from L. F. Naude and 34 others, praying for the establishment of a Resident Magistrate’s Court at Rhodes, or for other relief.

memorandum showing Revenue Licences in force in the respective Provinces. Regulations governing the rebate of the Customs duties originally paid on goods which are subsequently removed overland to places in the Belgian Congo; and regulations providing for certain rebates in the Province of Natal upon rectified spirits of wine.

Papers relating to the proposed conditions regulating the issue of certificates of occupation in respect of sites for church and school purposes in native locations or mission reserves, Natal; papers relating to the proposed reservation for church and school purposes of sites in native locations in Natal.

These papers were referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

moved that the Order for the House to go into Committee on the Financial Relations Bill be discharged that that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report.

said he expected the Minister would have given the House some light on the proposal. He would like to know what the attitude of the Government was in regard to the important matters which were brought up during the second reading debate. He had been left to judge of the attitude of the Government from the interjections of one or two of the Ministers and from the speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), but he did not know whether the latter had been speaking in the name of the Government—he understood he was not; and if so, they had had no expression of the attitude of the Government. He was glad that the Bill had been read a second time and that it was to be sent to a Select Committee, but there were serious questions, and he did not think the Government was aware of the gravity of them.

said that that was not a debate on the second reading, or on the merits of the question. The only question now before the House was whether the Bill should go to a Select Committee or not.

I do not wish to discuss the merits of the Bill, but the difficulty we have is whether this Bill is going to a Select Committee or the Committee of the Whole House.

Surely the hon. member must know that he cannot discuss, at this stage, what the committee is going to do—it is quite impossible at this stage.

Shall I be in order in moving certain instructions to the committee ?

What are they ?

The instructions I have had in contemplation are on the lines of the speech I made on the second reading the other day. We desire to get a final and satisfactory settlement made on this question, but I would like to know what the views of the Government are. If the Government are prepared to accept an alteration in the Bill it will not be necessary to move the instructions.

I may point out that although the Bill may go to a Select Committee, it does not tie the Committee of the Whole House, and the hon. member can deal with the whole Bill de novo when it comes before the Committee of the Whole House. (Hear, hear)

Can I move certain instructions to the Select Committee?

The hon. member may add a rider to this motion.

moved, as an amendment, to add the following words: “And that it be an instruction to the committee to provide in the Bill that the Provincial Councils shall be enabled to equalise their taxation and their expenditure, especially in regard to education, without imposing fresh taxation.” Proceeding, the hon. member said that he thought the whole House thought it worth paying to get rid of the educational and the language question, and if they did not get rid of it they would have the spectre of the language question rising again. He thought that the Bill ought to make provision also in regard to revenue, so that they could get rid of that strong provincial feeling which had been evinced in the past, and he hoped the Government would make a final settlement on that question, so that every year they would not have the same dissatisfaction expressed inside and outside the House. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had said that that was really the completion of the work of the National Convention, and it was to be hoped that the work would be finished in the same spirit as that in which the work of the Convention had been done. He would like to say to his Transvaal friends that, as between the Transvaal Province and the other Provinces, there were two parts to the arrangement which had been made. The Transvaal had certain grievances, particularly as regards railway rates, and the other Provinces had other grievances—in regard to unequal taxation The Transvaal grievances had been taken away far sooner than the Convention provided for, and although the Union had the right to take the surpluses of the railways for four years, it had only taken it for two years; and it must be admitted that the maritime Provinces had agreed to all somewhat liberally, or doing more than was required by the Act of Union. They ought to look at that question of the equalisation of taxation in the same liberal spirit.

What does it mean?

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

That the reports of the Select Committees of the late House of Assembly of the Cape of Good. Hope of 1900, 1906, and 1909 on petitions from G. D. Smith, and the proceedings of the Select Committee of 1907 on Smith Land Grant Bill, be laid upon the Table, and, if, agreed to, that the reports and proceedings be referred to the Select Committee on petition of G. D. Smith.

stated that the reports were on the Table.

The motion was agreed to.

resumed the adjourned debate on the motion for the contribution by the Union of South Africa to the British Navy. He said he was not in favour of the motion nor of the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. He admired the patriotism of the hon. member for Durban, Point (Major Silburn), although he feared it was rather dangerous for the Government for a private member to introduce a matter of this kind. Personally, he had no objection to a contribution to the Navy. The hon. gentleman said he had brought forward his motion without any intention of awakening racial hatred. He should not have said it. As a matter of fact there was no need to mention racialism at all, because the mere mention of the word might create the impression outside of there being such a thing. The hon. member went on to refer to the history of the past, and pointed out that the contribution to the Navy made by the old Cape Province had been one of the first steps in this direction taken by any Dominion. The first man to propose such a contribution was the late J. H. Hofmeyr, supported by the Afrikander Bond. Neither Canada nor Australia were therefore the first to contribute to the Navy.

As regarded the arguments that a foreign Power might within six months of the defeat of England sieze this country, he (Mr. Kuhn) had a great opinion of the Afrikanders, and he thought no nation would be able to do that. (Laughter.) Touching on the gift of New Zealand to the Empire, Mr. Kuhn pointed out that the maintenance of this gift must necessarily cost England an enormous amount every year. They here in South Africa wished to save England any further expenditure. Since the inception of Union, South Africa had done more for the relief of the British taxpayer than any other Dominion. First of all they had contributed their £85,000 per year which represented the interest on the capital value of a Dreadnought, while furthermore by means of the defence force the taxpayer had been further relieved, seeing that the English garrison had been made unnecessary. He hoped they would be able soon to go even further and undertake the defence of their own seaports and take Simon’s Town over from the Imperial authorities, and so save England a further large sum of money. He was a man of peace, and was strongly opposed to war. As a matter of fact, war usually resulted in the side which was right being defeated. He was in favour of arbitration, and held that by making their contribution they would strengthen a principle which they were opposed to. They heard such a lot about the Empire, but what was the Empire, he asked? Did hon. members ever realise that this was a part of the Empire—they were co-heirs in the Empire. (Hear, hear.) If they defended South Africa, they were defending a large part of the British Empire. He was quite in agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman). If, however, this motion was agreed to, he thought they should take the proceeds of the preferential tariff of 3 per cent. At present neither the Empire nor this country profited by that tariff. The merchants were the only people who profited. That money should be given to the Imperial Government if they wished to do anything. They heard much about war, but would Germany be so foolish as to attack England? He did not think so. He was opposed to the amendment of the Prime Minister, and said that, even if negotiations were held, as was proposed, and if these negotiations led to nothing, he feared they would always be accused of breach of faith. They might find themselves pledged to do something which they could not do, and therefore he hoped the Prime Minister would withdraw his amendment. (Hear, hear.) Why should South Africa pay to support a navy about which they had no right to say a word?

