from Mowbray branch of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from Eleanor C. Hobden, assistant teacher.

from the Mowbray branch of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

from the trustees, Gill College Corporation, Somerset East, for leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Gill College Corporation to apply certain income now accruing in the creation of bursaries.

from W. R. Bruce, formerly a teacher.

from residents of Griqualand East, for extension of the Natal-Cape railway from Franklin to Kokstad.

rom J. L. Spence, mounted constable.

from the Zendelingsfontein branch of the South African Party at Wolmaransstad, in opposition to the South Africa Defence Bill.

from the Zendelingsfontein branch of the South African Party at Wolmaransstad in opposition to the principle in the Scab Act whereby the whole flock must be dipped when one sheep is infected.

from residents of Wolmaransstad, praying that the present system of Field-cornets be replaced by the system which obtained under the Republican Government.

brought up the Report of the Examiners on the petition for leave to introduce the Incorporated Law Society Consolidation Bill, reporting that the rules of the House have been complied with, had specially, that the reason for the presentation of the petition after the thirtieth day of the session is due to the fact that the Bill is of considerable length and of a very technical nature, and that, consequently, a great amount of time was occupied in translating and printing it in the new form adopted for the presentation of Bills to the House. The examiners recommended that in this instance indulgence be granted.

On the motion of Mr. NESER, indulgence was granted accordingly.

said that a few days ago the hon. member for Rustenburg had asked him whether he was prepared to make a statement or to lay information on the table in regard to certain matters connected with the railway between Treurfontein and Zoutpan, in the Western Transvaal. This line was constructed prior to Union, and hence at the time the question was put he was not acquainted with the facts. He had since informed himself of the facts, and the statement he now laid on the table was prepared by Sir Thomas Price, at present a Railway Commissioner, and who was at that time General Manager of the C.S.A.R. This statement fully bore out what was said by his hon. friend the Minister of Finance in regard to the matter, and it went beyond that and showed, most definitely, that no considerations other than those of a professional and technical nature were taken into account in deciding the route which the line should take. So there was absolutely no warrant for certain insinuations that had been made recently in regard to the deviation of that line.

Report by Sir T. R. Price, relating to the route taken by the railway line between Treurfontein and Zoutpan.

Territorial analysis of mortality from disease among natives employed upon the mines (Transvaal) ; group mortality amongst tropical natives, October, 1910, to December, 1911 ; and Memorandum on Native Taxation.

This memorandum was referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

asked permission to bring up a matter reported to him that morning. Yesterday afternoon at Rondebosch, between one and two o’clock, a small girl of about ten years of age was assaulted in broad daylight, and was dragged from the road into some bushes there. Fortunately no damage was done, and the girl was rescued. He wished to ask the Minister of Justice what steps he intended to take to give better police protection in the suburbs. He drew atten tion to the matter last year—

The hon. member must give notice of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been directed to the reported outbreak of anthrax amongst ostriches in the Oudtshoorn district and whether any serum for inoculating ostriches against this disease is obtainable from the Government.

replied that the Government knew nothing about the disease except what they had heard from the hon. member. Steps were being taken to obtain further information regarding it. He had wired to Dr. Theiler, who had just spent a whole week in the district, but his answer had not yet been received. As soon as it was received, further information would be given. Everything had been done to find out the nature of the disease.

asked when the vaccine would be at the disposal of the farmers. He knew that the disease was producing a great deal of unrest all over the country.

replied that the vaccine was not made here, but had to be imported. He would find out when it would be available.

asked Mr. Speaker what was the difference between the question put by the hon. member for Newlands and that put by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn?

said that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn wished to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the very important question of anthrax among ostriches at Oudtshoorn. He had decided that the hon. member might put the question to the Minister instead of moving the adjournment of the House. The hon. member for Newlands did not interview him with regard to his question.

That the Select Committee on the South Africa Defence Bill consist of nine members, and that General Beyers, Colonel Crewe, Sir Bisset Berry, Messrs Henwood, Wyndham, Cronje, Creswell, Van Heerden, and the mover, be members of the Committee.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

That the papers and correspondence relating to the proposed issue of leases to certain Zululand storekeepers of portions of the Zululand Native Reserves, presented to the House on the 6th April, 1911, be laid upon the table of the House, and, if agreed to, that they be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

That from and after Wednesday, the 20th inst., Government business have precedence on Wednesdays, such precedence, however, for the 20th instant, to have effect only after the Order of the Day, already on the Order Paper for that day, has been disposed of.

seconded.

said he thought it was somewhat early in the session to make such a change. Mr. Speaker had rightly, perhaps, to quote an instance, refused to allow an hon. member to move the adjournment of the House on an important subject. Probably the serum would arrive and the anthrax be prevented, but in his opinion it was important that such a question should be fully discussed if only to induce—just induce—the Government to hurry forward the matter. This motion meant to deprive private members from bringing matters—perhaps of vital importance to the country—before the House. Perhaps the Prime Minister would allow Wednesday to remain for a little while longer. True they had taken up the time of the House with certain motions, but they had got adequate results from some of these questions which the Opposition considered to be of the utmost importance. Though Tuesday was left, hon. members had to move weeks before to get a chance.

also hoped that the Government would give private members a few more opportunities of bringing important matters forward. He asked whether the Government had made any plans or whether there was anything in the future that might bring the session to an early close, before the business of the country had been concluded.

regretted that the hon. member for Albany objected to the motion. The Government did not intend to handicap discussion. On 20th March the House would have sat for nearly two months, and during that time every facility had been given to discuss motions introduced by the Opposition, even on order days. If there was not an end to them, he found they would have a very long session. The Estimates would soon be before them, and that meant that the ordinary business could not be proceeded with as rapidly as usual. If hon. members brought forward important business, the Government would always find time for it. He would amend his motion, and alter the date to the 27th. That would give them three weeks.

said it was really a very serious matter. They had just heard of a private Bill that was coming before the House. He did not think the Hon. the Minister had taken that into consideration. The people’s representatives were present at great expense, and he thought the Government should give reasonable time for the discussion of private Bills. Would he do so on Government days?

said he would like to ask the Prime Minister if he had contemplated any arrangement yet with reference to an adjournment of the House over Easter? (Hear, hear.)

replied that the intention was not to adjourn over Easter, except and only on Good Friday.

The motion as amended was agreed to.

said he did not depart from the position he had already taken up on this subject, because he believed it was the only way in which they could cope with the question. They had Commissions on tuberculosis and miners’ phthisis, and if they had had an adequate Department of Public Health they would have been useful. He hoped the Minister would accept the motion, because he thought that a proper Department of Public Health was necessary.

said the Minister objected to the motion on the score of expense: but he did not go into details and justify it. Personally, he (the speaker) could not see where it came in. The Minister did not show that the cost under his Bill would be any less than under the arrangement proposed by the mover. The point he thought was that all the other departments of the Government had distinct local branches, and he thought the Medical Officer of Health should be given some administrative power.

asked for the Chairman’s ruling on the point whether the amendment was in order. Did it not involve additional expenditure?

ruled that the clause did not convey authority to appropriate revenue, and was therefore in order.

said there were one or two points he would like to mention. All other branches of the service had their organised departments, and he could not understand the reason for all that opposition being brought against that proposal to have a Public Health Department. By wiping out that department, the Minister was absolutely killing public health altogether. There could be no objection to such a department, which would be responsible to the Minister.

said that he thought the Minister had failed to realise the importance of that question of public health. They of the old Cape Colony knew that public health had not been administered properly until a Department of Public Health had been organised. Was the Minister of the Interior aware of the number of those engaged in public health? He found that the total number was 1,506, who were employed in public health, when they took votes Nos. 10 and 11. The sum of money controlled by that was £377,000 per annum, and the Minister proposed to control that large amount without any department. It could not be done properly or efficiently, unless there was a Public Health Department ; and there was no doubt, as the hon. member for Denver and the hon. member for Wood-stock had said, that they were placing animal diseases above human diseases. He hoped that the Minister would reconsider it, and realise that they were not opposing that proposition of his for the sake of opposition merely, or for party purposes, but because they felt that, speaking from experience, it was necessary for the benefit of South Africa that they should have a Public Health Department.

said that he would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Denver, and for no other reason than the statement made by the Minister of Native Affairs the previous day about the high death-rate of natives on the mines, which showed that the present system had entirely failed to grapple with that problem. He thought that for such a large expenditure involved, coming to £300,000 per annum, they needed a Public Health Department.

