from J. Farish, secretary and treasurer to the Divisional Council, Port Elizabeth, and member of the Corporation of Accountants, praying that the said corporation may be included in the Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill among the societies whose members are eligible to practise under the Bill in the Union of South Africa.

a similar petition from R. Skinner, of Graham’s Town, a member of the Corporation of Accountants. A similar petition from R. E. Gill, local manager of the Graham’s Town branch of the Aegis Assurance and Trust Co.. Ltd., and member of the Corporation of Accountants. A similar petition from W. G. Harrison, accountant. Aegis Assurance and Trust Co., Ltd., Graham’s Town, and member of the Corporation of Accountants; and a similar petition from H. H. Hart, secretary to the Graham’s Town Gasworks, and member of the Corporation of Accountants.

a similar petition from J. B. Shearar and A. Tyson, accountants, Queen’s Town, and members of the Corporation of Accountants.

a petition from W. Hare, Mayor of Woodstock and 51 others, inhabitants of Woodstock, Salt River, Observatory-road, Maitland, and Mowbray, praying for legislation providing for the direct popular veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction, or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

moved: That the petition from G. D. Smith, of Middelkop, in the district of Vryburg, praying the House to consider the claims brought forward by him in 1900 and 1906 in connection with public service rendered by him when secretary and agent to the Chief Mankoroane and in Stellaland and elsewhere in South Africa, and to grant him relief, presented to the House on the 20th March, 1912, be laid upon the Table; and, if agreed to, that the petition be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Messrs Brain, Neser. King, Oliver, and the mover.

seconded.

stated that the petition was on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

suggested the omission of the words “or nearest police officer,” which had been inserted in committee. The Minister explained that police officers would not have the machinery with which to keep registers, but Magistrates would.

The Committee’s amendment was accordingly negatived.

On clause 37, Interpretation of terms,

moved to alter the definition of “arm” or “arms” to read as follows:—“Arm” or “arms” shall mean and include (1) any gun, rifle, revolver, pistol; or (2) other firearm not being a cannon; or (3) any material part of any arm as herein defined; or (4) any weapon used for propelling a projectile which the Minister may from time to time declare by notice in the “Gazette” to be an arm for the purpose of this Act; (but shall not include an arm bona fide kept as a curio).

seconded.

Agreed to.

On clause 7, Licences to possess arms,

moved to negative the amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to omit subsection (4) and to substitute a new subsection (4) in lieu thereof; and in line 1 of old sub-section (4) to omit “a rifle” and to substitute “an arm.” The hon. member urged the Minister to accept the amendment, and contended that a detrimental principle was laid down in the clause of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner). He noticed that the Minister said nothing. Well, that meant that he did not propose accepting the amendment. He would warn him that he was playing with fire, that he was trampling on the most holy principle and rights of the white population of South Africa. He was putting in the thin end of the wedge of equality of whites and coloured people, a thing that the white people in the north would never tolerate. What was he doing, he asked. Simply buying the friendship of the hon. member for Tembuland and his natives at the expense of the sacred rights and principles of the white people of this country. In the Free State, in Act No. 15 of 1902 the Crown Colony Government with its nominated representatives had recognised that they must not tamper with these principles, and they had made such provisions safeguarding these rights. Clause 29 of the Act laid down that no coloured person could possess a rifle without the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor; and again, in 1908, a law was passed declaring that no coloured person could obtain a licence except with the consent of the Minister. In conclusion, Mr. Keyter said he wished to protest against the actions of the Minister. The Minister gazetted a Bill and published it all over the country, and in that measure upheld all these sacred rights. Subsequently, however, as soon as they got into Parliament he accepted an amendment in which he took no notice of these principles. Was that right? The Minister was playing with fire, and it would be necessary to divide the House on the matter on every available occasion.

supported the last speaker. He had voted for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Tembuland in the Committee stage under a misapprehension. After careful consideration he came to the conclusion that it would spoil a good cause, and would occasion dissatisfaction and discontent. The hon. member for Tembuland was very properly trying to avoid giving offence, but under these provisions they would give the impression to the coloured people and natives that they were now placed on an equality with whites. The coloured man, if he was refused a licence, would take offence. The coloured men, he held, were put on a basis of equality with the whites here; at the same time, they were not compelled to serve under the Defence Act, and he held that, in the circumstances, the whole state of affairs was a highly unsatisfactory one. If they intended to refuse rifles to natives they should say so.

agreed with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), although he could not agree to the spirit of his remarks. Personally, he had voted in committee against the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland, and had even moved an amendment stronger than that now moved by the hon. member for Ficksburg. If they ever had a Minister who did not feel strongly on this subject, there would be a danger of officials being allowed to grant licences to anyone. In the north they had always made a distinction between whites and natives, and this distinction must be maintained.

