from D Donoghue, of Port Elizabeth, formerly Chief Warder, Barberton Prison, under the Government of the late South African Republic, who sustained a rupture whilst on duty in 1899, praying for the consideration of his circumstances and for relief.

moved that the Order for the second reading of the Fiscal Divisions (Cape) Extension Bill be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn. Mr. Sauer said he would bring in a fresh Bill.

brought up a report of the Select Committee on Garnisheeing wages.

The report was set down for consideration on Wednesday.

laid on the Table reports on the working of the Agricultural Land Banks.

The reports were referred to the Public Accounts Committee.

read the following letter, dated May 2, from Mr. H. C. Hull (Barberton): “Mr. Speaker, I beg to notify you that I do hereby resign my seat as the member of the House of Assembly for the electoral division of Barberton.” (Ministerial cheers.)

moved: That the following be a sessional Standing Order, to take effect from Monday, May 5, 1913; viz.: That while the Estimates of Expenditure are under consideration by Committee of Supply, consideration thereof take precedence of all other business during evening sittings, on the following conditions: If at Five Minutes to Six o’clock p.m., on such days, the Estimates of Expenditure be not under consideration, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate on the business then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for the resumption of such interrupted business, Mr. Speaker shall order it to be put down for the next day on which the House shall sit.

seconded.

said he thought the Prime Minister should give some reason to the House in explanation of his motion. Hon. members on both sides of the House would agree that there was nothing more important than a thorough review in Committee of the Estimates of Expenditure. (Opposition cheers.) Some of them, as far as they possibly could, devoted practically the whole of their time during the session to the consideration of Parliamentary business. They recognised that after a long day’s work on Select Committees and in the House, to start the Estimates at 8 o’clock in the evening meant that the country’s financial business would be dealt with during a period when they were not likely to receive the most favourable consideration. He thought that the Prime Minister, recognising the importance of the Estimates, should allow them to come on in the ordinary way. There were many members of the House whose criticism was of the most valuable character, and who, in many cases, owing to their age, and the amount of public work they had to do, found it impossible to sit until 11 or 11.30 at night when most important votes were taken. In the interests of the House and the country every possible advantage should be taken to allow the House to obtain the advice of people of that sort when the Estimates were under discussion. Even the strongest members of the House found that they were not at their best after 8 o’clock in the evening. (Cheers and laughter.) There was nothing more important in the interests both of the House and the country than to have a full and thorough discussion of the Estimates. He would therefore appeal to the Prime Minister not to force the motion through the House. The last thing the Minister of Finance would do would be to rush these votes, for the Minister was thirsting with a desire to give the people information. (Laughter.) There was no possible vote that the Minister of Finance would not desire to have a full discussion upon, so that he could have an opportunity of explaining how economical the Government was though it budgeted for a deficit of a million in a year of unexampled prosperity. He believed it was the general wish of members on both sides of the House that they should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the Estimates, and they would not have an opportunity of considering them in the best possible manner if they were not brought on till 8 o’clock at night, instead of being put on as the first order of the day, as was done with other important business. Important matters should be dealt with in the afternoon, and the Estimates were so important that he hoped his hon. friend would listen to his appeal.

replied that the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition was only half-hearted. The speaker said he had been accused of not taking the regulation of business into his own hands, but when he did so difficulties were made. The only objection that had been raised was that the House was never so alert in the evenings as in the afternoons, but his experience was that his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt) was generally in his best form in the evenings. He thought that after a good dinner members were in better condition than in the afternoon. (Laughter.) The advantage of the present arrangement was that members, knowing that a certain subject was coming up in the evening, had ample opportunity to study that subject during the day. There was a good deal of work still to be accomplished, and they could not devote a month exclusively to the consideration of the Estimates. This practice had worked well for two years, and in the circumstances he found it impossible to comply with the hon. member’s request.

said he would like to add his appeal to that of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He hoped this would not be considered a matter for joking or party wrangling. (Opposition cheers.) It was simply to see how they could best do the business of the House. His hon. friend was perfectly right in trying to get the Estimates along. The way to get good work done would be to take two days a week for the Estimates, as he believed was done in the House of Commons, and then the other business of the country could be dealt with on the other days. Otherwise they would take an interesting measure, like the Immigration Bill, which was a very important one, and they would get to a certain stage of it at six o’clock, and if they continued its consideration after dinner they would make very good progress, but instead of that, under the Prime Minister’s proposal, it would be adjourned for several days, when many of the points already discussed would be re-debated. The same with the Estimates. If the House began with them early in the day members would be fairly tired of them by six o’clock, and if Government went on with them in the evening it would get through a great deal of work. But if the House got into the Estimates fresh in the evening there was a good deal of heated discussion, and “hares” were started, and chased from side to side of the House. It was always his idea to have separate days put down for consideration of the Estimates, so that people who did not care particularly about the Estimates need not attend, but those who took a great interest in the financial business of the country could be present. He did not want to raise the question from any controversial point of view, but simply to get along with the business in the best possible way. (Hear, hear.)

said they were anxious to get through the work. From his (Sir Edgar’s) experience, when he had charge of the Estimates in the Cape Parliament, if they got Parliament a little tired of the Estimates, and hon. members started in pursuit of what the hon. member for Victoria West described as “hares,” it was advisable to get on with some other business. He did not like having a sort of fixed iron rule that at a certain time the House got on to the Estimates, and remained there until it adjourned. He did not think it would assist the work of the House.

said there was no doubt a great deal in what the hon. member for Victoria West had stated. But the Government had carried on the consideration of the Estimates in the manner suggested in the motion for three years. (An Hon. Member: Two years.) The hon. member for Fort Beaufort seemed to imply that gentlemen were not so good at their work after dinner as they were before, but people on the Government side of the House were quite us good at their work after dinner as they were before. (Laughter.) It was said to be a grievance that hon. members never knew what business was coming on, but under the Government’s proposal they would know exactly when the Estimates were to be dealt with. There was nothing, however, to prevent the House taking the Estimates at two o’clock, and thus give his hon. friend a chance of discussing them when he was bright. (Laughter.) Again, there were some Bills before the House which were as necessary to deal with before dinner as the Estimates. Seeing, however, that the House had got along so far in the way the Prime Minister suggested, he thought the only thing to do was to accept the motion. There was, however, a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria West that separate days should be set aside for the discussion of the Estimates.

Move that as an amendment.

I hope the House will do all it can in reason to push on with the business, so that the prorogation may not be unduly delayed.

said that if the motion went through the House would never take the Estimates at two o’clock in the afternoon. The point was that many hon. members were in the House doing committee work at 10 o’clock in the morning, and to have to go on with public business until midnight was too much. Let them take two days a week on it.

The motion was agreed to.

put the proviso.

said he hoped the Government was not going to accept the proviso. Unfortunately there was a certain amount of misunderstanding when the matter was before the committee.

The hon. member cannot discuss the matter. It cannot be moved without notice.

proceeding, said that under the circumstances he was compelled to hope that the House would not accept the whole proviso. That was the only way to enable the Provincial Councils to go on as they had been going on for the last few years in regard to education. He believed it would be an economy which was going to work in the wrong direction. From the financial point of view he did not think it was sound, and from the educational point of view he thought it was deplorable.

was about to put the question.

I object.

Well, the hon. member can vote against it. He has already spoken. The amendment was declared agreed to.

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

put the new sub-section.

said he wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister the matter of the financing of the School Boards. He wished to inform the Minister that, notwithstanding his statement that in the Transvaal the financing of the schools

What does the hon. member move?

I am not moving anything.

Then the hon. member cannot speak.

Can I bring the matter up before the clause is adopted?

On what point?

Well, it is with regard to the financing of schools, and specifically, in regard to the Transvaal schools.

said that the hon. member could bring the matter up on the third reading.

said that he understood his hon. friend wished to speak on the amendments made in committee.

said that he would like to oppose these amendments. Although the Cape was accused of having got more than it required for running its schools, and they were told that the other Provinces were not extravagant and were not getting more money than they required, the Minister, on the passing of Union, said that the Transvaal was in a normal condition, and that the expenditure on the Transvaal schools was on a normal basis. He wished to read a letter he had received without giving the names of the parties, which letter showed that a very different state of affairs existed. In the letter it was stated that a certain gentleman in the Cape Province sent his son to a school in the Transvaal. He was admitted gratis and books were supplied gratis, and the Education Department contributed £1 a month towards his board and lodging. Mr. — was a well-to-do farmer, and a member of the School Board in his own district in the Cape Province. There was another case in which a farmer in this Province sent his two children to another place in the Transvaal.

What does the hon. member move?

I do not want to trespass upon your patience, Mr. Speaker, but I have brought the facts that I wished to bring to the Minister’s notice to his notice.

The amendments were agreed to.

