from Mary E. Blyth, of Fordsburg, widow of E. W. Blyth, who was in the employ of the Government of the Cape Colony for over 23 years, praying for the consideration of her circumstances and for relief.

from Annie Jaeger, of King William’s Town, widow of W. Jaeger, who for 27 years was a teacher in the Queen-street School, praying for consideration of her circumstances and for relief.

from F. J. Smallman, a clerk in the Railway Department, Kimberley, praying for leave to contribute certain arrears to the Pension Fund, or for other relief.

from T. D. Potgieter, a lifter in the Uitenhage railway workshops, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, and that he may be placed on the fixed establishment as from 1908, or for other relief.

from J. T. Wait, a labourer in the Uitenhage railway workshops, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, and that he may be placed on the fixed establishment as from 1908, or for other relief.

from J. Williams and 328 others, leper patients stationed on Robben Island, praying that they may be removed to the mainland.

Government Notice No. 142 of 1913, having reference to regulations in terms of Registration of Deeds Ordinance, 1902 (Orange Free State).

Interim report of Commission upon consolidation of South African Laws re patents, trade marks, copyrights and tacit hypothecations.

Return of administrative and clerical service officers (late Transvaal public service) retained in the public service after the age of sixty years in accordance with Transvaal Public Service and Pensions Act, 1908; similar return in accordance with Public Service and Pensions Act, 1912.

Return of officers in the Mines Department who are over sixty years of age, authority for the retention of whose services for one year has been obtained in accordance with Public Service and Pensions Act, 1908 (Transvaal).

First interim report and parts I. and II. minutes of evidence taken by the Royal Commission on the natural resources, trade and legislation of certain portions of His Majesty’s Dominions.

seconded.

Agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved, as an unopposed motion, that the following be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report, viz.: Votes Nos. 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Estimates of expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1914, presented to the House on the 31st January, 1913.

seconded.

Agreed to.

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved the deletion of the clause, He said he could not see why a person who paid 20s. for a hunter’s licence should have to pay another 5s. for registration.

said the hon. member could vote against the clause.

said the object of the Bill was to find out how many rifles there were in the country. A person who already had a rifle need not pay for a new licence.

spoke, but was inaudible.

†The MINISTER OF DEFENCE said that possession of a rifle since the war amounted to lawful possession.

agreed with the hon. member for Prieska. If the Government wanted a list of rifles already in the country, that could be discovered from the books, seeing that every sale of rifles was entered up. It would not do to ask a man to ride 70 or 80 miles to give an account of a rifle, which the officials already knew he possessed.

pointed out that the proposed law was not for the good people, but the kwaaddoeners (evil-doers). It was an extreme inconvenience to respectable people to have to register a revolver, but it was a necessary trouble. In the past our experience had been that a large number of people were bound to keep arms under the law of military occupation, but unfortunately when the Kafir war broke out, we found to our surprise that these people had not got arms, but the people on the other side of the river had. (Cheers.) The very valuable report of the Minister of Justice, which was deserving of the closest study, showed that there were parts of the country where there was reason to believe that considerable trade of an illicit character was being carried on in guns. So long as an immense amount of money was to be made by doing illegal acts people would be found to do those acts. The proposal contained in the Bill seemed to him to be a fair solution of the difficulty. It was a nuisance and a trouble, but they should let Government know where the guns were, and later on Government would be able to find out whether the arms were still where they ought to be. He asked his hon. friend, in view of the necessity of registration, not to press his amendment.

moved the deletion of the word “lawfully,” so that all rifles would have to be registered.

pointed out that some districts were very large, and he therefore asked that field-cornets and police officials should be allowed to accept registrations. He moved accordingly.

said it seemed to be quite wide enough to cover the case. These licensed officers would be appointed for the convenience of the people, and it did not seem necessary to add further burdens.

moved the deletion of the words “other than a rifle” in sub-section 3, the effect of which would be that persons who possessed a licence would not have to register. It was unfair to compel licence holders to take out a new licence, and gave unnecessary annoyance.

was opposed to the last amendment. Owners of rifles in the Cape had no licences, and it was necessary that all such persons should have them.

replied that the hon. member for Klerksdorp did not understand the result of his own amendment. If it were accepted, a person who was in the unlawful possession of a rifle could apply for a licence, and in that way remain in unlawful possession. He had no objection to insert “nearest police officer.” The answer to the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof had already been given by the hon. member for Wodehouse. There were no licences for rifles in the Cape. He accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Bechuanaland, empowering a police officer to register.

