, from Z. J. du Toit, acting principal of the A3 School, Cedarville, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from A. W. Templer, of Port Elizabeth, who entered the Cape Railway Department in 1896, and was retired in 1912 owing to his having contracted rheumatoid artheritis, praying for an increase of pension or for other relief.

, from M. J. Greeff, of Salt River, formerly employed as a labourer in the Salt River workshops, who sustained an injury whilst on duty, praying that the House may consider the circumstances of his case and grant him relief.

brought up the report of the Select Committee of the University of South Africa Bill. The Minister moved that the report together with the evidence be printed.

The motion was adopted. Further consideration was set down for Monday next.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) How many shunting accidents have occurred on the South African Railways during the last twelve months; (2) how many of these were fatal; and (3) how much compensation was paid to dependents of those killed in the fatal accidents ?

replied: (1) Shunting accidents took place during the twelve months, May 1, 1912, to April 30, 1913, involving injury, slight or serious, to 667 persons. A large number of these accidents, including three of those which terminated fatally, were due to gross carelessness on the part of the men. Over 65 per cent. of them represent minor injuries to hands and fingers, and about 20 per cent. represent more or less slight injuries to arms and legs. (2) Sixteen were fatal, eight white and eight coloured men being the victims. (3) £1,391 2s. was paid to dependents of those killed and in respect of whom compensation was recoverable. In four of the 16 fatalities the question of compensation is still engaging attention.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to an accident which occurred on the 3rd inst., at 7.5 p.m., at the Pretoria West railway station, when Edward Ward, a shunter, unfortunately lost his life; (2) whether any inquiry has been held therein, and, if so, with what result; and (3) whether the Government proposes paying any compensation to the unhappy widow, who has been left with four little children dependent upon her, and, if so, to what extent?

replied: (1) The reply to this question is in the affirmative. (2) A departmental inquiry was held, the finding of the inquiring officers being that the injuries, which unfortunately proved fatal, were sustained by deceased in the ordinary execution of his duty as a result of his foot accidentally catching in the frog of a crossing while uncoupling trucks in course of being shunted, and that no blame attaches to any other member of the staff for the regrettable mishap. (3) Compensation to the extent of £391 5s. has been paid to the widow of ex-shunter Ward.

, on behalf of Mr. P. G. Marais (Hopetown) asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (1) What the post-cart service between Hopetown and Leeuwberg costs a year, whether there is a loss, and, if so, what the loss is; (2) what the postal service on horseback between Leeuwberg and Brakkies costs a year, whether there is a loss, and, if so, what the loss is; and (3) what it will cost to run a post-cart between Leeuwberg and Brakkies, via Wiidsdraai, Rooipan, Uitvluchtpan, Welgevonden, Fraaiplaats, and Valspan, and whether the Government will soon take the necessary steps to run a post-cart, as indicated?

replied (1) and (2) One contract is held for the postal service from Hopetown to Brakkies, via Leeuwberg. The cost of it is £198 per annum. It is not practicable to apportion the cost of the Hopetown — Leeuwberg section. The yearly loss on the service to Brakkies, via Leeuwberg, is approximately £170. (3) The cost of a through cart service from Hopetown to Brakkies, via the farms mentioned, would be £100 additional to the cost of the present service. It is not proposed to alter the existing arrangements.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the Government will take into favourable consideration the restoration of certain privileges previously enjoyed by the artisans employed on the Natal Government Railways, as a reward for faithful service, as recommended in the fourth report of the Grievances Commission, on page 68, item 202?

replied: Under the new staff regulations, monthly-paid artisans in Natal, who elect to retain their monthly scale of pay, will continue to receive the leave privileges which they enjoyed at the date of Union, and which are already more favourable than those applicable to other employees of similar grades; and, under the circumstances, the Administration is unable to accept any addition to the leave privileges which the Natal Administration itself considered it reasonable to adopt.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants has, on several occasions, drawn the attention of the Railway Administration to the danger to shunters owing to their having to work in the Pretoria West station yard at night time without sufficient lighting arrangements; (2) whether, in view of the fact that Shunter E. Ward was killed on the 3rd instant at the above yard while carrying out his duties in the dark, the Government will make provision for its adequate lighting; (3) whether the Government will consider the advisability of supplying elastic-sided boots to shunters, as was done by the late Natal Railway Administration; and (4) whether he will lay the report of the magisterial enquiry into Shunter Ward’s death upon the Table of this House?

replied: (1) So far as can be traced, no representations have at any time been made to the Administration by the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants, in regard to the lighting of the station yard at Pretoria West. (2) Consequent upon certain re-arrangements at Pretoria as a result of the opening of the new station, there has been a considerable increase in the traffic at Pretoria West, and the question of improving the lighting of the station yard has been engaging attention for some time. Prior to the accident, authority was sought to proceed with the lighting of the yard by electric current; and the work is now in hand. (3) In the Cape and Natal Provinces employees required to carry out shunting operations could, prior to Union, and can still, obtain elastic-sided boots at cost price, but as this arrangement has not been taken advantage of to any appreciable extent, it has not been extended to the Transvaal and Orange Free State. (4) It is understood the Attorney-General has decided not to hold an inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) Who are the officials of the Veterinary Department in the Estcourt district who are referred to by the senior Veterinary Surgeon, Natal, in his communication to the Principal Veterinary Surgeon on 26th March, 1913, as “not endeavouring to carry out the policy of the department”; and (2) have these officials been retained in the district, while District Veterinary Surgeon Webb, who is referred to in the same communication as having carried out his work properly, has been transferred ?

replied: The letter from the Senior Veterinary Surgeon, Natal, to the Principal Veterinary Surgeon, containing the reference to the attitude of certain Government officials, whose names were not mentioned, in respect to East Coast fever, was in the nature of a confidential communication by a subordinate official to his chief, and I am therefore not prepared to give the information asked for by the hon. member, as to do so would tend to prevent legitimate expressions of views between one officer and another.

asked the Prime Minister: (1) From what sources have complaints been made to the Government concerning District Veterinary Surgeon Webb in the Estcourt Division; (2) whether any of the persons making these complaints have been penalised under the East Coast fever or other veterinary regulations; and (3) whether the Government will lay copies of any such complaints upon the Table of this House in addition to the papers so dealt with on the 13th inst. ?

replied that Government Veterinary Surgeon Webb was transferred in accordance with the policy adopted by the department of changing Government veterinary surgeons and similar officers from one district to another every few years, and not on account of complaints made to the department. The whole of the papers relating to Mr. Webb’s transfer have already been laid upon the Table of the House.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the re-grading of the railway and harbour clerical staff has yet been effected, and, if not, why not, and when will such re-grading be accomplished?

replied: There are over 25,000 officers and employees to be individually graded under the provisions of the new staff regulations. The grading of the daily-paid staff, comprising over 19,000 employees, has practically been completed. The salaried staff establishment has been fixed, but the placing of the personnel into the grades laid down has not yet been accomplished. The work is, however, being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, but in view of the large number of officers affected and the nature of the investigations, the task is one which demands careful deliberation and which cannot be lightly or hurriedly performed.

asked the Minister of Justice whether he will place upon the Table of this House copies of the records of the case of White versus Mauritian School, alleged to have been before the Magistrate’s Court, Durban, in December, 1911?

replied: I may say that it is unusual to supply copies of records of court cases in the way proposed here. In this case, however, it will be done as soon as the records referred to are received.

asked the Minister of Agriculture: (1) How many officials of the Agricultural Department are now away in Europe and elsewhere, on leave; (2) what salaries are they drawing during their absence; and (3) whether they have authority to incur expenditure for account of the department while on such leave?

replied: (1) There are twelve officers of the department at present on leave outside South Africa. (2) One draws full pay for twelve months; six draw full pay for six months; three draw full pay for three months and half-pay for three months; two draw full pay for three months. (3) Dr. Theiler, Director of Veterinary Research, has been authorised to expend £150 on apparatus for Onderstepoort. Mr. J. Burtt Davy, Division of Botany, has been granted a sum, not to exceed £100, for expenses incurred in visiting maize districts and experimental stations in the United States of America. Mr. C. Mallinson, Division of Sheep, has been authorised to spend up to £25 in travelling expenses, etc., connected with the investigation he is making regarding the effect of dips on wool. Dr. MacDonald, editor, “Agricultural Journal,” has authority to purchase a new camera for £21, and also such photographic material as may be required by him in obtaining matter for the “Journal.” He has also been authorised to spend a sum, not exceeding £25, in travelling expenses in this connection.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs: (1) On what date was the decision come to by the Government to stop the further importation of tropical natives; (2) was that decision communicated to the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association before the Minister announced it to this House, and, if so, on what date; (3) under what law is the Government empowered to discriminate between natives of the Province of Mozambique, recruited north and south of latitude 22 deg., and to prohibit the entry of the former while allowing the entry of the latter; (4) if no law exists enabling the Government to exercise such discrimination, whether the Government will introduce the necessary legislation this session, or whether they propose to rely on a voluntary promise of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association not to recruit tropical natives; (5) in the latter event, what measures the Government proposes to take to ensure the observance of such promise; and (6) whether the prohibition of the importation of tropical natives is under sanction of law or voluntarily agreed to; what measures the Government intends to take to ensure that the recruitment of such natives really ceases, and that tropical natives are not brought down to be nominally recruited in some portion of the Mozambique Province south of 22 deg. ?

in reply, said: (1) I don’t remember on what date—(laughter)—and, besides, I am debarred from disclosing Cabinet secrets. (2) I have already said I don’t know about the date, but it was not communicated. (3) Under the existing laws. (Laughter. 4) There is a law. (5) This consequently falls to the ground. (6) The Government will take the necessary measures. (Laughter.)

