from A. Amunsen, praying for compensation in respect of the loss of the farm Minziamaniana, Bechuanaland.

from residents of Edenburg, praying for the establishment of Government dip depots.

from J. Cooney, late of Engineering Branch, Table Bay Harbour Board.

from residents of Eicksburg and Senekal, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped (two petitions).

Mine Benefit Funds Committee of Inquiry.

moved: That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Bill to consider the question of providing for the payment of compensation by employers to native labourers, in case of death or disablement by accident in the course of their employment, and, if necessary, to, extend the title of the Bill accordingly.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that on Wednesdays Government business have precedence.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that from, and after Thursday, March 16, the House suspend business at 6 p.m., and resume at 8 p.m.

seconded

The motion was agreed to.

asked if the omission of the words “calculated; at a rate” from clause 3 by the Senate would impose a burden or increase expenditure?

I don’t think so, sir. The omission, of the words, in my opinion, will make the clause more clear. I think the words proposed to be omitted only obscure the meaning.

The explanation is different to the one the Minister gave to the House when the Bill was before it.

I was not in the House at all.

Well, by whoever was in charge of the Bill. The words were in the original Bill.

They were not.

said that what had been explained to them was that if these words were taken out, the effect would be that if the High Commissioner retired from his post during the year, he might draw his £1,000, and when the second High Commissioner came into office, he would also get his £1,000, so that the effect would be that in one year they would pay £2,000 instead of £1,000; and the House decided, after discussion, to insert these words, the object of which was to limit the whole amount upon which the House was voting for that purpose to £1,000 for one year for that office. Now the Upper House wished to leave out these words, so that the effect must be that they might have to pay £2,000, instead of £1,000. On a point of order, he begged to put to Mr. Speaker that the omission of these words would involve extra expenditure. If these words were put in, there was no possible difference of opinion.

I must point out that under sub-section (3) of section 60 of the South Africa Act, 1909, it is not competent for the Honourable the Senate to amend any Bills so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people, end, as the omission of the words “calculated at a rate” could be construed as having the effect of an increase of expenditure by an allocation of the appropriation of public money, I am of opinion that this amendment is one which it was contemplated by the South Africa Act should be beyond the powers of the Honourable the Senate to make. I am therefore unable to put, it to the House.

said that he would like to point out that it said that the Governor-General might, grant, the High Commissioner an allowance calculated not to exceed the rate of £1,000 per annum. Even if those words were not taken out, the Governor-General might make an allowance of so much per month to the High Commissioner, or so much for three months.

If you leave the word’s in, he would have to, do so. Why did the Senate leave the words out?

said that he must say that he did not agree with the hon. member, and be was of the same opinion as the Minister of Finance,. Either the words must come out, or they must be circumscribed further. As these words stood, he did not see what they really meant.

Surely there must fee same meaning to be attached to these words. According to the Minister of Justice, the words mean nothing. The words mean something. They do not mean that the Governor-General cannot, pay out, £1,000; he must pay out “at the rate of.” If it means anything, and it must have a meaning, the only meaning it can have is that, it is an allowance commensurate with a, certain rate. How are you going to calculate your rate? You can only do that when your time is up. It seems to me that the inevitable result of these words is that the allowance will be granted—it may not be the intention—(when the High Commissioner has served his time. If you eliminate these words, there is nothing to prevent the Governor-General paying the £1,000 at the beginning of the year; and that is what the House wanted to avoid.

So far as I can understand from the history of these words, they appear in the Bill as originally printed; they were taken out; and again put in when I was in the chair; and I agree that these words should not have been taken out. … I must rule that these words should remain in.

in submitting a history of these words, said that he had been in charge of the Bill when clause 3 was considered: in committee; and he had moved that these words be omitted. The reason he had given was that in one half of the year more might have to be spent on entertainments than in the other half and it would have enabled the Governor-General to pay a higher allowance during the first six months than during the second six. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir Edgar Walton) objected at the time, and did not think it was necessary. The hon. member far Cape Town had supported him (Mr. Malan) in the matter; and seeing that there was some difference of opinion, he had withdrawn the amendment, and the words remained in; and at a, later stage the Bill had been sent to “another place,” and evidently it thought that there was a good deal of reason in it—that more than £1,000 must, not be paid for the year, hut that more might be paid for one part of the year than for the other part. He did not see why the omission of these words could make a difference in the total liability off the Crown, which was limited to an allowance not exceeding £1,000 per annum.

The omission of these words might not affect the liability of the Crown as to the amount but might affect the allocation of that money. (Hear, hear.) And I think that no amendment of that nature should have been made in, the Senate. I think the Bill should be sent back, with a note that the House does not concur in this amendment, and that it takes the view that under sub-section 3 of clause 60 of the Constitution it is not competent for the Senate to amend Bills if it affects the allocation or the appropriation of the amount; and I rule accordingly.

Leave was granted to Mr. J. H. Schoeman to attend and give evidence before a Select Committee of the Senate.

in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that it dealt with a very important matter, and he thought it would be useful if he detailed the circumstances which had led to its introduction into the House. He referred to the correspondence which had taken place between the late Transvaal Government and the British Government with regard, to the Indian question, and said that hon. members would have noticed from the correspondence that the Bill before the House was the effect of this correspondence, and that it was intended to carry out what had been agreed upon between the two Governments. For some time there had been a point in dispute between the Transvaal Government and the Asiatic community in regard to this question. The Asiatic leaders wanted an alteration of the immigration law, which would not, so far as the law itself was concerned, differentiate against them. They wanted such words introduced into legislation as to make for uniformity for all classes of the community, and they were agreeable that by administrative action differentiation should take place. Hon. members would have noticed that at one time he had taken a strong stand against such a course, even when pressed to adopt it. It seemed to him that a procedure such as that would be open to grave exception. It seemed to him that it was not a fair way of dealing with the question. Now, the Government had thought it time—now that Union Iliad become an established fact—for a resolution on this question, and they, therefore, finally accepted the proposals of the British Government as contained in the Bluebook which he placed on the table on the previous Friday. The hon. member went on to quote a letter from Lord Crewe, in which, he added, the writer, he might say, dealt very fairly and very ably with the controversy as it had shaped itself in the Transvaal. Lord Crewe pointed out that notwithstanding the attitude of the late Transvaal Government, the time seemed to have come when they should take a wider view of the question. Lord Crewe alluded to the differential test as applied in the Commonwealth of Australia, and observed that there it had worked well. That was the suggestion made last October—that the Union Government should follow the Australian precedent of a differential test which, though severe, allowed scope for administrative differentiation between different classes of immigrants. That proposal was accepted by the Union Government in a letter of December 20. So far as the number to be allowed in every year was concerned, that would depend on circumstances. He had read these extracts to hon. members to indicate to hon. members the main reasons why the legislation at present before the House had assumed this particular form. They had immigration laws in the different Provinces, and in each the education test was applied. Under the arrangement which had been come to with the British Government they would not adopt the Australian test. There was no doubt that the test was severe, but a great argument in favour of the test that had been adopted was that it had worked well in Australia, and there was no reason why it should not work well here. Continuing, he pointed out that the education test at the present time was a compulsory test. Hon. members, on comparison, would see the difference in the clauses, and he did not hesitate when he said that he favoured a policy of this kind. He pointed out that there were many hardships in connection with the old educational test, and referred to the many cases of able-bodied mechanics who failed to pass the education test, and were sent back. Well, that was not the class of man that they wished to keep away from their shores, and he said that they should not follow that policy any longer. Hon. members would see that this test would only be applied in those cases where the administrative officer had good reason to keep a person out of the country. It was severe, but its severity would only be felt where there was a deliberate intention to keep a person out. If that were not adopted, then differentiation so far as Asiatics were concerned could not be avoided. That was the problem which was set them. The policy under the new law would not be to apply this uniform education test at all, but to use it merely as a differential test—to use it as a weapon by means of which they would be able to keep out the sort of person who would be of no good to the Union. In appearance, the provision was severe, but in reality it would work out much more satisfactorily and fairly, he thought, than the old education test. It was of vital importance whether a person seeking to come here was of sound physique, and did not bring disease into this country. Health was of infinitely greater importance than scholarships in some obscure European language. It would be seen that powers were taken to apply a medical test, which power was not given under the existing laws. At present people came here in large numbers bringing disease and contaminating the health of the country, and there was no power to keep them out. South Africa, should not be overridden by disease when by nature it was one of the healthiest countries in the world. (Hear, hear.) To talk of fighting consumption internally was useless while we kept the door open to all the consumptives of the world who could pass am education test. Power was taken under this Bill to have a medical examination of immigrants, if necessary. The result would be that they were going to keep out, not an able-bodied white man, but persons who suffered from disease, or who were of a low, degenerate type. With regard to Asiatic immigrants, provision was made for keeping this question on its present Provincial basis. Asiatics, as well as others, who were domiciled in one Province, and who entered another Province against the law of that Province, would be dealt, with as prohibited immigrants. That applied to all persons alt present domiciled in the different Provinces. With regard to new Indian immigrants of the educated class, of whom it was intended to allow a limited number to enter the Union, the intention was not to limit them to any Province. In regard to the Orange Free State, it had been customary hitherto to allow Asiatics in as waiters in hotels and so on in special oases, but that policy would be changed, and Asiatics of that class would not be allowed to enter the Free State. With reference to the exclusions from the tests imposed by the Bill, it would be seen that clause 5 safeguarded the immigration of natives under existing Conventions or under any law which might hereafter be passed. This would permit the immigration of natives from Portuguese territories to the mines; they would not be subjected to any tests except such as were now administratively applied at one point or another. He had also left out reference to South Africans or persons already domiciled here. The reason was that this was an immigration law, and provided for people who came here as immigrants—people who came out for the first time—and it would be illogical to include domiciled persons.