said there seemed to be some irritation because a vote was not arrived at on the previous evening, and there were some insinuations that he had contributed some help in preventing the debate from coming to a close. (Hear, hear.) He simply wished to protect minorities. (Hear, hear.) He did not share the view that this question should be hurried. It was a most important question, and it was proper that they should have a full discussion—at least, that hon. members who wanted to address the House should have an opportunity of doing so. (Hear, hear.) It seemed to him that there were two things that were essential in dealing with this matter. One was that the gift must be spontaneous, and the other that it should be undertaken with deliberation. (Hear, hear.) If it were not spontaneous, the result would he most unfortunate. It would have been better in that case if the question had never been entertained. The movement that was going on in the Empire seems hardly a spontaneous one. They had the Yellow Press of Fleet-street, which told them from day to day that if they did not make a contribution, they could not be regarded as loyal. Some foolish people were influenced by this. The Navy League in England said very much the same thing, and he had read speeches delivered by responsible people in England, who said that the gift would be very acceptable. (An HON. MEMBER. It isn’t a gift.) Well, a contribution. He regretted this, because it was far more likely to do good if these contributions were spontaneous. Every one of the Dominions had a different method of dealing with this question. Australia was building a fleet, and as regarded New Zealand, he did not know what the plan was there. It seemed to him that they were at one time in favour of a fleet, and then in favour of a contribution. Then, when they came to Canada, the proposals differed widely from the proposals that Sir Wilfred Laurier made when he was in Europe several years ago. Mr. Borden proposed that in return for the gift of battleships, a Minister should sit upon the Defence Council in London, and also that he should have the right, in case of war, of withdrawing his ships if necessary. (Opposition cries of “Never.”) Well, anyhow he wanted a Minister to sit upon the Defence Council. What was going to be the position of a single Minister who sat in a Council of 25? One of two things would happen. He might often be in a minority, and what then? Withdraw his ships? Then they must understand that the Government in England could over-ride the decisions of the committee, so that it Would not be of much consequence whether a Minister sat on it or not. Continuing, the hon. Minister said the differences of opinion showed that this was a matter that ought to be considered with the greatest deliberation.

Look at the position in Canada to-day. The question had degenerated into party, even partisanship warfare over this matter. Already one of Mr. Borden’s Ministers had resigned, and they had the French-Canadians who were elected as supporters of the Borden Ministry, saying that the Government must refer this matter to the country for its decision.

Not all of them.

Well a great number of them. I read it only this morning that the French-Canadians insisted that they should have a referendum. Proceeding, he said they also had the whole of the ordinary opposition opposing this Bill, sitting all night and determined to force the Government to a general election. It only showed that this was a matter in regard to which they should proceed with the greatest deliberation. They should try to carry the whole country with them, and when they looked at the special circumstances of this country they must recognise the necessity for going very carefully. This country was greatly indebted to the British Fleet, and he hoped that for a long time—for an indefinite period in fact— they would have the protection of that Fleet. And he thought they should accept the amendment of the hon. the Prime Minister. He was very sorry to hear his hon. friend (Mr. Kuhn) speak as he did. All he could say was if his hon. friend had so little confidence in the Government he supported that he would not leave it to discuss the question, then he was very disappointed in so good a man. (Government cheers.) He did not know if they had read what Mr. Churchill said. He (the Minister) was not so clear that the British Government was anxious to have additional ships just now. Mr. Churchill gave the most positive assurance, public and private, that the margin of Dreadnoughts for which he asked in his last Estimates (a 60 per cent. advantage over Germany on old construction, a two to one advantage on additions to the standing Navy Law) was adequate.

What date was that?

This was in December, and Mr. Churchill ought to know. Continuing, he said it was strange that the papers that asked the Colonists to come forward and put their hands in their pockets were the same that said that England had a fleet equal to all emergencies. Mr. Churchill said that their fleet was adequate, and undoubtedly the British Fleet, in proportion to foreign fleets, seems—he did not speak as a sailor—quite adequate to meet any possible foreign fleet. If the British Fleet was not adequate, the Minister who was responsible for it should be hanged. In his opinion, if the Minister who was responsible for the British Fleet did not give England an adequate fleet, then hanging was too good for him. (Cheers.)

And since the beginning of the war in the Balkans, happily, he thought, England and Germany were drawing closer to each other. Since that war, in every issue of the “Times” dealing with the situation the support Germany had given to peace measures, and the cordiality with which she had co-operated with the British Foreign Minister, was recognised. And the German Foreign Minister had practically intimated that this wicked race for armaments would soon slacken off. The spirit was better than it had been in the past, and the men who were responsible for the British Fleet acknowledged it to be equal to all demands that could be made on it. They must also remember one other very important fact in connection with it. He thought that when the first British Dreadnought was built it was a very unfortunate day for England, because the moment England built a new Dreadnought everybody started afresh. A Dreadnought was built. Very soon afterwards a super-Dreadnought was built, and everybody said that the Dreadnought was superseded. Not very long afterwards there came the super-super-Dreadnought, and that superseded the super-Dreadnought. He wished they would ask the gentleman, whom they were so pleased to see and who was in charge of H.M.S. New Zealand, if that ship was likely to go into battle, and how long it would be before it was superseded. The fact was that these ships very soon became scrap iron, and he would not be very much surprised if before very long ships in the air superseded ships in the sea. Far more improbable things than that had happened, and he thought it was very probable that airships would play a large part in warfare soon. So they had this position, that they might spend a hundred million pounds in ships to-day and in five years the ships would be useless. Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had made a deal of the fact that if we were not well protected by the British Navy our independence would not be worth a fortnight’s purchase. Well, he thought such arguments were best left alone, and he wished it had not been put in that way

It is a statement of fact.