£377,000.

said that he was very glad that his amendment had received such support, and he was particularly pleased to see the right hon. member for Victoria West in his place, because that was the first occasion (he was understood to say) during that debate that they found him listening. Last session the right hon. member had spoken on the Bill then before the House, and the present Bill was very similar to it. An hon. member had even thought it necessary to move the adjournment of the House with regard to the question of anthrax amongst ostriches, but in regard to that most important question of public health, there was a great deal of apathy in the House. The hon. Minister objected to his proposal on the score of expense, but he did not think that the expense would be excessive. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Dr. Neethling), although he had spoken stronger on that matter than he had, had voted with his party.

said that that question should be clean outside a question of party politics. The first division they had —

said that the hon. member must not refer to that.

said that it was difficult for him to recognise the exact limits, when others had spoken as they did.

He could not help pointing out that the argument of the Minister was that if you drove him out of one kopje he would proceed to occupy another kopje. If he remained upon one kopje, then they would prove to him that they had right on their side. The Minister talked upon a kopje, which he labelled “’good administration.” Various attacks were made upon that kopje, and no sooner had be evacuated that particular kopje, than he took up another. Then the Minister had been driven out of the kopje of expense; in fact, it did not take much to drive him out of that position. The Immigration Department kopje must not be compared to that of Public Health kopje, because that department was not so important as the Public Health. Then they had heard it said that the Department of Health took up the major portion of the work of the Department of the Interior.

The largest portion of the work done by the Minister of the Interior, according to his statement yesterday, comprised a total expenditure of £110,000 per annum. The hon. member for South Peninsula, (Mr. Runciman) had mentioned a figure of over £300,000, but that included asylums, which he (Dr. Watkins) claimed had nothing to do with public health. Then, again, included in the £110,000 was a sum of over £40,000 for district surgeons. Only a small part of the work of district surgeons, however, could fairly be called public health. One-tenth of his whole work was a liberal allowance to take for the district surgeon’s public health work. When the Minister said that the country would not tolerate a large expenditure on public health, the public should realise that they were only spending this bagatelle of £60,000 on public health in South Africa. The total vote of the Minister’s department was £1,275,000, so that the amount which stood under public health, even taking it at £110,000, only represented one-eleventh part of the department he was administering. He still hoped that they would get the Minister to treat this as not cantankerous opposition on their part. Not one single reason had been brought forward by the Minister that would appeal to any man in this House as a valid reason why a Department of Public Health should not be created, as the whole medical profession in this country had asked.

in supporting the amendment, said he did feel that if the Minister would only concede what was asked for here it would be a move in the right direction. In Natal they had been accustomed to Boards, and this was the next best thing to a Board.

said that this should not be dealt with as a party question. Whenever they came to a domestic question, all parties in this House should treat it on its merits. That explained his attitude in regard to this measure. He hoped the Minister would not treat him as one who was cantankerous in his opposition to the measure. He felt strongly on this subject as one who had had experience in connection with public health matters in Natal. In this Bill they had the very quintessence of centralisation. (Hear, hear.) Everything was done by a single officer and the Minister, advised, of course, by local medical officers in various parts of the Union. All the safeguards which the public had had in the past had been removed.

feared that he had been misunderstood. He would like in the near future to see a far more comprehensive Bill than this, but seeing that the Minister required an instrument with which he must strike at once he supported the Bill. He hoped that the Minister would be convinced in time of the need of altering the Bill so that the amendment could be fitted in nicely, but he thought it could only be fitted in very badly with the present Bill. (Laughter.)

expressed his astonishment at these remarks. He reminded the hon. member that last session when he (the speaker) introduced a motion for the creation of a portfolio of Public Health the hon. member had moved an amendment for the establishment of a Department of Public Health. That amendment was carried by the House, and he could not understand why the Minister should disregard with impunity that desire of the House.

said that one of the cleverest speeches he had ever heard had been made by the hon. member for Beaufort West—(laughter) —he liked the amendment, but did not think this the right place to fit it in. (Laughter.) Did people know what they were doing? They had all these doctors speaking—eight of them. (Laughter.) What he objected to was that the Bill seemed to strike a blow at local bodies. It was better to have an advisory man than to set up a fresh department at the present time when they were all wanting to curtail expenditure. If a medical man were at the head of this department too, he would be interfering in his (the speaker’s) business. He objected to all these new-fangled departments. He maintained that this was an unworthy Bill because it brought in centralisation. Surely the Minister was too old a hand to want centralisation! Let them try to stimulate local bodies as far as possible and at the same time have a small corrective, a Board of Health—not of doctors—(laughter)—but somebody to control the doctors and at the same time to keep local bodies to their duty. A department in Pretoria to manage affairs of health all over the Union would be too great a burden to the country. He was glad they had so many medical gentlemen in the House, as they would no doubt take the course the hon. member for Beaufort West proposed to do. (Laughter.) He thought it better to have their own affairs managed badly than have them managed by a Government Department. That was an opinion. But as he understood that the whole object of the Bill was to have some practical way of dealing with the bubonic plague at Durban, he would support it. One clause added to the Durban Act would have done the business. By this time they would have had the Bill through and the rats examined and killed and the plague well in hand. He mentioned incidentally that he was not in the habit of reading his own effusions, but he noticed that in the Hansard report on the debate of last year he was reported as having said that the Minister had too much “dung” on his fork. (Laughter.) That would go down to posterity as one of the flowers of their oratory. (Renewed laughter.) He must correct the mistake.

The Minister had too much hay on his fork. (Laughter.)

supported the amendment because it was a practicable one. In the case of every other department in the Union there were administrative offices, and he failed to see any reason for differentiation in this case. The Bill revealed a latent attitude on the part of the Government generally. They were unable to distinguish between superior and departmental administration. That was a common failing with Ministers.

moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again. When he did so on the previous night it was said that it was some party move or other. He thought they had made it clear that this matter should not be discussed from a party point of view. Now the right hon. gentleman had made the suggestion that he (the speaker) had wished to do the previous night. His object in moving was to give the Minister the opportunity of adopting the suggestion of one of his supporters. The Minister could introduce a short measure which would easily go through the House.

said he supported the motion, but not for the reasons given. He did so because he had to attend an important conference.

Progress was reported, and leave asked to sit again.

When?

After Orders 2 and 3 have been disposed of.

seconded.

Can it be done?

It has been done before.

Can it be done without the unanimous consent of the House?

It has been done.

I moved in order to give the Minister time to consider another proposal.

The motion was agreed to.

said that he took it from the ruling given by Mr. Speaker that the course the House had followed was contrary to the provisions of the South Africa Act. In the circumstances he thought it necessary for the House to discuss what action should be taken in the matter. He thought the House should adhere to the Constitution, and he moved that the Chairman leave the chair.

asked what would be the effect on the position of the whole committee if the motion was adopted. Would it cancel the order of the House? The committee had been in session some time, and had dealt with a number of petitions.

The committee is only dealing with the first recommendation.

What will happen to further recommendations?

That is for Mr. Speaker to decide. Does the hon. member ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling?

On what point?

On the effect of this proposal?

Will not a member of the Government explain the position? The committee was asked for by the Government.

Then I will withdraw.

said he took it that the hon. member wished to get a settlement of the whole question.

said the motion of the hon. member for Heidelberg that the Chairman leave the chair, could be made at any stage upon anything in committee. There was no point involved in that ; but the hon. member had explained his reason for the motion, and he just wanted to say that he hoped the House would not accept—(hear, hear)—because it seemed to him they were trying to get out of the difficulty by a side means. They had to face the thing fairly and squarely one way or another. They had to say, when the time arrived, that they would not have a Pensions Committee ; but certainly as long as the Pensions Committee carried on its work, having been appointed by the House, he thought it was their duty to deal with its recommendations as they came before them. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to support the motion of the hon. member for Heidelberg. He agreed that they must deal with the matter fairly and squarely, but the South Africa Act provided that all financial recommendations must come from the Governor-General. When the question was first mooted in the House, the only Minister who spoke said he, in the Select Committee, was opposed—

rose on a point of order. Was it competent for members of the committee to discuss matters that had been settled?

said the hon. member must confine himself to the question.

said he supported the hon. member for Heidelberg in wishing to have this matter settled once and for all, because he sincerely sympathised with the gentleman under consideration. It seemed to him that he had been exceedingly harshly dealt with. There was another course open to him ; but the Minister thought fit to discharge him. Now they wanted to establish a precedent that a Civil Servant may be discharged for a misdemeanour, and then come to the House and get a pension. It seemed to him they were starting a very dangerous practice.

