from Petronella M. Pienaar, a teacher in the Warrenton Public School, praying for the condonation of a break in her service, or for other relief.

from W. J. Smuts, Senior Inspector of Sheep, of Inthlabati, Bellville, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1889, and is now informed that, he is to be retired on the 31st July, 1913, praying that the House may grant him a pension, or for other relief.

from G. C. Byrne, of Northdene, Natal, who entered the Natal Civil Service in 1883, and was retired at his own request in. 1912, praying that the House may grant him two months’ salary in lieu of unexhausted leave, or for other relief.

announced that the Governor-General, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the King, had been pleased to give his assent to the following Bills viz.:

Financial Relations Act.

Transfer Duty Reduction Act.

amended Vote No. 32, “Provincial Administrations.”

This was referred to Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

Returns relating to registration of citizens under the South Africa Defence Act, 1912, and Militiamen and Volunteers transferring to the Active Citizen Force.

moved, as an unopposed motion, that Mr. H. C. Hull, having resigned his seat as member of the House of Assembly, this House, in terms of the Transvaal law, declares that a vacancy has occurred in the electoral division of Barberton.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that when this debate was adjourned on Friday, the question before the House was a motion by the Minister of Native Affairs: That the Bill be now read a second time; upon which an amendment had been moved by Colonel Crewe: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “the Order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs, for consideration and report.”

said that he spoke with some reserve on this Bill, because, although he had lived in this country so long, he by no means professed to be an expert on questions affecting the native population. He had noticed with very great satisfaction the change which had come over European public opinion in regard to the education and general well-being of the natives. He was struck by the fact that one of the conclusions arrived at by the Native Affairs Commission of 1905 was that the hope for the elevation of the native races must depend mainly on their acceptance of Christian faith and morals. From representations which had been made to him by educated natives, it seemed that their feeling was that this Bill had come upon them rather too suddenly. Although they were quite friendly and well-disposed towards some measures being taken in the sense in which this Bill provided, they wanted more time to think about the matter, and discuss it thoroughly. In point of fact, their view was that the Bill should have been introduced after, and not before, the proposed Commission was appointed. The hon. member went on to call attention to a resolution adopted by the Natal Missionary Conference, protesting against the proposals now before Parliament to deprive the native population of their present rights, and deprecating the disturbance in any respect of the present status of native rights, until a carefully-prepared scheme had been formulated and adopted after adequate discussion. His own feeling in regard to this question was that the Bill required much more discussion, and should be withdrawn, and that the subject-matter should form the subject-matter of a Commission to inquire into the whole question, and report to the House. The natives, he urged, should be given an opportunity of considering the provisions of the Bill, and of stating their views before the proposed Commission, and the Christian missionaries who were so intimately associated with work amongst the native population should be freely and fully consulted. He added that he agreed with many of the views expressed, that the communal system of land tenure amongst natives should not be allowed to continue, and expressed the opinion that the individual acquisition of landed property by natives should be encouraged.

said he was going to endeavour to give a little constructive criticism—(hear, hear)—if he were able. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, most of the speakers appeared to agree with the principle of the Bill, but they differed in regard to some of the details. It was difficult for him to understand how hon. members on the other side, if they agreed with the principle, should suggest that the order for the second reading be discharged, and the subject-matter referred to a Select Committee. There were some members also who suggested that, after taking the second reading, the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. He hoped the Minister would not send this Bill to a Select Committee. He thought it was a Bill the details of which could well be threshed out on the floor of the House. It was most undesirable, when native legislation was introduced, that there should be any delay. Continuing, he said that by far the greater number of members of that House agreed with the principle of the Bill. There was One part of the Bill which he found it difficult to realise could be accepted by hon. members on his side of the House, and that was the clause referring to exappropriation. Members on his side of the House objected to exappropriation, and if he thought that such a policy was commenced, they would come up against all sorts of interests. (Laughter.) There was a system of sending cattle down to the low country for winter grazing, and if some of the land used for grazing was taken for the occupation of natives, great hardship would be inflicted on these people. Then there were the labour tenants, and the hon. member for Lady brand had called this a pernicious system. He did not see any difference between the labour tenant here and the agricultural labourer in England. (Laughter.) He suggested to the Minister that he should levy a rent on the natives who occupied locations in Natal, and earmark this money for the purpose of purchasing ground for native occupation. Dealing with the speech of the right hon. the member for Victoria West, he said that it was destructive in character, and would furnish ammunition for the less-enlightened among the natives for the purpose of opposing the measure. Personally he welcomed the Bill, and thought that it was a good measure.

said that a man who thought that a question such as that could be solved by one stroke of the pen did not know what he was talking about. The solution of this problem reminded him of a game of chess, because one hardly knew what the other side was going to do. He hoped that the white man would continue to play the game fairly and squarely. The present prosperity of the native race was due to the white man, who protected the native. The white man required labour, and the native provided the necessary labour. By that he did not wish to convey that the native must always be a labourer. But one could not lift all natives to a higher plane. Some would always remain labourers. He (the speaker) did not expect that the Bill would have such enormous results as some people seemed to anticipate. Proceeding, Mr. Louw said that the mixing of natives and white people was bad for both, and an end should be made to that state of affairs.

The Bill would not put an end to the leasing of land to natives, and he thought that the Cape Squatters Law would do more good in that direction. If all natives were put in areas such as the Transkei, the land would be robbed of its labour. If the native got a piece of ground to live on he would refuse to go out to work. This Bill would have the effect of aggravating the labour question, and he thought a good Squatters Law would have a better effect in putting a stop to the leasing of ground to natives, and that it was not desirable to rob the country of its labour. He thought the undesirable natives should be removed from the vicinity of the whites to places in the neighbourhood of work-giving centres. He was also in favour of a native village being established in the vicinity of Johannesburg, about three miles away, where the natives could live with their families, and the white man could keep strict control over them. In regard to the question of social contact, he urged that a law should be introduced dealing with this question and making mixed marriages illegal. He also urged that the Government should see to it that not too much ground came into the possession of the individual companies. The Bill provided that in future a native who had ground could not have his ground expropriated, and the same, he held should apply to the native. In conclusion, Mr. Louw thought the Cape Province should be treated in the same way as the other Provinces. A good deal of annoyance was caused by the railway and municipal locations, and regulations should be made to prevent it.

said that he did not think any question had given more cause for searching of heart than this question, especially in the Cape Province. That appeared to him inevitable because, if they accepted this Bill they were adopting a policy which in the Cape Province seemed to be a revolutionary policy. He was bound to say that he had a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. member for Victoria West’s opinions. It seemed to him that the policy which had prevailed in the Cape for many many years had now been abandoned. This should not be done without careful consideration. When they compared the Census figures of 1911 with those of 1904, he thought that needless alarm had been aroused because they were comparing a normal time with an abnormal time. It seemed to him that the figures afforded a good deal of satisfaction, because they seemed to prove that the white population was becoming more and more settled. The percentage of white women to men had gone up by no less than 11 per cent. in three Provinces, and 15 per cent in Natal. Therefore they had now a settled population as compared with the unsettled population which they had some years ago. That being so, he thought that alarm was without foundation and due to a misunderstanding. It would be found from the Census figures that where the white population was increasing, the native population was also increasing in almost the same proportion. In the North-western districts—Kenhardt, for instance—the increase in the white population was at the rate of 78 per cent., while the coloured population increased by 75 per cent.

