to give more protection to the minority concerned. (Hear, hear.)

said he was very sorry that a certain amount of heat had been engendered. He thought the Minister of Lands mistook the position, from which it was not, optional for hon. members to escape. He most sincerely wished that the matter could be left to the Dutch Reformed Church itself to settle. (Cheers.) He admired the efforts made by the Church, and sympathised with what, its members had done, and he wished they could settle the matter without bringing it before the House. But it had been brought, before Parliament, which was asked to settle certain very difficult matters. He wished hon. members opposite could see their way to have this matter reconsidered by the Dutch Reformed Church, which should separate the matters it could deal with itself from those matters which it could not settle for itself If the properties of the Dutch Reformed Church were vested in it, then the Dutch Reformed Church could dea1 with that subject itself. It had been pointed out by the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir B. Berry) that the passing of the Bill would mean the revocation of an Act which provided that there should be no State Church in South Africa. If the Bill went into committee of the whole House, hon. members would have to vote on the details of the Bill, and opposition to the Bill would look like opposition to the Dutch Reformed Church. There was no other Church with a charter, and, so far as he knew, other Churches in this and other countries had achieved union without an Act of Parliament. Supposing the Roman Catholics asked for an Act establishing by law the infallibility of the Pope, what chance would such a Bill have of passing? Yet there was a somewhat similar measure in the Bill before the House. Then, if privilege was given, as asked for in the Bill, every Town Council would want the same. It was not necessary to Church union to ask for such a thing as that. There was still another question. Hon. members who wore strong supporters of the Dutch Reformed Church had expressed the greatest, regret that the colour line had been introduced into the Bill. The attitude that was taken up in the Convention was no parallel and no precedent, for. This Parliament was asked to say that there was a way to Heaven via the Cape Colony, but none via the Transvaal. (Laughter.) Nothing could be worse for people who met for religious purposes than to be distracted by colour questions. He believed it was in the interests of the coloured people to keep apart, and if a Church took steps to that end, he believed in its sincerity, but, when Parliament was asked to pass a Statute to that effect, and for all eternity, then they were asking for more than any member of Parliament was really bound to support. Personally, he could not vote for that. He desired liberty given to members of the Dutch Reformed Church to manage their own affairs, but not to ask the Union Parliament, to legislate on such a matter as that. It had been said that party capital would be made out, of the Bill. (Hear, hear.) What party capital could be made out of it? It would be put about that he wished to force colour equality on the Dutch Reformer Church. Was that political capital for him? It was what might be called political damnation for him. (Opposition cheers.) He was not asking hon. members opposite to, do these things; he was asking them, if they deemed it necessary to do this for themselves, to do it, but don’t, let them ask the Parliament of the Union of South Africa to pass it into law.

said that he extremely regretted that the amendments had been moved at that stage; and he thought it would have been better to wait until the committee stage when suggestions for improvement could be made. Where would it lead to if they raised debates like that once the second reading had been agreed to? He must honestly confess that the opposition, which had been raised at that stage should not have been raised. The measure was not a Government measure, but it was a private matter, and what he would say was his private opinion; and it was that the amendments which had been moved by members on the Opposition side of the House had not weighed sufficiently with him to make him vote against the second reading of the Bill. What the people of the Dutch Reformed Church asked for was not that they must unite, but to be given the opportunity of doing so by that Parliament.; and he compared what they were doing with what South Africa had done when its representatives had gone to England, asking that the South Africa Act should be confirmed by Imperial Parliament. The Dutch Reformed Church had expressed the desirability of union, and they wanted the necessary legal enactment to be able to unite. They came to that House to ask to be duly protected. Unless there were legislation, a crop of lawsuits would follow Church union. As he read the Bill, the people were practically united already, but wished Parliament to give them the instrument to do so. As to what had been said about the rights of minorities, he asked whether any petitions had been received by the House from any part of the country, which protested against any of the provisions of that Bill? Not one had been received, and yet. The measure had been a considerable time before the country, so that there had been every opportunity to object, if there were any objection. Not, a single complaint, had been received! from any of the members of the Dutch Reformed Church against that Bill. Where a Church asked for closer union, they, as politicians, ought to be only too ready to grant, that request, as it would strengthen the bonds of the political union which they had only recently brought about. If, then, no complaints had been received, must they look for defects themselves? Before Union had been effected in South Africa, there were a number of people in Natal who were against the proposal; and there had been a referendum, with the result that the majority proved to be in favour of Union. Had the country then been divided amongst the majority and the minority, or had the minority abided by the result? Well, it must be the same thing in the present case. He hoped that the Opposition would see the reasonableness of his point of view.

said he was extremely scurry to notice the way in which the Prime Minister had approadhed this subject; it was not what the House expected from a responsible Minister. The Prime Minister was extremely excited about this matter. He had said it was really a matter with which the House had nothing to do whatever, and that members on that side of the House had no right to criticise the proposals. Then the right hon. gentleman said that the Bill had been before the country for a considerable time, and that there had been no opposition or petition against it. Well, he (Sir T. Smartt) held in his hand a petition signed by the congregation of a large Dutch Reformed Church, unanimously protesting against certain provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, the petition was not in order, and could not be placed before the Select Committee.

said the hon. member had no right to make reference to a petition which was not in order.

said the petition arrived after the period of time within which it could be placed before the committee. He had mentioned the petition in order to show that there was opposition to the Bill.

Unless the petition is in order, it cannot be presented to the House, and reference cannot be made to it.