said the hon. Minister had intimated that he was trying to get this matter settled by a side means. That was not his point. He wished to get a debate on the constitutional question by the whole House, and he could not do that until this matter was suspended. Under constitutional procedure they had recommendations of the Governor-General, which meant that the Government took upon itself the responsibility for the expenditure. At the present moment the Government had not taken that course, and the only member of the Government who had spoken said he disagreed with the recommendation of the committee. Until the Government had taken that course, he for one would oppose this.

said the hon. member ought to know that if the Chairman left the chair the matter dropped entirely.

said the hon. member for Heidelberg laid great stress upon the point that the Government had not initiated its proposals. He took it that only came before the committee because it was moved by a member of the Government, so that the Government did take the responsibility. The hon. member must know also that if this motion were carried neither the House nor the committee could again discuss those particular proposals. On the merits of the proposal itself, he was not present when it was first discussed, but he had taken the opportunity of reading the papers, and he gathered that there was more information before the Government than was disclosed in the papers. The papers did contain the result of the inquiry by the head of the department, but there were in the Law Department further reports and records which were not available to the members of the House, and he was not sure if they were known to the members of the committee. He would like to know from the chairman of the committee whether he could tell them whether the whole of the information was disclosed to the committee that was in the hands of the Law Department.

said he for one felt he must support the motion of the hon. member that the Chairman leave the chair. The committee had made a recommendation to the House that a pension be awarded to a Civil Servant who had been made the subject of an inquiry by the lead of his department, and whom the Minister had dismissed from the service. The Pensions Committee —

prose to a point of order. Was it right to discuss the recommendations of a committee now in view of the fact that there was a motion before the House that the Chairman leave the chair?

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

said that if the motion were carried the pensioner would, unfortunately, be unable to have access to the House again during this session. He thought if it were possible the Minister should come to the assistance of the House in this matter, and withdraw the motion from the consideration of the House so that they might themselves bring up some proposal for dealing with the whole question on constitutional lines. Otherwise he would have no alternative but to support the motion of the hon. member for Heidelberg, and then this particular pension would be thrown out, not on its merits, but because of the unconstitutional mode of procedure.

said that that was introducing a principle of expenditure, which was opposed to the principles under the Act of Union. If that was carried by the House it would be bound, practically, in any case where a pension case was referred to it, to take exactly the same attitude. (Hear, hear.) He entirely disagreed with the principles enunciated by the hon. member (Mr. Neser) that it was a bad precedent to bring into that House, because what was the final court of appeal but Parliament, which was above everything—(cheers)—and it was the one principle laid down in the Act of Union in favour of a unitary rather than a federal form of government—that there should be a sovereign Parliament. If they agreed to his hon. friend’s motion they would get away from that. As to the matter of introducing the rights or wrongs of this, Mr. Speaker had already given his ruling—(hear, hear)—and he had said that it was within the rights and privileges of the House to appoint such a committee, and for the committee to bring a recommendation to the House.

said that the hon. member had spoken of Parliament being the “final court of appeal,” but they might as well say that they could take a case out of the hands of the legal tribunals of the country. (Dissent.) There was a part of the (Government of the country which dealt with judicial affairs, a part which dealt with executive affairs, and a part which dealt with legislative affairs—and that House dealt with the last; and there was a finali appeal to the country as to whether the Government had its confidence or not in dealing with the executive affairs of the country. The last thing in the world which that House ought to do was to take the executive affairs out of the hands of the Government, and to take the executive affairs into their hands. Here the House was asked to go into a matter which had already been dealt with by the Government, and which the Government had already decided, and review their decision. If he were in the place of the Government, he would regard an action of that kind as want of confidence in the Government, although he did not for a moment say that the Government was going to take that line. It seemed to him that if the Minister had definitely made up his mind, after full consideration of the case, that that Civil Servant ought to be dismissed without a pension, it was a vote of want of confidence for the House to say that that man must get a pension.

said that the matter seemed to have excited a good deal of interest, and the gentleman concerned appeared to have a good many friends, but that had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Now, he did not quite see how, at that stage, they could discuss the question as to whether they were proceeding legally or constitutionally, because that matter had been settled by Mr. Speaker, and with all humility, he expressed the opinion that he entirely concurred. It was true that the South Africa Act said that the Government must initiate expenditure. The Government, however, created that committee, or it had been created by Parliament at the instance of the Government, and, therefore, it was constitutional and proper to follow the recommendations of that committee, whose origin had begun with the Government. It was constitutionally quite in order in recommending this, but he did not see that there was any point in discussing the principle, because that principle was discussed the other day and settled. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. P. Duncan) said that they must never interfere with the executive power of the Government. He was not going into the merits of the question, but he would like to inform the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. Walton) that all the information the Law Department possessed was not before the committee, but they had sufficient information for them to come to a decision. He had stated also last time that he had seen another case dealt with differently. He believed that the general feeling was that when men had long service to their credit they should deal with them in a generous manner. When once they admitted the necessity of a committee, then each case must be dealt with upon its merits.

Why don’t you vote the other way?

I won’t go into that. If this gentleman had applied for a medical certificate he would have been entitled to a pension of double the amount.

said the Minister of Railways had departed from the point. He (the speaker) wanted to discuss the constitutional question, which could not be done in committee. He had no desire to prevent the friends of the applicant getting him a pension if they could. He was prepared to withdraw his first proposal and move that the matter be referred back to the Pensions Committee, as this would provide the opportunity for discussion.

said if the hon. member would look UD the notes of proceedings he would find the matter fully discussed. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg raised that same question. He could not vote for the motion, because it was moved to refer it back for the purpose of discussing it at a future date.

said he did not want to touch upon the constitutional question, but, in justice to himself, he thought he ought to say that he not only spoke but also voted against this pension.

said he took it that the Speaker’s ruling was perfectly clear. He said, in the course of his ruling, that the point raised by the hon. member should more appropriately have been raised at the time when the Pension Committee was moved for last year. They had the ruling for this year. They had accepted the committee for this year, and if hon. gentlemen were very keen on the constitutional question the time to raise it was when the Pension Committee was proposed to be appointed next Session of Parliament.

thought the best thing was to deal with the matter on its merits, and not send it back. There were other ways of dealing with the constitutional question.

said he agreed with the Prime Minister, if they were sure that the whole of the facts had been considered in this case. That was his difficulty. One desired to do justice. If the man were entitled to this consideration, they wanted to give it to him. If the whole of the facts had been considered by this Committee he did not think they would have come to this conclusion. The Minister spoke of a “lapse,” and if there had been a lapse he should agree that the official concerned was entitled to consideration. If it were not a mere lapse, if it were conduct that had extended over a considerable period, and if the Law Department of the old Cape Colony had a record on that, then it was in a different position. If there had been a lapse some gratuity had been given in the old Cape Colony. He did not know of a single case of this kind where a pension was given. As the matter stood, he should feel compelled to vote against the proposal.

asked the Chairman what was before the committee?

The motion of the hon. member for Heidelberg that this recommendation be referred back to the Committee.

said that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central complained that he was not in a position to vote for this pension, because he was not sure that all the facts, many of which might tell heavily against the applicant, were Laid before the committee. The hon. member knew that he (Mr. Burton) was in charge of the Law Department of the Cape for some years prior to Union, and that in this capacity this gentleman was one of the officers in his Department. He wished to say that, so far as he knew, in the first place, the facts which the committee had before them were the facts upon which the Minister of Justice dismissed this man. It was upon those facts and nothing else in the man’s previous career that he dismissed him. He (Mr. Burton) thought that if the previous history of the case had been represented to the committee, as he knew it to have existed, probably the recommendation of the committee would have been not merely in the sense in which it was made, but a little stronger. (Hear, hear.) It was difficult to go into these matters on the floor of the House when what one said was to be made public, and in what he said he was going to try and express what he meant in language that would be understood by hon. members without his saying so in so many words. The fact of the matter was that there were cases in which what were called “lapses” such as had been referred to in this case were due largely to mental and other causes which it was impossible to gauge to a proper degree. He had not the least doubt, from his own knowledge of the case, that this was one of those cases. It was a case in which, as had been said, if the applicant had applied at an earlier stage for a medical certificate that he was unfit to carry on his duties, he would have been entitled to retire and to receive what he was allowed by law. It was brought to his notice while he was a Minister in the old Cape Colony that certain officers were behaving in such a way as to unfit them for the occupation of their posts. When these men had rendered long and meritorious services to the country, it was always felt, and he thought by all their administrations, that every effort should be made to see, at all events, that something—he did not say justice, because this was not a question of justice but of consideration and reasonable dealing—was done, and in these cases they always used to deal with them on the basis that, if a man were unfit and he did not retire very soon, he would be compulsorily retired. That was not strictly and technically legal, it was true, but at the same time it carried out what was more important and that was substantial justice. If ever there was a case in which that might have been done, and reasonably and well done, it was this case. He had not a word to say in regard to the course pursued by the Minister of Justice in dismissing a public servant. The fault lay with the laws. After all, however, one could not frame laws that would cover all circumstances. People would come down to the House with extraordinary cases and they would go back to the same position as existed before the appointment of a Pensions Committee. He was pretty sure that if the decision of the committee had been against the granting of a pension the constitutional question would not have been raised.