The number of rural labourers all over South Africa had immensely increased. The adoption of a policy of separation or segregation might be necessary, but it would be an immensely difficult task. He was not opposed to that policy, for he had seen the extreme necessity of it. The tendency was for the white population to go into the native areas, as well as for the natives to go into white areas, and it was desirable that the intermingling of the races should cease as soon as possible. The Minister of Native Affairs was to be congratulated on having endeavoured to deal with the question at the root of the whole matter—that was, the ownership of land, and he (Mr. Fremantle) doubted whether any good purpose would be served by trying to follow the advice of the last speaker. We might fairly look forward to what, was happening at the present time in India taking place in our native reserves, and of seeing a development of industries and national life among the South African natives the same as was taking place in India, so that labour would be required in the native territories. The result would be that we should be compelled to depend more and more on white labour in European districts, but any revolutionary steps in that direction would be suicidal. He wished it were possible to deal with the native question in the towns. He maintained that natives should have parts of town lands reserved for them where the principle of individual ownership could be introduced, but the present town locations were a curse to the farmers and to the natives themselves in many parts of the country. The natives went to locations, did very little work, and no good came to them. He was in complete agreement with the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog) with regard to the duty which ought to be taken upon themselves by the educated natives. Many of the latter were deploring the fact that they had no outlet for their energies, but he was astonished when he saw that the proposal of the Government, which gave them that outlook, had not been received with more general satisfaction by the educated natives. Lord Morley, in introducing the Government of India Bill in the House of Lords, laid it down that the chief means of dealing with dissatisfaction in India was to provide educated natives with an outlet for their energies and abilities. The natives had never been allowed to take their part in public affairs, and had been permitted to occupy only the lowest administrative positions in the Cape; the natives had never been allowed to show what could be done by their national leaders, the Bill corrected this and was quite as much in the interests of the natives as it was in the interests of the white man. Mr. Fremantle then called attention to the very considerable increase in the native population of a most undesirable kind which had taken, place in the coast district between Port Elizabeth and Uitephage. In seven years the native population of Alexandria had increased by 49.11 per cent. Wars had been fought for the possession of that district, and now in times of peace it was being over-run by native squatters. There was, in fact, going on a large, stealthy, silent increase in the native population which was not desirable It was far more desirable, indeed, that the policy of the Bill should be carried out. It had been calculated that natives in the Cape held land to the extent of four morgen per head, or 28 morgen per family, which was far more than was necessary for the maintenance of a family.

When they spoke about raising natives, that, no doubt, was as much in the interests of the white people as it was in the interests of the natives themselves, provided that it was done on rational lines. He was afraid that in the past in this country they had too much misdirected their efforts and attempted to raise the natives according to their Own ideas. Hon. members on the cross benches had referred to communism amongst natives as if it were something to be admired. This new cult of the noble savage was very much the old cult, and he thought equally groundless. It must be remembered that it was not only communism in regard to the ownership of land, but it was also communism in regard to the occupation and working of the land, and it was an exceedingly doubtful agricultural point whether anything was to be gained by this.

What about Europe? Successful farming in Europe is done by communism.

Successful farming in Europe is done by co-operation, and co-operation is a very different thing indeed from communism. (Hear, hear.) If you are going to discuss these theoretical questions of communism, it does seem to me that the land is the worst case you can take. Proceeding, the hon. member said he was against encouraging the natives in these ideas of communism, because, after all, the possession of land, and the bringing up of families on the land, was instinct with traditions which hardly anything else in the world was. If hon. members wished to become communistic, he hoped they would begin at the other end. He did hope that this was the beginning of a policy which would definitely and steadfastly aim at developing the native along the lines which nature had prescribed, and which they had not done in the past. He did hope they were not going to have a continuation of the principle that they had had in the past, that they had one form of education which had got to do for everybody concerned. The result of this attempt not to distinguish between the character of the native and European was that they had given a form of education to the natives which was entirely unsuited to them, and that they had growing up in the country, not among unreflecting minds merely, a prejudice against all native education of every kind. He hoped that one of the results of this Bill would be that they would go forward and honestly aim at developing the native in his own country on reasonable lines. Native education was the most important of all native affairs, and he would like to see the Minister of Native Affairs take charge of it. He trusted that it would not go forward to the native mind of South Africa that the House was dealing with this question in a one-sided way, but that it would be realised that there was a large policy behind the letter of this Bill, a policy of development for one section as well as another of the population. If his hon. friend should choose to send this Bill to a Select Committee, after the second reading, he could quite see that there might be advantages in it, but he trusted that this Bill, with some amendments perhaps, would be adopted this session, and that the Minister would not agree to discharge the order for the second reading.

said that very few persons would be able to judge what the effect of the Bill would be for the whole of South Africa. Personally, he was able to judge of the conditions which prevailed in the Transvaal, where they had in fact become so serious that there had been a demand for legislation for years past. They objected to the buying of ground by natives and to the squatting of natives on private farms. So far as the buying and leasing of land were concerned the Bill would substantially meet their difficulties, although it provided that existing contracts of lease could be renewed until the Commission had reported. But that might not take place for a long time. He thought the provision in question should be amended, The effect of squatting on private farms was that the supply of farm labour was diminished, which supply had already been reduced so much by the recruiting for the mines. The right hon. member for Victoria West had referred to the farm labourer as a Russian serf, and that was an inaccuracy. The native labourer here was entirely and absolutely free and if his employer did not do what the man wanted he could go wherever he wished. It even went so far in some cases that the farmer, in order to get labour, had to maintain whole families of them. A young native of sixteen years was made his own master, and the supervision of his father and baas was then at an end. The farm Kafir was the happiest man in South Africa. The right hon. gentleman had further stated that the whites owed a big debt of gratitude to the natives, but the natives also owed a great deal to the protection which they had enjoyed at the hands of the white people. They learnt from history that the native races simply exterminated each other by murder, that it was the whites who had guarded them against a continuance of that sort of thing, and that the whites had accordingly obtained the right to make laws concerning the natives. Those who thought there was any intention to oppress the natives were under an entirely wrong impression. But the Bill would not separate the natives from the whites; it would merely prevent the former from getting hold of too much ground in the midst of the latter. The Bill should become law during the the present session.

said he did not think anybody could take exception to the time occupied by the debate, because a more important subject had not been brought before that House. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Tembuland, the Bill was just as important to the well-being of the country as the Act of Union, and though some of the hon. members behind the Minister objected to the adjournment the other evening, he thought that the Minister was perfectly right when he said that to hurry such a subject would be almost indecent. The responsibility cast upon the Government in a matter of that kind was almost overwhelming. He alluded to the high tone of the debate, and said he was glad that hon. members had followed the advice of the Prime Minister. He regretted that the Bill was not published earlier, and sent broadcast through the country, because he thought it was of the utmost importance that on an important matter of that kind the people should have the opportunity of being supplied with the fullest information, and give expression to their views. The House seemed determined that something must be done on the lines laid down in the Bill. Notwithstanding that he would appeal to members to realise the enormous responsibility that had been placed on the representatives of the people in dealing with a matter of this character—the responsibility that no injustice of any sort should be done in arriving at a solution of this difficult problem. If they erred at all they should err on the side of generosity. It was unfortunate that they had not more information, and he thought that when the hon. member for East London moved in the direction he did it was with no desire of preventing this matter being dealt with during the present session. Until he heard the speech of the hon. member for Umvoti and the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe a few days ago, he had thought that it would require no acute intelligence to realise that there was a difference between the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London and the amendment which he (the speaker) moved when the University Bill was before the House. The University Bill was a measure upon which the Government had made up its mind and had been under consideration for three years. It received a good deal of criticism, but the Bill before the House was one of an entirely different character. The Bill before the House he believed was a Bill that they all desired, but he thought that the best possible manner in which they could deal with it was to discharge it and send it to a Select Committee. If they did this they would have the advantage of the opinions of a body of men who were familiar with many of the points.

There was no doubt that the Bill had occasioned a great deal of alarm among natives. The Bill proposed to do away with certain rights and privileges which the natives had enjoyed in Cape Colony, and the natives did not know what they were going to get in return. There was no doubt there was a good deal of alarm in the minds of the natives because the Bill, after all, proposed that the rights and privileges which they enjoyed—certainly in the Cape—should be taken away before they absolutely knew what they were going to get in return. In that country, and especially in the Cape, they must recognise the enormous advantage which accrued both to the natives and Europeans by the just and fair manner in which the native affairs were administered. For instance, there could be no more loyal or contented people than the natives of the Transkei. Unless they could imbue the natives with the feeling that in future they would be treated justly, the position would be very serious. He hoped the Minister would agree to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee after the second reading, where it would be easy to rectify the many points that required clearing up, but it would not be easy to do that if committed to the Committee of the whole House.

One of the most important principles was that laid down that there should be no more native squatters. The two principles which the hon. member for Umvoti (Colonel Leuchars) was so strongly opposed to were the two most important principles of the Bill, and in the circumstances, he (Sir Thomas Smartt) held that he should have the support of Colonel Leuchars for the plea that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee. The Prime Minister, in dealing with the Bill, had referred to the fact that a large number of the natives in the Transvaal occupying land, had taken occupation a long time before there had been a European settlement in that part of the country. That might be true or it might not be true. He had always understood that a great deal of that country had been previously cleared by the Zulus—

No, no.

and that after that European occupation had come. But whether these men were now occupying land, lawfully or not, the fact remained that they were there, and the impossibility of shifting them before any other ground was provided for them had been fully realised by the present Minister of Railways when, in his capacity as Minister for Native Affairs, he had introduced his Squatters Bill. That was the great difficulty they had to contend with. He hoped in these circumstances that the Minister would agree to a Select Committee. His (Sir Thomas Smartt’s) idea was not by any means to shelve the measure, but his object was to obtain the irreducible minimum the House could deal with this session.

