from the widow of the late C. S. Nicholson, Civil Commissioner.

in support of the petition of H. J. Steyn.

in opposition to compulsory service as laid down by the South Africa Defence Bill, and requesting that the said Bill be not passed into law.

from the widow of the late T. M. Hogan.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had considered the proposal he (Sir Thomas) had made on the previous evening that it should give the House an opportunity of discussing the resolution standing to his name in connection with the grave condition of public anxiety, and thus to enable the Government to make a statement to allay that anxiety.

during the day.

said the amendment of the Minister of the Interior was a very clever one, and required to be read several times before one could get at its exact meaning. Its effects would be far-reaching and dangerous. It proposed what was termed a compensating duty—that was to say, that, in effect it proposed additional taxation on foreign capital invested in industries within the Union. Thus those who escaped the meshes of the proposals of the Minister of Finance would be caught in the net of the amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior. The House had to consider the effect of this amendment, and whether it would be to the interests of the Union or to the detriment of this country to encourage or discourage capital coming in. Previous speakers had expressed the fear that these proposals would prevent capital flowing into South Africa. He (Sir David) agreed with them; he even went a little further, and said that it would have the effect of driving capital away. Although the revenue for the year 1911-12 showed a surplus of practically £698,000, they were face to face with increased taxation. If when they had a prosperous country and the revenue was greater than expenditure, they imposed fresh taxation on special interests in this country, then people who employed their capital in South Africa would say: “If in prosperous times the Union increases our burdens, which are already heavy enough, what will they do when worse times come, or when revenue is not equal to expenditure?” (Hear, hear.) They would naturally think that if money was ever required to make both ends meet, foreign capital would be made the butt of the Treasurer’s demands. Then there would be greater difficulty in raising capital for mines and for other industries. It must be admitted by members that people domiciled in South Africa did not employ—he would not say invest, because money employed in mining was not investment, except of a highly speculative character—their money in mining. People in this country preferred first mortgages, or to put their money on fixed deposit, because it was safer. There they ran no risks, and their money was always safe; but the man who employed his money in mining ran the risk, not alone of not getting any return, but, perhaps, of losing every shilling he placed in the venture. Even the Land Bank would set its face against lending money on mining propositions, or even debentures in mining concerns. When the suggestion was made that the Land Bank should do this, there was a titter of disapproval in the House. It must be apparent that they had to go outside the Union in order to obtain the money with which to build up the different industries of South Africa. Hon. members had said that they had heard this cry of driving capital out of the Union, and it was the usual cry whenever proposals were made to tax any industry.

This amendment was not really a death duty tax. It was a duty in lieu of death duties. It imposed ¼ per cent, per annum on the market value of all bearer shares and all shares held by companies outside the Union, registered in companies within the Union, and it would lay an obligation upon companies registered within the Union to collect the whole amount that would be due to the State if this amendment passed. It was a very distasteful duty for companies to be tax-gatherers. He thought that duty might very well be undertaken by the State. He must say that he did not see how the State could collect this tax, unless they had the assistance of the different companies. He doubted whether it would be good policy, whether it would be in the interests of future enterprise in this country, if the companies affected by this amendment deducted these duties from shareholders. He took the case of a Frenchman who held bearer shares, and who, when he went to his banker in France for his dividend, was informed that they could not pay the usual dividend, because of a deduction made in South Africa, because they could not catch the holder, as he was not domiciled in the country. That, he was sure, would have a very bad effect indeed. Proceeding, he remarked that the death duties in England and these compensation duties were entirely different matters. He admitted that it was said in England that the effect of the death duties would be to decrease the amount of reproductive capital and that less money would be available for the industries of the United Kingdom. They did not say that capital would be driven away. That was not the point. England had sufficient capital for her industries. She had never been, as far as he knew, a borrowing country; she had built her railways and harbours, had financed her industries, and Government loans amounting to several thousands of millions raised within the country itself. England did not require foreign money to develop her resources. She could develop her resources and have a surplus amount of money still on hand to invest in other countries. But when the question of the compensation duties was discussed in that House it was argued that they would have the effect of preventing capital from coming into the country. That was the difference between the state of affairs in England and those prevailing here.

South Africa had always been a borrowing country They were borrowing today and they would continue to borrow. He thought a very small amount even of the Union debt was held in this country. Nearly the whole of the debt of the Union had been raised in England. They had a new Land Settlement Bill and Land Bank Bill, and they were going to build more railways, and large sums of money would be required for irrigation. It would be necessary to borrow very large sums of money to develop this country. He did not object to the borrowing of this money, because he thought it would be for the benefit and development of this country, but what effect would this amendment have upon those people who were in a position to lend this country money? It must be remembered that a large number of people in England who had put money into mining in this country were those to whom the Minister of Finance would have to look to supply him with the means of carrying out the provisions of these Bills. What the Minister of Finance was doing was to put up the backs of those people. He was afraid that the Minister would find that this hostility would have the effect of increasing the difficulty in raising the money required for the ordinary development of the Union. (Hear, hear.) When: the question was last debated in the House he made a statement which was incorrect, and he thought it only right to take the first opportunity of putting that statement right. He stated then that the proposals of the Minister of Finance would affect in a certain measure Union stock.

On that occasion he gave an example of a man of 60, and said it would pay him better to sell Union stock at par and buy Consols at 80; but he found that he was labouring under a misapprehension, and that Union stock was exempted from the operation of the original proposal. He desired to make that clear. It was obvious that the reason for excluding Union stock from this clause was that the Minister felt if these provisions were made applicable to such stock it would have a very bad effect upon his being able to raise money for this country. It would handicap him; therefore, the operation of this taxation measure was excluded in regard to Union stock. If this amendment would have the effect of deterring investors from putting money into Union stock, what effect would it have upon the introduction of capital for industrial purposes and for that highly speculative industry, mining? It would have a very much worse effect. If a man invested money in Union stock his capital was always intact, and he received the interest every year, but if a man invested in industrial concerns or mining his capital may disappear at any moment. On the basis of 20 years’ purchase, the man who put money into mining must get at least 8½ per cent. per annum, which would leave5 per cent. per annum interest and a sinking fund to provide for the redemption of the capital originally put in. The Minister had dealt with this question as if all money that had come into this country for employment in mining and other industries had found ready and profitable investment, but a very large proportion of the money that had come in for that purpose had been absolutely lost.

It was only a proportion—he could not say what proportion, but he thought about one-half of the money that came into this country—that was found to be profitable. He did believe that if the money that had been invested or employed in mining concerns in this country had been put into Consols at par, the people who supplied that money would be far better off than they were at the present day with their mining investments. Complying with a good deal of pressure that was brought to bear on the company with which he was-closely connected, they agreed to exchange all the registered shares into bearer shares. They complied with the request of the shareholders at the cost of many thousands of pounds. As soon as this was done, they got this amendment of the Treasurer General, which turned the whole thing upside down. During last session there was taxation on the mining industry, and again this year they had the same state of affairs, and he pointed to the enormous amount paid by the mining companies in indirect taxation, without taking into account the amount of direct taxation. How were some of the mines taxed? In two years the De Beers Company had paid £586,000 for the mining profits tax. The sum of £3,600,000 had been paid to shareholders, so that the State had received 16¼ per cent on the dividends which the company had paid. Well, the whole of this £586.000 had been borne by ordinary shareholders because a large number of the shares were preferent, and it was the understanding at the time they were issued that these shareholders would receive a five per cent. return on their capital of £20. Was that taxation not sufficient? Why should this taxation be increased? According to the proposal of the Treasurer, the man domiciled in this country and holding bearer shares would have to pay one-quarter per cent, per annum on the market value of the shares and at the time of his death would also have to pay estate duty. This was not fair; it was really putting a premium on the man who lived outside the country. He did not think that the Treasurer could do better than leave out this amendment; he did not think that it would make very much difference so far as estates were concerned, because everybody was not trying to humbug the Government. There were still trustees who would put forward correct schedules. He believed that the people concerned, living outside the country, would be clever enough to evade these new proposals of the Treasurer. He was not clever enough to see how they were going to do it, but he firmly believed that they would be smart enough to evade this new taxation. If people were fairly taxed they felt it to be their duty to pay what was due to the State. But if they considered themselves to be unfairly taxed, then they evaded unfair taxation to the best of their ability. He thought that the Treasurer would be acting wisely if he dropped this new proposal. It would have the effect of driving capital from the country, and have the further effect of endangering the credit of this country. He hoped these new fantastic proposals would be dropped.

said he did not intend to speak at any great length, but he would like to know whether this was in order. They had before them an Estate Duty Bill, and the Treasurer made an interesting speech upon the subject of estate duty. They then had slipped into this Estate Duty Bill an amendment for income tax—it was really an income tax. Where were they going to stop? They might have a Customs duty amendment brought into the Bill next. It was not at all pertinent to the subject of estate duty. Now, when the Estate Duty Bill was before the House, they had this amendment which introduced a new system of taxation—taxation which could not be called estate duty in any sense of the word. If they could introduce taxation on one sort of property into an Estate Duty Bill, why should they not introduce an amendment dealing with all sorts of property. How many stamp duties were going to be altered in this Estate Duty Bill Where were they going to stop? When the proposals were introduced there was a good deal of feeling on his side of the House, a feeling with which he was in sympathy, of an injustice that was being done the simple landowner. Upon the point as to whether it was right or not, there was a great difference of opinion. He thought it was really the shadow of the general income tax which was bound to come, because they joyfully accepted schemes which would cost money in the future, and that money would have to come from somewhere or somebody.

They had pretty nearly come to a point when they saw stealing over this fair land—this happy Union—an income tax, and when that day arrived, that would be the proper time to levy this, but not in this particular Bill. Then whether they had bearer shares or other shares or debentures, they would all have to pay their fair whack, but to call the present Bill a Death Duty Bill was a misnomer. It was a very heavy tax this one-quarter per cent., and he would like to point out that they did not hit the man they wanted to hit. The man they wanted to hit was the bloated capitalist, who made his wealth in the country and lived oversea, where they occasionally heard of him as giving freak dinners and keeping race horses, or a yacht, and afterwards being found among the peerage. But they would not hit this man at all, but the small man who held a few bearer shares and who lived, God knows where. (Laughter.) He confessed he did not like this Bill, it strained his allegiance to the utmost.

said the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken had said that this was not pertinent to the estate duty. If he had consulted the record he would have read a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Germiston, which explained how easily the Minister’s proposals could be evaded. As far as he could see, the Treasurer had taken up the challenge, and drawn up a scheme to prevent such evasion as far as possible. He would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance, however to one point, and that was that he hoped this percentage when once paid, would not be charged again to another holder of the shares.

Quite right.

They had heard a great deal lately about frightening away persons with capital—those persecuted individuals who were being pursued from place to place. He would ask hon. members to refer to one form in which capitalists came to the country, and that was in the form of making investments, and he would ask hon. members to consult their own commonsense and ask themselves whether these people ever calculated their chances so closely as the margin the Minister proposed to take off. In these speculative investments, investors were not going to be deterred from buying shares because one-quarter per cent. was taken off by the Minister. His hon. friend (Sir D. Harris) dwelt upon the position of French investors in De Beers, who desired to have their shares converted into bearer shares. If the idea was to evade the death and estate duties, then that was a very intelligent idea. But it was their duty not to make it easier for these people to evade the tax. A great deal of notice had been taken lately about frightening away capitalists—people who were simply trying to effect a lien upon the industries of the country. The idea seemed to be that capital was money brought in from abroad, and which in some mysterious way fructified in this country.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Pretoria East said, “Nonsense.” Would the hon. member tell him how much money was paid for paper by people in Europe, paper which was merely a lien upon the industries of the country. As soon as people recognised that capital was something that was accrued by the people of the country, and which should be used for the benefit of the people of the country, the better.

referred to the report of the Select Committee upon Estate Duties in the old Cape Parliament. He stood up for that report, and everyone concerned with it, he believed, would do the same. The Bill which his right hon. friend introduced came at a late stage of the session, and unfortunately there was one serious omission. The Bill was drafted upon English lines, and it omitted to deal with a special set of circumstances in South Africa, in which so much property passed from one person to another. There was no provision which dealt with this aspect, and it very soon became evident that they were faced with a very grave difficulty. The present Bill contained a provision for dealing with this particular aspect which they lost sight of. Then, they were dealing with matters as they concerned the Cape, but to-day the position was different. Proceeding, the Minister said he desired to point out the manner in which his hon. friend the member for Cape Town had misled the House and the country with regard to the scale of duties. They proposed to wipe out the equivalent to an inheritance tax, and everything was to be included in this one duty, whereas in England there were three or four other duties on inheritance. In England there were probate, legacy, and succession duties.