There would be no need to raise it.

said that the attitude of the Government in the matter was that it was bound to accept the verdict of the House. They did not regard it as a Government matter, nor would they vote as a Government. Personally, he intended to vote for the motion because he thought it an act of mercy and of grace.

was surprised that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should have concluded an eloquent appeal with an announcement that he would vote against the pension. He pointed out that Mr. Van Renen was virtually being fined about £2,000 for a dereliction of duty. Any person outside the Service similarly penalised would have considered himself very harshly treated. If they followed the Minister of Railways and Harbours it might mean starvation for this man and his family, because after one had been thirty-six years in the Service one was totally unfitted for anything else.

explained that he had only raised the constitutional question because, with the hon. member for Fordsburg, he believed that the House was wrong in its procedure in these matters. When the motion was introduced next session for a Pensions and Gratuities Committee he would vote against it. The House was setting up a precedent which it might in time regret.

said that from the constitutional point of view he was opposed to the hon. member for Fords-burg. The hon. member had said that to say that the House was a final court of appeal was as much as saying that a man outed in the Supreme Court might approach them for redress. The two cases were in no way parallel. They were dealing with an application for relief from a man who had been in the service of the House, and who, if he had felt himself illegally dismissed, would have had a right to go to the Supreme Court and sue for illegal dismissal. He recognised, however, that the Government had acted legally, but thought he had been hardly treated, and appealed from the Government to the House. The Government were the trustees of the House. He agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that if the Minister of Justice had said, “I have a strong opinion that the House should not reverse my decision,” it would have been a vote of no-confidence to have done so. But the Government had not taken up that position. As regarded the merits of the case, he pointed out that the procedure was not what had been usually followed in the Cape Government. He did not think that the House could do any harm to the discipline or future of the service by adopting the committee’s recommendation. As the hon. member for Beaconsfield had pointed out, the committee’s recommendation imposed a severe penalty, and consideration would be shown by every hon. member who knew how subject poor humanity was to this kind of thing. Not only on personal grounds, but on the grounds of the effect it would have on the future of the Civil Service, and from the constitutional view-point, he would vote for the pension.

said that he did not wish to find fault with the action of the Government. Here was a man who had forty years’ service ; in another two years he would have been entitled to a full pension. To avoid it being said that the taxpayers wished to escape this burden, they took this course.

said he proposed only to deal with one of the instances on which Mr. Van Renen had been charged with intemperance. Members who had read the evidence would remember that there was an inquiry at a certain farm. Mr. Van Renen was chairman of the Board. The attorney representing the interested party was there, and it was on his evidence, against the statements of Messrs. Du Preez, Jacobs, and another witness, that Mr. Syme thought it right to find that Mr. Van Renen was drunk on that occasion. One of the hon. members of that House was present at the inquiry, and he (the speaker) hoped that he would rise in his place and tell the House that Mr. Van Renen was not drunk at that inquiry. He had a statement from a Mr. Tripp, who was present, and when he had read that statement, he thought the Government would agree that Mr. Van Renen should get his whole pension.

Nonsense.

I’m not going to move it ; but I ask him, as a fair-minded man, to listen to what I read. I think he will agree that Mr. Van Renen should get his full pension. The hon. member read the statement of Mr. Tripp, which was to the effect that if the attorney said that Mr. Van Renen was drunk at the time of the Commission, he was saying something that was untrue. The hon. member also read a statement by a number of those present at the farm on these particular occasions to the effect that Mr. Van Renen was never under the influence of liquor. He (the speaker) had ample evidence to show that Mr. Van Renen was not drunk on the occasions alleged. He thought that the Government might reconsider its decision.

said that the Prime Minister had asked him to withdraw his motion, and, under ordinary circumstances, he would have been pleased to meet him. But this was a question of principle which affected the House and the future of the country. Mr. Speaker not only gave a ruling, but went further, and said that, in his opinion, the House was acting contrary to the Constitution, but that he would follow the practice of the Cape House until the House took a contrary view. Would it be fair to wait until after the Van Renen case had been settled before anything was done?

put the question, and declared the “Noes” had it.

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

reported to the House that the committee had agreed to the recommendations of the (Select Committee, and asked leave to report to-morrow.

Agreed to.

in moving the second reading of the Natal Native Trust and Native Administration Amendment Bill, said that the Bill before the House was really, to a very large extent, a formality. It was due to the necessity for making provision for the control and administration of native lands in Natal since Union. Prior to Union these lands were vested in Natal in what was called the “Natal Native Trust,” granted under Letters Patent many years back, and under these Letters Patent that Trust had been formed, of members of the Government for the time being. The Cabinet for the time being, therefore, in another capacity, had acted as the Natal Native Trust and had the control of these lands and moneys. When Zululand had been annexed to Natal, by deed of grant from the Imperial Government, a similar provision had been made in regard to lands in Zululand—which had been vested in the same body, which was called the “Zululand Native Trust,” and the procedure was that sums of money were voted by Parliament on behalf of the natives, and matters were left to be dealt with by the Cabinet in that way. When the Union had been formed, it was perfectly clear that they could not have an Executive of Natal, because that Executive had ceased to exist, and there was no body in existence to deal with these matters. It was perfectly clear that in terms of the Act of Union special attention had been drawn to that matter, and these lands were provided for under section 147 of the Act of Union.

Now, under the Natal Native Trust there was a provision that these native lands could not be alienated except upon the signatures of the Trust and the Governor, and there was also a provision that the Secretary of State could cancel any alienation if he chose. With regard to Zulu-land, it was provided that there should be the consent of the Secretary of State or an Act of the Natal Parliament. When Union became an accomplished fact he took steps to provide for the altered conditions. Prior to Union the Natal Parliament had an idea that something would have to be done, and they passed an Act of their own in which they purported to substitute the Union Government for the Natal Government, but this was ultra vires, and he proposed in the first section of the Bill to repeal this Act. He proposed also to deal with native lands in Natal and Zululand, and he proposed that in the case of alienation generally there should be a special Act of Parliament. As to clause 3 the Natal Native Affairs Council consisted of four District Native Commissioners, who represented certain portions of the country and other unofficial members. This Council was given a certain number of functions to perform. Amongst other things, they had to visit the various native districts and report to the Natal Parliament. When Union took place, he proposed to abolish this Council, but it was represented to him that it was highly desirable that he should not take away what was really a very good thing, and which acted as a sort of safety-valve. Therefore, as there was so much feeling in favour of this body, he allowed it to remain, with certain modifications. The Government had decided that they would not continue these four Native Commissioners. They had been receiving £800 each, and were supposed to go about and find out what the natives wanted and to report. It was found that the work overlapped that of the ordinary administration. He proposed to constitute this Council of the Chief Native Commissioner and some other person who had some experience of native affairs. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

said he was glad that at last they had legislation brought before the House affecting the natives of Natal, who now numbered some 950,000 persons. It would give them an opportunity of criticising the manner in which the Minister of Native Affairs had dealt with their natives since Union came into force. Certain actions of the Minister last year were received with great disfavour throughout Natal, and now they had legislation before them altering some of their old principles which had been carried on for a number of years, although this Bill dealt more particularly with legislation which had only been in force since 1909. This legislation was passed after very full consideration by a Commission composed of men who were thoroughly au fait with native affairs in Natal, and after this Commission had reported most strongly against the old system by which too much was put in the hands of the Minister of Native Affairs. They recommended that a Council should be formed that would be in more direct touch with the natives themselves. This Act, which the Minister now proposed in many ways to repeal, was really a Magna Charta, as far as the natives were concerned. The Commission was formed shortly after the native rebellion of 1906. In Natal the white population was about 8 or 9 per cent. of the whole population. It was of the utmost importance that the whites should be in thorough touch with the natives of Natal, and should be enabled to know what their views were. In Natal they had endeavoured to give the natives the fullest justice. They might sometimes have to be firm in giving that justice. But the Zulu did not mind firmness. He wanted to understand how he was being governed, and he would then submit to that government. He looked upon the Government as his father, and he wanted to be able to get into direct touch with the Government and not simply to have to deal with an official who spoke to the Minister, who was far away. There was to-day a large amount of distrust amongst the natives, because they were being referred to Ministers, who were a great deal further away than those at Maritzburg, with whom they had difficulty in getting into touch in the past.

