from residents of Aliwal North, for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

from resdients of King William’s Town, for legislation providing for the Driect Poplar Veto.

for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

from Timothy Foley, ex-messenger, ‘Government House, Cape Town.

from residents of Aliwal North, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

from J. K. Ross, ex-teacher.

for construction of a branch railway from either Eland River or Bronkhorstspruit or an intermediate station on the Delagoa Bay line to the junction of the Moos River and the Olifants River. (Two petitions.)

from P. H. Steyn, of East London, retired Civil Servant.

from Izak J. Bosman, an ex-officer in the service of the late South African Republic.

from ex-officers of the late South African Republic Forces, in support of the petition of Izak J. Bosman.

for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto.

for railway connection between Klipplaat and Somerset East.

from the widow of F. P. J. van Nikkelen Kuyper, late Master of the Supreme Court, South African Republic.

for legislation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor to natives.

brought up the Report of the Committee of the Whole House on the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, reporting a certain resolution.

The report was adopted.

brought up the report of the examiners on the petition for leave to introduce the Gill College Corporation Bill, reporting that the rules of the House have been complied with, and specially that the reason for the presentation of the petition after the thirtieth day of the session is due to: (1) The publication of the notice being made on the 23rd February; (2) the delay in obtaining the signatures of the petitioners; (5) the illness of the member who had to present the petition ; (4) the compliance with certain formalities for the Department of Education ; and (5) some misconception on the part of the Parliamentary Agents as to the precise meaning of Standing Rule and Order No. 340, they being under the impression that they were debarred from presenting the petition before March. The examiners recommend that in this instance indulgence be granted.

moved that indulgence be granted.

Agreed to.

asked what arrangements were made with regard to printing. He had moved for a return which was laid on the table in manuscript. He thought this information should be in the hands of members.

Has the hon. member made the request?

Is it necessary?

Most certainly.

Said he thought that the matter would be dealt with by the Printing Committee.

said that if the hon. member wished that a return should be printed he would have to make application, when the question would be considered by the Printing Committee.

said he rose to a point of order on which he wished to obtain the ruling of Mr. Speaker. It concerned clause 2 of the Bill which they were to consider in committee. Under this clause provision was made for certain native trusts in Natal, which wore administered by the Governor of Natal and the Executive Council of Natal, and were afterwards dealt with by an Act of 1910, which provided that the Governor-General of the Union and the Executive Council of the Union should constitute the trustees under these trusts after May 31, 1910, when the Act of Union came into force. There was a clause of the Act of Union dealing with the matter, which the Minister of Native Affairs contended overrode the Act of 1910. He proceeded to read clause 147 of the Act of Union, to which he had made reference. Under the Bill which the House was now going to consider in committee the Minister made provision whereby the Governor-General and the Executive Council might delegate these rights to the Minister of Native Affairs, and there was further provision made that lands subject to these native trusts might be alienated by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. His contention was that the clause of the Bill now before the House overrode section 147 of the Act of Union, and he thought this was out of order, seeing that the Act of Union provided that no alteration could be made except by direct legislation. His contention was that the Minister had no right to bring before the House any measure proposing an alteration in the Act of Union unless some law had already been passed repealing, for the purposes of the measure, the specific portion of the Act of Union. His contention was that the Minister had no right to bring before that House a Bill proposing an alteration affecting the Act of Union unless a law had been passed repealing that portion of the Act of Union. The proper procedure would be for the Minister to insert a clause in the Bill saying that clause 147 of the Act of Union was repealed before he asked the House to pass clause two of the Bill that was to be considered in Committee of the Whole House. This was the point on which he asked for the ruling of Mr. Speaker.

What is the special point upon which the hon. member would like my ruling?

said the point upon which he required a ruling was whether clause two of the Bill was not in conflict and by implication repealed portion of section 147 of the Act of Union, and whether it would be competent for the Committee of the Whole House to consider that clause.

said he did not think that he quite rightly understood the point which had been raised by the hon. member. At the same time he did not think that the hon. member’s difficulty should form the subject of a decision by Mr. Speaker. It was true that the House had power to alter some of the clauses of the Act. There were special conditions governing some of the clauses, but in the case of clause 147 there, was no such barrier. The House had a right to alter it One of the essential points of the Act of Union was that existing laws should stand until repealed or altered. That was what they were doing every day.

He thought the hon. member had entirely mistaken the meaning of the Bill, which he did not think, in the very least, affected section 147. (Hear, hear.) That section vested the control of those lands in the Governor-General-in-Council. He tried to explain yesterday the clause by which the Governor-General could delegate to the Minister the control, and that it was simply an office matter. If he did not have those provisions inserted they would practically go along in the same way as hitherto and would have to go with every twopenny-halfpenny detail of administration to the Executive Council.