They are alternative.

No, no. Continuing, Mr. Burton said that with regard to the amendment, the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin) had described that as being either a compensation tax, an inheritance tax, a plunder tax, or a confiscation tax, and he took it as if it were something entirely new, and an abominable and vicious innovation made by the Minister of Finance for the first time.

They all knew that the principle of dealing with companies which could not be taxed in the ordinary way by some other means was nothing new at all. He was sure the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had forgotten the feeble attempt in this direction which was made in the Cape in 1908 when the Government had the assistance in this matter of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Sir E. H. Walton). That tax had not achieved its end, and they were now trying to improve it So far as the principle of introducing one kind of taxation in a Bill which fundamentally dealt with another kind of tax was concerned, the Government had taken it from a most excellent precedent—the British Act on the subject. Chapter 51 of the British Act of Parliament of 1885 provided for a compensation duty. They did not blush to admit that they had taken the suggestion from that Act.

What is the title?

The Customs and Inland Revenue Act. (Opposition laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Burton said that when Government made its first attempt to deal with the non-resident shareholder, although it did its best at the time, it did not have the advantage of the opinion, the advice, and the hints which had so kindly been given by the hon. member for Germiston, who the other day when Government introduced its simple little motion, showed that they would not manage to catch the people they wanted to catch. (Ministerial laughter.) The hon. member was kind enough to show Government exactly along which lines the motion was going to be evaded. (Ministerial laughter.) The Government owed him a debt of gratitude: he appeared to be well aware of these methods and to be thoroughly versed in the ways of malefactors.

In the Cape Act No. 33 of 1908, clause 6 stated that stocks, debentures, or shares held by any deceased persons in companies carrying on business in this country should be regarded as being situated in this country, notwithstanding that deceased might not have been domiciled here. They were then not so wise or so clever as he hoped they were being made now. What did the complaint in regard to this compensation duty amount to? It was admitted that if the companies were registered here there would be no objection. (Sir L. PHILLIPS: “Hear, hear.”) He (Mr. Burton) was glad to hear the hon. member say that because it gave away the whole case. (Ministerial laughter.) There was a vast body of authority for the principle that the law took as taxable what was situated in the country. Shares might be held in London, Paris, or Berlin, and those shares represented property or interest in the wealth of South Africa situate in South Africa. Owing to a difference of view as to the principles on which taxation should go it frequently had happened that a man was taxed two or three times. The location of the wealth was the line the Government went upon. It had often happened that a man had been taxed by the country in which his wealth was placed, by the country in which he resided on the ground of citizenship, and by another country on the ground of domicile or because of the fact that he carried on business there. Government had been taunted time after time with the remark made by the Prime Minister in London on this point, when it was perfectly obvious that the Prime Minister never intended that South Africa should not be able to tax these things. He was making a remonstrance with the Imperial Government because they were taxing what the Union Government maintained South Africa should tax. The Prime Minister’s contention was based on this foundation: that a company was being taxed in South Africa and also in England. That was what the Prime Minister meant. If they admitted that it was a good rule to look to the place where the properly was situated, then it was fair and proper to impose the tax. It was agreed that if a man died possessing property in South Africa he should be made to pay. If a man died in Europe and owned landed property here, under our Estate Duties Act, he should have to pay. It a man died in America or Hong Kong and owned only oxen or a large flock of sheep here, they were perfectly right in making him pay. If a man owned oxen or sheep he must pay, but if he owned gold shares then he must not pay (Laughter.) Plainly speaking, that was the position, because what was a gold share? What was that little bit of paper? It was a security for a particular interest, which was as truly and as definitely tangible an interest as an ox or a sheep. What was the difference? What was a gold share? It was a title to property—to a particular partnership. Let them see where the justice of the amendment came in. The holder of bearer shares represented a man who was a partner, but who evaded responsibility of partnership, and who, apparently would be in a position to evade responsibility. Under an Estate Duty Act, or under an Income Tax Act, they could not get at the holders of bearer shares unless they did something in the way of a compensatory duty.

How does he escape income tax?

He would escape it in the same way. Did hon. members contend that because a man was the holder of bearer shares he was not to be got at? He might be a millionaire over and over again in bearer shares in the wealth of South Africa, but because he was the owner of only bearer shares he was not to be got at. They had a great deal of criticism of their proposal, but they had not had a constructive suggestion from the Opposition as to how these people, who ought in principle to pay, should be made to pay, or how to get at them. The Government had the greatest fear that they might not be able to attain the object they had in view, even with the machinery they were setting up in this measure. It was to a very large extent a leap in the dark. There were these ways of evading it as had been started. The objection had been made that it was an income tax, but they were adopting the same legislation as was passed in Great Britain.

When did that happen?

In 1885.

Oh.

It is still law.

I know that, but it is not the same tax.

I don’t say it is like this tax, but it is the same principle of the compensatory duty. Proceeding, he said that when they introduced the Income Tax Bill in the Cape they found that it was difficult to assess the incomes of the farming population, so a land tax was introduced in the measure. As regarded what the hon. member for Beaconsfield had said about the hardship of introducing measures of this sort to tax money invested in the country, he said that was all very nice, but every man who invested money in this country in shares or in farming, or in any venture, thought there was a bona fide hope that there was not going to be any more taxation than was possible. The amendment was based on the validity of the principle of taxing where the property was situated—of holding a person liable in the country in which his property was situated. That principle had held good all over the world, and if they once ad mitted it here, then they were entitled to recover duty.

said he was rather surprised, in fact, rather disappointed, at the speech of his hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs, who was much happier when he was dealing with native affairs and laws than when dealing with the question of finance. The Hon. the Minister had admitted in the House that day that the Government had not the sense to see the meaning of their own proposals, and it was only when his hon. friend the member for Germiston came along and told them what their proposals meant that they were able to put them in order. Surely that was an extraordinary-admission to make. In the Transvaal that very question was raised and the very same-arguments were used as were used by his hon. friend, and so the Government had the advantage not only of their own individual intelligence, but actually the experience gained by their own members who sat on the Treasury benches. Therefore it was only another instance of the Government bringing in measures and depending upon the Opposition to put them into shape. (Opposition cheers.) He knew taxes were bad, but at the same time they were a necessary evil. The question was how to raise taxation with the least possible vexation to the inhabitants. Death duties he considered very bad duties.

It was far better, as a matter of principle, that they should take from people during their lifetime such amount as the State required. But this habit of introducing death duties had become common, and it had been copied in this country as it existed in other countries. So on that ground they should not make objection to the death duties, and they did not do anything of the kind, but when in introducing a Death Duty Act the Minister of Finance proposed to extend that principle, and by a side wind to bring in an income tax as well, they complained that it was totally unscientific, because they were, in attempting to introduce a Death Duty Act, by a side wind introducing an income tax, and an income tax applied to one section of securities in this country. They had another quarrel with the Minister of Finance on that score. At the time of his Budget he told people that he did not propose to introduce fresh taxation this year. Before the session was more than three months old, he came with proposals that would tax a large amount of capital in another part of the world, not only this part of the world, but another part of the world. He was not in a position to give the House an estimate of the amount of capital that would be taxed in this country, but it would not surprise him in the least if they found that at least fifty millions of money would be taxed in this form.

I hope it will be ten times that amount.

It will be in years to come. I am not objecting to the legitimate taxation of capital in the country, but I am objecting to the form in which it is proposed to levy this tax, and I say I do not believe that in any legislature in the world has there ever been introduced a proposal so astounding as that laid before the House the other night by the Minister of the Interior. He said he had been told that it was ungrammatical, it was unfair, and it was unsound. I hope before I have finished to show that it is all three of these things. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in the first place it professed, in the opening clauses, to be a consolidating law. He would rather be inclined to describe it as a law of extension than of consolidation. Towards the end of sub-section (c) the clause imposing the 5 per cent, duty read: “when such capital or stock is held by a person domiciled or resident outside the Union at the date of his death.” Now it was proposed to add: “Provided that (a) if the warrants for such share capital, debentures or debenture stock are issued to bearer,” etc. What share capital and what debentures? The debentures of a deceased person? The Minister who introduced this clause would have to amend it so that they would know what it meant. He agreed that it was possible to make this clause into sense.

Well, move it.

I am going to move it off directly altogether. It is possible to make it convey the sense which hon. members opposite intended, but I am bound to say that they lack the intelligence not only to perceive what their measures mean, but to put them into ordinary, plain understandable English.

Then as to the question of the incidence of this tax, this ¼ per cent. duty which it was proposed to levy upon these shares was a tax not upon the dead, but upon the living, and therefore, it was an income-tax, pure and simple. It was not a tax upon what the dead left behind, but it was a tax upon what the living were to enjoy. As a matter of finance generally, it would be perfectly proper—and he would support it, for one, if and when further taxation was necessary—that they had an income-tax. But they were not going to introduce an income tax upon one section of the population and one section of the people who did not belong to the country at all, by a side wind. They would convey the idea, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world, that this country had not a settled policy in its system of taxation. The incidence of this tax would be very serious indeed. Supposing a company had one million capital which paid annually a 5 per cent. dividend. That company would pay £50,000 a year in dividends. They would take with their ¼ per cent. tax £2,500, or 5 per cent, per annum of the dividend. They were committing a gross injustice to investors. Taking the basis of 100,000 lives, a man of 30 years of age had a normal expectation of something over 34 years of life, and he thought it was fair to say that, ordinarily, people of 30 years may be regarded as investors. If they had an investor at 30 years of age who retained his investment to the end of his life for 34 years, this tax that he had to pay would amount to £18 18s. per cent. If he paid for 25 years the amount of the tax would be equal to £10 8s. 3d. per cent. So that if they were putting this tax on in substitution of one at 5 per cent. in the way of death-duty, they were baking two or three times as much as the 5 per cent, payable as death-duty. If a man lived for 30 years after he had invested and paid this ¼ per cent. per annum tax, he would have paid £14 0s. 5d. per cent. That was perfectly monstrous. Let their compensation duty, if it happened to err at all, err on the side of leniency towards people who lived on the other side of the world. He did not want to deal with the question of the companies as tax-gatherers, but the objection to this tax was really this, that they were aiming at securing something from certain rich persons.

No.

That was the initial idea. You deny it?

I never said so. You said so.

I never said so. I can drop the point; it is of no great importance.