He quoted a clause from the Natal Native Affairs Commission’s report. It reflected the natives’ opinion of the Minister. Its effect was that the natives, in their simplicity, wondered what crime the Minister had committed when he vacated office. They could not understand the system. Yet the Minister proposed to take this course. He thought it was because the Minister had not fully considered the matter, and had not taken the advice he should have taken in dealing with this and kindred matters affecting Natal natives. He proposed that the Natal Native Trust, that had been in existence for so many years, and had something like 4,000,000 acres of land under its control, should be taken out of the hands of the Governor-General-in-Council, and given to the Minister himself. To a white man who considered this matter, and who was acquainted with all the intricacies of our constitutional government, there appeared to be no great harm in this but the Natal natives regarded it in quite a different light, and perhaps in a different way to natives in other parts of South Africa. Every tribe was quite distinct. The Natal natives were not so advanced as those in the Cape, nor would they be for centuries. That had to be recognised. The Minister proposed to take the control out of the hands of the Governor-General, who was the person the natives had been taught to recognise as the representative of the King, in the same way as they had recognised the Natal Governors in the past. They recognised the Governor-General as answerable direct to the King, and knew that they could receive full justice in dealing with him. The change was bound to create distrust amongst them. It was extremely dangerous to upset a large native population with a handful of Europeans in their midst. In the past they had caused trouble and the country was fortunate that it had not spread further. He trusted that the House would refuse to make the alteration. Everything in the past had shown that the native did not want to be controlled directly by the Minister. He pointed out that to-day there was legislation in existence in Natal that provided that no laws, in any shape or form, should be brought before Parliament until this Council of Native Affairs had had an opportunity to report on it. The Minister had been making use of this Council to a limited extent, but when they got a Bill of this importance the Minister had not laid it before them. He had deliberately contravened the section of the Natal Act of 1909. He would like to know the reason for this. Perhaps the Minister would say that the did not want the Council to report in favour of their own abolition. But they were not there to report from a personal point of view, but purely to report from the natives’ point of view. The consequence was that they had nothing before the House to show what the natives’ point of view on the matter was, and they would have to deal with it simply on the basis of hon. members’ opinions. The clause had been specially inserted with the idea of keeping the natives quiet in their demand for anything like a direct voice in the affairs of the country. That, of course, would not be tolerated in Natal in any form at the present time. The Natal Government had appointed Commissioners in each of four districts, and they were in direct touch with the native chiefs, and had not much to do but to find out what native opinion was. They had been given no opportunity of reporting on native feeling in regard to the present proposal. The Minister had referred many other matters to them for report. The House would see from the headings he would read that it was absolutely necessary that the native should have some channel for expressing his views on matters closely affecting him. Between February and October, 1910, the Native Council had been consulted in regard to the following subjects: Kafir farming, mission work, establishment of native labour bureaux, compulsory destruction of native cattle owing to East Coast fever, transfer of lands to mission reserves, introduction of individual land tenure, compensation to natives engaged in hazardous callings, grants for native education and the desirability of establishing native schools, industrial training, the supervision of native locations, vaccination, sexual intercourse between blacks and whites, exemptions from the native law, the sale of intoxicating liquor, and regulation of beer-drinking assemblages. From February to September, 1911, they had been consulted on the following topics: Erection of schools, the training of teachers, transfer of land in mission reserves, natives and coronation ceremonies, marriage by Christian rites, native franchise, ejectment of natives from private land, jurisdiction of chiefs on private land, native passes, and a native name for the British flag. Although the Minister had not favoured the Council very much, he had been bound to place these matters before them. The Minister took so little interest in Natal native affairs that he was not in his seat to pay attention to their arguments. He paid flying visits to Natal, kept to the railway line, interviewed a few officials, and took it upon himself to abolish a system in vogue in Natal whilst it was still a Crown Colony. They had an example of that sort of thing last year, when the Minister brought forward Departmental changes in policy upon which he never dared to ask the opinion of this House. He would repeat his remarks now the Minister was in his seat. Now they were given another example of this. The Minister cared nothing for Natal opinion. He thought that he, and he only, knew what was in the minds of the Natal natives. Every representative from Natal took a great interest in their native affairs, far more interest than the Minister himself, and they were not going to be treated as the Minister proposed without any chance of defending themselves. He supposed that the Minister would say that he had kept the Natal Native Council going. He had certainly kept it going in a very attenuated form. Had it not been for the severe treatment of the Bill in another place the Council would not have been retained at all. The Minister told the House in a casual way that he did not think it was worth spending £4,000 or £5,000 a year on keeping in touch with people who contributed £238,461 in direct taxation to the revenue of the country, representing a direct tax of 5d. per head on each native in Natal The Minister sneered at the Bill which the Government of Natal brought forward in the best of good faith. If the Government was going in for centralisation, so far as the natives of Natal were concerned, there would only be one end—a most disastrous rebellion. If they were going to try and throw the Natal Acts, which the natives understood, aside for new legislation, the Government would have to be answerable when the trouble came. He would oppose the measure before the House ; it was centralisation run riot.

said he did not think that that was the time to attack the Ministry on its general policy of native legislation. He thought the Bill was a good one, and that the measure before the House was very necessary. He thought the Minister Would not misunderstand him when he suggested a change in the control, which was provided for in the second section. He did not know whether it would not be better if the control of these native trusts were placed in the hands of the Executive Council, that is, the Union Government. He considered that the policy in reard to native trusts should be continuous, and not liable to be changed by any Minister who came into office ; and there would be less chance of that if things were in the hands of the full Executive. Regarding the third clause, a Commission was appointed after the recent trouble in Natal, and it was due to a desire to raise the native above his then status, and make some more provision for his future development than had been the case in the past. The Bill of 1909 was brought in, and great things Were expected from it and certain Commissioners who were appointed by it. The Minister of Native Affairs at that time, it seemed to him, having brought in the Bill, had not the courage to go the whole length. The gentlemen who were appointed as Commissioners were, being officials of long standing, good men, but he did not think they were the best and most suitable that could be obtained to inaugurate a new policy or system. Therefore, he had no objection to the alteration. In his opinion, the objection of the hon. member for Weenen was all moonshine. The natives did not know of the existence of the Native Trust, or much of the Act of 1909, and he did not think it would affect the natives one iota if they found there had been any change in the personnel of the Native Council.

hoped the Minister of Native Affairs would not take offence if he suggested that the Bill should go before the Select Committee on Native Affairs. He understood that any Act of Parliament affecting natives or their lands was reserved for the King’s consideration. If this Parliament should pass an Act dealing with any large quantity of land reserved for natives, or dealing to any considerable extent with the natives themselves, it was reserved for furthere review. That was the position, and it was from that point of view that he approved of the suggestions embodied in the Act, that proposals for the alienation of land should be embodied in a Bill, as was intended in this Bill. With reference to the second part of the Bill, he must say he was somewhat at a loss to know why the House should consider a Bill of this double sort. It was like the Siamese Twins, joined by a sort of ligament. The first part had nothing to do with the second part. He thought that the time had come when, in Natal, they ought to be beginning to decide what share that immense body of natives was to have in their own government. How much talk had been made in Natal about the desirability of doing that, and some of us who had taken interest in such matters knew that some native gentlemen recently visited the Transkei, and on their return to Natal informed the natives most glowingly what they had seen there as to how the natives were governed. Regarding the Native Council, was it the intention that there should be any native members or native assessors ; was it to be a sort of dummy or nonentity? There was no provision for the sallarles of the members of that Council. If the Councillors were not to be paid, they would not do very much work. He would be very glad if the hon. Minister could see his way to take some step forward in the direction of allowing natives to be represented on that Council by some number of assessors, if not, by native members themselves. (Hear, hear.) Some beginning should be made to give the natives of a large Province like Natal some little say in what concerned themselves, and few other people besides themselves.