On the first schedule, Sources of revenue transferred from the Union to the several Provinces, with power of legislation in respect thereof,

put the new sub-section (2).

moved the deletion of sub-section (2) as follows: “The duty payable under any law upon the takings of any instrument, machine or contrivance (commonly known as a totalisator) by the licensee thereof.” He said he thought there could be no question at all that, as this was a police matter, it would be in the hands of the Union Government. It seemed to him to be a pitiful thing to take a toll upon the weaknesses of the poorer classes who went and put their money on this horse-racing and betting. He did not see very much distinction between that and what they had at Monte Carlo, where the whole State was kept up upon gaming propensities. For the State to go and make its revenue out of the vice of gambling seemed to him to be a thing that this country ought not to do. If there were one thing more than another which was detrimental to this country it was the gambling spirit. To a certain extent this encouraged the gambling spirit. They gambled in gold shares, and found that their money was in the pockets of gentlemen in Throgmorton-street, while they who had parted with it had got the experience. Since this question was last before the House, high officials of the Provincial Government had been round earwigging members within the lobbies, and telling them that they had got a Bill that they were going to pass through the Cape Provincial Council. Surely it was not right that things of that sort should be brought to bear on hon. members in the lobbies of this House. It seemed to him to strike a great blow at Parliament, and he hoped that the House would mark its sense of that performance.

endorsed the appeal and supported the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, and strongly objected to this House licensing gambling. It was, he said, against the Christian religion to do so, even when it was done in a so-called “respectable” way. They had nothing to do with “bookies,” he held, and he would even support a proposal to do away with bookmakers. They could not leave this question to the Provincial Councils, with the dangerous opportunities of drawing revenues from such sources, he urged, and it was a disgrace if this House gave people an opportunity of gambling. If this clause were pressed even women might be induced to bet. No doubt gambling existed at the present time, but that was no justification for setting up a second form of the same thing.

said he was not a betting man, but when they had an opportunity of giving people who wished to bet a chance of having fair bets, he did not think it was a thing that should be above the consideration of this House. There was no doubt that the bookmakers referred to by the hon. member who had just sat down were honest men, but even amongst honest men there were failures. He thought that, at any rate, the totalisator provided for ready money betting, and that was an important thing. It also enabled racing clubs to offer higher prizes for horse racing, and, as was often said, by that method improve the breed of horses in South Africa. He was surprised to hear the hon. member for Tembuland object to local option in this matter, seeing that he was such a champion of local option. He (Mr. Fawcus) said, let them have their pleasant vices, even with the resultant scourgings they got from them.

The good old Cape again gets upon her four legs and rebukes the whole of South Africa, but when it came to a share of the spoil she wanted the biggest share. Let them have an end of this hypocrisy.

urged that the House should at once put a stop to this pernicious gambling evil. It was not right for this House while they had the matter in their power to put the responsibility on the Provincial Councils. He did not wish to throw any blame on the Provincial Councils, but feared that they might fail to grasp the seriousness of the evil, the more so as money was to be made out of such failure. Perhaps it was not advisable to abolish the totalisator in those Provinces where it was now allowed, but they should prohibit its introduction into the Cape. It was not advisable to confer on the Provincial Councils powers to permit of gambling, and tempt them to permit gambling by allowing them to make a profit out of it. He would vote for the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West.

said they had the totalisator in two other Provinces—the Transvaal and Natal. He asked hon. members to go upon the racecourse and see what was taking place there—a great deal of betting on the nod. The totalisator would prevent this sort of practice.

said he supported the motion of the right hon. member for Victoria West, because he was perfectly assured that the totalisator would still encourage people to go in more for betting. People were perfectly free to go in for betting openly to-day, but this would encourage them to go in for secret betting.

said it had been said that they could not make people honest or moral by Act of Parliament, but they were trying to do that all the time. He took it that the conscience of the House in framing the legislation would see to it that it was made easy to do right and difficult to do wrong.

pointed out that as they could not regulate betting, as it prevailed in certain of the Provinces, the totalisator would have that effect. A man stood a better chance upon the racecourse of getting back a return for his outlay than upon the stock exchange.

said that they were not there that afternoon to decide whether the totalisator was a good thing or a bad thing or whether it should be established; they were there to decide whether they considered the matter of such importance that the Union Government should retain the power of legislating upon it. He quoted evidence in support of his statement that the tote led to an increase in gambling and betting, and said that gambling and betting was responsible for much misery and distress in the world. Dealing with the speech of the Minister on the point he said he thought that the Minister acted in rather cowardly fashion when he said that they should let the Provinces decide. Were they for ever going to hand over their responsibilities to the Provincial Council? He hoped that the House would decide against handing over to the Provincial Councils the power to legislate in this matter.

said after this clause had passed the committee stage it had become clear to him that the totalisator would be introduced in the Cape Province. For this he could never vote A provision to allow a totalisator in the Cape had been rejected by several Cape Parliaments. The Government bore no responsibility on the question of bookmakers, but he could never vote in favour of betting being legalised.

said that a Betting Bill was not now under consideration, and all that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) demanded was that things should remain as they were, and he thought it was only right that such should be the case. The Betting Bill which had been introduced last session was of a very drastic nature, but now they were going to the other extreme, for here they were practically asking the Cape Provincial Council to introduce the totalisator by means of holding out the bait of extra revenue to them. Just before Union the Natal Parliament had had certain representations made to it, by people in Durban and Pietermaritzburg, that the working of the totalisator there was doing great harm, and encouraging betting amongst juveniles and secret betting amongst women. Had a Bill been introduced against the totalisator then, such was the feeling in Natal that he felt convinced it would have been carried.

said that what the previous speaker had said about juveniles and women secretly betting because of the totalisator was a most ridiculous contention, because it was impossible to bet secretly in regard to the totalisator, and practically impossible for juveniles so to bet. (Hear, hear.) He had been to a race meeting to study that very question. The totalisator did not stand at the corner of the street, but was inside an enclosure at the race course, and no person could bet without going to a race meeting. The totalisator was perfectly silent, while the bookmakers were yelling for all they were worth. In the Transvaal a sovereign was the minimum taken by the totalisator, but the bookmaker took any sum he chose. Betting by women and children would be more prevalent when the totalisator became extinguished, because they encouraged secret betting in back rooms and the like. The totalisator was already in existence in the Transvaal, and a certain percentage was taken by the Government. What the hon. member (Mr. Merriman) proposed to do was that the Union Government should take that money and—

rose to make an explanation, but Mr. Speaker did not allow him to proceed.

asked why the Government should be allowed to take all that money, and then re-assign it to the Province? Why not let it go on as at present? The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) had made a great point of the fact that the old Cape Parliament had twice thrown out a Bill which had for its object the legalisation of the totalisator. In that, he thought, they had the greatest argument in favour of the totalisator, for was the Cape Province any better, from a gambling point of view, than the other Provinces? (An HON, MEMBER: Yes.)

said that if the hon. member had looked at the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West, he would have seen that it was proposed that the revenue should be kept in the Province. The question before the House was: was the control of betting and anything connected with betting to be under the Union Parliament or under the Provincial Council? He did not want to go into the totalisator question, except to say that all experience showed that the totalisator had encouraged betting. The control of betting, which was essentially a police matter, should be kept under the Union Parliament. He would advise hon. members to let matters remain as they were, until a comprehensive Betting Bill was introduced for the whole of the Union. Do not let them have one law in one Province and another law in another Province; but let them have one uniform law for the whole of South Africa; and they could only do that by supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West.

said he could not agree with the right hon. member for Victoria West. All this Bill provided that in case the totalisator was legalised, the Provincial Council would have the right to control it. But what right had this House to presume that it was going to be legalised? Did hon. members mean to insinuate that the Provincial Councils were not fit to control the totalisator. They had heard a great deal of nonsense about the totalisator encouraging betting. The people who talked about it were generally the sort of people who did not go to racecourses. No man could use the totalisator unless he had money in his pocket, and the totalisator was in an enclosure. They would never stop betting. They had got these bookmakers in the country, and they not only betted on the course but away from the course, when no race was on at all. He hoped the House would pass this matter over to the Provincial Councils, because he thought the Provincial Councils were as competent to deal with it as this House.

, who was somewhat inaudible, was understood to say that the sole idea of the right hon. member for Victoria West was that the question of the totalisator should remain with the Union Parliament, and not the Provincial Councils. The question before the House was not that of legalising gambling, or not legalising gambling. They had already got gambling laws. The question before the House was whether they were going to allow the Provinces to decide for themselves what form betting shall take in their Provinces or not. He would like to point out that in the Cape they had had experience of the totalisator. They had had it for years, but all at once the bookmakers found it was taking money away from them. They therefore objected to the totalisator, on the ground that it was not legal, and they took the matter to Court, and the Chief Justice said that, as the law read, the totalisator was undoubtedly illegal, but it was also, without doubt, the best form of betting. He would also like to remind them that the old Cape Parliament decided against the totalisator, and, therefore, it was not for this Parliament to force the totalisator down the throats of people who did not want it. Before the Minister brought in a general Betting Act, he should allow the Provinces to decide the question.

supported the amendment. He thought that, seeing that the Transvaal was already saddled with the totalisator, they should try and keep it out of the Cape. He strongly denounced the gambling spirit, and advised hon. members on the cross-benches, who so strongly spoke about low wages, to turn their attention in the direction of the gambling spirit. They in the Transvaal had already seen the evil results which came from the use of the totalisator.

said, regarding the financial point of view, he understood that the origin of the alteration was that the Minister of Finance wanted to give a certain amount of additional funds to the Transvaal. If that was necessary he was surprised it was not done in a similar way to the other Provinces. An additional amount was given to Natal. He could not understand why the Minister should raise this whole question of the control of betting in this Bill when it was not the original intention of the Minister, and it was done now as an afterthought, simply as a means of giving an additional subsidy to two Provinces. The Transvaal had a deficit, and the Minister wanted that deficit to be made up. He would like to point out that the Cape had very few sources of revenue if it had a deficit. He understood that the Minister offered the Cape pound per pound on condition that they passed the totalisator. Well, that was bringing unjust pressure to bear upon the Cape. So far as the constitutional question was concerned, he would like to point out that the South Africa Act specially provided that the Provinces shall not have power to levy indirect taxation. He did not think a tax on betting by means of the totalisator could be called direct taxation.

said he would support the amendment. In the Transvaal they had a totalisator, and he considered the revenue from the totalisator should be placed under the allocated revenue, and they could then decide later on what was to be done with the totalisator. The remainder of the hon. member’s remarks were inaudible.

said he felt that this was a matter which was better left to the Provincial Councils. One did not wish to say one word in favour of betting in any shape or form, but what one did say was that it was fairer to the whole country to let each part of the country decide for itself whether it would have betting, and if so, in what form it would have it. He did not think they would be providing any safeguard in favour of those who objected to betting in any shape or form by retaining this in the hands of the Union Government. He did not like the idea of the revenue being raised in this way. It was an undignified, unsound, and improper thing to be looking round to see what sort of vice one might levy revenue upon.

said that he generally agreed with his hon. friend (Dr. Watkins), but in this matter he could not agree with him. Only a fortnight ago he brought before the House an instance of the tendency of Provincial Council legislation, and he referred to a certain Ordinance which had been passed, and he anticipated objections to an Ordinance with which they were threatened. One dealt with the question of the censorship, and the other the terrible proposal to introduce compulsory religious instruction in our schools, both matters which concerned the Union Parliament. He supported the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, because he considered that the principle involved here was one which should be laid down by the Union Parliament as a whole. He was in favour of uniformity in these matters. The question of local option, to his mind, hardly came in here.

said that he would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it was only proposed to give power to the Provincial Councils to legislate in regard to the duty on totalisators.

said that the Councils were given power to legislate in regard to totalisators in the second schedule.

put the question that the amendment made in committee be adopted, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—75.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cullinan, Thomas Major

De Waal, Hendrik

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fischer, Abraham

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

King, John Gavin

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Long, Basil Kellett

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Malan, Francois Gerhardus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Phillips, Lionel

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

J. Hewat and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—27.

Alexander, Morris

Berry, William Bisset

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Hertzog, James Barry Munnik

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Merriman John Xavier

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Runciman, William

Searle, James

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Watermeyer Egidius Benedictus

Wilcocks, Carl Theodoras Muller

Theo. L. Schreiner and A. L. de Jager, tellers.

