Since the second reading of this Bill went through the House, a conference of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers has been held at East London, and this matter of apprentices came before it; they have asked me to raise a question in this House. They consider that it is not in the interest of apprentices that they should be compelled to join trade unions. If Clause 3 is agreed to, trade unionists will not work with non-unionists, and apprentices will be forced to join trade unions. I hope the right hon. the Minister will see his way to consider this.

I see from reports in the newspapers, that this matter has been discussed at a conference of Master Builders held at East London, but I do not think they had before them the Bill in the form in which it has now been introduced. There is nothing in the Bill to show that pressure will be brought to bear on these boys, to leave their work during the course of their apprenticeship. In fact the Bill is designed to meet that eventuality. Regarding the other point, there is nothing in this clause that implies that pressure will be brought, or can be brought, upon an apprentice to join a trade union. The apprentice is under a contract, how can any person bring pressure to bear upon him to belong to a trade union? If this Bill is passed, the apprentice will be free to choose for himself, without any pressure being brought on either side. In some cases he is not allowed by the trade union to join, but where he is, he will gain some advantage by joining a trade union, and should not be prevented, if he desires to join, by anything in his indentures.

Ek hoop, dat die Huis hierdie artiekel nie sal aanneem nie, omdat daardeur opening gegee sou word aan leerlinge om lede te word van die vakunies en as daar moeilikhede kom, dan word die leerlinge gebruik om te stem oor sulke gevalle. Ek geloof nie, dat dit die bedoeling van die vorige wet was nie en buitendien reken ek, dat die leerlinge voldoende beskerm word deur die vorige wet, aangesien daar komitee’s aangestel word om toe te sien, dat hulle regte beskerm word. Ek denk nie, dat dit raadsaam is die verandering aan te breng en die leerlinge lede te laat word van die unies nie.

The way in which this fresh amendment has been drafted, is a very clever one.

We are not discussing the amendment.

Yes, we are, as set out in Clause 3 of the present Bill. There is a principle embodied here, and what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) now proposes is, to substitute, instead of the words that appear in the 1922 Bill, and which are—

This amendment is rather framed to draw a red herring across the trail, for now it says the apprentice shall be able to join a trade union, without the consent of anybody. [An Hon. Member: “Why not?”] I will tell you. In 1922, when this Bill was being considered, very strong objection was taken on all sides of the House—excepting the Labour Party—to the exclusion of these words. If my memory serves me rightly that Party were strongly against the inclusion of these words. Employers all round have the strongest possible objection to their employees joining trade unions, and if we accept these words we will force the apprentices to join trade unions. My hon. friend says: “Let us have apprentices in the trade union when they are 15, and they will be trade unionists for ever.” There is an element of compulsory obligation in these words, and that is what I object to. I have been asked to oppose this amendment and that is why I do so.

What actuates the hon. member who has just sat down to vote against this amendment is, as he says, because he has the strongest objection to apprentices being forced to join trade unions. Then he should have an equally strong objection, to an apprentice not being allowed to join a trade union. I want to urge upon the hon. member that he, above all members, and there are some in this House who think like him, should be prepared to allow an apprentice to have a free hand. That is what the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is asking. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) says that employers have the strongest possible reason for preventing lads from joining trade unions. Why should they have? If employers have the strongest possible case, to prevent apprentices from joining trade unions, then we have a right in this House to have that case put before us. But, in fact, there is no case. As to what transpired in 1922, I may say that that legislation was passed when members were obsessed against the activities of trade unions. It was panic legislation, and in those circumstances should not have been passed. Now, the fires have died down. Will hon. members suppose that by defeating this amendment they are going to stop apprentices from joining trade unions? I say to the House I do not care whether you have this on the statute book or not, you will have your apprentices joining trade unions just the same, or else they will have no back bone. The lads of to-day, however, are showing a considerable amount of back bone. It will make no difference at all, but we do not want this Parliament to place on its statute book anything that can be said to interfere with freedom of action. All we are asking for is to give these apprentices freedom of action and no harm but a considerable amount of good will accrue. Hon. members are either speaking honestly or dishonestly when they say they are against trade unions. If they are not against trade unions why should they oppose apprentices joining such bodies. Either they are honest or dishonest, but if they are honest they can have no further objection against the clause which my hon. friend has proposed.

Ek hoop die Huis gaan die klousule nie aanneem nie, omdat vakleerlinge niks met unies te doen het nie. Die unies veroorsaak hulle moeilikhede en dwing hulle selfs om verkeerde dinge te doen, terwyl hulle besig is hulle te bekwaam vir die toekoms van hulle lewe. Die leerling moet nog van sy salaris die vakunie betaal om unies op te hou. As die unie heengaan en ’n staking verklaar, dan sal hulle, as hulle hulle nie skuldig wil maak aan die unie, ook moet staak en dit forseer die jongeman dat hy sy kontrak nie kan nakom nie. Dit bring hom in ’n moeilike posiesie en ek reken die Huis moet die mense by wyse van wet beskerm, maar nie toelaat, dat hulle gedwing word in die unies nie.

Dit lyk vir my, dat die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) verstaan absoluut die posiesie nie. Die posiesie is dat die jonge mense word opgeneem in die vakunies en hulle word opgelei in die vak. Dit is tog in die hele wereld vir iemand vry, vir enige man, om hom aan te sluit by ’n vereniging. Die advokatie het hulle vereniging, ens. Waarom moet in die Huis dan neergelê word, dat die mense nie toegelaat word om zo iets te doen nie? Dit skyn my of edele lede weer die ewige skrik het vir unies, vir werkers-unies. Dis nie die fout van die werkers-unies nie, dat die stakinge en moeilikhede kom nie. As jy dit ondersoek, dan is in baie gevalle die fout by die werkgewers. Waarom sal die jonge manne wat opgelei word vir die vak nie toegelaat word in die vakunies. Niemand in die wereld kan vermy, om die mense te laat aansluit by unies waar hulle feitelik behoor. Dis hulle eie voordeel. Dit beteken niks anders as die werkmanne te beekerm, net soos enige vak beskerm word.

Ek kan my nou heeltemaal met die edele lid vir Ventersdorp (Lt.-Kol. B. I. J. van Heerden) verenig. Hy het die saak duidelik uiteen geset. Die edele lid vir Fordsburg (de hr. Pretorius) vra of ons skrik het vir die vakunies. Ja, ek het vir hulle geskrik. En ek dink, dat as ooit iemand kon geskrik het vir die unies, dan was dit die edele lid vir Fordsburg (de hr. Pretorius). Hy het gesien, dat die hele Fordsburg het moet vlug.

Ek het nog nooit weggehardloop nie. Ek het altoos my man gestaan.

Die mense in Fordsburg het geskrik.

Ek het ook nog nie vir kruit weggeloop nie. Ek het my man gestaan.

Dis nog vars in my geheue en ek dink die edele lid vir Fordsburg (de hr. Pretorius) sal hom dit ook nog herinner.

Die skuld was nie aan die ene kant nie.

Dit was groteliks die skuld van al die unies daar.

So sê die edele lid daar, maar ek het dit anders.

Die edele lid sal met my saamstem, dat vandag nog baie groot ellende die oorsaak daarvan is. Baie mense is uit werk deur daardie soort dinge. Laat volwasse manne in die unie gaan, maar hou die kinders wat nog leer, daarbuite. Ons moet nie toelaat dat hulle ingaan nie. Dis genoeg dat die grote mense in die unies is, laat hulle met elkander twis, maar laat die mense wat nog die vak leer, uitbly. Ek is daarteen dat die jongmense in die unies gedwing word en ek hoop, dat edele lede wat dieselfde opienie het oor die vakunies, ons sal steun. Ons het genoeg ondervinding opgedoen. Ek het die ander dag al gesê en ek wil dit hier herhaal, dat in my kiesafdeling mense is, wat nie in die vakunies wil gaan nie en dan moet ons seker nie die kinders daarin dwing nie.