I ask under what law.

The answer has been given.

Sir—(cries of “Order”)—I am not debating. I am asking for the answer.

The hon. Minister has given his answer—under the law.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) What amount has been repaid in respect of repatriation debts in the Transvaal; (2) how much of this money has been expended and for what purposes; (3) how much is still available; (4) to what purposes, to what amount, and in what order are these funds to be applied; (5) what objects have priority over the National College of Agriculture, Pretoria, and what amount is to be spent on them; and (6) will it be necessary for Parliament to authorise the establishment and building of the National College of Agriculture at Pretoria, and the money re-voted, or will the sum of £100,000 voted by the Transvaal Parliament (when it becomes available through repayment of repatriation debts) be applicable without further legislative authority for the purpose for which it was voted?

replied: (1) Since Union, and up to 31st March, 1913, a sum of £171,000 has been repaid. (2, 3) and (4) From the manner in which these question are framed it would seem that the hon. member is unacquainted with the fact that, since Union, all loan transactions are recorded in one consolidated loan account. To this account are credited all loan receipts (including repatriation recoveries), and against it are charged the services which may be authorised by Parliament in the various Loan Appropriation Acts. At the 31st March last, as has already been stated in this House, the consolidated loan account had been supplemented by funds drawn from the revenue account in order to enable it to meet the demands upon it, so that it naturally follows: That the entire sum mentioned in (1) had been expended at that date; that it is impossible to distinguish the services upon which the amount was expended since it formed part of the general loan balances devoted to the capital services specified in the loan Estimates; that no portion of the amount is still available; that the purposes to which future repatriation recoveries, together with other loan receipts, may be applied, are such as Parliament may authorise in any Loan Appropriation Acts. (5) The honourable member evidently has in mind the understanding in the Transvaal, prior to Union, under which certain public works had priority of claim upon the 1903 loan. These prior claims have all been satisfied. They included the following works: New Law Courts, Johannesburg; Post Office, Pretoria; Museum and Library, Pretoria; Telephone Extension, Transvaal. The understanding was, further, to the effect that the College of Agriculture would only be proceeded with when the 1903 Loan Account was replenished out of repatriation recoveries to an extent that would wipe out the overdraft and put the account in funds sufficient, to meet the cost of the College. Notwithstanding the fact that, on the basis of the Transvaal understanding there would still be an overdraft, the Government propose to ask Parliament in the current year’s Estimates, for funds to make a start with the work. (6) Transvaal Act No. 2 of 1910 authorises the establishment of this institution so that no further legislative action in this respect is necessary, but the funds required for carrying out the work must be appropriated by the Union Parliament from time to time.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report from which it would appear that the “drafting of non-commissioned officers of the Police Force on the East Rand to different parts of the Union” has been cancelled, and “that no transfers are now going to take place”; (2) whether he is aware as appears from the same report, that many of these non-commissioned officers who were told to hold themselves in readiness to leave at any moment had made domestic arrangements in view of their anticipated departure, had given notice to vacate their houses and sold their furniture at no inconsiderable inconvenience, expense and loss; (3) whether he will reimburse those concerned in such expense and losses; and (4) whether he will give reasons for the cancellation of the original order?

replied: (1) Yes. In no case where definite instructions for transfers have been given have such instructions been cancelled. (2) Instructions have been given that certain non-commissioned officers were to hold themselves in readiness in anticipation and pending notification of their transfer to various parts of the Union. Where non-commissioned officers have been so unduly precipitate as to dispose of their furniture and vacate their houses before receipt of such notification, the responsibility is wholly theirs. (3) Provision is made under section 49 of the South African Police regulations for contingencies such as is described. The regulation reads: “When any member of the force coming under these regulations is transferred and less than a clear month’s notice of transfer is given, the Commissioner may authorise compensation for loss incurred thereby up to an amount not exceeding one month’s rent.” (4) No necessity for a reply thereto exists, cancellation of any orders for transfer not having occurred.

asked the Minister of Defence how many appointments have been made to the permanent staff of the Defence Force, and how many of those have been allotted to Free State burghers?

replied: Of the 21 new appointments to commissioned rank in the permanent staff of the Active Citizen Force, five are officers who were burghers of the late Orange Free State Republic. The new appointments to the non-commissioned staff have not yet been filled.

asked the Minister of the Interior when the Government proposes to fix the date for the election at Barberton, and what is the cause for the delay in fixing it?

replied: There has been no delay. The voters’ roll for this electoral division has only just recently been completed, and is now in the printers’ hands. The resolution adopted in this House yesterday will be followed up by further action in the usual course.

asked the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to a proposal in the Estimates for the Provincial Council of the Cape to levy £75,000 by means of indirect taxation; (2) whether such a course is in accordance with the provisions of section 86 of the South Africa Act; and (3) whether the Government will advise the disallowance of any Act infringing such provisions.

replied: (1) The answer is in the affirmative. (2) The reference to section 86 of the South Africa Act is not understood. (3) The Government is not empowered to advise as to the action to be taken upon any provincial Ordinance until such Ordinance, as passed by a Provincial Council, is presented by the Administration to the Governor-General-in-Council in terms of section 90 of the South Africa Act.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether it is a fact that permission was refused to fly the English flag on the Government Buildings in Pietermaritzburg on St. George’s Day, and, if so, for what reason?

replied: I have no knowledge of the matter to which the hon. member refers.

asked the Minister of the Interior): (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the first report of the Public Service Commission, on page 4 of which it is stated that in the Public Works Department seven temporary appointments, and in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs 96 permanent appointments have been made without the knowledge of the Commission; (2) whether he has inquired into the matter, and, if so, whether he will state the facts to the House; and (3) what steps he intends to take to ensure that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, which does not appear to have acted from ignorance in the present case, will in future strictly adhere to the provisions of the Act?

replied: My attention has been drawn to the report in question, and from inquiries I have made, I am satisfied that the departments in question acted in these cases in perfectly good faith. The questions raised by the Commission have since been adjusted satisfactorily between the departments concerned and the Commission.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours what were the credit balances of the depreciation, betterment, and rates reserve funds, respectively, as at 31st March, 1913?

replied: The credit balances at 31st March, 1913, were: Betterment fund, nil; rates equalisation fund, £305,333. As regards the depreciation fund, the figures at the 31st March, 1913, are not yet available; but the balance standing to the credit of this fund at the 28th February last was £1,561,367 12s. 10d.

asked the Minister of Native Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of this House the details with regard to the amount of land purchased by natives in the Union during the last three years?

replied: The information asked for will be laid upon the Table as soon as possible.

moved the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: The refusal by the Minister of Native Affairs to give any real answer to Question No. XI. for to-day, and the consequent absence of any information as to the powers of the Government effectively to bring to an end the importation of tropical natives with its distressing sacrifice of life.

stated that as the subject matter of this motion was not one which, in his opinion, was contemplated by the Standing Orders, he could not accept it.

moved: That from and after to-day, the House suspend business at six o’clock p.m., and resume at eight o’clock p.m. on Tuesdays, Government business to have precedence from eight o’clock p.m., on such days, subject to the following: If at five minutes to six o’clock p.m. on such days Government business be not under consideration, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate on the business then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment, will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for the resumption of such interrupted business Mr. Speaker shall order it to be put down for the next day on which the House shall sit.

seconded.

said that one would really expect, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister depended on an obedient following, that in proposing a motion of this sort he would have given the House some reason for its necessity. The business of the House was getting towards a dilapidated condition. When that extraordinary Order was pushed through the House in connection with the Estimates he (Sir Thomas) pointed out that at a later stage they would be getting to this condition. But hon. members were not responsible for that—the Ministers were responsible, but members had to suffer. Why he objected to the motion was that because if it were carried it would be utterly impossible for members to discharge the duties they were sent here to perform, and that was not to wander about the Lobby. The House was tired. It was utterly impossible to sit every night, and to do justice to the business that came up. He had a report which was submitted to the House yesterday—a report of 330 pages. It referred to a Bill of 75 pages—a Bill dealing with the administration of railways and harbours.

Did the Prime Minister expect it was possible for private members who took an interest in the business of the House, who had to be at Select Committees at ten o’clock in the morning, to sit every night from 8 until 11? They were in a different position to Ministers on the Treasury benches, who, he supposed, would still attend their private dinners on Tuesday evenings, while private members had to sit in the House and discuss the business of the country. The work of private members was far more arduous than that of Ministers, who had admirable officials to carry out their work. Hon. members found it impossible to make themselves acquainted with the Bulls for the reason that they were not published in time. He thought that the Prime Minister might have made a statement as to what business he was going to take, what measures he intended to put through, and when Parliament would probably be prorogued. They had eight Bills down for second reading, 10 Bills in the committee Stage, five important Select Committee reports before the House, and that afternoon new Bills were introduced by his hon. friend.

There’s more coming. (Laughter.)