The new sub-section (2) was accordingly agreed to.

put the amendments in the second schedule.

referring to section 12 of the second schedule—the regulation of horseracing and betting within the Province and the licensing of any instrument, machine or contrivance, commonly known as a totalisator and the imposition of duty in respect of the takings thereof, upon the licensees— asked whether they were not conferring rather dangerous powers on the Provinces. This was not a mere question of the regulation of the tote, but went a great deal further. It was difficult to know where they were going to stop. Could he move the deletion of the words “and betting”?

replied in the negative.

The amendments were agreed to.

put the new third schedule.

moved, as an unopposed motion: In the item “Natal, Act No. 31 of 1909, to impose a cession fee upon cessions of unregistered Crown leases”: to omit “1909” and to substitute “1908”; and to insert the following new item: Act No. 11 of 1909—To amend the Transfer Duty Law No. 5 of 1860.”

Agreed to

The new third schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved, in sub-section (1), to insert the following paragraph, to follow paragraph (b): “(c) the salaries paid to any officials in the service of the Provincial Administrations shall be those recommended by the Public Service Commission unless the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council shall have been obtained for any departure from such recommendations.” The mover pointed out that unless this amendment was passed the Provincial Councils would be building up a service— a different service with different salaries —side by side with the general service of the country. Unless this were done, the work of the Civil Service Commission would be rendered nugatory. He thought they should take some powers of control.

said that since the matter was dealt with by a committee he had been able to go very fully into the report, and he saw they drew attention to a grave state of affairs, and they recommended some check should be imposed. The idea had occurred to him that in view of the limitation of that Bill to four years, they should not give unlimited powers to the Provincial Council in this respect. If for these four years a different system was organised, what would become of these officials whose salaries had been increased, because no justice could be done to them without doing an injustice to other civil servants. Therefore, he thought a check was desirable, and he would accept the amendment. He wished to point out, that in dealing with this matter the Government had given the greatest consideration to the Provincial authorities. In conclusion, he said that though the Government had carried out most of the recommendations, he did not consider the Civil Service Commission infallible.

said he hoped that the Minister was sure that they were on solid grounds in passing this amendment. He hoped they would not come into conflict with the Provincial Councils.

The amendment was agreed to.

On clause 14,

moved to insert a new paragraph (d), viz.: “(d) from licences payable by importers.”

said he was sorry his hon. friend had raised the question. There was no principle involved, and he could not see any single reason for accepting the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 16,

moved to omit in line 3 of subsection (a) of clause 16, the words “situate outside the Union.” This amendment, he said, was in connection with the licences of agents. His point was that if a man was situate outside the Union he was liable to special taxation. If a man situated outside the Union was acting as a representative of a manufacturer in Europe he would come under Union taxation, but if he was a South African he was to be taxed in each Province. He did not think it was the intention of the Minister to penalise the South African. Rather than that they should certainly help the South African people in competition with outsiders.

The amendment was agreed to.

pointed out that he was called out of the House whilst an amendment on clause 8 standing in his name had been dealt with.

We cannot now refer to an amendment which has already been dealt with.

The remaining amendments made in Committee were agreed to, together with sundry verbal amendments.

The Bill as amended was agreed to, and the third reading set down for Monday next.

called attention to a matter of great importance about which he would ask the Prime Minister to make a statement. He was extremely anxious, he said, owing to newspaper reports which had been sent over the cable by people who were evidently practically ignorant of the manner in which the ostrich industry was carried on in this country. These remarks suggest the birds were treated with cruelty, and urging that anybody who had any regard for the sufferings of dumb animals should not in any way traffic in ostrich feathers, were of the most serious character concerning a legitimate industry, and he hoped the Prime Minister would make an authoritative statement which would contradict in the most emphatic manner the allegations made, Such a statement would be for the information, not only of the people of this country but for people in other parts of the world.

acceded to the request, and said: “I have seen cabled reports in the newspapers that there has been a tendency in England to extend the anti-plumage campaign to ostrich feathers and that statements are being made to the effect that ostriches are hooded when the stumps are pulled out and that the birds live only four or five years owing to the shock, meaning presumably shock to the system of the birds on account of cruelty, or at any rate injury. It is to me, and I have no doubt to all, who have the least acquaintance with the ostrich feather industry, a matter of the greatest surprise that such statements could be made in these days when it is so easy to obtain reliable information, and the least one would expect was that before statements were made inquiries would be instituted to ascertain to what extent, if any, the information on which the statements were based was correct. It is clear from the statements themselves that no such investigations could have been made.

If it were not, he proceeded, that an industry worth about £2,500,000 per annum to this country was assailed, the statement would only be amusing. As a matter of fact it is quite unnecessary for me to say in this country, and I have no doubt to a large body of well-informed men oversea, that the ostrich feather industry is one to which as much attention is given as to sheep or horse-breeding, for example; that it is well known that the life of the ostrich in ordinary circumstances is at least thirty years; that any farmer who jeopardises the life of his ostriches by inhuman methods would be an extremely foolish man, because he would thereby greatly depreciate his income. As is also well known, the feathers mature in about six months, and are then clipped, not pulled, and the stumps remain in their socket for about three months longer, when they are quite dried up, and the new feathers in the sockets begin to push out the stumps—in fact, the bird itself begins to pull out the stumps with its beak. It is at this stage that the farmer draws out the stumps to relieve the birds, and to ensure that all the feathers have, as far as possible, the same opportunity to develop. The process of clipping the feathers or of drawing the stumps is as painless as the clipping of wool off a sheep, and I am sure even more so, since the greatest of care has to be exercised in the drawing of the stumps, to prevent any injury to the sockets, because any injury affects the quality of the on-coming feathers. Ostriches are kept in the highest condition, in order that they may produce the best plumage they are capable of yielding.

There is only one more point (he concluded) that I wish to notice, namely, the one which seems to suggest that there is something wrong in ostriches being hooded when feathers are clipped or the stumps drawn. There is no cruelty in connection therewith. The hooding is only done to keep the ostrich quieter, and so remove, as far as possible, the risk of injury to the feathers to be clipped or the sockets themselves.

expressed his pleasure at the statement made by the Prime Minister, but he regretted that the right hon. gentleman had not been able to give an assurance as to the care which the Government had taken regarding the more valuable lives of human beings.

called the hon. member to order, stating that his remarks were not relevant to the matter before the House.

moved verbal alterations.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved in lines 40 and 41 to omit “in respect of marriage or inheritance.”

moved, in line 40, to omit the word “native,” and to insert the words, “Proclamations, regulations,” and in the same line after “customs,” to insert “with regard to natives.” He was entirely in favour of these two districts being brought under the Colonial law, but, there would be an extension of border of 60 miles or more which would be in the same condition as the border along the Kei, and he wanted to keep those districts under the same liquor law as they had been under in the Transkei.

said that he could not quite see the object of that amendment. What the hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) intended, he presumed, was to continue the prohibition of the sale of liquor to natives in these districts. He had promised the hon. member that he would deal with the matter, and the hon. member had then promised that he would not make a speech. (Laughter.)

Mr. Schreiner’s amendment was negatived.

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to.

moved an amendment in line 44, after “recognised,” to insert “or as preventing any court after the said date from determining under any of the laws, proclamation and regulations mentioned in paragraph (a), any matter which before the said date it would have determined in accordance with native laws and customs: Provided also that sections thirty to thirty-six inclusive of Proclamation No. 104 of 1903 as amended by Proclamation No. 2 of 1907 (in so far as those provisions relate to the natives described as prohibited persons in section thirty-nine of the first mentioned Proclamation) shall continue to be in force in the said districts after the said date,” the meaning, as the Minister said, was simply that the prohibition of the sale of liquor to natives in that territory should continue.

said, were they to understand now that these districts of Maclear and Elliot would be brought under the Licensing Courts, and that a Proclamation in reference to the prohibition of the sale of liquor to natives would be made, which would not he alterable by the Licensing Courts?

said that he proposed in a subsequent section, when that section had been disposed of, to give the Governor power to proclaim that area a fiscal division, because without it being a fiscal division they would not have a Divisional Council. The effect would be, when it became a fiscal division, that the laws in regard to liquor and the constitution of the Board which issued liquor licences with regard to the sale of liquor, should apply, and with this exception it would not be left to the Licensing Court to impose restrictions, or not, as far as the natives were concerned. In so far as that, the Cape liquor law was not applicable.

The amendment was agreed to.

New clause 2,

moved that the following be a new clause to follow clause 1, viz.: 2. At any time after the said date the Governor-General may, by proclamation in the “Gazette,” declare the said districts to be one fiscal division or more than one fiscal division, and thereupon the law for the time being in force relating to divisional councils shall apply to the fiscal division or fiscal divisions so constituted.