feared there would be many difficulties in connection with that clause. A large number of rifles were sold and afterwards re-sold without notice being given.

replied that only the present owner of the rifle had to apply for a licence.

thought the amendment was not necessary and that the definition clause, clause 36, provided for it.

agreed. He was obliged to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for his hint.

inquired whether if it were the purpose of the Minister to appoint police officials as registrars of rifles, he did not say so in the Bill.

replied that it was not necessary specifically to state the fact in the Bill.

said that according to the Bill a police officer could register a rifle, but could not issue a licence. He moved after “magistrate” to insert “nearest police officer.”

said his objection was based on the difficulties which existed in sparsely populated districts to get to the magistrate. How would they know that they were required to register their rifles? He accordingly moved as a further amendment to insert “every lawful possessor of a firearm shall receive due notice by registered letter of such registration.”

said the amendment was quite impracticable, seeing that no licences were issued for rifles at the Cape, and they did not know the addresses of the owners.

could not agree to sub-section (2) of the clause How, he asked, were owners at the Cape to prove that the rifles in their possession were in their lawful possession? He moved to delete it.

agreed that it would give rise to many difficulties. Personally, he had several rifles but had lost the licences.

Mr. Watermeyer’s amendment was agreed to.

The amendments moved by Mr. Neser and Mr. Wessels were withdrawn.

asked what the Minister thought of his amendment.

said it was true a man could not show a licence which he did not possess, but still he could make a declaration

said that a consequential amendment was necessary in section 2.

accordingly moved that the words “nearest police officer ” be inserted in section 2.

In reply to Mr. J. W. JAGGER (Cape Town, Central), who was inaudible,

said that the nearest police officer was quite competent to exercise discretion in the matter.

Agreed to.

asked whether the Minister would indicate what he meant by “other proof.” What was the other proof that had to satisfy the police officer or magistrate?

said that, as a rule, there would be no difficulty about the affidavit.

referred to difficulties which would be experienced if the original owner had to be registered. A magistrate or police official might refuse to issue a licence if the old licence could not be produced.

replied that this was not the intention.

thought clause 2 left too much discretion to an official. It was unnecessary and dangerous to compel the production of other proof.

held that in cases where an official suspected that a person was not lawfully in possession of a rifle he should be able to refuse a licence.

supported the clause.

asked what was the position of the owner of an old licence.

said new licences were supplied free of charge.

said if they omitted this sub-section they made the whole section useless.

wanted to know what would happen if a person had lost his permit. They were getting overloaded with licences nowadays.

urged that affidavits should be sufficient proof that a person had possessed a permit.

said in cases where officials suspected a person, an affidavit might also be useless. In most cases, however, an affidavit would be sufficient. Clause six did not aim at hampering respectable people.

supported the hon. member for Standerton and urged that too much power was being given to officials.

thought the clause was right as it stood.

could not agree that a person should have to be registered again, especially as in the Transvaal he could not have a rifle without registration. The clause was not clear.

feared that too much was being left to officials, in which case it became too largely a question of persons.

agreed with the objections to the clause. He moved the insertion of the words “when he deems it necessary,” so that only in cases where the Magistrate suspected foul play a permit could be refused. The Minister’s declaration was all very well, but when the law was proclaimed, it meant nothing. Failing sufficient proof of ownership the magistrate might declare the rifle forfeit.

said he would accept the amendment if this would end the matter. But he feared matters would not be helped any further. He urged that a certain amount of discretion should be left to officials.

said he had had too much experience of the misuse of power by officials to be satisfied with this.

The amendment moved by Mr. Louw was negatived.

The amendment, moved by Mr. Vener was also declared to be negatived.

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Do Beer, H. W. Sampson, Venter and Vosloo) voted in favour of the amendment,

The CHAIRMAN declared the amendment negatived.

Sub-section (2) accordingly remained.

said he was unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boshof, as it would make the Bill useless.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 7, Licences to possess arms,

said he desired to know what the Minister meant by “coloured person.” He thought the word “ native” should be substituted for it.