When the Act was originally passed through this House, there was no prohibition of an apprentice being a member of a trade union, but when the Act was in another place, an amendment was inserted there, saying that an apprentice cannot be a member of a trade union. When that amendment came back to this House, I moved, as a compromise, to allow an apprentice to join his trade union during the last 12 months of his apprenticeship. I did so with the purpose of enabling an apprentice to get the benefits of a trade union, after he leaves his apprenticeship, and before he has got permanent employment. Very often that is the most difficult time for a young man—when he has finished his apprenticeship, and before he is taken on in permanent employment. If he is a member of his trade union, he gets the benefits of unemployment during that time, and it helps him over a difficult period. That was the reason I moved in that direction. The amendment was negatived, and the House accepted the amendment of the Senate, so we have prohibition as it stands at the present moment. Since then this matter has been tested in practical experience, because this Act was passed some years ago, and one apprenticeship committee, particularly that with regard to the printers, has had the practical effect of this, and I have the report of the chairman of the printing apprenticeship committee before me, which I propose to give the House the substance of. The chairman said, that at a recent meeting this question was brought up, the papers of the particular apprentice were all in order, but he refused to accept subsection (d) of section 1 of the Apprenticeship Act. The committee then discussed the matter, they did not pass a formal resolution, but asked the chairman to bring the facts, and their feelings, to the notice of the Government, in writing. Now the substance of this report is—

That is prohibition—

That is to say, an apprentice can be induced by his employer during industrial trouble to do work outside his apprenticeship, and they say if you prevent it on the one side, to be fair you must prevent it on the other side too. That object is attained, I think, by the amendment which the House now has agreed to in Clause 2 of this Bill. The report continues—

Then he goes on—

But if we accept this recommendation as we have done now in Clause 2, then we cannot leave the other parts of the clause unrepealed. The two things go together. What is the good of saying: “You must use no pressure to break his contract,” as we do in Clause 2, when we do not prohibit them from being members altogether? The thing is illogical; we cannot have it both ways. The acceptance of the non-pressure implies that the apprentice will be a member of his trade union, and, therefore it seems to me, that if the House has agreed to Clause 2 of this Bill, it is forced, it cannot help itself, it must now pass Clause 3. Certainly; if we do not want any alteration at all, and say that no apprentice should be a member of the trade union, then it negatives the whole Bill, but to pass Clause 2 and say that we shall use no pressure, and then leave the prohibition as it stands in the Act will, of course, never do. For myself I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), on this clause, and to say, take out the total prohibition, but say that he shall not absent himself without the Consent of the inspector, whether in time of strike or not. That seems to me to go far enough, and I am prepared to vote for that. If the Committee thinks that the amendment, which I moved two years ago, is more likely to be carried, that is to say, to allow during the last twelve months, to give what Professor Clarke, as chairman of the apprenticeship committee, points out here—and I want to add this further argument, and it is a strong argument; we must if we are going to recognize trade unions at all, and we do recognize them, not only in the Apprenticeship Act, but in the Conciliation Bill which has just been passed, the whole idea of conciliation, of smooth working by our industries, is based on organization.

The time of the right hon. the Minister has expired.

I would like to know whom that letter just read by the right hon. the Minister is from?

Professor Clarke.

As Professor Clarke’s letter has been read, with the leave of the Committee, I would like to read the whole of the representations I have had from the employers, but before doing so, I want to deal with the illogicality the right hon. the Minister has introduced. The right hon. the Minister said because we have passed Clause 2, that we must pass Clause 3. That is a very clever argument but really Clause 2 should not have preceded Clause 3. That is to say, until we pass Clause 3, we should not deal with Clause 2, as I think this Clause 2 is very good. But I did not know it was going to be used as an argument that because we passed Clause 2, we must also pass Clause 3. In that letter, there is a paragraph which says: “I am not prepared to say that the majority, as a whole, will agree with my suggestion.” Therefore, it is only the opinion of one individual. Surely we, as individuals, have to exercise our own judgment. Then there is another argument which has been used by the right hon. the Minister, and I attach more weight to a Minister’s arguments, than to those of anyone else. I contend that the object of not allowing a youngster to join a trade union is, to look after the best interests of the youngster himself. That is what we think. We think that it is in the interest of the youngster, that he should not be swayed by the older members of trade unions. We know what the parson said: “Let us have the youngsters till a certain age, and thereafter you can have them yourselves.” The same applies to trade unions; after the trade unions have had the youngsters, those youngsters are not free any longer. I have a very excellent letter here, of which I propose to read the most important parts. It appeared in the Cape Times of the 6th February, and it is signed by “Journeyman,” who says—

That is one of their own men who says that.

Who says that? Is it Archie Crawford?

I shall continue the letter—

What is the name of the man who writes that? Is it Crawford?

Mr. Chairman, I must ask your protection. In terms of Rule 65 I have a perfect right to address this Committee, and I am endlessly interrupted. 1 have the right to appeal to you. I said, at the outset, that this letter was signed “Journeyman”, but in their desire to interrupt, members only do themselves harm. I will just refer to what Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says in “What an M.P. should Know.”—He condemns cheap interruptions—and these are nothing but cheap interruptions—and further says—

The other day I thought fit to interject a remark, and it was said that I made my interjection sotto voce; I did not, I said it very audibly—

I think the hon. member should confine himself to the point.

Well, I must ask your protection, Sir.

I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) when he is addressing the Chair.

I shall continue to read from the letter in the Cape Times—

I say again that it should be left entirely to the youngster, when he has served his apprenticeship, whether he will, or will not, join a union. A youngster’s mind is easily influenced, and the youngster should be left free to join or not, until after he has served his apprenticeship.

Hear, hear.

Sh, sh, sh!

I have heard the cows and the sheep bleat, and I hear a great deal of that on the other side.

That is rather hard on the sheep.

I have a letter here from the National Federation of building trade employers in South Africa; they have asked me to put their views forward, and I feel that I should not be doing justice to the case if I did not do so. They say—

Supposing a youngster were a member of a trade union, and a strike were to take place and last a considerable period, how is that boy going to live? Who is going to furnish him with the money to exist during that strike? Now the National Federation says—

In the circumstances I hope that the Committee will see that, in order to protect these boys, this proposal will not be agreed to. There is plenty of time for them after they have served their apprenticeship to join trade unions.

I am very pleased that the right hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries has put the case so clearly before the House, and, as he said, the divergence arose, not in this House but in the Bill as it came back from another place; and now those gentlemen who speak so lightly on this question, fail to realize what the position is. Here we have the null effect of a Bill which was turned back. I want to ask, whether members know what the effect has been of the position which has been created? The effect is that we have debarred every South African boy from fitting himself to enter into competition with skilled tradesmen coming from elsewhere. The actual effect, which has occurred here, is that the printers, on account of the bilingual clauses, have found it necessary to represent to the House, that they cannot carry out their contracts, because they cannot get their places filled by boys from South Africa to do the bilingual work. We must realize that if we turn this down, it will react against the South African youth, and it will baulk the South African boys from getting employment in our trades and industries. That is the only effect of the position, so far as our South African boys are concerned. I appeal to members to have the interest of South Africa at heart, to let us open up this field in South Africa for the employment of the South African boy, and not to worry as to what the position of the boy is, inside the trade union. The employers will see to that. Let us get rid of this position. We are interested in this one vital question, that is, to find openings for our South African youths. I have the authority of one of the biggest stone cutters in Johannesburg for saying, that he has been debarred under the Act from getting apprentices in South Africa, and he has been debarred from employing full-blooded men in South Africa, and, I ask, where is the art in stone cutting, which the South African youth, with his muscle, cannot acquire? Let us rectify this mistake which was made in another place, and let us send this back and keep on sending it back, until we have the principle admitted.

I just wish to review a few of the statements which have been made here, and I should like to remind hon. members of the importance of the subject which we are dealing with. The future of a good many boys is wrapped up in the measure, which is now before the Committee. Now I want to say that in regard to this Bill I am acting neither for the journeyman who wrote the letter which has been quoted, or for the employers. I am acting directly in the interest of the apprentice himself, and, only indirectly in the interest of the journeymen and the employers. The problem which we have to meet is this. There are few opportunities for boys to get training in trades or occupations, that is to say, no opportunities to learn to do work in trades, which will maintain them in constant employment throughout the world. That is due to many things. First of all because apprentices are very unpopular with some journeymen, they will not teach the boys. Then there are a large number of employers who will not take apprentices into their shops, etc. How then can we encourage apprenticeships? The method which we have adopted in the Act which was passed by this House is the formation of apprenticeship committees, and allowing those committees to work out the terms and conditions, under which the apprentices shall receive their training. We decided to leave these matters to the committees themselves. A committee could, if it desired, even lay it down that a boy should not belong to a trade union. Personally I would abide by their decision. There is nothing in this Bill which would prevent a committee deciding that a boy shall, or shall not, belong to a trade union. The arguments which I have listened to this afternoon, have convinced me that the original incentive to put these words into the indenture, was distinctly to cast a stigma on the trade union movement and prejudice the boy against trade unionism. But I am certain that there were also some hon. members who did not want a boy’s contract of indentureship violated through his being concerned in a strike. They wanted the boy to be left free to carry through his indentures, and not to be pulled into a strike. I have met that point in the Bill. It was not so in the Act. Under the Act there is no penalty if the boy goes out on strike with the men. Likewise, there is no penalty placed on anyone who brings pressure to bear on a boy to leave his work. I have inserted those provisions here. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) wants to leave the boy free to join or not, as he chooses. I agree with that principle. And do not forget that this Bill provides for apprenticeship up to 26 years of age.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with an amendment.

moved—

objected.