said that the matter had been considerably discussed in another place by gentlemen who were very well aware of the interests and the needs of the natives in Natal, and which to a large extent had their approval. He saw that in clause 2, that as to the lands which the natives held at the present time, their rights were very well safeguarded, and he particularly welcomed it. Perhaps the natives’ rights needed safeguarding, as there was a large area of native lands, about four million acres in extent. A great deal of that land was occupied in such a way that although under present circumstances it would not hold many more natives, it ought to hold more, if there was some other control, because at the present moment fairly large areas were held by clans or families, who had considered it from almost time immemorial as their own land, and resented other natives coming and settling down there. Unless the Minister put the land under some European control, or under that under which the natives did not have so much to say as at the present time, he would find that he could not put many more natives on that land. The natives did not have title deeds, and did not look upon their (Europeans’) title deeds as things in which they were very much interested at all, but as temporary conveniences which they hoped would come to an end some time or other. That accounted, to some extent, why they paid such high rents for the land they occupied. Personally, he welcomed the Bill, and could not say that he agreed that any of those serious consequences referred to by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) were at all likely to happen.

said that he must say that he would find it easier to support the Bill as now before them if the Bill as originally introduced in another place had contained the provisions it now does, but when the Minister introduced the Bill there it seemed to him he was endeavouring to secure more autocratic control than appeared from the Bill in its present form. That made him feel that though the Bill was in a different form now, owing to the threshing out it had received from the members of Natal and those in another place, still it was not a Bill that must be passed straight off, even although it had been passed in another place, because there were some important issues involved. In the Bill as introduced power had been assumed, or asked for, to alienate these native lands from the Natal and Zululand Native Trust by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. What he said was not said because he was opposed to the Bill. It might be somewhat difficult for a Minister to have to pass a special Act to alienate these lands, but while the Act of Union stood, he (Mr. Schreiner) held that this was the only method by which this could be done. He wanted to know whether the right of veto by the Secretary of State remained.

The Union abolished the veto.

said that might be so. He was no lawyer, but the Act of Union, and with regard to certain territories, the Imperial Government’s instructions to the Governor-General, retained the veto. He was not sure that the Grown had not the right to interfere. Clause 147 of the Act of Union seemed to give the Union Government all the power it needed in this matter of taking over the Natal and Zululand Trusts, and, in fact, if they looked into it, one hardly realised where the necessity was for the Minister of Native Affairs to introduce this Bill at all.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

resuming his speech, said that the native question should be above party, and he hoped that the criticism he was offering in regard to the Bill would not be looked upon as being made from a party spirit. He had every confidence in the Minister of Native Affairs, or rather he would say that he had had every confidence in him until, unfortunately, the other day he read a Bill dealing with squatting, and he confessed that that rather shook his confidence. (Hear, hear.) He still believed, however, that the Minister of Native Affairs could be trusted to endeavour to do the thing that was right and just in regard to natives, and therefore, personally, he had no objection whatever to all the power that was placed in the hands of the different trusts in Natal being delegated from the Governor-General-in-Council into the hands of the Minister of Native Affairs. There was, however, some force in the view put forward by the hon. member for Weenen as to the effect upon the natives—he was now speaking of Natal—of having their Governor, their supreme chief, delegating that power to some Minister who may be changed at any time and another take his place. He thought the force of the objection that was raised by the hon. member for Weenen in reference to the powers which were to be delegated was lessened by the fact that the Bill said “may” and not “shall.” Before passing to clause 2, he would like to say that he hoped the Minister would allow this Bill to go to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. He hoped the Minister would see, on second thoughts, that there should be no exception to any land that was alienated, that all alienation should be made subject to a special Act of Parliament. About this matter there was at the present time a complication that perhaps most of the members of the House were not aware of. There was a question of people who claimed certain rights in Zululand in the reserves. Certain Europeans had claims unsettled, and he wanted to emphasise this, that this Bill should not be retrospective. It should not give to people who claimed 5, 6, 7, or 8 years ago a right by resolution of this House. There was no doubt what the rule was when those claims arose. In the Bill they were asked to make certain exceptions in regard to land granted for public or some other purposes. These grants might be made by a resolution of both Houses. That was a departure from the old conditions. He was justified in asking that the Bill should not be retrospective. Indeed, he hoped that before it was passed the exceptions would be thrown out. The term “for public purposes” was so wide that one million of the four million acres controlled by the Council might be taken for the purpose of a land settlement for whites. That could be done by a simple resolution of the House. At all events they should have the safeguard of a special Act of Parliament. The Minister had not suggested in the first Bill that there should be these exceptions. He went on to deal with clause 3, which provides that Part II. of Act 1 of 1900 should be repealed, thus doing away with the Natal Native Commissioners. He did not know how these officials had answered in Natal, but he was willing to take it on the ipse dixit of the Minister that the change was an improvement. Provision was made for a Council of Native Affairs to be composed of four official and four non-official members, all to be appointed by the Government. He had no objection to that, and he believed that the Minister could be trusted to appoint men who would do the best service. But when the clause went on to take away one of the functions of the Council, as described by section 32 of sub-section (6) of Act 1 of 1909—

You are quite wrong!

quoted the various clauses in question, and maintained that his statement was correct. The function of the Council in regard to reporting on all proposed legislation affecting natives was to be taken away. That was a point that the hon. member for Weenen made, and a point that he also felt strongly upon. Much trouble in the past had been caused because the natives had not been consulted about legislation affecting them. It had always been his quarrel with the different Governments of the Cape Colony. During the Government of the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition it was decided that proclamations should be printed and distributed, so as to give the natives a chance of giving an opinion upon them. In Natal the Council had to report upon proposed legislation regarding the natives. He agreed with the hon. member for Weenen that sub-section (k) of clause 32 of the Act 1 of 1909 should be retained in the Bill. Nothing was more important than that the Government should receive opinions from the Council concerning the legislation it was proposed to enact. He did think that the time had arrived in the history of Natal when they should give representative natives some say as to suggested legislation. In the Transkeian Native Territories they had a Council which considered questions relating to the natives. It was worth while getting hold of the opinion of the natives, and it was a statesmanlike thing to do. The Cape policy had been to develop the native, and not harshly but slowly do away with native customs. In the Cape Province the power of the Magistrate had already largely replaced the power of the chief. European law had taken the place of native law, and individual tenure the place of communal system. Individual tenure was now the rule, and he thought this was the only way they could hope to arrive at a lasting solution of the native question. In Natal the idea had been to leave the native as he was found, though he did not mean that the Government of that colony had, as a rule, treated the native harshly. There was, however, no stimulus in the way of development. He agreed with the hon. member for Weenen that they must not change the system in vogue too suddenly ; but there was no doubt that ideas with regard to the native were changing in Natal. The Bill itself was an indication that there was a kind of rapprochement between the two systems. He agreed with the hon. member for Queenstown, and hoped the Minister would determine that the Bill, when it had passed the second reading, would be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. He would like to see some provision that the veto which existed in connection with the trusts that were established by Letters Patent in 1864 was not to be abrogated, and that all alienation of land would be submitted to Parliament, and that that portion of the Natal Act proposed to be deleted should stand part of the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not propose to follow the hon. member who had just spoken in the very interesting though somewhat kaleidoscopic speech he had made. At times it was irrelevant. Let him say at once that he was gratified at the reception the Bill had had on the whole. He wanted to point out to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Clayton) in the first place that this was principally an office Bill. There was no revolutionary change intended. They were not breaking up the reserves ; they were not introducing any new principles; they were doing nothing, in fact, in so far as the natives themselves were concerned, except to try and safeguard their position. He thought it a little ungracious to be criticised because in the Senate he gave way a little on the Native Council. He gave way because he wished to meet a reasonable request on the part of Natal representatives in that House. (Hear, hear.) It had been argued that in this Bill he took the control out of the hands of the Governor-General. He did not think the author of that criticism could he aware of the elementary fact that the Governor-General was the Government. It was simply an official and legislative term. It had been said that by his action in regard to the Natal Act of 1909 he contravened the Act of Union. There was no contravention of the Act at all, because the Natal Act could not bind the Union Government. As to what was said by the hon. member for Zululand regarding the delegation of power to the Minister in the case of the trusts, he did not think he quite grasped the intention of the Bill. He said he would prefer it to remain with the Executive Council, because that would ensure a continuous and consistent policy. Well, in the first place executives had changed just as often as Ministers before to-day, and in the second place there was no deeply-laid scheme or plot in the idea of delegating the powers to the Minister. It was simply put in in order to avoid having to have a minute of the Executive Council on every two-penny-halfpenny thing they did. It was purely administrative and official, and a matter of convenience. Then he had been asked whether he would not let this matter go to the Select Committee on Native Affairs. He thought if any Minister erred on the side of consulting committees it was himself. He was continually referring matters to that committee, and thought it was the right policy to do so. But, really, the Bill contained nothing contentious. There was nothing new in it, and there was not the slightest necessity for its going to that Select Committee. Might he say, in all humility, that a deeper knowledge of the Bill, and what was intended to do under it, would have shown that was not necessary at all. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had charged him, so far as he could make out, with every crime in the calendar. He said he (the Minister) had abolished the Royal veto. Well, he did not know what was to become of him, and he was sure he would not have had the temerity and assurance to stand up in the House before them if he had. He had done nothing of the sort. The King’s veto was not destroyed. The hon. member had evidently not noticed in section 147 of the Constitution that it was only those lands which could not previous to Union be alienated otherwise than under Act of Parliament, that could not be alienated now, otherwise than under Act of Parliament. Let him point out how he had really strengthened the arrangement. Under the Natal arrangement, those lands could be alienated at any time, simply upon the decision of the Government or the Executive Council with the sanction of the Governor.