Supposing they leave South Africa on a holiday, and return here, how will they come back?

Oh, they will come back by ship. (Laughter.) He added that they would be able to show by letters or in other ways that they were domiciled here. Continuing, General Smuts said the rest of the Bill was fairly simple and common to most of the existing laws. Certain sentences were provided for in the case of prohibited immigrants. Then in the next, chapter there were provisions as to the duties of the masters and owners of ships coming here, with reference to their crews and passengers. These followed the usual form, though they were, perhaps, a little more stringent than before. It would also be seen that, there was a clause authorising the Government to expel from the country certain classes of persons who were not born British subjects, or who had been naturalised in the Union, and who had been sentenced for certain crimes, which included diamond stealing, illicit diamond or gold dealing”, and illicit liquor selling. This might seem harsh punishment for such crimes, but it had been pointed out that there were people who came here with the deliberate object of engaging in this illicit traffic. Finally, powers were given to the Government to frame regulations relating to the duties of Immigration Officers, the procedure to be followed in dealing with prohibited immigrants and other matters. These regulations would really be the most important part of the Bill. The policy would be such as he had indicated, and would, he hoped lead to a more, satisfactory state of affairs, and end the controversies.

said the members who expected to hear from the Hon. the Minister some reason why this very revolutionary and extraordinary measure should have been brought before the House must have been disappointed. The only query he had put to the Minister had been answered in a jocular way. When he asked how persons domiciled in this country who had gone away should come back, he replied, “By ship.” He might also have added “aeroplanes.” (Laughter.) He hoped that was not the spirit in which the debate on this very serious measure, affecting the lives and liberties of thousands of people, was going to be conducted. It seemed to him that the Hon. Minister, in introducing the measure, had overlooked the fact that there were at least six classes of people he had attempted to legislate for, and the only reasons he had given them were certain remarks that applied to one of the classes only. These were the Indians in the Transvaal, in the Cape, and in Natal; there were European immigrants at present in the country, the new European immigrants and the new Indian immigrants. With regard to new Asiatic immigration to this country—personally, he had always been against class legislation in any shape or form, but he was bound to admit that, the whole of the people of South Africa was against unrestricted Indian immigration; and the Indians recognised it. Their only claim was that the law should not be absolutely prohibitive; put a limited number should be allowed into this country. There was no necessity for this revolutionary legislation to take away the rights of other people as well. The Indian community was not at all satisfied with the Minister’s solution of the difficulty, so he (General Smuts) could not come to the House and say this solution had satisfied them. And he had not satisfied the Imperial Government. There was nothing on record to show that this particular Bill was going to obtain the sanction of the Imperial Government. The Hon. Minister had not accepted the Australian Bill. It was all very well to take a drastic Bill, and accept certain drastic clauses, and throw overboard all the Parliamentary safeguards, and then tell them he had accepted the Australian Bill. He had only accepted what suited him, and threw everything else overboard. With regard to the first point he had made about the Indians not being satisfied, he had received a telegram from Johannesburg, in which the British Indian Association pointed out that they had received legal advice to the effect that this Bill did not exempt educated Asiatics from the operation of the registration laws. That was one of the points which was supposed to have been settled between the Imperial Government and the Hon. Minister. They were also not satisfied on the point of their children. They pointed out that no reference was made to the protection of the children and wives of resident Asiatics. They wanted an amendment introduced, but the Hon. Minister told them he could not accept amendments relating to domicile. He would point out that it was very curious how the correspondence broke off at a very interesting stage It passed his comprehension how the Hon. Minister could say the Imperial Government had given its sanction to the Bill.

Yes, they have accepted the Bill.