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be now considered.

objected.

The consideration of the amendments was set down for Monday.

said that the title of the Bill was, a rather unfortunate one. They had a long debate earlier in the session, and the House came to the conclusion that more white men were needed, therefore he said they should be extremely careful how they restricted immigrants. If they struck an average it would be found that four natives equalled one European for fiscal purposes, therefore, they might take it that the total population equalled 2,000,000 whites. The estimate of general revenue to be contributed by these people for the current year is £8,000,000, or £4 per head, and if this was capitalised we should find that each white person in the Union was worth £100 to the State Therefore they, should be very careful how they excluded a single white immigrant. In this country in the old days there were many people who came out and were permitted to settle, who, under the present laws, would be excluded. There was one brilliant example that he could mention, but he would refrain from mentioning any names. Immigrants brought more wealth to the country. The objection to immigrants was that they came largely from the labouring classes, but when they came to America they took whatever work they could get and then gradually drifted to other work. There had been one interesting result that had been fully reported, and that was that as these immigrants came into a better climate, they also came into a better, freer life, and they improved in many respects. The result of bringing immigrants to South Africa was this, that the second generation had been well brought up, although their parents would have been excluded under the present law. In. Natal they had two classes of Indians; they had Indians that were born in the country. They had also Indians that were imported from oversea, but they made it difficult for them to leave the country, and the result was that many of them remained in the country. There were in all 133,000 Indians in Natal; the Indians were in excess of the white population; the increase of Indians was no less than 32 per cent. in the last seven years. But these people had been brought there by the whites, and their descendants knew only India as a geographical term. They knew nothing about it, and indeed when they first came there they were astonished to find that they earned gold at all, as they had never seen it in their own country.

The Indian population born in Natal had not very much in common with the Indians from oversea, and the former were citizens of the Union. They numbered 59,500. They could not be called foreign adventurers— (laughter)—because they were born within our gates. Natal came into Union not only with large assets in the shape of coal fields and a paying railway and harbour, and an intelligent population—(hear, hear)—but also with liabilities in the shape of a large population of Indians, and the problem had to be faced as a Union problem. He was sorry that provision was made in the Bill for Provincial domicile. This came strangely from people who had talked about doing away with Provincial Councils. He had no objection to the present Immigration Acts, especially those of the Cape and Natal, remaining in force. There was no difficulty with regard to the Natal Immigration Act until the Chief Immigration Officer went round to Natal. He (Mr. Meyler) did not want to throw stones at that official, because he was told that he was only acting under strict instructions from his Minister. The Indians were in Natal to stay, and there was the danger that if attempts were made to erect a ring fence round Natal, the Indians would seriously squeeze the white people there to-day. There was only one white man to 11 blacks and coloured persons in Natal. He was strongly opposed to the system of keeping the Indian population entirely within the borders of Natal. He did not say the time was yet ripe to remove them to other Provinces, but the Free State was in partnership with the Union to-day, and it would have to help to bear this burden. On the other hand, Natal did not want to see an influx of Cape Malays. A few years ago it was suggested that a large number of Cape Malays should be sent to Natal to work in a clothing factory at Ladysmith, but the Natal authorities objected. It was possible that a large portion of the Transvaal would be found to be unsuitable for white settlement, and instead of leaving this land in the sole possession of wild animals, it would be better to put Indians there and thus make ground which was absolutely unused most productive. He believed Indians could make a success of that country, as they could live in parts where no other people could.

Proceeding, Mr. Meyler said it was dangerous to have an agitation which would place the Natal-born Indian on the same level as the agitators in India. He was sorry to see that some of the Natal Indians were identifying themselves with these agitators. The Natal Indians had their own grievances with regard to trade licences and the £3 tax. The Bill would most certainly have the effect of bringing the Natal-born Indians and the Asiatic-born together. Let each Province keep its own Immigration Act, and he would remind the House that the National Convention had deemed it wise to leave the whole question of domicile severely alone. The House could not possibly deal with the unification of the immigration laws at the present time. Again, the Bill did not solve the question as far as the Natal Indian was concerned, while none of the Natal Indians wanted the measure, because they preferred to remain as they were. It was doubtful, too, whether the Bill would meet the desires of the Imperial Government. Judging by the correspondence between the Union and the Imperial Governments, it was evidently the desire of the Minister of Finance that it would be far better to deal with the whole question by law rather than by administration, and, therefore, the Bill did not please him. The measure did not suit the Imperial Government, nor the Indian Government, nor the Union Government. Therefore, what was the use of passing it in its present form? We should do better to meet the difficulties as they arose, and by some alteration in the Asiatic Registration Act and the Transvaal Immigration Act. Was it not possible to deal with the Act which was obnoxious to the Indians, and leave the other laws as they were, because they had worked perfectly well. The Courts had had a certain amount of’ jurisdiction in the past, but it was now proposed to take that jurisdiction away entirely. He must point out one great difficulty in connection with this system of putting a ring fence round the Provinces. Natal had a black population as well as an Indian population, and the mining industry had largely drawn on the former.

There were 39,000 of their natives on the Rand. There was always an outcry in Natal that the Witwatersrand was draining their native labour. Farmers had great difficulty in getting labour and they say it is on account of the Transvaal that their Indian immigration was stopped. He was glad it was stopped. But it was beginning to affect quite a lot of people. They say “They have stopped our Indian immigration; why should they go on taking our natives?” One of the first things would be that the people of Natal would say: “You say we must keep these Indians within our boundaries, so we will do all we can to stop our natives leaving us to work for you.” The Government would be faced with that difficulty. He had dealt with this matter at some length because he did not think it was realised how many of the Asiatics in Natal were born in the Colony and were citizens of the Union. They had to make up their minds to, besides the two big races and the Bantu races in this country, there was a large Asiatic population. If they were going to have an immigration law let it deal entirely with the men who were coming into the country; and let them deal differently with the man who was born in this country. In view of the objections he had made he hoped the Minister would see has way to withdraw the Bill and face the situation in the Transvaal. When the immigration law was brought before the House last session it was clear that the Imperial Government was crying out for such a measure, and, although he disagreed with certain provisions, he said he would support it. This Bill was different. He did not think it was going to do the Imperial Government any good to pass the Bill in its present form. He hoped the Government would give them an assurance that the Indians were going to be quite satisfied with any legislation that they might bring forward. (Hear, hear.)

asked whether it was fair to allow a free stream of Asiatic immigration to the detriment of the white population? He could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. F. D. P. Chaplin), and he was pleased to see the restrictions placed on immigration under the Bill. The Bill was a most important one. There were in Natal already 130,000 Asiatics, as against 90,000 whites, which showed how dangerous such immigration was. That sort of thing would ultimately lead to the whites being driven out. He would welcome Europeans, but not Asiatics. During the recess Mr. Gokhale had paid a visit to South Africa, and he wanted Asiatics to be placed on an equal footing with the whites. But if that were granted, the next thing would be a demand for the franchise, and the present representatives of Natal would be exchanged perhaps for Asiatics, and it would be much the same in other parts of the Union. The hon. member went on to refer to the report of the Tuberculosis Commission, and expressed the hope that the Commission in its further reports would urge the necessity of keeping people suffering from tuberculosis out of the country. He also urged that provision should be made for the medical examination of every person before being allowed to land. They could then prevent the importation of consumptive patients.

said he wondered what would happen if every country passed such a law as the one they were now asked to pass. Such laws showed the hollowness of the present competitive system. He took it the Bill was chiefly aimed at Asiatics. Well, here was a body of people who could live cheaply, who were thrifty, who were content with a minimum of profit, and who did not come to them for any assistance. They met all the requirements which the great people in this House wanted. Yet they wanted to keep them out. It just showed the hollowness of the whole thing. They had white traders in this country who wanted protection from these people and who were going to get it; yet when Labour members asked for the protection of the white workers in this country from the same class of people they were told they must put up with it. Their complaint was that the principles in the Bill were not applied equally to the whole community.

He would ask the Minister to consider what was going to be the effect of competition from another class of white people from overseas upon the people of this country? Consideration had been shown in this Bill to various sections, but the self-same clause giving a preference to contract labour remained in this Bill.

Do you want to exclude them?

Do you want to see come into this country a low type of white indentured worker? Proceeding, he said that to some extent he agreed with the provisions of the Bill in regard to the restriction of Asiatic traders, but they did not object so much to the presence of the Asiatic as the fact that the cause of their objection were allowed to remain—the competitive system. There was, he went on to say, no proposal in this Bill to prevent the importation in the future of the coolie labourer into Natal. It was true that the flow of labour from India had for the time being been stopped by the Indian Government, but once certain points were conceded, such as had been suggested by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), they did not know how soon that class of labour might be re-introduced. The Minister proposed to stop Asiatic traders, but he did not place any bar against Mozambique natives, although many of the Asiatics had a higher standard of living than the Mozambique natives. He thought the Minister might have been a little more consistent and prohibited the entry of these natives into this country equally with the Asiatics. Again, if the Minister would not allow the coolie or Indian to go into the Free State, why did he allow these people to go to the rest of the country? Did it not appear to him that, if these people were bad for the Free State, they were bad for the rest of the country also? He was willing to admit that the Bill now before Parliament was in some respects an improvement on the Bill of last year. Certain points had been conceded, but small attention had been paid to the need of protecting the industrial classes of this country. One of the most serious defects of the Bill was, as pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), the other evening, that immigrants were prevented from having recourse to the courts of this country. The sole arbiter of this matter was to be the Minister. Referring to the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Chaplin), Mr. Sampson said he did not think the hon. member was justified in putting the blame on the Government for the failure to pass the Bill of last session. He thought members on the Opposition benches were as equally opposed to that Bill as members on the Ministerial side. As to what had been said as to immigration to Canada, that movement was not due to the State, as the hon. member for Germiston had urged, but to private institutions which were making a big profit out of the business. What was the result? The people of Canada were being crowded out of Canada and were crossing over the border into the United States. (Hear, hear, and dissent.) The hon. member had not concluded his speech, when