What about the Secretary of State?

said that the Secretary of State only had the power to cancel, if alienation was brought to his notice. In fact, what he had done there was to strengthen the position in every respect, and what was weak before from the point of view of safeguarding these people had been strengthened. With the exceptions of schools, churches, and lands required for public purposes, they had safeguarded them entirely. As to the question of native representation on the Council, which had been referred to, he asked, if they were awake to the state of affairs in Natal or public opinion in Natal, how it was conceivable that he could place upon that European Council in Maritzburg some natives? It is ridiculous, upon the face of it, and he could say, in one word, that he could not possibly entertain such a suggestion. (Hear, hear.) The hon. members for Tembuland and Queenstown had discussed the question of separate representation by the natives on Councils of their own, and there was no doubt that that was a very important and a very interesting matter, and he doubted whether anyone who took an interest in native matters did not see that probably one of the solutions of their difficulty would be to grant representation of some sort to the natives themselves. (Hear, hear.) Something of that sort might be possible in the distant future. That system, they all knew, had worked very well in the Cape, and there was no doubt that no European Council, no Council which was supposed to reflect native opinion but which contained only Europeans, could render to the Government that assistance which could be rendered by a Council of the natives themselves. The white man could never express and bring out the feelings of a black man as a black man could express his own feelings—one could not get the same flow of feeling, the same flow of sentiment, and the same flow of expression. But when it was suggested to him that he should make a beginning in Natal, that, for the present, seemed to him to be outside practical politics. The introduction of any system of that sort would have to be a matter of the future, and very gradual introduction in the future, otherwise they might run the risk of breaking up the fabric they were intending and endeavouring to build up. In conclusion, he said that the last thing he would attempt to do was to rush in with a revolutionary change in these matters, because they were of such a delicate character, which required delicate handling, so that they had the consensus of native as well as of European opinion behind them. The Bill was only necessary for office requirements.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

The committee stage was set down for to-morrow.

had given notice to move the following new clause 6, viz.: “Whenever in any law or regulation a reference is made to any such officer as is mentioned in section 4, and in the case of Natal, to the Board of Health, the reference after the commencement of this Act, and save as is otherwise provided therein, he deemed to be a reference to the Medical Officer of Health for the Union, who shall carry out all or any of the duties prescribed in such law or regulation, or to exercise all or any of the powers conferred by such law or regulation upon an officer mentioned in section 4 or upon the Natal Board of Health.” He said that he did not agree with the principle that any Minister should undertake executive duties. He had said that all medical matters must be referred to the Minister, who, in his wisdom, would consider whether it was worth considering or not. One might as well ask a minister of religion to undertake these matters as ask a lawyer to undertake them. After all, medical subjects were technical subjects, and could only be decided by those who were qualified to deal with them. The present Bill was going to bring them to this position: that when there was an outbreak of disease, the Minister would deal with it—that was to say, that having got to know of it, he would instruct the Medical Officers of Health to deal with it. He put it: was that the proper method to deal with matters of public health? He (Dr. Hewat) was simply asking that there should be a medical head, responsible to the Minister, and he hoped this necessity would be realised.

said it was proposed to concentrate the functions exercised by the old Boards in the Minister, and his hon. friend said that surely this was absurd. It was not for the Minister to exercise the functions of a medical officer. If that were so, he could quite understand his hon. friend’s position. Clause 6 provided that these Boards should be abolished, and their functions transferred to the Minister, who could assign or authorise any other person or persons to exercise these functions. Under this clause 6 it would be possible for the Minister to devolute, as far as possible, his functions in regard to public health over the various Provinces of the Union. Look at his hon. friend’s amendment and see what the effect would be. He would see that the functions exercised by the various medical officers or Boards of Health were to be concentrated in the Medical Officer of Health for the Union. Now, his hon. friend (Dr. Hewat) wanted to have one medical officer of health, who would exercise his functions all over the Union. He proposed that, nominally, these functions should go to the Minister, who really would devolve them upon the medical officers of the various Provinces. The actual functions, in fact, would be carried out by the assistant medical officers of health in the various parts of the Union. He had an assistant medical officer of health in Cape Town, who was one of the most competent men in the Union. (Cheers. ) If the amendment were accepted, he could not consult with that officer, but would have to take the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer at Pretoria. In his great zeal and ardour for his own profession, his hon. friend was trying to have a system of centralisation which would never work. This was one of the Bills, of which he hoped there would be many, which would be so arranged that it would be possible for the Minister to devolve very important functions. He did not see why the assistant medical officers of health should take their orders from the supreme officer at Pretoria; he was sure it would never work. Under the amendment, a disease might be notified to the Assistant Medioal Officer in Cape Town, but he would have no right to take any action, but would have to wait for instructions from Pretoria. He (General Smuts) had no desire to aggrandise his own position, and he would never pose as an authority on public health—he knew very little about the subject.

Hon. members connected with medicine would see that what was proposed in the Bill was a perfectly workable scheme, but if he accepted the amendment everything would be concentrated at Pretoria. He did not think the Union could stand such administration. They must try to give all the administrative and executive functions as far as possible to the officers stationed in the various Provinces. (Hear, hear.) That would be secured in the clause in the Bill under discussion, and it was drafted for that very object. The clause which apparently favoured centralisation had exactly the opposite object, and would have exactly the opposite effect, and he hoped it would become the corner-stone of devolution in public life.

wished to know if Provincial Medical Officers could act at once without reference to the Minister in the case of an epidemic. If that were so, why was not that principle acted upon when the plague broke out at Durban?

said there was a great deal in the argument of the Minister. Did he understand the Minister to say that it was his intention to appoint a Chief Medical Officer of Health, who would generally be stationed at the administrative centre of the Government, who would be an official of standing and who would advise Government on matters of public health? Was that the Minister’s intention?

That is so.

said he took it that the Principal Medical Officer of Health would be consulted before the Department took action on the recommendations of the Provincial officers on matters of supreme importance.

said his hon. friend had quite correctly stated what was the position which it was intended to create under this Bill and the position as stated by him (General Smuts) last year in Parliament. He had said that he did not want an administrative officer, because he would have a great deal of unnecessary detail. He would advise, and the Government would consult him on all questions of public health. The hon. member for Durban said, why was it necessary to send down from Pretoria to Durban? Exactly because this policy had been carried out. Here was a most important event in the public health of South Africa which had arisen ; plague had broken out at Durban. He had on the spot there a responsible officer, but he thought the very first thing he should do was to ask this officer to prepare to go down at once and assist him. He went down, met the Corporation arranged for an epidemic committee, and arranged other questions, and the whole scheme was working quite well. There was no intention whatever, he might assure the hon. member for Wood-stock, of appointing an officer of health for the Union, and then passing him by and not consulting him on important questions. They had an elastic scheme which it was attempted to establish under this Bill, and one which, he thought, would work quite satisfactorily and he felt that it was going to lead to a more efficient system of public health than they had had hitherto. These officers would not waste their time over administrative detail, but would be concerned over medical questions, and they would have a good deal of freedom and latitude and discretion and responsibility.

said he felt uncomfortable about the Minister’s Bill before about this clause, but he was bound to say that since he had explained the working of it he felt infinitely more uncomfortable than he did before. He thought there would be no continuity, there would be no co-ordination.

said he thought there was a good deal in what his hon. friend (Dr. Watkins) had said, but he did not think the remedy he wished to see applied would result from the amendment moved by the hon. member for Woodstock. He thought there was a good deal to be said for the Minister being advised only by the Medical Officer of Health and not by any subordinate officer stationed in another part of the Union. To his mind, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Woodstock was unworkable. It seemed to him to be another way of trying to get what the Council had already negatived. They had two schemes before them. One was the old plan of having the Medical Officer of Health an administrative officer, and the other was having a medical officer who would be purely an advisory officer. The amendment of the hon. member for Woodstock would only work if the Chief Medical Officer of Health were an administrative instead of an advisory officer. He suggested that the amendment should not be proceeded with as they had now abandoned the principle that the Chief Medical Officer of Health should be an administrative officer.