Amendment to be considered on 28th March.

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 1 (Dutch) put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: I make no apology for introducing this Bill, because I consider it is a matter of very great importance. It is not necessary for me to speak at any great length, because if hon. members have looked at the Bill, and its schedule, they will find that except for one clause in this Bill, we are dealing, to all intents and purposes, with existing legislation. An hon. member says I am incorrect in this, and says that that only deals with regard to natives. That is so in so far as one Province, the Cape, is concerned; but in Natal, the Transvaal, and Free State, coloured persons are included as well. However, I am going to deal with this point regarding coloured people, a little later. I have brought the Bill up at the request of the natives in the Transvaal, those in the Johannesburg area, and the object is to punish white men, who commit these offences with coloured women, in a similar way to which a black man is punished, for offences against white women. This is a subject which it is not congenial to listen to, and that is why I have decided to speak briefly. The late Mr. Theo. Schreiner in a paper on segregation said—

People, who have looked into these relations between white and black, consider that something should be done, and so make the native feel that the white man wants to give him a fair and square deal. I remember listening, very many years ago, to an address by a dignitary of the Church of England, to which I belong, in which he said how easy it was for white men where they could not find people of their own kith and kin to marry, how easy it was to do wrong in this respect, to a woman who was not on the same social scale. Very often white men take advantage of their superior position, and so are able to induce coloured and native women, to commit these offences with them. The natives are feeling strongly on the subject, and they say that if they are going to be severely punished for having illicit intercourse with white women, why should the white man be allowed to do as he pleases. Hon. members who have done me the honour of speaking to me, and asking me what the Bill means, have agreed with me that it is time we did something. May I, in a few words, refer to some legislation in this country regarding this. In 1871, the late Volksraad in the Transvaal, in legislating about marriage, started off in Clause 25 by saying—

The regulation of marriages between coloured persons only, was to be regulated later by law, and it took the Transvaal from 1871 to 1897, to pass a law in regard to the marriage of coloured persons. In that province marriage between white and coloured is not permitted. It seems to me that the passion for race integrity, burns just as fiercely among the native people, as amongst the white. Just as hon. members wish to keep their race pure and absolutely white, so do those people who are not of the white race, wish to keep their race absolutely pure. May I illustrate what happened during the American Civil War, when a number of negroes went as refugees to the North, and through the looseness on the part of the North American Army, the grandchildren of those people, as the result of the illicit intercourse which then took place, are suffering to-day. I remember when I was in India some years ago, there was great contempt expressed for what we call Eurasians, a half-breed between the European and the Asiatic. But that was nothing as compared with the contempt which was shown towards those people whom I have referred to in North America. The sins of the fathers are literally being visited upon the children. We are a young country: cannot we stop anything like that happening here? In the Report of 1903 of the Transvaal Commission of Native Affairs, I find this very important statement—

Mr. Maurice S. Evans, in his book “Black and White,” says—

To give two illustrations which have come under my own personal knowledge. I knew a man who was living with a coloured woman for a great number of years, and had six children, and he asked me if he married this woman would his children become legitimate? I said that was so, and he married the woman. The other case was that of a retired clergyman, who was living in sin with a coloured woman; but he subsequently married this woman, and later he came into a very high title in the English peerage. Then his children born before the marriage possessed no right of succession, but those who were born afterwards did. No doubt there are other similar cases where white men have done the proper thing, but I am not dealing at all with the question of wedlock, but only with the question of illicit intercourse. Hon. members must know what happens in this town, those who have lived here long enough to know, during the visit of a large fleet, or while we had the army here. It may be said that this kind of thing cannot be stopped. Well, if it cannot be stopped, what is the good of having legislation against the coloured man in regard to white women? Of course it can be stopped. I want to give the House some interesting figures. The European population of this country in the last thirty years proceeded as follows: In 1891 the population was 620,619. In 1901 it had increased to 889,900, that is, excluding the military forces at that time, an increase during the ten years of 43 per cent. In 1921 the population was 1,519,488. This represented an increase of only 19 per cent., and the position would have been worse but for a considerable expansion of secondary industries. The native population from 1891, when it was 2,779,000, increased to 5,409,000 in 1921, notwithstanding the loss of 500,000 in the influenza epidemic. It may be forecasted on that racial increase that in 1971 we will have a European population in this country of 3,650,000 and non-European 19,000,000. So that the danger of this mixing of the races will be growing more and more if steps are not taken to stop it. I ask hon. members to remember that in this question we have to think of the child races in this country, and unless you can protect the coloured and native women from the assaults of white men it will lead to a lot of bad blood and ill-feeling. I trust under the circumstances of a severe cold hon. members will excuse me for not going into the Bill more in detail, and I ask them to consider this measure fairly, and allow the second reading to pass. In Committee I shall be willing to accept amendments. I consider the existing law in the Transvaal, upon which my Bill is based, is too harsh, and I think we might take the penalties in the Colony of Natal. I am prepared to move an amendment on these lines myself. I trust hon. members will accept the principle, and say that we will do justice in this respect, to these people. In regard to the coloured people, let me say in conclusion, that the coloured persons themselves are the result of miscegenation. I do not say of illicit intercourse, but in most cases they are the issue of honourable marriage between Dutch and English soldiers and sailors in the old days, now retired, who finding nobody of their own class, fell in love with coloured women, have married them, and lived very happily with them. It is not necessary for there to be any bitterness between them. If there are any individuals who for some other reason, and I know one case, who are living as man and wife and not legally married, we can deal with that in Committee. They could be exempted from the operation of this Bill. Any man who is married, according to certain rites, which we do not legally recognize, but is married before God, ought not to be punished for living in this relation with a woman who loves him, and whom he loves simply because he has not gone through the Christian rites of marriage.

It is impossible not to say something on this Bill, occupying the position I do towards the native races. I want to say at once that I do not think there is a person in this House who is not enormously sympathetic with the general drift of race purity, and every reasonable step should be taken to prevent improper fusion of the races. That is axiomatic; we all agree on that. Some years ago we had a vigorous debate in this House when a Bill was brought in, incidentally prohibiting marriage between white and black. I then expressed the opinion very strongly that I did not think that we were starting at the right end. It is not marriage we have to fight, it is miscegenation—to use what I think is the correct term. It is miscegenation of all kinds. That is to say, the improper mixing up of races should be stopped. Primarily it should be stopped by the moral force of the community; but it has been found, from time to time that that is not sufficient, and a certain amount of it, at any rate, the public parading of it, has been further stopped by legislation in particular ways and with particular limitations in various late colonies and various late republics. Now, I opposed the prohibition of marriage between black and white on the ground that it was a piece of hypocrisy to oppose the one union in a thousand, which was sanctified by marriage, while we left 999 cases in a thousand, which had nothing to do with marriage, to run loose and breed disease, vice, and to betray the black races and white races alike, into a common welter. I think I am speaking with a certain amount of authority, when I say that if a Bill limited to miscegenation between white and black were introduced into this House, and a plebescite were taken on the subject, the whole of the native people in South Africa, perhaps less a very fractional percentage, would vote enthusiastically for it, because the native races of South Africa no more want, or relish the idea, that any of their men should look upon the women of other races, than they relish the idea that men of other races should look upon their women. That being the case I can only say that I find considerable difficulty in the case of this particular Bill, because it seems to me to be drafted with an undue appreciation of the numerous difficulties which have to be faced before we can bring in a measure of this kind. The first problem is; what is a coloured man? That is the first problem that is before this House. For the purpose of rule of thumb, we have on a good many occasions attempted to solve that problem; but what is a coloured man? Are we to take the American standard that a person who has one great grandfather coloured is definitely a coloured person? Because if so then some very surprising things would occur with regard to some personages who have a trace of that kind. There has been a perfectly definite attempt here to give us the Transvaal definition—