I would point out that the Imperial Government dealt with certain things, and the question of domicile was one of them. Proceeding, he said that with regard to the Indian community of the Cape and Natal, they came to a very interesting state of affairs. The Minister had certain difficulties to contend with in his capacity as a Minister of the late Transvaal Government. A great movement came into being, which caused a great deal of suffering to certain people for their consciences’ sake. The Minister wanted to end that struggle in the best way, but when he asked the Indians in this Province and Natal to give up all their rights in order to settle the question in the Transvaal, he went too far. The Indians of Natal and the Cape had expressed their sense of indignation at such legislation. It did not satisfy the Indian community, although the Transvaal Indians would be satisfied if the amendments he had mentioned were adopted. He just wished to touch briefly on the history of the legislation on this subject. He would like to refer to some of the Acts which had been repealed. So far as Cape Colony was concerned, the first Act was that of 1902. That Act established the principle—and he could not understand the Minister objecting to the principle—of an education test. The Minister said he did not believe in the education test. In future the Immigration Officer would dictate to the person making an application. Exactly the same words occurred under the old European language test. The Act of 1902 introduced what had been the cardinal principle of legislation in South Africa, and that was, that a person should write an application in the characters of a European language to the satisfaction of the Minister. A good deal of controversy arose as to whether or not Yiddish was included under European languages. This was a vital question to the Jewish community in South Africa, because a considerable portion of members of their community were only able to write in one language, which was, however, as dear to them as the Taal was to hon. members opposite. As a result of that agitation, it was clearly laid down in the Act of 1906 that, for the purposes of that Act, Yiddish should be accepted as a European language. Now the Minister was abolishing all that. He was leaving it open to any immigration officer to raise the whole question again. He left it open to any immigration officer to say: “In future, I am not going to accept any man who writes Yiddish ”—any man who belonged to the Jewish community. He submitted that they had no right to give any officer the power to discriminate. Whether he was going to exorcise that power was another question altogether. Under the Acts of 1902 and 1906, the writing had to be to the satisfaction of the Minister. The responsibility was now to rest upon the officer tie thought that it would have been better if the Minister had stuck to the Australian legislation in this matter. Not only did they find this legislation in the Cape, but they found it all over South Africa. In 1907 exactly the same words were used in the Transvaal Act. In the Free State exactly the same principle was adopted in regard to ordinary immigrants —the application must be written in the characters of a European language. The Act No. 18, 1899, gave Europeans who wanted to go into the Free State, and who wrote a European language, absolute protection. The Minister had told them that there were no Indians in the Free State. Why, then, had he repealed the Act in that country, if his intention were not to interfere with Europeans? Then the Natal Act, No. 50, 1903, provided for application being made in the characters of a European language. Here they had extensive references to an application in a European language swept away by the Minister. He wanted to refer to the same section so far as it related to other matters of exclusion. There were two important Australian Acts —17 of 1901 and 17 of 1905. The 1901 Act used exactly the same words—European language. In the Australian Act it was set forth that no regulation prescribing any language test should come into force until it had been laid before Parliament for thirty days, and had been agreed to by Parliament. Why had not the Minister adopted that most important regulation? (Hear, hear.) Then the Australian Act allowed the languages permitted to be used under the old Act to remain until a resolution to the contrary had been tabled. A further proviso in the Australian measure stipulated that if an arrangement had been made with the Governments of other countries, the subjects of those countries should not, when entering Australia, be required to pass an industrial test. No provision of that kind existed in the South African Bill. In fact, the Minister had not brought the Australian Act before that House at all, but only a portion of it. He (Mr. Alexander) was surprised to see the clause regarding immigrants’ means in the Bill, for it had been pointed out by the Cape Immigration Officer that in many cases undesirable immigrants got hold of money not belonging to them so as to enable them to land, while desirable people were not allowed to land because they could not show sufficient means. Then the Minister had not made provision in the case of people coining out here to fill situations. It might be said that if the House adopted clause 4 (a) it did not matter what became of the rest of the Bill, because all that need be done if it, were desired to keep anyone out of the country was to ask him to write, say, ten thousand words in Sanscrit. If Cabinet Ministers on returning here from the Coronation festivities were asked to do that they could certainly be sent back to Europe. (Laughter.) If that clause were not amended, the rest of the Bill would be waste paper, but he supposed the House would not allow that ridiculous clause to go through in that form. Again, persons could be excluded on information from any foreign Government that they were presumed to be undesirable immigrants. Suppose the Union Government received information from the Russian Government that all Jewish immigrants were undesirables? If a man were a political refugee he could be handed back to the Government of his country. Under the Cape Act of 1906 people fleeing from political or religious persecution were not called upon to show the possession of means. It would be a unique spectacle if that were altered now when they remembered the number of men in that House whose forefathers had found an asylum from religious persecution in Europe. (Cheers.) He hoped those members—descendants of the grand race of the Huguenots—would read the Bill carefully before they swallowed everything in it. (Hear, hear.) Under one clause the Minister had made an omission, for it referred to people “who live on the proceeds of prostitution ”—not to people who might have lived in the past by such means. Then the immigration officer was told to exclude all those of a low and degenerate type of the human species. Well, people often thought their political opponents were of a degenerate type of the human species. (Laughter.) Clause 5, which was most important, gave exemption, but immediately on reading the Bill one was struck by the very small number of exemptions, if it was thought that a person domiciled in South Africa did not require exemption, why should others be given exemption? It had been found necessary under the Cape Acts of 1902 and 1906, the Transvaal Act of 1907, and the Natal Act of 1903 to include references to the European domicile of South Africans; but supposing that he went to Europe for a holiday and came back, the Immigration Officer might ask him to write 3,000 words of Chinese—which he could not do—and the could not approach the Minister of the Interior, because he had carefully kept himself out of it; and he could be prevented from communicating with his friends on shore. The clause should also be amended so that the wife and the minor children of the immigrant should be allowed to come in. Under the existing Immigration Acts, the wife of the immigrant and children under 16 were allowed to come in, although it used to be under 21. The Minister did not even include persons born in South Africa, and did not include persons domiciled in South Africa. In regard to Volunteers, he could not follow the Minister; and why it should be necessary to make reference to the regular forces, and not to the Volunteers. Under the existing immigration laws, by virtue of the services rendered to the Colony, they were allowed in, unless they belonged to the criminal classes. The Minister said that they were domiciled in South Africa, but many of them were not; and might be domiciled in Canada or Australia. Some radical alterations should be made to that section. Clause 7 was extremely puzzling, and he defied anyone to fathom the meaning of that section from the wording. It was going to be a legal tangle which was going to provide plenty of work for the lawyers. Under section 11 the Minister gave power to the Immigration Officer to give orders to a master of a ship to anchor or moor his vessel wherever the Immigration Officer might think fit! Sub-section 2 of clause 11 gave the Immigration Officer the right to prevent an immigrant from communicating with anybody on shore. There was no power on earth, if that Bill was passed, to allow the immigrant to have access to his wife and children in this country, if the Immigration Officer wished to prevent it. Under clause 12, what had been looked upon as a professional secret was going to be disclosed if the Immigration Officer wanted it—if a man had consulted the ship’s medical officer about any complaint, whether infectious or not. Under section 19, sub-section 2, there was provision for medical examination, but the immigrant, if he wished, should be allowed to have his own medical adviser present at such interview. The hon. member went on to say that the Minister was apparently not bound to his Bill, seeing that important changes had been made in the measure since it was gazetted. So far as the Minister concerned himself with the exclusion of real undesirables, he (Mr. Alexander) was with him. He alluded to a sub-section in regard to illicit liquor selling in the Transvaal. That was all right so far as the Transvaal was concerned, but the case was entirely different in the Cape, where, to a certain extent, liquor could be sold to natives. A man might, in this regard, be fined 10s. for a technical offence in the Cape, and then he was liable to deportation, because of this clause. So far as the Minister dealt with the illicit seller in the Transvaal, he was with him, but here he was dealing with people he was sure the Minister did not intend to deal. With regard to the next clause, he was surprised at such a distinguished lawyer asking the House to pass a law wherein the burden of proof was laid on the accused person. Why was it necessary to say that the burden of proof should lie on the accused? Then the Minister wanted to place all of them on the permit basis. If the House adopted the Bill every man who left the shore would have to furnish himself with a permit. Let them fancy such a, state of affairs. There were many points which he could discuss, and it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be materially altered before it was finaly adopted by the House. Dealing with the “autocratic powers” of the Immigration Officer, the hon. member said that if he (Mr. Alexander) advised an immigrant that he had a good case against the Government he could be fined £50 on each occasion— (laughter)—because that would be called obstructing the officer in the execution of his duty. It might be said that this Bill was merely intended to deal with Asiatics, but he could point out what had happened under existing circumstances, where Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Irishmen had been refused. If these things could happen under the present powers, what would happen under the increased powers he could not imagine. He went on to quote the cases of British subjects who had been refused leave to land, and referred at length to evidence given before a Select Committee of the late Cape Legislative Council. First-class passengers did not appear to be subject to examination; if a man put money into his ticket instead of his pocket he was not troubled. Continuing, the hon. member urged that provisions should be included for the medical examination of immigrants to be made in London, instead of upon their arrival here. Cases of great hardship had arisen through people having been allowed to come here from England, and then compelled to return through failing to pass the examination here. There was another question in regard to the administration of the existing law to which he would like to refer. It would be seen on reference to the last report of the Immigration Officer that under the administration of the laws of the Cape Colony, the number of Asiatics here was steadily decreasing. Well, if the Cape laws were effective in keeping out the Asiatic and in reducing the number here, what was the justification for repealing that law? There was an important point in connection with the correspondence between the Imperial Government and the Union Government. In the first place Lord Crewe had clearly indicated that no legislation which weakened or prejudiced the position of Indians in the Cape Colony and Natal would be acceptable. Well, he (Mr. Alexander) maintained that this law had had that effect. The Transvaal policy of practically complete exclusion was extended to the other colonies. Then came a most important matter. In his despatch of February 21 last, the Prime Minister of the Union made a statement which was dearly wrong. He (Mr. Alexander) did not suggest it was la deliberate mistake, but it was written under a misapprehension. The Prime Minister there said: “The Bill is intended to apply only to immigrants, and not to persons domiciled or legally resident in the Union, whose rights, in the case of Asiatics, are regulated by other laws not repealed in this Bill.” Now, as far as the Cape was concerned, that was an absolute mistake. There was no law in the Cape regulating the rights of Asiatics domiciled here except the Immigration Act, and that was being repealed.

There is the law relating to Chinese.

We are not dealing with them; we are dealing with British Indians, and that is what the Imperial Government understand. This despatch, he continued, might have lulled the Imperial Government into a sense of security as to the position of British Indians. He would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, because so far as it aimed at consolidating the existing laws he thought it was a desirable measure; but the Bill went further than that, and he would be obliged to move certain amendments at the committee stage. He objected to the measure in so far as it proposed to give autocratic power—greater than the power of the Czar of Russia—to officials at the ports getting a few hundreds a year. This would have the effect of making officers at the ports little tin Czars. The Bill did not affect. Indians only; it affected much more seriously European immigrants, both those who were in the country and those who would come here in future.

said he desired to emphasise the desirability of restricting the entry of indentured labour. That had been the cause of much trouble in this country. It did not affect the question of Asiatics only. He submitted that the case applied equally to the white man, and that the sole purpose for which whites were imported into this country under indenture was simply to undermine the position of the white people already here. He had never seen any great scarcity of labour in any trade during the last ten years which could not be met by the country itself. But when any trouble took place employers went to Europe for their labour. Large numbers of people were brought into this country at £10 and £12 a month for stores up country who ultimately found themselves unable to live on the money for which they had been imported. Obviously, nobody went to Europe for labour under contract unless they could get it a little bit cheaper there. In the course of time, when work dropped off, the free man was the first to go. The free man had to stand by, and let the contract man get preferential treatment by reason of his contract. He thought there were a good many men who could be debarred from coming in under the Bill, who would be far more desirable than some of the people who had come in in the past. They might find themselves very little better off for the Immigration Act which the Hon. Minister brought in. In the case of coolies and natives there was never any cry raised so long as they only affected workmen; but if they came in for trading purposes then they heard a big outcry about Indian immigration, which must be stopped. He submitted that the principle applied equally to free Indians and indentured Indians. The demand of this country, so far as labour was concerned, could be met by free advertisement. It had succeeded in other countries, and would succeed here. In America the bugbear had always been the importation of cheap labour. Regarding indentured natives, his hon. friend the member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had brought forward a motion, and he thought dealt very fully with his point of view—that the real idea of bringing black men into this country was to stop the white in his proper field of employment. They then hedged the black man round with all sorts of laws, which prevented the white man competing with him on an equal basis. It was exactly the same with the Asiatic as with the native. They got them under contract; he was not left free to advance, and not left free to suit himself as to his employment, and obviously the white man was prevented from competing with him on that basis. The only thing was that one day they might want to import a number of white people into the country to undermine the white man now here. Concluding, he urged that the labour market in this country should be allowed to remain free. (Hear, hear.)