Yes, there are more coming. He has to bring in some important financial measures, and does he think hon. members will be justified in passing those measures in the present circumstances? Continuing, he referred to the lateness of the announcement dealing with the vacancy at Barberton, and appealed to the Prime Minister on behalf of officials and the Press to withdraw. He protested in the strongest possible manner against this motion being adopted, because it would not mean a saving of time. It was bound to create a great deal of discussion, as members would have to learn the measures clause by clause. It was not fair to the country, and it was not fair to private members of that House. He was perfectly certain that it was not going to expedite business. In the interests of public business, irrespective of party consideration, he trusted that hon. members would protest against the resolution, even if it was pressed to a division.

said he supported what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, and he appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw the motion. Incidentally, he protested against the Government encroaching on a private member’s day by putting such a contentious motion as this upon the paper that afternoon, and absorbing the private members’ order day two weeks in advance.

The work of the private members was continuous, but this did not concern the supporters of the Prime Minister, who had such implicit confidence in the Prime Minister and his Government, that they did not consider it necessary to attend the House as often as other members did. It was impossible for a private member who started at 9 in the morning and finished at 11 at night for five days of the week to do his work properly. Another thing that mentally strained private members was their endeavours to get information from members of the Government. On one subject he had attempted to get information, but, failing, he had put a categorical question to the Minister in the constitutional way. What was the result of the question?

said that the hon. member could not raise side issues on an Order of that sort.

With the profoundest respect for your ruling, sir, am I not entitled, in the discussion of this matter, to call attention to the way the Government is carrying on business?

I have informed the hon. member that he cannot make reference to that.

I—

I have ruled it out.

Under what rule?

Does the hon. member presume to question the Chair?

Sir, I said that, with profound respect for your ruling, I would like—

I would very much regret having to take a certain course with the hon. member.

said he would have to take some other course when he had ascertained precisely how he could call into question the method of the Minister of Native Affairs in answering questions. Later, he would have to ask for guidance as to how to proceed. In conclusion, he said that if the motion were carried it would delay rather than expedite the business of the House.

said that he regretted that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort should always have objections to anything the Government did. Everything the hon. member himself did was apparently just and fair, but what the Government did was wrong. The hon. member should give other people an opportunity of differing from him, and he (the speaker) differed from him. He did not see in how far the work of the session this year was placed on a different basis to the work of previous years, and if one looked at the Minutes, one would see that the work was at present being done in the same way as in previous years, and even in the same way as when the hon. member himself was a member of the Ministry. And in those days one had only to do with one Province, whereas nowadays one had to do with four. Bills were not introduced for the pleasure of the Government, but in the interests of the country and the people. The members, furthermore, had come here to work for the people, and not go to sleep for five or six hours. He (General Botha) had not been absent from the House for one single evening, but the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had not been present in his seat every night. He had met the hon. member at other places. The officials of the House did a considerable amount of work, but the end of the session was approaching, and after that they would be able to take some rest. Select Committees had nearly finished their work, and hon. members would then again have an opportunity of studying the Bills. Most of the Bills had already passed most of their stages, the second reading of a number had been passed, and the Committee stage of another number had also been reached. It was his intention to proceed with the agenda as it stood, because there was not much more on that agenda. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance proposed to introduce two small Bills in regard to Excise, Stamp Duties, and Irredeemable Cape Bonds. These were the Bills which would have to be introduced still. Last year the motion was introduced on the 21st May, when it was accepted unanimously. Now it was introduced on the 20th May, and objections were raised. He could not understand why the hon. member was looking for anything wrong in regard to the Barberton election. If he had asked the question, he would have received all information. The voters’ lists were not yet ready and therefore an election could not yet take place, and even if a new member were elected now, he would not be able to take his seat in the House this session.

, interposing, said that, on a point of order, he would like to know whether the Barberton election was now before the House?

I, perhaps wrongly, allowed the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to bring the matter up, and the right hon. gentleman is answering the remarks made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

said that the Prime Minister had not dealt with the serious point, and that was: the question of the number of Bills they were going on with. Last year they had to hold over a number of Bills. He would like the Prime Minister to tell them what Bills the Government were absolutely determined to pass this year. Let them take the Bill which had just come from the Select Committee. Those members of the House who had been sitting on other committees had not yet had time to read this Bill, and it was important to them to know whether it was necessary to post themselves up on this Bill.

was about to reply, when

, amid cries of “Withdraw!” said he objected. There had been cries to him to withdraw in reference to this, but he would not withdraw, and he would explain briefly why. It was not only that they on that side of the House were not able to keep up with the work before the House, but Ministers themselves were not able to keep up to the matters of public importance which were brought forward by members of that House. There were no less than three questions which had been asked, and to which they had had no answers at all. There was the question relative to natives, and the question he had brought up in reference to the removal of Veterinary Surgeon Webb from the Mooi River district, and there was also the question of the flying of the British flag on St. George’s Day.

I must point out to the hon. member that an answer to a question cannot be debated. That is one of the rules. I have given my ruling that those questions and the answers cannot be debated.

said he had no intention to debate them, but he said it was unfortunate that they should have this great pressure brought upon them of sitting five nights a week, while Ministers themselves could not keep up with the work that was brought before them by private members.

said that when the Prime Minister rose, at the request of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, it was his duty in courtesy to the hon. member to reply.

Two wrongs do not make one right. (Cries of “Order” and interruption.)

said he was under the impression that the Prime Minister was entitled at any time to make a statement to this House as to the course of public business.

said he withdrew his objection, in response to the requests which had been made to him.

The motion was then put, and the “Ayes” were declared to have it.

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

Ayes—54.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicholaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wiltshire, Henry

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

Noes—39.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Botha, Christian Lourens

Boydell, Thomas

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

The motion was accordingly agreed to.

asked Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point whether the resolution just adopted would operate to-day, in view of the words “from and after” therein used.

said it would have been better to say “on and after to-day.”

said he thought they should keep to the meaning of the English, according to which the motion would not come into force that evening.

said the House could sit on Tuesday evenings after to-day. That was not a question for a ruling by Mr. Speaker, but of grammar.

said that the motion was quite clear, and they should begin that evening.

said the motion indicated that the House could not sit that evening.

said that according to the Dutch text the House must sit that evening.

supported the Minister of Justice.

said he had voted on the motion according to the English text.

said that last year the motion had been better worded.

stated that, in his opinion, according to the wording of the resolution, it was perfectly clear that it would operate from to-night, and ruled accordingly.

moved: That the petition from P. J. Erasmus and others, inhabitants of Merweville, Beaufort West, praying that Merweville, may be constituted a separate fiscal division, presented to this House on the 21st April, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

Agreed to.

moved: That the petition from A. J. du Plessis and 128 others, inhabitants of the districts of Boetsap, Kuruman, and Taungs, praying for the establishment of a township on a central site in those districts, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 11th April, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

Agreed to.

moved: That in the opinion of this House, the Government should introduce a Bill during the present session making provision for the proper control of labour on Sundays. The hon. member regretted that the motion had had to stand on the paper for such a long period, namely, since the 5th of April, and the time left to discuss such an important question was now so limited. The reason he felt it necessary to bring forward the motion was because he felt that the Sabbath was still being desecrated. The Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the question had been holding meetings for a long time past, but had not come to a decision. It consisted of members coming from all parts of the country, and it appeared to him that the House might just as well have referred the matter to a Select Committee. Meanwhile the desecration of the Sabbath went on as before, and the volunteers, cadets, and artillerists continued to do their work on Sundays, so that they heard the firing of rifles and the roar of the cannon throughout the whole day. Members might laugh at what he said, but they had to deal with a living God and not with man. The speaker continued by quoting a number of cases which occurred in Cape Town where the Sunday was violated, all which occurred under the eyes of the Government. He had seen them breaking up the street in Adderley-street on a Sunday because, as it was stated, the traffic on weekdays was too great. Fish was brought to the beach and sold there, whilst trams and railway trains were running the whole day, and even the post offices were open on Sundays during certain hours in Exodus 31, verses 14 to 17, God Himself said He had appointed the seventh day as a day of rest to be devoted to Him, and death was the appointed punishment for breach of that law. It was thus the duty of the House and the Government to keep holy the Sabbath day, and the Government of a Christian people ought to set an example. God punished man for his offences, and that was the reason there was so much division amongst the people and in the Cabinet. The speaker made further references to the customs observed in London and in Canada, where the Sabbath was officially recognised as a holy day; where no trams were permitted to run or newspapers to appear. They could not as Christians continue to allow the Sabbath to be desecrated. Punishment would not be lacking, for God had fixed the death penalty as the punishment for breaking His day. For all those reasons he had deemed it necessary to urge the introduction of a law compelling the better observance of the Sabbath day.

in seconding the motion said the mover, so far as he could gather, had not mentioned the conditions under which men worked on Sundays. The whole burden of his cry was a tirade against the pleasure, sport loving propensities of the people.

No.