I do not think the provisions of the clause fall under section 152 of the South Africa Act, and the point does not, therefore, call for a ruling from the Chair.

said that on the subject of Act No. 25 of 1910 of Natal the Minister was rather scathing in his remarks with regard to the reasons of the Natal Government in passing it. He remarked that it was not only ultra vires but quite unnecessary, and he (Mr. Meyler) was surprised that the Natal Government should have passed legislation which, in the opinion of such a legal authority as the Minister, was ultra vires and unnecessary. He thought the Bill was passed for a very real and urgent reason. It was passed during the last session of the Natal Parliament on the eve of Union, because they had received an urgent cable from the Secretary of State to give such a safeguard to the natives and the Native Trusts, as ho did not think the Act of Union gave sufficient safeguard. The Minister of Railways and Harbours of Natal, in introducing that Bill, said the position was simply that a cable had been received from the Secretary of State replying to communications ad dressed to him by the Natal Government, because the question had arisen whether, under the Act of Union, sufficient safeguards had been given to the natives and the Native Trusts. He thought it would be a very serious thing if on 31st May, 1910, the Trustees of the Native Trusts failed, and thought it was incumbent upon them to pass that special legislation. There was nothing involved in the Bill. It was what everybody in the Colony understood and what everybody wished. The Minister explained further that the Bill was rendered necessary by the state of the Act of Union, and it merely transferred the control of the Trusts from the Governor-in-Council of Natal to the Governor-General-in-Council of the Union. Although the Natal Government passed that Act hurriedly, it was at the express request of the Home Government, and he thought, as that was the case, and it was to safeguard the Native Trusts, this House should respect their wishes, and therefore he would move that clause 1 of the Bill be omitted.

said he was sorry it was thought his remarks were scathing. The position was quite clear. On the eve of Union the Natal Parliament, mistakenly, he thought, passed an Act to substitute the Governor-General-in-Council of the Union for the Governor-in-Council of Natal, and laid down all the duties and powers and all the restrictions and so forth of the Natal Act. It even laid down that a certain number should form a quorum. Well, It was quite impossible for the Natal Government, he thought, to bind the Union Parliament, and therefore all those things were ultra vires and invalid.

said if this Act of Natal was invalid and ultra vires and utterly useless, why did the Minister go to the trouble of repealing it here? He would ask the Minister if he was aware that the Natal Government passed it at the express wish of the Home Government?

said he thought that the Trusts would still be subject to all the conditions laid down in the Deed of Grant of April, 1909. If he was not mistaken, some of the provisions would be quite applicable under the present conditions.

said that they could not expect the new body which would be entrusted with the management of these estates to deal with them on all the terms and conditions which affected the old body. By that document the Cabinet of Natal for the time being had been constituted the Natal Native Trust and also the Zululand Trust, and they had been bound by all the conditions in the deed, but the Governor-General-in-Council could not be bound by all these rules and conditions, such as when they ought to meet, the quorum, etc. ; but the root feature, that these lands could not be alienated, except by Act of Parliament, he had preserved even more strictly.

On clause 2, power of Governor-General to delegate to Minister of Native Affairs administration of matters which on May 31, 1910, were administered by Native Trusts,

said that in that clause the point he had raised before Mr. Speaker came up again, but they must now deal with it as a legal matter. The point which arose was whether they had the right, by implication, to alter a section of the Act of Union without stating in the Bill that they were repealing that section, as far as it concerned the Natal Native and the Zululand Native Trusts; and he hoped that the House would not alter the Act of Union thus early in the life-history of the Union. It was one of the understandings under which Natal had come into the Union that the law of Union could not be altered by implication, but only by another law.

said that he could not understand why it was that the Minister of Native Affairs drew certain distinctions. He said here that certain lands must require a special Act of Parliament before they could be alienated, but then he went on to make an exception —which were lands required for school, church, or trading purposes, or for public purposes. He did not understand why those distinctions should be drawn. It seemed that under these heads they could draw very large fish indeed through the net, and he would ask the hon. Minister whether it would not be advisable, seeing that that great trust was handed over to that Parliament and hedged in by all sorts of provisions for the safeguarding of these people, that the proposed alienation of that land under that trust should not be under Act of Parliament as well. What would be left for an Act of Parliament?