said that he had thought at first that Asiatics coming in after the passing of the Act would be excluded from the Free State, but from what the Minister had said it seemed that they would be allowed in the Free State. He hoped that the Bill would be so amended in committee that no Asiatic would be allowed to enter the Free State. He was glad to hear that Asiatics now in South Africa must remain in the Provinces in which they at present resided. (Hear, hear.)

said the Bill was intended to exclude two sorts of undesirable immigrants. The first sort was described in sub section 4, sub-sections (b) to (g), and he did not think there was any member who would have any objection to the exclusions under that subsection. Then there was another clause mentioned, and that was sub-section (a), which excluded people under powers given to the Immigration Officer. Ho thought the Hon. Minister (General Smuts) would admit that under that sub-section the most extraordinary power was given to any officer it was possible to give, and before he (General Smuts) asked the House to accept that provision, he thought he would agree with him, he (General Smuts) had to put forward a very strong case why they should agree in giving any officer of the Union the power he proposed to give the Immigration Officer. The Hon. Minister told them that it was intended under that sub-section not to exclude Europeans generally, but particularly to exclude Asiatics; and the reason why he put it in this form was because he had had great difficulty to make the Imperial Government realise that they must exclude Asiatics. What did the Minister do? Between the Minister and the Imperial Government they hatched a little plan, and that was to exclude Asiatics; and, in order to make it complete, they had taken in a third party to the conspiracy, and that was the Indians in this country and the Indian Government. Under this Bill they gave the officer power to exclude one of the parties to the conspiracy. It seemed to him a humbugging, policy—they were trying to humbug the Asiatic by not naming him. The Minister said to the Asiatic, “In theory, I will not exclude you; but, in practice, you will be excluded.” It seemed to him to be an extraordinary position that the Indian community were prepared to accept—the position that they could be excluded in practice. It was, he went on to say, the public opinion throughout South Africa that they must exclude the Asiatic at all costs from South Africa. But the Minister had gone a step further. On being pressed, he had explained that it was not his intention only to exclude Asiatics, but also another class of persons, who came from the seaboard of the Mediterranean. He said that he intended to exclude them because they dealt in gold thefts, diamond thefts, and illicit liquor. He (Mr. Botha) knew a great number of people who came from Asia Minor, and he could say that they formed as good citizens as they could possibly get. If they were going to state publicly that they were going to exclude Asiatics, he did not see why they should not put it into the law. He saw no reason why they should cloak their legislative designs in the way in which it was done on this Bill. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Winburg as to clause 7, the Minister had admitted that, although Asiatics at present resident in South Africa could not enter the Free State, yet Asiatics coming in hereafter under the Bill would be allowed freedom to move throughout the Union. On behalf of the Free State, he protested with all the force of which he was capable against that being allowed, and he appealed to his hon. friend the Minister of Lands, who was Premier of the Free State when they passed the Act of Union. One of the most solemn assurances they got was that the laws in the Free State with regard to the immigration of Asiatics would under no circumstances be interfered with by the Union. If by this Bill it became possible for any Asiatic to get into the Free State on any easier terms than he could get there to-day, it was a violation of the promise given by the then Prime Minister, and it was a violation of the pledges upon which the Free State entered Union. There was in the Free State today a law which absolutely prohibited any Asiatic from going into the Free State. In these people were once admitted, he foresaw that in a short time they would have Asiatic traders in Bloemfontein, Harrismith, and all over the Free State. In committee, he intended to move an amendment on this subject.

said that he would have to vote against the Bill unless the Minister could give them an assurance that Asiatics from other Provinces would not be allowed into the Free State.

said he thought that House was indebted to the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, for the able manner in which he had drawn attention to the weaknesses of this Bill. Whilst the measure had a very innocent look, and whilst the Minister in charge of it had tried to make it look more innocent than it was on paper, it was one of the most dangerous Bills ever placed before that House. Most extensive powers were given to the immigration officials under sub-section (a). He observed from the report for 1909 that there were 192 prohibited immigrants. Of these 137 were excluded for illiteracy and 74 were excluded because of insufficient means. They had had details that afternoon as to how men, who were suitable in other respects and had even means in the shape of goods, were not allowed to land. That was a dangerous power to place in the hands of any man, and he hoped the House would not pass it. The Bill was silent on the question of means. He maintained that if an immigrant showed that he was in a position to support himself, or was coming to a situation, he should not be considered as undesirable. The Bill laid down certain principles, but, nevertheless, provided for regulations, and the regulations, he submitted, would be even more dangerous than the Bill itself. The Indians were not satisfied with this Bill as it stood. It made no provision whatever for their families being allowed to return to the country, nor did it make any provision for those who had, previous to the Bill becoming law, acquired vested rights.

said that the Free State Legislature had many years ago dealt with the question of immigration of Indians, which had been restricted. As a result, during the past 25 years very few Indians had come into the Free State; and those who had come in had to conform to the severe restrictions imposed on them. What had happened in, Natal had not been the case in the Free State, and they did not have to deal with the coolie problem. If the Minister could, not assure them that there would not be an inflow of Asiatics into the Free State, he could not vote for the Bill, and he was of opinion that the Free State would never have voted in favour of unification if it were known that Asiatics would be allowed to come in unrestrictedly. What they were afraid of was not so much the uncivilised Indian but the Indian who was a professor or a doctor, and who stirred the people up, as had been done in the Transvaal. There was such a strong feeling against Asiatics in the Orange Free State that he would not be doing his duty if he did not state what the feelings of the people of the Orange Free State were. As there were so few Indians there, no priests or doctors were required, and if the wishes of the white people were ignored, they might see an appeal to arms.