He mentioned these things to show that there were many technical points in the Bill which should receive the fullest consideration before it was hastily passed. Another point was the position of mortgagees over native lands in the scheduled area. In the Transkei there were many native farms which were hypothecated in the ordinary way. If the Transkei became a scheduled area, and the mortgage was foreclosed the forecloser would lose a certain amount of security, as he would be unable to sell the farm to a European. He mentioned these points to show the necessity of the Bill going before a Select Committee. It was not fair to go to the natives and say that “from the day of the passing of the Bill we are going to make it impossible, no matter how high you have raised yourselves in the scale of civilisation, or how much money you have made, to allow you to purchase land in a non-scheduled native territory.” Again, the House might never take any action on the report of the Commission. All that was required was to lay down the principle that for a period of time no native should purchase land in the non-native area and no European should purchase land in a native area for a period of one or two years. When the House had had the report of the Commission it would be able to legislate in a manner in which it was not able to do today. Members like the hon. member for Ficksburg were exceedingly anxious that legislation in this direction should take effect with as little delay as possible. But the adoption of such a course would cause a great deal of suspicion and unrest, and anxiety among the natives, and were the Minister to give hint the assurance that he would adopt his (Sir T. Smartt’s) suggestion he would suggest to the hon. member for East London that it would be unnecessary to proceed with his amendment. But if the Minister were not prepared to allow the Bill to go to the Select Committee on Native Affairs then the Opposition would be compelled to support the amendment of the hon. member for East London. He would appeal to his hon. friend, realising the gravity of the situation, to allow the natives to know that we had no intention whatever to deal with them harshly or unjustly. He hoped that, no matter what course might be adopted, the personnel of the Commission would be of such a standing as not alone to give satisfaction to the European population, but over and above everything else, to give satisfaction to the natives. (Opposition cheers.) He did not propose that the Bill should go to the Select Committee with the object of causing delay, but that certain native leaders should have an opportunity of expressing their views before the committee. (Hear, hear.) No alteration in our native policy would be successful unless we carried with us the more advanced section of the natives. (Opposition cheers.) The natives had been seriously considering the question, and they realised the disadvantages of the interposition of the two races. We should do everything possible to bring these people with us, because, after all, the future of this country, and its future peace and prosperity, depended on any policy we adopted being acceptable to the native population, and their realising that they could expect only justice, generosity, and fair treatment. He hoped the Minister would take a moderate view of the question, and would allow the House to come to a temporary solution of the most difficult problem it had ever been called upon to solve. (Opposition cheers.)

said he had not intended to say a single word, but after a certain speech, he could not refrain from doing so. What he was going to say would not be from information picked up in drawing-rooms, or from newspapers and books, but, would be from the real practical experience of a lifetime. For 37 years he had lived on the boundaries of a large native tribe, and for many years he had come in daily contact with the natives as an official and on the Bench; also in practice, and for 21 years he had the opportunity of dealing with them politically, and he wished to openly denounce, and most emphatically so, that the people or the Government of the Orange Free State had treated the coloured people unreasonably or unjustly, or in any way oppressively. On the contrary, the O.F.S. had always treated the coloured people with the greatest consideration and the utmost justice. The O.F.S. had made what the hon. member for Victoria West called stringent laws. He (Mr. Keyter) called them just laws. They told the coloured people plainly that the O.F.S. was a white man’s country, and that they intended to. keep it so. (Hear, hear.) They told the coloured people that they were not to be allowed to buy or hire land, and that they were not going to tolerate an equality of whites and blacks; and he said that they were not going to tolerate that in the future, and if an attempt were made to force that on them, they would resist it at any cost to the last, for if they did tolerate it, they would very soon find that they would be a bastard nation. Let any hon. member take a seat on the top of a Cape Town tramcar on Saturday night, and travel through Plein-street, and then he would be able to judge for himself what was taking place behind the scenes in this beautiful Cape Peninsula, and where it was leading to.

When did it begin ?

Who was responsible for that?

said he would like to take the right hon. member for Victoria West back to the early seventies at Kimberley, when the white men there were supplying the natives recklessly with guns and ammunition. At that time you could not walk down any street in Kimberley without finding every Kafir store lined with rows of guns, both inside and out. The natives who came to work on the mines were pressed to buy these guns.

In many instances they were decoyed into buying these guns at double and more than double the value. What was the result? In 1880 and 1881 the Cape Colony made war on the Basutos. For what reason and what purpose? To take away from the natives these very guns that the white people supplied them with in the early seventies in Kimberley. He was on the border at the time, and he had a good opportunity of seeing what the actual state of things was. He was many times approached by these people, and he advised them to hand the guns back again. He knew that great injustice was done, which was in following a wrong native policy, and ever giving guns to these natives. His experience was that the native should be treated firmly, kept in his place, and treated honestly They should not give him a gun one day and fight him for it the next day. They should tell him, as the Free State told him, that it was a white man’s country, that he was not going to be allowed to buy land there or to hire land there, and that if he wanted, to be there he must be in service. Notwithstanding all this, in the early days in the Free State they had thousands upon thousands of natives living amongst them, and living very peacefully, happily, and contented. They had no grievances, and knew of no grievances. It was only recently they were told by others that they had grievances and what those grievances were. The native must be treated justly and honestly, but the white man must be firm. With regard to the Bill, he must congratulate the Minister of Native Affairs upon the law which he had introduced. He was not going to support it because he thought it was a perfect law—far from it —but because it was the first great step in the right direction. As regarded the Free State, his hon. friend had told the House, and so had the hon. member for Smithfield, that the old laws of the Free State would remain intact. But they had got something. They had certain infringements of those old laws, and his hon. friend had introduced a Bill which would rectify those little infringements. From his experience of the different parts of South Africa and various native tribes, he said that neither this Parliament nor any future Union Parliament would ever be able to make one uniform native law for South Africa. They might discuss the matter there that day, others would discuss it after them and in future years even the ladies might discuss it, if certain of his hon. friends got their way, but, knowing how7 divergent were the different interests of South Africa, and the wants and requirements of the inhabitants, and the customs of the natives, he said that it would be madness to even try to make one uniform native law7 for South Africa.

deprecated sending the Bill to a Select Committee, arguing that the House itself should decide it. He referred to the difficulties experienced by farmers in the Free State. If a farmer refused to allow a native to farm on the share system he simply refused to work. There were thousands of natives on the farms there who hired ground and did little work. The farmers had to keep their children at home to do the work. Some of the natives hired ground, did some sowing, then went to work in Johannesburg, and paid the owner of the farm half what he reaped from the harvest. That was not satisfactory. He was pleased to see the provisions the Minister proposed to make in this regard, and expressed the hope that the native would only be tolerated among the whites as a labourer. The Bill would meet what he considered a great want, and, as it was an urgent matter, he hoped the proposal for a Select Committee would not be agreed to.

on rising to reply, said he would like to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort when he spoke of the tone in which the debate had been conducted. The tone had been exceptional, and it was one which did great credit to this house of Parliament. (Cheers.) If they were going to continue that tone, and the spirit in which the speeches had been made, and translate it into action, there would be little cause for regret in the future. Some of the points raised had not been relevant. Before, however, making a few general remarks on the situation he would like to refer to one or two matters in detail. His hon. friend the member for Umlazi had said that he thought it was unfair that natives now living on Government land should be regarded as being there illegally. He (the Minister) had not said that, but that the natives on Crown lands were there by consent of the Government. They were paying taxes, and were there legally. Then another hon. member from Natal opposite took exception, and drew attention to the hurry with which the Bill had been brought in, and then said also that natives were prevented from buying communally, a restriction that did not apply to Europeans. But Europeans did not occupy communally, and there was no need for that restriction.