The man who believes that any great Power could land sufficient men to hold South Africa does not appreciate the position. Proceeding, he said he did not believe that the resources of any Power, except perhaps one, and that was England, would be sufficient to send a large enough body of men to conquer South Africa. (Government cheers.) So when his hon. friend talked in that way he showed he did not know the men of South Africa and did not appreciate the history of the past. (Cheers.) Then as regarded their ports. He was not like the hon. member for Cape Town, a naval man. He had never been able to understand why, so far as their ports were concerned, they could not have land defences sufficiently strong at the ports to defend them. If they fortified Cape Town and Durban sufficiently they could keep a ship off.

They would starve us out.

My hon. friend says they would starve us out. Well, in the first place, war does not last long, and, in the second place we have quite enough mutton in South Africa, and quite enough food—

Oh, no.

Oh, yes. War is not going to last so long. It may be it would interfere with our trade, but don’t forget this, that the trade England does with Germany is far larger than the trade England does with South Africa. The trade England does with Germany is greater than that she does with any other country except the United States of America.

That has nothing to do with it.

Oh, yes, it has; it has very much to do with it. Trade is trade, and they are not likely to throw it away. And when we talk lightly about arming against a Power that has had no war for forty years and no annexation without Britain’s sanction, we should not forget the past. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said that our trade with England was 100 millions a year.

I did not say any such thing.

said that if they took away the gold and diamonds our trade was only 40 millions. (OPPOSITION MEMBERS: Why take away the gold and diamonds?)

He admitted that it was a good thing to have our trade route kept open. Even, however, if it were interrupted for a little time it would not matter so very much, but the keeping of our trade route open required consideration. That was a question which he hoped the Prime Minister when he went to Europe would discuss. Although we would not starve, and he was not afraid of our independence, still he admitted it might lead to very great inconvenience and even very considerable loss if our trade were interrupted for any considerable time, and it would be well if we could come to some arrangement by which that risk could be reduced to a minimum. But whether we gave a contribution or not we could never say that the trade would not be disturbed. The policy of the British Government was not to have ships scattered all over the world, but to concentrate them in the North Sea. Under those circumstances it seemed to him that it would be rather easy for a ship like the Alabama to get away and play havoc with our trade. No matter what our contribution might be, we might not have our trade route protected.

People had spoken as if South Africa had not done anything towards assisting or strengthening the British Navy. The contribution directly made by the Cape Colony from 1898 to 1912 was £512,500, from Natal from 1903 to the date of Union contributed £235,628, and the Union had contributed £171,000. Natal had made a further contribution in coal to the value of £19,000. The total amount contributed in cash by South Africa was £939,567. He did not think that that was a mean contribution; he was not sure that it was not more than anyone else had done. Then we gave annually a preference to British manufacturers of £500,000. (Ministerial cheers.) His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would not protect the farmer here, but he would protect the British manufacturer. (Ministerial cheers.) Let protection, if it be wise, which he does not think it would be, be given all round. (Ministerial cheers.) Then we had done a great deal more than that. We had special responsibilities in this country. We had a huge native population which for generations the British Government was responsible for, and in respect of which it discharged its duties admirably. These natives in a large measure had come under our rule. The responsibility for maintaining peace and order we had taken entirely on ourselves.

You make the natives pay heavily for it.

That is surely another matter; it is taxing our own people. I have not been more eager to tax them than he has, and in the Cape they are not heavily taxed. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said the British Government could take away its regiments from South Africa with perfect safety—though many people would regret it—and the British Government would thereby save money. He had heard that the defence of the Union would cost £500,000 a year, but if we did our duty and protected our ports the cost before very long would be nearer a million. That was very heavy indeed, and it compared favourably with the military and naval expenditure of some countries in Europe. Therefore it could not be said that we had done nothing in the way of contributing and also helping the British manufacturer with the preference. Continuing, Mr. Sauer said there were children in South Africa running at large, because we had no money with which to pay for their education. He believed the people in England would rather see us do our duty in respect to those we were immediately responsible for than that we should engage upon a course which might lead to very serious consequences. He did not want to be misunderstood on this question, nor to say that on no account would he listen to a subsidy. That would depend upon circumstances.

He believed it was the primary duty of those who wanted to keep an Empire to find the means to keep that Empire together. Our primary duty was to see that we had money to spend on matters which were absolutely essential in South Africa. All this arming by England and Germany was wicked—(cheers)—and any encouragement in that direction was unfortunate. But if the British Empire were in real danger, if any Power wished to invade South Africa, he believed every South African would do his duty and die in the last ditch to maintain our independence and our flag. However, hurry on a question like this without ample and mature consideration was likely to do much harm. He hoped the House would carry the proposal to allow the Prime Minister to go to England and discuss the matter there. The Prime Minister would find the Ministers there more appreciative of the difficulties of the situation than many here who knew less of the merits of the situation. If the proposals involved large expenditure they should not be put before that, or any other House, before the people had had an opportunity of considering them; but his hon. friend would not go contrary to the sentiment of South Africa. If his hon. friend were to come back with a proposal which would be opposed to the wishes of the majority of the people, it would do an incalculable amount of harm to the British Empire, to which all wished well. (Cheers.)

said that nearly every speaker had seemed to take it for granted that an increased Naval contribution was inevitable—except the last speaker, perhaps. He was one of those who deplored the race for armaments of the various races of the world; and, in considering that, did hon. members consider the wastage of labour power? Did they realise that hundreds of thousands of men were taken from productive enterprises in order to man these navies; and nothing was said of those hundreds of thousands of men who were engaged in the unproductive work of making these ships and guns? All these burdens had to be borne, and the burden rested on the workers. Had it been realised that the Christian nations of the world—the followers of the Carpenter of Nazareth—spent 450 millions every year on that kind of thing, an increase of 200 millions in a comparatively few years? The hon. member quoted figures to show that it was estimated that about 7 millions of the people of Great Britain were engaged in production, and produced in one year (the figures were for 1907) 1,765 millions of wealth. The average was £102, and £62 was paid in wages for every man, woman, and child in Great Britain engaged in industry, £40 going elsewhere. They should throw the burden of the Navy on the people who profited by that Navy. In regard to South Africa, they were told that we were not doing our fair share towards the Navy’s upkeep. With much of what the hon. Minister had said he agreed, and that the amount spent on the defence forces of South Africa would probably exceed the half-million estimated. If the sea-borne trade was to be protected, let those who profited by that pay their share. But they heard sinister rumours of the demands which were to be made to lighten some of the burdens which now rested on the mining magnates; and he alluded to the remarks made at the annual meeting of the Premier Diamond Mining Co. The people who benefited should make the most contributions to the Navy. As to the Defence Force, and what had been said about it, he would be sorry for the people of South Africa if they had not cheered the sentiments which had been expressed concerning it; but who was it who was going “to die in the last ditch”? Were the landowners or the few mining magnates going to do so, or were they going to leave the country? Who was going to defend the country? It would be defended in a few years’ time by a Kafir army, or none at all, and hon. members were aware of it. The white population was not increasing, and no encouragement was given for it to increase. What was the use of having officers if they did not have the men? Granting that a large contribution should be given to the Navy, what practical use would half-a-million be—the New Zealand cost two millions? They would be met with the reply: “It will foster the Imperial sentiment.” His idea of fostering the Imperial sentiment was not that they should have a Navy big enough to beat the navies of two or three other nations, but that they should cultivate, and take steps to produce, an Imperial race. Were they doing so? Were the people better off, happier, or of better physique than one hundred years ago?