said he read the other day that a ringhals gave birth to fifteen small snakes at a time. He did not wish to compare the Minister of the Interior with a ringhals, but still the thought came to him—(laughter)—in connection with the fecundity of the brain of the Minister of the Interior and the way in which he had been swamping the House with Bills day after day. Some of these Bills had been harmless, some had been good, but some had been poisonous, and of all the poisonous Bills introduced into the House that session the Immigrants’ Restriction Bill was the most poisonous. (Laughter.) It had poison in its head and in its tail. Proceeding, the hon. member said that circumstances had been too strong for us, so he had sadly come to the conclusion that every nation belonging to the British Empire had the right to keep undesirable persons out of its borders, although they might be British subjects. It would be far better if the House openly said that after a certain date no Asiatic would be allowed to come into the Union except those who might be necessary for the sake of the Asiatics already here. We had sufficient racial problems without their being complicated by the addition of another race. (Hear, hear.) We were, however, bound to act fairly and honourably by every Asiatic now in the country. He did not think that the way proposed here was the right way of settling the Asiatic question. Let them act equitably and justly to the Indians in the country, and if he read the documents of the Imperial Government with regard to this question rightly, then it seemed to him that from the beginning this was the chief idea in the mind of the Government. In dealing with clause 4 he remarked that he had thoroughly studied the Acts that were being repealed, and he asked hon. members in future to do the same, because generally they made some most important changes. It was only by looking up the Acts that it was intended to repeal could they get an idea of the Bill that happened to be before the House. Continuing, he said that he could bear out all that had been said by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. He pointed out that there was just as much freedom under the old law as there was under this. But, there was this difference. Under the old law a man was allowed to write his application, presumably in the language which he understood; but they found that this fundamental principle in clause 4 had been absolutely altered. In this case the Immigration Officer was to decide the language. At first, he thought that it was a printer’s error; then he came to the conclusion that it was a little joke on the part of the Minister in charge of the measure. He thought it was an education test; but he found that it was only a subterfuge. The words “European language” had been dropped. He could not conceive of any Parliament being called upon to put such tremendous powers into the hands of any Government. It would not only enable him to keep out Asiatics, but anybody he liked. They were told that the Australian law was being followed, but the important difference between the Australian law and this, was that here they found that the Australian safeguards had been dropped. He pointed out that the Bill before the House was just as much levelled against the European as against the Asiatic. Continuing, he quoted the correspondence laid upon the table, and the letter of the Minister of the Interior to Lord Crewe, when the test, as contained in clause 4, was first offered for consideration. The Minister, in his letter in August, said that it savoured of dishonesty and immorality. He pointed out that there were no safeguards in the measure, and that the least the Minister could have done would have been to have followed the Australian example in this respect. If that had been done, he did not think that so much objection would have been taken to the clause. Continuing, he said that he did not think the Imperial Government quite understood the intentions of the Union Government in respect of this matter. He thought this was the case, because nowhere in the correspondence did he find the Minister saying how far the Government intended to follow the Australian precedent. Apparently the Imperial Government thought that the safeguards would be included. They knew that the people who had been conducting the passive resistance in the Transvaal had been advised to drop it, because the Acts they had protested against were being repealed. That did not say these people and their leaders were satisfied with this law, and with the taking away of the rights of Asiatics in other parts of the country. He did not find that the Bill exempted Asiatics who had passed the education test from the operation of the Registration Act. That law did not seem to be specifically repealed. Nor did the Bill protect the wives and minor children of registering Asiatics, and of Asiatics who entered under the education test. That was a matter of grave importance. Were they going to keep out of the country the wives and children of people legally resident here? The hon. member commented on the powers given to the immigration officers with regard to the masters of vessels as being altogether too drastic. He approved of the provision in clause 22 with regard to the power to deport persons convicted of such an offence as illicit liquor dealing. When they considered the enormous injury done in the Transvaal by the ogres in human shape, who went about destroying the native by means of drink, they realised the necessity for giving such power. He did not think they ought to prohibit people coming here who were suffering from tuberculosis. It was right to stop people coming here who were in advanced stages, but they should not deny the beautiful climate of this country to people who had a chance of recovery here. Every hon. member must know of scores of cases of men who came here with diseases of the lungs, and afterwards recovered to become leading men in their several walks of life. Why, a man who afterwards became Prime Minister in this country, was so bad when he came here that he had to be carried off the boat. Don’t let them say that no one, even in the early stages of tuberculosis, should come here. The old Act allowed the entry of women and children, but the present Act allowed for nothing of the sort. He could see no reason why the Minister should have struck out, in clause 5, a list of those to whom the prohibitive provisions should not apply. Then there was the case of the Asiatic temporarily absenting himself from South Africa. There was nothing in this Bill to provide for their return, as was the case in the Cape Act. The Cape law also provided for the entry of persons who were agricultural or domestic servants, or miners. The absence of any such clause in the Bill before the House seemed to mean that the Government was going to set itself against immigration to this country of all those people. The one want of this country was population, but it seemed to be the policy of the Government to keep out useful immigrants of the artisan class. The Hon. the Minister had repealed law 18 of 1899 of the Free State in order that the other law might come into force. In the second schedule of the Bill he would suggest that the Minister might add the Transvaal liquor laws, the Orange Free State liquor laws, and the Natal liquor laws, if not the Innes Act of the Cape. He would like to point out that the despatch from the Secretary of State mentioned a Bill “following the lines of the Cape Immigration Laws.” Could anybody say, after perusing the Bill, that it followed those lines? His quarrel with the Bill was that it did not follow the lines of Act 30 of 1906. The Minister had no right to say that the rights of domiciled Asiatics were protected. He wished to refer to the administrative condition of things in other Provinces, not only the Transvaal, but in Natal. In Natal, he had the utmost sympathy with the sugarplanters and tea-planters who, for so many years, had depended on indentured labour. The reason was, that their own natives, while living under their chiefs in a communal state, were content to go on from year to year without working for anybody else. The result was that indentured Indian labour had to be introduced. He was not going to quarrel with that. They knew the Indian Government was going to stop it, and it might interfere with their agricultural development; which they regretted. He wanted to point out that the administration in Natal had not been of the sort it should have been. If these men came over from India to do good to the country, he thought reasonable consideration in administration might have been given them.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing his speech, referred to the taxes imposed upon the Indians in Natal.

I must point out that this is an Immigration Bill. (Hear, hear.)

Yes, but put before us on the correspondence between the Union Government and the Home Government, and it is a very large feature of that correspondence. I understood I should be at liberty to refer to anything in that correspondence.

I must point out that it is not the correspondence, but the Immigration Bill that is before the House (Cries of: “Hear, hear.”)

I will only say that there are many things in the circumstances of the Natal Asiatics which call for remedy, and I do not see anything in this Bill that will tend to put them into a better position. He went on to say that the Bill proposed a restriction upon Asiatics in Natal and the Cape, which had not been in existence before. Mr. Schreiner went on to compare clause 4 (a) with the terms of the Cape Act, and pointed out that, while in the latter the words “through deficiency of education” occurred, there was not the least word in clause 4 (a) about any education. That clause was, he observed, far more than an education test, in fact it was meant to be a means whereby the immigration officer could keep out anybody he chose. (Hear, hear.) While he should support the second reading of this Bill, he hoped it would be so changed in committee that they would feel that justice was being done all round, and that they would be able to support the measure in its amended form with a good conscience. (Hear, hear.)

spoke of the good way in which the Free State Act had worked; and said that now, to his surprise, he had heard that the Minister wished to act contrary to the feelings of the people of the Free State with regard to the entry of Asiatics. He sincerely trusted that no Asiatic or coolie labourers would be allowed into the Free State, and he could not support the Bill unless he received satisfactory assurances on this point.

spoke in a similar strain. He said that it gave him a great deal of satisfaction that in that respect the Free State had had a clearer in sight into the Asiatic problem than either the Cape, Natal, or the Transvaal. They must take up a firm attitude with regard to Asiatics, and not allow them to be admitted into the Free State unless special permission had been obtained. But for that part of the Bill, he was in favour of the measure, and would vote for its second reading. He was specially opposed to educated Asiatics, who introduced passive resistance, and carried war into England and India. England had recognised South Africa’s right to deal with the matter, and the House could not disregard the petitions presented. A firm attitude was necessary, because they should protect the people against exotic diseases just as they did with regard to their cattle.

said a great deal had been made of the Australian Bill, and he was sorry that the Minister of the Interior had not taken that measure in its entirety, instead of watering it down. The contention that there had been abuses in the carrying out of the immigration laws was no argument, but he agreed that there was a danger in placing too much power in the hands of one man. But they would have to trust one man, although they would not trust the Minister. (Laughter) In Natal, in spite of all regulations, men had come there by the dozen who had no right to be there. (Hear, hear.) A good deal had been said about the Imperial standpoint, but that was not our standpoint. With all respect to the Imperial Power, if we were going to be a nation, we must say: “We will be supreme in our own domestic affairs.” (Hear, hear.) Continuing, the hon. member said contract labour was admitted in Australia, but only under stringent conditions — conditions which would not permit the introduction of contract labour to lower wages. The stringency of the Australian Act was far greater than that of the present Bill, but the Imperial Government smiled: on it. Why, therefore, should South Africa be fearful? He said he had received a letter from a prominent Durban Indian, who stated: “What we want is our civil and political rights.” They were satisfied on the immigration question. Continuing, he said that not one in 500 Indians would be able to write 50 words in English. But the Japs would come. (Laughter.) Yes, the Japs would come. (Renewed laughter.) He went on to discuss the eugenic position, and dealing with “means of life,” he said he did not know why they should be so serious about such a matter, when they cared next to nothing whether people in the country starved.

said that it would be a very great disappointment to the constituents be represented if the restrictions with reference to the entry of Asiatics into the Free State were in any way relaxed. They should keep out the educated ones more particularly.

said the power that was given the immigration officers was not autocratic, but despotic, because they were allowed full power to deal with the rights and wrongs of a case. He was understood to say that he thought that provision should be made to compel immigration officers to consult the Harbourmaster or Port Captain before taking such action with regard to shipping as contemplated in the Bill. He hoped that the Minister would consent to an amendment preventing shipping being unnecessarily worried. (Hear, hear.)

said he had listened with a considerable amount of interest to a debate which had taken place on a Bill which his hon. friend the Minister evidently thought was one of those little measures which would easily slip through the House. He (the speaker) had had experience of Immigration Bills, and he knew how they led to a considerable amount of criticism. They had listened to a very admirable criticism by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). Though he had listened to further criticism he did not think that any new material point had been put forward. He would describe the Bill as one of two parts—clause 4, and the rest. The rest had been the subject of very considerable criticism, and would need in the committee stage very material amendment, so that people born in South Africa or domiciled here, and other people who might be desirable immigrants, should be protected.

