from E. A. Davidson and 31 others, inhabitants of Roodepoort, Transvaal, 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.

brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities.

The third report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities is as follows:

Your committee, having considered the various petitions referred to it, begs to report:

1. That it recommends:

1. (1) That Charles Hermanus Maasdorp, railway solicitor, be awarded upon his retirement a pension, based upon one-half that which a contributor to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund would have received, in regard to his service from the 21st July, 1897, to the 31st December, 1907, together with a pension upon the usual scale applied to Cape Civil Servants with more than ten years’ service in regard to his service from the 1st January, 1908, to the date of his retirement.
2. (2) The award to A. P. Pharkies, formerly teacher, of a pension calculated on a total service of fifteen years, to take effect from 1st July, 1912.
3. (3) That the break in the service of Anna M. Harris, teacher, from the 1st January, 1876, to 31st March, 1885, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service.
4. (4) That the break in the service of Ann M. Taylor, teacher, from 1st January, 1908, to 31st December, 1909, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service.
5. (5) That the break in the service of Charles J. Hafele, teacher, from 1st July, 1883, to 30th September, 1885, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of his previous service.
6. (6) That, subject to the production of medical evidence to the satisfaction of the Superintendent-General of Education (Cape), the following breaks in the service of Grace Beerling, teacher, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service, viz.: (a) 1st January, 1896, to 17th February, 1897; (b) 1st January, 1901, to 31st December, 1907; (c) 1st April, 1908, to 30th September, 1908; (d) 1st January, 1909, to 31st October, 1910.
7. (7) That the breaks in the service of Lucy Nason, teacher, from 1st July, 1891, to 31st December, 1891, and 1st January, 1896, to 31st December, 1899, be condoned, being regarded as special leave, not counting as service, but preserving for petitioner the benefit of her previous service.
8. (8) That the petition of P. Scholtz, teacher, be referred to the Government, with a view to the condonation of a break in petitioner’s service by the Education Department (Cape).
9. (9) That the petition of Jacob Ndlazilwana, teacher, be referred to the Government, with a view to the award of the pension to which petitioner is entitled on production to the Education Department (Cape) of sufficient medical testimony of his permanent incapacity for resuming teaching.

2. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained, viz.:

(1) T. Wesson; (2) A. S. Hancock; (3) C. Long; (4) J. Aitken and A. Laing; (5) J. S. Marwick; (6) C. O. Wiggin; (7) A. Tennant; (8) A. C. E de la Rue; (9) A. M. Nicholson; (10) R. S. Lewis; (11) Anna M. Burtsal; (12) Isabel von Mensberg; (13) M. M. van Blerk; (14) M. Murphy; (15) A. J. Baxter; (16) Ellen Sowter; (17) W. A. McMurray; (18) P. E. Roux; (19) C. Baxter; (20) L. K. Marais; (21) R. Scharffenorth; (22) A. H. Hann; (23) W. H. Creak; (24) D. Pugh; (25) J. R. Bresler; (26) J. Pattison; (27) B. Smith; (28) J. A. Petersen; (29) Frances Donaldson; (30) W. J. Higley.

(31) With reference to the petition of H. R. Tregarthen, your committee is of opinion that the application for relief should be deferred until such time as petitioner retires.

The report was set down for consideration on Thursday, May 8.

Government Notice No. 671 of 1913, having reference to amendment of certain regulations framed under Land Settlement Act, 1912.

said this was a matter which came before the House year after year. It was of a very delicate nature, and he did not want his heart to run away with his intelligence. He felt very deeply for these poor lepers, who had to be banished to Robben Island. Was it necessary, however, he asked, after all the Select Committees which had sat on the matter, to appoint another Select Committee? Every member of Parliament had received a circular from Government asking whether he could suggest a suitable place where these lepers could be placed. Was that the work of members of Parliament, he asked? Surely the Government was responsible. He held that Robben Island was not the very best place for these people; but, besides that, he contended that they had not done everything to make Robben Island as attractive as possible. Even from the report of Dr. Bayon, they were forced to conclude that Robben Island, owing to the lack of water and the absence of trees, was not a suitable place. The island was a sand heap, and when the wind blew hard, people could not open their eyes. He had been there, and had met two respectable lepers of good family who, as the result of the circumstances prevailing there, had been rendered totally blind. A factor which weighed very heavily with him was the undesirable fact that these lepers were not satisfied on the island. If they had been criminals, matters would have been different. But they were respectable, law-abiding people. The hon. member went on to refer to the handicaps which prevented relations from visiting the island. Many people, he said, suffered from sea-sickness, which was a factor keeping many back from going to the island.

The lepers themselves asked that they should be transferred to the mainland, and under proper restrictions he did not see any danger in this being done. The poor people would like to go in for gardening. If proper regulations were made there would be no fear of their running away. The Minister had asked where they could get ground. He would refer the Minister to the recommendations in the report of the last Cape Select Committee. A suitable spot was mentioned in that, and why should these recommendations not be acted upon? Now it was proposed to improve Robben Island. The cost of such improvements would be tremendous and they might just as well take the bull by the horns and transfer the lepers to the mainland and create satisfaction. The expert they had consulted told them there was no danger in such action provided the patients submitted themselves to regular medical inspection. The Government should carry out the resolution of the House. He was in favour of the motion, hoped it would be adopted, and trusted that the Government would take the necessary steps during the recess.

pointed out what had been done in the Transvaal in regard to the segregation of lepers. No matter what it might cost, he urged that similar provision should be made in the Cape. There were several suitable places, if the Government were in earnest and would do their best. He hoped the Minister would give his attention to the matter.

Boshof) referred to the case of a leper in the Free State, who originally had been sent to Pretoria. From Pretoria he was discharged and sent back to the Free State, where he had to live in confinement on his farm. This was with his (the patient’s) consent. But one of the provisions under which the patient was living on his farm was that he had to be medically examined every three months. Each examination cost him £6 6s., with the result that the patient had been obliged to sell up part of his property, and he (the hon. member) urged the Minister to look into the matter. Mr. Van Niekerk went on to urge the necessity of the question of leper settlement being decided once and for ever, as otherwise they would be overwhelmed with petitions year after year. He agreed that Robben Island was not a suitable place, and he emphasised that it should be and was possible to find proper accommodation for the lepers on the mainland. Robben Island, he held, was the most unsuitable spot in the southern hemisphere. The people of South Africa were prepared to pay for the improvement of the lot of these unfortunate people, he concluded, and therefore it was the Government’s duly to see what could be done to ameliorate their lot.

said he was certain that if the lepers remained on Robben Island it was the duty of the Government and the country to make better provision for them. The right hon. the Minister the other day, in referring to the case of Heyns, led the House to believe that this leper instituted proceedings against the Government, and that he was in the custody of the Government at the time. He did not think that that was in conformity with the facts. Heyns was free at the time, and that was different to what the Minister led the House to believe. He thought they could fairly use this argument as one in favour of a separate test being made. If the Government wished to free themselves from any suspicion he thought they should take some action in the matter. The right hon. gentleman also forgot to tell the House that when the Government proposed that an examination should take place—the one which Heyns refused to submit to—it was intended to inoculate him, which was quite different to the test as the result of which Heyns was sent back to the Island. He did not dispute Dr. Bayon’s statement that inoculation was the only test, but the fact remained that Heyns was sent back to the Island as the result of an entirely different test. Whether he was a leper or not, the fact remained that the liberty of the subject was involved, and he thought it was a case which the House should take up.

also urged the unsuitability of Robben Island. He characterised it as a spot fit for criminals only, and by keeping the lepers there they were guilty of shortening their lives. As a civilised people, such a state of affairs should not be tolerated. He held that proper provision could easily be made for the lepers on the mainland. It was the duty of Government to take some action. The Government said they had consulted an expert, who had advised them to improve the conditions on Robben Island, and that it could then be made a suitable place. With all respect for the expert, the speaker submitted that it would be a waste of money to make improvements there which would never give satisfaction. They had found a suitable place for lepers in the Transvaal, and he would accordingly support the motion in the hope that the Government would bring about a real improvement in the condition of the lepers.