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter). He wished the House to look back to the days of 1852, and see what the regulations were in those days in regard to natives and firearms. He might be called a remschoen for referring to those old days; but, after all, if it had not been for the fact that the remschoens had been at the wheel here in South Africa, the country would have been in a very parlous state. They had always found it desirable to prevent the natives from possessing arms, even as early as in 1806, and they should go on being extremely careful. It was not the desire of the people to see the natives possess arms, he held, except in extraordinary cases.

supported the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ficksburg, and said, if the other clause were accepted, it would come as a huge surprise to the rest of the country. It would also create labour difficulties, because of the natives going about shooting and capturing game. Why should natives in the Free State be allowed to carry arms, he asked. At present they did a great deal of harm with their greyhounds; but if they had arms, they would be even a greater pest. Coloured people should not have rifles.

said he could not conceive a greater misrepresentation of the effect of the amendment than that put forward by the hon. members who had just spoken. They were labouring under a misapprehension. The hon. member who spoke last said that this was a movement to open the way for the coloured people to obtain weapons. He would deny that altogether. The ground on which he put this amendment forward was that, while they all agreed that the sale of firearms to undesirable people should be prevented, the Minister should not specially state native or coloured people in the Bill, so as to avoid inflicting a needless pinprick. It was unnecessary to pain needlessly a section of the community. He was very careful in drawing up the amendment, and while it would save the coloured people’s feelings, it would give to the Minister all the power he wanted. In fact, it would give him even more power than he had under the original clause, as it stood in the Bill, because it imposed no limit to his actions And they should remember that it was not only the native who provided the undesirable element of the population. There were undesirable whites. It was wrong to say that the amendment put the native and white man on the same level. Of course, if they did not trust the Minister, what could they do? They had had indications lately that there was not that loyalty to the Minister they might expect from his supporters. As a matter of fact the natives did not feel that they could get arms and ammunition as easily as the whites, but that their feelings had been considered in this Bill. He had had a letter from the Indians in Natal expressing their pleasure that the amendment had been passed. Continuing, the hon. member proceeded to address hon. members representing Free State constituencies in Dutch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order Does the hon. member mean that we cannot understand English?

appealed to the hon. members he had addressed to recognise that he was sincere. It seemed to him that in many matters the Free State wanted to impose their laws upon the whole of the Union. There should be a spirit of compromise. He hoped they would accept the amendment which was a compromise.

stated that the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for Ficksburg had been fully discussed in the committee stage, and had in fact, been voted on. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Tembuland had then been agreed to. The hon. member for Ficksburg now moved the same amendment as before, but the least he could have done would have been to explain to the House where the difference was between what was then agreed to and what was now proposed, and where the holy principles were which were being trampled on, and where they were selling the interests of the people. Instead of doing so, however, the hon. member had indulged in a number of irrelevant and personal attacks. He did not think that it was necessary for him to reply to these attacks. On the merits of the case, however, he would repeat what he had said before when the hon. member for Tembuland proposed his amendment. He had then said that there was not the least difference between the two proposals. The original clause drafted by him (the Minister) said that no licence for a rifle could be granted to a coloured person without the consent of the Minister. Everything depended on the Minister. If the hon. member for Tembuland happened to be the Minister then everything would be lost. (Laughter.) Now this new amendment said that the Minister could give instructions to have any applications refused or granted. As a matter of fact, the Minister had now got more power, and if there was an undesirable white person his application could be referred to the Minister, and in those parts whore there was any smuggling going on the Minister would be able to deal effectively with everything. He could refuse to issue licences to undesirable white persons, and in times of disturbance he could require all applications for licences to be referred to him. The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland got over many difficulties felt by many people. It was unnecessary sometimes to make a distinction between white and coloured, and in such cases the distinction must not be made. They were not in favour of equality, but where it was unnecessary to make the distinction he did not see the reason of doing so. In clause 15 it had been necessary to draw a distinction, but here it was not. In the circumstances, the Minister concluded, he did not see any necessity to go back on the resolution of the committee.