said that the problem of the Asiatics was a difficult one, and the Act of 1907 had not only insulted the Indians in the Transvaal, but had gone further, and they saw that feelings had been roused in England. He was inclined to agree with what hon. members from the Free State had said. He hoped, however, that the Free State would work with them in dealing with that problem, because they had sufficient coloured people in South Africa, and did not desire more. They should remove the Asiatics, even if they had to compensate them. Educated Asiatics were especially to be feared.

said he hoped the Minister would enlighten the House as to why, in following the Australian precedent, he did not follow it to the full, and include in clause 4 those Parliamentary safeguards which the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), had called attention to. They would like to know why the Minister had departed from the wording of the Australian clause, and had worded his clause so as to give so much wider discretion to the Immigration Officer. He (Mr. Creswell) would like the House to consider, in regard to the immigration policy, whether, after all, they did desire immigration in this country. ‘ He thought a stranger coming in and looking around would rather come to the conclusion that they did not. Proceeding, Mr. Greswell said he would like to point out how closely allied the dislike of the spread of the Asiatic trader was to the strenuous opposition which the Labour party made to the importation of cheap contract labour. By having the cheap Indian trader they were striking at their own brethren—the distributors of this country; in just the same way, by having the cheap indentured labourer they were striking at their own labourers. He deprecated that it should be left open, by an administrative Act, to return to the policy of Asiatic labour in this country. The Minister would not always be in office, and he (Mr. Creswell) would be very sorry to leave it in the power of the hon. gentlemen now sitting on the front Opposition, benches to return to the old condition of having Asiatic indentured labour. He also contended that there should be security against any large employers, by an arbitrary Act, flooding the country with cheap contract labour to the detriment of the workers here. He asked the Minister seriously to consider the matter, because the absence of such provision roused suspicion in his mind, as he believed it raised suspicions in the minds of others, that the Government might at some future time, although carrying out their pledges to the letter that they would not have any Asiatic importation of labour, consent to tire importation of what was just as bad—the importation of cheap contract labour from Southern and Eastern Europe. He did not want any white Kafirs in this country. He hoped the immigration policy of this country would be such as to create conditions which would attract large numbers of white men to come here. If that policy were followed, and cheap contract labour debarred, then they would get, the very best class of immigrants, a class who would, be attracted here by the opportunities the country offered, a class who would make their homes in the country.

said that, why they in the Free State were so very strict as regards Asiatics was because they did not want to have the same troubles as other parts of South Africa had experienced. He hoped that nothing would be done to relax the restrictions as far as the Free State was concerned. His colleague had not spoken one whit too strongly, and, much as he desired to support the Government, he would not vote for the second reading unless the Bill was altered.

said he would support the second reading, although be would have liked to see a more precise definition of “prohibited immigrant,’ in order that it would be impossible for any single Asiatic to come into the country hereafter. He thought the Government were already beginning to weaken their attitude towards the Asiatics. He pointed out that the more educated Asiatics they had in the country the more trouble they Would have. In 1904 an Act was passed to exclude Chinese, and they never heard any agitation, and he thought they, as a Union, should once and for all take up a firm stand and let the Imperial Government know that they did not want Asiatics. The presence of Asiaticis in this country was very distasteful to a very large number of Europeans, but he would like to, be fair and just, and see that their vested rights were not interfered with. He would like the Government to keep out every Asiatic they could particularly the educated Asiatic, because he was much more dangerous than the uneducated Asiatic. He would like the law to be strengthened to such an extent that it would be impossible to admit Asiatics. He hoped provision would be made, if they were allowed to come into the country, not to allow them to go freely all over the country. Mr. Neser went on to refer to the state of affairs in India, land said that the Imperial Government was more and more deferring to the wishes of the Indians, and giving them larger powers in their government. We in this country ought, to be careful that we did not allow such la large number of the Asiatics to come in that they would control us. He hoped that, the Minister would not consent to any alterations of the provisions of this Bill, so as to allow the wives and children of Asiatics to come to this country. It was the only possible way of getting rid of the Asiatics in this country. Mr. Neser suggested amendments of certain other clauses of the Bill.

said that one would have thought that the last speaker bad not listened to a word of that part of the debate which preceded his own contribution. He seemed to be obsessed with a fear of the Asiatic. They were all satisfied that the Asiatic was one of those unfortunate men who bad served this country in a, way for many years, but that he was no longer required. He had got to go, and they were all agreed about that, but what they were not agreed about was the powers which the Minister proposed to place in the bands of the immigration officers. They were not content, to leave these unheard-of powers in the hands of an ordinary officer. He thought that the House ought to know what it bad agreed to. Once they passed this Bill they would be putting into the hands of different men in different places practically the power to decide the future of numerous other men. They should not talk of Downing-street interference. (Hear, hear.) If there was one thing clear from the correspondence, it was that Downing-street had gone out of its way in every possible direction to meet the Minister. (Cheers.) It was childish and ridiculous to talk in the fashion that some hon. members had—not that anybody dared, or that Downing-street would ever hear of it. But the danger of that sort of remark was that it poisoned the minds of hon. members who did not take the trouble to inquire fully into these matters. Everything that he knew of Downing-street was to its credit, and Downing-street had made it clear that it was willing to meet the Minister. It was so easy to forget that we were part of the Empire. (Cheers.) Hon. members talked as if South Africa were the only Part of the world worth considering, and there was an absence of all sense of responsibility. It was foolish, dangerous, and mischievous to ignore these responsibilities. (Cheers.)

said he wished to associate himself with the hon. members from the Free State wbo had spoken that day. The Imperial Government bad really gone out of its way to meet the Union Government. (Cheers.) The hon. member hoped that steps would be taken to restrict Asiatic immigration.

said that in the Free State they had not had those experiences with Asiatics which they had had elsewhere, such as in the Cape, where they had had to pass legislation to restrict the issue of general dealers’ licences to Asiatics. The whole Free State, from one end to the other, wanted nothing at all to do with Asiatic traders, and wanted to keep them out altogether. British Asiatics certainly had their rights and privileges, but when it was a question of Asiatic immigration into South Africa, he certainly thought that ’“charity began at home.” (He hoped no legislation would be passed which would have the effect of relaxing the restrictions of the immigration of Asiatics into the Free State; and unless the Minister gave them the assurance that he would so amend the Bill that no Asiatics would be allowed into the Free State, he could not vote for the measure. They had been “clean” in the Free State, as far as Asiatics were concerned, and were determined to remain “clean.” They were not eager for educated Indians. England had no right to prescribe in these matters. He did not want half a loaf if the loaf were a bad one. Why should they repeal good laws in order to introduce doubtful ones?

said he spoke because this was a matter of vital importance to the people of the Orange Free State Province. He contended that if the Bill passed as it stood at present then they would have no protection in the Free State. He would like an assurance from the Minister that such protection would be afforded. The country had appealed to the House to restrict immigration, and the House should listen to that appeal. Without the coolie the Free State was perfectly happy, and he trusted that the interests of the Free State would be safeguarded.

thought that the Bill did not go far enough as far as the Cape Province was concerned; and he regretted that Cape members had not dealt with that question more than they had. He hoped that there would be even more stringent restrictions in regard to the entry of Asiatics into the Cape than were laid down in that Bill.

also thought that there should be much more stringent restrictions against the immigration of Asiatics and he would go so far as to stay that not a single Asiatic ought to be admitted into South Africa. Everyone who hired ground to an Asiatic should, in his opinion, be liable to a substantial fine. The evil was such a great one that everything must be done to combat it. They should remember the petitions sent in, and even if compensation had to be paid he was in favour of commercial legislation against Indians.