It was their desire to try and alter the existing state of affairs. These matters should all be attended to before they talked about dying in the last ditch on behalf of Imperialism. He did not doubt the fact that the ruling classes were quite satisfied with the existing state of affairs. The ruling classes were represented by hon. members who sat on the right and the left. They were the mining magnates and the landlords.

You are wrong.

Not the farmers, but the landlords. There are no farmers in this House. The ruling classes were perfectly content; they were like the feudal barons of old. If the worker was not a slave, then these people considered that he ought to be. He and his colleagues put forward the views of the wage-earners of this country; they put forward views that were held by wage-earners throughout the world. They had banded themselves together for the purpose of putting an end to things of this sort. There was no nationalism in finance. There was no patriotism in finance. Perhaps financiers in the future would find out that it was not in their interests to wage wars. They said that war was not in the interests of the working class.

Or anybody else.

Oh, yes it is.

I don’t think that it is to the benefit of anybody, but there are some people who do think so. Continuing, he instanced the case of the big-gun manufacturers and the battleship constructors.

What about the dockyard employees?

Perhaps they are blind to their own interests. Continuing, he went on to point out that the men of Woolwich Arsenal had returned labour men to the House of Commons. Proceeding, he said he would like to correct the hon. member for Weenen, who said that at the recent Labour Conference the naval contribution question was discussed. That was an incorrect statement. No such debate ever took place. That hon. member had also said he was glad to see that the spirit of loyalty had been instilled into hon. members on the cross benches by his party. But they, on the cross benches, did not look to the party of financiers, who brought sixty thousand Chinese into this country, for a lesson on loyalty. They learned their loyalty and the best traditions of Britain in England. Whatever was done, that party demanded that the contribution should be raised by direct taxation, so that the people of the country would know where the money was coming from. They would like to say that if the Prime Minister had carried out the planks of the Labour Party he would be able to build up a nation that would be able to meet all comers, whether on economic principles or backed up by battleships.

said he wished to make the Prime Minister acquainted with the opinions of his constituents in regard to this matter. They were often told not to allow themselves to be led by sentiment, and yet the Opposition had now come forward with a motion in which sentiment played a great part. It could not be denied that the people of South Africa were far from unanimous on the subject of supporting the British Navy, and he thought it was wrong to allow sentiment on the one side and not on the other. He regretted that the Minister without Portfolio (Sir David Graaff) was leaving the House in order not to hear the other side of the question. They must not forget that a great part of the people had recently passed through the miseries of a horrible war, and even now, only kept its feet with difficulty, and it was unfair therefore to burden such an impoverished people with still further burdens. He could not agree to the amendment introduced by the Prime Minister, because it committed the Union, and moreover it might lead to an interference with their own private affairs, against which they had always offered a determined resistance. The Prime Minister should reflect that in this matter he must reckon with the opposition of the people in the country districts. The speaker could give him that assurance. Besides all that to say that South Africa was doing nothing now was not right, as the hon. member for Prieska and the Minister of Justice had already very clearly shown. It was quite wrong to go to England and to ask them there what duty called for in the matter of naval defence. That was why he could not agree to the amendment. He regarded a subsidy of £50,000 a year as too much.

said the people inland had been charged with a loss of the sea sense, and probably that was a good thing in the face of this controversy. (Hear, hear.) He had no doubt that the advocacy of this contribution would be very well received by the daily Press in South Africa and the people at the coast, and possibly by the people in England, but he would ask them if they could really disregard what were the real interests in South Africa? He could appreciate the patriotism which English-speaking South Africans had for their motherland, but how could they expect others, born in South Africa, whose forbears did not come from England, to have similar sentiments for the Navy? Even if they proclaimed that sentiment it would not be believed by many on the other side of the House. (Hear, hear.) The only point of view that they could take was the business point of view, and in taking that point of view he thought the contribution they were paying at the present time much too high. He appreciated what had been done by England. He would not say that she had done just as much as he would have liked. He believed that the generosity which prompted England to do what she did was prompted by the hard business capacity which she possessed. Then with regard to this question of insurance, he always thought when he had to pay a premium he would be insured against loss, but that was not the case here. If England was beaten on the sea he lost his capital and his premium as well. There was another point, and that was they had a great deal of their trade carried in German ships. Supposing that war were to break out and his goods were carried in German ships, were these goods going to be protected by the British fleet, seeing he paid his insurance upon them? And if these ships were sunk, what was going to become of his goods? If any insurance was to be paid he thought it was the people who owned the ships that ought to pay the premiums. (Ministerial cheers.) If goods were carried by German ships, he expected the German fleet to protect them. Therefore he could not understand why he should be asked to pay a premium to the British Navy. Why should they be asked to protect what they had not got. The United Kingdom possessed 18 million tons of shipping, and paid, it was said, £45,000,000 a year for their protection. This worked out at £2 10s. per ton. South Africa had only 15,000 tons, and paid £85,000 for protection. Therefore it paid £5 10s., consequently South Africa was paying much more for the insurance of her shipping than England. (Hear, hear.) Then if they looked at the matter from a trade basis they would find that the contribution was more than adequate. The Prime Minister the other day had stated that the imports and exports of the Union were 100 millions per annum, and that our contribution amounted to 1s. 4d. per head. England had a trade of £1,200,000,000 per annum, and he understood that the insurance upon that amounted to £1 per head in England, but upon a proportionate basis England paid 1s. 8d. per head upon £100,000,000 as against 1s. 4d. by South Africa. The proportion was therefore far more than England paid at the same stage of her development. There was another point that was told them by a great number of experts, and that was that the British Navy was supreme. It occurred to him that it could not always be supreme. If in order to protect their trade the British Navy must be supreme, then who was going to protect the German trade? And what about the trade of the small countries such as Denmark and Holland, Sweden and Norway? Was their commerce protected by their fleets?