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

, continuing, said he was trying to show that the people of Canada were not altogether pleased with the lack of system under which immigration to that country had taken place. It had been conducted in a very haphazard way, without any previous preparation to receive immigrants, or selection of the right class. But there were other countries where the result had been most satisfactory. Before dealing with those countries, he would like to say that the United States furnished an object-lesson to South Africa. For many years indentured labour was brought to the States from the South of Europe, but this system had been discontinued long ago, for the reason that these people were found not to be a permanent help to the country, but instead a drain upon their resources. What was wanted was a set of contented people who would make the country their permanent home, and success had never been obtained under a system of indentured labour. The biggest object-lesson at the present time, so far as immigration was concerned, was the case of Australia. But Australia did not set to work in a haphazard fashion, but did it in a systematic way. The channels of employment were freed, though they might have been temporarily blocked in one or two towns. This was simply due to some small hitch in the machinery. First, they had freed the land of the incubus of the land-owner and the land speculator. This was brought about by the taxation of land values, and the great amount of immigration that had taken place was principally due to this taxation. Then Australia had guaranteed a living wage to a man when he got there; when he became old the State endeavoured to make some provision for him. Then a man was free to choose his own employer. There were no contract immigrants there. All these things showed that they would have to prepare this country on similar lines before they could expect to be successful with immigration. They would have to deal with people, like those gentlemen in the Transvaal who had locked up five million morgen of land. Proceeding, Mr. Sampson pointed out the case of New Zealand, where immigrants were welcomed by the employee and the employer. In New Zealand, too, the success of immigration had been due to the taxation of land values. Thirty years ago the land was locked up, as it was in this country. In 1889 legislation dealing with the taxation of land values was brought into being. For seven years prior to 1889 the Government of New Zealand spent £67,000 of public money in stimulating immigration, with the result that the population actually declined by 19,000 persons. For the seven years subsequent to 1889 the population increased by 25,000, and only £841 was spent in stimulating immigration. He thought it essential, in order to successfully attract immigrants of the right sort here, that there should be taxation of land values. He thanked the Minister for removing the objection to the former Bill by including Yiddish as a European language. In his opinion, the Board, as at present constituted, were certainly better than the Board in the Bill of last year; but he thought that the conditions relating to immigrants who desired to appear before those Boards were far too stringent.

If the present Bill had been in force before, a good many people would not have been allowed to come into the country, who were now doing well. The man who had a good bank draft in his pocket, a man who had money in his pocket, probably made out of some “job”—some immoral game—-perhaps the white slave traffic in other countries—(An Hon. Member: Go on!)—could deposit that money which was required and satisfy the requirements of the Bill, and so get an entrance into the country; while the workman, with no money by him, and who did not tie himself up, and who preferred to choose his own employer, was held back. He was undesirable unless he had undertaken to serve some employer here for not less than twelve months. He saw that the Minister proposed to prohibit persons whose habits of life were unsuitable to the requirements of the Union. That was a very suspicious clause. He thought it was a very convenient way of getting rid of their political opponents—(laughter)—and submitted that the term was altogether too wide. Perhaps it might be held to be necessary for the purpose for which the Minister had designed his Bill, but he did not see how they could pass such a thing without a proper definition. The Minister had said they could not be expected to allow people to come into South Africa who would complicate the problems they already had here. Then why did he allow the further importation of natives? In South Africa, at the present time, there were a great number of unemployed white men, and the problem was difficult to overcome. In allowing more Kafirs to come into the country the difficulties were increased. The importation of Kafirs into the country from elsewhere was a stumbling block to the employment of whites. Proceeding, the hon. member said that when they had a certain Bill before the House earlier in the session, he had said that certain firms were in the habit of importing their shop assistants from other countries. He was quite prepared to mention the names of the firms he had in mind at the time. They were Messrs. Stuttaford and Co. and Messrs. Orr and Co. While he (Mr. Sampson) was absent from the House, the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Oliver) dealt with the matter, and brought up a categorical denial of what he (Mr. Sampson) had said, saying that he had a challenge in his pocket, that a certain firm was prepared to give the sum of £250 to the charities of the country if he (Mr. Sampson) could prove what he had said. But the hon. member, when he had delivered that challenge had forgotten to mention the name of the challenger, and that was the all important part of the thing. He had mentioned the name to him privately. He submitted that if the hon. member would publicly give the name of the firm and also the name of an adjudicator, he (Mr. Sampson) was quite prepared to prove, up to the hilt, what he had said about the firm importing people into that country from other countries. Continuing, the hon. member went on to deal with imported contract labour, and said that the people who were in this country already were the chief sufferers; and he could not understand why hon. members on the Government benches did not take up a different attitude with regard to that question, as the sons of the country suffered as the result of such imported contract labour. He submitted that if there was to be protection—and it was admitted that protection was necessary under the existing competitive system— that protection must be given all round. He was glad to see that the Minister had taken notice of the suggestion they had made in the previous year, in regard to the granting of certificates by some person oversea. To come to the clause under which the Minister or some other person was to judge whether employers were of repute or not, he thought that the Minister must have carelessly drafted it. How was the Agent-General in London to know who were employers of repute out here? Then, as to “adequate wages,” how were people at the other end to know whether the wages that would be paid here were adequate or not? The Minister of Railways and Harbours thought that 3s. 4d. per day was an “adequate” wage. Did the Minister of the Interior think so, too? If so, the clause was a farce. Unless they were to follow that up by appointing Wages Boards the whole thing must fail, and he submitted it was necessary that they ought to define very, very clearly what they meant by an adequate wage. He thought this had merely been designed to keep them on that bench quiet. He saw also that the person who had to issue the certificates had to ascertain whether there was a sufficient supply of labour in that country or not, but he thought that was setting him an impossible task. The Hon. the Minister could not even tell them the state of one trade. He could tell them that in the printing trade alone they had an average of between 60 and 70 out of employment since his predecessor admitted a batch of contract hands. In conclusion, Mr. Sampson said that they (the Labour Party) would try, as they had tried before, to put an end to semi-servile labour, put an end to contract labour, and force employers to pay adequate wages, and thereby attract immigrants in a natural way. They were in favour of making the conditions such that people would be encouraged to come to this country. They wanted to make conditions such as to encourage free emigration to South Africa, but cries which were heard in favour of immigration at present were hollow, when there was so much unemployment in South Africa amongst the whites. Why, at present there was a committee sitting upstairs dealing with the question of unemployment, in the country amongst whites.

said that he was glad to hear what his hon. friend had said, because it showed how difficult it was to deal with that question. It was a cry raised by the party with “white labour” on their banner—without white people. (Laughter.) In one part of the hon. member’s speech he had attacked his (Mr. Merriman’s) venerable friend (Mr. Fischer) because he had put into his Bill a provision that unless a man had a certain amount of money he was not allowed to land in the country, but in a very few sentences further on the Minister was attacked violently because, when a man came out under contract, with a place to go to, “they should not encourage that kind of labour.” It was a close borough, and let them keep it so. It reminded him of the six hatters in Australia. We must make it possible for people to come in and at the same time recognise that restrictions are to be carried out. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said: I don’t know who the working classes of this country are, for we all belong to the working classes in this country, with the exception of a few Baronets. (Laughter.) I hope we shall combine and pass this Bill. As far as I can see, speaking as a South African, it ought to have been passed long ago. We are always talking about our duties to the Imperial Government—all of us. Don’t put any obstacle in the way of the passing of this Bill, because it is urgently needed by the Imperial Government, and although I don’t usually apply that argument in pressing anything, I cannot but see that Great Britain is exposed to a great danger from what is called “The Indian Question” —a very great danger. A conversation I had with that distinguished gentleman who came here from India the other day, confirmed me in that opinion. The sooner we come to an agreement, the better. I must say I cannot congratulate my right hon. friend upon one thing, and that is the title which he has affixed to this Bill. I suppose we are the only country or colony in the world which is engaged in passing an Immigrants’ Restriction Bill—(cheers)— and we are doing that in a country where we are always saying we want more white people on the land and we are beside ourselves with terror at the incoming of the coloured races, and with the eloquent words of the Prime Minister ringing in our ears as to the necessity of white people here, and honestly I agree with very nearly everything he said on that subject. But at the same time what will be thought elsewhere when it goes out to the world that we are passing an Immigrants’ Restriction Bill? If the Minister had called it an Immigrants’ Regulations Bill, it would have expressed what he means.

The major portion of the Bill is required by the Indian question. These people are subjects of the Empire like ourselves—with a different colour to their skins it is true —-and the British Government has entered into a solemn engagement with them through the mouth of the King. They came to this country and their rights—I will not say are not respected—it is perhaps not exactly the word, but, of course, that is the word used by the party which is anxious to stir up strife in India. It is made a handle with which to stir up the feelings of the people of India, against Great Britain. I think we, as good subjects—we may have our own particular views about Imperialism and so forth, but we are all anxious to do our duty to the British Commonwealth and to see that our engagements are fulfilled and that we treat these people properly. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has cast very violent vituperation on every one. He says I want to import coolies. He is in absolute ignorance of what has taken place. (Hear, hear.) Ever since I have had a seat in Parliament I have always opposed the importation of coolies. (Cheers.) Very often I have opposed my friends and did all I could, whether in or out of office, to oppose the importation of coolies or black people. We have enough coloured people in this country and they are a grave enough question without importing any more. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member stigmatised me as a person who imported coolies for my own purposes. I know coolies would be convenient, and Chinese far more so, but what would become of those who come after us? (Cheers.) I have whenever my friends opposite have voted in an indirect way for importing Chinese—I have always opposed them; not because I disliked Chinese, but because I know that they are too good, too industrious, and too cheap if you like, and that eventually the land would pass into their hands, and the children of those of my friends here would be nowhere.