Proceeding, he said that several hon. members had directed attention to the importance of introducing the principle of individual tenure, where land was at present occupied communally. He did not wish to discuss the relative merits of communal and private tenure, but long experience had taught him the advantage of individual tenure. In that Bill provision was made that the principle of individual tenure in respect of land at present held communally could be introduced. Of course it would have to be introduced carefully and slowly, and it would depend very much upon the state of the advancement of the people where it was introduced. But provision was made to introduce that very important principle whereby they could substitute slowly and gradually, with the consent of the people, individual tenure tor communal tenure. He was sorry that the hon. member for Smithfield was not in the House, and with reference to the hon. member’s remark that the Free State got nothing, he (the Minister) hoped the Bill was not framed nor intended to give any particular Province or section any special advantage. He recognised that the Free State had laws before Union, and that to a certain extent a change was made in the laws without the consent of the people, and all that was done in the Bill was to put the law back where it was, and he believed that was very much valued in the Free State. The hon. member also said he was averse to locations being dotted all over, but the principle of the Bill was rather to remove that under certain conditions. There were non-native areas and native areas, and as far as circumstances would permit, the principle was to have separate areas. The Bill was not intended, and it was not its object, to establish or to favour new small locations all over the country.

It had been said that he (the hon. Minister) had been hurried in the matter, and he did not want to deny at all that some people had been very importunate in the matter. Some people had been more importunate than others, but it is extraordinary how general—it was a surprise to him, to find how very general was the wish, confined by no means to one side of the House or one section of the Europeans—that something should be done in the direction laid down. (Cheers.) It might be that on that account he had acted with greater speed than he usually did, for he believed what an eminent man once said to him, “Never go too fast.” That was a very good principle, especially when they were dealing with very large interests. He had always held that they must treat the natives of this country fairly and justly. Twenty years ago when the Glen Grey Act was introduced he held the same opinion that he held to-day. A friend of his had brought him that morning the speech that he (the Minister) made when the Glen Grey Bill was passed, and he almost thought of bringing it to the House, for his reasons were better put there than he could put them at the present time—the reasons why he thought there should be separate areas—and that was 20 years ago. The hon. member for Victoria West agreed with him then, and both of them spoke in favour of that principle. They recognised then that it was the beginning of the application of a principle which they thought right in the interests of both races, that they should have separate areas for Europeans and natives. Therefore if he had moved perhaps a little faster it was not doing anything he had not been in favour of for years past. He would draw their attention to the fact that in 1903 a Commission was appointed. That Commission sat and went all over the country, and collected a great deal of information on the subject. It was composed of men of ability, and who possessed a great knowledge of native affairs. They laid down exactly the principles of what was proposed to be put in this Bill. More recently in 1911 a Select Committee sat upstairs; they discussed the question there, and his hon. friend (Mr. Burton) proposed they should adopt the recommendations of the Commission of 1903 with regard to the purchase and hire of land.

It was only on technical ground that it was excluded from the report brought up by the Select Committee. Then his hon. friend, the member for Smithfield, had advocated—he did not exactly know the details—the broad question of separating the two races, and this he had put before the country. Therefore he hardly thought it could be said that he had proceeded with undue or very great haste. When Mr. Rhodes brought in the Glen Grey Act exactly the same arguments which he heard that day were used—more information was necessary. Mr. Rhodes then said that if delay took place greater opportunities would be given for agitating with the ultimate idea of arousing discontent. This was not exactly a question they wanted information about. What information could they get? In his speech on the second reading of this Bill he endeavoured to give figures which he ventured to say gave more information than was available at the time the Glen Grey Act was discussed. What more information could they get? The Commission of 1903 collected information. It was a question of the principles they were going to apply. They knew the population, knew the distribution more or less, and the information they wanted they must assume, the social effects and otherwise of the two races living mixed with each other. He did not think that any delay would give them the information some people talked of. He found there was some misapprehension as to whom the provisions of this Bill were to be applied— A good many coloured people thought that the Bill would apply to them. He had, however, made it perfectly clear—he was not now talking of the Free State—that it was not proposed that the coloured people should be affected by the Bill. He was urged to include them, but he thought it would magnify their difficulties, and that they would be taking a step that would be indefensible. (Hear, hear.) He had been pleased, but more surprised, at the manner in which this Bill was received. Ninety-nine per cent. of the members approved of its principle, and he was gratified at the unanimity in regard to the main provision; the provision which dealt with separation within limits to the extent he had indicated in the Bill.

He was pleased to think that both sides of the House—friends of the natives, even the hon. member (Mr. Schreiner) who sits on the back benches—favoured the principle of separation. The question was as to how it was to be applied, and in that respect he hoped he had taken sufficient safeguards to see that all those affected would benefit. He was sorry to hear his right hon. friend speak about him bringing in the Bill in the way he did, but he did not tell the House what alternative there was to this. He hoped he was, and would always remain, a friend of the native, as he had shown himself to be in the past. Could anyone say that the existing relation between the races was wholly satisfactory? He thought not. He would say without egotism that he thought it was fortunate that somebody with his views had brought in the Bill. He was not going to forfeit the good opinion of these people, who were not directly represented in the House, and who had a claim on their sense of justice. He did not pretend that this Bill was going to solve the native question or that it was a measure that was going to set at rest the interests, sometimes the rival interests of the European and the natives, but he did feel that if they proceeded with the knowledge that the native had a claim, that he was here before them, that it did not do to try to govern one race in the interests of the other, to look upon the native as a servant and only fit to be a servant for all times, that if they recognised it was their duty, as the superior race, to try and lift these people, and, by lifting them, lift themselves, because he was assured that if they lived side by side with any race largely in a state of barbarism, whether white or native, the more intelligent race would tend to go down. It was easy to descend; it was very difficult to rise. Not only was it their duty in their own interest to see these people were raised from the state in which many of them were, but if they wanted to succeed they must carry the more enlightened part of the people of the other race by the legislation they passed. If they went contrary to their inclinations or their interests they would not succeed. He believed that a liberal and fair policy if adopted would enable them to carry them with them and that would be a policy beneficial not only to the native but also to the white race.

He had contended for many years, as he contended again that day, that it was just as much in the interests of the white race as the black that they should be just to the black. He had said it repeatedly, and he wanted to say it again, that a selfish and harsh policy, a policy which looked upon the other people as hewers of wood and drawers of water only was a policy that would fail and would react upon the white race. They had not only rights, but obligations as well. Unless they recognised that, they would fail and they would deserve to fail. (Hear, hear.) He also recognised that it was wise that they should separate as far as possible in social contact, remove the evils arising from too close contact. Because he recognised that and because he was anxious to do all he could to keep the white man in his position and to raise the position of the white man, he had introduced the Bill now before the House. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had made a fair speech, and had made some very important suggestions. He had been asked to assent to a Select Committee. He regretted he could not do so, and he wanted to say to the hon. member for East London (Colonel Crewe) that personally he had been inclined to accept his amendment, but he did not wish to disturb what seemed to him, and what he was very anxious to maintain, an atmosphere of perfect calm in the consideration of this important question, and he told the hon. gentleman that although he had no objection he would rather he did not press it. He (Colonel Crewe) had met him in a manner for which he was grateful and which he appreciated. He had never been so troubled or anxious about any Bill he had introduced into Parliament. He was assured that if they dealt with it in the proper way they would do the country great good, and he would rather not have anything to do with this Bill or even sit in this House if any measure he should introduce would tend to make a party matter of the native question. That being his view he was glad to find that hon. members had met him, and fully realised the importance of dealing with this question quite apart from the smaller considerations They should keep the main object in view, and rise above minor considerations and do the best thing for the natives. Now with regard to the question of sending the Bill to a committee or the Select Committee on Native Affairs, he would say this: He would like the second reading taken at once. He would postpone the question of going into committee of the whole House for a couple of days, and he would consider the points raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. It was an important suggestion. He understood his hon. friend asked him whether he would bake the first chapter of the Bill, leave the rest, and see what the Commission brought up, and have a time limit for the operation of the first chapter. He was anxious that there should be perfect unanimity; at the same time, he was anxious to get the Bill through during the present session. That being the case, he would consider the suggestions made. He wished to say that a Bill dealing with the native question on the lines laid down by him should become law during the present session. If it did not become law it would give rise to a great deal of trouble and agitation. He was very conscious that the Bill was far-reaching, and he was very conscious also that they should proceed with it deliberately and carefully, and from the tone of the House and the debate, he felt sure that they could easily arrive at a decision. He would endeavour to meet his hon. friends as far as possible. He knew that many who sat upon his side of the House were anxious that something should be done and, Select Committee or no Select Committee, he believed they would come to a solution that would be acceptable to the vast majority of the people in the country. (Loud cheers.)

said he would like to withdraw his amendment. In doing so he was actuated by the speech delivered by the Minister. He believed that that speech had given satisfaction to the whole House. It gave them a certain assurance, and because of that assurance he felt that they should do nothing to jeopardise the passing of the Bill.