regretted that his amendment had gone by default in his absence and accepted the rebuke of the hon. member for Fordsburg. At the same time he was surprised that his friends had not kept the fight going. (Laughter.) They would try to amend clause 6 by giving the Medical Officer of Health for the Union some executive duties. The Minister had used several arguments against their proposal. Perhaps if he was sincere in the particular argument regarding his being absent from Pretoria for a considerable period each year some people might hope that at no distant date this division of locality would be done away with. It was neither right nor proper that all matters incidental to public health should be left in the hands of one with no technical knowledge, and he accordingly hoped that the hon. member for Woodstock would persist in his amendment. He realised that there might be no hope of it being carried, but hoped by continually bringing the matter before the House to gain the sympathy of the majority of the people, and to obtain their demands when that millennium arrived—when the Minister introduced a comprehensive Public Health Bill. (Laughter.) The Minister’s argument was not worthy of his colossal intellect. He told them what a great advantage it was to have an assistant medical officer at his elbow, while he was down here, to give him advice. Was it not much better that there should be some continuity of policy in regard to public health, and that there should be an administrative head who was not perturbed by compulsory attendance at Parliament?

asked how the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Union was to be expected to be responsible for the health of the Union when he had no staff and no one reporting to him. In the country there were roughly 500 district surgeons, and they, he presumed, reported direct to the Minister. They were not deriving any benefit from the work done by these district surgeons, whereas if they had a medical man as Chief Medical Officer of Health these reports would be of service to the Minister, to Parliament, and to the country. By accepting the amendment the Minister would win the confidence of medical men, who were not moving in this matter for their own benefit. They had nothing to gain. It was by virtue of their profession, and by virtue of their knowledge that they were moving in this matter.

said he hoped that the hon. member for Wood-stock would persist in the amendment that he had brought before the committee. They took exception to the transfer of these powers to the Minister. The worst thing they could do was to centralise these powers in the hands of the Minister, and not in the hands of a technical adviser. The proper way to carry out a public health policy would be to have a department with a technical adviser at the head so that advice might be given the Minister.

Clause 6 was agreed to.

On clause 7, appointment of medical officers of health,

moved:

In lines 3, 4, and 5 to omit all the words from “in the case of” down to “Union,” and to add at the end of the clause: “and registrable in the country where such degree, diploma, or certificate was obtained.”

The mover said he thought that when applicants were from another country care should be taken to see that the applicant’s qualifications were recognised in that country.

moved that the word “shall” be inserted in place of the word “may” in the first line of the clause. If they left “may” in, he said, they would have no protection against the autocracy of the Minister.

said the line would read that he “shall” appoint so many officers as he might deem fit. What was the object of that? If he thought nobody was necessary then he need not appoint anybody. (Laughter.)

said he was surprised at the Minister. He would draw his attention to the comma which came after the word Union. If his amendment were accepted the Minister would have to appoint at least one adviser. He would take the sense of the House if the Minister would not accept his amendment.

If my hon. friend is going to divide the House, then I think I had better accept his amendment. (Laughter.)

The second amendment was agreed to.

asked if the hon. member for Woodstock persisted in his amendment?

Yes.

Then I shall have to argue against it. Continuing, he pointed out that if this amendment were accepted they would be limiting themselves in the matter of selection. He did not think hon. members would be wise in accepting the amendment which had been proposed. He would also like to move a verbal amendment in the Dutch version of the Bill: in line 5 to delete the word “gezondheid.”

Regarding the second amendment by the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) he was still in doubt as to his intention; whether it was the degree or the person that should be registered. He was sure he did not mean the degree, but the person.

No, the degree.

You don’t register degrees.

Certainly you do.

When you speak of a register you mean the person, and not the degree. Proceeding, he said the hon. member would see from the grammatical construction of his amendment that he did not yet achieve the object he had in view. He knew there were countries where degrees were granted for valuable consideration, but the hon. member knew that those degrees were not recognised in South Africa. So he did not think the amendment necessary. Also, if they went too far, they might land themselves in trouble. They might have the case of a young South African who had studied at a German or Dutch University being debarred from practising in South Africa, or being able to take up the position of an Assistant Medical Officer of Health, because in these countries they did not register the degrees taken by foreigners. He thought the object the hon. member had in view was met by the very strict views of their Medical Councils, which did not recognise nondescript institutions, or institutions of a not very high order.

said the Minister had not quite grasped his intention. His amendment provided that if a man held a special qualification for public health, that qualification must be registered in the country in which it was obtained as a qualification worthy of being held. He withdrew the first part of his amendment.

said that the non. Minister must excuse him, but he was completely wrong. He said that the degrees were not registrable, but he was absolutely wrong there. They were registrable. When a man went to Europe and took another degree he did not register afresh. Having registered degrees, surely he ought to know something about it.

said that he wanted to support his hon. friend the member for Barkly. The Minister was wrong again. The Minister himself was an estimable person, but if he went up tomorrow and approached the secretary of the Medical Council of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope and asked that person to register him as a medical practitioner he would be refused ; but if he begged, borrowed, or stole the degree be (Dr. Macaulay) had in his possession they would register him. But they would not register the Minister although he were the chief quack of the Union. (Laughter.) They did not want a man to come here with pretensions of medical knowledge unless his knowledge was well founded. If the Minister would not accept the latter part of the amendment of the hon. member for Woodstock he would move another amendment himself to the effect that these degrees must be such as were recognised by the Medical Council of the Union.

said that seemed to be a more sensible amendment than the other, but he had failed to follow the lucid explanation of the hon. member for Barkly. (Laughter.)

The degrees are registrable when a man is not.

withdrew the whole of his amendment.

moved to add at the end of the clause: “and recognised by the Medical Councils of the Union.”

There are no Medical Councils of the Union. (Laughter.) I hope we shall soon have a Medical Council for the Union, but my hon. friend is anticipating.

Medical Councils “in the Union.”

I accept the grammatical correction. (Laughter.)

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 8, duties of medical officers of health,

had given notice to move the substitution of the following new clause: The duties of a Medical Officer of Health for the Union shall be to advise the Minister on questions of public health, and subject to the authority and instructions of the Minister, superintend any matters or things relating to the public health of the Union. He shall have and may exercise all or any of the rights and powers conferred on any such officer as is mentioned in section 6, and on the instructions of the Minister may advise the Administrator and Executive Committee of any Province on any matter incidental to public health which may arise in the exercise of the statutory powers vested in any such Administrator and Executive Committee in relation to local authorities. He hoped the Minister would agree to this, because the whole object of the amendment was that the Medical Officer of Health should superintend all health matters.

said that he could not understand his hon. friend, who, it seemed, wanted to incorporate something from the Cape Act. His hon. friend would see that it was out of place here. They must make some effort to get out of old grooves. Prior to Union, all the administration was conducted upon very centralised lines. Now what they wanted was to decentralise and adopt quite a different system, therefore the amendment of his hon. friend was quite out of place. One of the difficulties that would arise was that the Medical Officer of Health would have to advise the Administrators, and that could not well be done from Pretoria. Take the Cape, for instance. There was an Assistant Officer of Health in Cape Town, who was quite capable of advising the Administrator. Therefore he thought that clause 8 read very well as printed. He would assure his hon. friend that the authority of the medical officer would remain just as it was. The Administrator might say he could not wait for advice from Pretoria, and would, perhaps, start building up a Public Health Department of his own, at great expense. The clause, as it stood, was better than what his hon. friend had taken, rather thoughtlessly, from the Cape Act.

The clause as printed was agreed to.

On clause 9,

moved to add the words, “not later than the next ensuing session” at the end of the clause. He desired this because the report of the Immigration Department for 1909 was not presented to Parliament till the end of 1910 or beginning of 1911, it was desirable that these reports should be laid on the table within such time as they could be made use of.

said that matter had been brought before the Public Accounts Committee, which had decided to recommend that reports be brought up to the end of the financial year, and be ready for circulation in September.

said it was not physically possible to carry out the suggestion contained in the amendment.

said he would add the words “after the Minister has received the report.”

supported the amendment.

was sorry to hear that it was proposed that reports should be framed according to the financial and not the calendar year.

The amendment was negatived.

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