feared that the making of improvements on Robben Island would not have the desired effect. He pointed out what had been recommended in 1906 by a Select Committee of which the speaker was a member in regard to Robben Island, but all these improvements notwithstanding, the position to-day was a disgrace to South Africa. The island was quite unsuitable for lepers. He urged the transfer of the lepers to the mainland. Even if the criminal lunatics were removed from the island, the lepers would yet have the impression that they were being banished from the mainland. If anybody was to be removed from the island it should be the lepers. Even if the lepers were on the mainland the spread of infection could be guarded against, and the building of walls and fences on the mainland would cost less than on the island. The circular sent by the Government to members in regard to suggestions for a suitable spot, placed responsibilities on members which should not be placed on them. Inquiries like that should be made by magistrates, he held. Then the Minister had made such extravagant demands. The place required was to be in a retired district supplied with water, whilst the drainage was not to flow in a river or in the sea. There were no such places, but the sewage water could be caught and dealt with in a large tank, and then any place could be used. There was not the least chance, he proceeded, to make the lepers contented on Robben Island, and for that reason they should be transferred to the mainland.

said he thought the feeling of the majority in the House was in favour of the transfer of the lepers to the mainland. The opinions expressed in the report of Dr. Bayon strengthened him in the view that these people ought to be removed to the mainland; all the facts showed that there was no necessity to segregate these lepers on Robben Island, especially in view of the fact that the latest medical opinions were to the effect that the disease was not very infectious. They were proposing to improve the conditions on Robben Island, but he held that the Island was not at all suitable for the purpose. A suitable place could be found on the mainland. As a matter of fact, he had suggested a suitable spot in his own constituency—(hear, hear)—and two other places had since been pointed out. Dr. Bayon had disapproved of one of them, but the others were certainly satisfactory. It was possible to find suitable places in the neighbourhood of Cape Town. He was, however, not in favour of the appointment of a Commission to be appointed to go into the matter, as that would only postpone the matter for another year. The Minister had said that he proposed to make provision on the supplementary Estimates for the improvements of Robben Island. When these Estimates were submitted the House should protest, and that was the occasion when the whole matter should be dealt with. The item on the Estimates would certainly be rejected, and it would be desirable for the Minister to consider his plans in the meantime.

said that from what he understood the hon. member for Caledon to say they would consider what should be done when it came to the Estimates, but he would impress upon the Minister that he should not introduce a feasible non possumus into the subject. He thinks there has been too many Commissions, but there has been only one Commission that did any good, and that sat five years ago. The real drawbacks on Robben Island had been left very much as they were. They had a statement from the medical authorities that the conditions in the Island were not satisfactory. The Minister said that he would endeavour to put them right, but supposing he spent £500,000 in putting these conditions right, would he succeed in doing so? These patients on the Island had many influential friends, who were in sympathy with their removal from the Island. Would it not be better therefore to have an adequate enquiry before the Minister paid the money? A Commission, he believed, would strengthen the Minister’s hands, supposing they recommended the Island as a suitable place. Members of Parliament could not very well act the part as land prokers, and ask farmers whether they would sell land for a leper settlement. It was an impossible suggestion to members of Parliament. They could not get a farm for such a settlement. He quite agreed as to the value of Dr. Bayon’s report, but the value was discounted, because although the doctor might know all about the pathological side of leprosy, he was not quite aware of the feeling in the country. It was perfectly true that he might make an ideal settlement there if he got carte blanche, but he would not please the people. He was very sorry that the right hon. gentleman gave such a positive “No” to the request of hon. members, because he believed if he lived long enough he would regret it. (Hear, hear.)

said he was extremely gratified to see how the matter had been received by all parties in the House. He was somewhat disappointed, however, with the treatment of the subject by the Minister. He would not go into the Heyns case, because he did not know the facts, but he thought the hon. member who had brought up the matter should table a motion dealing with it. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg was concerned, he did not think it was quite the right thing to bring up at the present time, and he thought that the hon. member should rather bring it up at another time, as the Order Paper on Tuesdays was now clearer. The Minister in his statement had said that he appeared to be anxious to do something practical, and the House would no doubt help him. Proceeding, the hon. member referred to the Commission which had been appointed in the Cape Colony to deal with the leprosy question, and the various Select Committees of the old Cape Parliament which had dealt with Robben Island, and said the only result they had got out of the Select Committees was that a Medical Board had been appointed to examine the patients on Robben Island every six months. He had been surprised to hear the Minister say that the matter was of chief importance to the Cape, because leprosy was as rampant in other parts of South Africa as it was in the Cape Province. The Minister in his speech had dealt only with Robben Island, and said it was impossible to find a suitable leper settlement on the mainland, but there were already five leper settlements in South Africa, including Robben Island, one being in Basutoland, and three on the mainland of the Union. A site had been suggested at Hangklip, and he did not think that would interfere with anybody. There was only a whaling station in the neighbourhood. When he visited Robben Island a month ago the children’s ward was out of water except for brackish water, and all the water had to be carried a mile in buckets. He must say that he did not agree with some hon. members that Robben Island was so totally unsuitable, and there were possibilities in the place. They would have some trouble in getting over the inconvenience caused by the glare off the sand, but there was not sufficient room on Robben Island, and it was overcrowded, and unless the lunatics were removed from there all the leper cases brought to the notice of the department could not be dealt with. Dealing with the question of expense, the hon. member said that the total cost came to £100,000 per annum, and surely it would be well to capitalise that sum and make proper places for the segregation of these people. He very much regretted that the Minister had jeered at the Natal Law, which was a good law and sufficient for its purpose. It was perfectly workable as far as one class of lepers were concerned, but it had never been utilised by the Union Government. The hon. member proceeded to read a letter from some one living in the Drakensberg with reference to the spread of that terrible disease. He also read a letter from a person in Weenen addressed to a newspaper, as to a native walking about there suffering from leprosy, who had been employed locally as a stable boy and also in a domestic capacity. He was certain that it would cost more than £2,500 to cope with the disease in Natal. He was going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Woodstock and the rider moved by the hon. member for Boksburg.

was understood to say that if the House did not agree to the proposal on this matter contained in the Estimate he would appoint a Commission.

We will give you anything to-day. (Laughter.)

put the question: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, which was negatived.

The words were accordingly omitted, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Mentz dropped.

The amendment proposed by Dr. MacNeillie to the amendment proposed by Dr. Hewat was agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Dr. Hewat, as amended, was agreed to.

The motion, as amended was agreed to, viz.: That in the opinion of this House, the Government be requested to consider the advisability of appointing a commission without delay to inquire into and report upon the prevalence of leprosy and the present methods of segregating lepers in the Union of South Africa.

said the question of technical education was by no means a new one in that House, but it was of such great importance that it demanded early attention. Technical education, to put it plainly, was practical instruction given to those who had to earn their own living, and it did not include elementary or ordinary education. There were two branches of technical education— higher and lower—and he would not touch the former, for that was dealt with by the universities. What he did wish to deal with was industrial technical education, of which there were two branches—industrial, under which the young were trained during the day—and there were also the evening classes. He wished to point out how little was being done in South Africa to march with the times in this matter. We would have to be up and doing, or we should leave our young people in a bad position —(cheers)—for we could not build up industries here unless the young were given a good, sound, industrial education. We must not forget the close connection there was between national prosperity and a training of the youth of the nation. (Cheers.) When we compared our position with that of other countries, we realised how much behind the times we were in this matter. For instance, every boy between 14 and 17 years of age in Germany was given a technical education. Denmark also set a high value on technical training, and, as a result, it was sending agricultural experts throughout the world, and had increased her dairy exports sixfold. Switzerland and America also believed in the value of technical education. Again, one could not realise the millions of pounds that were spent in England to advance the cause of technical education; but there the scheme was not progressing on the lines that one would like. As to South Africa, there was no reason why technical education should not be made compulsory here. We had made service in the Defence Force compulsory, and we should have to make technical training compulsory. We would have to realise that we had a large population of coloured people and poor whites, and the latter thought it beneath their dignity to do manual work.

Rubbish.

said it might be argued that South Africa was a young country, and could not afford the cost; but it was easier to establish a sound system of technical education here than it was in other countries, which had stereotyped methods in force. While giving credit to the Minister, he had to acknowledge that, in going through the matter, he found that it was very difficult to deal with. They had technical education going on in a haphazard way in nine different centres of the Union to-day.