The amendment having been withdrawn,

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time. The committee stage was set down for next Thursday.

moved to delete the following words: “Or into any Province wherein their residence is under this Act or any other law unlawful.” Proceeding, the hon. member said he was not only advocating the interest of the Indians of Natal, but the interests of the white population of the Union as well. The question of naturalisation was not quite the same as the question of domicile. These Indians in Natal had not come into the country under naturalisation laws, because they were British subjects. If they looked at the census returns, they would find that the Indians had increased at the rate of 32 per cent. in the last seven years; in fact, they found that they doubled themselves in 25 years. He did not consider that the Asiatic people were an unnecessary burden to the country, and it was only if they treated them in a wrong way that they would become a burden. The only solution of the colour question in Natal would be an influx of white people. It was wrong to put up barriers under Union laws between the various Provinces.

said the Minister appeared to have done his best to meet the various suggestions that had been made, judging from the amendments which he had put on the paper.

moved the omission from line 12 of the words “prevention of,” and also the deletion of the words “prohibited immigrants into the Union or into any Province wherein.” The result of the amendment would be that powers would be given to deal with immigration, but it was difficult to make his meaning clear without redrafting the whole of the section. (Hear, hear.) He contended that the Bill should be used solely for the purpose of immigration, and that words such as “prohibited” and “restricted” should not be used.

said he did not see his way clear to accept the amendment. It was impossible to get uniform laws at once throughout the Union; there were rights and prejudices and disabilities which prevented uniformity being achieved immediately. In the Bill an effort was made to safeguard the rights which existed in regard to intercommunication between one Province and another. Natal originally imported Indians with a view to fostering certain industries, and if these Indians were allowed to spread all over South Africa, the Union might be doing Natal a great disservice by depriving her of this labour. At the same time it would not be desirable to force on a kind of general theoretical legislation to apply to everybody, when it was known that exceptions would be made The idea of the hon. member for Von Brandis was a good one, but his Amendments might debar the Government from making regulations to keep out undesirables.

said the Minister had misunderstood him. He did not ask the Minister to throw the doors open to Asiatics already in Natal where use could be found for them, but he looked to the future, and claimed that provincial barriers should not be erected under Union, otherwise whit was the use of having Union at all?

He would appeal to the Minister whether, if he could not accept the amendment as far as the whole of the Indian population was concerned, he would accept it as far as those born in Natal were concerned. It was very dangerous for the Minister to throw all the Asiatics in South Africa under one bann. The troubles of the Natal-born Indian were very different from those of the people who had come from oversea. The agitator who had been troubling the Transvaal in the past had really had no effect upon the Natal Indian. If they cut off his right for all time to be treated as a proper citizen of the Union, they would throw him into the arms of the agitator. He was afraid that the amendment to clause 4, tabled by the Minister, would not cover what he asked for.

said he thought that, speaking academically, the hon. member for Weenen had made out a very good case, but, from a practical point of view, he did not see how hon. members from other Provinces could possibly be expected to support him. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member wanted them to go further than he thought it was possible for them to go. It seemed to him that they had got in this Bill to face the fact that they must have provincial legislation. They had heard from the Minister that the Imperial Government generally approved of the Bill, he supposed with the amendments the Minister had put on the paper; and they had not had a single request, as far as he knew, from the Indian community to have these provincial boundaries broken down. What the Indian community had put forward, he thought with a great deal of justice, was that the Bill should not deprive them of such rights of going from one Province to another as they at present enjoyed. He thought the Minister was quite right in refusing to accept this amendment.

said that, in the debate on the second reading, there seemed to be a strong objection to the Bill, on the ground that it tended to keep people out of the country, instead of inducing people to come in. Objection was made to the use of such terms as “prohibited immigrants,” “restrictions,” etc. The intention of the amendment was that the functions of the department would be to deal with anybody who had a right to come into the Province.

said they were assuming that this Bill partook of the character rather of a Bill to keep people out of South Africa. That was the point dealt with by his hon. friend (Mr. Nathan) when he asked to leave out all this talk about prohibitions, etc. They did not want to create the impression in the world outside that people in South Africa were keeping people out of the country.

said he thought that, if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, looked at the amendments he had tabled more closely, he would see that they made the point clear that they wanted people in, except undesirables. If they omitted the words mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis, they might have some difficulty afterwards in effectually administering the Act.

said that the impression at the very start was that the intention of the Government was to keep people out of the country. It was called a Restriction Bill. The main object of the Bill was to keep people out. He thought the Bill should stand in name for what it was in reality—an Immigrants’ Restriction Bill.

said he agreed with the last speaker that this Bill was intended to keep people out, rather than to regulate people who came in. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Weenen, it was all very well for the Government to say that they could not allow people to go into other parts of the Union, but they should have a clear and decided policy. If they were not going to allow certain Bills to affect certain Provinces, they should make that apply all round. He remembered how, when another Bill was before the House, the Minister of Railways, then the Minister of Native Affairs, argued most strongly against any attempt to leave certain Provinces out of Union legislation. The Government should be fair, and apply principles all round.

said they had heard a great deal during the past few days about separating the white and coloured races. They might consider the usefulness of making Natal a coolie area. (Laughter.)

said that if his amendment was not accepted at that stage, he would move an amendment that the Provincial Council of Natal should have a say into the question of what class of coloured labour should be allowed to go and work elsewhere. Their natives came back after working in other Provinces, very much deteriorated. It was not fair that one class should be treated in that fashion and another class shut up amongst them. He would ask the hon. Minister why he brought forward legislation of that sort after helping to frame the Act of Union, which stated that from the beginning it was desirable for the welfare and future progress of South Africa that the Colonies should be united, why did he not agree to a federation if he wanted the population to be dealt with in separate ways? Why should they put the naturalised alien in a better position than those born in the country? If the hon. Minister did not meet them they would have to deal with the matter in another way. They could not be expected to quietly submit legislation of that sort.

agreed with the hon. member for Weenen that nobody would raise objection except, perhaps, a few sugar planters. If it were possible for the Indians to be distributed over an area of 780,000 square miles, they would be much less of an evil than they would be hoarded together in one small area.

made a short reply, but his remarks were almost inaudible in the Gallery.

agreed that the position of the hon. member for Weenen was a logical one. The Indians came into this country with the knowledge that they could not go into any other part but Natal. He could not conceive how they were going to distinguish between African born and immigrant Indians, and the problem should be kept as far as possible within the borders of Natal. It should be tackled as a separate problem, and they should try and induce those people to go to some country where their presence would not lead to complications.

said that scarcely a Bill was introduced into the House but what this Province or the other Province was to be left out of it. He was never in favour of unification, but of federation. Everything that had happened since Union had proved that federation would have been better than unification. He would be perfectly willing to sacrifice the Cape Colony view about the Asiatics from Natal if there were a real Union; he would make that sacrifice for the sake of Union, but when no sacrifices were made on any side in that matter, and the Free State was allowed to maintain its drastic policy of exclusion, he fell back upon his federation principle and for the sake of the Cape Colony he could not support the hon. member.

said he was glad to see that the hon. member for Germiston and the hon. member for Jeppe were in agreement in saying he was logically correct. But that legislation was illogical.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when the second reading was before the House the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), he thought, had made a suggestion for a scheme for the removal of the Indians or Asiatics in Natal, and if it was not possible to remove all of them they might relieve the trouble by removing some. The House had not supported this amendment as he would like it to do, but the Minister might give them the assurance that that was not the last word in dealing with Indian legislation in Natal.

said that he, was in hearty accord with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Meyler) in the object he desired to obtain in so far as it was to get rid of the surplus Indian population in Natal, but when he asked him to support an amendment which would have, or had, as its object the opening of the doors to the flood, as far as the other Provinces were concerned, of the trouble they had had in Natal, he, as a member of the Union, could not support it. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member had just suggested a solution that at some date in the future they might find a way of dealing with that problem by sending that surplus population somewhere where they could develop on their own lines. He did hope that the Union Government would bear in mind the possibility of finding means to get that surplus population of Indians away from Natal into some place where they could develop on their own lines, and to keep it before them as a policy to be followed and to be carried out. The hon. member mentioned that the introduction of these Indians into Natal had been a curse.

said that he was sorry that the Minister would not give them some information that that legislation was not going to be the last word. Earlier in the session he (Mr. Meyler) had reason to object to an expression used by the hon. member for Smithfield (General Hertzog), who had said that the natives were threatening them. Now the hon. member who had just spoken (Mr. Orr) called these Indian people “a curse.” Was it right that these people should be insulted like that ?

said that the hon. member knew perfectly and as well as he did and as every member of that House did, that the introduction of the coolie as a permanent resident in Natal was a curse. The hon. member was speaking to some gallery. He (Mr. Orr) had nothing whatever to say against the coolie as a man trying to earn his living in Natal; but he considered his introduction as a curse, and if the hon. member considered his introduction as a blessing he was welcome to it.

amendments were negatived.