Continuing, he said that it was a wrong policy to gain their ends by what he might call side winds. If they were going to tax shares and debentures indiscriminately they ought to exempt some, else the industries would be forced to pay the tax. That was the complaint which they had to lodge aginst the Government. The complaint against the Government was that they were not only taxing the industries, which is fair in a reasonable way, but they were, by means of a side wind, singling out a special class of persons. That was the serious aspect of the charge which had been levelled against the Government, and it would be a bar to the investment of money in South Africa. He did not think that it was right that the Treasurer, under the cloak of the Estate Duty Bill, should devise and introduce this specious scheme for roping in certain classes of people who lived in other countries. Let them tax the people of the country, and let them tax the industries of the country; but if they expected people to bring their money here then they must give them immunity from these irregular forms of taxation. The whole principle of the tax was wrong, and he hoped that the House, after reconsidering the matter, would leave out that very ingenious proviso which had been introduced by the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of Native Affairs had quoted an English Act which was introduced in 1885 but he would point out that that piece of legislation did not bear upon the subject at all. Even if it did bear upon the point at issue he would like to say that the circumstances of the two countries were entirely different. They must remember that South Africa was a new country and was a borrowing country, and that legislation which might be quite safe in Great Britain should not be attempted in this country. They wanted people to bring their money here, but they would find people driven away if they Proceeded to bring forward legislation of this character. He pointed out that the scheme was by no means new, and he was sure the Treasurer, if he took the trouble, would find legislation of the sort thousands of years old.

They did not have bearer shares in those days.

But they had a different system of levying a tribute from the peoples of those countries. Continuing, he said the Treasurer would remember that armed warriors were sent out to gather the taxes and bring them to Rome. Sometimes they had a habit of dispensing with their Ministers, and sometimes the tax-gatherers did not return. (Laughter.) The speaker pointed out that there were many kinds of securities dealt with in South Africa. He did not think that companies who had made a sacred promise and borrowed money at a certain rate would be justified in recovering the tax, and in some cases could not do so. The companies borrow money, say at 5 per cent., and they were in honour bound to pay that whether they were taxed or not. The Treasurer in his last Budget speech had foreshadowed that he might have to come down to the House next year and ask the House to impose additional taxation on the people of the country. He (the speaker) asked the House not to begin their taxation schemes by getting at people who lived in other parts of the world, and said he felt sure that if the Treasurer lived in Paris and had money invested in this country and heard of such irregular systems of taxation he would sell out. He would be perfectly justified in selling out his South African holdings. He pointed out that he was a purely disinterested party—he had no personal interest in the matter—and it was on those grounds that he would appeal to the Government to reconsider the question. This was worse than an income tax for the reason that it was a direct tax on capital. The Treasurer had said that this was a fresh start, but he was sure that hon. members on the Treasury benches would get a start when people in other parts of the world thoroughly understood the purport of the proposals. They should attract capital to this country and not discourage investors, and they should be very careful what they did in regard to schemes of taxation. The Treasurer in a new country like this should not attempt to be too brilliant in connection with his financial schemes, or, perhaps, later on he would find out that it would have been very much better for him to have jogged along well-beaten paths on sound lines. In conclusion he moved the deletion of provisos (a) and (b).

pointed out that it was not necessary to move.

said he was a good deal astonished by the easy way in which this new proposal was passing through the House, and he alluded to the fact that hon. members on the other side had not joined in the debate. He was afraid that the Minister had been telling his friends that the tax was going to fall upon hon. members who had seats on the Opposition benches, and that they (the other side) were going to escape. If that was so, then those hon. gentlemen would have a rude awakening when this increased tax came into force.

They were not taxing the incomes of the people, they were taxing the property of the people, and were applying that money to ordinary current expenditure of the country. They were taxing the capital. This was an unsound principle, although he admitted that death duty dues were unavoidable. This tax, when it was put in operation, would not be felt by those shareholders. The people who were going to feel it most were the farmers, and that at a time of great stress and trouble. He could not help thinking that the time would come when the Minister would hear more of that side of the question. The Bill seemed to have been drawn with a certain amount of haste.

I have been fifteen months on it.

This new taxation had been put before the House without knowing what the Minister’s necessities were. It seemed to him that the Minister was casting a net in the hope of catching various and sundry fish, and a number of people were going to be caught who did not know their present position. (The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Hear, hear.) This sub-section (b), for the life of him, he could not see how it was going to operate. With regard to the bearer shares it was clear it was not going to work at all, unless bearer shares actually paid interest.

Will my hon. friend tell me how to get at these shares that did not pay interest?

My hon. friend surely does not expect us to do the work he is paid for. (Hear, hear.) The Minister was introducing a measure to catch people who would otherwise escape, but here was a whole lot of people who were not taxed at all by this principle. He would suggest that the clause be withdrawn until they could put it into a form that would have some meaning.

said this measure came before the House in the form of a measure consolidating the laws in the various Provinces. They were told that the Stamp Act was also a consolidating measure introduced for the sake of uniformity in the Union. Under cover of this desire for uniformity, increased taxation was being put before the country. He would like the Minister to say if any law at present in force in the country imposed death duties as those contained in the present measure? He did not think it was right to introduce a measure as a consolidating measure which was not a consolidating measure. With regard to the imposition of death duties, he believed that most people would accept them as a fair method of taxation, but here the Minister was endeavouring to put in something that was entirely outside the death duty. This proviso was going to impose a tax of a quarter per cent. upon all share capital in so far as that share capital was represented by bearer shares. If a capitalist came to the country to carry on business, then they taxed the market value of his capital to that percentage proposed by the Minister. If the share capital of a company were to pay one-quarter per cent. per annum then that duty would fall upon the whole of the shareholders of the company and not merely upon the estate of the deceased person, and therefore it was not an estate tax. It was a company tax or a corporation tax; certainly it was not an estate duty. Why persons who for the time being held shares in a company in which a deceased person had held shares should have to pay the tax he could not see. Neither could he see how the imposition of this tax was going to discourage the use of bearer scrip. The payment of this ¼ per cent. per annum would go to diminish the general profits and would therefore be borne by the whole of the shareholders. Why was all this machinery being set in motion? Because of the doctrine, which had been set before the House by the Minister of Native Affairs, that the tax should be levied in the country in which the property was situated. But supposing a man died in South Africa and he held shares in a property outside the Union, did the Minister exempt these shares because the property was situated outside the Union? No, of course he didn’t.

Tax whatever is in our jurisdiction.

I would like to ask the Minister whether this property is within his jurisdiction? Proceeding, he said that to impose a profits tax was, to his mind, the better way of getting revenue. They should tax companies on their operations here. If they wanted to tax them they should tax the proceeds before they left the country. Why he objected to this method of taxation was because they were setting up machinery which, as the right hon. member for Victoria West had said, was going to hit the small investor much more harshly than the rich man.

Why?

Because the rich men can look after themselves better.

How?

I am not prepared to say how, but they can do it.

Will these proposals make it more difficult?

The rich man is in a better position than the poor man to know what is going on, and he can make provision against it. Proceeding, the hon. member said that a serious point to consider was that South Africa had been dependent for the capital which had been put into the gold industry not only upon the rich man, but upon the small man, who had regarded South African investments as a good way of getting a return of his money. The assistance of the small investor in France and elsewhere in developing the country was not a matter to be ignored or despised, and if by this legislation it was going to be made more difficult for the small man to get a reasonable return from his investments, then they might succeed in doing something that would cost this country far more than the revenue they would derive from the tax. And that was why they should not attempt to do too much. If the Minister wanted to put on an estate duty let him put on an estate duty and do everything the law allowed him to do to see that it was fully exacted, and if he found that it was rendered ineffective by various devices then he could see how by other forms of taxation he could make good the amount, but he should not try to impose a death duty. There was one thing he wished the Minister to do, and that was to consider whether he could not do something to make the incidence of this 5 per cent, duty on share capital a little less irksome on the small investor by exempting from it estates of comparatively small value.

said that he was not yet persuaded that for this country an estate duty was the proper thing to impose. He failed to see why there were two duties in the Bill, because that was what it amounted to. It was not only an Estate Duty B ill, but also a Succession Duty Bill.

Continuing, he said that before they adopted the principle of estate duties in South Africa they should have more proof that it was better for the country than succession duty. It seemed to him that it was most fortunate for the Government that the question of bearer shares had been given the prominence it had been given, because it had taken away the attention of the House from the other question as to how the proposals in the proposition of the Minister of Finance were going to affect the landowner, and if some of them could get back to a closer consideration of the subject as it affected the landed property of the country it would be better. The resolution would bind the House to the principle of estate duty, which, in South Africa would have very harsh results. He thought, further that the House, before accepting the resolution, should have full information as to how the proposed estate duties would work out with regard to real estate, and what the Minister expected to get as a result of his proposed taxation.

He asked the House to adopt a uniform succession duty law for the Union, and moved, as an amendment, to omit all the words after the word “That” at the beginning of the motion, and to substitute “this House approves of the consolidation of all laws which impose taxation on the estates or property of deceased persons, or of successions to such property and of the amendment and extension of such laws in the direction of making a uniform law for the Union under which there shall be charged, levied and collected in respect of the estates of all persons who die hereafter for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to certain exemptions and allowances, a graduated succession duty.”

seconded the amendment.

said it was a very serious matter for the hon. member to oppose the general principles. They on that side of the House did not like the Bill, but they realised that it was a form of taxation that struck at everybody, and, under the circumstances, they were prepared to accept it, and he appealed to hon. members to stand by the Bill.

said the underlying principle of the Bill was that every man should contribute in proportion to the benefit he derived, and that those who gained their wealth in South Africa and lived away should also be taxed. He found that in other countries where they had this legislation investments were increasing and capital was not frightened away. Capital always went to the’ country where it got the best return and, as long as South Africa could offer that, capital would come. But he did resent the proposition advanced that day when they were asked to guarantee men against the risks of speculation. (Hear, hear.) He was glad that the Government had come round to their idea—taxing unearned increment.

replying on the debate said he was very much indebted to the Minister of Native Affairs for the excellent speech he had made, because he thought he had thrown some light upon the subject which must have even convinced some of his friends opposite who were inclined to be sceptical in regard to the effects of his proposals. He would like to give some consolation to, he hoped, hon. members on both sides and to the public generally in regard to his proposals. It had been very strongly pressed upon him that the two graduated scales which appeared on the notice paper were in some respects too wide. He had opportunities since his notice appeared on the order paper to further consider these two tariffs, and he should take an opportunity when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means to move in amendments in respect of the greater part of the proposed scales which would have the effect of very considerably reducing the scales which now appeared on the order paper. At the same time he hoped they would bear in mind that it was his duty to get a certain amount of revenue from these proposals. At the present time he was receiving a considerable amount of revenue from the existing duties. The hon. member tor Port Elizabeth, Central, had said that he had given no indication to the House as to the revenue he expected to get from these proposals. His hon. friend could not have been in the House at the time he moved the resolutions, or, if in the House, he must have been very inattentive, because he thought he made it quite clear that his object was, in the first place, to establish a consolidated law, and, in the second place, he did not propose to get any additional revenue beyond the revenue he already got under the existing laws from these taxation proposals. If these proposals became law, their effect would not be felt by the revenue for probably a year at least. Perhaps, in years to come, by means of windfalls, etc., they would be able to get an increased amount of revenue, if the proposals covered by the amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior were accepted. There might be an increased revenue in future years, especially if the proposals in regard to a tax on foreign estates were effective, but it was difficult to make an estimate of what it would be.