said in committee he had voted against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Tembuland, but after the matter had been fully explained by the member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) he had understood it properly, and he had remained silent. He was one of those who wished to see the granting of arms and ammunition to natives restricted as much as possible. He thought, however, that they could have dealt with the subject in an altogether different spirit to that taken up by the member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter). He did not think that the remarks they had listened to were justified, and the Minister had not deserved the taunts of the hon. member. (Hear, hear.) There was no reason to talk about selling holy rights or representing the Minister as buying the friendship of the natives. The acts of the Minister spoke for themselves. (Hear, hear.)

who rose amid cheers said it was only right that they should all know exactly where they stood. He must say that he was not in accord with the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) when he said that they were treading on the holy rights of the people. In his mind it had always been the great question: what was actually required in practice for the maintenance of the relations between black and white? Their legislation had always aimed at meeting these requirements, and if it were clear to him that rifles could be supplied to the native without danger to the white man, then he would say that he quite agreed with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner). He differed, however, where the hon. member said: “ Allow him to buy a rifle, otherwise you will tread on his toes.” It was a question here not of sentiment, but of what was required by the circumstances of the country. They must not look about Cape Town or the Cape only; they must also look at Natal and the North, and then they should ask themselves what the circumstances required. He very much regretted that the amendment spoke of coloured people and not natives, as he was sure that where it concerned the coloured men they were doing an injustice, because there was not the same danger from them as from the natives. He would support the amendment in the hope that “coloured people” would be altered into “natives.” They must also look at what the Minister had said. He had stated that there was no difference between the two amendments. Well, in his way the difference was enormous. In the one case every application for a rifle by a native must be referred to the Minister. The Minister was responsible, just as in the olden days the President was responsible. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland, however, arms would freely be granted to natives from day to day, in the absence of instructions from the Minister to refuse them. The Minister said he could refuse them. Well, there were so many things which Ministers could do, but which they did not do. (Hear, hear.) Arid here was one of the things which he would not do. And there was the danger that they might get a slack Minister who might leave everything to others to deal with. The hon. member for Tembuland wanted the provision made in the interests of the natives. Well, was it in the interests of the natives that licence officials—whoever they might be for they were not yet appointed—should have the right to grant licences to natives? (A Voice: That is not the case.) Well, that was how it stood in the Bill. What would be the result? One of these days unrest might be created, and they would not know how many rifles these natives were possessed of They only knew that licence officials could grant them. The Minister no longer had the matter in his hands, and the Minister was the person who was responsible to the public. The native would come day after day and urge the local Magistrate or the licence official to permit him to have a rifle. Let them consider the danger. In the first place the official might be a man with negrophilist tendencies. He might be a good, honest man, and he might consider the native just as trustworthy as a white man, and he would give him what he wanted. What would happen eventually? They would see that the natives were in a position which might place them in temptation.

Would that be in the interest of the natives? The hon. member knew as well as he did that the fact that the natives had always been prevented from buying arms and ammunition had been responsible for there being so very few risings. And now they were going to give the rights of granting arms to a few officials, and these officials would be able to exercise that right and they would be able to do so without any restriction on the part of the Government. This question was of so much importance to the whole of South Africa, white as well as black, that the responsibility ought to rest with the Government. (Hear, hear.) If they looked at the history of South Africa they would see that one President had lost his presidency owing to the fact that he had given a barrel of gunpowder to a native. If the Minister abused the clause, the public could say to him. “You must go.” But what could they do to the officials? There were unfortunately people in this country who were very anxious to see a native war. Assuming that they had that sort of people among their officials, they might grant licences to the natives in order to further that object. The time to alter the present conditions had not come. He hoped the day might come when there would no longer be any danger in granting licences to natives, when there would be as little danger of a native rising as there was of an outbreak of whites against whites in this country. (Hear, hear.) But that day had not come, and therefore he could not support the proposal of the hon. member for Tembuland.