Before a resolution of both Houses of Parliament had effected an alienation, it had to go to the Committee on Waste Land, and the custom in the old Cape Parliament was for them to bring up their recommendations in the form of a schedule. One Act of Parliament could include all grants, except those that the Minister reserved for a special Act. He would move, in lines 17 and 18, to omit “other than lands required for church, school, or trading purposes or for public purposes” ; and in line 21, to omit all the words after “Parliament” to the end of the clause.

asked the Minister whether sites for church, school, or trading purposes were lands that came under the category of lands held in trust.

said that lands in Natal could have been alienated without the consent of Parliament at all. He could not really conceive how hon. members, who rightly called them-selves friends of the natives, could be frightened by this provision at all. What he had done was simply to screw the matter tighter, and say that land could not be alienated except by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. He had thought that that would have been sufficient, but it was represented to him in the Senate that there should be an Act of Parliament. With regard to sites for churches, schools, or trading purposes, these sites were not actual alienation, and were for the benefit of the natives themselves. Anyone who took an interest in native affairs would know that they had to deal with these matters every day, and if they had to get an Act of Parliament each time they desired to allocate a site there would be a great waste of time and much unnecessary delay.

said what was now sought was to substitute an Act of Parliament for the previous methods of dealing with these alienations. That was in conformity with the arrangement made by the Secretary of State in 1908, which settled the differences between the Home Government and the Natal Government about this Zululand Deed of Grant. Consequently, soon afterwards, the Zululand Deed of Grant was issued by the Governor. In that deed provision was made that no such alienation or disposal should be made except with the consent of the Secretary of State, or by the authority of an Act of Parliament, but the result of the legislation was introduced would be to do away with the consent of the Secretary of State altogether and limit it to the legislative consent. He felt that, considering the terms of section 147 of the South Africa Act, which laid down that “no lands set aside for the occupation of natives which cannot at the establishment of the Union be alienated except by an Act of the Colonial Legislature, shall be alienated or in any way diverted from the purposes for which they are set apart, except under the authority of an Act of Parliament,” and considering that the consent of the Secretary of State was virtually set aside, except they put in this Bill that the consent of the Secretary of State was restored with regard to any alienation of land passed by resolution of this House, even those alienations should be the subject of an Act of Parliament.

said that as regarded the amendment of the hon. member for Queenstown, it seemed to him that the provisions of this Bill were the best safeguard they could possibly have by the reference to the Select Committee of these matters. He did not think they would otherwise have the careful examination which he knew the hon. member was anxious to have. With regard to the restoration of the consent of the Secretary of State, surely the careful examination by members of that House was worth the consent of half-a-dozen Secretaries of State where matters concerning the interests of the natives were involved. It seemed to him, however, that they should not override the provisions of section 147 of the Act of Union without saying so. He suggested to the Minister that the words, “or in clause 147 of the Act of Union,” should be added.

said he was not quite satisfied yet. They in that clause drew a distinction as to the size of the grant, which was regulated by Act of Parliament, and that which was to be regulated by resolution. It was no part of his view that these proposals of grants of land should be withdrawn from the ordinary Committee on Waste Lands. His idea was that, when they had been approved, they should be embodied in a schedule attached to an Act of Parliament, and should go through Parliament. He did not see any difficulty, but he saw a reasonable safeguard for protecting those interests which were now being confined to that House.

asked what safeguard was the consent or veto of the Secretary of State for the Colonies? (Hear, hear.) There was no greater safeguard than bringing these things before the House.

said there was no conflict with the Act of Union. The control of the lands was vested in the Governor-General-in-Council, who for that purpose was the Minister of Native Affairs, and it was purely a question of administration. He was startled by the suggestion of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) that they should maintain in that Bill the provision requiring the consent of the Secretary of State, because, although he recognised the zeal and good intentions of the hon. member with regard to the natives, he would ask him to pause before he brought arguments of that sort before the House. They had only to start the notion that they had to refer these matters to the Home Government to do the natives an exceedingly bad turn. (Ministerial cheers.) The Imperial Government, which knew its business, had safeguarded itself entirely by the Act of Union, and within the terms of that Act were embodied the respective positions of the Union and Imperial Governments. (Hear, hear.) He would be extremely sorry if the hon. member were to press anything of that sort.

moved as an amendment to insert after “contained” the words, “in section 147 of the South Africa Act and”.

said it was not good legislation to accept the amendment. Do not let them put that in, because it must mean something. They were not in the least varying the Act of Union.

said the Minister seemed to have misunderstood his hon. friend (Mr. Schreiner), who had never suggested that there was anything wrong, but that every precaution should be taken.

said the Minister had entirely misunderstood all that he had said. All he said was that if the consent of the Secretary of State had been abolished, that was an added reason why every alienation should be subjected to Parliament’s approval. What he (Mr. Schreiner) said was in support of the motion of the hon. member for Queenstown. Every alienation of more than 100 acres should come before Parliament.