Now that definition is not satisfactory, because on the word “manifestly” it breaks down again and again, but I for one am so tremendously keen personally, or I should not have agreed to undertake the fathering of the Bill, I am so keen upon the legitimate stoppage by Act of Parliament of miscegenation between black and white that taking the chance that the Bill will be so limited when we get into Select Committee that it will be so limited by the common consent of all reasonable men, because it is so difficult to legislate for coloured men— the line is so closely drawn between black and white, and is so slight between coloured and black. After all, if we are going to protect the line between the white and black, why not protect the line between the black and coloured? The two great races in this country, numerically speaking, are the black and the white, and everything else left over is a very small quantity, and I would therefore like to see the schedule of this Bill dropped. I want the existing laws as they are, to remain; so that anything that comes on now, if anything is passed, be additional. Let us definitely say that we are going to do two things; we are first of all going to give an equality in morals, and before God, to the two great races in South Africa—black and white, and, secondly, that we are going to repair an existing anomoly of a type which I am certain is more aggravated by the great Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa than any other body in the country, and that is the fact that while it has been a crime for a white woman to have connection in certain parts of the country with a black man, it has not been a crime for a white man to have connection with a black woman. The Dutch Reformed Church, I am certain, and I believe that is the church to which the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) belongs, aggravates that.

Certainly.

Well and good. Then I am perfectly candid. When I first read this Bill, I hope my hon. friend will pardon me, I said to myself: “This Bill has not been carefully considered, this Bill has not been carefully drafted, and has an enormous number of defects, and under the circumstances it does not show a complete appreciation of the difficulty of drawing a colour line between white and coloured, and coloured and native.” Already its existence is not fair, because the apparent intention is to protect the white against an influx from below, and I want to prevent the black race from being penetrated with coloured blood. The black race want to protect themselves as much as the white. So the feeling is there, a feeling that God has given us a sheer race purity, to keep our blood intact, in full vigour and strength. Therefore, after full consideration of that, I did not like the Bill when I first saw it. I do ask hon. members if it is not possible for us to send this to a Select Committee? The good sense of the House is not going to pass anything which has not properly been limited. There may be a few people who do not know the world in this House, but there are a great many hard-headed men who know the world and what one has to face, and if there is any one here who would oppose the Bill simply and solely because they think the white man has a right to do what he likes to the native or coloured man, then I ask in the name of all that is good and pure, in the name of the white men of South Africa, that they will be silent. I hope there is nobody of that type in the House; I would like to think there is none. There are a few sexual maniacs wandering about in South Africa, who have caused us untold trouble in the past. Let me say that sexual instincts, out on the borders of civilization are very difficult, and things which would be reprehensible in the home, in the place where a man has been brought up, things which he would abhor because his mother would loath and detest them, may become venial on the outskirts of civilization, and we must not sit as judges on them. But let us consider all that is good and true, decent, and honourable. All the white men, and I think very nearly the last woman, are in favour of a perfectly clear-cut line between black and white. All the men who are good, true and decent in the native races feel the same way, and under these circumstances let us not perhaps do what has so often been done in moments of impetuosity in regard to small Bills like this, do not let us overwhelm it with criticism, of which I would be the first of a very large number, but let us give the principle a chance, because the principle is being put up here. Let me rather talk about the one we should get in Committee, the ideal principle we should get at is the supplementing of the existing Transvaal law, which prohibits carnal connection of women with black men, with the further law that the white man should not have carnal connection with the black woman. Hon. members over there are committed to the principle of segregation. I have opposed land segregation because the natives are opposed to it, but here is one case of segregation on which the natives are all unanimous; let us have the physical, moral and social segregation, but let us have it in actual equality given in a fair, honest, open manner; in a manner that will be approved of in the sight of God and by every religious community in South Africa. It does not affect the very limited cases of marriage. There may be cases where a man has lived with a woman for 20 years perhaps; apart from the fact that their skins are different they have relaxed into some social condition removed from the one they started in. They may have had a large family, and it is then open to them in these rare cases, and they are comparatively rare, to go to a minister of religion and have that tie ratified. If we do that, let us then pass this Bill with all its defects, but let us do other things: let us pass this Bill simply on this basis that we are passing it in order to eliminate miscegenation between black and white. I hope that under those circumstances the hon. member, the mover of this Bill, will accept the proposition that there is a great deal to be said for leaving the coloured person out. The coloured person is in a difficult position, but because I do not wish to restrict or relax the moral laws in any of the provinces, I suggest that the schedule should be deleted, and the existing laws in the Transvaal as they affect coloured people should be omitted and the existing laws as they affect coloured people in the Cape should remain; that we tamper as little as possible with those laws, but that we accept the one overwhelming and cardinal fact that the decent native man desires to have the native man forbidden to have intercourse with a white woman, and a decent white man desires to have the decent black woman protected against the indecent white man. If we do that we shall probably, as a matter of honesty of purpose, have grappled as closely with the problem of sexual segregation as it is humanly possible for us. It may be said you are leaving the coloured people to their fate. We are not. The black man is a black man, and the white man a white man, but with the coloured person you may have an infinite variety of shades, and it is going seriously to affect the children of a number of women, or of a race, where the one shade or the other slightly altered during a generation. I am looking at this from the point of view of establishing social and sexual segregation of the European and the native, and that is the position which I think this House can in all honesty vote for.

Ek wil die Wetsontwerp van die edele lid vir Denver (de hr. Nixon) ondersteun. Ek moet sê dat dit op baie gematigde wyse voorgestel is, en wat die edele lid hier gesê het met betrekking tot die punt is absoluut korrek. Die edele lid het egter een aanmerking gemaak wat ek nie heeltemaal mee kan saamgaan nie, en dit is wat hy soewe gesê het en dit is, dat die gekleurde mense wat hier in die land is almaal afstam van wit mense. Hy maak ’n baie grote fout as hy van die standpunt uitgaan. Ek beweer dat die kleurlinge nie een tiende wit bloed in hulle are het nie. Hulle is oorspronkelik ’n mengelmoes van ingevoerde slawe en inboorlinge van hierdie land. Ek wil nie ontken dat daar oortredings van die een kant na die ander plaasgevind het nie, maar ons as hollandssprekende Afrikaners is trots op die posisie die ons inneem in hierdie verband. Ons het die land beskaaf tot aan die Limpopo en het wit gebly Volgens onse kerkelike en maatskaplike opvattings is dit ’n grote publieke skande, as ’n witman hom meng met kleurlinge. Dit is ’n skandaal en vir ons hartverskeurend, as ons sien, dat nuwe inkomelinge nie daardie standaard hooghou, wat ons aan gewoont is nie. Dit is hulle dikwels nie kwalik te neem nie, want hulle kom van lande, waar die opvattings anders is en die mense doen dit dikwels sonder hulle wete, maar as hulle ’n vyf of tien jaar hier is kom hulle dikwels tot ander insigte. Nogtans vind daar baie oortredings plaas en wetgewing is noodsaaklik. Dit spyt my dat die edele lid vir Tembuland (de hr. Stuart) nie hier is nie, want hy poseer as ’n autoriteit op kaffersake en ek verskil van hom. Hy seg dat die naturelle daar afkerig van is om met die kleurlinge te meng. Dit mag wees by helemaal suiwere stamme, maar ek het nie opgemerk dat die naturel omgee om met die kleurlinge om te gaan nie; dat neem eerder toe as andersom en ek geloof nie dat ons sover moet gaan as wat hy wil hê nie om daardie onderskeid te maak vir die toekoms. Ek vertrou dat die Huis die Wetsontwerp sal aanneem; ons kan in Komitee die besonderhede verder nagaan en die nodige veranderings aanbreng.

Ek wil die Wetsontwerp ondersteun, maar soas hy staat gaat hy nie ver genoeg nie. Ek weet nie veel van die Wet af en het die een, wat hy sal wysig nie nagegaan nie, maar ek sal tevrede wees, as die Wetsontwerp na ’n Gekose Komitee verwese word. Daar waar die Wet b.v. bepaal wat wettig en onwettig is, gaat hy na my sin nie ver genoeg nie en ek reken, dat elke gemeenskap van blank met swart moet onwettig verklaar word. Wettig beteken ’n huwelik en dit mag nie bestaan nie en dit mag nie as wettig beskou word nie. Ons kan nie streng genoeg optree nie, want ons het ’n land, waar mense van oor heel die wereld is, ons het feitelik al die kleure van die reenboog hier en ons kan nie streng genoeg optree nie om die vleselike gemeenskap tussen blank en swart teen te gaan nie en die ras suiwer te hou ooreenkomstig onse kristelike opvattinge. Ek sal die Wetsontwerp ondersteun, maar wil dit strenger hê, veral waar sprake is van liggaamlike straf, wil ek dit straffer hê. As ons nie ’n Wet kan maak wat streng genoeg is nie, laat ons dit dan liewer laat. Daardie dinge wat daar wettig genoem word, moet uitgehaal word.