Then may I ask your ruling upon this: I hold in my hand a letter signed by a large number of members of the Dutch Reformed Church. (Ministerial Laughter.) It is not a question of merriment: it is a question which affects a large number of members of the Dutch Reformed Church. Continuing, the hon. member said the document was from the congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church of Balfour. He supported the amendment to refer the Bill to the Select Committee, because there would then be an opportunity of investigating the points raised in an impartial spirit. It was proposed by this Bill to take away the rights of a large number of people who were members of the Church. Surely a minority was entitled to the protection of its property. If by a majority of one the Synod chose to change the Church doctrine, and the minority seceded, the minority were entitled to have their rights in the property protected. He repudiated strongly the suggestion that the Opposition had approached this measure from a party point of view. There were clauses in the Bill to which he believed many members of the House objected as strongly as he did, as, for instance, the introduction of the colour question. There were many also, he believed, who had strong objections to clause 8 of the Bill, and who wanted to do away with anything that might amount to terrorism of independent thought. In these circumstances he asked his right hon. friend to reconsider the position, and let the Bill be dealt with by a Select Committee. He thought the Church had a right to come to the House and ask for legislation because of the large vested interests in landed property. But he did not think it was in the province of that House to do anything more than make the necessary legislation provision; he did not think the House should be asked to legislate on religious principles. He asked his right hon. friend to remember that the opposition was not of a party spirit; he Sir Thomas) represented a congregation of 200 persons who were entirely opposed to the Bill.

said that it looked as if hon. members opposite wished to make party capital out of the colour clause in the Bill. Having dealt with a number of details of Church working, he proceeded to speak of coloured members of the Church, saying that originally coloured members had been admitted.; and there were still some old congregations which had coloured members with full privileges; but later, so many coloured people had come along that it was thought more desirable to give the coloured members their own churches, where they had as many advantages as in the other churches, and where they were perfectly satisfied. He hoped that the result of the opposition to that Bill would not be dissension amongst the members of the Church, which would be extremely regrettable. The Bill was one which concerned members of the Dutch Reformed Church solely.

said that as far as Church matters were concerned, they had had peace in South Africa, which they should do everything to preserve. He thought it was regrettable that people who did not belong to the Church concerned in that Bill said things which might lead to dissension. The Dutch Reformed Church was the only one in South Africa which had coloured members who had the same rights and privileges as any other of the members. Did coloured members of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort’s Church have all such privileges?

Yes, certainly.

Then he does not know the rules and regulations of his own Church. (Ministerial laughter.) The hon. member went on to deal with the A.P.O., and said that any dissatisfaction which might exist amongst some coloured members of the Dutch Reformed Church was due to misstatements which had been made. If the coloured members understood the exact position there would be no fear of dissatisfaction. The coloured people lost nothing of what they at present possessed. He trusted they would not superimpose religious rancour on political differences.

said that there were many in the House who were in hearty sympathy with the union of the Churches, and who would be most lot to appear antagonistic to anything which would bring that union about, but if he understood the Prime Minister rightly, he told them that the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches was an accomplished fact, that union was not to be brought about by the Bill, but that the Bill was necessary in order to protect people who were practically already united. Now he was one of those who believed that the less religion had to do with politics, and the less politics had to do. With religion, the better it would be for both, and, therefore, he felt that, unless an Act of Parliament dealing with a religious question was a necessity, it was a thing that should be avoided. Of course, if it were a necessity, and it could be proved and shown that union could not go on without an Act, then one must consider what was the best or the least objectionable form of Act to bring union about. Now he gathered from what the Prime Minister had said that the real crux of the whole matter, and the reason why the Bill came before Parliament, was because property questions were involved, and were it not for that, he should have the very gravest objection to dealing with any religious question at all. If it were only a matter of property, he thought it might be within the range of possibility to introduce a Bill which would deal with Church property without specifically dealing with the property of one particular Church, leaving other Churches to bring in separate Bills to deal with their property. They had been told that they already had union, and therefore he took it that it was not a matter of so great urgency that it should be pressed through in a hurry. After referring to the fact that there had been practical union of the English Church in South Africa for some considerable time, and that that Church had solved the problem of union before the boundaries of the various States had been swept away, Dr. Watkins said that if this Bill was necessary, and dealt only with property—that it was a necessary thing to define the rights of property vested in various churches—then he would agree to facilitate its passing. Unfortunately, holding the view he did as to the undesirability of the State interfering with religious matters, except where it was an absolute necessity, he found that the Bill dealt not only with property, but went into the question of doctrine, the privileges of various bodies connected with the Church, and, finally, and most unfortunately, it made them run straight up against the colour question. He would not attempt to force upon any church his own views with regard to the colour question, but he did feel it was an unfortunate thing that they were asked right away to fix the colour line. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that the Prime Minister would see his way to accept the suggestion to allow a little more thought as to how much could be taken out of the Bill, and as to how much was essential to the cause of unity, and to see whether it was possible to eliminate controversial matters, upon which many of the members felt it was inadvisable for the State to interfere, and to confine the interference of the State solely to the question of property.

said that the North had always treated the coloured people fairly, and would always do so, but South Africa was considered to be a white man’s country. He regretted extremely that these colour questions were so frequently raised in the House, They would never have had Union if the clause dealing with the colour question had not been inserted in the draft Act of Union—it might be called the safety-value of the Act, and without it the Act would have been blown to pieces. He might say the same with regard to the present Bill. If that clause had not been inserted, he thought there would be no union amongst the Dutch Reformed Churches. If hon. members opposite were so fond of mixing with coloured people, that was no reason why they should force their predilection on the Dutch Reformed Church!