The hon. member went on to refer to the Conference on Technical, Industrial, and Commercial Education, held in Pretoria in 1911. On that occasion, he said, the Minister gave most weighty reasons in favour of education of this character, but, unfortunately, there it remained. The report of the Conference stated that, in their opinion, it was essential to the welfare of the people of the Union that more attention should be given to practical education in all its branches, and they also stated that, for the purposes of the Conference, industrial trade schools should be referred to as vocational schools. They had to remember that in the early days young people were taught their trade by a system of apprenticeship, but, with the extension of specialisation of labour, the apprenticeship system had become a thing of the past, although there was a system in some countries where they had the technical school combined with apprenticeship in the workshop. He wished to bring this home to the House—and, unfortunately, it was one recommendation made by the Conference which had not yet been carried out —that vocational schools should be directly under the control of the Union Government.

That is not my fault.

said that the next step was the appointment of Professor Snape as special commissioner to visit the various industrial schools in the Union and make a report. Professor Snape knew his subject well. There was one point in the commissioner’s report to which he wished to refer. He strongly urged that technical education could only be properly considered from the point of view of the Union as a whole and in relation to the coming industries of the country. In his (Dr. Hewat’s) opinion, it should be directly under the control of the Minister of Education for the Union, who should have under him a couple of properly-qualified organisers. The next step was the correspondence between the Minister and the various Administrators. The Administrators refused to allow technical education to be taken out of the hands of the various Provincial Administrations without sufficient reason. The Minister gave in to the Administrators, instead of dealing with the subject as a whole. Then, in the Financial Relations Report there was a reference by Sir Perceval Laurence to this question of technical education. He had in his hands the report of the Under-Secretary for Education, dated December 31, 1912, in which the resolutions of the Conference were again referred to. At the first Conference the appointment of an Advisory Board was recommended. The Minister appointed the Advisory Board, a very valuable Board, but what was the earthly reason of an Advisory Board when they had no technical education on a systematised basis going on in South Africa to advise upon? The Board brought out this point, that they considered that technical education should be under the Union. Dr. Hewat went on to quote figures embodied in the report, showing how much more in the way of grants in proportion to the number of pupils, the other centres received as compared with the Cape.

Referring to the position of technical education in the Cape, he said that the School Board were carrying on hoping that the Government would take the matter up, seeing that boys had no means of obtaining technical education. He pointed out that the agricultural course had had to be closed down because they had not sufficient money, and the only place boys could obtain education of this character was at Elsenberg. That was all very well for boys who had money, but he was pleading the cause of the masses who had not the same chance. He also pointed out that the printing class had been closed, and asked whether it was fair that one part of the Union should be left in such a state. They had had deputations to the Provincial Council, and the Provincial Council had said that it would be willing to do what was required if it had the money. It was the rising generation and not those who were interested in technical education who were suffering. Youths could get a training in higher surveying and higher engineering at the S.A. College, but he was dealing with technical education as it affected the masses. They should teach the young men and women of this country that it was no disgrace to be a skilled artisan—in fact, the skilled artisan was the most independent person in this country. He said it was the duty of the Ministry to do away with all this bookish education, and go in for more practical industrial education. Because they did not give their young people opportunities for technical education, they were not able to take a hand in building up industries. He said that before such a matter as this was handed over to the Provincial Councils it should be placed upon a sound footing. If they were to build up industries in this country they must give our rising young facilities for technical education.

said he supported the remarks of the hon. member for Woodstock, but he was sorry that he had taken the line of comparing the amounts given to the various Provinces. The policy ought to be not as to how much Durban was getting, but to see how much more they could give. Continuing, he said that a few minutes back there was such an important matter being discussed that there were more members in the billiard-room than in the House.

Order, order.

Is that out of order, sir?

Yes.

Well, then, I withdraw it. Continuing, he said he supposed hon. members on the other side were resting after washing day—after washing dirty linen.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I am trying to. (Laughter.) I want to know why there are so few hon. members in the House. (Laughter.)

The motion before the House is one dealing with technical education.

Then I will have to move a motion dealing with that matter.

You have a quorum. (Laughter.)

I suppose I must thank God for that quorum. Well, if I am out of order in alluding to this

It belongs to the Provincial Council.

Nothing of the kind.

I suppose you want someone to listen to you. (Laughter.)

I don’t care whether anybody listens to me or not, but this is a matter of public importance. I will probably get as much sympathy from empty benches as I would from full benches.

Continuing, the hon. member said that if there was any truth in the assertion that war between the nations would soon be in the nature of competition, commercially and industrially, then, surely, the time was come when they should make ready for that war? They had in this country nearly all the makings of a great industrial country. They had coal and iron, and it was said that the country that had coal and iron to-day would have gold to-morrow. The mere fact that they had coal in unlimited quantities and iron, possibly, also in unlimited quantities, meant that they could make this a great industrial country. But would they have the men to do it? How was that special skill that was required, to be imparted to their boys? First of all by sound industrial training, and the best means of giving it them was to give them some sort of technical education in workshops. In Germany, America, and England they were greatly advanced in regard to technical education and possessed highly skilled workers; yet they were not satisfied. They were still advancing. Well, if countries like that found it necessary to go in for an even advanced form of technical education, how necessary was it for us to go in for something of the kind? The skill of the workers of Lancashire was acknowledged to be the highest the world over. Why was it that America, with all its wealth and industrial skill, continued to send shiploads of cotton every year to England to be manufactured?

Because of the climate.

The right hon. gentleman’s knowledge is colossal, and he is right again. But it is only half the truth. In addition to climate, it is because the skill possessed by the workers of England—the product of generations of manufacturers—is unrivalled. Continuing, the hon. member said he did not so much believe in Government institutions as in private technical institutions. He thought the best and wisest course was to try and get the people who lived in the different centres to take an interest in these institutions. It was the business men of Durban who were running the technical institute there. Twenty years ago a number of private citizens got together in Johannesburg and started what was now the School of Mines and Technology, the largest and best equipped institution of its kind in South Africa. If they could only have some policy for encouraging that class of men by giving them assistance, to devote their spare time and energy to developing these institutions, it would be infinitely better than any State aid that could be devised. They had amongst their boys as good raw material as they could get anywhere in the world. Take the walks of life in this country where men had had a chance. Take the bench, the bar, the platform, and the pulpit. They had men there now who would shine anywhere in the world. Well, let them do the same in regard to the industries. There were certain grave defects in the characters of South African boys. He did not mean moral characters. In order to be efficient one had to be many things. One had to be receptive and one had to be strenuous.

And docile.

Yes, docile—and willing. Continuing, the hon. member said that discontented people took discontent everywhere they went, they even brought discontent into Parliament. But the boys here required more discipline as well as training, and if they got discipline they would get training at the same time. There was no royal road to success, it had got to be a slow steady plod, and any progress made would be of the same character, if it was worth having. But the boys were indifferent, they did not care whether they worked or not. That was not because they were lazy but they did not know what competition for existence was elsewhere. This country had made things too easy for them, and that was going to be a curse if they did not watch it. Despite the arguments of the Labour members it was the willing workers who succeeded and who pushed on. (A Labour Member: Or was pushed down.) That was where they differed. Proceeding, he said they need not hang their heads even when they were compared with the United States. In no less than eight of the United States of America from 95,000 to 175,000 children over ten years of age could not read or write. He was not saying that to justify any slackness or indifference here, but rather to encourage the people of this country to go on. He believed the hon. Minister of Education meant well, although, as he told them before, he was not an expert. He didn’t think he was an expert, but those who wanted to be experts soon would be. He (Mr. Quinn) was with the hon. Minister while ever he went on sound lines in that matter. The hon. member went on to say that he had been an employer for twenty years and had had bitter experiences, that they did not arise out of stupidity of the boys but owing to their lack of willingness and docility. He could not understand parents being satisfied to see young men coming from other countries and taking up positions which their sons were not capable of taking. There should be discrimination in what they should take up. He was extremely keen that the boys should be put on the right lines from the very start; he did not propose anything definitely, but hoped that the hon. Minister would devise some means of pushing on these local institutions.