I think the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) has rendered a great service in bringing forward this Bill; I am only sorry that the Bill was not introduced by the Government, because the matter dealt with is one of great public interest. Personally I should have liked to see the provision of Clauses 2 and 3 again brought in after the provisions of Clause 4, so as to make it applicable to the white man as well as the coloured, because I know from experience in this country, that there are cases of white men, who have gone so far as to ask natives to procure native women for them. We do everything possible to instil in the minds of the natives respect for the white man, but the greatest danger which we have to face, as a white race, is that a certain section of the white community is doing everything possible to undermine any respect which the native has for the whites. I think the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) has rendered a great service to the country in bringing forward his Bill. There has been no justification in the past for differentiation between white and black in the way it has been done; I think that everything which applies to Clauses 2 and 3, in regard to the coloured people, should also apply to the white community.

Dit is moeilik vir iemand soas ek, uit Transvaal, om die Wetsontwerp te opponeer, want dit is al grotendeels die wet daar, maar ek stem daarin toe, dat die Wet nagegaan moet word, want daar bestaat op die punt verskillende wetgewing in die verskillende provinsies. Die Transvaalse definisie is enige persoon, behorende aan een van die inboorling of kleurling rasse van Afrika, Amerika, St. Helena of Asië. Maar dan kom die vraag of die Kaapse kleurling onder daardie definisie val en ek sou seg, nee, hy val nie daaronder nie, want ek betwyfel of hulle ’n kleurling ras is. Na my mening is ’n kleurling van Suidafrika ’n Hottentot, Boesman of Grikwa. Die Vrystaatse Wet spreek van “inboorling naturel,” maar in die Kaap bestaat geen definisie nie. Die Natalse Wet lui as volg, wat die definisie betref:

Dit sluit ook nie die Kaapse kleurling in nie, maar ons kan dit nou nie alles hier uitpluis nie. Ek is voor die beginsel om wit en swart met dieselfde maat te meet en dat elke blanke vrou, wat vrywillig gemeenskap hou met ’n swart man of ’n swart vrou wat vrywillig gemeenskap hou met ’n wit man strafbaar sal wees en ook die manne. Dog soas Klousule 4 hier staat is dit moeilik. Ek stem in met die edele lid vir Tembuland (de hr. Stuart) dat dit maklik is om dit in die Wet te set, maar die uitvoering is moeilik. Die Kaapse kleurlinge omvat allerhande kleurskakeringe; daar is wat amper so wit is as witmense en ander, amper so swart as ’n kaffer. Hoe gaat mens die bepalinge uitvoer, as die kleurkwessie intree? Ek sien gevaar, dat dit vir my departement dalk onmolik sal word om die opgelegde lasgewings uit te voer. In beginsel is ek nie teen die Wet nie, maar hoop dat die Huis die Wetsontwerp na ’n Selekt Komitee sal verwys, opdat ons nie naderhand wette maak, wat nie uitgevoer kan word nie.

I want to say a word or two in regard to this matter. I am prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill if the hon. member for Denver (Mr. Nixon) will give an undertaking that he will limit it to the extent, and in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart). In its present form the application of the Bill to the conditions existing in the Cape, and particularly in the Western Province, would be wholly and entirely impracticable. It is only necessary to look at Clause 4 and to remember that this town is a sea port, to realize that. Mixed marriages are allowed, yet by this Bill it would be a highly criminal offence to have the whites and coloured associate. Without going more deeply into the matter, or as to the troubles which will arise in connection with the definition of “coloured persons,” all I will say is, that unless the undertaking is given to limit the Bill to the extent suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart), I will be compelled to vote against this Bill.

There are very many serious difficulties in the way of the Bill as it stands now, and there are parts I can scarcely accept, but I think most of the hon. members in the House will appreciate fully the principle embodied in the Bill. As the hon. the Minister of Justice pointed out, there is a good deal of legislation in this House dealing with natives, and most or us have come face to face with some of the extraordinary difficulties owing to the varied legislation in the provinces. I think hon. members who have knowledge of the laws in the Free State will recognise this, and will support the suggestion that the Bill should go before a Select Committee. A measure such as this should be examined very closely before it passes this House. I do not believe the Bill as it stands can be passed through this House. In saying that I do not want hon. members to think for a moment that, the principle of the Bill has not my entire sympathy and support. I know the difficulties that exist to-day, and I know that native peoples are very much nearer a state of life which makes it difficult for them to appreciate our higher moral standards. I know the difficulties, and that there are many facts which the European people, with their higher sense of morality, should consider. I think that restraint among the lower element of Europeans should be pressed as far as possible. I think there are folks who need a great deal of restraint, and the only restraint that they understand is the law of punishment, as the hon. member suggested. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) stated there should be no differentiation in punishment. As far as that is concerned, if there is any serious lapse on the part of a European, the responsibility of that man is greater than it is upon the native himself who, owing to the traditions and conditions of native life, has not reached the standard of the Europeans.

I accept that.

If that is accepted the principles of the Bill will be accepted, and if the hon. member will agree to allow it to go to a Select Committee and be thoroughly examined in all its provisions, I think the Bill can be brought into the House from the Committee in the state which will be acceptable to the House.

There seems to be a doubt on some members’ part as to whether they should support the Bill on the lines on which it is drawn up. I am agreeable to its going to a Select Committee, but no one has moved it. [An Hon. Member: “It will be moved after the second reading.”] I do not think it necessary for me to reply to the debate. I cannot give the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) the assurance that he wants, and I am quite prepared to accept an alteration of the Bill—if the Select Committee and the House so desire—on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart), that is, to provide additional legislation to meet my objective, leaving the provincial legislation on the other points as it now is, though I think a consolidating statute is preferable.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The hon. member does not want that.

It may not be necessary, but I will ask for it.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I hope this little Bill of mine will be received without opposition. It is short, but I want to assure the House, and I am very sure that the House already knows this, that there is underlying this Bill an extraordinarily important principle involved. The Bill seeks by one clause, and one clause alone, to amend the Transvaal and Orange Free State Letters Patent. It is perfectly clear that in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, there is one section in their Acts which is very identical, and limits the qualifications for the franchise. Section 10 of the Act reads—