The first amendment moved by Mr. Nathan was negatived, the second withdrawn.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2, Immigration Board and their functions,

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

This was agreed to.

On sub-section (1),

moved, as an amendment, that in line 21 the word “Persons” be deleted, and the words “aliens or British subjects” be inserted, in sub-section (1), lines 24 and 25, to omit “subject to such directions as the Minister may lawfully issue under this Act”; in line 27, to omit from “The Minister ” to “Act” in line 29.

The hon. member said that the Minister surely wanted aliens to have the right to go to these Boards, and that was what these Boards were for. In the law of England special provision was made for these aliens to go to the Board. If the Minister left the word “persons” there, by interpretation it would be held that “persons” would not include aliens. He referred to an immigration case which had occurred in 1904, and was reported in Juta (Raner v. the Colonial Secretary, 1904, J., p. 163. It was the intention of Parliament then to give every immigrant the right to prove that he was a desirable person under the Immigration Act. In the case in question, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that unless some other word than “person” was used, no alien had a right to come in. Unless the Minister was prepared to make it clear in this Act that “Persons” included aliens, the very first person who went before a Board would be told that this did not mean aliens. He took it the provision was to give the alien a chance to prove his fitness to come into the country. Theirs was a very serious grievance indeed, and it was felt particularly by the Jewish community, 90 per cent. of whom were not of British nationality when they entered this country. His amendment would merely make it clear that aliens had a right to appear before the Board.

moved the deletion of the words “so many” in order to insert “a Board at each of the ports of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban.” He said if the Minister would give them some assurance that a Board would be instituted at each of those ports he would be content.

said that in regard to the amendment moved by Mr. Alexander, he hoped the House would not agree with it. He did not think they should put in their legislation what was not put in similar legislation in any other part of the world, and that was to give the right of appeal to an alien. He thought they were sufficiently protected by the word “person.” He would like to point out that the “S.A. Jewish Chronicle,” a representative Jewish journal, had said that as far as that community was concerned, the new Act was a vast improvement, and they had every reason to be grateful for the broad-mindedness of those who had been responsible for it. Practically every point that had been put before the House on previous occasions had been conceded. He (the Minister) hoped therefore that they would not have more amendments than were absolutely necessary. He thought that when the representative organs and the Jewish Board of Deputies said they were satisfied, the House might also be satisfied. He did not think the case quoted by Mr. Alexander bore out what he contended. The hon. member was somewhat supersensitive in his interpretation of the word “person.”

said the definition the Minister now gave was that the word “person” would include all persons. Would he have any objection to the inclusion of the “all” before “persons ” ?

did not think the Minister had been fair in the way he dealt with the matter. He spoke of the Jewish Board of Deputies; but he did not say that when the deputation from that Board visited him this was a point they pressed for. He gave the impression that the Board was satisfied with everything. The matter was a serious one. He had not put an interpretation on the word “ person ” to suit his case. The Supreme Court said an alien had no common law rights, and therefore “person” could not include an alien. In England they had the Aliens Act of 1905, which gave full rights to aliens to go before the Board. Why did not the Minister define “persons” himself? If the Minister was not satisfied with his (the speaker’s) definition, let him put one forward. If the Minister did not accept the amendment then it would show that the Bill so far as it affected aliens was a sham, and would be simply throwing dust into the eyes of people who were supposed to benefit. The amendment simply asked him to define what he said he was giving. The Jewish community were anxious to keep out undesirables. If the Minister did not accept the amendment the word persons would simply be delusive.

said they were very grateful to the Minister for the objections he had already removed. He understood from the Minister that an alien would have the right to appeal to the Board. He had stated that was the intention, and he thought it only fair that an alien should have the right to appeal from the immigration officer. Under the decision quoted there seemed to be some doubt as to whether an alien might not be excluded from the right of going to the Appeal Board. If the Minister wanted to give them the right then he should consider some amendment making the point clear.

supported the amendment. He said it was clearly the intention of the Minister to allow them the right of appeal, and if there was any doubt he should make it perfectly plain. Seeing that probably 50 per cent. would be aliens he thought the Minister should listen to what hon. members suggested.

said it was quite clear that every person who went to the Immigration Officer had the right to appeal. He thought an amendment was unnecessary, because it might affect the common law.

said that judges and lawyers read Acts differently to what they did in that House.

pointed out that his amendment only dealt with the right to go to the Board. An immigration officer out of pique could say that he would not allow any person to go to the Board.

said he really could not understand all the bother about this clause, which was perfectly clear. The word “persons” was used here in the ordinary sense.

said that the word “ persons ” also appeared in the 1902 Act.

said that any change would only lead to, more decisions.

said that the matter seemed to be too much for the Minister to understand. He also thought some clear decision should be given.

supported the amendment, and said he thought that a doubt would be created in any layman’s mind.

said he would appeal to the Minister to allow the clause to stand over.

said he was sure that it was quite unnecessary to circumscribe the meaning of the word “persons.” They must remember that these Boards were not judicial bodies, but administrative bodies, and from the provisions of sub-section 2 it was clear that all persons could go before these administrative Boards.

said he did not quite agree with the view of the Minister. What, he asked, would happen in case an alien appealed to these Boards and they refused to hear him? What right would he have to enforce an appeal? It seemed to him that the right should be given to go to these Boards, which were not Courts of Law.

said he thought (he Minister of Finance must not have had in his mind the decision as to the meaning of “persons” given in the case he had quoted.

It is the A B C of the law.

said that if any Immigration Officer chose to say to any immigrant in any part of the Union that he refused to allow him to come in because he was an alien, he would be shut out from an appeal to the Board. If it were the Minister’s intention to allow these aliens the right to go to the Board, why did he refuse to accept this reasonable amendment? With regard to the points as to Courts of Law, it could be made perfectly clear in a later clause that aliens had not the right to go to the Courts.

said that the point could be met by a simple alteration in clause 6.

said he could not see why they should rot make it quite clear that the word “persons” in this section included aliens as well as British subjects.

said that they had already spent half an hour in discussing how to express what was the intention of the Minister. There was a general complaint that the business of the session was unduly prolonged by getting nothing done.

said he thought there was a good deal in the amendment, and he hoped the Minister would accept it. If an alien had no right of appeal to the Appeal Board, he was perfectly hopeless.

said that these Boards would be purely administrative, and it was clear that the case quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, would not affect this section. It was quite unnecessary to insert the words mentioned by the hon. member.

said that if all the judges of the country were as clear upon the point of law as his right hon. friend (the Minister), there might be no necessity to put these words in. (Laughter.) He appealed to the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment. It surely could do no harm to accept an amendment to embody principles which he himself said were embodied in the clause.

said that if an alien could not appeal to the Court, he did not see how he would have a right of appeal to the Board, unless it were specifically given.

said it appeared to him that the weight of legal opinion in the House was entirely against the Minister. If he insisted on the exact wording of this clause as it now stood, the result, he was afraid, would be that a large number of people who would make good colonists would be turned back by the Immigration Officers. If the Minister really intended that aliens should be free, under the restrictions of this law, to come into this country, why not, say so in as many words? A large number of hon. members were of opinion that with this clause as it stood, the Board might refuse to allow intending immigrants to appeal to them because they were aliens. Proceeding, he said that there were people who had been turned away, and had nobody to appeal to. Immigration officers were not the kindest-hearted people in the world, and although the Minister of the Interior was a kind-hearted man, when immigrants were coming into this country and there was some dispute, the Minister might be in Pretoria, and the immigrants might be turned back on the ground that they were aliens. He did not want to make it a race question, because it affected persons of all nationalities. It was well known that there were members of the race to which he belonged residing in certain foreign countries, where they and their families were subjected to violence and persecution. They had the greatest anxiety to leave those countries, and go to some other where they could have more freedom. Those people scraped money together after years of hard work to come to this country. What would be their feeling if, on arriving here, they were sent away to the country from which they had been so glad to escape? They had the idea that they could come to this country, where the flag of freedom flew. They naturally expected, when they came to a country like this, they would be received with open arms, on account of the people who came here away from similar persecution two centuries ago. They should let those people who were flying from persecution know that this was, in reality as well as in name, the Cane of Good Hope.