They are protected mostly by the British Fleet.

Then why not get contributions from Denmark and Holland. Proceeding, he said that if these countries were able to get on without having a supreme fleet, then he did not see why it was necessary to claim that in order that our trade should be protected and developed there should be this supreme force to protect us. He quite agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West in regard to what he had said about the mad race for armaments. There was a considerable danger arising from this call for a supreme fleet and a supreme power. If the British Fleet had not been so strong years ago as to be able to interfere with a German ship off the coast of Africa, they would not now have this race for armaments, because they would not have made Germany desire a strong fleet. He was very much interested in the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He asked whether we, as a nation, could stand by while another protected our trade. He (the hon. member) would ask “should a self-respecting nation pay another to defend it?” He would much rather go back to the Kleine Vlootje than have that. (Government cheers.) But he would like to say that long before they should consider the question of a Kleine Vlootje, or building ships of their own, there were other matters which they should consider. It was no good settling the question of defence against the outside while they were rotten within those defences. While they had thousands of children not attending schools, and people sinking below the level of the natives, South Africa had no right to spend money on defences. If they recognised what this danger behind them was he thought they would be doing much greater service to the Empire than if they spent the sum of money proposed. They would be doing a much greater service to the Empire by building up inside their country a people who would become an asset to the Empire as a whole. They could not afford to make a big contribution, and his feeling was that it was much better to spend money to some better purpose than go swanking around, for that was what it would amount to. The hon. member for Cape Town asked whether we wanted peace. Of course they did, but they were not going to secure peace by marching up and down the world with a loaded revolver in their hand and daring people to tread on the tails of their coats.

His idea was that if they traded with the world they should leave the world to protect their trade. He was afraid that as far as he was concerned he was not prepared to vote for any additional subsidy, because they already paid sufficient; in fact, they paid more than their share. If Great Britain desired an Empire, well then let her pay for the luxury herself. He would like to point out that there was a considerable feeling in the country about this. There were things the people wanted and hon. members had to tell them the Government had not the money to do what they should. They could not satisfy those people that this contribution was the right thing to make. They said that the Government was taking away money that should go to their children. However, he was quite prepared to continue the present subsidy, because it might be taken as some tangible expression of their goodwill to England. And he wanted to point out to hon. members that they on the Government side could not import into this question and would not import into it the sentiment imported into it by hon. members on the other side.

What is that?

Well, it is a sort of knowing another country as your Motherland. Proceeding, he said he hoped some means would be devised of withdrawing the motion, because he thought the prospect of its passing to something concrete was rather remote. He was not very much enamoured of the amendment moved by the Prime Minister. It seemed to him that the speech made by the Minister of Justice and the speech made by the Prime Minister were two entirely different speeches— (Opposition cheers)—and, that being so, he felt that if they were to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Government, and they were to send them to England to make whatever arrangements they liked, then he would like to know on what basis they would negotiate. There was another point. If they wanted information why should they ask this House for leave to get it? Surely it could be got in the ordinary way? He was afraid that if this resulted in a visit to England there would be the usual receptions and hospitality, and then they would find this country pledged to an expenditure, the result of some suggestions between two Ministers. If there was to be any contribution made to the Navy then he thought that the right attitude to adopt was for the Government to tell them how much they could afford, and how much they could spend upon it, and then they should consider how best it could be spent. As far as he was concerned he had to register his protest against any additional contribution to the Navy until they had done in South Africa what South Africa required, and what was much more important than spending money on the Navy. (Government cheers.)

said he could not agree with the remarks of the previous speaker (Mr. Fichardt), which seemed to suggest lack of confidence in the Government. He certainly would support the amendment of the Prime Minister, as it proposed that they should obtain necessary information as to the form in which support should be given. The idea of the Prime Minister to establish in course of time their own small fleet to sail along their own coasts was very attractive. The public had their own feeling of honour, and as they had begun by creating a defence force for the interior, they would continue by defending their commerce at sea. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) seemed to forget that South Africa was situated on a large and important trades route to the east, that the Suez Canal and Panama Canal would in time of war be closed, and that it was their duty to protect the trade. He also disagreed with the remarks of the right hon. member for Victoria West, who talked about paying tribute to England. Surely he wished this to be a self-respecting country, which ought to defend itself, and which should not depend on outside assistance. He deprecated the remarks about Germany, thought that something should be done in the direction of making South Africa a great nation, and hoped the amendment of the Premier would be accepted.