(Tembuland, moved to omit sub-section (4), and to substitute the following: “(4) The Minister may instruct Magistrates and licence officers to refer to him for consideration any or all applications for licences to possess arms, and may instruct Magistrates or licence officers to refuse any or all applications so referred.” He said it must be of the greatest importance to this House and the country not unnecessarily to inflict a stigma upon any subject simply because of colour. There were differences of education and civilisation which necessitated differences of legislation. That was all right, but, as far as possible, they should avoid inflicting disabilities simply because of colour. (Hear, hear.) It was a bad policy, and it would bear bad fruit in the future, as it was bearing bad fruit at the present time. He did not see any difficulty in drafting something which would bring about the same result without making any distinction in the clause by reason of colour. In Cape Colony the word “coloured” indicated the coloured man as distinct from the native.

This colour line was not drawn in the past in the Cape Colony, which he ventured to say had been, perhaps, the most important part of South Africa. He asked the House to take a wider view of the whole matter. He had looked up the law of Natal, and he found no word of colour, the restrictions applying to Asiatics and natives. He was quite as much opposed as anybody else to aboriginal natives being supplied with arms and ammunition. It would be dangerous for the people themselves and for the white people of the country. The people he was trying to protect were the educated and civilised coloured and native people. He referred to the case of Basutoland, where 30 or 40 thousand people had already possessed arms and ammunition, and he thought they would refuse to come into Union were this colour line to be drawn on the Statute-book

said he congratulated the hon. member for Tembuland on the very moderate speech he had made.

The first time in his life. (Cries of “Order.”)

said that that speech that afternoon was in direct contrast to the fiery oration which the hon. member for Tembuland made on the second reading of the Bill. He thought that the principle laid down by the hon. member would be accepted by every member in that House. Wherever it was possible to avoid bringing in the colour line it should be done in the legislation of this country. With regard to what had been said by his hon. friend who sat behind him, he would point out that the question of coloured persons had already been decided by the Courts of this country. Continuing, he said it was not laid down that a coloured person might not possess a rifle or might not get a licence, but it said that these people might possess rifles with the sanction of the Minister. That was the whole point. His hon. friend left out the words “coloured person.” He thought that ample discretion was allowed the Minister, and as the same result would be secured, he would accept the amendment. (Hear, hear.)

moved the deletion of sub-section 3, as he did not see the necessity of involving people in unnecessary expense.

supported the amendment, and said that people were supposed to possess rifles to protect the country, and he could not see why in the circumstances they should be asked to pay licences for these rifles.

said he could understand that people had to have licences for rifles which they might possess for hunting purposes, but if there was a prescribed military rifle he thought people should not pay licence fees for them. He would therefore move the insertion of the words “not ’being a prescribed military rifle.”

supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prieska, and said he considered they Paid too many licences in the Cape already. He moved the deletion of sub-section 4, providing that permits for rifles should not be issued to coloured persons without the sanction of the Minister. He pointed out how difficult it was to define a coloured person.

objected to the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner), and did not agree to too much discretion being given to magistrates. If they decided that it was advisable to give arms to coloured persons they should lay this down. He moved to add the words “or native” after “coloured person” in sub-section 4.

urged the inadvisability of arming natives. Experience of the past, he said, had taught them that it would be dangerous to do so, and he held that natives had not proved that they could be so far trusted that they could be armed. During the war even educated Kafirs had murdered their masters with the weapons provided, from motives of revenge. With regard to the licence fees, he thought these ought to be withdrawn.

said he wanted to point out that he would not dream of arming the natives; that was totally against his principles. They had very stringent laws in the Cape Colony, and the protection under this amendment was quite sound. The difference was that they did not rub in the point that a man was black. Certainly they wanted, as far as possible, to keep arms out of the hands of these people. He had been a Minister of Native Affairs himself, and every month the Secretary for Native Affairs brought down a list of permits to be granted to these people. Very often he (Mr. Merriman) said he would not grant them because there appeared to be too many of them, and then he got to know the reason why they were wanted. Very often it was found that a man wanted a permit for an old blunderbuss to keep away the baboons. It was just the same as saying that these natives musk not have strong drink. “But do you really keep strong drink from them?” Too stringent laws tended to defeat themselves. He did not like the idea of rubbing in the point that a man was black or a man was white. They had to remember also that these laws had a very different application in this country, and they sometimes had to fight and struggle against them. Let them put this entirely in the hands of the Government. More than that, if they could get a sort of control over the sale of guns, that would be so much better, because it was not only the natives, but the white people who had guns, not for their own use, but for sale. They were surprised to find that natives had breechloading guns. Where did they get them from? They did not buy them in the shops, neither did they make them. The protection given under this law was quite-sufficient without unnecessarily parading the fact that God Almighty had been pleased to create one man white and the other black.