Then I have been misinformed and I will apologise. Proceeding, Mr. Madeley observed that very little was said about the enormity of men working on Sundays, but objection was taken to men who had been working hard all the week playing football on the Sabbath. Continuing, he said he supported the hon. member. The hon. member, however, had not always taken the same view, for three years ago he voted against members on those benches who were anxious to secure precisely what the hon. member wished to secure that day. This was a very serious question indeed, and they were with the hon. member, because they believed he was sincere in his desire to do away with work on Sundays, but the hon. member had lost sight of the influence of these big Corporations that were able to sway and dictate to the Government. The Government did not desire to stop Sunday labour, except so far as shopkeepers, with no influence, were concerned. He challenged the Minister of Mines to accept the motion. Continuing, he said that the hon. member had alluded to Sunday recreation, such as football.

said he did not allude to football or cricket.

said that the hon. member spoke of the desecration of the Sabbath on the Witwatersrand. He referred to the position of those workers who were not in a condition to go in for amusements after they finished their day’s work, and therefore were compelled to use Sunday for recreation. Could the hon. member complain against these hard workers getting some relaxation on Sun day? If they did this, if they brought about a state of affairs that games might not be played on Sundays, they would be doing a great injustice, not only to these people, but bringing about a state of affairs which would cause suffering to people. So far as concerned the stoppage of work of every description on Sundays, he would support the motion with two hands, while whole-hearted support would come from those benches.

regretted that the hon. member had refused to withdraw his motion, and referred to the impossibility of a Bill on the matter being introduced this session. The most extraordinary part was that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) should be the seconder of the motion. The hon. member wanted all amusements to continue on Sundays. He (Mr. Geldenhuys) thought it was better for a man to go to work on Sundays than to indulge in matters which might promote ungodliness. However, a subject of this kind could not be dealt with in a hurry. He regretted that the Commission had been so tardy in presenting its report. He hoped, however, that one of the first measures to be introduced next session would be a Sunday Observance Bill. One matter he would like to see forbidden was the holding of Sunday political meetings. What he also would like to see stopped was transport riding and the publication of Sunday newspapers. (Hear, hear.) He was not in favour of any unnecessary labour being done in the mines, although he agreed certain work had to be done. On the whole he preferred to wait until the Government brought up a Bill next session dealing with the question. In the meantime he could not support the motion.

said it was of course a matter of great regret to those of them who were not bi-lingual, and perhaps more so when they had such speeches as that which had just been delivered, that they were only able partially to follow the remarks which were made. Signs were not wanting that the electors of Vrededorp, those men through whose ignorance the hon. member had been able to get their suffrages, were now becoming more alive to the way in which the hon. member tried to square the necessity for standing up for their interests with his own intense desire to support the Government. There were a good many workers now in Vrededorp who were beginning to see through the hon. member’s arguments, a good many who were beginning to get really nauseated by the sort of arguments which the hon. member had used that afternoon. If the hon. member would assist them a great deal more than he did in having the working hours of labour regulated, in having the eight hours day made a real eight hours day, he would find amongst those who met together on Sundays to discuss political questions, which offended his susceptibilities, there would be very few who would not rather be enjoying themselves in some other way. As a matter of fact, it was only practically on a Sunday that they could get these men together. They talked about Saturday night. Did the hon. member suppose that there were no men on shift on Saturday night ? He would like the Minister to give them some sort of idea what steps he was taking to hurry on the Sunday Observance Commission. The Commission itself was only a subterfuge, it was only a means of getting over an awkward question, but they did suppose that in less than two years it would be possible for the Commission to bring in its report.

said that many of them on those benches realised that there must of necessity be a certain amount of work done on Sundays for the convenience of the public, but what they complained of was that there was too much work done on Sundays for the benefit of profit-seekers. He thought it would be a big step in the right direction if the Government were to mate a start towards curtailing unnecessary work on Sundays. Their experience at Port Natal was that, through some influence that they would not like to explain, or that it would be rather difficult to explain, the shipping people had only got to give the word to those in power and the whole Government machinery would be placed at their disposal for the purpose of clearing out cargo and doing what was essentially unnecessary work. He did not say they were working full speed every Sunday, but it was a matter of common complaint, in fact, much evidence was given before the Sunday Observance Commission when it sat at Durban on this particular point, that there was a tremendous amount of unnecessary work done at the Port of Durban which might very well be held over until the following day. They did not say all work should be stopped on every Sunday, but there were grounds for close enquiry as to how far the Government, before they took steps to prevent anybody else, were going in the direction of preventing unnecessary work with their own plants and their own men on Sundays, and in fact they displayed an attitude of indifference to their Harbour employees, so far as Durban was concerned.

said he agreed with the spirit of the motion, although he thought it was too late in the session to do anything in the matter. He did not think they could pass the motion, especially in view of the fact that a commission had been appointed. A serious evil was that the Government allowed Sunday training under the Defence Act. If the Government allowed that sort of thing it would go with them like the house built on a foundation of sand, they would gradually fall to pieces, neither the setting of newspapers nor the opening of shops was necessary on Sundays.

said the Labour members supported the motion because they wanted the Sunday as a day of enjoyment. The Government had not treated the House properly in the matter.

asked the mover to withdraw his motion. He pointed out that even among those who supported the motion two different trends of thought were noticeable. The one trend was in the direction of keeping the seventh day as a Sabbath day, a day of devotion. The hon. member who had introduced the motion had been educated in that direction, and had learned to regard the seventh day as a day of that kind, and as he had found that the best way, he considered that the rest of the people should regard the Sunday in the same manner. The Labour Party, who supported the motion, wanted Sunday to be left free as a day of relaxation for those who had to work during the whole week. The hon. member in his motion urged that Sunday labour should be regulated. That could be read to mean that Sunday labour was not to be disallowed. Well, the Sixth Commandment said, “Six days thou shalt labour and the seventh thou shalt rest.” It would be well if a little more emphasis was laid on the six days that people had to work, as many did not believe in doing any work at all. (Laughter.) Personally, he thought it would be better to say that those who did not observe the first part of the commandment had no right to the second part. However, the motion dealt with a very difficult and complicated matter. The commission which had been appointed to go into the question had not yet brought out its report, and although he sympathised with the objects of the mover, he feared they would not be able to deal with the question this session.

The motion was thereupon withdrawn.

moved that in the opinion of this House encouragement should be given to the formation of Naval Cadet Corps at the various seaports of the Union. The mover said that the reason for his bringing forward this motion was to encourage the Naval Cadets in the Union. In regard to that he would like to point out that there was a class of boy who left school at 14 or 15 years of age. These boys had nothing to do of an evening, and the consequence was they hung about the street corners, idling their time away. Something should be done for them. The Naval Cadet Corps takes these boys into account. It develops them both morally and physically. The Naval Cadet Corps at its first start was supported by the inhabitants of Woodstock on the £ for £ principle. It could not exist as a cadet corps because the amount of the grant was not sufficient. The corps had done very useful work, and had had a most beneficial effect upon the youth of Woodstock. It would be a pity if a useful body like that were allowed to become extinct. (Opposition cheers.) But the authorities had said that it must cease to exist as a separate corps on July 1. Four or five years ago a suggestion was made that it should become a junior company of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, a body which did not cost the country a penny, it being paid for direct by a grant from the Imperial authorities. The naval people thought so much of the Junior Naval Cadet Corps that they suggested that it should become a branch of the R.N.V.R. The authorised strength of the corps was 100, but 300 boys could be obtained at once if the authorities gave permission for its strength to be increased. Government should not allow the movement to drop, but unless something were done it would drop. He suggested that the corps should be given a grant of £2 per head per year.

I could not gather from the motion whether it was financial or moral support that was desired, because it was so worded that it might be that the moral support of the Government only was sought.

I will limit it to moral support.

We want a continuation of the present grant. He seconded the motion.

If that is so, the motion is out of order. It involves expenditure.

said that in order to put the matter in order, he would move as an amendment that in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the advisability or otherwise of encouraging the formation of Naval Cadet Corps at the various seaports of the Union.

seconded the amendment.

said he wished to emphasise the necessity of Government assisting the Naval Cadet Corps. The boys had been getting a grant of a pound a year, but their uniforms alone cost 25s. The Woodstock corps was run on the most economical lines. If the Minister adopted the suggestion made by the hon. member for Woodstock, the difficulty could be overcome. It would be a thousand pities if the corps were allowed to die out—(hear, hear)—for the amount of good it did was incalculable. However, if the pound grant were continued by Government it might be supplemented from other sources, and thus the corps could be kept in existence. The officer in charge did not receive a penny, although he devoted at least five nights a week to the corps.

said the Naval authorities at Simon’s Town took great interest in the corps, and were surprised at its effectiveness. They saw that it was capable of doing a great deal towards the defence of the country. In pointing out the difference between the Naval Cadet and the ordinary cadet, the hon. member said that the training of the former was not only that he should become a good sailor, but that he should also learn certain trades. That was why they called our sailors the “handy man,” and he thought the hon. Minister should give his support to the movement and help to make those boys real handy boys. He did not think that in connection with their defence there was a question more important than that brought forward by the hon. member for Woodstock.

rose in support of the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock, but said he would like to go a little further, and would move an amendment to add at the end, after the word “Union,” “and the training of South African boys in the Royal Navy.” He wished to impress upon the House the desirability of training some of the boys of this country for service in the Royal Navy; but there were great difficulties existing in getting South African boys into the Navy. It was a great advantage to any youth to get a Naval training, for such was a splendid training for the ordinary duties of life, while the boys would get a knowledge of the extent and magnitude of the Empire. They had as good material in South Africa as in any part of the world. At present to get a boy into the Navy it was necessary that he should go to Simon’s Town for medical examination as to his fitness, and that often entailed considerable expense for those who lived inland. He had made efforts to get free warrants for that purpose, but that had been refused, and those who were accepted had to be sent to Europe for their training. He had inquired whether if youths were sent down to Simon’s Town at private expense and found suitable for service in the Navy and were sent to the Old Country at private expense, would there be a guarantee that they would be taken on, and he had been informed that no such guarantee could be given. He wanted to ask the Minister of Defence to try and make arrangements for the Imperial Government to permit South African boys being taken on in the Naval Service, and for those who lived inland to have opportunities for coming down to Simon’s Town for examination.