pointed out that clause 147 of the Union Act gave the Governor-General-in-Council all powers of administration. Now the Minister proposed to allow the Governor-General to delegate these powers to one individual Minister. The clause intended that the matters should come under the review of the Cabinet.

replied that the clause referred to special powers, such as were exercised in the Transkei, and formerly by the Governor in Natal. The Governor-General-in-Council was the Cabinet, and the Bill only proposed that the daily ordinary administration of the Department should be entrusted to the Minister, as was done in other departments. He could not be consulting the Cabinet every minute of the day.

maintained that the Bill departed from the clause.

The amendments were put and negatived.

moved the addition of the following proviso at the end of the clause: “Provided that the alienation or diversion of any land exceeding 100 acres in extent should be submitted to Parliament in a Bill.” There should, he contended, be a limit in regard to the extent of the alienations proposed to be sanctioned by resolution, and he hoped that this safeguard would be accepted.

said that on the second reading he made a suggestion that two natives might be appointed on the Council proposed to be set up, or, as a variant, two or three assessors should be selected. The difference between the two was that the member would have a vote, while the assessor would not. The Minister, however, had turned it right round, and declared that it was a revolutionary idea. All he asked for was the consideration of this mild, little idea. He moved the following addition: “The Governor-General shall appoint assessor members of the said Council three persons, being natives, resident in the Province of Natal.”

said that his hon. friend apparently desired to get the opinion of the natives, and, of course, whoever was appointed would have to have a seat on the Council.

Not necessarily.

said that in that event it would tend to make both the Europeans and the natives unhappy. He did not see that any good would be done. What he wanted to point out was that they must recognise existing circumstances. He did not think they would be acting wisely towards the natives of Natal were they to mix up Europeans and natives on one Council. Let him point out that so fair as the native was concerned—he admitted that it did not perhaps get over the whole difficulty—that there was a clause dealing with the matter in the Act, which had been discussed. He hoped that his hon. friend would rot press the amendment.

said he thought that if the amendment were accepted it would be productive of a great ideal of good. He thought that such a native as the Rev. Dube of Oklanga Phoenix who had recently been elected as chairman of the United Native Societies of the Union—for the natives as well as the Europeans had become united since the Act of Union—would be fit to represent the natives, and he did not believe for a moment that the European members of the Council would have the slightest objection to sitting with him. He need not have a vote, but he could voice the views of the natives on questions as they came forward.

said he did not think the Minister was adopting the right course in what he proposed. He pointed out that the Council was the result of the Native Affairs Commission, which was a most competent body to deal with the native question. If an opening had been found for giving some native representation, he thought it would have been carried out in Natal; but the difficulty was to find a man to take that position without causing trouble amongst the natives, or who could do it in a better way than Europeans. To appoint assessors who would not speak or vote in the Council would not help very much. He thought that the whole matter had better be left over to be dealt with more fully and more adequately in future. He could not therefore, support the amendment.

said that the least the hon. Minister could have done was to get the report of the Native Conned upon the subject. It might be said that these people would not report favourably on their own abolition, but these people had been put there for the interests of the natives and because they had those interests at heart. How the hands of the Minister would have been strengthened if be had come to that House with the report of the Native Council, and that they recommended the abolition of the Commissioners! It did not affect them individually, because they belonged to the Civil Service, and would get some other work. It did seem extraordinary that the Minister should have ignored that, when they had a distinct provision in the law. The natives wanted to get time to consult others about these matters, but although the natives did not have a vote in Natal, it was quite a common thing for them to consult hon. members who represented their districts, and he personally had been pleased to meet them and be consulted about various matters which affected their interests. The Native Council had had no opportunity of discussing that matter. It was extremely dangerous for the Minister to take up that attitude and ignore the natives. He made out that it was an innocent little Bill, and that it was only a matter of office administration, as the Minister wanted them to believe ; but when they came to clause 3, the Bill was revolutionary. He would like to ask the Minister quite fairly, and without trying to obstruct in any way, why he thought It necessary to ignore the Native Council, and what would be the disadvantage of asking for their report on the subject? Was he afraid of an adverse report? The Minister was acting on his own initiative, as he did the previous year with regard to an important matter of administration.

said that the number of educated natives they had in Natal was so small that it would be almost impossible to get proper representation from them, and he thought that there was much more probability of their views being properly put by European representatives on the Council. (Hear, hear.) He could not support the amendment of the hon. member for Queen’s Town.

said he was very much obliged to the Minister for his reply, and with the leave of the committee he Would like to withdraw his amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 3,

moved in line 35, after “referred to,” to insert “the Governor-General shall appoint, as assessor, members of the said Council, those persons being natives resident in the Province of Natal.”