said that he did not want to give a silent vote upon the matter, because he found himself in rather serious disagreement with those who sat on his side of the House. The Bill had already been before the Select Committee, and the motion now was to refer it back to the committee, in order that the matter might be reconsidered; but surely the whole point to be decided on the amendment was whether any additional reason had been raised to justify referring the matter back to the committee. There had been a number of reasons given for the motion, but he did not think there was any valid one. In the first place it was asked, what was the justification or reason for the Bill? Well, that question had come before the Select Committee, and the answer really lay in the preamble to the Bill. He would ask the hon. member whether the whole history of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa did not make it clear that the Act was required if there were to be no disunion. Under the present position of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province, it was impossible for the Church to unite on its own authority with Churches in the other Provinces, which held exactly similar doctrines, and to admit representatives of those Churches into its Synod, unless it had such a Bill as this. It was obvious, if they were going to have a new Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, and that legal authority was necessary for the composition of that Synod, that that new Synod, having been composed by legal authority, should also be given the right to alter its composition as the necessities of the times arose. The hon. member for Pretoria East had said that the introduction of clause 7 (a) justified the reference back to the Select Committee of the whole question. That clause was discussed for, he thought, two days by the Select Committee. It was opposed by two members of the Select Committee, and finally it was found impossible to agree with regard to that new clause, and, therefore, the two members of the Select Committee reserved to themselves the right to oppose that clause in the House, and vote against it in the committee stage. What, he asked, would be the good of referring that clause in particular back to the Select Committee? In what way would any new arguments or new considerations be advanced before the Select Committee, which would justify the revival of the Select Committee? It was competent for that House to discuss the clause in the committee stage, and any amendment moved in that direction would have the support of two members of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Queen’s Town had urged that the Select Committee should reconsider the Bill, and an opportunity should be given to the Synods of the Dutch Reformed Church to consider this clause 7 (a) in particular. He would remind the hon. member that this was a permissive measure, and surely the very object which he desired to attain by referring back to the Select Committee was attained by the permissive character of the Bill. The hon. member had also said that the safeguard, which provided for a majority of three-fourths of the Consistories of the Church in each Province, was not a sufficient safeguard, and he put before them the proposition that, suppose the Consistories approving of this measure should approve only by a bare majority in each case, then there would be an enormous minority opposed to the Bill, which would have no right to dissent from the measure. Well, he confessed that it seemed to him that, in raising that objection, the hon. member had given way in a most unusual manner to his imagination. Then, to come to the final argument of the hon. member for the Harbour Division, he (Sir Henry Juta) said that ministers of any congregation which dissented from this Bill would be deprived of their pension rights which they at present had under the Churches of the different Provinces, and also the rights of widows under the widows’ pension funds would be affected, and rights under certain other funds would be affected. He (Mr. Long) quite admitted that that was so, and he must confess that it seemed to him entirely reasonable that it should be so. He had not seen any justification in the arguments brought forward by those who supported the amendment for referring this Bill back to the Select Committee, and he should, therefore, vote against the amendment. He felt glad that this was a matter which had been declared to be above party, and a matter of individual conscience and individual opinion.

said that they on that cross-bench regretted that there should be unseemly wrangling amongst the various sections of religion in regard to this matter. It seemed to him that it was a question of whether the Select Committee or whether the Committee of the whole House would be most competent to deal with the amendments which the hon. member desired to make. He thought it was far better that they should go into these amendments, and vote upon them on (heir relative merits,

said he did not think it was in the best taste for the new leader of the third party to try and bring this back to a party question. He (Mr. Struben) did not intend to treat it as a party question at all. The great thing that appeared to him was that, according to the Rules of that House, it was quite competent for any Consistory, or congregation, Province, or any other larger or smaller body, to have come before the Select Committee, and have opposed that Bill. That was not done. He could not help thinking that the people most interested were practically of the same opinion upon this subject. As this was an unopposed Bill, if it were referred back to a Select Committee, no further evidence would be brought upon it, and if the Select Committee had any respect at all they would not fail to come to the same conclusion, so he could not understand what good would be done by referring the matter back. He believed that the committee of the whole House would be quite competent to reject what was not consistent with the good government of the country.

said when he moved the amendment, he said nothing about colour or doctrine; nothing about these matters that had been so much discussed, but he did say something about the rights of property, about which so little had been said. He was astonished to hear this new doctrine, that when it was for the interest of the majority that a certain thing should be done, therefore they could take away the rights of the minority. The hon. member (Mr. Long) admitted that this Bill made no safeguard for minorities, and he asked what could be done. Those who did not desire to have union, would have to be satisfied simply with their own principles, and their material interests would not be considered at all. He had never heard of such a doctrine. The Minister for Lands (Mr. Fischer) had given vent to another most extraordinary doctrine, and he (Sir H. Juta) had been wondering what one or two old Parliamentarians would have said if that doctrine had been uttered on the Opposition side of the House. It was a most extraordinary thing for a Minister of the Crown to tell the House that because they did not happen to be a member of a certain religious body, that the House was not to discuss this question. He (Sir H. Juta) claimed the Premier and the hon. member for Pretoria South (General Beyers) as supporters, because they were both under the impression that the rights of the minority were safeguarded, but they were not. No provision was made at all for protecting the rights of a minister if his congregation refused to join the union.

put the question, with the result that the amendment was negatived.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the following amendment: To add at the end of the clause: “Provided that no Consistory shall determine on such resolution unless and until it has been authorised there to by a majority of the members of the congregation concerned present at a meeting duly convened by a previous notice issued in accordance with regulations in force for the time being.” The mover said that the constitution of these Consistories of the Dutch Reformed Church did not seem to be understood by certain hon. members who had spoken. A Consistory was not a popularly elected body, and it might determine upon a course of action without the congregation being consulted at all. He quite believed that the Churches of the various Provinces should be united, but every member of the congregation ought to have a say in the matter.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken had forgotten that new members were added to a Kerkeraad at the annual elections. The Dutch Reformed Church followed Presbyterian principles in that respect, which he hoped would be maintained. The election was not a direct one. Present and past members of Consistories elected new members.

said that if that amendment were carried an impossible position would be created. How were they to get the views of hundreds of Church members who lived enormous distances apart, as was the case in several country places? He hoped that the amendment would not be carried, for if they did carry it there would be no union.