said he had expected, after the speech which had been delivered by the Prime Minister, that an end would have been made to the debate on the contribution to the navy. It was becoming the fashion to talk on that subject. Everywhere throughout the world they were talking about the British Navy; in the British Parliament and in British newspapers the matter was constantly being discussed, and that naturally created the impression that England was looking everywhere for help, and that it was at the end of its resources. Such discussions and Press writings were not likely to do England much good, and the discussion in that House was also superfluous. They did not know what proposals would be brought forward by the Government, and quotations had been made from the speech of the Prime Minister which were not contained in it. One said that an agreement had already been made to give the Imperial Government three battleships, whilst others said that if the Prime Minister went to England, something would be decided upon that was not in the interest of South Africa. Well, though the Prime Minister had been several times to England before, nothing had hitherto been decided which tended to injure South Africa. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had referred to the position of Simon’s Town, which was a strong harbour maintained at the cost of England. It would not be impossible for the Union to take over that harbour, but it was, of course, a question which would first have to be discussed. The speaker could see no danger in the proposal which had been made by the Prime Minister to go and discuss that and similar matters in England. There could be no possible objection to the Prime Minister’s speech. He had allowed his own personal views to peep out, but had in no way committed himself to anything. He wanted, in the first place, to look after the defence of our own coast, and on that point they could all go with him. The speaker differed from some persons with regard to the duties of a nation which had any respect for itself. Every nation must in the first place defend itself. The Government had already taken steps to provide for the defence of the land, and the force which had been created was going to be a great success. The number of volunteers who had come forward was much greater than any of them had expected. The defence of the country would cost them £500,000 or £600,000 per year, and surely it would be a wrong thing if they had paid that money to the British Government on condition that they should maintain here the necessary number of soldiers. They had to do something that belonged to the country itself, something national. If they adopted a similar attitude in the matter of the defence of their coasts, he was convinced that their young men would come forward with as much zeal to join in defending the country at sea as they did for defending it on the land. South Africa’s sea power should not be established on a basis of capacity for offence, but should be solely for the defence of the coasts. That was the idea of the Prime Minister, and the speaker was in entire agreement with it and the amendment. Constant reference had been made to the position of a nation which had feelings of honour, but the payment of an annual subsidy would place them in the position of a vassal, and that position was not one which should be accepted by a nation which had a feeling of honour. If they paid a subsidy, they would have nothing for the money, but if they built their own fleet they would have something which belonged to the Union. The right hon. member for Victoria West had tried to make ridiculous the scheme of a local fleet, and had asked them what they would do with it. He forgot, however, that all things begin in a small way. It was their duty, in the first place, to see that their own children got a chance to qualify themselves at sea, so that the national feeling might be strengthened. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had referred to the perils of the traffic with South Africa, but they were not now living in the middle centuries amongst robber knights. The pirates of Algiers and Tunis had for a century ceased to exist, and danger now existed only in times of war. There were nations which carried on a large trade and yet had no fleet at all, such as Belgium, whilst other nations with a considerable trade, such as Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, and Norway, had only small navies, and yet those nations were not in danger. So long as there was no war, so long was a fleet unnecessary to protect their trade. The Union did not wish for war, but wanted peace in order that they could develop the country. The amendment which had been moved by the Prime Minister was not of a very dangerous character, for after he had obtained advice he would have to come to the House with his proposals, and then they could look at them from all points of view. If they had confidence in the Government they might be sure that they would only act in the interests of the country.

said he came from one of the poor parts of the Transvaal, and felt bound to say something on the present question. The mover of the motion had referred to racial hatred, but if they looked at the voluntary registration in the defence force they would be bound to feel that there was no longer any such question. That defence force would cost a lot of money, and if they got too many irons in the fire at a time, some of them would get burnt. They were paying already £85,000 to the navy, and the time had not yet come to increase it. The country still wanted to be developed, and capital was necessary for that purpose. War was always deplorable, and it was to be hoped that a war between whites in South Africa would not again occur. But should such a war become unavoidable, then every white man would do his best. The speaker saw no objection to the Prime Minister going away to get information and then reporting to the House. He (the speaker) represented his constituents, without whose direction he would never be able to vote for an increased contribution to the navy. They must listen to the voice of the general public.

said that the matter had been so very much discussed that he hesitated to take up the time of the House, but on listening to the views of hon. members on that side of the House, he felt bound to dissociate himself from those views, and to support the amendment of the Prime Minister. As the hon. Minister of Justice had said, the position of this country was a peculiar one, and under the circumstances they could not expect sentiment to play so large a part as if they all belonged to the English race. What one did expect, however, was a feeling of gratitude for what had been done, and a feeling of obligation to do something to strengthen the position, not only of South Africa, but of the Empire. As the hon. member for Victoria West had said, it should not be their desire to encourage competition in armaments, but competition did exist in Europe, and they in South Africa could not materially influence the feeling. But as part of the Empire they should participate in the risks as well as the advantages which accrued to them as part of the Empire. The question was: Did they appreciate being part of the Empire; and if they did, then they should take into serious consideration whether it was necessary that they should contribute more liberally in the future as recommended by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Imperial Government. They ought to realise that during the last ten years the volume of trade had increased enormously, and if the principle was correct to contribute something towards the maintenance of the Navy, then he thought the increase in the volume of trade should be taken into serious consideration with a view to contributing a little more. They should take a rational view of the question. The point to consider was what advantages did they enjoy by being part of the British Empire and enjoying the protection of the British flag. At the present time the National Debt was about £114,000,000. Under a Republic would they be as able to borrow money as cheaply as they were to-day? If they had to pay a half per cent. more, the annual interest would cost £500,000 more. That was a point they ought to consider. Further, from time to time it was necessary for them to go into European markets for a loan, and while their position was strong they would be able to borrow money at a low rate of interest. With regard to the preferential tariff to which reference had been made, he could not say he was wedded to that principle, but at the same time he could not agree with the view taken by the hon. Minister of Justice when he said that the preference given to the British manufacturer was costing this country £500,000 per annum. With the competition of the importers the consumers had got the benefit of the three per cent. preference. Since Union, when the present Minister of Justice had occupied the position of Minister of Railways and Harbours, he was responsible for a large reduction of railway rates, amounting to £1,250,000. They might as well ask what use that was. Had not the consumers got the benefit of it?

They are not getting the benefit of it.

Most certainly they are.

in conclusion, said that he would support the amendment of the right hon. the Prime Minister.

said he wished to discuss this question as an ordinary question concerning the Union of South Africa. He had nothing to do with the matter from a sentimental point of view; they were here in this House to look after the interests of South Africa, and they should not allow themselves to be swayed by sentiment. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, he wished to add his voice to the protest which had been made against remarks which, though not so intended, might create racial feeling. Continuing, General Hertzog said that he very much appreciated sentiment, and especially when it was found where it should be, and he would admit that he would have been surprised if English people, and English members did not possess any sentiment on this matter, and if there had been an absence of sentiment on the part of such hon. members he would have been one of the first to have said, “There is something wrong.” But to-day he spoke for the Dutch-speaking section of the people, and also for a number of English-speaking people who had not those feelings which were experienced by others, simply because they were born here. In the first place they must look at this question from the point of view of the country they were living in. (Hear, hear.) They heard a lot said about the Empire, and the impression created was that the Empire was of greater importance to one section of the people than to the other. Well, he maintained that the Empire was a sort of alliance among and between all the Dominions of that Empire under the guidance of Great Britain, and as such they were a portion of the Empire.