Another point which he hoped would give some consolation to the hon. member for Fordsburg was this, that it would be seen from the main resolution, the notice of motion which appeared in his name, that he said that, subject to certain exemptions specified in these resolutions and subject to certain exemptions which would be specified in the Bill, he intended to levy the taxation. The exemptions he had in his mind and which he intended to give effect to in the Bill dealt with the question of share investments held by people oversea in small parcels, i.e., he intended to say in the Bill that any foreign estate, viz., any person who died not domiciled in South Africa, and who had any money invested in shares in companies carrying on business in South Africa, where the estate was of the value of less than £500, such an estate should be entirely exempt from this taxation. Where such an estate amounted to less than £500 it would be entirely exempt from the taxation in respect of share duties. He also intended to say that where a foreign estate was under the value of £2,000 such an estate would have a reduction of half the amount of the duty. He thought hon. members would agree that these were very liberal and very generous exemptions, and would meet some of the objections put forward from the Opposition benches that this taxation would have a tendency to frighten away some investors from oversea. There was another point raised by his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg in regard to the tax which it was proposed to levy upon bearer shares. The suggestion was made that where bearer shares were found in the estate of a person who died in the Union, if such person could be shown to have paid this fixed duty upon those bearer shares during his lifetime, his estate should receive an abatement in respect of the duty so paid. That was also one of the exemptions that he proposed to incorporate in the Bill. Let him say a word or two in regard to his main proposals. A curious thing that had struck him during the debate had been that not a single member who had spoken on the subject had dealt with the proposal to tax the people who lived and who died in this country. With the single exception of the hon. member for Yeoville (Sir L. Phillips), no one else opposed the tax, because it was a tax on capital.

The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), who in this matter could hardly be said to represent Germiston, but rather his principals who lived over the sea, had congratulated hon. members on the Government side of the House on their patriotism in submitting to these taxes. Hon. members on the Government side of the House, and, he thought, hon. members on the other side, who intended to live in South Africa permanently, were just as anxious as anyone else to bear their fair burdens. (Cheers.) But the whole of the hon. member’s case was not against the tax which would fall on the people in the country, but he said, “Let off my principals, who live oversea.” Both the hon. members for Yeoville and Germiston, who represented the mining interest, had made strong appeals on behalf of the agricultural community.

Not to be let off.

They have not said a word about the scale of the tax, or the graduation of these duties, but the whole of their argument was confined to this one thing, “Don’t tax our friends who live oversea.” (Ministerial cheers.) Proceeding, Mr. Hull said he did not want to refer to the bogey about frightening away capital Capital could well take care of itself. A man before investing his capital had a careful look to see what return he could get, and if he thought, despite these duties, he could get a fair return, he would continue to invest in South Africa. Even if he (Mr. Hull) withdrew us proposals, and the investor could next week find a better outlet for his money in the Sandwich Islands, then he would go here. (Hear, hear.) The whole of the attack on these proposals was confined to the idea of taxing shares in companies which carried on business here. Was it not right that shareholders in companies which carried on business in South Africa, and made all their money in South Africa, should contribute to our taxation?

They do.

You agree to that, no matter where those shares are or by whom they are held. I am glad we are in agreement. As soon as that admission is made—that this country has the right to tax these shares, no matter where these pieces of paper are held, or no matter where the owners may reside, so soon as that is admitted the rest of the ease must follow.

Take the case of two farms. If Mr. A., resident in Paris, buys one of these farms and registers it in his name, his heirs will, upon his death, be bound to pay estate duty in South Africa.

He does not pay a 10 per cent, profit tax.

Take the other case. Mr. B., also resident in Paris, also buys a farm in South Africa, but B., instead” of registering it in his own name, proceeds—I will not say by a subterfuge—to register it in the name of a company. Hon. members opposite argue that because B, registers it in the name of a limited liability company, that he should be let off. I cannot conceive that any sensible man would ever subscribe to such a doctrine. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, Mr. Hull said it had been suggested that it was unfair to make the companies collect the tax. He could not understand how the lion, member who made that point could come to that conclusion. All the companies in England, or in other countries where income tax was imposed, were made to collect it and pay it over to the Government. They proposed to adopt precisely the same principle here. He did not quite know where he was with some of the criticisms of hon. members opposite. At one minute he was asked, “What is the use of putting in the provisions moved by the Minister of the Interior, because they are worthless?” and yet a few minutes afterwards the hon. member for Yeoville said that he had made a calculation, and found that if these proposals were accepted. 50 millions of capital would be taxed. The hon. member was, perhaps, in a better position than he (Mr. Hull) was to make an estimate of that kind, and he hoped the estimate was correct, because it would show that the proposal would be a very fruitful source of taxation, and that the proposal would have the effect of preventing not only the rich man but the small man escaping taxation. He did not think he need say anything more now. He thought probably the question would be very much more discussed in committee, and he would reserve what further he had to say until then.

The amendment of the hon. member for Newlands was negatived.

The proviso of the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

The motion as amended was agreed to; the committee stage was set down for Monday next.

moved the second reading of the Bill, and said it ought to have been passed last session. It had been referred last year to a Select Committee, but when the report was produced it was too late, and, as he saw that the Bill ought to be brought into agreement with the Defence Bill, he thought it best to postpone it. The Bill went hand in hand with the Defence Bill. A portion of the police would be constituted a section of the military defence force, but yet the police would form a complete whole. The Bill was practically the same as that which was approved last year by the Select Committee. In the previous session he had explained the main purposes of the Bill. After the Union was completed he (the Minister) had called together the four Commissioners of Police to advise him as to the measures required to bring about an amalgamation of the existing bodies, and the Bill was the result of their recommendations, assisted by a Magistrate from the Cape. Up to now there were four police forces in the Union, and it was clear that the position was not satisfactory. There were towns in Natal, such as Durban, Pietermaritzburg, and Newcastle, which had their own police. Under the Bill all the existing bodies of police would be formed into one unit. The Select Committee thought it desirable, however, to allow a separate existence to the town police in Natal, though a provision was agreed to offering a chance to those bodies that might desire to be included in the main body. Personally he did not very much like the principle of a separate town police, as there was a tendency to subject them to wrong influences. Still, they must take account of public opinion, and not abolish institutions to which the people of Natal showed themselves attached. The town police would therefore continue to exist. In connection with the scheme of amalgamation the Select Committee had devoted care to preserving the existing rights of the police. Such rights would therefore continue to apply in the new police force, including rights of leave and pension. If one or more men did not desire to join the new body, and those men were entitled to pensions, they would receive pensions. The former service of those who decided to join would count in the new body. Different procedure was prescribed in the appointment of officers, subordinate officers, and men. Officers were to be appointed by the Governor-General, and subordinate officers and men by the Commissioner of Police. It would not do to make the I Governor-General responsible for all appointments. The scope of police work would be somewhat extended, and in future they would be entrusted by the Magistrates with the serving of summonses, and would also act as public prosecutors in the lower Courts. Of course it was desirable to dissociate the police from prosecution work, but in the circumstances no other provision was possible. If all public prosecutors were to be Civil Servants it would constitute an intolerable burden on the country. The Crown Prosecutors would be Civil Servants only in the larger towns. Last year many hon. members expressed the fear that the police would take on a quasi-military character. It was feared that they would’ not be sufficiently under the control of the Magistrates, and that the Cape system would not be followed. He was happy to assure hon. members that the members of the Select Committee who at one time shared that fear had convinced themselves that there was no heed to fear any such results. The police would be under the control of the Magistrate, and at the same time would be subject to severe police discipline. Breaches of discipline could be dealt with in two ways. The Magistrate could deal with them, or in the case of small offences they could be punished by the district officer under whom the offender ranked. That officer could inflict fines up to £5, but could not send a man to prison, whilst his verdict was subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Police. Police offences could also be dealt with by a Board consisting of three persons with an officer as chairman. That Board would hear charges of serious crimes, which it was not desirable to bring in a public Court, and it would be appointed by the Governor-Genenral. The Board would report to the Governor-General, and His Excellency would act on the report as he thought fit. The dismissal of officers would also be decided on by the Governor-General, but subordinate officers and men would be discharged to the by the Commissioner of Police, appeal being allowed from the Commissioner to the Minister. Clause 9 authorised the Governor-General to issue regulations. They were very numerous, and he (the Minister) would lay them on the table tomorrow. The Select Committee had examined them, and recommended some small amendments.

said that, so far as the present time was concerned, there was undoubtedly a great deal of suspicion and uncertainty in the minds of some of the police force as to what was going to happen, and for that reason he was glad they were now able to deal with the matter, and he hoped also that they would shortly have before them the regulations which formed the more important part of the Bill. So far as he was able to judge, the Bill was practically the same as that which was before the Select Committee last session. It was impossible to say, however, whether the regulations were the same as they had before them last year. The Select Committee went through the regulations then submitted, and, generally speaking, they considered them satisfactory. Judgment on the present Bill must, however, be suspended until they had seen these regulations. This question had assumed a great deal of importance, and more particularly from the feeling that in the future no one was to be recruited for the police unless he had been resident in the Union two years. That regulation was not included in the regulations that were before the committee last year, and he did not know whether it was included in the present regulations. This provision, if it was to be included, was open to considerable amount of question. It was not to be found either in the Transvaal Bill of 1908 or in the regulations, and he had been unable to discover any authority for such a provision. If it were intended to introduce such a provision, it was very important that it should have been published. This order at the present time was operating detrimentally to the efficiency of the force. There was very considerable difficulty in getting men of the right class. Certainly they had in the Transvaal a considerable number of police-who could not be called efficient. He assumed that a certain number of these men had been put into the force because they were bilingualists. They had certainly efficient Dutch policemen in the force, but he thought it would be deeply regretted if they put a man into the force simply on account of his bilingual qualifications. The first object they had in view was efficiency. The standard must be made as high as possible, and a condition of this sort could only operate in the way of inefficiency. The Bill, also, he saw reserved the rights of certain members of the force. This was a matter that affected a considerable number of the police in the Transvaal, and if the Bill was not modified, it might entail a certain amount of hardship. The original Transvaal police were recruited for no fixed term of years. Then in the Act of 1908, it was laid down in the regulations that this enlistment should be for three years and could be renewed for other terms of two years. A considerable number of men would naturally become time expired men, so far as these periods of two years were concerned. In that case, it would be perfectly true that all their rights would be reserved, because, as they had enlisted for a term that terminated upon a given date, then after that date they could have no more rights, and then they would be compelled to choose whether they would leave the force or go on for a longer period at a lower rate of pay. Obviously he thought that the men who had been allowed to go on from period to period should be allowed to do so in the same way as heretofore. If they were not allowed to go on, then it was only fair not to ask them to make their choice whether they wished to leave or stay at the reduced rate, until at least three months after the regulations had been promulgated.

said that before Union Natal was very proud of its police force, but he had been informed that it was now 125 below its i proper strength. He would be glad if the hon. Minister would give some reason for the reduction that had taken place. Was I it that recruiting for the force had become unpopular? If so, would the hon. Minister inquire into the reasons for the unpopularity at the present time? Was it due to the imposition referred to by the hon. member for Germiston? It was an important matter in view of the excitement that was existing at the present time m consequence of certain outrages, and they wanted to be assured of sufficient police protection.

Another point he noticed was that in clause 3 of the proposed Bill, provision was made for certain corporations and town-ships, including Pietermaritzburg, to have control of their own police, and he thought the hon. Minister should insist that, the control should be of the most effective kind. He held that for the efficient conduct of a police force it was necessary and desirable that a superannuation fund should be established, and it surely was incumbent upon the Corporation of Pietermaritzburg and incumbent upon the Government to make conditions, and require that a suitable pension fund be set up.

pointed out that provision was made in the Public Service Bill for pensions for officers and members of the police force, and they should wait until that Select Committee had brought up its recommendations on that important matter. If by any chance the matter was excluded from the Public Service Bill it would be necessary at some stage in the passage of the present Bill to make provision for the pensions of this force, otherwise they would fall between the two Bills, which was the last thing, of course, that the hon. Minister wished to happen. He would suggest, therefore, that hon. members should not pass the Bill through its final stages until the report of the Select Committee on the Public Service Bill came before the House. With regard to sub-section (e) of clause 9, which gave the Minister power to regulate the pay of the force, an important point arose. It seemed to him, rightly or wrongly, to infringe upon the privileges of the House. As it stood, the Minister might by a stroke of the pen increase the pay of every member of the police force of 9,000 men, although he did not think the hon. Minister had that in his mind, but it was a danger that the House should safeguard itself against. In an extreme ease, should the pay of the force be increased in that way, and when the Ministry responsible went out of power, the Ministry that followed was bound to find the necessary funds. He hoped there would be in the regulations some words that required first the approval of the House before any increase of salary or wages was authorised.

raised the question of the pension rights of men who had signed for various terms. It would be a great hardship, he thought, in the case of a man, say, who had served a period by renewing his agreement from time to time if there were conditions to which he objected, and on account of which he could not see his way clear to again sign on. Although his period might only be for three years, a man had prospective rights when he joined the service, which he would enjoy if he continue in the service. What would be the condition of those serving for a limited period, supposing they could not see their way to sign on again?