said that if the amendment were carried, the whole clause might as well be deleted. The Kerkeraden were elected every year, and some of them were so large that they consisted of a quarter of the male members of the congregation. They always consulted the congregation on important matters. The hon. member for Queen’s Town had misrepresented the actual state of affairs.

thought it would strengthen the position of the Kerkeraad if it had at its back the support of members of the Church. It was a matter of common knowledge that the Kerkeraaden did not in every case represent the congregation.

in supporting the amendment, maintained that although he was not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church he had a right to speak on the Bill. He was informed that a certain Kerkeraad was absolutely out of sympathy with the members of its congregation. He could not understand the opposition to the amendment, seeing that it only give the congregations the right to be consulted.

said the position seemed to be misunderstood. When a new congregation was started it was started by men who had previously belonged to other congregations. Members of the Consistories were elected for not more than two years, and were not eligible for reelection for another two years, and the whole tendency was to get as much now blood on as possible, and to prevent near relations being on the Consistories, such as father and son, or even brothers-in-law, in order to get as thoroughly representative a Consistory as possible.

said he could not see any force in the objections to the amendment. There were Kerkeraden in the country which did not represent the congregations. If the House was asked to pass a law making drastic changes the House should be shown that the proposed changes were approved by the majority of the persons for whom they were going to legislate. That was all the amendment meant.

said he personally knew of no case in which the Kerkeraad did not represent the congregation. His objection to the amendment was that it interfered with the form of Church government.

said the Bill itself changed the form of Church government. He contended before a congregation was brought into union in terms of the Bill such congregation should be consulted. That was all the amendment asked.

said the objection to the amendment was that it interfered with the settled principles of Church government.

said that if it were the case, as the Prime Minister had said that afternoon, that the Churches had already expressed the desirability of union, and came to Parliament for “protection,” the carrying of that amendment would alter the whole aim of the measure, and it would be unnecessary for Parliament to pass the Bill. He could not agree with the amendment.

said that if there had been any idea of carrying out the proposal of the hon. member it would have been stated in the Bill. The Kerkeraad represented the feeling of the congregations. If the amendment was carried the whole object of the measure would be defeated. He hoped the committee would realise the difference between, the amendment and the wants of the Church.

said they would have been satisified did they know the real feeling of the congregation on the subject of the Bill. They wanted to know if the majority was in favour, and, therefore, he thought the amendment should be accepted. He thought the hon. member in charge of the Bill would be well advised to let the amendment go through, because if the majority were in favour it would strengthen the hands of the Kerkeraad.

put the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town (Sir Bisset Berry), and declared the amendment lost.

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

referred to the issue of proclamations by the Governor-General and asked on whose advice His Excellency was to be guided? He failed to see why the Governor-General should be dragged into the business. It seemed to him that His Excellency had nothing to do with the matter, and surely some other official or Moderator of the Church should issue the proclamations. Why, he asked again should the Governor-General be dragged in and not even a Minister? It was not as if he had a Minister in charge of ecclesiastical affairs, who could advise the Governor-General. The Governor-Genenal would have to issue proclamations off his own bat, whether he liked it or not.

said that the Governor-General would be advised in the ordinary way by the Minister of the Interior, and he did not think the procedure would be unconstitutional.

The Minister of the Interior has nothing to do with these matters at all. Proceeding, he said that the Bill referred to Governor-General and not Governor-Genera1 in-Council.

said that Governor-General-in-Council was meant.

It only says Governor-General.

said that he was surprised at the remark as to why the Governor-General should be dragged in. It seemed to be animus. He did not know that the Moderator could issue proclamations of that kind. The Governor-General issued proclamations affecting the public; he did so even with regard to municipal regulations. Surely the Dutch Reformed Church was an institution of which nobody could be ashamed, not even a Governor-General.

said that he was in sympathy with the Dutch Reformed Church, because he believed it was an offshoot of his own Church—(laughter)—but did not the fact of the Governor-General being inserted tend to give the Church a State appearance? Even if a Minister were put in, the mention of his name would also give the Church a State appearance. As regards the publication of municipal regulations, he would like to point out that such proclamations were for all the people connected with municipalities, but the regulations proposed in the Bill were only for persons connected with the Dutch Reformed Church. He would like to ask the member in charge of the Bill if the mention of the Governor-General did not give the Church a State appearance?

said that he was very much opposed to State Churches, and the then, member (Mr. Brown) need not be afraid of anything in the nature of an established Church. They had no established Church, and he did not think that this was the thin end of the wedge.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 4,

moved the following amendment: “In subsection (a), line 25, after ‘1898,’ to insert: ‘and Ordinance No. 16 of 1845, entitled “an Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 7 of 1843” ’; and in line 27, after ‘ Proclamation,’ to insert, “provided, however, that section 2 of the said Ordinance No. 7 of 1843 shall not be hereby repealed.’” He said that as he read clause 2 of the Ordinance of 1843 it had general application to all religious communities in the Cape Colony at the time it was issued. The clause declared that no religious community or denomination in the Colony should be entitled as a matter of right to receive from the public revenue any pecuniary contributions or allowance. He wanted to know why this Bill should repeal, or should propose to repeal, a public general enactment, a piece of policy of that dimension? The Ordinance of 1845 empowered the Crown to appoint certain ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church. Why, he asked, should not that Ordinance be repealed?

drew the hon. member’s attention to Act 5, 1875, and said that he would find that clause 2 of the Ordinance of 1843 had been done away with.