said that he thought it a very great misfortune that they could not discuss such matters in the House without being reported. He did not like to hear all this talk about Kafir wars—(cheers)—all this violent talk did no good. We had millions of people who would read these random speeches. It did seem to him also that while they were grasping at the shadow they were losing the substance. He did not know whether any hon. members had read the excellent report of the Police Department, which told of the gunrunning that was going on to-day, and had been going on for years past on the Basutoland border— (cheers)—where, he had no doubt, if they held a meeting they would have the most violent sentiments uttered about giving guns to the natives. They passed that question by, but here they were using violent language about a phrase in this Bill. One would imagine that they were asking for some revolution, whereas it had been going on for years and years in this country, where there was less gun-running, and less danger, than in any other country. (Hear, hear.) He thought the amendment, as explained by the Minister, was a very sound one, and gave them all they wanted, but do not let them shut their eyes in a fancied security and imagine that because they passed a paper law they were protecting themselves against a real danger. What was the best—perhaps he had better not go into that now. They would do far more good by paying attention to the police and the moral influence on their brethren than by passing paper laws to stop this abominable custom of gun-running. That was on the same basis as illicit liquor selling. If they made a thing profitable they would find ill-conditioned white men ready to go in for it. By making a gun worth £30 to the native, and a white man could buy it for £3, they would find white men ready to sell guns to natives. And it was just the same with brandy. The true defence against the native was education, and good and just treatment. (Opposition cheers.) This would be far better than all our laws, for whatever we might do if the natives wanted a thing they would get it, and the people who would supply them would be the people of our own colour. (Hear, hear.)

held that there was a great danger of the amendment proposed by Mr. Schreiner misleading the natives the fact that instructions could be issued by the Minister was misleading. Natives would think that they could get licences. If they got them, they would not be disappointed; but if they did not get them they might in their disappointment take other steps and there was great danger there (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The method proposed by the hon. member for Ficksburg would guard them against that. The Minister naturally would act on the advice of the licence officials, and a great deal would depend upon the feelings of these people. The Minister, he held, would find himself in great difficulties. As regarded the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner), he wanted him to think not only of the feelings of the natives, but also of the feelings of the people the other members of the House represented. Apparently Mr. Schreiner had been predestined to stand up for the coloured races. Under the Defence Act the native was not required to give his services, and why, then, should he want to have a rifle?

said that no opening should be given by which the native could obtain arms. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg, and stated that ever since 1838 the people of the Free State and the Transvaal had always carefully seen to it that natives obtained no arms. It was dangerous to let them have arms, and even during the late war some neglect had cost them the lives of defenceless women and children.

held that the original clause should not have been allowed to stand, although he did not agree with the attitude taken up by Mr. Keyter. The speaker had voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland in committee, and could not understand why the Minister had abandoned his own original proposals. The hon. member for Tembuland knew nothing about the natives in the Transvaal.

said he had not thought it necessary originally to say anything on this subject, because it was quite clear to him that there was no difference in the two amendments. He had hoped that they would have gone into the merits of the case and thought they would not have worked on their feelings. (Hear, hear.) He contended that this House accepted the responsibility for the peace of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) Well, they were responsible not only for the white population of this country, but they also had to look after the native and coloured races. These people could not look to the British Government, hut only to this House for justice and fair treatment. Members of the House were guardians of the natives and coloured people. (Hear, hear.) When one listened to the speeches they had heard that afternoon one could think that the Minister of Defence had gone out of his way to grant equality to the natives. Well, he had never heard of a more foolish idea. Who, on the Ministerial benches, he asked, would favour such an action? He more especially regretted the language used by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), and he held that the remarks were totally uncalled for and absolutely undeserved He hoped the hon. member would withdraw the words when he rose again. It was totally unjustifiable to speak in the way he had done, and the hon. member should not lose sight of the fact that as the result of his words a, wrong impression might be created throughout the country. Such impressions would do considerable harm. Why should troubles be caused on matters where there was in reality no difference in principle at all, he asked? The Minister had not deserved the hon. member’s taunts. Let them be honest and let them read the clauses as they stood and then let them deal with them on their merits. If Mr. Keyter was not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill he should have explained why not, but he should not have spoken as he had done. (Hear, hear.) He (General Botha) could see no difference in the two clauses. In the Free State in olden days the whole matter had been left in the hands of the magistrates until eventually the Crown Colony Government changed the position and left the matter in the hands of the Governor-General. The hon. member for Ficksburg talked about trampling on their holy principles, though the original clause was taken over from the Free State Act.