They must regard the whole question of Empire—and as a part of the Empire they had a right to do so—in the first place in relation to their own interests, and in the second place only in so far as it concerned the mutual obligations created by that alliance. In the very first place he emphasised they must look at their own interests. (Mr. VAN NIEKERK: That is so.) Well, they had here before them to-day one of the most important questions any country could have to deal with, namely, the question how best they could protect their own interests. The naval question was merely a portion of the whole question: the Protection of the South African interests. (Hear, hear.) This afternoon they had been discussing the question of South Africa’s protection from the sea and at the sea. Many hon. members had spoken on this subject, and one hon. member, the right hon. member for Victoria West, had expressed himself a great supporter of the insurance of the seaborne trade of South Africa. He had urged that on that basis the whole subject should be settled. Well, he thought it was a delusion to think that their sea-borne trade could be protected in that way. The speaker would not discuss the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Ladybrand. After all, the protection of the trade was the first duty of the carriers of that trade, he would call them the transport riders. Well, who were these transport riders? England and Germany, he held, and on them rested that obligation. Then if they had to contribute on a basis of insurance as had been argued, the question arose, “what must we protect here?” The trade, yes. But was not the most important thing to be protected the country itself? And on what basis of insurance would they then have to pay their premium? Could the value of a country be estimated according to the wealth of that country or according to the number of its inhabitants? Could anyone say that to the Africander South Africa was worth less than England to the Englishman?

If not, they here would have to pay the same premium as was paid by England; instead of contributing one million sterling then, they would have to Pay something like fifty or sixty million. It was quite clear to him that when the question of protection was discussed it was not possible for them to go on the basis of what their interests were. Their interests were invaluable. (Cheers.) No; the question was: “What is our capital, what is our capacity, the capacity of our people?” And another question was whether the time had come for them to deal with this matter, and whether they could do it. Could they say that they were now able to do what they were asked to? They wanted protection for their country—that was everything to him. (Hear, hear.) But the next question which arose in his mind was whether from the side of the land they had done everything they should do. Was the defence of the country not the first matter to be looked at, and was the protection of the country, in the country and at the coast, not the first essential? What, compared thereby, was the protection which the Navy could give at sea? Well, then the question again was: “Were they advanced enough to deal with all these matters, and did they know what course they should follow?” Three propositions had been put before this House. The first was that they should make a contribution to the British Navy as they were doing at present. The second proposition was that they should give a number of Dreadnoughts, as had been done by other Dominions, and the third was that they should have their own small navy. The first question then was, before they could decide anything: “Have we the money?” He asked the Prime Minister and the other members of the House whether they had the money to go to the Imperial authorities to-morrow to make a contribution of one million pounds sterling or to give a ship which would cost them something like six or seven million.

Were there no other matters which required more urgent attention for the defence of the country than ships? But now he came to another point. They had to choose between these three propositions which had been submitted to the House, that was to say the Government would eventually have to choose. But now the Prime Minister said, “The Government does not know exactly what to do, and has not come to any definite decision.” From what he (General Hertzog) had understood from him, he did not know whether they had the necessary money; now the Prime Minister came and asked this House—and he hoped hon. members would carefully note this point—to be given the right to go to England and consult the English Government, and thereafter to be allowed to bring up a scheme as to what should be done for the protection of the country’s sea borne traffic. The Prime Minister actually asked this House for an instruction to go to England to see what could be done to defend the coast and what proposals could be made to this House in connection with the naval question. What did he mean? The Prime Minister made that request from this House and from the people without even knowing whether the necessary money would be forthcoming, or without being able to tell the House what proposition he was prepared to recommend. Was it right that the Prime Minister should ask the people of this country through Parliament to be allowed to enter into negotiations with the British Government, and to go to England to consider what plan should be accepted? “I ask,” continued General Hertzog, “whether these plans should not be made by the Prime Minister and the Government. And after they have made these plans then they should come to this House and submit them, and ask for leave to negotiate with the Imperial Government. I shall tell this House what will happen, I predict what will happen. At the next session of Parliament the Government will come forward with proposals, and if this House then queries them and says we have no money, what will they say then?

“The Government will then tell us, ‘Last year we received instructions from you to consult the British Government and make proposals, and we have carried out your instructions; here are our proposals.’ I contend that the Government should conduct its affairs in South Africa, and in this House, and not in England. (Hear, hear.) I hold, and hold most strongly, that it is a detrimental principle for a Government of a country to go and conduct its business in another country, and I cannot understand how any Government can try to get permission to follow such a course. It is not only detrimental, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that it is degrading—degrading for the Government and degrading to the people and to this House. If the Government had formulated a scheme, had laid it before this House and had it endorsed, then I would say they had acted wisely, and as they should do. In that event, it would be the Government’s duty to consult the Imperial Government on the subject. But it is an altogether different thing when your Government comes to this House and asks for a blank power of attorney to go to England, and then, after having consulted the authorities there, to come back with proposals. That is a detrimental principle. But what is worse, Mr. Speaker, it is a principle which will be made a precedent of. And what will be the result? We shall see that, when we have to deal with a weak Government, with weak persons, these persons will go to England, and instead of formulating their schemes here according to the requirements of the people of this country, they will go to England to get their facts there, and they will get their principles there—in fact, Mr. Speaker, they will get their principles, not from South Africa, but from Europe. And what shall we have then? We shall see that the Government of South Africa is directed, not from, by, and in South Africa, but from England. I cannot, in these circumstances, allow the proposal of the Prime Minister to pass without sounding a note of warning, because I see clearly what it will eventually lead to.”

said he hoped to be able to say what he wished to say as calmly as possible, and that he would not adopt the same excited tone as that adopted by the hon. member who had just sat down (General Hertzog). (Cheers.) The hon. member had started by referring to the differences of sentiment existing between one section of the population of this country and the other. Well, he admitted that there were such differences, but he did not think that it was good policy or statesmanship to be always referring to these differences, because it appeared to him that having made a start with Union, it should be their aim and ambition to make a success of South Africa, and not continually to refer to those conditions which kept the two elements apart. (Cheers.) Then the hon. member had asked whether the time had come for them to discuss this question. Well, he (Mr. Malan) held that it was their duty to discuss it, simply because they were already paying £85,000 per year as a contribution to the British Navy. The Union had never yet dealt with this matter. Before Union the Cape Colony contributed £50,000 per year to the British Navy, and Natal contributed £35,000. At the inception of Union the Government took those obligations over, and they now paid these amounts. This was not a new matter, and it was not right for them to ask whether the time had come to deal with it. The hon. member for Smithfield. however, had gone further, and had asked whether they had the money. Well, that was a premature question to put, because no one knew yet what their plans would be. Was that question put to create unnecessary feeling, he (Mr. Malan) asked; was it put to awaken suspicion, and would not that attitude scare the people? They were already paying £85,000 per year, and if more was required they would find it. He (Mr. Malan) did not agree with the points made by the hon. members for Ladybrand and Fauresmith. They spoke as if they were going to increase the contribution, and as if that were humiliating, but there was no such question before the House. What they were asked to discuss was simply what would be the form of their contribution, and whether their contribution was large enough or not. (Hear, hear.)