Not repealed.

said that by the Act of 1875 the Governor was empowered only to give grants to ministers of religion upon certain conditions, and tacitly the whole clause 2 of the Ordinance of 1843 was repealed by the Act of 1875. If the hon. member referred to section 2 of the Ordinance of 1845, he would see that the King in Council only had the right to appoint to the congregations ministers who were drawing Government pay. Those ministers came under the Act of 1875. All the ministers who were drawing Government pay were now governed by the Act of 1875. If the hon. member read the Act of 1875, he would see that the Ordinances were null and void.

said he was sorry to have to reply to the hon. member, Could he not see that clause 2 of the Ordinance of 1843 had nothing to do specially with the Dutch Reformed Church? It was a clause that affected ever religious community in the Colony. Why should they come with this Bill, a private Bill belonging to the Dutch Reformed Church, and repeal a public general enactment of that kind? Clause 2 of the Ordinance of 1843 was the charter those people who, with himself, believed that no Church should receive endowments from the public revenue of the country. Now they were asked to repeal it.

said that all those who got a contribution under the Ordinance of 1843 were now governed by the Act of 1875.

said the question was whether the Act of 1875 repealed clause 2 of the Ordinance of 1843. He should have liked the amendment to have been dealt with in two sections. The amendment asked for the repeal of Ordinance 16, 1845. He could not hold with that, and he thought the hon. member (Sir. Basset Berry) had not been quite correct; in the explanation he had given.

interposed, and said it seemed to him that it was not quite clear what the effect of this clause would be, and he would, therefore, move that it should stand over.

This was agreed to.

On clause 7,

On the motion of Sir W. B. BERRY (Queen’s Town),

put the new proviso (a), viz. (a) That in every ease in which the Synod or General Assembly of the said Church shall declare, or shall have declared, by resolution duly taken in that behalf, that any particular doctrine or matter of doctrine or statement of doctrine, whether the same is then in controversy or not in controversy, is in conformity with, or opposed to (as the case may be) the doctrine of the Church as in this section defined, the declaration of the Synod in that behalf shall be final, and shall be accepted in every Court of Law as conclusive and irrebuttable evidence of what constitutes the doctrine of the Church in respect of the doctrine matter or statement forming the subject of such declaration as aforesaid.”

moved, as an amendment to this amendment: In line 37, after “behalf” to insert “such resolution having been carried by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of such Synod.” He pointed out that as the clause stood it was not at all satisfactory, as they might have a majority of one only, and it seemed to him that it would be better to have this majority of two-thirds, as in that case the rights of property would be ‘better guaranteed. He believed that he was interpreting the position rightly when he said that it was the conservative element that wanted the insertion of this proviso, but he would point out that the proviso out both ways. The conservative element might not always be in the majority, however, and there might be a large number who would interpret doctrine different than at present. If there was not such a majority, then the case could go to the law courts for decision.

said he was prepared to withdraw the amendment standing in his name in favour of the amendment just proposed.

said it seemed to him that the remedy was worse than the disease, because if they had one less than two-thirds, then the actual minority would rule.

pointed out that if they had not two-thirds majority, then they could go to the law courts, but if they had the two-thirds, then the law courts were ruled out.

said, in his opinion, the amendment made it more difficult for the liberal element, because, as the clause now stood, a mere majority could get an alteration in dogma. Let the Churches believe what they liked so long as they kept the peace—(laughter)—but if Parliament or a court of law had to say what the dogma of a Church was, there would be litigation. Let the Churches teach what they liked so long as they did not interfere with law and order, and then they safely could leave the Church to continue the good work it had done in the past.

said he was surprised—(laughter)—to hear his old friend, who for year’s past had been sneering at Church doctrines and so forth, come solemnly down and want a clause like that in this Bill. The clause was wrong. (Opposition cheers.) The Dutch Reformed Church asked to be an Erastian Church, and to put itself under an Act of Parliament, and then it desired to contract itself out of that by means of that clause. In the English Church, to which he (Mr. Merriman) belonged, they had a united Church, with certain doctrines, and a man knew what they were. Those doctrines were settled without an Act of Parliament. He was surprised at some of the speeches that had been made, because the members of the Dutch Reformed Church could settle their own affairs privately, but the proviso was totally wrong, and by it they were striking altogether at the rights of minorities. By a minority of one they could strike a word out of the Seventh Commandment—.(laughter)—or something of that sort. He was surprised at the argument of the Minister of Lands, and favoured the amendment on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread.

said he was under the impression that the Bill was merely a formal one to enable the different Churches to unite. What concerned him was whether by his vote he would be altering the system of Church government.

said the question of doctrine did not weigh with him at all, but he objected to the proviso on principle when the Bill was before the Select Committee. It was a question of principle whether a Synod should be able to dispose of an immense amount of property by a majority of one.

said the proviso took away the right of a small conservative element in the Dutch Reformed Church to control Church property. In this Way the position would be improved. He did not see any objection to the proviso.

said the difficulty was, was Parliament to favour one side of the Church or the other? (An HON. MEMBER: “No.”) The proviso had never been before the Synods.

said he believed that there was a large number of the ministers and members of the Dutch Reformed Church who did not hold in the very strictest acceptance of the word to these canons. It would be wrong to hand over the property of the Church to a certain section. The Church was progressing-towards a wider interpretation of doctrinal points. If they dropped the proviso they would leave matters just as they were. It would then be left in the hands of the law to decide what should be the interpretation of the law. He moved the deletion of the proviso.

said he would like to appeal to lion, members opposite to drop this proviso. They were asked by this proviso to recognise an authority with the constitution of which the House had no concern. If they passed this proviso they would have the other Churches in the country coming and asking for similar legislation.