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time and set down for committee stage on Wednesday.

Business was suspended at 5.57 p.m.

in proposing the second reading of the Administration of Justice Bill, said that prior to Union, in consequence of the various Colonies being independent of one another, they had been looked upon practically and really as foreign States in their relations to one another, and as far as the administration of justice was concerned. The result of that was that the service of process and the matter of issuing warrants and other matters of similar detail in regard to the administration of justice as between the four Colonies had only held within each Colony. In consequence of Union it had become absolutely necessary that the procedure in regard to the various matters of jurisdiction should be so arranged as to do away with the former restrictions and difficulties involving in almost every case a great deal of expense. It was with that object that this Bill had been introduced. The first chapter dealt with the service of process throughout the Union, the object being to bring that about with greater ease and at less expense between one Province and another. So that, if process were issued by one Court in one Province, it should run as automatically as possible throughout the Union. Then provision was made so that a witness summoned to appear before a Court in one Province may have a summons served upon him by simply being handed over to the proper authorities, and he would then, in the ordinary course, as if he were residing in that Province where his presence was wanted, attend that Court. Chapter III. dealt with criminal summonses and warrants. Chapter IV. he should leave over. He would go to Chapter V; the general and miscellaneous clauses. He might say that these were nearly all provisions of a similar nature to those dealt with in the chapters referred to. In section 25. jurisdiction was given to Magistrates from one Province to go into any other Province to hold a court there if required. Section 26 deals with reviews by the Supreme Court in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal, formerly, cases from the Magistrate’s Court were brought in review only if the sentence was one of three months. Subsequently to 1902, this was changed from three months to six weeks. Provision was made in this Bill to restore the old state of affairs.

said it had been his intention to show that clauses 12, 13, and 14 of the Bill provided for the abolition of the High Court of Griqualand West. It would have been his duty to show that there would have been no justification for this step, and that the people living in Griqualand West and Bechuanaland would have very good reason for considering that such abolition would be a breach of faith; also to prove that the doing away with of the Master’s Office would entail great expense to the people living in the northern portion of the Province, and to show that for every pound that the Government would have saved there would have been entailed an expenditure of £10 on the people living m the districts affected, and also to prove that such an action on the part of the Government would be in direct opposition to the South Africa Act. When they considered the question of going into Union they voted in favour of it because they found that in clauses 98 and 135 a pledge was given to them that they should retain their High Court and their Master, which re-affirmed the pledge given to the inhabitants of Griqualand West at the time of annexation. He was going to ask hon. members from the Transvaal if they would have supported the Act of Union if all their legal business was to be removed from Pretoria to Cape Town, and in a similar way he was going to ask the free State and Natal members if they would have voted for this Act if their legal business was going to be removed to other parts. He was very glad to see, however, that it was not necessary to go into these matters now. There were only one or two points that he wished to refer to. The first was the statement that was made with regard to the Judges. It was only fair to state that the only question put to them was: “If the Griqualand Count were abolished, could the work be done in other Courts’” The reply was, “Of course it could.” The question was not put: “Was it fair to the people of the North: would it inconvenience them?” The three Judges said, when giving evidence before the Select Committee, that if this point had been put before them they would have had no hesitation in saying that things should remain as they were. The Minister of Justice, in making his statement, said that he hoped when they came into committee to introduce alterations. They hoped that it would not be merely a hope, but a certainty. He wished to say that this matter had not been a party question in any shape or form. (Hear, hear.) It was only his duty to thank those gentlemen on the other side who had associated themselves with him upon this matter, and especially the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice for the very fair way in which they had met the people of Griqualand West. He would assure them that their action would give great satisfaction to the people living in Bechuanaland and Griqualand West, and would do-a great deal towards bringing the people more in touch with each other. (Hear, hear.)

said that after the very kindly speech of the Minister of Justice he did not want to sound the least discordant note, but he could not hide a personal grievance, and that was that he had spent over an hour’s hard work in getting up the case on behalf of Griqualand West. Still, he would forgive the Minister in his joy at the Minister’s decision. One point, however, he would like to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that was that as barristers would have to reside at Kimberley, he did not think they would experience difficulty in finding a Crown Prosecutor at even less than £1,000 a year.

said that as one of the members representing a constituency close to Kimberley, he felt very delighted with the reply that the Minister of Justice had made. He also had a grievance against the Minister for depriving him of the opportunity of making the greatest peroration that he had ever delivered. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, he was delighted with the turn that affairs had taken, because he would be able to retain the position he occupied in the House. (Laughter.)

said he was sure that the members for Kimberley districts were to be congratulated upon their efforts. It only showed that public opinion should be respected. There were one or two other grievances which the Minister of Justice might have given attention to. It might not be generally known that a very important case was heard in the Eastern Districts Court, and one person, namely, the secretary of a Cape Town trust company, happened to be one of the executors, was joined in the action. The Appellate Court, however, decided that under existing circumstances ha could not be joined in the action in that Court. The whole of the money concerning that case was in the Eastern Province, and the whole of the case lay in the Eastern Province, yet the Western Province judges and barristers got the case. He hoped the Minister of Justice would place the Eastern Districts Court upon the same footing as other districts. Might he just say this for the general information of the House, that the Eastern Districts Court had the power to make a man insolvent, but not the power to rehabilitate him. That seemed to him an injustice. He submitted, therefore, that in cases of executorship, where everything connected was in the Eastern District, the Eastern Districts Court should have full jurisdiction; and that with regard to the power to rehabilitate insolvents the Eastern Districts Court should get full jurisdiction. Those were two important matters. It was essential that the Eastern Districts Court should have entire control of criminal matters and everything connected with them. That was logical and just. Therefore, criminal appeals should go to the Eastern Districts Court. He hoped the Minister of Justice would give favourable consideration to these matters, and not put him under the necessity of placing amendments on the paper, in the hope that the members would take a more intelligent view.

regretted that the Minister of Justice had not got a definite and authoritative interpretation of clause 109 of the Act of Union which required that the Appellate Division should sit in Bloemfontein, but may from time to time sit in any other place in the Union. The interpretation of the clause given by the Chief Justice in Bloemfontein in September last came as a great surprise to the House. It came as a great surprise to the people of the Orange Free State, whom it affected, not in a material, but in a sentimental way. When the question of Union was submitted, and they were to lose their capital, they were consoled by the thought that, after all, Bloemfontein was to be the judicial capital. The interpretation of the Chief Justice amounted to this: that the Court should sit in Bloemfontein, but any attorney or suitor could, by simply writing a letter to the Registrar and saying it was more convenient for the case to be heard elsewhere, have it heard at Pietermaritzburg or Cape Town. A great many people seemed to think Cape Town the most suitable place, and while he did not wish to detract from Cape Town, it was not the only place in the Union of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He was surprised that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, should have taken up the attitude which was characteristic of him throughout last session and this upon the matter, and if he wished to have the good will of the House, the sooner he desisted from such conduct the better. (Hear, hear.)

It was understood absolutely that the High Court should have its permanent sittings and permanent residence in Bloemfontein, but the judges did not like it for some reason or other. The residence of the judges in Bloemfontein was implied, and if they did not like it they should not have accepted. He did not want to force those gentlemen to live in Bloemfontein; it was no use trying to force men in their position, and he was prepared to waive any claim that they should live in the judicial capital, but he held that only the most exceptional cases should be heard elsewhere than in Bloemfontein. He hoped it was not too late for the Minister of Justice to consider the possibility of introducing some clause at the committee stage of the Bill whereby clause 109 of the Act of Union was to be interpreted in such a way as was contemplated by the National Convention, reserving, if necessary, to Judges at present occupying those positions, the right to reside at Cape Town. There might have been an understanding with some of the Judges as to their right to reside in Cape Town, but in future appointments it should be made clear that the official seat of the Appellate Court was at Bloemfontein. He had no wish to interfere with their personal conduct.

said that he would like to take advantage of the opportunity to thank the Minister of Justice for the way in which he had met the wishes of the people of Griqualand West. The action of the Minister had been somewhat severely condemned, and his action had been misconstrued. It must not be forgotten that the first foundation of that matter had been laid by the Judges themselves at that Conference, when they decided that that Court should be removed; and then, if they read the evidence given before the Select Committee in another place impartially, they would see that there was a great deal in the matter in regard to economy. He felt that these remarks were due, because people had said that the Minister of Justice had been aiming a blow at Kimberley, and that was an unfair position to take up. The Minister had a responsible position and had his duties to perform to the taxpayers of the country. (Hear, hear.) They knew that in all communities there was a good deal of sentiment attached to their institutions, and no community liked to see its institutions removed. The people of Bechuanaland and Kimberley were not unreasonable and had all along said that the status of the Court should not be interfered with, but the services of the Judge could be utilised elsewhere when not required in Kimberley. He was glad that wiser counsels had prevailed.

said that he wished to add his tribute to the attitude taken up by the Minister of Justice on that question. He had been fully determined to support the hon. member for Kimberley in that matter, because he considered that the people of Kimberley had a considerable amount of right underlying their feelings on the subject. He had felt that he was in duty bound to support the hon. member, because such a question might arise at any time on similar lines in Natal. He was glad that the Minister had adopted that attitude.

said that he thought that the answer to what the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Brown) had said with regard to the question of the hardships of the Eastern Province seemed to be that some points borne out in the evidence before the Select Committee the other day might be met with amendments to that Bill; but he thought that the hon. member had rather overlooked the position of the Attorney-General when he had said that all criminal matters arising in the Eastern Province should be dealt with by the Eastern Districts Court, because the Act of Union laid down that the Attorney-General should be the Attorney-General of the whole Province, and it would be a limitation of the status of the Cape Province if what had been asked for was granted. Again, a man might not get a fair trial in the Eastern Province, and the case might have to be removed, because a jury trial did not always give a person the chance he deserved. He might get a fairer trial in the Western Province. Dealing with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha) had said with regard to the Appellate Court, he said that the Act of Union stated that the Appeal Court might from time to time for the convenience of suitors sit elsewhere, and it would be more to the convenience of suitors if the Court sometimes sat at Maritzburg, or Cape Town, or in the Transvaal, than if all the suitors had to come to Bloemfontein. Of course, it might not have worked quite as the people of Bloemfontein or the Orange Free State had expected, but he thought that they had to trust the members of the Appeal Court to deal fairly in that matter, and honestly consider the convenience of suitors, because he had heard not a breath of complaint from suitors because their case was not heard in Bloemfontein. There was one matter not dealt with m that Bill which might have the consideration of the Minister of Justice. Some months ago a case had arisen in Cape Town out of the printers’ strike, in which articles had been published in the “Strike Herald,” imputing gross bias to the Magistrate who had occasion to try a ease before him dealing with the conduct of some of the strikers and in that case the Attorney-General had brought in an application to have the publisher arrested for contempt of Court; but the Supreme Court had to hold that under the law as it stood it had no jurisdiction to attach a person for contempt of Court in a lower Court. The Magistrate could attach a person for contempt of a lower Court. The Magistrate could attach a person for contempt committed or uttered inside his Court. Otherwise the only procedure was by means of indictment, and they had all the delay by using that machinery. There was another matter, with regard to the swearing in of attorneys of the Supreme Court, and he thought the Minister might look into the question whether it was not possible to lay down that attorneys qualified to practise as attorneys in any division of the Supreme Court, by virtue of having passed the necessary examinations of the University of the Cape of Good Hope, could not take the oath in any part of the Union. He thought that they of the legal profession were all pleased with regard to the decision of the Minister of Justice as to the status of the Kimberley Court, because they were all jealous of the status of their Courts. They thought that they were protected by the Act of Union, and they were glad to hear that that was the case.