in seconding the further amendment, said that the motion was a culmination of a long series of attempts which had been made almost ever since Union began to get some practicable support from the Ministry for the Woodstock Naval Cadet Corps and for the Naval Cadet movement throughout the Union. The Minister had been privately interviewed; he had been implored to give the matter his consideration; the officials of his department had been approached, and when the new regulations on the Defence Act were published most urgent representations were made to the department in order to get some provision made for the continuance of the movement, but nothing had been done. The hon. Minister had been very sympathetic when privately approached, but no money had been provided, and now as a last resort they who regarded the movement as an important one, not only from a social point of view, but also from the point of view of political development of the country, asked the Government to take into consideration the provision of some means by which the movement might be kept alive. Unless something was done the thing would die. It would die from the moment the Government refused to give special consideration to it. For the last five years it had been carried on under every species of difficulty. It had been carried on under conditions which had made it impossible for those in control of the movement to take on a quarter of the boys anxious to enlist themselves in the service of the Naval Cadet Corps. If it were once known that funds were to be provided, within two days there would be 300 applications for entrance into the corps. The local youths were showing an anxiety to enlist into a movement which they realised to be for their own moral and physical benefit, and while the Government was not giving it adequate support, the men in control of the movement had had to submit to financial loss to keep it alive. That was not the sort of treatment which a movement of that kind deserved, everybody agreed the movement was an excellent one for the sake of the boys who got the advantage put of it, and not only for the social life of the nation, but also for its political and economic future. When everybody lauded the effect of the movement and the boys were anxious to enlist into it, the mere inertia and want of action on the part of the Government was an insurmountable barrier to the movement being carried on.

If the Minister knew the self-denial and effort which had gone to make this movement as effective as it had been and the extent to which the boys of this town had taken it up, then for very shame he must go to the Government and say: “The money is a mere fleabite; give it to them, and let this thing; go on.” There had been certain malign influences which had obscured the real purposes of this movement and prevented the Government and their officials from realising what its nature was. It had been said that it was essentially social work. It was true that it was social work to a large extent, and he quite agreed that if only the basis of carrying the thing on was provided by the Government it would be obligatory on the citizens of each place where it was carried on to see that the corps attached to that particular place was equipped to the utmost point of efficiency that was possible. But, though that might be so, they could not organise a movement of this kind and keep it going unless they had the essential Government support. They were to be asked this session to pass a Bill called the Children’s Protection Bill. This movement had proved itself to be a most efficient form of child protection—(hear, hear)—and it demanded that it should have the support of the Government equally with the Bill which was on the paper for to-morrow. Another important point was that the Government had accepted a resolution from that House that, as soon as the session was over, it would consult with the members of the Imperial Government with regard to the naval protection of South Africa. There was a considerable school of thought in this country which favoured the idea that South Africa should begin the building of a small fleet unit for the protection of her shores. If that were to be the future of naval defence in this country, was it not most essential that at least some beginning should be made in the early years while our boys were growing up, to train the material that would be necessary for the manning of a South African fleet? A movement of this kind carried on with efficiency in the various ports would enable them to have an efficient body of men ready when the occasion arose to take their part in the coast defence of South Africa. The hon. member went on to point out that in several respects the Naval Cadet movement was distinct from the ordinary school cadet system, and entitled to more liberal treatment at the hands of the Government. He added that he quite agreed with the hon. member for Denver that the Government should take into consideration the improvement of the means of entrance on the part of colonial boys into the British Navy. The best way of getting that, he considered, was to ensure the survival of the Naval Cadets. On two recent occasions the officers of the Woodstock Naval Cadet Corps had been able to arrange with the officers at Simon’s Town to take boys trained by the corps on one of His Majesty’s ships to England. While he sympathised with his hon. friend’s amendment, he was afraid that it might obscure the real essential thing.

in supporting the motion, said he wished to call attention to a weak spot in our Defence Force. In any future war that broke out submarine mines must play a great part. He thought that by movements of this kind they would be able to train men who in the future would be prepared to do this necessary work.

supported the motion, and said that here was an opportunity for both sides of the House, and the Dutch and English representatives of two great sea nations, to join hands in helping forward that which though small now might lead to great things in the future history of the country. He asked the Government to reconsider the position.

asked the Government whether they should not have a training vessel in Table Bay. If this was established it would be a great advantage in the training of boys as sailors.

He would move to add at the end of the motion: “and to consider further the advisability of establishing a training vessel in Table Bay.”

seconded the further amendment.

pointed out that the American navy were trained from all nations. The training and the discipline were very necessary in the life of a boy, but what he would like to know was what were they doing to help on the Naval Volunteer Corps? He was very glad to see that they had such a corps.

The Woodstock Naval Cadets constructed an admirable looking craft and took it round to Durban, where it competed, with a certain amount of success, for the Lipton Cup, and the Natal people gave the cadets the very highest credit, (Hear, hear.) When he first saw the yacht, he was absolutely astonished to learn that they had constructed it themselves. He congratulated the commanding officer on having such young fellows under his command. He hoped the Government would support the Corps, and it would be well if similar corps were established at all the Union ports. If at some future date a portion of the British Fleet were to put in here, perhaps after a naval battle, it would be an immense advantage if we had men in South Africa who would be fit and willing to restore losses that might have been sustained. (Hear, hear.)

said no one would be more anxious than he to see a training ship stationed here. He did not think there would be any difficulty in obtaining support from the Imperial Government, because he remembered when he was in office that the Imperial Government and the Admiralty were extremely anxious to place a training ship at our disposal and to put a nucleus crew on her, and they wore willing that the upkeep should be paid for out of the £50,000 contribution the Cape annually made to the Navy. But he would ask the hon. member for Queen’s Town to withdraw his amendment, so as not to overload the motion, because the fate of the cadets was hanging in the balance, and unless something were done at once the corps would cease to exist. Good work had been done for the corps by Dr. Moore Anderson and Mr. Hornibrook. Unfortunately there seemed to be very little sympathy with movements of this sort on the Government benches, and he was glad that the hon. member for Klip River had spoken, because the fact that when these matters were discussed in the House, nothing being said about them on the Government benches had a depressing effect. The money spent on the upkeep of the corps would be devoted to a very useful purpose, and he appealed to the Minister to do something in this matter. He wished members on both sides of the House would go down to the Docks and see the training the boys underwent. It would be an object lesson. It was satisfactory to know that when the boys left the corps they continued to maintain an admirable character—(hear, hear)— and reflected the greatest credit on their instructors. It would be a pity if this good work were to break down. Private assistance had been given to a certain extent, and he was instrumental in being able to secure a small amount from the Beit bequest for the corps. However, unless the State did something, the corps would break up, as it was impossible to maintain it on the basis of a grant of 5s. per head per year. The boys were capable of doing a great deal of sea work, and he believed one of them had the Royal Humane Society’s medal for saving life. In conclusion, Sir Thomas suggested that Government might try to economise in other directions with a view to keeping the Woodstock Naval Cadet Corps alive.

said that the discussion had been a useful and an interesting one. When his hon. friend opposite (Sir T. W. Smartt) was at the Imperial Conference in 1907, an arrangement was made with regard to the Naval Volunteers that, if necessary, the Admiralty should place a training ship at the Cape’s disposal, but the present arrangement with the Royal Navy was a much better one. Our Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve was part of the Naval Reserve, and in future they would be trained with the squadron at Simon’s Town, going to sea for certain periods on one of the warships. He thought that was a better solution than the Cape having a training ship. The men would become efficient, and in time of need their services would be available should occasion arise.

They are bound to serve everywhere.

said this showed how these comparatively small questions broadened on to larger aspects of defence. (Hear, hear.) The mover seemed to think that he (General Smuts) was either indifferent or hostile to the motion, but he was not in the least. (Hear, hear.) He would certainly do his best, not only to maintain this small corps at Woodstock, but to give it scope for expansion and to assist in the establishment of similar corps elsewhere. (Cheers.) Of course, certain arguments had been used which were perfectly true, but did not appeal to him in his position as Minister of Defence. He did not want to spend money for social purposes No doubt a good work was done by the corps by keeping boys off the streets at night, and it deserved the support of Government, but it was rather hard to ask him to look on this expenditure as defence expenditure. From the Government’s point of view, of course, those young citizens might become very useful. At one time there was some doubt whether the Naval Cadets would fall under the scheme which they had put in the Defence Act. The matter had been very carefully gone into, and it was quite clear that the Naval Cadets could be dealt with under the cadet system which they had in the Defence Act. Of course, some of their subjects were additional to musketry, drill and signalling, but they fitted quite properly into the scheme, and all doubt had therefore been removed from the matter. There was one difficulty remaining, and that was in connection with the financing of the scheme. He had asked the Commandant of Cadets to go into the matter, but he was not aware yet of what had been done, but he hoped that it would be found that it would be possible not only to keep that small corps alive, but make provision for extension. (Hear, hear.)