said he did not know when he had listened with greater pleasure to two speeches than those that had just been delivered. One was very interesting and the other was a speech of a practical man who knew what was wanted. They must not rely on theory in those matters. The hon. member said a very wise thing, particularly with regard to the functions of Government in the matter. Vocational education, or, as it was called, technical education, training a man for a particular calling, when carried out by Government, necessarily could not be so efficient as when it was done by private people. Governments, of course, were bound down by certain laws, otherwise they would run riot. They were subject to the auditor, and they had no elasticity. They could not have any, and if they could they in that House would be the first people to turn round upon them. It was hopeless to expect any real advantage in that matter unless the people took it up themselves and took an interest in it. His hon. friend had properly alluded to the institution at Durban, which was a modern institution, doing good work. That was because it began from very small lines as the consequence of the interest taken in it by individuals in Durban; by one or two people who made it an object to aim at. Then the Government came along and helped it when it was an assured success. The Government could do nothing better. He did not know whether his hon. friend had read the evidence taken by the Select Committee which sat in the old Cape House of Assembly in 1906 upon that very question. It took the evidence of men who were thoroughly competent to speak, including the evidence of the Superintendent of the Industrial School at Uitenhage, an institution which began in the most humble way, and the boys that were turned out were doing well. They were not altogether neglectful of that matter. In the case of the De Beers Company, they had something like 400 apprentices, whom they encouraged and took into the shop. They did the very best for the apprentices, who turned out useful men; but the difficulty was to get people to go as apprentices, to bind themselves down to that discipline which was so necessary. That was why they were obliged to import all kinds of people into this country. They had evidence in that excellent institution, the Mining School—not the School of Mines, that was for those in the higher walks—which taught people to become miners. The great difficulty was to get them to stay and finish their course. The moment they found they could drive a drill straight, they wanted to get out and get high wages. The difficulty was, those people did not stay long enough. There was undoubtedly a lack of discipline and push in this country. As long as a man could get high wages, he did not want to become competent.

It was a very funny thing that every country in the world, including Germany and America, could not get along without the produce of the English workman. They put high tariffs to keep him out of the market, and yet they could not shut him out. (Hear, hear.) They could not get along without the English workman any more than we could without Germans and Americans. This was mostly due to the matter of climate. In England they could not sit down under a wall and eat a bunch of grapes. (Laughter.) They had got to work, and it was the same all over the world. If they wanted a good gun, or a good boot, or a good suit of clothes, they went to England for it. They heard them talk about Germany, but did they find Germans at the top of the tree all over the world in great contracts? No. He would recommend his hon. friends to go to the reading-room and get a book by a Mr. Shadwell upon “Industrial Efficiency.” Mr. Shadwell took three countries—England, America, and Germany—and compared the workingmen in each of these. His conclusions could be summed up in a few words. He finds that the Americans get along because they possess hustle. In Germany the workmen possess the quality of doggedness, and in England they possess the quality of energy. These were three qualities which they were sadly in want of in South Africa —energy, doggedness, and hustle. These three qualities they would find better than the mere passing of school standards, and there were no text-books to teach these qualities. (Hear, hear.) But, as his hon. friend said rightly, they must be the gradual growth of the people of the country. In Ireland they had seen several useful examples within a very short time. One was that of Sir Horace Plunkett. True, the Government assisted the movement; but it was carried on by individuals, who took an interest in it. He did not know a more useful book for South Africans, because for a long time their one great industry, apart from the mines, must be agricultural. Surely their young people should take an interest in processes by which they could get the best and most out of the soil, for they all knew that they did not get the most out of the soil to-day—(hear, hear)—but everybody should take and read the reports of the Recess Committee upon agriculture in Ireland. Proceeding, the hon. member said that in this country we had a huge organisation, that had done enormous good. At the present moment it was so brimful of energy that it was diverting it into other channels. He referred to the Dutch Reformed Church, which had done more for education than any other institution. People turned round and said that this Church dominated education, but it must be recollected that they took it in hand first. They also devoted a great deal of attention to technical education. “If you want to do anything for this country, you must work through the institutions you have got,” continued the right hon. gentleman. Take the institution at Uitenhage. The Dutch Reformed Church put a very large amount of money into it, although, perhaps, the local people did not put much money into it. Unless people took these institutions in hand, they were never going to make a success. What he hoped the Government would do would be to assist these institutions. Take Knysna, for instance. There they had a field for technical work, and they could not have a better. Try and get technical schools started there for woodwork, because there they had the people and the wood, but they must try and get people interested in it, and they must assist the people. Don’t let the Minister try and do it all himself. He would confer the greatest benefit on this country if he enlisted the sympathy of private people, so that they could start assisted by the Government, but not wholly assisted by the Government. Speaking of this technical education, he ought to point out the method they pursued in Denmark. Denmark was one of the poorest countries in the world. It had a much poorer soil than Great Britain. It had no mines or manufactures, but it had now become one of the richest countries. The Danes attributed their success not to technical education, but to general education, which was conducted, however, on different lines from those in this country. The Danes thought if they could once arouse the thinking powers of a man, that would enable him to learn things much easier, and they set to work to try and make their young men thinking men, and they tried to turn these thinking powers to various uses, but of course they had those three qualities that he mentioned before—hustle, doggedness, energy. If they could awaken the imagination of the worker they were doing a very great thing. What he dreaded was a departmental system of technical education, and he gathered from the report of the Superintendent of Education that he dreaded this also. Because these technical schools must have a commercial side, and if they had a commercial side in connection with the Government, then they would get into a mess. (Hear, hear.) They had most valuable information to go upon now, but they could do nothing unless they awakened the interest of the people.

said he thought the House was indebted to the hon. member for Woodstock for bringing forward this motion, and the Government also welcomed the discussion which had taken place, but perhaps it was one of the disadvantages of the Act of Union, that there were so few opportunities of discussing matters of this kind. He was afraid that discussions of this sort could only be largely academical, because the Act of Union provided that the education—other than higher education—for a period of five years was left in the hands of the Provincial Councils. That being the case, whatever their sentiments might be, practically at the present time they could not take any steps.

Continuing, the Minister said that such a discussion was valuable, because it would tend to educate public opinion, and it was a very important matter indeed. They must not forget that vocational education, as they understood it to-day, was a plant of comparatively recent growth. The hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) had quite rightly pointed out, that it was on account of specialisation in industrial undertakings, and specialised forms of machinery, that the apprenticeship system had become absolutely unnecessary. They found, undoubtedly, that a large number of employers had a certain amount of prejudice against a man who had been to a trade school, and in the evidence which that Advisory Board had it was found to be the experience of other countries, too, that employers did not favour, or give special facilities to, young men who had been to these schools. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Quinn) had pointed out that session that in the new railway regulations, where a man had been to a trade school, a vocational school, or a technical continuation school, he had to sign on for a certain number of years’ apprenticeship, as if he had not been to these schools; and no special provision was made. That matter had been brought to the notice of the Advisory Board, and they were dealing with it. They would never succeed in making vocational schools a success in that country unless they got their employers to recognise that some allowance should be made. They would be encouraging young men to go to trade schools if some allowance were made to them because they had been there, and if they could begin, say, with the third year, and get paid for the third year, if they had been to such schools. The time would come when they would be able to go further, for that was the ideal they should strive after. He recognised the value of such a discussion, but as far as practical efforts were concerned, he was afraid that they were confined, by the Act of Union, only to take an advisory part. One of the difficulties that was also standing in the way was that it had been found that the general standard of education of those who went to those schools was very low. To get the real advantage of a vocational school of that kind the boy or girl must at least have passed the Fifth Standard, but in their country from 82 to 85 per cent. of the children left school at the Fourth Standard, and their compulsory system of education in that country, with the exception of a little bit in the Free State, was confined to the Fourth Standard. It was comparatively a small percentage of their children who would derive benefit from trade schools, because those who went beyond the Fourth Standard generally found employment more remunerative than an ordinary mechanic. They would find that their trade schools were successful in the larger centres of population, such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban. In Johannesburg they conducted their technical evening classes on their own lines and they were in touch with the industries, and the classes were increasing by leaps and bounds. If there was one thing that was true about all those undertakings and vocational education more particularly, it was, as the right hon. member for Victoria West had said, that they must have the local people interested. A trade school had been opened at Bloemfontein in connection with the Railway Department, but had not proved to be a success. Then the local people had taken it up, and it had proved a success. The same kind of thing had happened in Cape Town. Organisation was needed, and he believed that the State could do a great deal to provide that organisation and the machinery for it. One difficulty that stood in the way of development, on a grand scale, of technical education was the want of suitable teachers. It was also a matter for which they must take time and keep plodding on. There was one practical step he thought the Union ought to take on itself to carry out, and that was one of the recommendations of the Advisory Board. The twentieth resolution stated that in order to make the working of the Board effective, and establish and maintain uniformity, and coordinate technical work throughout the Union so far as it was practical and desirable, the Board strongly recommended the appointment of a technical adviser for the Union. He thought that a man should do the class of work such as the right hon. member for Victoria West had indicated, and that could be done by a man who had his heart in it, and the necessary training and technical knowledge at the same time. Such a man could go round and interest people in matters of that kind, and show what had been, and what could be, done. There was a wide field in the Union for a first-class man of that kind. In the Transvaal they had a man of that kind, but his activities were confined to that Province. Such a man would have no executive power with regard to the Provincial administration, but would be an officer of the Advisory Board. It was a responsibility that the Union particularly should take up, and if they left it to the Provinces they might not be able to get a high-class man. He appreciated the services rendered by the hon. member for Woodstock in this matter and the active interest he had always taken in the subject. (Cheers.) He hoped the hon. member would soon see his labours bear fruit in the establishment of a really good institution in Cape Town.