In the Transvaal they had provisions more or less on the same lines. Why all this talk about the murdering of the principles of the people, he would like to know? He could not see how the two clauses came in conflict, as was said by Mr. Van Niekerk. The hon. member produced no single fact in support of his statement. Was it possible that any Minister would ever give (instructions that rifles should be allowed to natives? The new clause seemed quite good, because it laid the responsibility with the Minister, and if the Minister abused his authority, they would be able to come to this House and ask him to lay on the Table a statement as to whom he had granted authority to give rifles, and if he had abused his rights, well, they would not be worth the name of Parliament if a motion of no confidence was not at once accepted. (Hear, hear.) If the amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg was accepted, would that improve the position? No, everything would still have to be left to the Minister. And the Minister would have the power to grant licences to every native he wished. It was a great mistake for members to go and shout “wolf, wolf,” when there was no wolf about. During the war the speaker had seen what it meant to give rifles to natives. Hundreds of them had rifles, but the register gave no record of the licences. In native risings in the past, he had seen hundreds of men, natives, with rifles, but none of them had been granted licences by the Government. There had been a great amount of smuggling going on, not only by natives, but also by whites. Their aim now was to prevent this, and this clause aimed at the protection and security of the people. (Hear, hear.)

put the question that subsection (4), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

called for a division, with the following result:

Ayes—20.

Brain, Thomas Philip

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Louw, George Albertyn

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Charles G. Fichardt and C. T. M. Wilcocks, tellers.

Noes—81.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, William Wouter Jacobus J.

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hewat, John

Hull, Henry Charles

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Leuchars, George

Long, Basil Kellett

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden. Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

C. Joel Krige and M. W. Myburgh, tellers.

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

then put the new subsection (4) proposed to be inserted in lieu thereof.

Agreed to.

On clause 8, Certain exemptions from possession of a licence,

moved as an amendment to add the following at the end of sub-section (c): “and does not use such arm for the destruction of game.” He said that the amendment which he had on the paper had nothing to do with the preservation of the white or black races, and although it might contribute in one way to “rust en vrede,” it was not among the human race, but among game. He thought the amendment was necessary, and hoped it would be accepted. It was quite obvious that anyone in the temporary custody of arms should not be permitted to shoot game.

seconded.

said that he saw an objection to that amendment. He wanted to see game preserved as much as possible, but did that amendment mean that no game might be shot at all, because if that was so, he was against the amendment, because it would be impossible to carry such a thing into effect, and they would create something under that Bill which would be of an impossible nature in practice. (Hear, hear.)

was understood to say that they required some further information on that amendment, which was solely for the prevention of unlawful use of arms.

said that one point about that amendment had struck him: they were making a man liable for a fine if he kept a gun, and his servant went shooting game with it. That made the owner liable for the misdeeds of his servant, without his legal consent.

said he could not understand the amendment. Suppose he had a residence at one place and a farm a hundred miles away, and he gave orders to a man on the farm to shoot game. Under that amendment that would be unlawful, and he did not see how they could carry such an amendment into effect. He considered it impracticable.

also spoke, but was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 14,

moved to omit sub-section (2) and to substitute: “(2) From and after the commencement of this Act it shall be lawful for a Magistrate, a Clerk of a Magistrate, a Justice of the Peace, not being a licensed dealer, or any other person whom the Governor-General may specially appoint for that purpose, to grant a permit in the prescribed form for the purchase of ammunition to any fit and proper person applying for such permit and no licensed dealer shall sell any ammunition, in any quantity whatsoever, except to a person holding such permit.” The right hon. member said that it seemed to him that that Bill established and set up what they never before had in that country—free trade in ammunition. Necessary as it was to keep arms out of the hands of undesirable people, it was ten times more necessary to prevent ammunition getting into their hands. He was afraid that there was not much doubt as to what would happen. A regular trade would be set up, and people would go and buy ammunition for the purpose of smuggling it over the border, or putting it in the hands of people who should not have it. Were they going to allow any white man to go and have free trade in ammunition? They did not even know where the ammunition had gone out, and at the same time they expected some good of that Act. He wished to say that he thought it more necessary to check and control free trade in ammunition than to check and control the trade in guns, if they asked him. Of course, they had all experienced the nuisance of having to go and get a permit, but if they thought how much there was which depended upon it, they must all be prepared to put up with any inconvenience in order to deal with that matter and prevent free trade in ammunition.

seconded.