moved to omit “rifle” and insert “firearm,” so that no licence could be issued to a coloured person without a permit from the Minister.

objected to the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland. All discretion was getting into the hands of the Minister, and in that way all natives could get arms. He moved a further amendment to the effect that permits should only be granted to natives and coloured people under special circumstances, and not with the consent of the Minister. They might get a Minister who would consent too easily.

said he proposed to amend the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland. Instead of the word “rifles” he proposed to substitute the word “firearms,” because unless this was done a man might obtain a revolver or a shotgun without a licence.

†Mr. T. L. SCHREINER (Tembuland) said he was willing to accept the proposal. He thought the hon. member for Standerton had not grasped the meaning of his (the speaker’s) amendment, the only purpose of which was to avoid giving offence to a section of the public. Discretion would now be left to the Minister, and the giving of offence would thus be obviated. The speaker added that he had been born in the country, knew it well, and was a good South African, although there were some hon. members who judged him wrongly and thought he wanted to put whites and coloured persons on an equal footing.

said that it seemed to him that the section read one man one licence. Would it not be better to use the plural?

said there must be a licence issued in respect of each firearm which a person purchased, otherwise you might take out a licence for one sort of firearm and buy another one.

speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska, feared that if no licence fee had to be paid a number of undesirable persons would get into possession of firearms. The administration of the law in regard to firearms in the Cape had been very slack, and this should not continue. As regarded a prescribed military rifle, he pointed out that there was no such thing. Where, however, a person obtained a rifle in connection with the Defence Force no permit was required. (Hear, hear.)

thought the small licence fee would not prevent anyone with evil intentions from getting a licence. However, people remained under the provisions of the Defence Act until a high age, and they objected to having to pay a licence fee, as being unfair.

moved, after “be” in line 37 to omit all the words to “ arm” in line 39. There were, he said, many poor people who had to get weapons and a fee of 2s. 6d. for all rifles would be fair.

asked whether all members of the Defence Forces, namely, persons between the ages of 17 and 60, were to be exempt from the payment of licence fees when they obtained rifles.

explained that on obtaining a rifle under the Defence Act the owner was not required to obtain a licence.

subsequently withdrew his amendment.

maintained that the Bill taxed persons who for the sake of the country bought rifles.

held that the small licence fee would not deter people with evil intentions. A man who bought a rifle in order to help his country in time of need should not be required to pay licence fees.

supported the clause as it stood, and said 5s. was not too much. In the Transvaal it was 10s.

Replying to a question by Mr. J. M. RADEMEYER (Humansdorp),

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE expressed his willingness to make the licence fee for rifles and shotguns 2s. 6d.

The amendment moved by Mr. Bezuidenhout was agreed to.

having asked hon. members opposite occasionally to speak in English, maintained that the words in the definition, “any weapon used for propelling a projectile,” might be held to include a bow and arrow, an air-gun, or a catapult

explained that saloon rifles and all such toy instruments were excluded, but they had to use general terms in order to make provision for the advances made almost daily in regard to instruments of warfare.

The amendment moved by Mr. Keyter was agreed to.

The amendments moved by Mr. Kuhn, Mr. Cronje and Mr. P. Grobler were negatived.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew his demand.

The CHAIRMAN put the question as to the retention of sub-section (4), and declared the “ Noes ” had it.

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

Ayes—24.

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Piet Gert Wessel

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

M. W. Myburgh and J. G. Keyter, tellers.

Noes—55.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Griffin, William Henry

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Long, Basil Kellett

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Mentz, Hendrik

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Van der Riet, Frederick John W.

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

H. A. Wyndham and C. Joel Krige, tellers.

The question was accordingly negatived, and the sub-section omitted.

The CHAIRMAN put the sub-section proposed by Mr. Schreiner.

Agreed to.