said there were two good points on which he thought the House was agreed. The first was that the immigration of Asiatics or other undesirables had got to be stopped, and the second was that in stopping it they intended to avail themselves of the co-operation) of the Imperial Government. He would like, however, to have an expression of opinion from the Minister on one or two features of this matter. They aimed at the exclusion of the undesirable, and it had been said that the methods they adopted had the approval of the Imperial Government; also that the Indians, one section of those with whom they were dealing, were satisfied, Well, they had seen the recent expressions of dissatisfaction by members of the Indian community. He raised these points because of the painful experience in the Transvaal, where the questions which were made the crucial ones were not raised in the beginning of the agitation. Now, it was important that there should be a final settlement of this matter, land he (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) would like, first of all, to be sure that in this settlement or these negotiations they were satisfying the Imperial Government. It would be seen that in the correspondence contained in the Blue-book, Lord Crewe said that the controversy in the Transvaal had led to the imprisonment of Asiatics who were normally respectable and law abiding British subjects, and to the deportation of a considerable number, and it had been, and was still, a source of considerable embarrassment to His Majesty’s Government in its relations with the Indian Empire. That was a point which touched South Africa. South Africa, was the halfway house to India, and would probably grow in importance in its relations to the Indian Empire. (South Africa had to take its future into consideration not only in relation to the (British Empire but to India as well. Then. Lord Crewe said: “His Majesty’s Government fully recognise the right of a self-governing community, such as the Union, to choose the elements of which it shall be constituted.” Now, that was the position. The Imperial Government only asked that the exclusion of such immigrants should not be provided for in a matter which subjected them to unnecessary humiliation. It was of the utmost importance, therefore that South Africa should be quite sure there was not going to be any prolongation or reopening of this question, and that after four years of Provincial dispute in the Transvaal, they were not going to embark upon a Union dispute. He would like the assurance of the Minister that he was perfectly satisfied that they were going to have a happy termination of this, so far as the Imperial Government were concerned. In the second place, he would like the Minister to deal with the attitude of the Indians. It was impossible for South Africa to come to la, settlement by conceding every point raised. Proceeding, he said it was absolutely essential that the white people of South Africa should be united on this matter, and in order to be united they must be convinced. There were other points. There was the matter of the undesirable immigrant. He knew, and all those who came from the Transvaal knew, that it was necessary that very considerable powers be given to deal with those who came out here for the purpose of engaging in the illicit liquor and illicit gold traffic. It would be a great mistake to suppose that these people were associated with any particular religions denomination. It was not so at all. There was something more, and that was in regard to the power given to keep out desirable immigrants. Under this Bill they had the absolute autocracy of the immigration officer, who, on his own initiative, or on the initiative of his superior, would absolutely stem the whole tide of immigration, and he thought the matter was well worthy of consideration, and that something could be done when they came to the committee stage in order to give protection in these matters. He would say once again: Let us be perfectly clear with both the Imperial Government and the Indians, because there are three parties, the Imperial Government, the Union Government, and the Indians. Let us be perfectly clear, and understand each other, because I believe the concealment of our intentions will fail. The only prospect for the white people is to be perfectly straight and perfectly clear, because immediately you depart from that you are going to meet your masters in the field of diplomacy.

said that in the past they had been lax in regard to immigration laws, and had allowed a certain class to come into the country, but not the class of people they would like, the class who would settle on the land. He took the class of people who had come in during the last ten years, and he found that the class of people they wanted they did not get. He thought the Bill would meet with the approval of the white people of South Africa. At any rate, if they took a plebiscite they would find an overwhelming majority in favour of stringent legislation. If they passed this legislation, would it be effectively carried out? The Government might be in a position at the seaports to see the Act carried out; but what was going to happen in the Northern Territories, on the Portuguese, Rhodesian, and German West. African borders? Unless these various Governments were approached with the object of inducing them, to pass legislation more or less on the lines proposed in the Union, they would have the greatest difficulty in administering the Act. Unless something of that sort was done they would have to exercise more control over the Asiatics in the country by some system of registration. It had been said that the provisions of the Bill were drastic. Well, he agreed that they must be drastic. One would imagine, by some of the speeches, that the Government were introducing the Bill with the object of keeping as many people out of the country as possible. The Government, as a matter of fact, were merely taking power to exclude undesirables. He must say that the Imperial Government had taken up a very fair position, and he was also glad to see that the Imperial Government freely acknowledged that, the people of South Africa had the right to settle their domestic matters themselves. It was only right to see that, once legislation was passed, they treated the Indians as fairly as possible, always bearing in mind that they had allowed them to come into the country. Some powers would have to be taken to protect the interests of the people in the Free State. He hoped when the Minister framed his regulations he would take into consideration the question of allowing sufficient time in the permits granted to these people when they temporarily left the country. In regard to the question of keeping out the wives and children of Asiatics domiciled in the country, they must bear in mind that a wife’s domicile in law followed that of her husband.

pointed out that the debate had proceeded almost entirely as if this Bill had but one purpose, viz., to exclude Asiatics. If that were so, he did not, think there were many people in that House who would take exception to its provisions. But the Bill went a great deal further than that, and what was clear to a great many of them was that the power which this Bill was going to put into the hands of officials might be used in an arbitrary way to the exclusion of the very people whom they wanted to come into this country. The Minister tried to ward that off by saying that this was an Immigration Bill, and that an immigrant was a person who had never been in this country at all. There was no definition of the word “immigrant” in the Bill, and it was the absence of these things that made hon. members frightened as to what effect the measure would have in the hands of unscrupulous people. In the fourth clause it was laid down that an immigrant was a person who is trying to enter the Union. Thus a person might have been born in South Africa, but, if he went away he came under the operation of the Bill when he returned. The power that was given to the Immigration Officer under this clause was extremely great, and hon. members feared that once the Asiatic question had been settled that power could be put into operation against other classes of the population. In other countries prejudiced agitations had been engineered up for political or other reasons. What was designed against the Asiatic to-day might be put into operation against some other classes to-morrow—(hear, hear)—and they should hesitate before they forged, a weapon which was admittedly designed against Asiatics, but might be used in the future against some other classes. (Hear, hear.) Another point was in reference to putting impediments in the way of desirable immigrants, and the onus that was placed on shipping companies of taking away immigrants who might be declared undesirable. This had the effect of restricting immigration which might be desirable. He said that clause 4 would deter the best of immigrants from coming to this country, and would induce the shipping companies to place impediments in the way of immigrants, because they would take care to protect themselves. People would be deterred from coming to this country; they would go to other countries. He submitted that this would lead to an undesirable state of things. They wanted to encourage strong, healthy immigrants to come here. He thought they should hesitate before they forged a weapon which might inflict severe wounds on South Africa in the future.

said that as a solution of a longstanding grievance the Bill was rather weak. The great difficulty in the past had been that whenever there was differentiation, the veto of the Imperial Government blocked the way. That was the difficulty which they had had in the past in the Cape; he took it that the Ministry was in the same position that day. If they differentiated between the Asiatic and any other subject or person, the probabilities were, he presumed, that such a Bill would be vetoed. Therefore the only means the Government had was to introduce a treasure which did not make any differentiation between one class and another. That they could have done years ago, but they would have had to have met the same difficulty the Government was meeting that night. If they gave wide power to a Ministry to keep out undesirables, they were placing in their hands a very dangerous weapon. If they differentiated, they got no power; if they gave the Ministry wide powers, they could let in anybody they chose. He thought it was much to be regretted that South Africa could not arrive, after so many years’ negotiation, at a better solution of the difficulty than the one before them, which was simply the old solution they had always heard of. He thought it was a pity that the Government had not been strong enough to say to the Imperial Government that, as they had differentiated in the matter of colour in regard to political rights under the Act of Union, they were entitled to differentiate also in regard to immigration, and keep out people whom they did not want. With regard to the Minister’s remarks respecting the rights of persons domiciled here, he (Sir H. Juta) maintained that people domiciled in this country should have the right to return here. But they must adopt other safeguards, and they must see at the same time that immigrants of a desirable class were not kept out. They knew there were people in this country who would like to see immigrants of a certain nationality kept out. They should not place too great powers in the hands of the Minister or officials. Let them make it easy for every decent man who would make a good citizen to come in; don’t let them keep him out for some reason which was not a proper one. As to the Minister’s remarks about keeping out consumptives, they knew that there were certain districts in South Africa which were the healthiest possible, but where the death-rate was greater than it was in London. That was a state of affairs which was appalling. Surely, the first duty of the Government would be to deal with that scourge here. Surely it was not thought that by keeping out a few consumptives they were going to find the remedy.

said that he and his colleagues from the Orange Free State were prepared to support any measure that would prevent Asiatics coining into any Province in South Africa. As far as ne was concerned, he viewed with great suspicion the provision that a certain limited number of Indians should be allowed to come in each year, because once they departed from the principle it was only a question of time, and in a short time they would have a very large number of Asiatics in South Africa. They could not ignore the feeling of the Home country; neither could they ignore the number of petitions which had been presented to the House, and whatever agitations might be raised by those against whom they were legislating, they must face that agitation as South Africa had faced much more serious questions in the past. He was not afraid of taking up the position that they in South Africa must keep South Africa as much as possible for the white people, or at least the coloured people, whom they had in South Africa, and not complicate matters by bringing in more coloured people. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir Percy Fitzpatrick) had said they had to deal with three parties: the Imperial Government, the Union Government, and the Indians Well, he thought they would fall between the three stools, and satisfy nobody. What seemed to be the right thing to do was to satisfy South Africa, and if they did that they would have done as much as could be expected of them. As regarded Downing-street, he said they had had experience from that quarter. There was one thing which he resented. In the correspondence between the Imperial Government and the Union Government, the former had expressed the opinion that the Asiatic question had been a source of great embarrassment in their relations with the Empire. The Union Government had been reproved.