suggested that the clause be allowed to stand over.

thought that if it were put “ appeals by intending immigrants,” that would serve the purpose.

said they should look at it from the ordinary common-sense point of view. Supposing, as the hon. Minister said, that the word “persons” or “immigrants” would cover aliens, and supposing the alien came along and the Immigration Officer chose to interpret the words otherwise, and did not propose to allow the man the right to appeal, what could the mail do? The alien had not the power of appeal to the Board,, and the Minister did not want to give it to him. It was quite possible that injustice might be done.

said the reason why his hon. friend was so confident was because he was in office, and he would give instructions that there should be the right to appeal. That was why he could see no wrong in it; but supposing another Minister was in office who was not as broad-minded as their present Minister, he might give instructions to the Immigration Officer that the aliens had no right of appeal.

said the word “ person ” was used in the 1902 Act, and the Chief Justice said the common law did not give an alien any right to come into the Union. If they wanted to include the word “alien,” they must say so specifically, otherwise the alien would have no right.

thought that the word “immigrant,” instead of “person,” would meet the objection of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle.

said he understood the Minister’s contention was that he did not want to give the alien any right to appeal to the Board or to the Court. On a point of law, he supposed if an alien had a right to appeal to the Board, he had the right to appeal to the Court.

said that, supposing the Immigration Officer or the Board quoted the decision of the Chief Justice, and said that no alien had the right to appeal, and that “person” did not include “alien,” and supposing, with another Minister in office, a man was told he could not come in, what had he to do? He had no remedy. Surely it must be possible that that man had a right of access to the Board, which was specially framed for that purpose.

asked did the Minister mean the man to have the right to appeal or not. If he meant that he had, why did he not say so? Any alteration made in that clause or in sub-section 6 would not make the slightest difference in any other part of the Bill. The right should be clearly set forth in that section to go to the Board.

said the more he looked at it the less he could understand what hon. members were driving at. He was not sure that they would have to put in such descriptions as persons with blue eyes, etc., that there might be some way of describing them effectively. He would allow the clause to stand over. (Cheers.) They must understand, however, that he was making no definite promise.

The clause was therefore allowed to stand over.

In sub-section 2,

moved) as an amendment, in line 31, after “business,” to insert the word “medical,” and to add at the end of the sub-section: “at least one member of each Board shall be a qualified medical practitioner.”

moved that the words “legal, clerical, political” be inserted.

said that by keeping the words in as they were in the Bill, all the others were covered. He moved in line 30 to omit “having magisterial business or administrative experience.”

withdrew his amendment.

moved, as an amendment, in line 43, to omit “in respect of questions of domicile”; on page 4, line 2, to omit all the words from “and all” to “decision” in line 4.

This was agreed to.

Sub-section 4, as amended, was agreed to.

On sub-section 5,

moved after the word “officer,” in line 7 of subsection 5, to insert “purporting to act in pursuance of this Act or any other law”; and in line 9 to insert “ with particulars of the section or sections of this Act or any other law under which he purports to be acting.” He said the effect of this would be that the Immigration Officer, if he detained, restricted, or arrested any person would have to give that person notice under which law he acted. Persons coming into this country could not be expected to know the laws, and therefore they should be told why they were arrested.

said he could not see the reason for the amendment. He could not see it made the clause any clearer.

said that the Immigration Officer, under the section as framed could become rather an autocrat. He could withhold leave to enter the Union. He (the hon. member) claimed he should either be doing so in pursuance of this Act or some other law, and he claimed that when he came to give a reason for the grounds under which a man was restricted he should give the details of the grounds.

thought the matter was fully covered. They did riot want the police officers to be always quoting the law.

The Minister says we don’t want a police officer to be quoting the law. No, but I want him to know the law. If a man wants to know the reasons for his restriction he can then put it down in black and white.

What information would it be to an immigrant if he is told he is arrested under section 13 of the Act of 1913? Unless you give chapter and verse it is of no use.

The amendment was withdrawn.

Sub-section 5 was agreed to.

On sub-section 6,

moved that sub-section 6 stand over to be considered at the same time as the question of appeal.

This was agreed to.

On sub-section 7,

moved in sub-section (7), line 22, to omit “sufficient, in the opinion of the Minister” and to substitute “not exceeding twenty pounds”; in line 25, to omit all the words from “and if” to “came” in line 27. He said he hoped the Minister would agree to the amendment, because the clause as it stood was going to be a great hardship on poor people. The deposit in the clause was made an indefinite amount. He took it that what the Minister wanted was a sum that would cover expenses. He would suggest that in every case a deposit shall be made not exceeding £20. Then, regarding the cost of the return passage at the end of the section, the Minister said he was going to see that a man who was rejected and who came from Berlin landed in Berlin. How was he going to prevent that man landing at Southampton? The Minister could not take such extra territorial powers. He could only insist that a man did not come into the Union.

pointed out that he had to cover extraordinary circumstances. He thought every member of the House must agree that the Government should be amply protected.

said that the amount was to cover detention expenses. But a man could be let out on temporary permit, as was done at present, and he need not cost the State a farthing. The Minister had said that he was trying to raise ludicrous objections, but he would point out that this had been pointed out to him by one of the biggest shipping companies trading with South Africa, and he had been asked to bring the matter forward. What difference did it make whether a Portuguese went to Lisbon or Portuguese East or West Africa?

asked what the Government would do with a man if his ship left in 24 hours and he was still waiting to appeal? He supported the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, so far as getting a man out of the Union was concerned, but surely the man must put up sufficient money to get him out.

said he considered the words at the close of the clause entirely unnecessary.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, and the hon. member for Berea, in their desire to see justice done to the companies, had gone to some other point entirely. Under this clause the immigrant must find security, and the question was, what must be the amount of the security. They had got to protect themselves against the chance that, if the intending immigrant were not allowed to come in, he would have to go back to where he came from. It was simply a question of having sufficient to get back to the place he came from or some other place where he was prepared to go.

said that they had made provision in the Bill that, if an immigrant were refused admission into the country, it was the shipping company’s business to return him to some other part. He considered that as the clause stood it was a very great hardship upon the poor man. It seemed to him that by fixing the amount they were at least letting the immigrant know that he must have £20, though, personally, he thought that was too high.

said that if a man were refused admission, and the boat by which he arrived left before the appeal could be heard, it was only natural that the Government should take some security pending the appeal, for his removal and the costs of detention. He would move that the clause be amended so as to read, “ the cost of his passage by another ship to a place outside the Union.” In that case a man would not be compelled to go back to where he came from, but he would have to go outside the Union.

said he was prepared to withdraw his amendment if the Minister would accept the substitution of “Board” for “ Minister.”

said he did not see how this would be practicable. The Board would not always be sitting, and he did not see how they could very well fix the security pending the appeal.

said that in the circumstances he would adhere to his original amendment.

The question was then put that the words in line 22 proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and the “Noes” were declared to have it.

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

moved in line 26 to omit “return,” in the same line before “place”, to omit “the”, and to substitute “a”; and in line 27 to omit “from which he came”, and to substitute “outside the Union ”.

explained they had the right to send a man back to the place from whence he came, but they had not the right to send him elsewhere. It was a matter of security, only otherwise he might be sent back here again.

said that the hon. Minister contended that they had power to send a man back where he came from. He, however, was not so sure about that.

said he would like to side with the hon. Minister in that matter. If they accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, if it were possible, they would have a man travelling all round the world and returning.

characterised the remarks of the hon. member for Weenen as pure nonsense. He (Mr. Jagger) wanted to improve the Bill. What did it matter to the hon. Minister where a man went to? There they were going to compel a man to go to Great Britain, say, when he would rather go to Australia.

said that the section only provided that security should be provided sufficient to get the man to the place from whence he had come. If the man satisfied the Minister that he wanted to go somewhere else, then he could go there.

said that it appeared to him that the Minister had the power, if he so desired, to return such a man to the place, whence he had come. The man might be an undesirable immigrant in the eyes of the Minister, but he might have committed a political offence in the country from whence he came, and the immigration officer did not allow the man to enter the country, but turned him back to the country whence he had come. He did not think any Minister should have the power to return a man like that, and so long as the man did not enter the Union it did not matter what they did with him.