said they would have liked something a little more practical. At the beginning of the session the Provincial Councils were good enough to send a recommendation to Parliament asking it to do something on their behalf. Was it not possible to ask the Provincial Councils to do something in this matter? That would not be beneath the dignity of Parliament. Parliament should give an indication to the Provinces, especially to the Cape, that it might very well use, for the purposes of imparting technical education, the scholastic institutions already in existence. In small centres local authorities were apt to quarrel because of a lack of something to do, but if the School Boards in all the villages of the Cape could be induced to take up the work in a humble way, as suggested by the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) a very useful start would be made. We did not want big institutions, costing thousands and thousands of pounds, which were beyond our means. (Cheers.) There was a large field open for workers in this particular direction. People travelling down to Cape Town by rail noticed young ragamuffins loitering about the railway stations and begging for coppers. The School Board should get hold of these children, and provide evening classes for their benefit. But if one talked about matters of that kind to the School Board, they said they had no power. Then let the Provincial Councils enlarge their powers. (Hear, hear.) If arts and crafts institutions were fostered by School Boards they would be doing something useful. It was very nice for the Minister to talk about a technical adviser, but that would only be raising another bureaucratic institution. Let us make a beginning by using the institutions already in existence, and he (Sir Bisset) had great faith in the School Boards. (Hear, hear.) They were the bodies which in the Cape ought to be stirred up to take action in this matter, no matter how humble. Do not let us despise the days of small things. Proceeding, Sir Bisset referred to the good work done in Denmark, on behalf of technical education, by Grundtvig, who made a beginning about 70 years ago in quite a small way. We were, went on Sir Bisset, too apt to run away with the idea that the whole of the Union was situated like Cape Town was, but that was a profound mistake. We had small villages dotted about the country, and it was there that small beginnings should be made, for there the people lived who were waiting for opportunities to obtain technical instruction. He moved as an amendment the addition of the following: “And with the collaboration of Provincial Councils, School Boards and allied bodies.”

seconded the amendment.

hoped the amendment would not be pressed, because it was not fitting that Parliament Should pass a resolution directing the attention of Provincial Councils to their duty. He agreed that this was essentially a local matter, and that it should not be brought under the central Government. Rather it should be left to the Provincial administrations. (Hear, hear.) In England the work was left to the County Councils. Seeing that elementary education was already in the hands of the Provincial Councils, technical instruction should also be left to them, especially seeing that the youngsters who attended technical classes were frequently without sufficient elementary education to enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities offered. The Salt River Institute was a most useful institution, but it was hampered by want of money.

It is doing excellent work.

said the School Boards should be given further assistance to deal with this subject. The Salt River Institute and the Technical School at the South African College could easily be extended. Then evening schools and continuation and technical classes should be organised in the Peninsula in the scholastic buildings already in existence. The Cape Administrator would have a surplus of £60,000. Why could not half of that be used for technical instruction? Why could not the Provinces tax themselves for this purpose? He would strongly urge that the matter should be left entirely to the local people.

Hear, hear.

criticised the educational system. He said that the two best educated countries in the world were admitted to be Switzerland and Japan, and in those countries no child was allowed to enter school under the age of seven years. The reason given was that the average child was not able to bear the strain of systematic education before that age. Here youths went to work at too early an age, and they would be wise if they made education compulsory up to the age of 16 years. If they did so they would find that unfair competition would be materially decreased. He considered that their raw material was as good as the raw material of any other country. Dealing with the system, he considered they should start with their teachers, who had large classes and received small salaries. Let them begin with the teachers, and they would get good results. They should remunerate their teachers well, and better results would be attained. Referring to Shadwell, he said that when he quoted him a couple of weeks ago the right hon. member for Victoria West smiled, but that afternoon he had quoted Shadwell himself. He went on to show that the systems of technical education in other countries had been started by private people and he thought that the rich men of this country should put their hands in their pockets and initiate such a scheme. He would not throw cold water on any effort that had a good aim, but continuation schools, he considered, could only be a success to a limited extent. He related some of his own experiences in Durban, and said that continuation schools would only be successful if they made their elementary education sound first.

He admitted that there was a dearth of teachers, but there might be gentlemen in Cape Town who were willing to do as they did in Queensland. These men said they were willing to give so many hours a week, and they made a start, with the very best possible result. He trusted that they would not begin pretending to pay people unless they paid them something worth having.

What did they find in regard to these technical classes? Each morning he saw hundreds of young girls coming into school with their Pitman Shorthand Instructor and notebooks, and they came in for one, nine, and 15 months to learn shorthand, a very good thing, a very excellent thing, but left to private enterprise. There was no Government inspection, and he made bold to say that if there were thorough inspection at some of these institutions, which were mere trade advertisements and making a lot of money, they would find the young people exploited. Given a fair English education up to the Sixth or Seventh Standard, young people who could not master shorthand in six months should go somewhere else to learn to dress dolls or something of that kind. For the protection of young people, no institution of any kind should be opened unless under Government inspection. He would suggest to the Prime Minister that some of the more intelligent boys in the Government schools should be taken, as a reward for good behaviour, round the Government workshops, or they should be allowed to wander through of their own accord. Then a taste would spring up, and once they had created a taste in a boy or girl half the battle was won. Not only should the young people be sufficiently educated, but it should be seen to that they worked under the best of conditions.

said that there was one practical matter in which the Government could be of some assistance in connection with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If the Minister made inquiries he would find that recently there had been a great development in the engineering and survey branches, which required practical training. There was a large number of men in the technical branches of the service who held no technical qualification, and, on the other hand, there was a large number of men in the lower walks who held technical qualifications, but, for some reason or other, which he had not been able to ascertain, there seemed to be a want of system by which these men who had the qualifications could be drafted into the technical branches. He submitted that these posts in the technical branches should be thrown open to all the men who were prepared to compete for them. He was informed that one-third of the staff in the engineering department had no technical qualifications. The Government were taking matriculated students into the Service, and they were being brought in with the idea that they were going to get those posts.

It being five minutes to six o’clock p.m.,

stated that in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th March, he would now adjourn the debate.

in moving the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Bill, said that amongst the many important Bills which had been discussed in that House that one was certainly not the least important. It was universally admitted that those who were in a country had the right to the selection of those entering that country. In the legislation of all countries where they dealt with that matter there were certain principles which seemed to be admitted all round. With regard to these principles, there was no need to say very much. It was admitted that Governments had the right to exclude from the country, and to prevent entry, of persons who were either mentally, morally, or physically unfit, and on account of their unfitness not able to be of use to the country but likely to be a trouble and a charge. Over and above that there were also other classes for persons with whom it was frequently necessary to deal, not in all countries, for the requirements and necessities of every country were not the same, but in countries where they had not a large population they had to be very careful, and although they may desire to have numbers, they must exercise great care with regard to the people who were allowed to enter. This country was an instance of that kind, and they had to see that those they did import did not complicate the questions which already existed in their midst. It was undoubtedly a fact that in dealing with matters in South Africa they could not afford that liberality which perhaps would mean no danger to other countries. Here they had complications in dealing with native populations much in excess of the European population. These complications had arisen through the coloured races already in their midst, and therefore they had to be specially careful what they did with regard to those who were of another civilisation and not well fitted to promote the interests of this country as those of the dominant civilisation. They therefore thought that the time had come to lay down some distinct principles on which to act, and to notify those principles.

Where is that right put in?