He afterwards withdrew the amendment.

stated that it was proposed to delete subsection (b) of the Act of 1909, which stated that the Council Should report upon contemplated legislation of the kind specified in the foregoing section, prior to its being introduced into Parliament, and upon any proposed rules or regulations. This was really what the intelligent and civilised natives wanted. He (Mr. Schreiner) was not speaking of putting natives into the Council. Nothing of the kind. But he wanted the Council composed of Europeans who understood the natives. The hon. members for Natal would allow that it was legislation without consulting the natives that produced the last rebellion. (Cries of “No, no,” and “Hear, hear.”) As this was an integral part of the Native Council it ought to remain because it would prevent mistakes. If this advisory Council was to be anything at all, then it should be able to report upon proposed legislation. He moved that sub-section (d) be omitted.

said the hon. member for Tembuland evidently desired that the Government in dealing with Natal native affairs, should consult the Native Council, but obviously they could not do this, if they did not adopt the same procedure in other Provinces. It was not proposed that the Council should not be consulted at all. There were matters that they might advise the Government upon, but it could not be the policy of the Government to submit all proposed native legislation to the Native Council before introducing it into Parliament.

said the whole Bill was about Natal and Natal laws. If it were legislation affecting natives in the Transvaal then he thought it would be statesmanship to submit it to a similar body in the Tnansvaal, if there were one, but they were dealing with legislation that existed in Natal. He could quite understand the Minister’s position if he had abolished the Native Council, as he did in his first Bill, but he could not understand this position when he had reconstructed that Council in taking away one of its most important functions.

The amendment was negatived.

said that it was proposed to abolish the four Native Commissioners, and the Minister had said that this was purely an office convenience. Now there were 250,000 natives under each of these Commissioners, who were looked upon as the fathers of these people. Mr. Meyler referred to the powers and duties of the Commissioners as set out in the Natal Act, No. 1, 1909. If they passed this clause they would have absolutely no machinery, as far as the encouragement of industry among natives and the apprenticing of children were concerned. He would like to know what the Minister proposed to substitute. It was a most ridiculous statement that office convenience had anything to do with the repeal of Part II. of the Natal Act. The natives themselves had not been consulted through their Council or otherwise.

said that if the hon. member (Mr. Meyler) had done nothing but read the clauses in the Natal Act he would, have given ample justification for the action of the Minister. He warmly commended the labour bureau established by the Minister in Johannesburg, and said that it had given the utmost satisfaction.

said that what the hon. member for Weenen had said was absolutely wrong. (Ministerial cheers.) There had been no revolution with regard to native affairs in Natal.

The Bill was reported without amendment, and set down for third reading on Monday.

said the clause gave huge powers to the Minister, enabling him to interfere in the most drastic way with local authorities. (Hear, hear.) He understood the Minister to say on a previous occasion that all that he desired in this clause was to have special powers dealing with epidemics, and the Minister also said that he understood that the Provincial Councils were to take similar powers. From a local government point of view that would lead to complications and cause difficulties to the local authorities. If the clause were passed they would give the Minister power to interfere with the municipalities in matters which did not concern him at all. Under the Act of Union it was left to Provincial Councils to deal with local government matters, and if that clause were passed and the Provincial Councils got similar powers there would be two separate authorities with two powers of interference with local authorities, and between the two fires local authorities would not know where they were. If the Minister simply desired to have power to interfere in case of epidemics let him say that, (Hear, hear.)

If the clause passed as it stood the Minister could interfere with local authorities, and if the Provincial Council passed a similar Ordinance the Administrator could interfere, and conflicting orders might be issued by these two authorities. The powers the Minister sought to take under the clause were extremely drastic. The Medical Officers or any of the Assistant Medical Officers could immediately order local authorities to do as they wished. There was no question of appeal. It might easily happen that the difference would be only one of opinion. If the Minister meant to carry the clause through, some buffer should be placed between him and the local authority. (Opposition cheers.) The local authority should have some power of stating its case and, in general, have a constitutional way of opposing the arbitrary enforcement of the clause. It was all very well to say how it was intended that the clause should be administered by the Minister. They knew that what counted in a clause was the literal word. Time after time they had found the assurances of the Minister and the circumstances under which Parliament had passed a particular measure absolutely forgotten, once the Act got into the office of the Minister and some smart Civil Servant found out what liberal powers were given. He wished to see the machinery of public health work smoothly as between the Minister and the local authorities. He had one or two amendments. He would prefer that they left the clause out altogether, but as that was not likely he wished to bind the clause to a definite provision so that it would operate in conjunction with clause 13, and it was only under a state of things contemplated in clause 13, when an epidemic or something like that occurred, that the Minister would have power to interfere with the municipalities. He moved in line 69, to omit all the words after “that” to “by,” in line 61, and to substitute, “there is a danger of the outbreak or spread in any locality of any of the diseases named in or which may toe proclaimed under sub-section (1) of section thirteen of this Act, or of any other serious infectious, contagious or other preventable disease to be proclaimed by the Minister by reason of” ; and in line 67, after “may,” to insert: “after holding an inquiry at which the local authority shall have the opportunity of being represented.”