supported the hon. member for Bloemfontein. Under the Constitution it was laid down that the Court of Appeal was to sit at Bloemfontein. It was the intention of the National Convention that Bloemfontein was to be the judicial capital, but the Court of Appeal only eat there two or three weeks, and for the most part sat at Cape Town. What would Cape Town say if it were the seat of the Appeal Court and the Court always sat at Bloemfontein? They could not demand that the present Judges should live at Bloemfontein, but it should be required of future Judges.

said the Free State had sacrificed a good deal for the sake of Union, but that Bloemfontein had been made the seat of the Court of Appeal. The Chief Justice had, however, stated that the Constitution said the Court of Appeal “might” sit at Bloemfontein, and not that it “must” sit there. That was entirely unsatisfactory. They should give to the Free State what had been promised. It should be stated clearly in the Bill that it did not depend on the opinion of a Chief Justice how the Constitution was to be interpreted. He supported the hon. member for Bloemfontein and the last speaker.

said it was never too late to mend, and he was sure the reason why the rights of Bloemfontein had been overlooked in this matter was only as had been put by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha) a sin of omission. He wished to associate himself with him in the matter of the Appellate Court. He thought it was very clearly laid down in the Act of Union that Bloemfontein was entitled to this right. It read: “The Appellate Division shall sit in Bloemfontein.” He thought that was most emphatic, and he hoped that before the Bill went into committee the hon. Minister would see that Bloemfontein was given its rights. It was true that exception was made in this connection that it was stated that the Appellate Division may sit, from time to time, for the convenience of suitors, at other parts of the Union; but it was clear that Bloemfontein was entitled to a right that had not been strengthened in this Bill.

said he wanted to express the hope that the Minister would not be over-impressed by the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. C. L. Botha). After all was said and done, consideration had to be given to the suitors in this matter. When they remembered that they had here a country the size of Germany and France combined, he thought it was altogether unfair to suitors to say that they must go from wherever they lived to one place to have their cases tried.

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

The committee stage was set down for Wednesday.

in moving the second reading of the Natives Disputes Bill, said he was sure that the House would turn with relief to the innocent little bantling that he had here. (Laughter.) It was a very simple Bill, and he believed it was one that would commend itself to all sides of the House. It had been felt for some years past that it had been unfair on the native population at large to have their civil disputes settled entirely on European lines. He recognised fully that there was a desire that the natives should develop along lines of advancement, not necessarily, he might say, along lines of European civilisation, because they might be driven altogether too far, but along lines of advancement in consonance with the genius of their own people, and along lines of development that would lead them to their betterment, and the possibility of development in their own way. The problem of a settlement of this matter, and the way in which they should deal with them in this respect had been, perhaps, more acute in parts of the Union like the Transvaal and the Cape, than elsewhere; because in Natal they had got together a code by which the natives were governed and dealt with, and by which they had to abide in their disputes. There was no doubt that in the Cape there had been a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the past. On the one side of a river they found that the native status was not recognised at all—native marriages were not recognised, and therefore all the native customs that clustered round that marriage and which were inherent, were ignored. As hon. members were aware, there was the lobola system. On one side of the river they had the view that this was an immoral custom, and one that could not be recognised, while on the other side the custom was fully recognised. The whole matter of these native disputes was inquired into by a Commission in 1909, and this Bill was the result of their report.

Some people might regard this as a retrograde step, because, instead of leading the native onward towards civilisation, they were leaving him altogether to his barbarous custom and recognising that custom. He did not agree with that view, because it appeared to him to be quite compatible with the advancement of the native towards reasonable civilisation that the customs of his tribe should be recognised, and that disputes between natives in matters which affected purely native questions should be decided according to native custom. The Bill proposed, first of all, to establish that system. It was provided in the Bill that there should not be an appeal ordinarily from the Magistrate in these matters. The second part of the Bill dealt with the state of affairs in British Bechuanaland. Ever since the annexation of Bechuanaland an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs had prevailed there. By the terms of annexation, the native chiefs were given exclusive jurisdiction in practically nearly every class of case that arose. Until a case of divorce between two natives who had been married according to Christian custom had been before one of the Bechuanaland chiefs, the High Court at Kimberley had not got jurisdiction. An appeal was provided for, but the decision could only be appealed from to a Court composed of the Magistrate and the Chief himself. Now he proposed to do away with that, and establish instead a regular system of appeal, first of all to the Magistrate’s Court in the district in which the parties resided, and from that to the Supreme Courts. There were other things in this connection in Bechuanaland that required attention, but he thought that if they remedied this one particular matter, they would have done something of a substantial kind.

thought the Bill contained some excellent provisions. The case of Bechuanaland was somewhat different from other parts of the Union. In the years that he had lived there, he had found that the decisions of some of the chiefs were very harsh and severe, and not always impartial or based on native custom. It would decidedly be to the advantage of the natives that their disputes should be decided according to native custom by magistrates. Jt would, however, be somewhat difficult to lay down a code of native custom which would include all the cases which ought to come within the scope of the magistrates. He would like to see the magistrates’ jurisdiction extended so as to include tribal disputes with regard to land. He hoped the Minister would seriously consider whether he was not prepared to disturb the power which the chiefs now had, and to let the provisions of the Bill run concurrently, so that a native would have the option of saying whether he would go to his chief or take advantage of the Bill. If that were done, they would find in a very short time that the magistrates would try more cases than the chiefs. Once the Government established the machinery, the natives would see that it was to their interest to go to the magistrates in preference to going to the chiefs. The country should gradually go in the direction of breaking up the tribal system, which was not in the interests of the natives at all. It militated very largely against the progressive natives. Some of the chiefs were very retrograde men, and their actions were not always in the interests of the natives. The Transvaal had gone in the direction of keeping up the tribal system and clothing the chiefs with as large powers as possible. Whether that was due to the fact that the Transvaal had a better class of chiefs than the Cape had he did not know, but if they compared the results under the two systems a far better result could be shown in the Cape than in the Transvaal. The Cape system had worked so beneficially that he would be glad to see it extended to Bechuanaland. Considering that the natives there had been under missionary influence for the last 70 years and seeing how little progress had been made, one would come to the conclusion that the tribal system had not been in the interests of the natives.

said he was not at all in favour of the Bill and all his people in Pondoland objected to it, because it gave autocratic power to the magistrates. At present a great many of their magistrates knew nothing about Kafir law or language, and consequently they were entirely in the hands of their native interpreters, who really laid down the law. He hoped the Bill would not apply to East Griqualand or Pondoland.

said the Minister of Native Affairs was looked upon as a great friend of the natives, and as one who would not be a party to the introduction of a measure which was calculated in any way to interfere with their rights or to abridge their privileges.

He was quite pleased to hear that it was not the policy prematurely to interfere with the customs of any people, more especially with the natives of South Africa. He quite agreed that in some respects there were objections to the native customs and it would be well if they tried to induce the natives to set aside some of these customs, but he thought his hon. friend was skating over very thin ice, because although he was prepared to say nothing about the poor attorneys who had gone into these territories and whose services had been taken advantage of by the natives, he was going to give the Magistrate the power to say whether a particular dispute should be tried not only in accordance with native custom or not, but whether it should be tried without the introduction of legal practitioners and attorneys in his Court. The hon. member (continuing) said he deprecated a power of that kind being given to any officer. He was very much afraid in making this provision his hon. friend had listened too much to the official mind and too little to the native mind. In fact, he thought it would have been better to have heard something from the natives upon the point before this change was launched upon them. The natives were not only fond of going to law, but they had accumulated large property in many instances, and if they allowed the Magistrate to say whether they should or should not have a native adviser, then they were trespassing upon these people’s privileges. He was sorry also that he could not take the view of his hon. friend the Minister of Native Affairs as to clause 3, and that was if a Magistrate desired to try a case by native custom, then he could so decide. To his mind that would produce just the opposite effect to that desired. His hon. friend made a sweeping indictment against the whole class of attorneys in the Native Territories. He knew that there were attorneys in the Transkei, than whom there were no more honourable men practising their profession, and he did not like that the power should be given to a Magistrate to say that they should not come to the Court.

said that since the war, more especially in the Transvaal, there had been a tendency to break down the tribal system, to undermine the authority of the chiefs, and to ignore native customs, laws and usages. Nothing, he thought, could be more hurtful to the natives themselves or to everybody else concerned than to do so, as long as these laws are not repugnant to our ideas of civilisation and equity. If the tribal system was to die out, let it, he urged, die a natural death, for it stood for much that was good and very little that was bad. What could they substitute for their laws and customs except laws that were absolutely foreign to their nature and which they could not comprehend? He proceeded to quote from a number of blue-books and Native Commissioners’ reports to show that it was advisable to allow chiefs to retain a certain amount of power. He deplored that they were losing their power, and appealed to the House to maintain tribal laws and the tribal system as far as it possibly could. If they broke down the system Ethiopianism would run riot and immorality would be rampant. He pointed out the necessity for upholding the tribal system wherever possible. They were told that civilisation and barbarism could not exist side by side, but in regard to the civilised native who, returning from Johannesburg or other industrial centre, shed his civilisation as he did his garment, and with his garment his acquired vice, and revelling in his nudity became, morally speaking, a better individual than he was in his state of civilisation; and civilisation could exist side by side with barbarism. They should also uphold the authority of the native chiefs, because if they did that, the chief became the staunch supporter of the State, and used his influence to suppress crime; and if they did not, they would only have these chiefs becoming antagonistic.

said that he considered such a step as that Bill would take rather a retrograde one and one not lightly to be approved of by the House. Those who knew the natives knew that these disputes largely arose through marriage customs. They had sometimes heard that morals were a matter of geography; and now under that Bill they were going to make them a matter of colour. It seemed to him that the idea of wishing to preserve native customs and the authority of the chief was rather out of date. They all knew that under the old native customs there was only one punishment imposed by the chief, which was that of death; and that made the chief’s authority a very real thing, but when they substituted small paltry fines his authority declined. In his opinion, instead of spreading the native manner of dealing with their disputes further through South Africa, it would be better if they limited it to the parts in which the natives were. Dealing with the lobola system, the hon. member said that at first, it was not a question of buying women at all, but one of guarantee of good behaviour on both sides. If the woman was not well treated in her new home she had the right to go back, and these cattle were her dowry; and in the event of the bad behaviour of the woman she and the cattle were returned. He thought that an extension of their native system as they had it in Natal and Zululand would be a desirable thing for the whole of South Africa. As he had said before, it was not so long ago that a native woman would have been horrified at the idea of a woman being bought or sold for so many head of cattle, but that system was brought about by Europeans and the system of court law which the Minister recommended in this Bill. He thought that native courts would be done away with soon, and it was his opinion that this Bill was a step in a retrograde direction.

said he wished to associate himself completely with the views expressed by the hon. member for Queenstown (Sir Bisset Berry), and to some extent with those of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. p. H. W. Wessels) and the hon. member for Griqualand East. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. R. G. Nicholson) said he was in favour of the tribal system, and he (the hon., member) had to admit there were natives living in the Union who were best served by the tribal system; but he was one of those who believed that, after all the system of the white man, of individual tenure and civilisation, was the best in the long run. From his experience he had come to the conclusion that when civilisation met barbarism a certain amount of evil results occurred, but provided they kept intoxicating liquor from the natives, on the whole there would be an advance. Experience here had proved that, and the policy in the Cape Colony had been based on that view Of course, if they allowed the natives to advance too fast, they would be injured; but he had not the least doubt that advancement lay in the gradual overthrow of the tribal system and the substitution of the power of the magistrate for the power of the chief. In the Transkei the power of the magistrate had already been substituted for the power of the chief. He would have liked the Minister to have made the Bill more than permissive, and to have stated in a schedule the places to which it would apply. The member for Griqualand (Mr. J. G. King) had given them his views. In the Transkei, under the general law, suits could be settled by native law. They had European law, but native law was optional. He did not see why this Bill should apply to the Transkei at all, and if the Minister assured him that it was not going to do so, then, as far as his constituency was concerned, he would have no objection to the Bill.