This is identical in the letter patent of the Transvaal and the Free State, and I ask the House to remove the disability in each case. I put this on two grounds; one is on the ground of principle, the other is that the retention of this law is highly dangerous. In view of the short time at my disposal, I shall not be in the position to enlarge on the reasons for bringing it forward. It must appeal to every right-thinking man that a section such as this cannot be looked on as anything but a relic of the “dark ages.” On the question of principle, is it right that a poor unfortunate fellow who is in receipt of relief from public funds, should not have a vote? How is it justified, and is there any reason for it? I hope that the hon. the Minister of the Interior will agree with my point of view, and will at the same time give us some idea of the reasons why these sections were inserted. Besides I believe he had something to do with it in an executive capacity, but did not formulate it. The man in receipt of pauper relief is not in receipt of it because he likes it. He has searched for work, and failed to get it. He has suffered, and in the case of a married man his family has also suffered, before he comes and asks for this source of relief. Every decent man in this and every other country desires to work, and has the desire to be independent. The men are not responsible for the position they are in, and it may be that their position is even due to the policy of the Government in power. He is one of the men who has to suffer from this policy, and under the Act he is not entitled to a vote, so that he would have an opportunity to express his opinion and to vote against the Government and for the getting in of another Government. There is another reason arising out of that, why we should see to it that this disability is removed. When you say to a man “Because you are down and out, you shall not have a vote, and as a consequence have no say in the sort of Government you are going to have, that you will have no say at all in the compilation of the laws, in the passing and the framing of the laws under which you and the rest of the country have to be governed.” When you say that you leave them no hope, you leave them less than free men, and there is a direct incentive, when you have these people in the mass, for them to seek their redress by means of drastic action, which may ultimately result in civil war. Then from the point of view of the safety of the State, it would be the right thing to remove the disability and enfranchise these men. I want to urge upon the attention of the House that these two disability clauses exist only in the Transvaal and the Free State, and do not exist in the Cape and Natal. The fact of a man having received pauper relief does not prevent him having a vote in the two latter provinces. I am not going to enlarge upon this question of uniformity, as uniformity may be described rather badly in a franchise law, but there should be no excuse as far as the Transvaal and Free State are concerned, that by an underhand way you should prevent the native from getting the vote. It has been invariably argued that whenever the question of the alteration of the franchise and the placing of it on a more democratic basis is concerned, that it is a dangerous thing to tamper with it, as the whole of the native races may be brought under the Act. That cannot be argued in this case, as you have only white suffrage in those two provinces. I want to ask what is the difference between one man having received pauper relief and the other not having received it. It may be that the one having received pauper relief is a man infinitely higher in intellectual capacity than the other man. In short, the one who has not been in receipt of pauper relief may be absolutely illiterate. It must be this in essence: Money votes, man does not. That appears to me to be the crux of the situation. May I make another comparison or contrast? You may have a man receiving pauper relief and he is, therefore, not on the roll, but another man who has not been getting pauper relief, but is being kept by his friends is on the roll. The contrast is so obvious that I will not stress it. It is dangerous not only from the point of view I have indicated, of forcing these people to possibly resort to drastic action, but it is dangerous for the Government itself. It is dangerous because there is the possibility, I do not say a probability, there is a possibility of the Government resorting to corrupt practices. There is the danger of their unwittingly doing a grave injustice. It will be remembered that a roll was recently being compiled in the Transvaal, and there were numerous individuals who applied up there to be included in the roll, but their names were refused by the returning officers, on the ground that they had been in receipt of pauper relief. In some cases that relief had been received from the Governor-General’s fund, in others from the Administrator’s fund, and had it not been that numerous complaints were sent down to us members of Parliament here, and were ventilated it would not have been known. The hon. the Minister said that he had not known of it, but therein lies the danger. After all it emerges from a circumstance like this, that the interpretation of the law rests with the Minister in charge. The hon. the Minister took upon himself to instruct the gentleman who was presiding over the destinies of registration up there, that in his opinion the Governor-General’s fund was not pauper relief.

They are the judges.

Ah, yes, but it goes without saying that a hint from the hon. the Minister is going to have a great effect upon the persons concerned. In fact in this case it did, and, as a matter of fact, following the hon. the Minister’s instructions, these people were not debarred. To quote another case, arising out of the widespread depression, relief works were instituted, and the Government decided to pay their workers, married and single, a specific rate of daily pay, then they made allowances for the children; they did not pay these allowances direct to the families concerned, but they gave them in a large sum to the Rand aid association, and asked them to distribute it in cash or kind as they thought fit. That is where the Government erred. One very strong reason and argument why we should eliminate these two sections is the fact that we have in this country no fewer than 10 per cent. of the white population, who are known as poor whites. It is a very easy thing for the Government to so arrange things that these poor whites would become paupers. I am not suggesting that they would, but suppose that you got a very corrupt Government in office, what opportunities would be given them here to bring about packed registration? For these reasons I desire to impress upon the House the necessity of passing the second reading of this Bill.

I hope that the House will not accept this Bill. The hon. member referred to the fact that it involves certain principles, and it certainly does, in many respects. We have, for instance, to-day different enfranchisement laws in the Union. In the Cape Province you have, in the first place, an educational test, in the second place there is a qualification test; then you have an income, and certain wages to be paid, to give you a qualification. There is also the qualification of occupation—you have to occupy a house of certain value. That is the position in the Cape Province. In the Transvaal and the other Provinces a man may be a pauper, a street-walker, and if he has been a streetwalker for six months, and has not gone about begging, he can be placed upon the registration lists. It was realized in the old Cape House that we should have men on the list who earned something for the State. The hon. member proposes now that the man who has been fed by the State must have the vote. If this Bill becomes law, you may introduce paupers into the Transvaal and the Free State, and if they have been fed by the State for six months, that gives them the qualifications. I think this a very dangerous practice to bring into effect in this country. Another important point is this. If you take the quota in the Cape Province as laid down by the Delimitation Commission you will find that there are 3,863 voters in the Cape, 2,824 in the Transvaal and 2,884 in the Free State. We, in the Cape Province, are thus handicapped, as we have not got the representation we should have in this House against other Provinces.

The hon. member will never have until they have labour men.

I hope we will never have Labour men. It will be a God-send to keep Labour men from representing the Cape Province in this House. Anyhow, it would be most unjust to have legislation of this nature. I have no doubt there are a large number of paupers in Johannesburg, men who are fed by the State, and that is what the hon. member is after, with a view to strengthening the Labour Party.

No.

It is clearly laid down, and, what is more, it was realized at the time when the Constitution was granted to the Transvaal and the Free State, that these provisions were good, and we should not tamper with the franchise laws of the Union in the manner now proposed. Take the case of two men, the one who has an income but earns less than £50 a year in the Cape Province, he cannot be placed on the registration list, while the man in the Transvaal who cannot work, or even if he is in hospital as a pauper, can have the franchise. Now I say when a man is being kept by the State he should have ho vote, and we should not tamper with the franchise in so far as he is concerned. I hope the Government will before long come with a consolidating measure before this House and treat all Provinces on a fair basis. We feel in the Cape Province that an injustice is being done to us under the present enfranchisement laws. I do not say that the quota in the Cape Province and the Transvaal should be alike, but if you take the square mileage of the Free State I am of opinion that it is over-represented in this House.

Wat het dit met de Wet te doen?

I do not see why the Free State should have such a low quota; it is densely populated, and so is Natal. But I would say this, that we should not tamper in this manner with the law, and this House should put its foot down. Rather let us have a consolidating measure, so that we can go into all the circumstances of all the different provinces. In view of these facts, and in view of the conditions that we have at present in the Cape Province, where we have the education, occupation and wages test, I move—

I hope the hon. the Minister of the Interior, whom this Bill affects, will not be too much affected by the view just expressed. Do not let us discuss such broad matters as the hon. member who has just sat down has mentioned. All my hon. friend proposes is very simple; it is to eliminate from those letters patent those provisions which debar a man from the franchise, in respect of public relief, during a certain period anterior to registration. In these days surely we do not count it a disgrace to a man to be in receipt of public relief, when we know well the circumstances which may make the best and most industrious of men have to receive it. It should be looked upon less in the light of pauper relief, than as something the State owes as an obligation to them, in order to see that no man is left without, at all events, the means of leading a civilized life. It is a sort of archaic instance. It dates I am sure from the days, the sentiment of which has been very well expressed in Tennyson’s. “Northern Farmer.” It is out of date, and I do not know how it found its way into letters patent, and I think it should be removed. I just want to add one word of persuasion, if I can, that the Minister will take a favourable view of the proposition.

I could have wished that the hon. member had not used such a term as “pauper.” There is something in the nature of a disgrace, something infamous, suggested in the word “pauper,” and I think the hon. member for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) should not have used it. But I want to point out that even on the same conditions as exist in the Transvaal, a man who is getting outdoor relief in this province is receiving a vote. There are hundreds of men on relief works in the Transvaal who, under similar conditions, are debarred from voting. Here in the Cape they are not. Why should they be debarred in the Transvaal?

They are not.

The hon. member for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) tries to make a great deal of the fact that the number of members representing the Cape Province are disproportionate to the number of voters as compared with the Transvaal, but this lesser number is due to the fact that we have a very large number of coloured and native voters in the Cape Province. If it were not for that, the matter would be different. If one considers for a moment one will see that in the Cape the qualifications laid down are exceedingly low. The wages qualification is £1 a week or 3s. a day; that is all a man need earn to have as a qualification for voting in the Cape Province. So far as the property qualification is concerned, it is only £75. What sort of house can one get for £75? Any tin shanty in Cape Town is worth £75, so that when the hon. member looks upon the franchise in the Cape as being very much enchanced as compared with the Transvaal, he is mistaken. The education test, too, is simply to be able to scrawl one’s name, address and occupation, so all the qualifications are very, very low. I do think in the name of fair play that no obstacle should be put in the way of this Bill.