supported the amendment. He contended that local authorities would be better acquainted with the circumstances than an official at a distance. It was impossible for the Minister or for the Medical Officer of Health, especially one fresh in this country, to know the local conditions in the various parts of the country. He mentioned the case of a medical officer fresh from England who had gone to Kimberley with preconceived ideas as to sanitation. In twelve months he realised that his scheme was totally out of place. One would gather from the clause that there was neglect of duty on the part of certain local bodies, and that the Minister wanted the power to coerce them to do something. It was quite the other way about. Instead of being remiss the local authorities had the greatest difficulty in getting support from the Government in time of need. (Opposition cheers.) When the plague broke out at Cape Town he happened to be Mayor of Kimberley. He ascertained that a number of men had left the infected area and were making for Kimberley under the tarpaulins of some trucks. These men were stopped outside the town, and put in quarantine. Meanwhile he asked the Government for power to enforce quarantine regulations. The reply was that as the plague was not in Kimberley the power could not be granted. That left him in the position that if these men had sued for damages he would have been liable He gave them the opportunity of going into quarantine or going to Cape Town, and they accepted the former. Judging by his experience in the Cape Colony, he felt it was only right that the responsibility should be thrown on the local people, who knew all the conditions. He strongly urged the Minister to see that the clause only applied in the case of an epidemic. If they were going to allow the Medical Officer to interfere with local authorities in minor matters, then he thought they would soon get to loggerheads.

said he hoped that the Minister would accept some amendment, because it would be a big burden on the country if they were to have a man rambling around and interfering with local authorities. If they did not take some steps they would damage the principle of local government. It was a very mild amendment, and he would give it his support.

said there appeared to him to be some substance in the argument of the hon. member for Simon’s Town, but he was not certain whether the amendment did not go too far. He said that there should only be action by the central Government in the case of a serious epidemic. His opinion was that the amendment would limit the clause too much, and he could quote instances to the hon. member. There was tuberculosis, for instance. It would be a serious matter if some local authority refused to take action in regard to the disease. When the Union Government set a course of action, it should see that this course was seriously pursued. He did not think the committee should accept the hon. member’s amendment, and thus limit the Government only to serious epidemics. The other instance was that of pneumonia. There was an enormous mortality on the mines in Johannesburg. They would not call that an epidemic, but yet it was only proper after the Government had found what course should be followed that steps should be taken by the local authority. There were other cases which could not be called epidemics, but which seriously affected the public health of the country, and should receive the attention of the Union Government. He did not believe that the Government should step in arbitrarily, but that an inquiry should be held. He would suggest that before the central Government stepped in to use the powers conferred upon it by the clause, an inquiry should be held, and at this inquiry the local authority should have an opportunity of stating its case. He did not think that the hon. member should use the word “represented,” but the word “heard.” Then there was the point that was brought forward by the hon. member for East London on the second reading of the Bill. The clause stated that any expenditure incurred by the Minister could be recovered by an action in a competent court. It was pointed out by the hon. member for East London that this had appeared in the Cape Act, with a limitation. He (the Minister) thought it only fair that there should be a limit as to the extent to which the local authority could be held liable. He thought that this was a place where they could apply the principle of section 13. The Minister might recover to the extent laid down in section 13. The extent to which the local authority would be held responsible would be according to the circumstances of that local authority. They could not deal with the poor places as they dealt with the rich, or they might cripple the resources of the poorer local authorities. It could not be managed upon a hard and fast rule ; but he was prepared to move an amendment at the end of the section. With the amendment, he thought that section 11 was quite reasonable, and should be accepted by the committee. Hon. members would see that the Government would only step in where the public health was seriously endangered by these larger—not only epidemics, but scourges, which affected the country. The section in the New South Wales Act was quite general—“likely to affect the public health”—where he said “seriously endangers public health.” Evidently the State Government there went the whole length of stepping in, where there was a likelihood of any danger, and they held the local authority responsible to the full extent. He thought that in both respects they would be going too far here if they adopted that principle. He thought that they should limit themselves, as had been done in the Bill, by providing that if the public health be seriously endangered they should step in and limit the financial responsibility of the local authority to some extent—as they limited it in section 13. He thought that that amendment and alteration of that clause ought to be accepted. The Provincial Council, no doubt, would take similar authority, but deal rather with questions of sanitations and the municipal questions of public health with which they were concerned. He wanted to confine their (the Government’s) jurisdiction rather to those more formidable diseases which endangered the public health of the country. He had discussed that matter fully with the Administrators, and he thought that the Provincial authorities were in entire accord with them that, in these larger epidemics, the Government should step in.