On clause 8, Certain exemptions from possession of a licence, sub-section (c), to the effect that the provisions of the two preceding clauses do not apply to a person who is authorised in writing under the signature of the licence holder of an arm to have the temporary custody or possession thereof for a specified period, and who holds or produces that authority on duo demand: provided that no such authority shall be valid in favour of any coloured person, except a bona-fide servant or employee of the licence holder, and then only so long as he is in the service or employ of such licence holder,

moved to delete the word “coloured.” The effect of the amendment, he said, would be to limit the right of a licence-holder to the issue of a licence in every case to a servant, and would do away with the differentiation of colour.

asked if this would not apply to a person who held arms for somebody else; that is, from a licence holder?

Yes; that is right.

accepted the amendment.

pointed out that the effect of the amendment would be to debar the licence-holder lending a rifle to a friend.

said that if that was the case he was not in agreement with the amendment. If he had a gun he saw no reason why he should not be allowed to lend it to a friend for a day’s shooting.

pointed out that he accepted the amendment because it was desirable if they could avoid raising the colour question they should do so. There was, however, no doubt that if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was accepted, only a licence-holder could hold an arm or his servant, and he could not hand it to anybody else. That raised a very serious difficulty. But these rifles in some way or other got into the hands of natives. That was one of the outstanding and admitted abuses against which they had to watch. The proviso was not intended to stop one person from lending a firearm to another. He rather thought they should leave the question where it was.

said that the ordinary man who took out a licence might hand it to a friend, who might thus have any number of rifles spread about the country— amongst friends and neighbours.

said that if the hon. member’s amendment was accepted a man living in the interior could not send a rifle by his friend or son, if it had to be repaired in one of the towns, for example.

said he hoped the amendment would be accepted for three reasons: (1) That it would do away with the unnecessary and invidious colour distinction. (2) That unless it were adopted the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) would in one respect be defeated, inasmuch as under that amendment the Minister might instruct a magistrate to refuse all or any applications referred to the Minister for consideration by the magistrate, but under this subsection (c) somebody likely to be refused could get a friend to make the application, and the latter could pass the rifle on to him. This would not apply to the coloured person, inasmuch as under the sub-section no man could pass a rifle on to a coloured person except he were a bona-fide servant or employee. No restriction, however, was placed on the passing on of rifles to noncoloured persons, provided it was done for a specified period. The Minister thus lost his control over the issue of rifles, and at the same time an injustice was done to the coloured people. (3) That the Treasury would suffer, inasmuch as one man could take out a licence and then pass the rifle on to non-coloured persons for specified periods, who, if the amendment were carried, would have to take out licences for themselves.

said that there were hundreds of cases in that country which might occur, such as the case of a rifle being sent by another person for repair or by another person to be sold. He moved an amendment after “demand” to omit all the words down to “except” in line 88, and to substitute “or be.”

That would meet the case.

said that the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town. Central, made the clause too narrow, and that of the hon. member for Clanwilliam far too wide, because it destroyed the whole object they had in View. He, therefore, thought it better to leave it as it stood. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was negatived.

Mr. Watermeyer’s amendment was withdrawn.

moved to have the words “one month ” altered to “three months.” One month, in which the new owner was required to register after the death of the late owner, was too little.

agreed to accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

On Clause 12,

moved an amendment to the effect that the magistrate must safely keep all arms handed over to him, and either restore or sell them. As the sub-section stood, the magistrate would be compelled to sell any arms surrendered to him. It might be necessary at certain periods to take away arms from people, but they might always be restored to them. A great deal of heartburning had arisen on account of arms having been taken away from people and not restored. It should be left, therefore, to the magistrate to restore arms or to sell them. The amendment read: To omit sub-section (2) and to substitute: “(2) The Magistrate shall safely keep all arms and ammunition surrendered under this section until he is authorized by the Minister either to restore the same under a new licence to be issued without the payment of any fee, or to dispose, of the same by public auction or by sale in such other manner as the Minister may direct, and in case of such disposal or sale the proceeds, after deduction of the expenses thereof, shall be paid to the person whose licence has been so cancelled.”

said he doubted whether it was necessary to make this amendment, because it was stated in the Bill that arms might be disposed of in such other manner as the Minister might sanction. His hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Neser) was referring to peculiar circumstances which he hoped would not arise again. He would not like to put upon the magistrate the duty of keeping these arms safely. The magistrate had no armoury. The matter was all right as it stood.

The amendment was withdrawn.

urged that in cases where permits were cancelled and rifles were sold, the persons whose rifles were sold should get back the prices paid by them.

pointed out that the Magistrate had got to dispose of these arms by public auction or by sale. He thought if they took out the words “by sale” that would give the Minister all the power he wanted, and he moved accordingly.