There were districts in which the European law and the native law ran side by side, and that would be overthrown, not to the detriment of the natives, but to the detriment of the law agents and attorneys who were settled in the Transkei. They had no reason in the Transkei to be ashamed of the attorneys practising there. A Bill like this should deal fairly with the natives, with the attorneys, with the magistrates, and with all parties. They must be true to the cause of justice, and he was not sure that this Bill in all respects fulfilled those conditions. The Bill was not the same as it was when introduced into another place. Some of the objections that were raised then, and very naturally raised, had been met by the Minister of Native Affairs. Then the position of Natal in reference to its Native Code had been conceded. Clause 3 originally provided that intimation, could be given to the Magistrate by the plaintiff, and if had now been changed, so that intimation could be given by either party. That he thought, should go further. Justice demanded that both parties to a dispute should be willing that the dispute should be decided by native custom. The present Bill was founded upon a Bill drafted by the Native Affairs Commission of 1909-10—a very able Commission. It proposed that both parties should be willing to have the dispute settled in the manner suggested in the Bill. It should be made perfectly plain that in such cases where the Magistrate decided to carry out the provisions of the Bill, the natives should be allowed to have their own advisers. Some attorneys in the Transkei knew more about native laws than the Magistrates did. With regard to the regulations, they could rely on the Chief Justice and on his drawing up regulations that would be suitable. He believed that a man ought to have the right to appeal to a higher tribunal if he desired to appeal. Proceeding, the hon. member said the chief objection he had to the Bill was that it was putting back the clock. (Hear, hear.) It was a retrograde act to establish courts of this kind, because natives had become accustomed to European law, and were gradually coming to under stand and appreciate its advantages, and it was best to lead the natives onwards and forwards. The native was not wholly civilised yet, not even in the Transkei, and they ought not to do anything that would make him think that the white people in the country were willing that he should go back to the native customs of the past, to heathenism and polygamy. The powers of good and evil were always working on races and nations as on individuals, and it was our duty as a Parliament not to strengthen the downward tendency in the least direction, but as far as possible to assist individuals and the races under our charge towards higher levels. He had been asked by some of his constituents to oppose this Bill, and to move that it be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of getting the evidence of the practitioners, but in view of the late period of the session he did not press for this. He felt that the Transkei territories had-a system which was suitable, and if the Bill was not going to interfere with the practitioners, then he thought the position those practitioners had taken up would be modified and they would be content to see the Bill passed, because it was suitable and applicable for certain parts of the Union. There was a court in King William’s Town for many years, in which, although there was no legal standing, native cases were always decided according to native laws and customs, and there were no cases of appeal. They needed some assurance from the Minister that with, regard to the Transkei territories the position there as it was at present would be preserved and that it was not the intention to extend the provisions of this law to those territories. In as far as it was a move in the right direction he was in favour of it, but he felt that any step which would have the effect of pushing the native races backward was a wrong policy.

rising at 10.50 p.m., said that he did not know whether the Minister would accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate now, as the hour was getting rather late.

Better finish the debate. Then we can have the second reading.

said under the Bill there were extraordinary wide powers given to the Minister. He referred to clauses 2, 3, and 5, to bear out the statement.

We have read it all.

I know the Minister has read his own Bill.

We want to know if you have. (Laughter.)

said that in clause 6 there were again these wide powers given to the Governor-General, by means of regulation. There was also an important point of constitutional principle which seemed to have escaped the attention of the Minister, or the hon. member who sat behind him—he was referring to clause 6 (1). He would submit to the Minister that the Governor-General must not make rules after consultation with anybody. It was the business of the Governor-General to decide what rules should be made, but it could not be made incumbent upon the Governor-General to consult with any authority as to the course he should adopt. Another point was that clause 2, sub-section 3, line 4, involved a very important principle. It laid down that if the parties concerned in a dispute belonged to different tribes the customs of the tribe among whom the defendant was living shall be followed to decide the case. That was a principle to which the House should pay some considerable attention, because it did seem to go rather too far. It might be that according to the custom of the tribe to which the plaintiff belongs his contention was correct, and he would find, on bringing the case to Court, that his case was to be decided on the custom of his opponent. There was a good deal of hardship involved in that. There was also a rather important provision to which attention had already been drawn—as to the position of attorneys in the Transkei with regard to this Bill He found it very difficult to find out what the position of an attorney was, because section 3 said that the magistrate had the right, when he thought it in the interests of justice and subject to the prescribed law to decide that the case shall be tried by native custom. He hoped that the Minister, when he replied, would be able to tell them what the real position of the attorney was in regard to these cases under clause 3 as it stood in this Bill.

There was also the point mentioned by the hon. member for Tembuland that there was in the ordinary cases no appeal from the Magistrate under this Bill and that the Governor-General had power to prescribe rules for the conduct of appeals in such cases. That immediately involved the question of whether it was right in a Bill of this kind to place such extremely great powers in the hands of the Magistrates in the native districts of this country. He hoped before this Bill passed through the committee stage that there would be some amendment of this, and that this House would see not only that the Magistrate would be compelled in these cases to allow to either party the use of any legal assistance which such party may desire, but that the decision of the Magistrate should be subject, in any but trifling cases, to the ordinary appeal which was customary in reference to Magistrates’ decisions. He now came to the important principle involved in this Bill as to the effect which it was likely to have upon the native races of this country. When he came to this he regretted more than ever that it should be necessary to have to discuss such a matter at a late hour of the night and in a tired House.

The Bill was supremely important and its discussion should not be passed over without any real consideration. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible to ignore the effect which the measure might have upon the mind of the native races. As the hon. member for Tembuland had pointed out, it had hitherto been the policy of the different Colonies to substitute, as far as possible, for native laws and customs the better laws, customs and civilisation of the European people. The Bill was a step in the backward direction. It was practically saying to the natives, “We have always held up to you the idea that our laws, civilisation and beliefs are better than those you inherited from your forefathers, but now we no longer believe in that, and if you want to try your cases according to native law the magistrates shall be compelled to do so.”

He is not compelled; read the Bill; it is in his discretion.

asked the Minister what was the object of the Bill? The Minister had practically said that we had made a mistake in forcing these people to have their cases tried according to European custom. If that were not the object—if the magistrate should not have a prepossession in his mind in favour of trial by native custom—then he (Mr. Long) did not know why the Bill was being introduced. If that were not the object, then the Minister should explain why the Bill was brought into the House. No member of the House who believed it was his duty to realise the effect of legislation on the minds of the people concerned was prepared to pass the Bill without the most serious and grave consideration. He would venture to represent to the House that when the Minister said that this was an innocent bantling, to be passed without any serious consideration, he would not like to say that the Minister had not realised the responsibility of his office, but he had taken on a most serious and grave responsibility. Not only that, but the Bill was attempting to impose on a native population which had different tribal customs a uniform system. This was a very serious step to take indeed. It seemed to him that the Bill was being passed against the beliefs and wishes of the white residents in these Native Territories

The native custom applies in the Transkei; it is the law there.

I quite believe it, but the Minister cannot get away from the fact that the hon. members for Tembuland and Griqualand East opposed the Bill, because it was not wanted by the white people in the Transkei.

Attorneys don’t want it.

That might be the reason, but I do not think that the interests of the attorneys would turn these members against this Bill. What I would like to know is: what was the reason for this Bill being introduced?

moved that the debate be adjourned.

seconded.

The motion was negatived.

asked the Minister what grounds he had for making the statement that the opposition to the Bill was on the part of law agents or attorneys? It had been said by the hon. member for Three Rivers there were no law agents in the Transkei. He did not know about the law agents, but there were a good many attorneys there, and so far as they were concerned they were entitled under the law to frame bills of costs which were open to the inspection of the Court. It was unfair of the Minister to suggest that the trouble was on behalf of the attorneys of the Transkei. He wanted to know what special training the Magistrates of the Transkei had to deal with questions concerning native customs, and stated that the Magistrates preferred to have a case conducted before them by a reputable attorney under the jurisdiction of the Court than by any unqualified person who under the Minister s Bill was entitled to appear. It was a matter that ought to be cleared up or justified by the Minister before they took the second reading. The hon. member regretted that the Minister of Native Affairs, who was generally so courteous, had not assented to the debate being adjourned. In one district, he continued where there were 34.000 natives, there had only been 406 oases in one year in which natives, natives and Europeans, and Europeans had been concerned, and in one-third of these Europeans were suing natives for shop debts. That did not look as if such a tremendous amount of cases were “manufactured”as had been alleged.

He thought they would be well advised if they took the second reading of the Bill that day week, and he would move to that effect.

seconded.

said that he had on an occasion earlier in the session had to draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Native Affairs treated all native matters in a light and airy manner which was hardly correct in dealing with them, as they were of great importance. He (the hon. member) came from Province where there were many natives and where only nine per cent, of the population were Europeans—

The hon. member had already spoken on the main question, and he must confine himself to the question whether the Bill is to be read a second time to-night or in a week’s time.

said that he was doing so. (Laughter.)

Proceeding, he said a very good reason why they should not discuss this matter further to-night was its enormous importance to a very large proportion of the population of this country. The whites were such a small minority that they should give these people the opportunity, which they had not got by law, of discussing their affairs. How could the hon. Minister expect hon. members who had been sitting on Select Committee from ten o’clock that morning to give it its proper attention?. The Minister had the right to alter the law, but the natives should have a chance to voice their views and grievances. He was surprised that the Minister, who posed as one who had the interests of the natives at heart, should expect the House, after passing no less than two second readings and another Bill, to go on discussing this Bill nearly into the following morning. He would, therefore, support the motion that the second reading be taken this day week. An extended date might have been more suitable, but, at any rate, next day week they could not discuss the matter into the following day because it was a public holiday. The members on his side of the House had tried to abbreviate their speeches and could not be accused of delaying matters. He thought the hon. member for Newlands was very far-seeing in selecting this day week. (Laughter.)