There was an argument which did not appeal to him, and that was: the matter of uniform. Thousands of cadets all over the country had discarded the uniform to which they had been accustomed for something plainer, which, he thought, was just as good, from the cadets’ point of view. Almost everywhere they had fallen into line, the only exception he was aware of being Kimberley, where, he believed, De Beers had come to the assistance of the cadets, in order to enable them to retain their elaborate uniform. But everywhere else the cadets were falling into line, and were using the simpler dress the Government was providing for them. He hoped it would be the same in that case. He was prepared to help them financially, and give them every assistance for training, but he did not want to spend money unnecessarily on uniforms. At a meeting held some months ago in Woodstock, some un-authoritative persons made a suggestion that it was an insult on the part of the Government to ask them to forego their uniform. He thought they should knock that sort of nonsense out of those people Those cadets were a very useful body, and they deserved encouragement; but he did not want to spend public money on their uniforms. If they would get that idea out of their heads, it would be possible to assist them in a reasonable way, which the taxpayer would agree to, and allow for development in other parts. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Denver, he did not think they could accept that amendment in reference to the training of South African boys in the Royal Navy, for that went far beyond the jurisdiction which their Parliament possessed. He knew the Royal Navy were very anxious to have South African boys to enlist, but, of course, the boys must enlist. The Royal Navy was not willing to undertake the training of those who would dillydally about, and might leave at any time. If the South African boys wanted to enlist, they could do so. There were certain other aspects of the matter which would be considered when the whole question of the naval defence was being considered. It might be possible to look upon those Naval Cadets, not as cadets merely, but as first links in a chain which might be much longer than they could foresee at present.

said they took it now that the hon. Minister intended to keep the corps alive. He went on to say that the title should be altered. “Naval Cadet Corps” suggested very young men as officers, and was looked askance upon on that account. To his mind, “Boys’ Naval Training Corps” would much nearer hit off what was intended. The corps did a tremendous work in addition to what was laid down for the ordinary cadet corps. Proceeding, he said that the naval authorities who were asked to support the corps some time ago said they could not do so because they understood it was more of a philanthropic work that was being done, but the hon. Minister had admitted that they were becoming useful citizens, and he thought it was a matter which the Government should take up and give practical support. With regard to such a corps being a recruiting ground for Naval Volunteers, the Admiralty had said they wanted men in the Naval Volunteers who would be useful on board ship when they got there. The men they wanted were those having some knowledge of engineering, electricity, telegraphy and so on. It might be that such a corps would collect boys who were not so skilled, but he could assure the hon. Minister that they had found some most excellent material coming from that corps into the Naval Volunteers and provided they were not compelled to take every boy into the Naval Volunteer Corps the Minister need have no fear but that many of those boys would become useful and pass through the cadet naval corps into the naval training Volunteers, and they would be useful for the Government when the occasion arose.

The hon. Minister had made provision for a Coast Defence Corps and the training for such would be likely to come easier to boys who had been trained in a corps such as they had been discussing. Unless they began the training of the material for supplying the Coast Defence Corps, he did not know which way they would have to turn. He thought the hon. Minister had a chance in getting the type of men who would be required in a few years’ time. He hoped that the Minister would give a definite assurance of practical support. In conclusion, the hon. member advised the hon. member for Queen’s Town not to press the matter of a training ship at that moment.

withdrew his amendment.

also withdrew his amendment.

said he wished to thank the Minister for the consideration he had accorded to this motion. From a letter in his hands it appeared that there was some danger that this corps might go out of existence on the 1st July, and he should watch the Minister very closely to see that he did not allow such an excellent movement to be thus terminated.

The amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt was put and agreed to.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to, viz.: That in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the advisability or otherwise of encouraging the formation of Naval Cadet Corps at the various seaports of the Union.

moved that the petition from the Right Rev. Dr. John Rooney, Roman Catholic Bishop, Cape Town, praying for consideration in connection with his claim to succeed the late Bishop Leonard as Colonial Chaplain, presented to this House on the 14th March, 1911, be laid upon the Table, and, if agreed to, that it be referred to the Government for consideration. He said that the Select Committee of the old Cape Parliament, which considered this matter, reported in favour of the Government giving the petition their favourable consideration. He believed it was only due to some misunderstanding that the petitioner was unable to continue to draw the emolument which he had drawn for a great number of years as Colonial Chaplain. He applied to the Government to be allowed to exchange his position with a member of his own religious community, and he at that time asked whether in doing so he would prejudice his rights to succeed to another place at another time. The Attorney-General of those days (Mr. Upington) gave him the assurance that he would not prejudice his case. The exchange was made, but, unfortunately, it was found that the opinion of the Attorney-General was not upheld by the Government in power when it was found necessary for the petitioner to take the place of the late Bishop Leonard. The position did not affect the petitioner personally, but it affected the church to which he belonged, and they felt that an injustice had been done to them.

seconded the motion.

said there was no doubt that the unfortunate position in which Bishop Rooney was now placed in regard to this matter was entirely due to a misunderstanding. The then Attorney-General, Mr. Upington (afterwards Sir Thomas Upington), was asked to give an opinion, and all the facts of the case were not placed before him. Had that been done, he would not have given the opinion he did. A Select Committee of the Cape House sat on the matter, and reported favourably, and he thought if they had not gone into Union the matter would have been brought before the Cape Parliament again. The real difficulty was that it required an Act of Parliament to deal with this case properly, but he would put it to the Minister of Finance whether he could not place on the Estimates each year the sum of £100 which was due to Bishop Rooney, and which, owing to a misunderstanding, he did not draw to-day. He suggested that it might be placed on the Estimates in the shape of a pension or grant, and might be dealt with this year by the Minister in his Supplementary Estimates.

asked whether any expenditure would be involved by the motion, if passed?

That is a matter for the consideration of the Government. All we ask is that the petition of the right rev. gentleman should be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the petition from J. P. Botha and others, residents of Venterstad and the district of Colesberg, praying for the enlargement of the goods shed at Norvals Pont Station, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 13th inst., be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to

moved that the petition from J. H. Korff and 57 others, inhabitants of Tzitzikamma, praying for the construction of a line of railway through the Tzitzikamma to connect with the Port Elizabeth-Avontuur line, or for other relief, presented to this House on the 7th May, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petitions from P. G. Theron and five others and from F. P. Nel and 31 others, presented to this House on the 4th March, 1913, and from J. J. Nieman and 20 others, presented to this House on the 6th May, 1913, all inhabitants of the district of Winburg, praying that gates may be placed at certain railway-crossings, or for other relief, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

for Mr. J. X. Merriman (Victoria West), moved: That the petition from H. D. Wickens and 23 others, praying that they may be allowed to purchase land in the village of Zwartkops, Kenhardt, which was surveyed for village settlement purposes, but of which only six erven were sold, presented to this House on the 9th May, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the petition from K. D. Naidoo, representing the Islamic Society of Pietermaritzburg, Natal, and 23 other Indians, British subjects, praying for legislation whereby greater facilities will be accorded to Indians in (a) the issue of trading licences; (b) entering the Province of Natal; and (c) securing fire-arms for their protection, presented to this House on the 24th February, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration.

The motion was agreed to.

said that according to the rules of the House business was resumed at 8 p.m. The bell rang for two minutes, and if a quorum was not present the House was counted out. He asked the ruling of the Chairman as to whether they could go on sitting seeing that four minutes had elapsed, and that the House was not meeting as a House but as a Committee of the whole House.

When progress was reported—

I ask for your ruling, sir. (Cries of “Order.”)

No ruling is required.

The Committee proceeded to deal with sub-section (e) of clause 4.

alluded to the International Convention, which dealt with the white slave traffic, and said that as South Africa was one of the few civilised countries that was not represented at that Convention some of this undesirable class might seek sanctuary on the shores of South Africa. He proceeded to move in line 41, after “procures”, to insert “entices or leads away, whether by fraud, or by means of violence, threats, abuse of authority, or any other method of compulsion, or otherwise”; and after “procured” to insert “by any of the aforesaid means, or otherwise”, and in line 42, after “purposes”, to insert “or who detains, or has detained, against her will, a woman in a brothel.” He asked the Minister whether he would not allow the clause to stand down so that he might give consideration to the proposal.

said that while everyone would be in sympathy with such a proposal, he thought that this was not the proper law in which to insert the amendments. He thought the point was sufficiently covered by the terms of the clause.

pointed out that in the Cape such people could be deported.

pointed out that there was no law under which they could extradite these people. They might be here years before they were discovered.

thought the consideration of the paragraph should be postponed.

reiterated that they could only keep out people who had done wrong in the country. (An hon. member: Oh, no.) Continuing, he said there was no extradition law, but what he would ask was that the present law should be made a little bit wider.

Surely the hon. member knows that if a man is prohibited he will not be allowed to land.

thought the amendment was really unnecessary.

moved that the paragraph stand over.

put the question, and declared that the noes had it.

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

Ayes—14.

Andrews, William Henry

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Morris Alexander and H. A. Wyndham, tellers.

Noes—62.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicholas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Long, Basil Kellett

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

C. Joel Krige and C. L. Botha, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

The amendments were negatived. Paragraph (e), as printed, was agreed to.

On paragraph (g), Any idiot or epileptic, or any person who is insane or mentally deficient, or any person who is deaf and dumb, or deaf and blind, or dumb and blind, or otherwise physically afflicted, unless in any such case he or a person accompanying him or some other person give security to the satisfaction of the Minister for his permanent support in the Union, or for his removal therefrom whenever required by the Minister,

moved: In lines 63 and 64, to omit “or for his removal therefrom whenever required by the Minister.”

This amendment was withdrawn.

moved the insertion of the words, “in the alternative,” after “or.”

suggested the insertion, in line 60, of the word “so,” after “otherwise.”

It is in clause (c).