The question of the form was an important one. The hon. member for Smithfield had laid much emphasis on the amendment of the Prime Minister, and had asked why the Prime Minister wished to go to England to get his policy from there in regard to the defence of this country, and that this House should guard against such a state of affairs being created. He (General Hertzog) had warned the House to be careful that they should not get their policy dictated from England. “I think that was an unfair and untrue way of putting the matter,” said Mr. Malan. The facts of the case were that when they were dealing with the defence of South Africa, they had to do with two matters. The one was the position which South Africa occupied in regard to the British Empire, the importance of South Africa as an integral part of the Empire, and the other was the defence of the Union, the defence of their trade interests, and their national feeling, that they as a people must also take a part in the defence of their country from the outside, and not only from the inside. (Hear, hear.) This was a national question, and it was most certainly not a question of insurance or of the transport of goods. That view seemed to him the most unacceptable of all. The questions raised in the amendment, the consideration of the defence of this country’s interests were twofold. The one as a part of the British Empire, the other national. They should not forget that South Africa was not an island in the moon, but was a part of the world. Cape Point was in one of the most important routes of communication between the various parts of the world. But the position was rather complicated. England had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in the Union. Recently the Imperial authorities had built a dry dock at Simon’s Town. The old Cape Parliament had granted the site, and the Imperial authorities had built docks there, and kept them up to-day.

The question now arose: “What must we do in the future.” Should the Imperial Government continue to bear those costs, or should the Union take these docks over as part of their national defence? These dry docks had cost nearly two million pounds sterling and cost a good deal in upkeep. Now, how could they decide to-day what their defence policy was going to be before they had discussed these questions with the Imperial Government? He could not understand how the hon. member for Smithfield could say that they were going to England to have their defence policy dictated to them. He thought it was most important that there should be consultation with the Imperial authorities, so that they might see in the very first place how far in the defence of the coast the responsibility should be borne by the British Government and how far by the population of South Africa. It was impossible for the Government to come forward with their policy in this connection before they had discussed the matter with the Imperial authorities—and the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) knew that only too well. Then they must also consider what form their national action would take. Would it be in the form of a monetary contribution, or would they have their own fleet? These were all questions which had to be gone into very carefully, and he thought any hon. member who read the Prime Minister’s amendment as it stood, and did not look for anything in it which was not in it, would realise that. Some hon. members had spoken as if they had no confidence in the Government. Well, if they had any confidence at all in the Prime Minister—at any rate more than they had in the leader of the Opposition—then he thought they should accept this motion and see what proposals would eventually be laid before this House. If hon. members did not trust the Government, they should say so, so that they (the Government) might know where they stood. But he thought every member looking into the matter impartially would see that the amendment was a practical one, which should be accepted as it was impossible for the Government to come to a decision until they had consulted the Imperial Government. (Mr. Malan resumed his seat amid cheers, Sir Thomas Smartt (Fort Beaufort) being heard to remark across the floor of the House: “That is the best speech you have ever made.”)

said when he brought forward this motion in moderate language, he did not know that it would arouse such controversy. He regretted very much that his motion led to such arguments that, as a South African in the Parliament of a British Colony, he had been ashamed to hear. He was pleased that the Prime Minister had brought forward his amendment, and with the leave of the House, he would withdraw his motion in favour of it. (Cheers.)

With leave of the House, the amendment was put as the main question, viz.: “That this House recognises the importance of full and careful consideration being given to the question of the naval defence of South Africa, and accordingly requests the Government, in consultation with the Imperial Government, to ascertain what provision should be made for such defence, and thereafter to submit proposals to this House.”

Agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Natal Poll Tax Further Suspension Bill. He said it was necessary, because the matter of the suspension of the tax had not yet been disposed of, and it therefore became necessary to suspend this tax for another year.

To negative new sub-section (2), made in Committee of the Whole House and to substitute the following new sub-section, viz.: (2) The holder of a licence for a rifle may purchase ammunition for use with that rifle upon production to a licensed dealer of a permit to purchase such ammunition. The said permit may be granted to such licence-holder by any magistrate or licence officer, and shall specify the amount and description of rifle ammunition which the magistrate or licence officer is satisfied is required by such licence-holder for his personal use. A magistrate or licence officer may, without reason assigned, refuse to issue a permit under this sub-section. The mover said a great deal of inconvenience would arise to the general public if sub-section (2) was allowed to stand. He wished the amendment to apply only to rifle ammunition, but if one merely desired ammunition for a shot-gun, it should not be necessary to go to all the trouble to obtain a magistrate’s permit.

said he was always anxious to meet his hon. friend the Minister of Defence, but he had a most insidious way of coming forward with his amendments. He would not say that he came in by a side wind, but his proposal was an extraordinary one. If he wanted to accommodate the people of this country and make it easier for them to get ammunition, he would go the other way about, and allow rifle ammunition to be purchased without permit. It was far more dangerous to allow lead and powder to be purchased without permit. Natives did not use Lee-Metford rifles, but old smooth bores and things of that sort. If they gave the native a smooth bore, a handful of slugs and a pound of powder, he was an uncommonly awkward customer. It was a much sounder thing to stick to the amendment they had got. With regard to the inconvenience of getting permits, the farmer who used shotgun cartridges was perfectly well able to judge when he wanted them, and could go to town and purchase them, and the ordinary person in the town could get a permit if he liked. If he was a respectable person he could go to his gun-maker, who would get the ammunition for him. It was a dangerous thing in that country for any person to go into a shop and buy ammunition without a permit. They had, unfortunately, to guard against that danger in that country; and the amendment as originally put in was a safe amendment. To say that it would give absolute security would be absurd, because no law could do that, but at any rate it helped us to secure supervision.

said that there should be some inconvenience in obtaining ammunition, and it should not be got without a permit, in order to put, as far as possible, a stop to the illicit sale of ammunition to undesirable people—not only natives, but also whites, of which there was an undesirable class. Only the day after the House had discussed that matter a column report appeared in the newspapers of a case against two white men in the Orange Free State for gun running, who had been fined £300. He moved that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

This was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.