If that was the only question the hon. member had, I would answer it, but I see that he has been making voluminous notes, and I will answer all his questions together when the time comes. Continuing, the hon. Minister said that the Immigration Officer and the Appeal Board would have the carrying out of the policy of Parliament, and they would not have a judge to decide the policy. Was it necessary, some hon. members might say, to make that exception? There had been a tendency in the Courts to decide, not only what was the meaning of the law, but what was the policy of the Government. In the English Immigration Law, the appeal is to a Board, and from the Board to the Minister, but not to the Court. In Canada it was recognised that the Courts should be expressly excluded. It had been agreed that six educated Indians should be allowed in to the Transvaal every year, and, under Union, it was contemplated to extend the same privilege; but, as it would cover the whole Union, and not only the Transvaal, that number would be increased to the level of twelve—it might be a couple less or a few more, according to requirements. Proceeding, the Minister said that the proposal had been made to increase that number to fifty, but that had been refused, as had any extension of the privileges already possessed by the Indians. The next matter that required attention, and was a matter of difficulty, was the inter-provincial movements of the Indians who were already in South Africa. As far as practicable, it was the intention of the Government, by their regulations, not to interfere with the rights that had been given, more than was absolutely necessary for administrative purposes.

The Bill does so, very much indeed.

said that that was a matter of opinion. He went on to say that, if they remembered the different circumstances and the different conditions existing in the country, they saw at once the impossibility and the unfairness to those in one part of the Union to grant rights to others who had never had those rights before, and it would be unfairness to the white men in one part if the entry of these Indians was permitted where they had never had the right of entry before. The matter was a very complicated one, if they remembered how the different Colonies had treated the matter. In Natal they had, first of all, had a huge immigration, and they (the Indians) had got in principally as labourers for the sugar and other plantations, and the idea was that they should work in Natal, and at the expiration of their contract should either continue to work there, or leave the country, and be taxed so as to force them out of the country after they had done their work; but the class that had come in under that was not the same class that had entered in other Colonies, and to grant free entry for the other Provinces would be manifestly unfair both to the white and coloured people of the other Provinces, and therefore provision had been made to prevent that. There had also been some that came in who were known as Arab traders, but it was not their policy in Natal to keep them in, and their policy had since been, by licences or otherwise, to reduce that number as far as possible. In the Orange Free State they had shown from the start what was good for the country—and it was not the first time that the Orange Free State had shown South Africa what should be done—and that Bill was going to preserve their rights. Therefore, although there were difficulties raised as to what should or should not be allowed, with the exception of educated Indians who would be allowed in in small numbers, the law would practically remain as it was at present. The correct number of Indians, the Minister was understood to say, in the whole of the Orange Free State was slightly over 100, and he was informed that about 90 per cent. were waiters in the hotels, so, that there was practically no need to protect their interests by admitting educated Indians. Another point in connection with the entry of Indians, and one he believed that objection was made to, but which he considered was purely administrative, was that if they were to deal satisfactorily with that question they must avoid the mistakes they had made in the past owing to the defective legislation they had had. They wanted to make sure that those whom they wanted to keep out were really kept out by the law. It was well known to those who had to administer the law that a man who was prevented from landing in Cape Town, or any other port of the Union, sometimes landed at Delagoa Bay, went up a distance by train, and then entered the Union that way. Under the Bill, there would be different ports of entry, and the immigrant could only come in through those ports. The Minister was understood to say that there was no intention to interfere with the registration certificate in the Transvaal. The Cape law had introduced a very wholesome provision that when Indians wanted to go outside the country, permits should be given them, which to them would be proof that they were entitled to return to the country. Identification certificates would be issued for the same purpose, and anyone without such a certificate who remained out of South Africa for three years and then returned here, must obtain admission in the same way as a fresh arrival. Objection had been raised to this, but it was a matter of international law, that a person who remained away from his country for a certain period was deemed to have shown an intention to leave it altogether, the presumption being that he did not intend to return.

said he thought it was perhaps a little unfortunate that a Bill of that great importance should have to be introduced to a jaded House, but he could forgive the right hon. Minister for having done so, because he was quite aware that they on that side of the House had, not without reason, sometimes complained of the alterations on the order paper without due warning being given. The hon. Minister had correctly said that that was a complicated measure, and had referred to the correspondence which passed between South Africa and the Imperial Government on the subject. That correspondence was of great interest. The Prime Minister had promised the Imperial Government last year that he would bring in that Bill as soon as possible this session. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not quite know why, although the session began on the 24th of January, they had seen nothing of the Bill, or at any rate had had no explanation as to its introduction until the last day of April. He was quite aware that the Government had indicated to the Imperial Government their great anxiety to put forward that matter, he found that they even considered holding last year an extra special session for the purpose of passing the measure. Imagine the Prime Minister trooping down for the special session accompanied by the hon. members for Ladybrand, Ficksburg, and Smithfield, a trusty bodyguard, all anxious to pass the Bill to which they had taken such strong exception last year. It was quite refreshing. He found on what he thought was first-rate authority, that the impression that had been given in London was that the failure of the Government to pass a Bill of this kind last year was due to the action of hon. members on that side of the House. Now everybody knew it was beyond all possible dispute that the real opposition to the Bill came from hon. members on the other side of the House. (Opposition cheers and Ministerial dissent.)

The hon. member for Ficksburg.

said he would leave hon. members to form their own opinion. There was no doubt, as the right hon. gentleman had explained, that the whole question had developed in different ways in the different Provinces, and he must say that he did not think it would be an improvement to consolidate the whole of the immigration laws affecting every Province in the Union. In the last few days they had seen an account of the difficulties which the United States Government had been experiencing in regard to the admission of Japanese into California. If a Government such as the United States, with a vast population behind it, thought it necessary to deal very carefully in a case which arose in connection with the subjects of a foreign Power, surely we as members of an Empire were bound to do what we could to respect the rights and privileges of fellow-subjects of the Empire. (Hear, hear.)

They on that side were as anxious as any one on the other side could be to get a fair and lasting settlement of this difficult question. If there were faults in the Bill they were quite prepared to take a lenient view of its defects and reconcile themselves to acquiescing in legislation, which in itself would not appeal to them, if they could get a permanent settlement of the Indian and Asiatic immigration question. The Bill of last year might, he thought, have passed if the Government had exercised their powers and pushed the Bill through. He thought the Government were themselves very much to blame for any difficulty they might have in obtaining a solution of this important question. To his mind, the Prime Minister would have been well advised if, during the interval which had elapsed since last session, he could have spared time to make a clear statement of policy upon this important question. It was unfortunate that there should be so much suspicion in the minds of the Indians in the Transvaal. He thought we were all agreed that anything like unrestricted immigration into the Union of Asiatics whether British subjects or not, was a thing which the Union would not for one moment tolerate. We had our own problem of the natives to cope with. He must say, however, that the Indian statesman who recently visited this country, Mr. Gokhale, made a very favourable impression on his mind. He was prepared both to help this country and the Imperial authorities to get a satisfactory solution of this question. At a great meeting in Bombay recently he was reported to have said: “Stand out for the open door and you will get nothing, while your compatriots will be squeezed out of South Africa. Accept the principle of restricted immigration and the lot of the South African Indians will be steadily improved.” Surely that was sound common-sense? There might be other expressions in the speech, but it must be remembered that Mr. Gokhale had to maintain his authority among his own people. Had not hon. members on the other side been actuated by the anxiety to play up to their own people occasionally? (Hear, hear.) We on our side had got obligations, we were bound, he thought, to show these people absolutely scrupulous fairplay. There could be no doubt as to the importance of conciliating opinion in India and making it impossible for them to think that anywhere in the British Empire they were treated with unfairness. Then there were local considerations. His mind went back to the period in the Transvaal before the war. Many people at that time made it a grievance that the Indian subjects of the Queen were not fairly treated. There was an obligation upon those who said that, to see to it that these people should not say that they were worse treated under the Union Government than they were in the Transvaal before the war. There was also the fact that a large number of them who were in South Africa to-day and especially in Natal were brought into this country by the white people for the benefit and particular advantage of the white people. These people had secured legal rights and a legal status and he thought they were bound to respect the rights obtained. He saw that the Imperial Government said that generally speaking they approved of the Bill. He thought it would have been material to the discussion if they had known exactly what the points were which, presumably, the Imperial Government did not consider satisfactory, and it was a pity that those points had not been made plain, or, if they had been made plain, that they had not been placed on the Table. He believed that Mr. Gokhale had stated that if once a settlement was made of this question, then the difficulties in the other questions would be very much reduced. There would be a feeling that the country was taking a better view of the position of the Indian community. Then he came to the Bill itself. The chief difficulty of the whole question seemed to him to have arisen in the Transvaal. There had not been very great difficulty in Natal and the Cape Colony.