Ek is seker dat die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) gaat nie die posiesie verstaan, soos dit toegepas word in die Transvaal, anders sou hy nie die woorde gebruik het wat hy vanmiddag gebruik het nie. Die persone wat kan werk in die Transvaal, aan die word werk verskaf soveel die magistraat kan doen. Ek weet dat die magistraat nie relief gee onder hierdie Wet nie, wanneer die man nie voldoende liggaamskrag het om te werk. Maar ongelukkig die ou persone in die Transvaal, en ek dink dis ’n skandelike toestand, wat nie meer in staat is om te werk moet na die Regering gaan om steun, en as hulle dit doen dan word hulle van die kieserslys geskrap. Daar word hier so baie gepraat oor die ou voortrekkers. Daar is baie van die voortrekkers wat vandag in hulle ou dag in armoede en ellende verkeer, hulle het niemand wat na hulle omsien nie en hulle moet na die Regering gaan om ondersteuning. Ek wil nie die Regering blameer vir die Wet nie maar onder hierdie Wet is dit verpligtend om die mense sê name te skrap van die kieserslys. Ek kan nie verstaan, dat daar een Afrikaner kan wees wat wil goedkeur dat die manne sê name moet geskrap word nie. Dis nie net nodig dat hulle in die hospitaal word opgeneem om hulle name geskrap te kry nie, maar as die magistraat strikt gaan, dan moet die mense geskrap word, as hulle ’n order kry vir medisyne. Die magistraat het die plig om daarop toe te sien en moet die name van die kieserslys skrap. Ek dink dis ’n skandaal. As daar ’n Ouderdomspensioen Wet was, dan sou die mense nie genoodsaak geword het om na die Regering te gaan vir ondersteuning nie. Maar deur omstandighede is hulle in armoede gekom, en verplig om na die Regering te gaan vir steun. Sodra hulle dit doen word hulle name geskrap. En wat is die uitwerking? Ek weet van baie gevalle, toe die laaste keer die kieserslys opgemaak is, dat mense wat baie behoeftig is en feitelik van honger omkom, liewers honger gely het, dan om hulle name geskrap te kry van die kieserslys. Dis ’n treurige toestand. Jy moet honger ly om te voorkom dat jou naam geskrap word as jy na die Regering gaan vir steun. Dis vir hulle dat ons pleit, dat die mense nie geskrap moet word nie.

Ek gaan van harte die voorstel van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) ondersteun.

Dit het niks met die Kaap te maak nie. Waarom praat edele lede so baie hieroor?

Die edele lid daar staan nou nie, ek staan. Hier in die Kaap is vasgestelde kwalifikasies wat persone moet besit, namelik £50 verdienste of meer, of ’n huis of vaste eiendom besit of okkupeer te waarde van minstens £75. Dit kom daar nie op aan of hy ’n jonge man is, of ’n oue man nie, sodra hy die kwalifikasies nie meer het nie verloor hy die kiesreg. Daar word nie gekyk of hy by die Goewernement, by die Regering gekom het om steun, maar sodra hy die kwalifikasies verloor, verlies hy ook die kiesreg en daar hoef maar net iemand daarop attent te maak om sy naam geskrap te kry van die kieserslys. Die bepaling gaan baie verder as die in die Transvaal en die Vrystaat, waar nie na die kwalifikasies gevra word nie. Maar ek sê verder dat as jy begin met sydelings in te kruip in die grondkonstitusie van jou kiesersregte, en hul te verander dan weet jy nie waar dit gaan eindig nie, want ons het verskillende kwalifikasies, heeltemaal verskillend, in die verskillende provinsies. En as jy op die manier aangaan dan sal jy iets doen wat reg is vir die ene plek, maar onreg vir ’n andere plek. Hier is aangehaal dat in die Transvaal die manne hulle stem verloor, as hulle gaan om vir kos te vra en hier in die Kaapprovinsie het ons die kwalifikasies dat ’n man moet £50 verdien of £75 waarde okkupeer of besit in vaste eiendom.

Ons het algemene kiesreg.

Nee.

Ja, in die Transvaal.

Jy kan net so goed redeneer dat ons algemene stemreg hier net, maar as jy die kwalinnasies me het nie, dan het jy dit me, en in die Transvaal verloor ’n man die kiesreg as hy om kos gaan vra. Maar ek gaan verder en se dat as jy begin torn aan die kiesreg-wet met stukkies, dan begin ons ’n baie verkeerde ding, want die Parlement se basis is eientnli neergeiê daarop; daarop rus die Grondwet eientlik en dis verkeerd om te begin met die stukkies te verander, want as jy na die onskuldige wetjie kyk, dan lyk dit nie veel nie, maar as jy die ander hoofwette gaan opslaan van die provinsies, dan sien jy wat dit beteken.

Ek is skoon verwonderd oor die edele lid vir Wodehouse (de hr. Venter). In Transvaal en Vrystaat was dit vóór die Anglo-Boereoorlog so, dat elke blanke persoon stemreg gehad het, of hy moes ’n vonnis teen hom gehad het. Die oorlog het verwoesting aangerig en honderde arme mense gemaak van wie baie ryk was, dog vandag arme blanke. Hulle is in vele gevalle ook al oud, kan nie vir hulleself sorg nie, en die kinders kan hulle ook nie ondersteun nie, en oor hulle is ons bly oor die Wetsontwerp. Ek sal dieselwe ondersteun en hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister die Wet sal aanneem, want die verandering in die Kieswet is gemaak, toe aan die twee gewese republieke die konstitusie gegee is, nadat hulle onder die Britse Ryk gekom het. Milner het geweet dat hy baie arme gemaak had en die edelagbare die Minister was toe, geloof ek, Staatsprokureur, en miskien het hy die Wet nog opgetrek. Ek vertrou dat die edelagbare die Minister die Wet sal aanneem, en aan elke witman die stemreg gee, want daar is oue eerbare mense, wat onder die moeilikheid sai val. Ek wil nie baie oor die Wet praat nie, want sou graag sien dat dit nog aangeneem word. Daar is reeds baie ontevredenheid ontstaan, omdat die mense hoor, dat as hulle nie vir hulleself kan sorg nie, dan sal hulle die stemreg verloor en baie seg dat hulle liewer wil doodgaan van honger as om die stemreg af te gee.

Ek ondersteun hartelik die Wetsontwerp soas die lede dit uitgeleg het. Onse arm mense, wat hulp ontvang is meestal ou mense. In my kiesafdeling is een “relief” plek en daar is oor die honderd ou mense in gehuisves, en die Wet is onbillik, hul is geskrap van die kieserslys. Daaronder is ou burgers van die gewese republieke Vrystaat en Transvaal, wat jarelank selfstandige mense gewees het, en baie dienste bewys aan hulle land, maar op hulle ou dag had hulle niks om van te leef nie en moes hulle toevlug neem na sulke inrigtings en die gevolg is, dat hulle name van die kieserlys geskrap word. Ek ag dit nie billik, dat waar mense hulle lewe lank aan die Staat opofferings bewys het en dan in armoedige omstandighede kom, van hulle die stem ontneem moet word nie. Die edele lid vir Pretoria Distrikt (Gen. Muller) het so pas duidelik gemaak, hoe die omstandighede in die ou republieke anders is as in die Kaap. Ons het ’n verwoestende oorlog gehad, wat alles verwoes het en die mense is uitgeroei en waar hulle vandag steun moet aanneem, word hulle die stemreg ontneem. Dit is nie billik nie; hulle het hulle hele lewe lank vir die Staat gewerk as trouwe burgers en nou moet hulle die skande ondergaan. As dit nou regte “paupers” was, dan sou ek nie praat nie, maar dit is nie slegte mense nie; daar is onder uit goeie stand. As ons die Wet passeer om die ou mense pensioen te gee, is dit nie nodig om hulle die ontering aan te doen nie.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. Forsyth) has stated they had a property qualification among other qualifications in the Cape, because the members of the old Cape Parliament realized that if a person has property he has a right to vote. How much property must a man have before he is entitled to vote? I have yet to learn that the mere possession of property gives a man better brains than another. Surely we are getting away from prehistoric ideas, because a man has property he is entitled to more privileges than a man who has intellect, and works for the community. It is not because they have petty grievances in the Cape Province that they are justified in opposing the Bill. The hon. member says that there are paupers and street-walkers—he is fond of talking about street-walkers and paupers— being fed by the Government. Nobody in the country is ever fed by the Government. If one is in receipt of relief from charitable organization, or in receipt of salary on relief work, he is not fed by the Government. The people of the country in general bear that burden in connection with the downtrodden section. The people feed them, not the Government. If one goes amongst the people who find the money to feed the downtrodden, it will be found they would not agree that they should exclude people from the roll because they happen to be poor. The hon. member said that a man earning £50 per annum possessed a vote in the Cape. I know people who have never earned a penny who are on the roll. A man can be put on the register in the Cape if he never earned a penny, if he has an income of £50 a year, not if he earned it. He may have an income of £100,000 a year, but not have earned a penny of it. There is a difference between earning money and receiving an income. If the hon. member is going to exclude loafers and streetwalkers, why does he not exclude loafers at the top? We have two classes of loafers in the world—the loafer at the top and the loafer at the bottom. The loafer at the top receives an income for which he does nothing at all, and spends it in riotous living, and he is worse than the other. One is a danger to the community, and the other is a man looking for a job, and hoping to find work which he cannot get, on account of the conditions of the country. Yet the hon. member looks upon him as being absolutely damned. Unfortunately, in this age material wealth counts. If a man has plenty of capital, it does not matter what his moral character is or what he can do; if he has got enough money he may be given a title, and mix with kings and queens, although he has no morals whatever. I think that even in Magna Charta it is laid down that poverty is no disgrace. We are being continually told that poverty is no disgrace; because a man is poor, one should not look down upon him. The churches year after year tell us that the rich man and the poor man are alike. We are told it is the will of God that some have riches and others are poor—“the poor you will always have with you.” Why does the hon. gentleman, who pretends to be a Christian, look down upon the poor? We are told by hon. members that prior to the Boer War, when there was a republic, no one was excluded from the right of burghership—if I may use the word—merely on the ground of material possession. If a man was poor he had the same right of citizenship as if he was possessed of money. It is left to us as a British community to insert such a clause. I ask every member of the House to remember that we are here to-day, but that we are fathers of families, and one can never say what our children will be in the future. Even some of the members may be walking about in the street, in receipt of what they are pleased to call pauper relief. At present we are treating a large section of the population as if they were criminals, simply because they do not possess sufficient material wealth to keep them away from charitable organizations. I do not think any hon. member can bring forward the slightest justification for this section in the Franchise Act of the Transvaal and the Free State. I think every hon. member should feel that poverty is no disgrace, and that they will support this measure, which, I hope, will be carried by an overwhelming majority.