I oppose coolies for the same reason— they are an industrious and a hard-working people. I don’t want to throw stones, but selfish people elsewhere have, for their own selfish ends, imported coolies for a long while. There were only four or five thousand of them at one time, and then they were found profitable, and these people poured them into the country. The result is that the people who brought them in are in the minority in their own country owing to their selfishness. (Hear, hear.) I strongly urged the Government to stop the coolie immigration into Natal at once. Unfortunately they did not do it soon enough, for they gave six months’ grace. The planters poured in seventeen thousand coolies, although they knew that that was against the wish of the rest of South Africa. I opposed the importation of Asiatics, because we have a mixture enough here already, and we have our own gigantic problem to deal with, and if you bring these people from the races which are rising, and which some day or other may be a gigantic danger to the white races, you are going to pave the way for this country passing out of our hands. But it is our duty to these people who did not come into this country at their own wish to treat them well, and I question whether we do quite treat them well. Don’t let any more come in, but those that you have, treat them well; put them upon some proper footing, and don’t let them feel that they are a degraded people; give them what civil rights they are entitled to. We brought them here as slaves, as they were really, and now we find them so industrious and efficient that we take legal means to prevent their efficiency having full play.

May I briefly review the history of our feelings towards this question of immigration. That goes as far back as 200 years ago, when the Dutch Government took a fatal step. The Council of Seventeen forbade immigration to this country. First of all they began, much, I suppose, in the same way as some of my friends would like—they forbade the conveyance here of freemen unless they paid a fixed amount of passage money. The Council wrote: “It is neither fair nor serviceable that our people should be burdened with fickle people, who are continually desirous of changing their residence.” (Laughter.) That was in 1704. In July, 1707, some of the freemen began to show that they were free, and they were making a slight disturbance down about Stellenbosch way— (laughter)—the home of freedom and the home of awkward questions. A letter from the Seventeen in Amsterdam was received in 1708, enclosing extracts from resolutions stopping immigration. One resolution read: “It is further understood that the resolution of 22nd June, 1707, by which different chambers were permitted to send to the Cape free of expense certain men and women, should be cancelled, and henceforth no freemen should be sent thither except by special consent of this meeting."A further resolution of July 16 adheres to the previous resolution and cancels the permission. That was the beginning of our dealing with immigration, and from that time the white races received no accretion except casual ones, and those due to the natural increase of population.

It was a misfortune, because they were importing slaves at the same time, and the people grew up a mere planter aristocracy, with the exception of a few free farmers, who quarrelled with the Government and emigrated over the mountains, and formed the progenitors of the Boers of to-day. But that was a bad step for all. Well, from that day to this we have never contemplated, apparently, that this was going to be a white man’s country. It was always going to be a planter country, and it was until the British came here that that continued. Well, the British imported in 1820 a large number of white people, who had been a considerable acquisition to the white strength of South Africa, because we are too apt to forget, in talking of more recent events, that it was these wretched settlers who were put upon the ground, and it was these poor people who bore the brunt of the first Kafir onslaught. (Cheers.) But we have never been an exporting country, because we relied on black labour. I do not think I can do better than give the feeling that as late as 1862 was entertained with regard to this subject, and as an illustration I will give you a little petition I unearthed the other day, from one Captain Van Reenen, who was an Indian officer, and also a member of a well-known Colonial family. It is a petition about immigration, and really it is instructive to read it in view of the present discussion. At that time Mr. Gird was importing English farm labourers with the assistance of the Government, and this gentleman was so exercised that he thought it best to petition the Government to point out that importing these men was not only a useless expense, but was cruel to them, inasmuch as the heat of the sun was so great in the summer that no white person could work in the field for a number of years without losing his health. (Laughter.) Then he goes on—because he knew labour was wanted in this country—to say that such being the case there is nothing left but the teeming and starving millions of India and China, and as cotton could be grown here we only wanted this cheap labour to turn the acres now lying waste into a blooming colony. (Laughter.) Then he goes on to bring to the notice of the House the invidious distinctions of a foreign gentleman, Mr. Wm. Berg, who was helping Germans to come out here. The Germans have been a God send to this country, because they have shown what can be done. (Cheers.)

Well, he did not petition in vain, because ever since then, sporadically, until quite lately, there had been efforts made to introduce coolies. I remember I had to resist—and got into rather hot water in doing it—the importation of Chinese labourers in 1880. Hardly had that fallen through, but there was a proposal that we should import a large number of black men, Mozambiques, coolies, and anybody else but white men. We had committees on the labour question. Committees of Labour in those days were very different from what they are now. They all went in one direction: that we should increase our supply of black labour. I am glad to say those days are past. (Cheers.) I wish I could believe that this Bill will make some provision for the introduction of people upon a rational scale—(cheers)—some provision by which a farmer, if he is prepared to bear the charges of importing, and give work to European peasants, should be allowed to do so, and the Government should give him assistance. (Opposition cheers.) It is very difficult to get men to do this; but it is not so very many years ago that we set on foot a scheme by which the Government was to import Italian peasants from certain districts where they are extremely efficient as vine dressers and fruit growers, and we got a large number of farmers, Dutch and English, in this part of the country, to engage to take so many families. They were to obtain what was considered adequate wages—that was 3s. or 3s. 6d. a day.

What do you mean by adequate?

My hon. friend says: What do you call adequate wages? Well, I say when a man has been earning 5d. a day in his own country, and you bring him out here and give him a cottage and ground and 3s. a day, I say that is adequate. (Hear, hear.) What happened? The newspapers raised the cry that we were bringing out white people at Kafir’s wages. These papers were sent to Italy, the Government interfered, and the thing was dropped. I think it is a great pity it was dropped, because there are no better people for working with vines than the Italians. (Cheers.) Our greatest rivals—(Well, it is not our rival now. We are limping behind them)—the River Plate, owes its prosperity to these Italians. We could have done better with them than even the River Plate has done. (Cheers.) Well, I don’t pin my faith to Italians. Scandinavians would do just as well, and so would Teutons.

It is no use talking about the English, because there are no such things as English peasants. “Our wretched land laws and system has turned them all into operatives, and they won’t go on the land. But, still, if you can get them, get him, offer him a home and regular employment until he is settled down in this country, and if any farmer would be ready to do that and import these people, I should be glad to see the Government vote some money to do it—(cheers)—because it will act well in both ways. These people would be an example to our poor whites who won’t go on to the farms because they think they will be servants. Therefore, when I see an Immigration Bill only dealing with the restrictive side, I think it is a great loss to this country. (Cheers.) I agree almost entirely with what the Prime Minister has said about this. This is not a country where you can, helter-skelter, introduce immigrants. We can’t do it. But suppose that we could bring troops of people out here and land them here. It would be a crime. Unless you can give them a settled occupation you will be doing a crime to this country and these people (Cheers.) I don’t blame the Prime Minister very much. He may have been carried away in England. We all are. (Laughter.) There is no getting away from that. But he is anxious to see white people on the soil—the smaller holdings the better—and see them employed by people until they can get their footing. (Cheers.) But you cannot do that by spending a large sum of money and dumping people down out here. It is no good. Neither is it any good to give people small pieces of land and say ‘Now, there you are; sink or swim.’ We did that with the Germans, but the Germans are a different kind of people. I remember in the old Cape House of Assembly Mr. Louw, when I was bringing these people out, said: ‘What are you going to do? (We were going to put them on the Flats.) You are going to. starve them.’ Well, look at those people to-day. You must be very careful in this country about the sort of people you introduce. We have had attempts over and over again to introduce immigrants, and they have failed, because it requires a most careful system of introduction; and I think the best system is to give the whole or part of the passage to the people to come out as agricultural servants to farmers in this country. So long as they are hardworking peasants, you must trust to the farmers, because they will take care that they get serviceable men. That is the only safe and sound way in which we can approach this immigration subject. I will only say this to my hon. friend: I want to see this Bill pass into law. I want to see us come to some arrangement with the British Government. The British Government, I understand, have approved of the terms of this Bill, or generally with the terms of the Bill. No doubt they don’t like the short title. (Laughter.) But probably we can meet them here. But if my hon. friend will take my advice, though I don’t suppose he is likely to do it, by way of quickening the passage of this Bill he will take a carefully chosen committee and put this Bill through it— beat out your difficulties in the Committee Room, come down here, and run the Bill through.

In conclusion, he said they must get rid of their short title, which savoured too much of the old legislation of Spain. At one time Spain had nearly the whole world under her Colonial sway. As they knew, there was the office of the Inquisition— very much like the Immigration Board. (Laughter.) They used to keep a man at each port to find out whether a man was a heretic or not before they decided whether he should be allowed to land. His hon. friend might take a hint from that. (Laughter.)

said he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. gentleman, but there was no occasion to point to the necessity of taking care to pave the way before they dumped thousands of immigrants into this country. Who wanted England, or any other country, to dump their thousands here? They had always said that, as a corollary to any scheme of immigration, they must have a scheme for preparing for them.

rose on a point of order, and asked if they were discussing the Immigration Bill, or an Immigration Restriction Bill?

said the hon. member was quite in order.

said that the hon. gentleman might have made his suggestion on a previous statement, when the historical side of the question was being dealt with, and they were being taken back 200 years, to show the policy of the people of the country towards immigration in those days. That seemed to have been a policy of saying they must have no immigrants, or, at any rate, no white men. It was largely the same to-day. A heavy load rested on the country, whose prosperity to-day depended too much on the mining industry. Heaven help it if it did not go in for a sound policy of immigration to develop the country and develop the land. That afternoon they had listened to a most interesting speech by the hon. member for Weenen. They all knew before that speech that the difficulties that that Bill was designed to straighten out were very complicated, but they were very glad to hear a very frank statement from the hon. member for Weenen, which gave the Natal point of view. It was a plain statement of how the Natal people looked at it. When he spoke of the desire of Natal to keep out Cape Malays, the thought which passed through his (Mr. Baxter’s) mind was that a Province which took that point of view would understand the point of view of the Cape people in connection with Asiatics coming from Natal. It was a quid pro quo. The hon. member put his finger on the radical weakness of the Bill— that it attempted to solve two problems in one Bill. It wanted to solve the problem of how they were going to keep out at the ports undesirables who wanted to come into the country from overseas, at the same time to decide what restrictions they should put upon Asiatics coming from one Province into another. If the hon. Minister would only separate those two questions, there would be no necessity to come to that House with a Bill of that drastic character. If there was a separation, the whole thing would undoubtedly be much simpler.