Under the Immigration Law which was at present in force in the Cape Province the Indians had decreased, and that went to show that a reasonable Act, coupled with a reasonable administration, would go a long way towards solving the problem. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the hon. member stated that while the Transvaal was a Crown Colony, the Legislative Council passed a law specifically dealing with the Indians in the Transvaal. That Act was disallowed by the Imperial Government, not so much perhaps on account of any objectionable clauses, but because they were on the eve of responsible government. When the right hon. gentleman became Prime Minister of the Transvaal he passed an Act which was identical to the one which was disallowed when the Transvaal was a Crown Colony. He did not know why the Imperial Government did not raise any objection to that Act. Perhaps it was because at that time the Imperial Government was very well disposed to his right hon. friend. They were then mutually useful to each other. Nobody knew better than the hon. Minister of Finance that there were difficulties in the solution of which the Transvaal Government did their best. A basis of settlement was arrived at which included the repeal of Law 2 of 1907, and the removal of the differential clauses against which the Imperial Government did not protest, and it was proposed again to limit the number of people by regulation. This was a settlement which this Bill was trying to carry out. They were entitled to ask themselves when they were presented with such a Bill as this, whether in order to get a, settlement of the kind indicated, they were justified in placing upon the Statute Book a Bill which gave entirely autocratic powers to the Government of the day for the purpose of getting this settlement. He made no secret of the fact that it was impossible for him to accept some of the clauses of the Bill in their present form because they seemed to him to interfere with the liberty of the subject. Last year objection was raised to the Bill on the grounds that there were no Appeal Boards. The Minister admitted the argument, because there were Boards of Appeal in the Act, but what he gave with one hand he took away with the other. Let the Minister refer to the clause which read: “No Court of law in the Union shall, except upon a question of domicile in the Union or in any Province, have any jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, interdict, or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, act, order, or warrant of the Minister, or Board, or immigration officer, or a master, if such proceeding, act, order, or warrant purports to be had, done, or issued under this Act, and relates to the restriction or detention, to the removal from the Union or any Province, of a person who is being dealt with as a prohibited immigrant.” Surely there was no country in the world that had such conditions.

Further, the onus of proving that a person, who was arrested without a warrant by an immigration, or a police officer as a prohibited immigrant, was not a prohibited immigrant, was on that person himself, and he must say that it seemed to him that these were very sweeping powers. (Hear, hear.) And they had been told that this year the Government thought that the Australian test, which appeared in the Bill last year, and which had been suggested to the Minister by the Imperial Government, as appeared from the correspondence, should no longer be employed. There was no doubt that the form employed in the Immigration Bill last year, by which the Immigration Officer could ask an immigrant to write to dictation in any language, was far more sweeping than any provisions which existed in the existing laws of South Africa or the Australian laws. Now the Government had fallen back on the Canadian system, and he found that the clause on which the right hon. gentleman relied was that which provided that the Governor-in-Council might, by Proclamation of order, prohibit the landing in Canada of any specified class of immigrant, of which due notice should have been given to the transportation company. That, however, was not done in the present Bill. The Minister issued instructions to the Immigration Officers and the Board, which were not published, and were not under Proclamation. They were secret instructions. He saw the Government’s difficulty, and that what they wanted to avoid was the naming of Asiatics publicly. He was not underestimating the difficulties, but only pointed out the results. If there was any appeal from the decision of the Board, there would be nothing objectionable in that, but the Bill took away the right of appeal to the Courts of the land, except in one particular case, which was that of domicile, which, as everyone knew, was the most difficult subject of the question. It was true that up to a point the Canadian Act did limit the jurisdiction of the Court, but from the section in the Canadian Act (which the hon. member quoted), it was perfectly obvious that it did give the right of appeal, otherwise there would be no force in the section he had read. It did not seem to him that the Canadian precedent, although convenient, altogether covered the case. When they looked at that matter from the point of view of the immigration of desirable Europeans in that country, they were bound to ask, what would happen under a clause like that? Far be it from him to say that the Government would administer that section in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. But what protection was there? The right hon. Minister might ask, what protection was there in Canada? He replied that the whole policy in Canada was to encourage immigration by every means in its power, irrespective of politics—(hear, hear)—but supposing that they in South Africa had a Government at a future time which said that they were not in favour of having any more immigration in the country, supposing they had a Government of that kind—he was not alluding to the present Government—what protection was there? They had to look very carefully at these clauses before they could say that they approved of them. It was true that the Bill provided certain exemptions, and section 5 exempted any person who was domiciled in any Province, and there was an appeal to the Higher Court on the question of domicile, which he thought was quite fair. But what protection was there—he saw none— for the European who could not prove that he was domiciled here? The Minister might say that he deemed a European to be unsuitable for residence in the Union, who thereby became a prohibited immigrant. The Minister had indicated that that procedure could only be used in the case of Asiatics, and in the case of Europeans only the sub-section with regard to the dictation test would be used. They accepted the Government’s statement, but who knew what might happen in future, and what their successors might do? He did not think it was in any way satisfactory. Then there was the clause which laid down that a man who had been domiciled and resident in South Africa, and went away for three years, ceased to preserve his domicile if the Minister chose to apply clause (a), section 4, to him. He became a “prohibited immigrant,” and had to start de novo, so to speak, in regard to his rights to come into the country. Surely, that was not satisfactory? They were bound to consider what might be the effect of that. At the present time there were, he thought, reasons to believe that there were a considerable number of cases in which injustice was done.

Here was a case which had been brought to his notice. A man—a waiter by trade— had worked his passage from the Argentine, and he was prohibited from landing, but after a protest he was allowed to land. This man had £20 in his possession, and although he was at once promised work, he was refused permission to land because it was said that although he was a waiter he had worked on board as a cattleman, and further that there was no demand here for waiters. That happened under the present very moderate Cape law. If immigration officials came to the conclusion, possibly erroneously, that it was the wish of the Government that immigration should be checked and that the law should be carried out strictly, there would be no appeal. Was the mere fact of a provision like this being in the Bill likely to encourage immigration to South Africa? (Opposition cheers.) Were shipping companies likely to give facilities to immigrants when they might be saddled with the cost of taking them back again? There was no permanent machinery provided by which people in England could satisfy themselves whether on arrival here they would be deemed suitable immigrants. It seemed to him that we were running very great risks, because, after all, all the Government had to do was to place on the Table of the House a list of the people who had been made prohibited immigrants during the preceding twelve months. How did it help a man who had been the victim of injustice to know ten or eleven months after he had been sent back to his own country that his name was on that list? That could not be considered satisfactory. In New Zealand, where the right of appeal was to some extent limited, the Chinese were especially mentioned by name whether they were British subjects or not. That simplified the position. It seemed to him that the clauses in the Bill to which he had referred were undesirable, and that hon. members would not think of accepting them if they were not asked to do so in order to obtain a settlement of the Asiatic question. That was the sole justification for clauses which limited the liberty of the subject. (Hear, hear.) The question was if, for the sake of argument, the House accepted these clauses, was it going to get a settlement?

It appeared to him that the Government had missed an opportunity. South Africa had been visited by Mr. Gokhale, whose standing was beyond reproach. Would it not have been better if the Government had been ready with a statement to show that a person of the standing of Mr. Gokhale was satisfied with the Bill? Would it not be possible to get from him an explicit assurance that he would recommend the Bill? If that had been done they could have disregarded to a very considerable extent the complaints put forward by Asiatics resident in this country. He (Mr. Chaplin) believed he was expressing the opinion of a good many people on that side of the House when he said that they were not necessarily recommending that everything asked for by the Indian population should be granted, but they were anxious to get a fair settlement of the whole matter. (Hear, hear.) If the Opposition had an informal assurance from a gentleman of Mr. Gokhale’s position, or a more explicit assurance from the Imperial Government, that would weigh very heavily with them. But they had nothing of that kind. If the Government had anything of that sort in its possession, it was its duty to produce it. There were complaints from Indians in South Africa against the Bill. He had inferred from what the Minister had said that the right hon. gentleman had found that these complaints were not worthy of attention, that they could ignore them, and that if they accepted the Bill they would get a settlement which the reasonable members of the Asiatic community would endorse. It was desirable that the House should have more definite evidence on that point. No one would be more satisfied than the Opposition if the Government had brought in a Bill with which these people could reasonably expect to be satisfied. It seemed to him, however, that in some cases the rights belonging to the Asiatic community were interfered with. There was the question of a three years’ absence, and also the question of the rights the Natal Act gave to a man who had been lawfully resident in Natal for three years, under which he might consider himself domiciled there. That appeared to be taken away. Then rights under registration certificates given under the Transvaal Act also were interfered with. He assumed, considering what had happened during the past few weeks that if the Government brought forward a Bill containing clauses relating to the Free State, the Minister’s supporters in the Free State were satisfied. If those clauses were satisfactory to the Free State and to the Indian community, the Opposition had nothing to say. There were other points in the Bill which it was not necessary to go into at length. The question of the port of entry did interfere with people’s rights, but he was inclined to think it might be necessary in view of the position at Lourenco Marques.