The amendment was negatived.

The sub-section was agreed to.

On sub-section (8),

moved as an amendment, to add the words “ and shall be open to the public ” at the end of the section. He said it was desirable that the meetings of the Appeal Board should be open to such people as chose to come.

was understood to say that he did not think it was necessary that the public should be excluded, but he did not think it desirable that the public should be allowed in on account of some the cases which were heard, such as immorality cases.

The amendment was negatived. Sub-section (8) was agreed to.

On sub-section (9),

moved at the end of the section a proviso to the effect that the Board should be guided by the laws of evidence of the provincial division of the Supreme Court in that Province over which it had jurisdiction.

said that this was a Board of Inquiry, about which he thought the hon. member had just objected to, having a magistrate at the head. They were supposed to be in the position of a superior jury, make a fair inquiry, and then decide. It was not the object to make them a court of law.

withdrew his proviso.

Sub-section (9) was agreed to.

On sub-section (11),

moved, as an amendment, in the second line, to insert the words: “Save as is provided in the next succeeding section.”

Agreed to.

Sub-section 11, as amended, was agreed to.

On sub-section 12,

moved in sub-section 12 to add the following provisoes: “Provided that if the appeal be prosecuted, and a question of law is reserved under the next succeeding section, no such steps shall be taken unless the court determine that the appellant is such a prohibited immigrant. Provided further that a further deposit shall be made of such amount as the Minister may determine to cover the cost of the appellant’s detention until the decision of the court is given.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The sub-section as amended was agreed to.

On clause 3, Restriction of jurisdiction of Courts of Law in respect of detention or removal of alleged prohibited immigrants,

moved the deletion of the clause.

The motion was agreed to.

moved the substitution of the following new clause: 3. (1) No Court of law in the Union shall, except upon a question of law reserved by a board as m this section provided, have any jurisdiction to. review, quash, reverse, interdict or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, act, order, or warrant of the Minister, a board, an immigration officer or a master, had, done, or issued under this Act, and relating to the restriction or detention, or to the removal from the Union or any Province, of a person who is being dealt with as a prohibited immigrant. (2) A board may, of its own motion, and shall, at the request of the appellant or of an immigration officer, reserve for the decision of a superior court having jurisdiction, any question of law which arises upon an appeal heard before such board under the last preceding section, and shall state such question in the form of a special case for the opinion of such Court, by transmitting such special case to the registrar thereof. The question so stated may be argued before such Court, which may give such answer thereon and may make such order as to the costs of the proceedings, as it may think right. (3) For the purposes of this section —“a question of law” shall, among other questions, include a question of domicile; and “a superior Court having jurisdiction” shall mean the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court which has jurisdiction where the board was sitting, or any Judge of such division, or the Eastern Districts Local Division having such jurisdiction or any Judge thereof. (4) If the special case aforesaid is stated at the request of the appellant he shall, if he is a person seeking to enter the Union for the first time, lodge with the said registrar security, to such amount as the registrar may determine, for any costs that the Court may order the appellant to pay.

said he would, support the amendment, as it fairly met the objections.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 4, Who are prohibited immigrants,

said that again, in regard to subsection 1 (a) the Minister had been reasonable, and he would not take up the time of the House. He moved that the subsections and paragraphs be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

moved, in sub-section (a), to omit the words “on economic grounds.” He said he would point out how really ridiculous it seemed to him to say that a person might be suitable for one portion of the Union on economic grounds and habits of life, and not for another. His main objection was in regard to the exclusion on economic grounds. He did not think any person who could earn his living by hard work should be excluded from South Africa on economic grounds.

said the Minister had dealt with the matter in an amendment to clause 25, under which he gave power to a person outside the Union to make a certificate that a person coming in did not come under that section.

withdrew the amendment.

On paragraph (b),

moved, in line 25, to omit the words “to the satisfaction of the Immigration Officer,” and insert instead “ satisfactorily.” Continuing, he said he knew what the Minister wanted, and to make it clear, he should put in the word “satisfactory.” If there was a difference between the Immigration Officer and the immigrant, the Board should decide it.

said he could not accept the amendment in the way it was worded. He would rather add the words, “or in case of appeal to the satisfaction of the Board.” He would move to that effect.

The first amendment was withdrawn.

The amendment, moved by the Minister, was agreed to.

moved that the words, “provided that the immigrant shall have the right of election in which European language he prefers to be examined,” at the end of the clause.

said that he had given an assurance on that point.

said that he agreed with the clause as it stood.

said that the amendment seemed entirely unnecessary. However, he would like to hear the opinion of some legal members on the point.

said that the same clause appeared in all the Immigration Acts, and the Court had decided that the immigrant had the choice of language.

pointed out that the Dutch version was different to the English version.

said the hon. member was perfectly right. The Immigration Officer, he contended, could dictate in any European language he chose.

No.

Read the Dutch. (Laughter.) He added that all he asked was that the matter be made perfectly clear.

It is clear.

said that what the hon. gentleman had said about the Dutch, bore out his contention. What objection, he asked, could there be to make assurance doubly sure?

wished to know why special provision was made for the Yiddish language? Was it a well-known language and a written language, he asked? Why was it specially mentioned in the Bill?

said he was sorry the hon. member had raised this point. The Minister had simply brought back the clause that existed in the Transvaal Act of 1907 and the Cape Act of 1906. This very clause about Yiddish a European language was on our Statute-book to-day.

If Yiddish is such a well-known language, spoken throughout Europe, why put it in here again ?

Does the hon. member want Jewish immigrants to go before the various immigration officers and prove to them that Yiddish is a European language?

said he thought it would be well if the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, allowed the hon. Minister to answer these points. If it were intended that the immigrants should have the chance of election as to language, why not state it?

said he hoped the hon. member for Von Brandis would not press his amendment, because these words were exactly the same as were used in the Cape Act and the Transvaal Act, and they had been interpreted by the Courts.

said that in the sense in which the term was used in the clause, “any” was correctly translated as “een” in the Dutch version.

The amendment was negatived.

The paragraph, as amended, was agreed to.

New paragraph, (c),

moved that the following be a new paragraph to follow paragraph (b) of subsection (1), viz.: (c) Any person engaged under an agreement to perform work within the Union, unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the immigration officer (1) That there is no other European person available within the Union capable of performing such work with equal skill; (2) that the wages and conditions of labour set forth in such agreement are in accordance with the wages and conditions of labour prevailing tor Europeans in the locality where the work is to be performed; (3) that the agreement has not been made in contemplation of or with a view to affecting an industrial dispute. He said that this was brought forward to deal with an evil which had long existed. A Select Committee in the Cape in 1906 very fully reported on the evils of this matter. They wanted to see the principles laid down in this clause secured to the workers of this country. There was no attempt made by the amendment to prohibit a man coming out under contract, provided he could comply with the three points put forward, which were, he submitted, reasonable points. His amendment was not an attempt to safeguard Trade Unionists.

called attention to the fact that the hon. member had introduced a Bill earlier in the session against the introduction of contract labour, and he wanted to know whether an hon. member could move again in the same session a resolution which had been already negatived?

said that there were several differences.

however, ruled this amendment out of order on the ground that the principle therein contained had already been decided this session when the Contracts Immigrants Bill was under consideration.

On paragraph (c),

moved an amendment, to add to sub-section (c), “ unless in such case he or any person accompanying him give satisfactory security for his permanent support in the Union.” A relative or friend might be willing to find the money.

rose to dispute the ruling of the Chairman with regard to Mr. Sampson’s contentions.

said that the hon. member should have challenged the ruling immediately after it was given.

moved, in the last line of sub-section (c), to add “such of,” and to add after “dependents,” “ as he shall bring with him into the Union.”

said he had no objection to the last amendment, and with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, he thought, if an immigrant had a relative to help him, he would be considered to have sufficient means, and the amendment seemed to be complicating matters needlessly.

understood that the amendment of the hon. member for Gape Town, Castle, meant that one who could not now be admitted into the Union, would be admitted if he found someone in the Union who would undertake to give security for his permanent support. But that was a very big order, and was a very different matter from some kind friend coming to a person’s assistance and giving temporary security. He thought the amendment was unfortunately worded.

Mr. Meyler’s amendments were agreed to.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

Paragraph (c), as amended, was agreed to.

Paragraph (d) having been agreed to, Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.