The hon. member for Victoria West pleaded for the passage of the Bill, in order to straighten out the difficulties with the Imperial Government. They (the Opposition) were as anxious as the hon. member to do nothing which would put any impediment in the way of a settlement of those difficult problems. If the right hon. gentleman had closely read the correspondence which had been placed on the Table of that House between the Imperial Government and the Union Government on that matter, he thought he would be the first to admit that what the Imperial Government asked was not that Bill, but that they should do away with the differentiation as against Asiatics in our present laws and in any future Bill or Act that might be passed. There was nothing in the correspondence to lead them to suppose that a Bill in those terms should be introduced at all. They laid down certain things which they regarded as essential. The main thing being, they must never in any Bill mention Asiatics as such. They must not offend against the susceptibilities of those people, and nothing in the law should show that they were placed at a disadvantage compared with Europeans or anybody else. There was nothing to indicate they wanted the Australian or Canadian or any other drastic system. He (Mr. Baxter) agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, and the hon. member for Germiston that the whole question would be solved if they would tackle the Free State law, and the Transvaal law of 1907. They should take from them the sting of differentiation against Asiatics. That was what the Imperial Government objected to. The sham of the urgent necessity of having stringent immigration laws in respect to immigration at the ports would absolutely fall to the ground. What did they find in reference to the existing laws dealing with immigration? It was up to the Ministry to prove that the present laws had been failures before they passed a drastic law which would give increased power to the immigration officers.

Proceeding, he asked, could the hon. Minister say that the immigration restriction law of the Cape had been a failure in restricting the entry of immigrants into the country? If he could say so, then he was going contrary to the reports of his responsible officers and the report of committees of the Cape House who had gone into the acts of the Immigration Department. If he would look at the official figures dealing with immigration he did not think that the hon. Minister could say that the present laws had not had the effect of carefully restricting immigration. In the case of the immigration of Asiatics last year there landed in the Union (that was in 1912) 1,837 Asiatics, while 3,267 embarked. So that there was a net loss of Asiatics during the year of 1,430. The hon. member proceeded to give some figures relating to immigration into the Cape to show that there was no reason to assume that the old Cape immigration law had not had the desired effect of coping with the immigration, of Asiatics. The immigration of Asiatics in 1903 was 1,646, and when the Cape Act was passed it fell in 1908 to 387. In 1909 it rose 445, and in 1910-11-12 it had been approximately between 400 and 500 Asiatics. That is to say that for the last four or five years it had practically been stationary at 400 to 500 souls. What he wanted the House to remember in reference to those figures was that those were largely Asiatics who had left this country and were returning. The number of new Asiatics who had come into the country during the last four or five years had been exceedingly small, and were mainly composed of wives and children of Asiatics who were already here. The figures in that respect were in 1908, 115 Asiatics who had not been in the country before they came into South Africa; in 1909 the number was 102; 1910, 71; 1911, 122; and 1912, 130.

In face of these figures could the House say that there was any danger of an influx into this country of Asiatics who had never been in this country before? Did these figures demand that these drastic powers should be placed in the hands of the Minister? It was ridiculous to assume that they were faced by a panic and a serious state of affairs in regard to Asiatics and that there was necessity for asking them to resign the liberty of the subject in the way that was suggested by the measure before the House. He did not know whether the Minister had studied the immigration reports which came to his predecessor in the Cape Parliament from the Chief Immigration Officer and the Legislative Council Committee which dealt with the whole subject in 1909. They were worthy of consideration and study, and he could only say that he was sorry to say that since Union these matters had been dealt with—in the way most matters seemed to have been dealt with since Union—by neglect. (Hear, hear.) The House did not know how immigration stood at the present time; they did not get the reports which used to be furnished them in the old Cape House. In the old days they were able to see whether things were right or wrong; they were supplied with figures and information, and they were able to draw their own conclusions. He thought that it was their duty as members of that House to protest against the present haphazard way of doing things of this sort. (Hear, hear.) The Legislative Council Committee did not say that the old Cape Act was a failure—that it did not effect its purpose of keeping out the people that they wished to keep out of this country. They merely dealt with the provisions of the Act for the purpose of strengthening them where required and weakening other sections if such weakening was needed. They merely said that the education test should be a real education test, and that no man should be kept out of the country because he could not pass a false education test. The second great recommendation went in the other direction—namely, to give the immigration people power to admit obvious desirables who could not pass the education test. That was a very different proposition to the one which was placed before them that evening. If the Minister looked into the last report of Mr. Cousins, he would find that he asked that power should be given for the admission of obviously desirable people who could not pass the education test. His point was: could anyone say, in view of the experiences of the Government Department in Natal and in the Cape, that there was any official demand from the people best qualified to judge, for greater powers, such as were asked for in this Bill? He submitted that there was no necessity for the extremely drastic power which the Minister asked for in this Bill.

Then the Minister put in an innocent looking clause, giving him the power to exclude immigrants for economic reasons. He wondered if any sane Parliament in the world would be asked to consider, let alone pass, a clause like that. This was a tremendous power to give any Minister. What, were economic reasons? They might be anything. It was not many months since they had from a Minister of the Crown—a Minister, a member of that House, who until recently sat on the Treasury benches, and had the power of administering the laws—an opinion on economic reasons with regard to immigration. He said, in effect—these were not his actual words—that immigration was an economic curse to South Africa. That was the inference one gained from his words. He condemned immigration on economic grounds. Could they, as reasonable men, put from their minds the fear that that gentleman might again occupy a seat on the Ministerial benches? Could they say that, in the course of the next few months, that same gentleman, who held these ideas on immigration, from an economic point of view, would not have the administration of this very clause in his hands? What might happen? What might not happen? Were they to calmly pass a clause of this kind? He said it was not safe, and he was not prepared to do anything of the kind. He was prepared to do anything in reason, but he was not prepared to hand over the liberty of the subject, and the liberty of his own British fellow-subjects, to one who held economic fallacies, which he publicly enunciated not three years ago. There were difficulties, but the chief difficulty was the one raised by the hon. member for Weenen, as to what they were going to do with the Asiatics who were in the country at the present time? It was when they came to the question of how to deal with the Asiatics who were here already, and whom they were proposing to give provincial boundaries to, that the real difficulty arose. There was no necessity for this drastic immigration law; there was no necessity for asking for these tremendous powers. He submitted that the Ministry, having had three tries at a Bill of this kind, should leave it over for another year, and see whether they could not break the measure into two, and deal separately with these important matters. (Hear, hear.)

said he noticed a clause to the effect that persons suffering from infectious diseases, excepting tuberculosis, would be excluded from the country. Was tuberculosis not infectious? He thought tuberculosis was very infectious, and he urged that the Minister should reconsider this provision, and that it should be laid down that no one suffering from any kind of disease would be allowed to enter. In other countries, as in New Zealand for example, they were very strict with immigrants who suffered from tuberculous complaints, land he even understood that persons suffering from heart disease were refused admission. It was not necessary to go so far as that here. In this country he thought we had already quite enough diseases, and it would be folly to show any weakness in dealing with tuberculosis and such like diseases.

drew attention to the fact that there was no quorum.

A quorum having been obtained,

said that economic pressure had brought them to realise that their country had a right to say what people should be allowed to come in to form part of its population. It was quite true that they realised that, and he did not suppose that there was anybody in that House, or any thoughtful person in the Union, who did not realise that it would not do for the Union that there should be any further introduction of Asiatics into the country. They had already got a very large native population in the Union, and already had many difficult problems to deal with. He thought it would have been much better to have had a straightforward Bill that they would not allow any more Asiatics into the country, except a few men who supplied the wants of those Asiatics already in the country, such as doctors, religious teachers, and so forth. He believed if they could have legislated in that form many of the difficulties they had now, and the pinpricks which the Government had to inflict on the Indian population who were in the country would not exist. It had been said that they were trying to do two impossible things, and he thought that was true. They were trying to prohibit the introduction of any more Asiatics into the country, and they were trying to do it by legislation, which would give the right to prohibit, not only Asiatics, but anyone else. That was where the difficulty arose. He could not help hoping that they might yet reach a point where the Home Government, the Indians themselves, and South Africa would be satisfied. He believed that there was as much opposition to that measure as there had been to the one of the previous year, and that of the year before. He did not think that Bill would be more successful than the others, and as far as he could understand, the Indians were more opposed to that Bill than to the other Bills. Dealing with the Board of Appeal, the hon. member said it was not a real Board of Appeal at all, but only a Board of Appeal in words, and bound to carry out the instructions of the Ministers, and he asked why there could be no appeal to the courts of the land except on the question of domicile.