said that if the proviso were dropped, the result would be that Parliament—a body of laymen—would be laying down what was to be the creed of a Church. The Church did not, in this Bill, come to Parliament and ask Parliament to sanction this or that doctrine of the Church. All that it said was this: “This is the doctrine of the Church; we want to amalgamate, but we cannot sufficiently amalgamate without your consent, and we ask you to pass a law to put us in a position to join.” Naturally, each partner wanted to know exactly what the doctrine of the other would be after they joined, and they now said: “This is the common doctrine to which we shall all subscribe, and it is necessary to do this because, if we do not, some of, us who join may say later on they joined under a misapprehension.” The Church said that this was its doctrine, and it asked Parliament to legislate so that the Churches of this Province and the other Provinces might unite upon this common doctrine. But if any one of the Churches thought that this was not its doctrine, they need not become a partner to it. For certain reasons the Church must have the consent of Parliament. But the Church said: “We are not going to ask you to lay down this hard and fast rule,” and so, in the proviso, it was laid down how the Church could decide upon any change in its doctrine. And he would ask hon. members not to interfere, The Church simply said: “This is our practice or this is not our practice, but this is what we want.” They wanted it laid down so that anybody who wished to join, might know exactly what the conditions were. Continuing, he said he was afraid judge-made doctrines would not do, and he hoped no hon. member would tamper with the Bill and compromise them as though they were going to found a State Church. If there had not been misconception about this matter, he did not think that half of what had been said Would have been said. He wished to point out that if a question of law arose, the proviso would show the exact conditions under which the Churches had joined.

said that while he approved of the Churches coming to the House for legislation in respect of the property that was held, he considered that questions of faith, and such matters, should be decided by the people among themselves.

And so they have. Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort) said that an hon. member who made such on observation could not have read the Bill. The Bill laid down the doctrine of the Church, and the proviso stated how it could be departed from. They wanted the House to legislate in such a way that a bare majority could alter the doctrine of the Church. A bare majority of the Synod might not represent the views of the majority of the members of the Dutch Reformed Church, and the Parliament and the committee should see that nothing was done that might result in injustice. The doctrines of the Church should be settled by the people, and not by Parliament, and care should be taken by Parliament to see that it was not altered by a small, and, perhaps, temporary majority, except after the fullest Consideration. The speaker went on to point out that only a two-thirds majority could; change anything in the Statute under which they sat in that House. If more than a two-thirds majority decided one way, there would be no difficulty; but he contended that in the case of a bare majority the minority should have the right of going to the Courts to see that justice was done.

said that he thought the objection raised was the result of misconception. The doctrines of the Church were laid down for all time, but the proviso stated that the Churches should have the right of interpreting this doctrine. Clause 7 laid down certain far-reaching doctrines for all time, as the doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church, and they were asked to legislate, and say that the confessed faith in clause 7 should he for all time. Well, any Parliament in the world would hesitate to bind for all time the consciences of men, therefore the proviso was there. If such power of interpretation were not given the Church, what would be the result? It would be immobile, and what could the law courts do? The law courts were bound by absolute words and the plain dictionary meaning of words, and the result would be that if this proviso were deleted from clause 7 the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa would become an absolutely immobile institution, and no progress would be possible.

Not with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet’s amendment.

I am speaking of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Tembuland. Proceeding, he said he believed the hon. member had moved his amendment in all sincerity, but he wished to remind him that Parliament must make it impossible for the people of the Church to be bound for ever by formulas which might not satisfy them afterwards. They were asked in clause 7 to lay down what would be the formula or doctrine of the Church, and when they were going to legislate on such a matter they must leave a door open through which the consciences of the people could escape in the future. He thought hon. members would agree with him that it was necessary from the point of view of public interest, and from the point of view of the Church and its legitimate development in the future, to have this proviso. When they laid down doctrine and how it was to be interpreted they must not bind the future of the Church too much by asking that there must be a two-thirds majority. He thought that was going too far. If any great changes arose in the future, then this proviso became absolutely necessary, and if the clause was left out he could understand it. (Opposition “Hear, bear’s.”)

Why not?

Well, I shall tell you why not. Proceeding, he said that he thought there was a desire not only in the Dutch Reformed Church, but on both sides of the House, to see that there was union, peace, and concord in Church matters. Well, he could understand thousands of faithful members of these Churches saying: “If some basis is not laid down, what is the new Church; we are asked to give up the Church we belong to and join the new institution, but what are the articles of association?” The House might not consider it necessary, but thousands would want to know what were the fundamental doctrines by which they were to be guided. They must leave the power of interpretation to the Church, otherwise they would be doing a bad day’s work in passing the Bill, and a serious injury to the future development of South Africa. The proviso was necessary to the clause.

said that if he wanted to do injury to the Dutch Reformed Church be would agree to the proviso, They had had the same experience in Natal, and it was owing to just such a proviso as the present one. It had been, the cause of a split in the Anglican Church. It was exactly the same proviso which now stood between the Anglican Church in this country and the Church of England in the Mother Country. The final court of appeal in these matters must be the civil court. He wanted to see the Bill put through in such a manner as not to divide the people in the future, and for that reason he would suggest the dropping out of clause 7, and also the proviso. The proviso was wrong in principle, and would lead to unnecessary hardship and litigation in the future. The members opposite would be guided well if they took the advice of those on his side and expunged the proviso.

said that he was very much surprised at the views expressed by the Minister of the Interior, who must know that the Privy Council had always been the ultimate head of appeal in religious matters, and the protection of freedom of thought in the Church of England. If the proviso were carried, what would be the result? A gust of religious fanaticism would sweep over the country, and they would have an overwhelming sway of new doctrines. Referring to the synodical system of the Anglican Church in South Africa, he said that a man was almost excommunicated at the present time if he married into a Dutch family. (Cries of “Oh, oh,” “Rubbish,” and “No, no.) Yes, he was, as a consequence of the synodical system of government of the Church. (More cries of “No, no.”) Well, he was speaking on a matter of which he had the closest possible acquaintance, and he would repeat what he had said. He did not believe that anybody who had been acquainted with the history of the work of the Synod in this country, or in any other country, would say that it had ever been the protector of liberty and freedom of thought, and he would be false to the whole of the traditions of his life in this matter if he supported any movement directed to tie up the life of the Church. There was, he believed, nothing more important at the present time in connection with our country than that freedom of religious thought should be zealously safeguarded for the Dutch Reformed Church. There was a certain danger—a danger which he prayed to God might be averted—of a rift arising between the Church and the intellectual life of the people. He went with his hon. friend, the member for Graaff-Reinet, when he said that if the Synod were going to bind down the Church they should at any rate be sure that there was a substantial and a firm majority before an unfortunate step of that kind was taken.