What is the motion before the House?

said that he wanted to omit section 2 of clause 14, and substitute what he had read as appearing on page 183 on the Votes and Proceedings.

That is not consistent with the right hon. member’s further amendment on the paper, to insert certain words in sub-section 2.

That is a mistake. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said (as to what appeared in the Votes and Proceedings) if it had been reprinted he would have corrected it.

Does the right hon. member intend to proceed with the other amendment?

Yes; because the other amendment is pertinent to sub-section 3.

said that he notice now on the paper was for a new clause 14, and then the right hon. gentleman had given notice of a further amendment in subsection 2. It was not competent for the hon. member to move anything of which he had not given notice.

Is it competent for me to move—

It is not competent for the hon. member to move anything of which he has not given notice.

said that that was an important question, which was worthy of debate in that House. If he could not move his amendment, that important matter dropped—a matter which was of very great interest to the country. (Hear, hear.)

said that he agreed with the right hon. member that the amendment which he had put on the paper was one of the most important matters which could be put in that Bill. He was going to suggest to his hon. friend, that he should move his amendment as a new clause. When they came to the third reading he could give notice to move the deletion of sub-section (2) and insert the new clause.

said he would suggest the adjournment of the debate in order to give the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of getting matters cleared up.

said that if they had to discuss this important alteration, it seemed to him that they would have to go back to committee.

said it seemed to him the only course that could be adopted under the circumstances was to recommit the Bill for the purpose of dealing with clauses 14 and 15.

moved that the Bill be recommitted accordingly.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved in accordance with his notice, that sub-section (2) be omitted, and that the words set out above be substituted.

said that this raised a very important point, on which there had been a difference of practice in the past. He had considered this question quite carefully, but he had come to the conclusion that it served no useful purpose in every case to compel a licence-holder to have a magistrate’s permit for the purpose of buying ammunition. It seemed to him that the restriction was really of a vexatious character. In his opinion, it was quite safe to allow the provision in the Bill to remain.

said that a provision of this kind as set out in the amendment was necessary on account of the circumstances in which South Africa was situated. It was necessary to make this check effective. There were certain low whites on the border who would trade in ammunition unless they had some restriction. He strongly supported the amendment in the interests of the peace of the country.

could not support the amendment, and said they were making the Bill too wide in one respect and too narrow in another. It was a nuisance to have to get a licence for every supply of ammunition. In the Cape the law had never been carried out. It should be made possible to buy less than 500 cartridges without a permit.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken (Mr. Venter) had never bought a single round of ammunition without a permit, for what had happened was that the hon. member was so well-known in the Wodehouse district that when he went to order ammunition the storekeepers would send to the Magistrate’s office for a permit. (Cheers.) He (Sir Thomas) was surprised that the hon. member did not know the law in the Cape with regard to the purchase of ammunition, and seeing that it had caused him so little inconvenience he was surprised at the hon. member opposing the amendment. The law had prevented the illicit trade in ammunition. Was there anything more dangerous than laving down a provision whereby anyone who had a licence for a gun could obtain an unlimited supply of ammunition? That would be allowing people to obtain ammunition for an undesirable class of person. In the Cape territory there was a large number of natives who were fairly efficiently armed, and no temptation should be placed in the way of people to purchase large supplies of ammunition for re-sale to the natives at a profit. He hoped the Minister of Defence would agree to the principle embodied in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Victoria West, which would be greatly in the interests of the country. (Hear, hear.)

regretted that the Minister of Defence had not seen his way to accept the amendment, for the Bill would be considerably weakened if it did not contain the amendment. (Cheers.) Such a law had been in existence in Natal and the Cape for years, and no inconvenience had been suffered thereby. As the Bill stood it would open the door to dishonest persons—both black and white—obtaining ammunition for illicit purposes. Ho hoped the Minister would reconsider his decision.

approved the attitude taken up by the Minister, and asked why the whole population should be tied in bands for the sake of a few bad people. He suggested that there should be black lists made up by the magistrates containing the names of people who must not be allowed to buy ammunition.

supported the views expressed by the hon. member for Victoria West. The last speaker was afraid that the magistrates would get too much work, but the fear was unfounded. He suggested that more efficient steps should be taken to prevent smuggling, and said there had been a lot of it done by Hottentots during the war from German South West Africa. He moved as an amendment to the new sub-section (2) to substitute “ licenced-holder” for “person applying for such permit” after “fit and proper.”

said that anyone who was granted a permit to be a licence bolder should surely be entitled to purchase ammunition. A licensed dealer was only supposed to sell enough ammunition for personal use.