Why not?

On another page the Imperial Government, whilst expressing regret at any inconvenience caused to South Africa, felt that they must regard as adequate the reasons advanced by the Government of India. The Government of India took steps to protect its own people, and because the South African Government took steps to protect its people, that was considered to be an embarrassment. He thought that under the circumstances they must expect, Downing-street to consider their difficulties too, and allow them to do as they thought fit, as they seemed to suggest that the Government should be allowed to do in its own interests. If the people of this country desired to keep out the Asiatics, and they expressed that opinion, he did not think that Downing-street would veto an expression of opinion like that, from a whole people. Before a large number of members on that side could vote for the second reading, they must have an assurance from the Minister that he would make such a provision in the Bill as would prevent any large importation of Asiatics into this country.

said he thought they were all agreed with the hon. member who spoke last, when he said that, at all costs, the Asiatic must be kept out of South Africa. He did not believe anybody in that House, with perhaps one or two exceptions, would vote for the second reading of this Bill if they thought it was going to be used to permit the continued immigration of Asiatics into South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He thought the hon. member who spoke last was most unfortunate, not to use a stronger term, in his references to the attitude of Downing-street— (hear, hear)—towards the aspirations of this country to have the control of its own affairs in regard to the importation of Asiatics. The hon. member talked as if Downing-street were wanting to force Asiatics upon this country. How he could get that from his reading of the correspondence passed his (Mr. Duncan’s) comprehension. The attitude of Downing-street was absolutely clearly set out in page 5 of the correspondence, but in the way in which that correspondence had been read an entirely misleading impression had been given of Downing-street’s attitude. What more could anybody wish than the statement made by Downing-street? (Cheers.) Yet hon, members stood up and attacked Downing-street for standing in our way. It was not standing in our way, but was giving us full freedom in the matter. The privilege of differentiation was accorded to the Transvaal in the Asiatic Immigration Act of 1907, and that Act was allowed by the Imperial Government. The inconvenience that Act had brought about had been not only an inconvenience to Downing-street, but to South Africa. (Cheers.) Since that Act had been put into operation the prisons in the Transvaal had been full of Asiatics—honest, respectable men, who thought the Act was a slight on their nationality. He was not going to see our laws set at naught by the resistance of hundreds or thousands of men; but one could not help respecting them. Any solution of the question would be welcomed—(cheers)—and the House ought to do everything it could to avoid passing legislation which would not only continue that state of affairs, but would extend the area of strife to the whole of South Africa. (Cheers.) The solution was contained in the Bill before the House. But if the measure were to be effective in keeping out Asiatics, they must not be too particular as to the amount of power it gave to the Immigration Officer, for if they were trying to exclude Asiatics without differentiation, they must be prepared to give the officials these autocratic powers. They could not have it both ways: if they did not give the power to keep out desirable immigrants, they must differentiate between Europeans and Asiatics, and that would lead to a perpetuation of that trouble, which was undesirable to themselves and the Empire too. (If that power were abused or did not fulfill the objects for which it was intended, they must go back to the old principle of differentiation, for however it was done, the Asiatic immigrant must be kept out of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest to the House to give that Bill a trial, even though it meant confiding powers to officers such as were but rarely given to officers anywhere.

in replying to the debate, said that it had been a very long and interesting one, and he thought that of all the speeches he had listened to during the course of the debate, that of the hon. member who had just sat down showed the greatest grasp of the subject, and had thrown the greatest light on the matter. No one could read that correspondence and conduct investigations with the British Government, for years now, as he (General Smuts) had done, without feeling how great was their anxiety to meet them on every point. (Hear, hear.) The British Government had done its best to meet them and to help them out of their difficulty. There was no doubt that that subject of Asiatic immigration was one of the greatest problems which confronted them in the British Empire; and the British Government were, on the one hand, the custodians of the subjects of the Empire, and also wished to give the utmost liberty to the self-governing colonies. He could take no exception to the attitude of the British Government to this country and its people. (Hear, hear.) He wished that hon. members who had dealt with that subject would realise its immense difficulty; and the measure tried to solve not one problem, but many different problems; and it tried to settle the question of white immigration into the country, and also coloured immigration into South Africa, and especially Asiatic immigration. They were devising one solution for those two different problems. He had listened for an alternative suggestion, but none had been made during the whole of the debate. Hon. members, mostly on the other side, had said that that measure would not work. It had been said that the autocratic powers in section 4 (a) would not work. But this was not novel legislation. It had been on the Statute-book of Australasia for a good many years, and it had worked very well.

What about safeguards?

I will come to that. Continuing, he said that the amount of immigration to Australia was almost double that to South Africa, and yet this test had been applied, and it had worked very well, both in the case of Europeans and Asiatics. So that in introducing this Bill the Government was not making a leap in the dark. They had adopted the suggestion of the Imperial Government for the reason that the scheme had worked well in Australia. Now, he had been asked about the safeguards. He was surprised when he was told by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, that he (the speaker) had committed some grave constitutional Parliamentary offence in adopting this scheme. He had found out what this grave offence was. It turned out that in the Australian Act there was a clause which provided that the language in which the test should be applied should be placed in regulations which should be passed by Parliament. But his hon. friend did not go on to tell the extraordinary fact that this safeguard had never been promulgated up to the present. Well, he would tell his hon. friend that if he wanted the safeguard he could have it. What was the use of it? If that was all his hon. friend wanted he would make him a present of it. (Laughter.)

European language.

said he would give his hon. friend all the languages he wanted, and even that one language about which his hon. friend had been so eloquent that afternoon. His hon. friend had also talked about little tin Czars in referring to officials who tried to do their duty as efficiently as possible. Little tin Czars—that was how, he believed, his hon. friend referred to the immigration officers. (Laughter.) That was the language his hon. friend had applied to officials who tried to do their duty. His hon. friend made out that autocratic-powers were placed in the hands of these officers, and that their decisions were as the laws of the Medes and the Persians—unalterable.

Where is there an appeal?

said that the whole scheme of the Bill was different. The official there was so much talk about was an officer under a department which was created in this Bill. He worked under the instructions and regulations of the department, which again was in charge of the Minister. It was impossible for the Minister to personally satisfy himself as to the educational efficiency of the thousands of immigrants who came to this country, and it had seemed to him to be preferable to substitute the officer for the Minister of the Interior. Still, he was prepared to have the Minister substituted for the officers if the House wished. He was sorry to hear the suggestion that there was something sinister behind the drafting of this clause, and that it might be intended to use this weapon, forged against Asiatics, against another class of people. Well, he could not conceive of any Minister or official ever venturing to use on racial or narrow national limes a sacred discretion of this sort. (Hear, hear.) As to the question asked by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir P Fitzpatrick), he might say that the Bill as it stood here, was an agreed Bill with the British Government. Of course, he did not know whether it would satisfy the Asiatic community in South Africa completely. He had learned from experience the futility of certain kinds of negotiations, and the Government bad, thought it best to come to a final agreement which would satisfy the British Government and the Indian Government. The Union Government and the Imperial Government were absolutely at one in regard to stopping Asiatic immigration into this country. They had different Asiatic legislation in most of the Provinces, and one of the first questions raised in the negotiations by the Imperial Government was whether this Bill would affect the Asiatic legislation of the Provinces. They were asked whether they would leave the Asiatic legislation of the Provinces as it was at present or whether they would sweep away the Provincial boundaries, so far as the Asiatics were concerned. The answer of the Union Government was that it was not possible to ignore the Provincial boundaries in the administration of the Asiatic Immigration Acts, and that it was not proposed to disturb them for the present. Clause 7 restricted to each Province its own Asiatics. They had to-day from 140,000 to 150,000 Asiatics in South Africa. They were spread over the various Provinces, and under clause 7 they were restricted to their Provincial boundaries. If they migrated to another Province they would be treated as prohibited immigrants. It seemed to him that this matter was entirely exaggerated. They would go only to those parts where there were large numbers of Asiatics already, with whom; they could do business. Therefore, he did not see why there should be this fuss about these small numbers, who would come in and very few of whom would go into the Free State. (A VOICE: “Small beginnings.”) He did not think so. In the past there had been a small trickling stream towards the Free State. Even the little immigration of Asiatics that had been going on to the Free State they had entirely stopped now. He thought in future years they would see the same tendency in the Free State as they had seen in the Cape Colony and the Transvaal, viz., that the numbers were diminishing instead of increasing. He did not think it was at this stage necessary to go further into the matter.

The motion for the second reading was then put, and the “Ayes” were declared to have it.

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