The rights of the subject were swept away by the Bill, which would establish a sort of Star Chamber. In fact, a man might be prohibited from landing even although he had passed the education test. Every coloured person apart from Asiatics would come under the Bill. Who these people were he did not know, but it was evident that the Government had them in its eye. The purpose of the Government was to keep out Asiatics under paragraph (a) and Europeans under paragraph (b). If the Bill was meant to keep out Europeans. What Europeans? If the language test were the only one it would be sufficient to stop Asiatic immigration, but it was utterly wrong to put this tremendous power in the hands of any Government. As to Asiatics in the Free State, he did not blame the Free State for taking steps to exclude them, and it would have been a good thing if Natal had from the beginning passed a similar law. He did not think the Government ought to interfere with the Free State law except that the limited number of Indians it was proposed to admit to the country should be permitted to go to the Free State as well as to other Provinces of the Union. Continuing, Mr. Schreiner said that as one went through the Bill one became more and more convinced that its object was not merely to hinder the introduction of further Indians, but to drive the Indians in the country out of it and never to allow them to return. That was where the Bill could not possibly be in accord with the sentiments and wishes of the Imperial Government. The Indians already in South Africa should be treated fairly, but the Bill took away their rights. In fact, the measure would make thousands of Indians in Natal into prohibited immigrants, and he believed that was the object of the measure. There was an intense feeling amongst Indians on the subject, and if the Bill were passed there would be a passive resistance movement which would be much greater than any similar movement in the Transvaal. As to the restrictions imposed on the importation of the wives of Indians already here, if they touched a man in his nearest and dearest feelings there was no wonder that he was dissatisfied. Government ought to try and solve the question.

In connection with the £3 tax imposed on indentured Indians and each of their children who elected to remain in Natal after their indentures had expired, he would like to remind the House that in correspondence between the Government and the Imperial Government that very matter was mentioned, and while the Government had done nothing, they promised that they would consider the question. They were not going to do anything to keep the Indian in the country if they could get him out of it. This was not fair. Then regarding the provision that persons of European descent were not to be prohibited, if the Governor-General was satisfied that there were not sufficient of such persons in the Union at adequate wages, how were they going to do that? Would the Government send circulars round to the farmers and find out how many men were required? No, they would not, so these people would be prohibited immigrants. Regarding the proviso of section 5, he considered it did away with the right which the South African-born Indians had to enter the Cape Province with their present status. Whatever rights existed at the present time should continue. They should recognise that these people in the country were British subjects, and had the rights which other British subjects possessed. The hon. member was proceeding to deal with the clause regarding Indians absent from the country for more than three years, when

I must point out to the hon. member that this is work for the committee. The hon. member is going through every clause of the Bill. That is committee work.

proceeded to say that depriving the Indian of his rights after an absence of three years was a great injustice. He continued to say that if they passed this Bill they would find that the Indian Government would be more dissatisfied than with the previous Bill. There would be more discontent in India than before if all these drastic provisions in this Bill were passed, so he thought it would be a wise thing to wait a bit and try again next year. Perhaps then they would get a better understanding. Regarding marriages, surely something could be done to remove that which the Indians looked upon as a great stigma. It was the declaration that the Indian marriage was no marriage at all that they objected to. This Parliament could not legislate in such a way as to put a large section of the community in a perpetual state of discontent.

The hon. member has repeated that argument before.

said that when the hon. member for Tembuland was speaking it struck him that if the hon. member had only tried to interpret the wishes of the people of this country he would not have found so many difficulties in the Bill. He (Mr. Wessels) hoped that whatever happened that that Bill would become law that session. It was not only desirable that they should have uniformity in regard to that important question, put it was only fair to the Indians themselves that they should know what their position was going to be. In the past they had made a great mistake in South Africa. It was rather late, but now they were going to close the door, so that no more Indians could come in. But a large number of those people had come into South Africa, had acquired property, got licences, and other rights, and it was their duty to see that those rights were protected. He thought the Indians in South Africa should be very well satisfied. Objections had been made regarding restricting them within boundaries, but it would be unfair that the Cape should have to pay, for instance, the penalty for the mistake that had been made by the people of Natal. In Natal they had something like 120,000 Indians, and if they allowed those people to come into the Cape at will it would be a great injustice and would be keenly resented by the people of Cape Colony. He would point out that in restricting them to the Province they would not be taking away the rights that they possessed.

The main objections to the Bill seemed to be the power of the Immigration Board to restrict Asiatics from entering the country after the three years’ absence, and that the onus of proof should be thrown upon the immigrant. He thought it was quite fair to create machinery of that kind. It was too much to expect that an alien should have the right to appeal to the Courts. That would put the country to great expense in contesting the appeals. Under the Canadian law only those who were domiciled in the country could appeal. There was no reason to suggest that the Board would not deal fairly, but it was asking too much to give aliens the right to go to the Courts. With regard to the objection that the Bill laid down that after three years domicile was lost, they must take into consideration the class of people they were dealing with. They were not Europeans, and there would be the difficulty of identification. He thought that three years was quite sufficient to make religious pilgrimages and get back again. They must fix a time limit, or the law could easily be evaded. In respect to throwing the onus of proof upon the immigrant, he thought that was a fair proposition. If a man was legally inside the country there should be no difficulty in his proving that he was not a prohibited immigrant. As to too much power being given to the Minister to restrict immigration, they had had that power for three years, and in every case the department had had good cause for the rejection. They must of necessity give autocratic powers to the Government; there was no justification for the contention that the Government would take up a tyrannical attitude.

Turning to the question of assisted immigration, a very sore point with the Opposition, he thought the Government had taken up a very reasonable attitude in saying they were not going to assist immigration until they were satisfied that they had met the needs of the people already in this country. That was a perfectly logical and reasonable attitude to take up. There was no reason to say that the Government was going to misuse its powers. They would not always be in office. Hon. members opposite would at some time be in office. (Opposition cheers, and Labour cries of dissent.)

Proceeding, the hon. member said he would prefer to see direct legislation against Indian immigration into this country, but they had to consider the position of the Imperial Government, who preferred to see legislation indirectly. They knew that in South Africa this feeling on the question of Indian immigration was strong, and it was a question upon which the two races were absolutely united. Although they would like to study the wishes of the Imperial Government, and they did not want to wound the susceptibilities of the Government in India, it was essentially a South African question. When they went to the length of safeguarding the Indians already in the country. It was as much as they could be expected to do, and he could not see that in that Bill the Indians had really any grievances. In his opinion, the Indians in South Africa would never be satisfied unless they threw open the ports and gave them full rights of citizenship. Unless they gave them those two things the Indian population would never be satisfied. They must, however, consider the feelings of the people of South Africa. They had heard threats of passive resistance, but he hoped that the Government would see the Bill through this session.

said that certain grievances affecting the Asiatic population that had been raised over and over again had not yet been adjusted. When a distinguished Indian visited this country a few months ago to interview the Government, he (Sir D. Hunter) was the chairman at an entertainment given by the Indian people. That gathering was one of the most remarkable that had ever been held in South Africa, in which Europeans and Indians met together socially. He thought that the hon. Mr. Gokhale had impressed everyone with his high intelligence, his statesmanship, and the broad outlook he took on the questions that were considered. He (the speaker) would like to have heard some reference from the Government to the visit of this distinguished son of India. Dealing with the Indian tax in Natal, the point upon which he had addressed a question to the Minister, he said he believed that it was never intended to apply to women and children. He supposed the matter was still under consideration. Continuing, he said he was glad to hear that there was a strong desire on the part of the House to treat those Indians who had been in the country for years with fairness and justice. The Minister had referred to the necessity of being masters in their own house. With the general statement he did not quarrel, but he did not like to hear too much of it. There was a much broader outlook which the House and the country required to take. He thought that the objection to the Bill was largely lodged in the clauses which gave the Minister power to exclude immigrants from that country, and he confessed he shared the fears which had been expressed in regard to the extreme powers which were sought for the Minister. The Minister, under that Bill, might exclude many people whom all right thinking colonists would like to see come into the country, and if they were to wait till the thousands and tens of thousands of people already in the country were settled on the land and were made happy, as the Minister had said, he was afraid that the progress of the country would be very slow indeed. (Hear, hear.) In regard to shipping, he did not know if the shipping authorities had been consulted, but he thought there would be considerable trouble if the clauses referring to the duties of shipowners were put into force. The Government would have to excuse them on his side of the House if they distrusted them with regard to the powers that were sought for the Minister, because so little progress had been made, and so little had been done in regard to immigration. What they wanted in that country were men with some capital, if they could get them, men with some experience, who could settle on the land, where they could make a living, found families, and increase the wealth of the South African nation. As it was, the Bill had not seemed to please anyone.

rose at 10.40 p.m., and was greeted with cries of: “Move the adjournment.” It was then found that no quorum was present. A quorum having been made.

said the hon. member for Victoria West had taken exception to a remark which he seemed to think had been made by the hon. member for Commissioner-street (Mr. Sampson). When the latter said that many members were anxious to introduce a large quantity of indentured, cheap, servile labour, he (Mr. Andrews) did not think he referred to the right hon. member. They were all aware that the hon. member for Victoria West fought against the introduction of Chinese labour. But some people seemed to think that labour was something in the nature of a commodity. Hundreds of employers talked about the necessity of importing labour as if it were a fertiliser, machinery or plant, necessary for production. That was the way some employers thought. (Cries of: “No.”) But they on the cross benches said that labour resided in man—that you could not have labour unless you had a man. They wanted men and women in this country in order to build up a nation, and that was where the point of difference came in between the members of the Labour Party and the right hon. gentleman. They were told from time to time that they got on public platforms in the country and said they were in favour of immigration, and then they were told that, on the other hand, they were constantly protesting against a certain form of immigration— that of indentured labour. They were not opposed to labour if paid an adequate wage, which was a wage sufficient to keep a man, his wife and family in comfort. The hon. member for Bechuanaland said they must provide for every one of the poor people in this country before they thought or talked of immigration. It was a preposterous proposition. He failed to realise that the poor white question was the symptom of a disease. If he waited until doomsday and continued to follow the policy of the Government and of the Opposition, there would always be the poor white problem in this country. The disease could be expressed in two sentences. First of all the land was not available at anything like reasonable terms. There was no room for the poor man. Secondly, the whole policy of this country was to rely upon black, imported, indentured labourers to do the work both on the mines and on the land. It was useless to talk about the poor white question of immigration, until the land and the indentured labour questions had been settled. He thought that the Bill clearly allowed the importation of imported indentured labour. He wondered whether the Minister would be as careful in examining the records of these natives as he examined the records of Europeans at Cape Town and Durban. They said the importation of native labour should be stopped and thus open the road for Europeans.