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

said the paragraph gave the Minister immense powers to refuse permission to land to people who were physically afflicted. Suppose we sent blind or deaf and dumb people to England, it would be a dreadful thing to think that they could be refused permission to land; but that was exactly what South Africa was proposing to do. A father might come here seeking work with a deaf-and-dumb child—was the child to be sent back?

No.

You say “No,” but it is in the Bill.

Surely the hon. member does not want degenerate people brought into this country. The Minister would be very well advised to stick as strongly as possible to these restrictions. (Hear, hear.)

said that, if they carried that argument to the extreme, they would kill every deaf-and-dumb child in the world.

said he would have liked to move the omission of all words after “physically afflicted,” so that these people could not be admitted into the country under any circumstances whatever.

put the hypothetical case of a workman arriving in South Africa with his children, one of whom, as the result of an accident, had become blind and deaf. Were we to say that the man and the rest of his children should come in, but that this unfortunate child could not enter the country? Were they going to take the child away from its parents, and push it off the face of the earth? It must not be forgotten that we were not going to have hordes of deaf-and-dumb and blind-and-dumb people coming here.

was inclined to think that the clause went a little too far. In the Cape Act of 1906 the only ground on which such persons could be excluded was that of lunacy. A deaf and dumb person was not a degenerate at all. Under the operation of that clause a person of that kind, whom no one could call degenerate, could be excluded. He thought the Minister might take that matter into consideration and see Whether it was necessary to include those particular items or see if he could not water them down so that he could make it clear that he meant dumb and blind, deaf and blind, etc., and that such people must also be degenerates.

also thought that the clause went rather too far, and agreed that it might lead to very great injustices and hardships in many cases.

said there was a misunderstanding about that matter. The clause referred to cases where persons came to the country and had nobody to look after them. Where there was a child coming with the father, he would be the natural means of support, and that would be security to the satisfaction of the Minister in charge, that the child was not going to become chargeable to the taxpayers.

wanted to know who was going to dump down deaf and blind and dumb and blind people in this country. If any such people came there they would certainly come as members of a family. The fact of the matter was that the hon. Minister had in his mind that he would always have the administration of the Act. If that were so, they would be safe enough, but it would be another matter in the hands of another Minister, who had not the same philanthropic ideas as those of his hon. friend. There was another point to which he would like to call attention, “or otherwise mentally or physically afflicted.” Well, that surely could include such things as loss of memory. To his mind, the clause went altogether too far, and he suggested it should be allowed to stand over. The officials in charge would read the law as it stood. They had nothing to do with the intentions of Parliament and “otherwise mentally or physically afflicted ” might include many things.

said he thought the hon. Minister was seeking too much power under that Act. That was his opinion as a medical man. Supposing, he said, that some person took an epileptic fit on board ship, possibly it was the first fit that that person ever had, and very probably the last, he could be classed as “otherwise physically afflicted;” and that instance might be extended in many ways. It was to the interest of the hon. Minister to draw up the Bill so that there could be no mistakes made in the future, and that portion with reference to dumb and blind and deaf and blind, etc., and “or otherwise mentally or physically afflicted” should be withdrawal, to let these items remain was ambiguous and might lead to very great dissatisfaction.

thought that the only hardship was in the case of a minor child who was a member of a family and who might be subject to one of those disabilities, and he thought that the hon. Minister might introduce an exception to meet such cases. He did not think, however, that it would do to take the clause out, for that would leave no provision at all.

pointed out that provision was made for that very case mentioned by the hon. member in clause 5, which stated “any person who is proved to the satisfaction of the immigration officer to be the wife or child under 16 years of age who is described as,” etc. (Cries of dissent.)

said the Minister had not quite got the correct meaning.

said he thought it would meet the case if he put in “unless in charge of parents or some other person prepared to give security.” He would move that at a later stage.

said that the clause did not discriminate from those who were mentally or physically afflicted by reason of degeneracy, and those afflicted by reason of an accident or some similar cause. Those things were widely different, and the hon. Minister should make himself conscious of that. He seemed to lay stress upon whether anybody would be security for those persons’ livelihood, but there would be no security against such persons marrying and reproducing their kind in this country. He personally knew cases of whole families of deaf mutes that were a misery to themselves and all connected with them. What they wanted was not security that someone would keep those children alive, but that such children should not grow up and reproduce in this country.

said the hon. Minister went a long way towards meeting those who objected to that particular clause, and stated his intention of moving an amendment which still, however, contained the word “security.” If the Minister were anxious to meet them he would suggest that at a later stage he should move to omit all the words after “unless,” for the purpose of inserting the following: “accompanied by some persons responsible for his support.”

suggested that the clause should be taken out altogether, or that it should stand over until a later stage.

said that the Minister of the Interior had said that he would move the amendment about the parent at a later stage. As the subsection stood it was a softening down of what was in (c). If they left out (g) altogether, those people who were mentioned in (c) would be absolutely prohibited, whereas in (g) they gave them an opportunity of coming in if they were attended by a parent or somebody who would give security.

said that the paragraph read by the Minister from the Canadian Act struck him as the much more sensible one.

said that to his mind there should be some qualification as to what was meant by-physical affliction. He thought there should be some such words as “likely to become a public charge,” “not able to support himself,” or something of that kind.

said that the importance of the clause arose from two facts. One was the large number of people already in the Union. The figures were: Deaf mutes, 2,398; imbeciles and feeble-minded, 2,953. He was not referring to politicians; it was not necessary to argue that they were feeble-minded. (Laughter.) The other point was that all the evidence of scientific men was to this effect, that deaf mutes always reproduced their kind.

said he would like to appeal to the Minister to put this clause aside for the present, think over it, and bring it before the House afterwards in amended form. The clause as it stood was not a just clause, and it was not right. He mentioned that on the links at Wynberg the best caddie they had was a deaf mute.

said he would appeal to the Minister to allow this clause to stand over. He moved that the further consideration of the clause should stand over.

The motion was declared to be negatived.

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

Ayes—26.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Botha, Christian Lourens

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Fawcus, Alfred

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Nathan, Emile

Phillips, Lionel

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—48.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicholaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

C. Joel Krige and G. A. Louw, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived,

Paragraph (g), as printed, was agreed to.

On paragraph (h): Any person who is afflicted with leprosy or with any such infectious, contagious, or loathsome or other disease (other than tuberculosis), as is defined by regulation; and any person who is afflicted with tuberculosis in an infectious form, unless he is in possession of a permit to enter the Union, issued upon conditions prescribed by regulation,

strongly objected to the opening given in this clause to people suffering from tuberculosis entering the country. He pointed to the ravages made by the disease among natives and white people, and held that 95 per cent. of the people who became infected with tuberculosis here died of the disease. Every sufferer from tuberculosis entering here infected another five, he held, whilst the crossed native races appeared to be exceptionally susceptible to the attacks of the disease. He moved that the words “other than” be deleted for the purpose of inserting “including,” and to omit all the words after “form” down to “regulation.”

said he took exception to this clause at the second reading. Tuberculosis of the lung was infectious, and that being admitted, he considered that, despite the fact that the climate of South Africa was favourable to sufferers, they should look after and protect their own people. This country had been the dumping ground for tuberculosis in the past, and they were suffering to-day as a consequence.

He thought they could not be too careful in excluding people afflicted with tuberculosis from this country. Proceeding, the hon. member read from the report of the Tuberculosis Commission, where it was stated that it would be desirable to exclude from the Union everybody suffering from tuberculosis. He moved to omit paragraph (h) for the purpose of inserting “any person who is afflicted with leprosy, tuberculosis, or any dangerous contagious disease.”

said that owing to a number of sufferers from tuberculosis having been sent to the Free State, the disease had increased to an alarming extent. In the circumstances, he hoped that no consumptives should be allowed to enter South Africa in the future.

said he could not agree with his learned colleague —(hear, hear)—and he trusted the Minister would retain the clause practically as it stood. Too stringent measures would defeat themselves. We had thousands of cases of consumption in the country, and a few more would make no difference. Unless every fresh arrival was carefully and thoroughly examined at the cost of a guinea or two per head, we could not possibly exclude all tubercular cases. If we tried to be too stringent, tuberculus people would hide the disease and thus be a greater source of danger. He moved the deletion of the words “or loathsome.”

moved in line 65, to omit “leprosy or with”; in line 66, to omit “such”; and in the same line, after “loathsome,” to omit all the words to the end of the paragraph, and to substitute “disease.”

said he could not understand the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, who had been struggling to limit the powers of the Minister, and now he sought to add to them.

We will take that amendment. (Laughter.)