He is selling for profit.

If it had been the experience of the hon. member that there had been no difficulty, his (Mr. Creswell’s) experience was different. If a man was a proper person to hold a gun licence from the Government surely he was a proper person to have ammunition for it, but it was proposed to make him go to a Magistrate and get a permit for ammunition every time he wanted it. That would be no safeguard. (Hon. MEMBERS: “Yes, yes.”) Well, he was waiting to hear some evidence. On what grounds was a Magistrate going to tell if a man was a fit and proper person? In his opinion there was no more safeguard in that proposal than was contained in the Bill.

said that they had to be safeguarded against gun-runners. They had evidence that all along the border there were people who were constantly engaged in gun-running, and they were Europeans. The crime was rife and it was very difficult to detect, and while he regarded gun-running with abhorrence, he did not regard it as so grave a danger to the State as ammunition running. That was one of the worst things possible —to supply natives with ammunition, and under the law which was laid down any European could get ammunition. (An HON. MEMBER: For his personal use.) As to that, did they think that sort of person would be backward in saying that it was for his personal use? His hon. friend must be a simple individual if he thought that was going to stop it. How often did they have reports of natives turning on the police with revolvers? Where did they get these revolvers? Were they bought from decent respectable men in shops? Not at all. They are the same class that are supplying ammunition to natives all over the country. It was to exercise a check upon those people that he had moved the amendment.

Under that Act there was not even a slender precaution that a dealer should be obliged to keep a register showing how much ammunition he had disposed of during the year, and he might find it necessary to make a further amendment that every dealer should be obliged to keep a register showing how much ammunition he had sold, and the names and addresses of the people to whom he had sold it. He did not consider that that Bill was excellently framed as it was. It had left a serious gap in connection with the dealing in ammunition. It was with a view to correcting that that he had moved the amendment. He had not done it to annoy his hon. friend. He mentioned that matter when the Bill was read a second time. He was in hopes that some amendment would have been put in, and it was only when he saw that that had not been done that he ventured to put his amendment on the paper. He hoped if the committee were really in earnest, and desired to keep ammunition from the natives, they would pass the amendment, or something like it, and so prevent free trade in ammunition.

said that he understood the hon. member for Jeppe did not see how it would be possible to check the sale of ammunition. A man who wished for ammunition would go to a Magistrate for a permit, and the Magistrate would give a monthly statement to the head of the department, so that the Minister would always be in a position to say how much ammunition had been bought by one individual. The hon. member for Wodehouse,’ he understood, said he could obtain a permit at any time, that he could buy ammunition at any dealer’s place at any time. He (Mr. Becker) was surprised to hear that. If there was one thing in the Cape Colony they were careful about it was that the ammunition sold by a dealer responded to the number of permits issued by the Magistrate. That was always carefully checked. He saw a great danger if the amendment was not included. Supposing a man had obtained a licence in the ordinary course of events, and subsequently turned his thoughts to gun-running or selling ammunition, what was there to keep him from going to the dealers at once and getting hold of as much ammunition as he wanted?

expressed himself as opposed to the amendment, and added that in the Transvaal every person who had a licence to keep a rifle could buy ammunition. The dealer merely took the number of the licence, and so it was easy to control the sale of ammunition in that way.

said that if the amendment would stop ammunition smuggling he would vote for it, but he thought it would simply be a nuisance to the public. It meant a good deal more work for the officials. Safeguards had already been inserted to prevent unsuitable persons getting hold of rifles, and when a man had a rifle he should be entitled to get ammunition. He knew that the dealers in the Free State were good men, and he had no reason to suspect the dealers who carried on business in other parts. He thought that the amendment would only impose a further burden on the licensed dealer.

said he thought that the danger was very little lessened by the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West. What was a fit and proper person? The right hon. gentleman could not tell them that.

pointed out the difference between the amendment and the section in the Bill. If the Bill became law as it stood, it would be an encouragement to trade illicitly. He was in favour of the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West.