†Mr. J. J. ALBERTS (Standerton) supported the amendment, which he thought would make matters more satisfactory.

agreed to accept the amendment. In regard to the difficulty raised by the hon. member for Prieska, he pointed out that such cancellation would only be resorted to in cases of contravention of the law.

The amendment moved by Mr. Alexander was agreed to.

On clause 13, Restrictions on sale of arms by persons other than licensed dealers,

moved in sub-section (b) to insert after “licence officer,” “or any Magistrate or licence officer who may be acting in the place and stead of such Magistrate or licence officer.” He also moved in subsection (3) to insert after “licence officer,” “or such Magistrate or licence officer as contemplated in sub-section (2).”

said that this ammunition business was, if possible, much more difficult to deal with than the mere selling of arms. He saw it was provided that if they licensed the gun a man could go and buy the ammunition without a licence. There were many people who might have guns, but who, unfortunately, might make bad use of this provision. For instance, there were white people who lived on the charity of Kafirs. What did they suppose would happen to people like those?

said that the following clause dealt with that matter.

moved in sub-section (2), line 57, to insert after “ auctioneer ” “ or licensed broker.”

said he did not think there was any objection to this amendment, but he was rather doubtful about the amendment of his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Struben). The clause made provision for the selling of a firearm. If A had a rifle he could sell it to B, but important restrictions were placed on how this sale should take place. It was provided that, in order that A may sell a rifle to B, he must get a permit to sell to B, and B, again, must get from the same person a licence to buy that rifle. He thought it was essential that the same officer should decide the whole transaction.

withdrew his amendment.

The amendment moved by Mr. Griffin was agreed to.

On Clause 14,

pointed out that the sale of ammunition was limited to licensed dealers, and wished to know whether licences would be required for rounds of ammunition sold by rifle clubs to their members, or for a few rounds of ammunition sold by one friend to another, owing to the latter running short?

said that in outlying districts it was a very ordinary thing for a man to run short of ammunition and borrow from his neighbour. They should deal with cases of that sort. He moved the insertion of a new sub-section to follow sub-section (2), viz.: (3) “A licence holder may sell to another licence holder such ammunition not exceeding 25 rounds as he may not immediately require for his personal use, provided that he notify such sale to the nearest magistrate or police officer within fourteen days of such sale, and any such holder may sell any larger quantity to another licence holder after having obtained a permit for such sale from the magistrate of the district wherein such first-mentioned licence holder resides.”

thought the amendment would cause a lot of bother. He did not see any danger in a person selling a few rounds of ammunition to someone else.

held that he only provided by his amendment for one person assisting another, which could not at present be done. It further allowed a sale of ammunition when selling the rifle, under the permit which the buyer would first obtain.

supported the amendment. Breaches of the law should not be made inevitable.

said the object of the clause was to prevent illicit traffic in ammunition. The principle of one person supplying ammunition to another was wrong. They could keep an eye on the licensed dealers. In the circumstances, he could not accept the amendment.

said rifle clubs should have power to sell ammunition to members.

replied that there was no difficulty in this matter. The secretary of a rifle club bought as an agent for his members, and was allowed to sell to the members of his club.

supported the amendment, and held if one person was not allowed to supply a few rounds of ammunition, great obstacles would be placed in the way of rifle clubs. Cartridges were sold on every rifle range, and if that were stopped it would prevent rifle practice.

The amendment was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 15, Purchase, possession, and; sale of ammunition to or by coloured persons,

moved an amendment to sub-section (2), which prohibits coloured persons purchasing, selling, or being in possession of ammunition without a permit. Mr. Nicholson’s amendment proposed that an exception should be made in the case of a bonafide servant or employee, as provided in clause (8), sub-section (4). The hon. member pointed out that the clause, as printed, prevented the farmer giving his Kafir herd cartridges for the purpose of protecting stock.

said? there was much to be said for the amendment. He thought if a native was allowed to possess a rifle in the service of his master, he should also be allowed to possess ammunition. He therefore accepted the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

said that this clause gave rise to the colour question again. There was a certain amount of prohibition with regard to the purchase of ammunition against the coloured people. He thought it would have been possible to have arranged something by which the mention of colour would have been omitted. He moved to report progress.

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