No you don’t. (Laughter.) The whole tendency of this amendment is to extend the powers of the Minister. Proceeding, Mr. Jagger pointed out that South Africa had benefitted materially from men who came here in the early stages of consumption, two notable cases being Mr. Cecil Rhodes and Sir Gordon Sprigg. There were scores of other people who came here in the early stages of tuberculosis and who recovered and became very useful citizens.

said the last speaker forgot that the descendants of tuberculous people were also sick or weakly. The South African people had already ceased to be as sturdy as they formerly were, and why, he asked, should they weaken the race further? He did not agree with the hon. member for Woodstock. The Minister had now a good opportunity, and the speaker urged that it was their duty, in fairness to the coming generation, to exclude these people. The door should be kept closed, and no infected person should be allowed to enter.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof. In other countries tuberculous people were refused admittance, and it was their duty to be firm here, especially in view of the coloured population. He also urged that tuberculosis was extremely infectious, and said that, where it concerned such a dangerous disease, they should be extremely strict. Even the books in the libraries had become a source of infection, owing to consumptive patients using them.

referred to the dangerous spread of tuberculosis. “Charity began at home,” he held, and therefore he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. The travelling of consumptive patients in the trains and sleeping in the beds provided by the Railway Department also became a source of danger to the population.

said, with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Woodstock, he would like to quote from the British Commission’s Report to show that heredity played as important a part in the causation of the disease as it did in insanity or gout. In his opinion, the only hope they had of preventing the extension of the disease was to prevent any more people who were suffering from it coming into the country. He went on to say that Sir Douglas Powell’s opinion was that they could not ignore infectivity altogether. The only way they could do was to keep them out.

said he thought the House might take the clause in the Bill as it stood. He could understand their desire to avoid having to spend an enormous amount of money in the future, but he thought the amendment went no further than the clause already in the Bill. He hoped the House would take the clause as laid down in the Bill, because he thought it gave as much practical protection as the most stringent laws would do.

said he thought it would be better not to name leprosy. He also moved to omit the words, “in an infectious form.”

The amendments proposed by Dr. Hewat, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Van Niekerk and Dr. Watkins, were withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

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

moved: On page 8, after line 5, to insert the following: “ Whenever the Minister exercises any power conferred upon him by this sub-section, he shall transmit written notice of that fact to the immigration officer concerned and to every board.”

The motion was agreed to.

The sub-section as amended was agreed to.

moved: After line 10, to insert the following new sub-section: “(2) Nothing in subsection (1) (a) contained shall be construed: (a) as enabling a person to be deemed a prohibited immigrant in the Cape of Good Hope or Natal if, being at the commencement of this Act lawfully entitled to reside in any Province, he shows or has shown that he is able to comply with the requirements described in section 3 (a) of Act No. 30 of 1906 of the Cape of Good Hope, or of section 5 (a) of Act No. 30 of 1903 of Natal; or (b) as abrogating or affecting any right conferred by Act No. 36 of 1908 of the Transvaal upon the lawful holder of a certificate of registration issued under that Act.”

said it seemed to him that this amendment raised a very important point indeed, from the Cape Province point of view. The Minister was perpetuating the present state of things which the Cape Province had never regarded as a permanent settlement at all. They were asking the Gape Province to say that for all time the 1906 test was final. It was a sufficiently important matter, he thought, to be debated on its merits. The present, Bill was all right as far as the Transvaal and Orange Free State were concerned, but it was not right as far as the Cape was concerned. He recognised the sentiment that prevailed in the Cape Province, which was that they did not want Asiatics here.

said the hon. member was asking the Minister to take away existing rights. There was no injustice going to be done in the Cape under this law. Under this very Act Asiatics were prevented from coming into the Cape. The Minister, by the amendment, had solved the Imperial difficulty, and at the same time prevented any injustice.

said it looked as if Natal would have to guard against Indians going there from the Cape. If the Cape were to be protected against Indians from Natal, the Natal people would have to ask for protection against the European merchants of Cape Town who went to Natal. (Laughter.) The less talk there was about Provincial barriers the better, and he would be glad to see them swept away altogether.

said that at Port Elizabeth many European shopkeepers had been “knocked out ” by, and their places had been taken by Hindoos. That was not good for South Africa. They were taking away a living from white people and handing it over to these coolies. They were trying to meet the Imperial Government, but the Imperial Government should help to meet then-difficulties also. It must be a mutual arrangement, Natal had introduced the Indian in the past, and now they were asking the rest of South Africa to absorb the poison.

Is not this a Union?

Yes, but there is no reason why we should poison the whole Union. The point to consider was whether the Minister was going to allow in the Cape districts the same evil to exist as existed in Natal. With regard to the contention of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, as to the language test, with the education that was going on in Natal they were going to have more and more who would qualify in that direction, and would be able to go into the rest of South Africa and take positions which had been previously held by white men. It was essential that they should protect the position of the white men in this country. They could not exclude the Indians, but the only way to solve the coloured problem was to strengthen their white population as much as they possibly could.

said the remarks of the hon. member for Durban, Berea, with regard to the provincial spirit were very rich. If they were afraid in Natal of Cape merchants invading Natal they were a very poor lot. He was going to ask his hon. friend to withdraw the clause as a matter of justice. He was as anxious as anybody else to keep out Indians, but they must be fair and just. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, said that the last word on immigration was not said in 1906, but they were in the Union at present, and they could not take away the rights the Indians had in the country at the present time. The “economic” clause did not exist under the Cape Act of 1906. The only thing they could exclude them under in that Act was the language clause. All this amendment did was to preserve that right. It simply left the position of the Indians in Natal exactly as it was at present.

said he would be no party to foisting the Indians on the other Provinces beyond any rights they were entitled to at present, but they must take into consideration the fact that at the time of Union these people had certain rights under the Cape law. They could not now go and deprive them of those rights. He hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, would withdraw his amendment.

said he did not see why the lawful holder of a certificate under the Transvaal Act, No. 2 of 1907, should not be included.

said that the sub-section he had moved simply made the position clearer, and it was unnecessary to refer to the Act of 1907.

said that the Act of 1908 provided that Indians registered under the Act of 1907 could exchange their certificate of registration. There were no certificates now existing which had been issued under the Act of 1907; they were all issued under the Act of 1908.

said that was a point he was not sure upon. The Act of 1908 did not say that a man must obtain a certificate under that Act, and the point with him was what was the position of a man with a certificate under the Act of 1907 who had not obtained a certificate under the Act of 1908?

The new sub-section was agreed to.

On old sub-section (2),

moved in line 20 to delete the words “and the reason” for the purpose of inserting “together with a true copy of the written reasons furnished to the immigrant.” He wanted, he said, to prevent reasons being fabricated. He wanted the actual reasons for refusal to appear in the returns.

said he hoped they would have no talk of fabrication. As long as there was a true return he thought that that was all that was required.

The amendment was negatived. Sub-section (2), as printed, was agreed to. New sub-section (4),

moved that the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section (3), viz.: “(4) The Governor-General by notice in the “Gazette” may declare that persons seeking to enter the Union belonging to particular classes or coming from particular countries of origin (such classes and countries being specified in the notice) shall not be dealt with under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of this section and thereupon the provisions of that paragraph shall not apply to such persons.”

This was withdrawn.

On clause 5—persons who are not to be deemed prohibited immigrants,

Cape Town, Central) moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

Sub-section (a) having been agreed to,

moved to insert the following new sub-section, to follow sub-section (a): “(b) Any person who has served in any of His Majesty’s volunteer forces in South Africa, and has received a good discharge, and who is not such a person as is described in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of section four hereof.”

did not think that the amendment was necessary.

said that the amendment was in the existing law.

The amendment was negatived, and the sub-section was agreed to.

On sub-section (d), any person who enters the Union under such conditions as may be prescribed from time to time in accordance with any law or under any convention with the Government of a territory or state adjacent to the Union, and who is not such a person as is described in sub-section (1) (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of the last preceding section,

moved the following amendment: In paragraph (d), line 42, to omit “ and who” and to substitute “ provided he”; and in line 44, after “section,” to insert “and provided further he is not a person domiciled north of twenty-two degrees south of the Equator in such a territory or state.”

said that the sub-section was intended to cover the importation of natives from beyond the boundaries of the Union. It had been urged that Indians from Natal would oust white traders in other parts of the Union, but these natives would not only oust white men, but were likely to prevent the influx of a very desirable addition to our population—white people from various parts of the British Empire. It was an opportunity for hon. members who were in favour of white immigration into this country to give expression to their wishes. An amendment had been made prohibiting natives from outside the borders of the Union on account of health considerations. The report of the Tuberculosis. Commission showed that out of every seven deaths that occurred six were amongst natives imported from outside the Union. He would ask hon. members to support the deletion of clause (d), firstly because it squeezed out white people from their positions and made it more difficult for them to get employment, and secondly from a humanitarian point of view.

said the question of dumping large numbers of natives into the Union was a very serious one. Apart altogether from economical and humanitarian reasons, the Government was going to have considerable difficulty in the future in finding land in native areas for the natives already in the Union, and, with the continuation of this policy of importing natives from outside, their difficulties were going to be greatly increased. It was a hollow cry to make for white immigrants, while they were importing coloured men to perform the work.

said it seemed to him that the Minister or the immigration officers would have very great difficulty in deciding what boys came from the tropical regions and what boys did not. He thought the more feasible and effectual plan would be to stop this immigration altogether. Under this Bill very great restrictions were placed on the immigration of white men from England, America, Australia, and elsewhere, while they were prepared to agree to 100,000 to 150,000 savages being allowed to come into the Union. He recognised that the amendment of the Minister, although a faltering and feeble step, was a step in the right direction, and he hoped the day was not far distant when the Minister would see the necessity of doing away entirely with this imported native labour.

said that the importation of this class of labour was contrary to the best interests of the Union. He agreed it was no use trying to move it out of the Bill.

said it might be the subject of special legislation, but that was no reason why they should not protest against special opportunities being offered for their importation.

read a letter to show that natives were doing skilled, as well as unskilled, work in the Union. Skilled natives were even supplied with trades. The thing was a crying scandal, because white men were being ousted.

The amendments were agreed to. Sub-section (d), as amended, was agreed to.

moved that progress be reported.

The motion was agreed to, and leave granted to resume to-morrow.