said he was in favour of the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West. He was convinced that the House would do well to accept the amendment, which was a step in the right direction. Anybody who had the interests of the natives at heart would put every difficulty in the way of illicit trading. There was no doubt it would act in the direction of diminishing illicit trade in ammunition.

said that smugglers would easily evade the amendment, as they could send more than one person for a permit with the same licence. Under the Transvaal system, the magistrate could see how much ammunition a man had sold, and as every purchase was registered, there was some control. He thought that the amendment would lead to more difficulty, and lead to more smuggling, and therefore he could not vote for it.

said that under the Bill as it stood, the seller of ammunition had to decide what a reasonable amount meant. And the man who came to buy might therefore be met with a refusal. If they referred to a later clause, they would find that the dealer was liable to a very considerable fine and imprisonment if he sold more than a reasonable amount; and the buyer was also liable to a penalty. There was also a rather important clause in the Bill, which gave half the fine to the informer, and they might have any amount of trouble and worry because of that reward to the informer. Under the new section, the magistrate, or Justice of the Peace, whoever issued the permit, would decide what constituted a reasonable quantity, so that they would have a great deal of worry obviated. It seemed perfectly clear that if this amendment was carried, section 18 would also have to be amended.

said that the Natal Act made provision such as the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) wanted to include in that Bill, and he regretted that more attention was not paid to the Acts of the different Provinces when they drew up a Bill for the Union. It seemed to him that Acts which had worked well in the past should not be so disregarded. The question before them was that of the control of the ammunition, and not so much that of guns, because without ammunition one could not do much damage, even if one had a gun; while with ammunition, and without a gun, damage could be done. In Natal they had been under an Act which contained provisions similar to that of the amendment, and had never found that it was troublesome, while it did much to prevent smuggling. The Natal Act had worked well for twelve years. He would support the amendment.

said that he had never had a permit, and in fact, had never even seen one.

said that if the amendment were not carried the Government would lose money, whilst under it the Government could exercise some control on purchases of ammunition.

said he hoped the amendment of the rt hon. member for Victoria West would be accepted, and said that they could not be stringent enough with regard to ammunition. (Hear, hear.) In the war, he was told, a man in German South-west Africa had got an ox for a packet of cartridges, which showed how valuable they were considered, under certain circumstances. It showed how careful they had to be. He hoped the hon. member for Clanwilliam would withdraw his amendment.

said that a man with ammunition could not shoot unless he had a rifle, and for a rifle he would need to obtain a licence.

On the motion being put that sub-section 2, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause it was declared to be negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—38.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Bezuidenhout, William Wouter Jacobus J.

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Burton, Henry

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Jager, Andries Lourens

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael,

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller.

C. Joel Krige and P. G. W. Grobler, tellers.

Noes—58.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Currey, Henry Latham

De. Beer, Michael Johannes

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Griffin, William Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hewat, John

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Long, Basil Kellett

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Tobias

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Vincent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

H. A. Wyndham and M. W. Myburgh, tellers.

The question was accordingly negatived, and sub-section (2) was omitted.

then put the amendment, proposed by Mr. Watermeyer to the new sub-section proposed by Mr. Merriman, which was negatived.

The new sub-section was agreed to.

moved, in sub-section (3), after “rifle,” to insert “and of a permit issued in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section,” and in line 14, to add at the end, “as is stated in such permit.”

said it seemed to him that the effect of the amendment would be that the licensed holder of a rifle could not sell any surplus ammunition which he had to dispose of without first getting a permit from the magistrate.

I am afraid I have got in some confusion, but I will withdraw the amendment. I can always move it at the third reading.

At the report stage.

The amendment was withdrawn.

said he had another amendment. He wished to move a new sub-section as follows: “(4) Every person authorised to grant or issue permits for the purchase of ammunition, shall be bound to keep a register of the permits granted by him, setting forth the names, addresses, and descriptions of the persons to whom such permits were issued, together with the quantity and description of the ammunition so authorised to be issued; and every person aforesaid shall be bound to produce such register when called upon by any officer duly authorised to inspect the same, and shall at stated periods, to be fixed by the Minister, send a fair copy of such register to the office of the Resident Magistrate of the district.”

said that this was already provided for by section 24.

said section. 24 was not as definite as it ought to be, and it did not seem to him to provide for what he wished.

suggested that progress should be reported and leave obtained to sit again.

accepted the suggestion, and progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again on Monday.