said that the speech of the hon. member for Uitenhage seemed to be based on the misconception that this proviso was the general rule, whereas it was the exception. The proviso was for the purpose of altering the general rule, and if they accepted a two-thirds’ majority, they rendered the alteration of the general rule more difficult, and, therefore, it was against liberality. There was a more pertinent question—why have this clause at all? (Hear, hear.) They in the Cape Province started with the Dutch Reformed Church being practically a State Church, under the Ordinance which laid down the general principles of that Church. That was not the case in the Free State and the Transvaal, and if members would turn to the Ordinance of 1843 (clause 6), and also to the amending Act of 1898 (Clause 2), they would find verbatim clause 7, which laid down the doctrine the general policy, if they might so call it, of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Province. The people of Cape Colony had been accustomed to this from the commencement. The Church in the Cape Province, before they did go into union, said that they wanted to retain the safeguards laid down in the Ordinance of 1843, as amended by the Act of 1894. To meet the people in the Transvaal and Free State, who had not yet got this, they had this proviso, and they said let the majority decide. If they said that a two-thirds’ majority should take it out of the general rule he quite agreed with what the Minister of the Interior bad said. To make it more difficult, as the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet had proposed, they would kill the liberal spirit and the spirit of development.

I said that the Minister of Education had put his finger upon the spot and gone more nearly to explaining to those of them who were in difficulties the reason; of this law than anybody else. They wanted to know why it was necessary to come to Parliament for a charter. Now; it had been said that they had had a charter in the past. Therefore the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Colony would like the same charter renewed. That was, the sufficient reason why the same statutory provisions should be extended; right throughout the Union. When they: understood the difficulty of getting a progressive majority, coupled with the fact that it was taking away property, they saw the seriousness of the position. Really, the thing was property. He only wished to goodness that hon. gentlemen who were, interested in this could find some means of settling the matter without coming at all to Parliament. The thing was that they were asking Parliament to alter the old provisions, and make a new statute by which a bare majority could, through an alteration of a dogma, take all the property. If they wanted to alter the dogma, let them do so. It was entirely in their own hands; it had nothing to do with any of the members of that House. But the minute they said that by altering that they acquired the whole of the property of others, and they asked the approval of Parliament, it became a very serious question, and the difficulty with which they were faced became altogether too great. They were asking for an alteration in the machinery by which a bare majority could take away the property of the others. Surely, all they asked was, could they not devise a method, was it not possible to go to the courts of law and get an order which would enable them to deal with this property? They came now to Parliament. What he thought was so monstrous here was the attempt to tie the Church down for all eternity. They could not do it. Let them have the right to settle their own freedom, but they could not give them the right to take over all this property. He thought the proposal of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was a very reasonable one. It was a compromise. He only wished they would withdraw the clause and the proviso. But, as a compromise, let them take it, for the half loaf was better than no bread. If they could not get a two thirds’ majority, surely, he put it to them, they were not acting rightly in taking the whole of the property.

said it was a very curious thing that, except the petition referred to by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, no section, no individual, or member of the Dutch Reformed Church had anticipated the dangers of the hon. gentlemen opposite. (Ministerial cheers.) If people felt that there was any hardship or danger to dogma they need not come in. The present Bill did not bring them in, it only give them an opportunity of coming in upon certain terms, which if they did not like, they need not come in. That seemed to him to be a complete answer to a good deal of the criticism that had been offered. He thought precisely the same as his hon. friend (Mr. Fremantle) on the fallibility of Synods, and if they looked back to history they would find the Synods had not been on the side of liberality, but now this two-thirds’ majority would give the reactionary body in a Synod a longer lease. What had they seen recently in Europe? The liberal element in the Catholic Church had overthrown the other.

They collared the property.

said it was useless to talk about the danger of Synods in this country. He would not say they were Irish. (Laughter.) They were slow, and not easy to move. Their danger was rather in getting them to move at all from the old position, and the stronger and the larger the majority, the more difficult it would be to make them move. He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) that the danger to the Dutch Reformed Church was that it might not—he would not say would not—move with the times, and it was on that account that the was going to support the resolution. It was better that they should dose their property than that they should sterilise a Church and prevent it marching with the times. (Cheers.) The property was a small matter. The Founder of the Christian religion and His disciples were poor men. They did not ride in motor-cars. (Cheers and laughter.) The truth would always be spread by poor men.

said he could not see why any objection should be taken to the amendment. His hon. friend (Mr. Malan) had pointed out that this clause was laid down in the old Cape Ordinance, and that the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape Province would not enter union unless their resolution was incorporated. He could not understand, therefore, why his hon. friend could not support the amendment, which would prevent property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds being taken away by a bare majority of one, without appeal to the Law Courts. It was the duty of the House to protect minorities.

said as far as he could see, the most important point tad been missed. They were going on the assumption that the Synod was going to be progressive. They said: “Don’t tie the hands of the Synod; don’t prevent it from going forward.” But the experience of Synods was that they were conservative. That was the experience in Scotland and in England.

said if the case was that the Synod, as constituted, would not take a liberal view of things, then he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, but the chances were that the conditions would be very much worse by adopting this amendment. It was not a question of the Cape Dutch Reformed Church wanting to renew its Charter, but that the union of the Dutch Reformed Churches could not be consummated without legislative sanction. The point lost sight of by hon. members opposite was that when the Bill was passed nothing was done but to give an instrument to the Church which it might use, as it pleased, or might leave as it pleased.

The House in putting in a proviso which the Church did not.

The proviso—as, in fact, have all the important amendments to the Bill—.has been put in at the special request of the Church itself. (Ministerial cheers.)