Of course, the intention of the Ministen is perfectly clear, and I do not dispute that in the least. My point is that both these authorities are taking the same powers, and when these men who made that understanding are dead and buried, and others sit in their seats, those who come after them are going to read this clause literally, and are not going to take cognisance of the understandings and the like. The hon. member went on to say that there were 101 things in which the Minister could interfere, and if they were giving the Minister these powers under the law, it was not only the Minister who was going to have these powers, but the Provincial Councils would find they had the same laws ; they would have a second authority starting to interfere with the same points, and they were setting up two conflicting, or possibly conflicting, authorities. He submitted that they could get over the difficulty by the Minister adding a few more words: “or in any serious disease or epidemic … to be proclaimed by the Minister.” What they wanted to avoid was confusion, and he had no doubt that the Minister and the Administrators would get on smoothly. What he was contemplating, however, was the future.

said it was only right that the Minister, in dealing with infectious diseases, should define his position, so that the municipalities should know where they were. He could see three bodies coming into operation in a town—the municipality, the Provincial Council, and the Government. He quite agreed with the last speaker that Government should define what powers it should have. It would be well for the Minister to let the clause stand down until he had given it further consideration.

said he was prepared to accept the last part of the amendment. (Hear, hear.)

moved that clause 11 stand over for further consideration.

hoped that his hon. friend would not press the amendment. They would get no further by letting the clause stand over.

said it was somewhat terrifying to think that the Minister proposed to deal with diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis, and to interfere in the same way as he would with very infectious diseases like zymotic diseases and others. It would be all right if they were going in for a national campaign against tuberculosis, but he thought that really the clause ought to stand down.

said the Minister proposed to pay at least half the expense, supposing he took any action. Supposing he spent a couple of thousand pounds, that would be a mere trifle to the Government, but it was a serious matter to a municipality. The plague in Cape Town cost something like £400,000. That was an intolerable burden for a municipality to bear. He hoped the Minister would see his way to limit the power of the Government to recover from municipalities under this clause in the way that was provided in the Cape Act of 1897.

said he would withdraw his amendment when he understood clearly from the Minister what he was going to do with regard to the expenditure. It was a very serious matter for a municipality, especially where they had to administer a native location.

said he hoped his hon. friend would meet him quite fairly on the point he had raised. They were now dealing with prior amendments and it was difficult to go into an amendment which the hon. member wanted at the end of the clause.

said that under the circumstances he would withdraw his motion.

said that under this Bill a heavy burden might be placed upon local authorities, but he did not see that a similar obligation was to be placed upon the natives if an epidemic broke out in a location. He thought the white people and the natives should be similarly dealt with in this matter.

I think my hon. friend will see that he is going rather too far. This clause is limited to local authorities, municipal and other, but if you are going beyond local authorities, we cannot stop at native locations and we shall have to go to rural districts, and the constituency of my hon. friend may find itself with a heavy burden if such an extension took place.

said he would like to know what would be the position if an epidemic broke out in a rural area where they had no rural authority?

said he considered clause 11 one of the most important in the Bill, and hon. members who had spoken had only confined their remarks to Municipalities, but he considered Divisional Councils had even greater responsibilities than Municipalities. The district which he represented had several missionary stations, locations, and native reserves, and consumption and syphilis were simply rampant, and the Divisional Council were unable to do anything to stamp out any of those diseases, for the simple reason that there was no machinery to do it with What was needed was a proper institution, such as a sanatorium, to cope with these diseases and stamp them out, but it was impossible for local bodies to do anything in the matter, and beyond their means. He was, therefore, glad to hear from the Minister of the Interior that he would provide in the Bill that the Government shall pay not less than half of the expenses.

pointed out that in parts of the country there were no local authorities such as existed in the Cape Province. Where there were Divisional Councils and Municipalities the people would have to bear a larger burden than where there was no local authority. He thought that the Minister would be well advised to allow the clause to stand over for the present.