He felt that if they could leave out of sight the Asiatic question the tendency of the Bill was bad. (Hear, hear.) The Bill was very rightly called an Immigrants’ Restriction Bill. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly it was. If it were not intended to be a Restriction Bill, at any rate it gave the power to the Government of the day to make it an Immigrants’ Restriction Bill, in the fullest sense of the word. (Hear, hear.) He did not think anyone in that House, outside the Government benches, would seriously think for one moment of agreeing to accept a Bill containing these clauses unless they were furnished with the strongest evidence that it would effect a reasonable settlement of the Asiatic question, and the most competent men agreed that it would be a settlement and that there was no other way of doing it. There would be obviously opportunities during the debate for the right hon. gentleman to indicate to them, firstly, what was the opinion of the experts on the matter, and, secondly, whether he could assure them that the objections which they knew had been raised by the Indians in South Africa to this Bill could be safely ignored or not. If they could not be ignored, if the responsible people who represented the Indian community were not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, it was perfectly obvious that they were not going to get a settlement, and they should not be asked to endorse such legislation unless they had an assurance that they were going to get a settlement of the whole matter. (Hear, hear.)

said he was prepared to move the adjournment of the debate if the Government wished. (Ministerial cries of “No.”) He would like to ask Mr. Speaker whether, if he moved the adjournment, he would be deprived of any right of speaking on the second reading.

Not if the hon. member has not spoken on the main question.

then proceeded to move the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was negatived.

said he was sorry that the Government would not agree to the adjournment. He was sorry that this Bill had been brought on at so late a stage and that so few members of the House were present.

They are in the billiard-room.

Order.

said that the first point that occurred to one’s mind was that this was the third attempt of the Government to deal with this question, and that a good many of the objections raised to the previous attempts undoubtedly applied to this third attempt. It had been pointed out time after time that anything like a drastic measure of this kind would only be considered and agreed to if the House thought it would solve this question of the Indians in the Transvaal. Now there was another way of solving this difficulty, and the proposed mode did not solve it. All they had to do was to repeal the Act of 1907 as far as the Transvaal was concerned, because that was where the passive resistance movement spread from. To meet the Transvaal difficulty the Government was legislating for the whole Union. A short Bill should have been introduced by the Minister of the Interior repealing the Act of 1907, which was a dead letter. If they had done that and allowed for a limited number of Asiatics to come into the Transvaal they would have solved the Transvaal difficulty and they could have left the laws of the other Provinces alone. He would suggest that this Bill should be withdrawn. If they were going to maintain their provincial boundaries, why not leave their provincial statutes? This uniformity which had been spoken of was uniformity in name only. The Indian difficulty had not been met.

They were bound to treat the Bill on its merits to see whether it was a measure which should have the approval of the House. There were certainly one or two improvements over last year’s Bill. They were to have Immigration Boards they did not have last year, and not simply Advisory Boards. It was also an improvement that the Minister had brought back the European education test and the reference of the lists to Parliament of those who were prohibited and the reason for such prohibition was also an improvement. Unfortunately, however, those improvements entirely lost their effect by other clauses in the Bill. What he looked upon as the most serious infringement of a right, was that which provided that no court of law could interfere in connection with this immigration law. The Government was going to be above the law. They were flouting the law of the country. It was no use quoting other countries in regard to that. There were no precedents. It was a deliberate infringement of the rights of Union. The Act of Union gave to the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the Government and the individual. This clause was an amendment of the Act of Union, and now the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction in every matter except that of immigration. That was a serious infringement of the rights of the community of this country, and not merely of the Asiatics. Under that Bill the Minister could authorise somebody to come to his (Mr. Alexander’s) house and have him deported out of the country. There would be no means of redress. It was not a question of domicile. Surely the hon. Minister would not press for the retention of clause 3. To say that the judges were not competent to interpret that particular Act of Parliament was not only bad in principle, but it was setting a most dangerous precedent, and they would have this precedent followed time after time when they might have trouble with the law courts. In such cases, the Immigration Bill would be pointed to as the first precedent in South Africa or elsewhere which prevented the law courts from exercising their proper functions. The Bill consisted of one particular clause, and the rest was simply waste paper. If the Minister said that he thought a man was unsuitable he could send him away if he liked, therefore why waste time of Parliament in unnecessary clauses. Under the Bill it was provided that he could do what he liked. These Immigration Boards would have no power at all unless he accepted some amendment to the Bill. The Minister gave no right to any aliens under this Bill, and unless he altered it specifically, these Boards would not have any right to deal with aliens at all. Again, if the Immigration Board stated that a man was undesirable, the Minister could put himself above the Immigration Board and say that he considered him suitable. It was a good principle for a self-governing Colony to say what its elements should be composed of, but the Minister did not tell them what those elements were. He was astonished that the Minister should come to the House and plead for the reasonableness of the proviso. Did he know that by this proviso many farmers who were in Brazil and the Argentine, South African-born men, had no rights if they kept away for three years from South Africa? Under this Act these people should be specifically protected. To say that they were not going to recognise marriages according to Mahommedan rites was an insult to the religion of these people, and the religion of these people was as dear to them as the religion of the Minister was to him. In Natal provision was made for recognising such marriages according to Mahommedan rites, and these marriages were registered in Natal and were treated there, from that point of view, as proper marriages. The Minister, however, did not propose to repeal the Natal laws, and they were still on the Statute Book in Natal, although they did not have such laws in the Cape. The Minister had referred to persons born and domiciled in South Africa, but he would ask why he had not included persons naturalised in South Africa. They could not exclude a Natal Indian to-day from the Cape, because one considered him “economically undesirable,” but they could do so under the Bill, and the Cape and Natal Indians were quite right in saying that they would be put in a more serious position than they were in before that legislation. The Transvaal Indians were kept in the same position. As far as the Europeans were concerned, their position was very serious under that particular Bill, and it did seem to him that serious alterations must be made to the Bill—such alterations that the Bill would be an entirely new one when it came from the committee stage. The Minister had referred to some frauds which had been committed, but surely there was every machinery for the detection of fraud, and was that any reason to make it almost impossible for a man to bring his wife and child here? The Minister only allowed a wife and child to come in, to a person who was domiciled here. Then why again say that a man must prove “to the satisfaction of the Immigration Officer” that it was his wife? Why not say, as in the Cape Act, it “was” the man’s wife. He would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the many exemptions of the Canadian regulations. If the Minister took the Canadian law he should not take one clause because it dealt somewhat harshly with the Court, and throw the rest of the Canadian law overboard. Why did he not take the Canadian policy with regard to immigration generally? The next Act in the Canadian Statute Book dealt with immigration aid. Under the Bill the Government would be able to issue a general warrant without being compelled to describe the person it was looking for. To summarise the objections he had raised against the Bill—it did not abolish the present autocratic powers of the Minister and his officers, for it gave no satisfactory right of appeal; it took away the right of going to the courts; it did not protect the rights of persons born in the country and who might wish to remove temporarily to some other country; and it did not satisfy the Indian community, and therefore did not solve the Imperial problem. From whatever point of view one looked at it, the Bill was unsatisfactory. The Minister had inserted clauses which completely swept away the improvements he had effected on last year’s Bill. He hoped the Minister would keep the existing law and simply bring in a short measure to remedy the position in the Transvaal. But if the Minister went on with the Bill in its present form, a Bill which offended against every fair principle, then he must not be surprised if it met with strong opposition.

moved the adjournment of the House.

The motion was negatived.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was carried, and the debate was adjourned until Friday.