The Synod has not met since 1909, and the proviso is quite a new thing.

That’s a quibble. The amendments have been put in at the suggestion of reverend gentlemen who represent the Church. These amendments are substantially put in by the Church itself. It does not matter to hon. members opposite what the majority of the members of the Dutch Reformed Church consist of. It is an affair of the Church—leave it to the members of the Church to dispose of it. Proceeding, Mr. Burton said the question involved was one of property. There were in the Bill clauses which protected Church property, so that dissenting members could say the terms on which they were asked to go in were not good enough. If Parliament were going to establish a position in which the majority of the people could decide, he could not see much difference whether they said that was to be a majority of one or of two-thirds. Majorities were so often right, and so often had the true view of things—(ironical Opposition cheers) —that he could not see that it made much difference what the majority was. The doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church were originally laid down by a majority of one, and day after day intricate questions affecting men’s property and lives were decided by the Courts of Law by a majority of one Judge. One of the most important things in the history of the Cape—the establishment of Responsible Government— was passed in that House by a majority of one. (Ministerial cheers.) The great weight of argument was in favour of the proviso. The important point of the whole thing was that they were not called to arbitrate on these matters in the House. If the bulk of the Dutch Reformed Church, by a majority of three-fourths, decided to take the Bill, then he said to his hon. friend (Mr. Maasdorp) that Parliament’s duty was not to interfere unduly, as a Legislature, with the conditions and terms on which the people desired to enter into an association, when the people themselves were satisfied with those terms. (Ministerial cheers.)

said he had been trying to find out what the bogey was that had been dangled against the proviso. The clause and the proviso asked only that the Church should be allowed to state what they believed now to be the interpretation of their creed, and what the interpretation was of what they believed by and-bye. Parliament was asked to accept the Church’s declaration of their interpretation of the old creed. With the increase of knowledge the Church might find that a different interpretation should be put on to what existed hundreds of years ago. It was not a question of dogma. Their creed was only a starting point. It was asked here that the people who accepted the belief should be allowed to go on from that starting point and to interpret the creed as knowledge increased. The great progressive Biblical critics had been, to a great extent, given to the world by Holland. Continuing, he said that the Minister had spoken of the insignificance of majorities, but instead of counting heads they should weigh facts. He did plead that they should allow these men to say what they believed, and to put their own interpretation upon their own doctrine.

said he had not heard one word to the effect that the Dutch Reformed Church approved of the proviso, or asked this Parliament to put it into the Bill. If he could be assured authoritatively, and on evidence, that the Church was in absolute accord with the provisions of the proviso, then he would withdraw what he had moved. Till he heard that evidence, he would not withdraw. If Parliament approved of the proviso, then it should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, so that both sides would be safeguarded.

said it was curious that those who opposed him had hitherto been in favour of safeguarding everybody in other cases. It seemed to him that they had missed the point. They had talked of dogma and doctrine, but the issue was a question of the property that was at stake. The point was whether that property should be at the disposal of a bare majority of the Synod, whether the point should be decided by another tribunal, or whether everybody should be safeguarded by a two-thirds majority. That was the simple issue. The Minister of the Interior pleaded for progressive religion, for enlightenment, and for future expansion, and that would be retarded by the fact that he (the speaker) insisted upon a two-thirds majority. That was the Minister’s line of thought, but he was certain that the promoters of the Bill were not exercised by such line of thought. It was not a question of doctrine he (the speaker) pleaded for. What he pleaded for was the property that went with the doctrine. If the Synod decided by a majority of one, the minority of members were deprived of their property entirely by the Bill, and there was no appeal to the Courts of Law. Unless they could secure a two-thirds majority, the Courts of Law should decide, and so safeguard the minority.

The amendment moved by Mr. Maasdorp was then put, and declared negatived.

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

moved as a further amendment, in line 39 to omit the words “or opposed to, as the case may be.” The effect of this proposal, he said, would be to allow the Synod to broaden, but not to allow the Synod to limit. The committee had decided that a bare majority of the Synod was to be decisive in these matters. Now, that was a very proper thing to say in regard to broadening the meaning of a doctrine, but it was a very dangerous thing to say in regard to limiting the meaning of a doctrine. The Minister of Education had said that this proviso was taken, from the history of the Cape Colony. He would like to ask him whether in the history of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape there Quad been any liberal movement in the direction of substituting more liberal for more conservative doctrines in regard to theology.

There is no such proviso.

I understood that they had such a proviso. I have been misinformed by some of my hon. friend’s supporters. Continuing, the hon. member pointed out by several illustrations how the forward movements of theology had turned exactly upon the matter of the interpretation of existing documents. If they looked at the documents of the 16th century they would find that these documents were drawn up by men who had been fed upon most liberal doctrines. Almost all the modern movements of thought were compatible with these documents, but not with the modern interpretation of them. That was the danger that was in front of them. Was it their wish that they should legislate against these liberal doctrines? That was what would happen if they voted against this amendment.

said that the difference of interpretation in many Churches was actually a refutation of many doctrines that were formerly held. The hon. member was proceeding to refer to various changes in religious belief, when

asked him to confine himself to the clause under discussion.

said he was trying to answer what the hon. member for Uitenhage had said, and had been trying to prove that the main doctrinal changes had been made apart from the Churches.

appealed to hon. members opposite to accept the amendment. The committee had accepted the position that a bare majority of the Synod should be the sole judges as to what the doctrines of the Church were. Such a position was only comparable to that held by the College of Cardinals in Rome.

said he did not see how the amendment could be accepted, because the Church, after consulting the most eminent lawyers, opposed it.

moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order that there might be an opportunity of thinking more fully over the amendment.

supported the motion. This was a matter on which it was most important that there should be time for mature consideration.

hoped the motion would be accepted.

The motion to report progress was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.