said it seemed to him the idea prevailed that it was necessary to treat Municipalities in a more gentle manner than other bodies or persons. He thought that in the case of negligence by a Municipality, those members only of the Municipality who were negligent ought to be punished. Accordingly, he moved in line 6, page 6. after “from the” to insert “members of the.”

emphasised the point made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, that a verbal understanding in the House on a Bill was not binding at all. The Bill might be passed with a certain intention, but when it got into the hands of certain officials they said they had nothing to do with the intention, and pointed to the Act itself. He drew attention to the differentiation in regard to the financial position. In the Cape, where there was a number of local authorities, the Government would call upon them to pay half, while other parts would be let off entirely. The proposal would not hold water.

said there was going to be very serious conflict between this Bill and the Act of 1897, which had not been repealed. The Act still remained in force, though they now had new provisions for dealing with local authorities. The Government would pay four-fifths under the old Act, make the local authority pay everything under section 2, or, under the amendment of the hon. member, pay half. It was a very dangerous power to place in the hands of the Minister, who could—he did not say it would be done by the present holder of the office—treat more or less sympathetically the cases which he had to deal with. If the Bill went through as it stood and the other Act was not repealed, the law courts would have to decide the position of the local authorities.

West said he hoped that in cases where there were locations the Government would see that the natives paid their fair share towards the cost of stamping out an epidemic. In his view, not many local authorities would be able to pay half the costs of eradicating consumption. He hoped the Minister would leave the clause over and consider the matter.

said that in no spirit of hostility ho asked the Minister to allow the clause to stand over He moved accordingly. If not, they would have to go on discussing it until they got some relief.

I agree to that.

On clause 12,

moved in line 14, after “period of,” to insert “not exceeding.”

The amendment was accepted.

On clause 13,

asked that the clause stand over, as it was closely bound up with clause 11, and there were amendments of the same nature.

said that this clause was the very essence of the Bill. It contained the power that they really wanted. If they allowed it to stand over they might just as well drop the Bill.

said that they were not endeavouring to stop the passage of that Bill through the House, but to see that it fell equally on all parts of the Union.

said that it seemed a curious objection in dealing with section 13—that they must do nothing unless there was some local authority. Surely they would not let the question of public health in South Africa stand over until they had a complete system of local government in all parts of the Union. He did not think it was a fair objection to make.

said that surely the Hon. the Minister did not think that that was the object of their discusison? That was not their object at all. The difficulty of the Minister was that he was going to try to do something which could be done by the Provincial authorities They had local authorities all through in the Cape, which could deal with public health.

said that the difficulty could be got over if the Minister would devote some time and thought to it. To pass the Bill as it now stood and to penalise one Province and allow another to go free, was not fair. Discussing the Bill clause by clause showed how impossible the Bill was. That clause was creating another anomaly.

said that he did not see what differences were made between the Provinces as reforced to by the hon. member. He did see that there was a great difference where a local authority was established and where there was not” He thought it was highly essential that the powers required by the Central Government should be as laid down in section 13. Another thing he objected to was the incidence of taxation, and he thought that the provision of the Cape Act was far better in that respect. He thought that the Minister would do very well to consider that question, and get some more reasonable scale of contribution towards the costs.

said that the essential reason for that said that the essential reason for that Bill was to deal with the outbreak of plague in Durban, and if the Minister had brought in a short Bill to get the necessary powers to deal with that it would have gone through long since. He was strongly in favour of local self-government, and he would very much have preferred the local Provincial Councils. If there was anything they (the Councils) complained of it was want of work, and here was an opportunity of giving them some work. The financial circumstances of each of the Provinces were different, and in the Cape half the costs of any outbreak would be borne by the central authority and the other half by the local authorities, whether it was the municipality or the divisional council. When they got into the rural areas, then the Central Government would have to pay. If they wanted to treat everyone fairly, then the Government would have to bear the whole cost, and therefore he hoped that the clause would be allowed to stand over.

asked for a definition of rural areas.

said that what was meant was people residing outside municipalities. Any expense in their case would be borne by the Central Government.

said he did not think it was at all likely that epidemics would break out in thinly-populated rural areas, but in thickly-populated centres.

said they had a definition of local authority in clause 3, and it was on account of this definition that objection was being raised. The point was that the old Cape Act was not repealed, and the Minister could not have both. He would suggest that the clause stand over.

asked his hon. friend to agree to report progress, and ask leave to sit again, as there was no idea of what this expenditure was likely to be. Thousands of pounds were spent in the stamping out of plague, not in the interests of Cape Town, but in the interests of the general community.

moved to report progress.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Monday next.