The amendment was then put, and negatived.

said that before the motion for the second reading was put, he would like to move that the debate be adjourned. When he looked round the House he saw that out of nine Cabinet Ministers, on an important question of this sort, there were only two Ministers on the Treasury Benches. Ministers were paid large salaries, and he did not think it was right to discuss an important question of this kind at such a late hour, when only two Cabinet Ministers were in their places. Another reason why they should adjourn was as an example that this thing should be stopped. (Hear, hear.) They were obliged to sit on important measures late at night with only one Cabinet Minister in the House, a position of affairs which, he considered was disgraceful, as far as the conduct of public affairs was concerned. Under the circumstances, he thought he was within his rights in asking his hon. friend (Mr. Burton) to cease from the attitude which he had adopted that evening and agree to the reasonable proposal that had been made from that, side of the House. Hon. members recognised that the hon. gentleman was in a better position than they were, because he generally caught the 9.5 tram to go to his home in the suburbs. He must recognise that it was impossible for them to sit there night after night without Ministers, when they were discussing important questions, and expect them to be taken to catch divisions without an opportunity of haying full discussion. He appealed to the Minister in charge of the House to recognise the rights of hon. members on that side. The hon. member proceeded to criticise the attitude shown towards the House by the Minister in charge of the Police Bill in the earlier part of the day.

The hon. member must not make reference to a matter that has passed.

I bow to your ruling, sir, but I presume I am in order in referring to the fact that it will hardly be in keeping with the dignity of the Minister to allow the Bill to go to its second reading without replying to the criticisms that have been passed upon it. Under these circumstances and as it is 25 minutes to 12. as you, Mr. Speaker, the officials of the House, and the members of the Press have to be considered, I hope even at this late hour the Minister will-recognise what is due to the dignity of the House, and that when fair requests are put forward by the Opposition that they should be acceded to in a gentlemanly and courteous manner.

in seconding the motion, said he did so for this reason. All of them who had watched the order paper and seen it growing in length and the large number of readings still to be taken, had felt very nervous that towards the latter stage of the session efforts, would be made to pass legislation through a tired House—a House denied the necessary interval during the session which should have taken place. There were members of the House whose criticisms of the Bill were very valuable, and any Bill dealing with the native population should not be passed without full and adequate discussion. (Hear, hear.)

acquit him of any desire to rush the second reading or to treat any part of the House with discourtesy. But he did not think there could be much doubt about this, that the actual business of practical discussion ceased some time ago. As far as he knew, he had not heard a single member, excent, perhaps, the hon. member for Griqualand East, announce his intention of voting against the general principle of the Bill. It had been put to him (Mr. Burton) that it was undesirable to pass a measure that it was undesirable to pass a measure without full and adequate discussion. He undertook that when they got to the proper stage for discussion he would exhibit all the reasonableness possible. He would not then endeavour to rush a single portion or clause of the Bill, but would have them discussed carefully and thoroughly. But what object was there in prolonging a discussion on the general principle on which he believed the vast bulk of the House was agreed? (Hear, hear.) He promised the House that when the Bill was in committee they would discuss it with the greatest possible freedom and care.

said the Hon. the Minister had said that for the last three-quarters of an hour there had been no valuable or material contribution to the debate. Well, that was the exact time when the Minister refused to accept the adjournment. He supported the motion because he did not think that the Minister had treated the House fairly His own feeling was this, that speaking as a member who did not know a great deal about the subject, he would like to learn a good deal more than he knew. They did not expect to reach the Bill that evening, as they had looked forward to a long discussion upon another measure, and a large number of hon. members would be debarred from speaking upon the measure if the adjournment were not agreed to He was sorry if the Minister should lose his reputation for fairness, and hoped that he would agree to the adjournment.

also hoped that his hon. friend would accept the adjournment. He had been in the House since nine o’clock. (An HON. MEMBER: So have we.) It was impossible for them to discuss this measure at such a late hour. The time of the House had not been wasted, and although he sympathised with his hon. friend in endeavouring to get his Bill through, still he hoped he would agree to the adjournment.

said the whole question of the Bill was one upon which the majority of the members had not a great amount of knowledge. On the Minister s side of the House there were many members who were well qualified to speak on the subject from the native point of view, who with one exception, had not taken part in the discussion, and he hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would consent to the adjournment.

On the motion to adjourn being put.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

continuing the debate, said that the principle of leaving the native to settle his own disputes might also be extended—of leaving the native to govern himself. The native conception of justice differed from the white conception of it. The hon. member for Bechuanaland had dealt with the tribal system and said he did not think much of the civilised state of the natives in his part of the world. But did he judge civilisation by their religious status? He thought the whites had a great deal to learn from the natives, and he thought they should be allowed to govern themselves to a great extent by elected chiefs, but not hereditary chiefs. He wanted to see the natives govern themselves apart from the whites. This was only a commencement of a very big policy in this country of leaving the native alone instead of mixing him up with the whites and degrading him. If that was the policy the Minister was going to follow he was sure that he would have the support of a large number of hon. members.

said that the Minister’s management of this Bill this evening was similar to the manner in which the Government conducted the business of the country.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House.

I will. Proceeding, he said the Minister seemed for some reason to object to discussion on this measure. He introduced the Bill between nine and ten o’clock and a great deal of discussion came from hon. members on his side of the House.

That matter has been disposed of. The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I am talking about this Bill and the management of the Bill by the Minister. On the principle of the Bill, he thought there was a great deal to be said. Hon., members on that side were entitled to properly discuss a Bill which introduced a new principle into the Government of this country. The attempt to rush Bills through the House in this fashion was not going to help Ministers in the conduct of business in the House. The House was treated with calculated insult. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member must keep to the Bill.

said it was very much resented that when a Bill of this kind was introduced there were only two Ministers in the House.

said he felt that, as the Minister had decided that they must go on with the debate, in the absence of many men who were conversant with this subject, he could only do the best he could with the facts hat he had, although there were many men better able to do it. A good deal of attention had been devoted to the question of the position of attorneys. The Minister had not attempted to explain that point, but had said they on that side of the House were only thinking of the attorneys. Now the Minister interjected across the floor of the House that attorneys were not to be debarred from practising. If white men employed lawyers it seemed to him to be particularly hard to say that the intelligent white man should be allowed to retain skilled advice to put the best of his case before the Court, and not to allow the ignorant black man to do the same. The native who was clever and slim he believed it was admitted to be a Parliamentary word—had a great advantage over another native who was neither clever nor slim, and so it was a hardship that the latter was not allowed to level up his chances by employing an attorney. Ofcourse they could understand that certain Magistrates would like to administer justice in a rough and ready way, but he thought it was better to have a case properly pleaded. It seemed to him to be an unwise thing to allow either claimant or defendant to demand that the case should be tried by native law unless both were agreed. It did seem hard that a civilised native would have to have his claim tried according to native custom because his opponent was a blanket Kafir. It was hard lines that the defendant should have the right to claim to be tried according to his own native custom and not the plaintiff. He was sorry, but he had misread his notes, which he had to prepare in a hurry. (Laughter.) The whole trend of their treatment of the natives was to bring them more and more into accord with European custom. There was no advance which bad been made amongst the natives except what was due to their contact with civilisation; and there was no tendency of the native to develop a civilisation of his own. The native was not an originator, but a great copyist. Perhaps the Minister thought that the system of native law would develop and become one of the great codes of law like the Roman-Dutch, but he (Dr. Watkins) thought that the Minister would be doomed to disappointment, because he did not propose that these cases should be conducted in native Courts under native judges, but that these cases should be dealt with in European Courts. Another point was this—that unless Magistrates had grown up with the natives and become imbued with their views it would hardly be possible for them to administer native laws in a way in which the natives would have a right to expect.

rose to a point of order, stating that there was no quorum.

The division bells were accordingly rung, and several members entering the House a quorum was formed.

said surely this was a retrograde step that they should ask their European Magistrates to depart from European custom. Certain missionaries, in order to raise the native, had brought themselves down to the level of the native. But although this was done, perhaps honestly enough, it was a wrong principle. Surely it was better that they should train their natives up to the level of European law. In conclusion, he asked did the principles laid down in this Bill tend to elevate these natives to that standard?

said he was sorry that the Minister had not agreed to the adjournment, as there were many members who desired to speak upon the Bill. The Minister had not shown that courtesy to the House that they as hon. members had a right to expect. He moved that the Bill be read that day six months?

I am afraid that I cannot accept that.

said that a motion that the Bill be read a second time that day week had been put. Was it now competent to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months?

The question was divided upon and the word “now” remains.

said the original Bill as introduced in the Senate in the early part of February, contained a clause which allowed a duly-authorised representative of the parties to be present when a case was tried. When that House dealt with great principles it should not do so in committee (Hear, hear.) How could justice be administered fairly when the parties to a case might be unequally matched, for one might have been a messenger in a Lawyer’s office, while the other might be an illiterate native He asked whether the native was to be exalted with high ideals, or the opposite? He asked what would happen if there was to be a different set of rules of procedure in each Magistrate’s Court?

Read clause 6 (1) (e)

There is no clause 16. (Laughter.)

Clause 6 (1) (e).

later moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs for report.

said that the hon. member could not move that.

asked whether he could move that the order for the second reading be discharged?

said that the hon. member could not move that.

asked if it would be m order to move that the second reading be discharged, and that the subject matter be referred to a Select Committee?

said that the hon. member would be in order in moving that.

moved accordingly. Proceeding, he said the debate in the other place occupied a great deal more time than was being devoted to it here. Hon. members were there to legislate, not to rush matters through. They were there to consider subjects on their merits and to bring the best wisdom they had to bear in deliberations. Was that to be brought about when half of the members were in their beds? The Minister was forcing the House into a position that could not tend to enhance its reputation in the eyes of the country. Legislation that was rushed could not be of the class that the House was expected to give to the country Hon. members owed a duty to the country apart from simply obeying the division bell, and forcing legislation through was not adding to the dignity of the House.

seconded the motion.

said earlier in the debate he had stated that he had been asked to move to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and that, considering the lateness of the session and other reasons, he had not desired to press that, but since then the attitude of the Minister of Native Affairs had made him alter his opinion, and he now thought he was justified in pressing that it be referred to a Select Committee. He did not believe for a moment that the attorneys m the native territories fleeced the natives unfairly, and he was aware that some years ago the leading Transkei attorneys put before the Government plans for reducing the cost of litigation, but they had certain legal rights which should be protected.

said he saw that the only report they got from the Native Affairs Department was dated March, 1910, and they had no further report since then. The Commission had sat in Natal dealt with some of the questions in this Bill. It was a great advantage to send this Bill to the Select Committee, because he foresaw trouble ahead, and he would like to have an opportunity of coming before a Select Committee and giving evidence before this Rill. He would like to deal with the effect of the Bill on native customs in Natal. The Minister was exceedingly ignorant of native affairs in Natal.

He needs educating.

He needs educating in manners.

The hon. member must not make reflections of that sort.

Of course, I withdraw. At this time of night one is generally in the land of dreams. The hon. member concluded by supporting the proposal that the subject matter be discharged and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

said he hoped that at that late hour 1.15 a.m.—the Minister would accept the motion. So that the Minister could get the fullest possible information on matters connected with the Bill he should accept the motion. If the Minister did not, he would stand responsible for the attitude the Government had adopted, and he (Sir Thomas) hoped that the country would recognise that the Government was not prepared to meet legitimate criticism and to fully thrash out the subject in a Select Committee, although the Government’s habit so far had been to send measures to a Select Committee so that they should come out far better Bills than the sloppy ones they generally were when they were first introduced in the House.

supported what the previous speaker had said and said that the action of the Minister showed scant courtesy to that House. He did not think it was a function of that House to pass perfunctorily something which had passed in another place. He had another concepttion of his duties. He wished to guard the dignity and the importance of the House, and he did not want the man in the street to talk of the House turning out Bills three a minute.

The hon. member was continuing, when Mr. SPEAKER warned him to confine himself to the motion before the House, and not to go into the merits of the Bill.

put the question that all the words after the word “that,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

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

called the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. H. M. Meyler) to order for moving from his seat.

explained that he thought that he could move after the tellers had finished.

said that the hon. member had no right to move until the division had been taken.

The motion for the second reading was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage was set down for Friday.