I do not think the last hon. member who spoke was right in the view which he expressed that this provision in the law was in some way or another a stigma on poverty. It is not so at all. The law does not exclude people from the right of voting, because they happen to be down and out. The provision is that the man who depends on the State for sustenance, who cannot or will not earn a livelihood, a man who is dependent on relief from public funds, shall not be entitled to go on the roll if he has been in receipt of public relief, within 6 months of making up the roll. I quite agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), that many a man is reduced to receive public relief, through no fault of his own. Many such a man bears a moral character that one can look up to and respect, but may be reduced to that condition. But the law cannot make this distinction. It cannot distinguish between the man in this condition, from no fault of his own, and the man who is in this condition, because he refuses to do the amount of work necessary to live and relies on the State.

Does one give relief to such a man?

There are quite a number—one cannot let them starve. I think the reason for this provision is, that it was thought that the vote gives those who exercise it the power to decide in regard to the disposal of other peoples’ property, and other peoples lives, to a certain extent. I think it was thought that the man who had no property and did not work to the extent of maintaining himself, became in a way a ward of the State—he left the State to look after him and had accepted the position of ward of the State. Unfortunately we cannot make these distinctions. We cannot make a distinction between the man who does not want to be there and the man who is content to be there.

The hon. the Minister does not put a man in gaol because he is sober and because another man gets drunk.

No, or the gaols would be full. I do not take the view that this section extends to exclude men who are on relief works. That man, in my opinion, is not in receipt of relief from public funds, he is working for what he gets, and he works very hard. I do not think hon. members are right in running away with the idea that the term “public relief” applies to men who are working on relief works.

Are they excluded in practice?

No, they are not. I come to the point of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I am not the person to say whether these people should be on the roll or not. The hon. member said that great danger would arise, that if this section remains the Government might cut out people who are entitled to be on the roll. But the Government cannot do that sort of thing. When the question was raised last year, the hon. member put it to me, that people who were receiving relief from the Governor-General’s fund were being excluded from the roll, and I told him that this matter rested with the revising officer, and on appeal from him to the court. The hon. member said: “If you say a word it will be all right.” Although it is not my place to issue instructions on this matter, I sent out to the registering officers an intimation, that it was the opinion of the department that a man who was receiving assistance from the Governor-General’s fund, and similar sources, should not be regarded as being in receipt of public funds. On that many of the registering officers acted, and did not exclude those persons from the roll. The hon. member now attacks me for having intervened, and I call that base ingratitude. The point is this, that the instructions sent out to the registering officers only told them what the view of the department was in regard to the law. The registering officers had to exercise their discretion. My view of the law is that a man who is working, say, at the Hartebeestpoort Dam is not receiving relief from public funds, and should not be excluded from the roll. The principle is that the man who is a ward of the State, and is not living by his own efforts, should not be given a right over the property and lives of others.

Permanently or temporarily?

Temporarily. It only applies to a man who has been receiving relief for six months.

He may miss the election.

Yes, well, we have all bad luck like that at times. These franchise regulations should not be tampered with, and we should not make changes rashly, and I do not believe that many men are excluded from the voters’ roll under this particular section.

Then why have it?

It is part of our law, and I do not think we should tamper hastily and rashly with this law. I have tried to explain the reason why, and I do not think I should be justified in supporting a little Bill like this, which attempts to alter a very important document. Instead of altering it in patches, it would be better to alter it generally when some big grievance is to be remedied or wrong to be righted, but we should not alter it in the way that is now suggested. I do not think the grievances stated are of such magnitude as to justify our altering the franchise laws of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

I am very sorry indeed to hear the remarks made by the hon. the Minister and to see the attitude he has taken up. I had the impression that the hon. the Minister, at all events, would have taken a very much more broad-minded view. What have we to read into the remarks of the hon. the Minister? One would think we were back again in the times of King John, and if ever there was a dry-as-dust archaic method of looking into the question, it was the way in which the hon. the Minister looked at this question. The hon. the Minister came out to this country as one of Milner’s young men, and was brought out to press things forward, but what progress has he made? Milner has gone forward, but Duncan has gone back. Well, I may say that so far as any light having been thrown on the subject the hon. the Minister has not said anything. I asked the hon. the Minister to answer two questions. One was: Why was the inclusion made for the grafting of the old Transvaal law on to these British provisions? Secondly, what was the justification of it? But we got no reason, and we got no justification, and I do say that for the hon. the Minister to stand up, as the hon. gentleman has done, and to attempt to defend the retention of these section shows that the hon. the Minister has teen acting upon the prejudice of his backward supporters rather than upon a just examination of the case. What does the Minister say with regard to my suggestion? That it is highly dangerous for the Government to have this power in its hands? He said that he ventured on a previous occasion, as a result of being twitted in this House, to send a circular round. He did not send that circular round to the revising barrister, but he sent it to the returning officer. Does not that prove right up to the hilt the contention I have been making? I am not blaming him for a moment for doing it. It was what I wanted, and I thank him for it, because there was a great injustice which required to be put right. If he had refrained from sending out that circular then the returning officers would have remained under the impression that they would have had to leave these people off the roll. The danger lies not in the non-inclusion in the first place of the names, but in not returning them to the roll once they are off. What is the remedy? If they are not put on the roll they can go and see the revising barrister. We know quite well that the revising barrister sits at a most inopportune time for men like this. These are men who by reason of their disability are hunting for work.

The party agent can do that.

That is the danger. I have some experience of party agents. Then he says if the revising barrister does not find in favour of the applicant on the legal question, they have the right of appeal to the court. How often we have heard in this House that a man has recourse to the courts for his remedy! This man is in receipt of public relief and he is asked to go to the Supreme Court, I take it, and have his claim to be included on the register of voters looked into—what a ridiculous assertion! There was one attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister to suggest a reason. He said that it was because they did not desire to give to an individual who was being looked after by the State the power to decide on the disposal of the lives and properties of others. What is to prevent them? Take a man who for one week in six months is in receipt of public relief and as a consequence could not get on the register that was being framed. An election passes over; the same man with the same outlook and realizing the same pressure as he was realizing when actually undergoing that pressure, namely, the receipt of public relief, is now competent to decide the disposal of others’ lives and properties. Yet he is the same man as he was under other conditions, and is then competent to decide on it—on the face of it, it is a most ridiculous argument.